Historical Cycles, Black Friday, and Surviving the Kali Yuga

With the passing of this year’s Black Friday (so named because this grotesque celebration of material excess and denial of the previous day’s theme of gratitude and familial connection is a black mark on the history of humanity), my mind has been on the degeneration of Western Man.  I am not as pessimistic as many about this though, for I believe it to be but a trend that will be reversed with the continued passage of time.  I subscribe to cyclical notions of history, like those espoused in books like The Fourth Turning.  One cyclical theory of history that I think has some merit comes from the Hindu tradition, but was made most well known in the West through the works of Baron Julius Evola: The Yuga Cycle.

The Yuga Cycle postulates that history passes through four great stages (Yugas) before the cycle starts itself all over again.  The theory also claims that the age we live in now is the Kali Yuga, the last Yuga in the cycle.  The Kali Yuga is known as “The Age of Vice”, for as the cycles wither and wind down, so too does human virtue, intellectual capacity, wisdom, and other markers of the nobility of humanity.  In proportion, greed, anger, depravity, and sin will increase and become ever more prevalent.

Signs you may be living in the Kali Yuga include, but are not limited to:

  • Large migrations to countries that grow wheat and barley
  • Unreasonable rulers will impose large tax burdens
  • Lust will be seen as socially acceptable and sex will be seen as the point of life
  • Addictions to drugs and alcohol will be commonplace
  • Leaders will no longer see it as their duty to promote spirituality or to protect their subjects

Sound familiar?

If I remember correctly, there’s an old saying that posits something along the lines of “All those who live in the Kali Yuga either deserve to be there or were sent on a mission”    (Some poking around tells me I owe a quick H/T to Avenging Red Hand here).  Bear this in mind as I go on a brief tangent for a second.

You may be familiar with Spengler’s 11th universal law, that of gender parity: “The men and women of a time deserve each other”.  I agree with this, though I think its scope is a bit limited here.  It strikes me that the underlying principle here is involved enough to be applicable across a wide range of social phenomenon, not just gender dynamics.  In every time and place, the men and women of a society deserve not just each other, but also the culture that defines them and the government that rules over them.

Every social phenomenon we have right now, we deserve.  In other words, if you exist right now, (and if you’re reading this right now, you probably do) you deserve to be in the Kali Yuga.  It’s unpleasant for all of us, but we do not decide the time and place of our existence.  What we do choose is our actions.  We still choose what skills to develop, how we apply those abilities, and to what ends we are utilizing them.

The Kali Yuga will not last forever.  We will almost certainly not see the end of it, though.  Does this mean we should succumb to the zeitgeist of the age and give ourselves over to the debauchery and destructive behaviors of our kin?

I reject that notion.  I believe in “Fighting for a Forgotten Glory”, not “Surrendering and bending over for the spirit of the age”.  Though it may never come to pass within my lifetime that I get to inhabit in a society ruled by noble Aristocrats, that holds the proper respect for ancestry, and is filled with strong, K-selected individuals, I would want my progeny and my descendants to live in such a world.  In order to achieve that end, our current social structure will either have to be fled, altered, or undermined and replaced.

I won’t pretend to know which of those paths best achieves this end.  I have a very basic idea of how the future of the West will play out, but it seems most prudent to hold off on deciding upon a course of action until I’ve got a better idea of the details.  Plotting, scheming, and strategizing may not be considered the most noble activities by most, but they have a useful purpose, and they’ll be an enjoyable intellectual pursuit.

That’s how I plan on riding out the Kali Yuga and paving the way for the betterment of humanity.


(On a final note, if you wish to read some of Evola’s main works, head over to The Patrician’s Library)

Ancestry, Tradition, and the Self

About two weeks ago, I tweeted this remark on the idea of introducing yourself by means of “X, son of Y” format that we see in epic poems like The Odyssey.  Shortly afterward, I was treated to this gem by a fellow tweeting under the handle of C-LAR (you should follow him if you don’t already, by the way).  I had a reply all typed up, but yesterday, I realized I never actually sent it out.  Oops.  I also realized that it wouldn’t be too difficult to turn my thoughts into a blog post, so here you go.  Some quick thoughts on ancestry in slightly more than 140 characters.

On my father’s side of the family, each and every one of the eldest son’s has been bestowed a name that begins with the letter “J”. My real name begins with “J”, as does my father’s, and his father before him.  I believe my great-grandfather had a “J” name as well, although I know little of my family’s history from before my grandfather came over from the old country.

I don’t think this happened on purpose, but even so, I consider it a family tradition of sorts, and one that I believe I have a duty to maintain and uphold.  I intend for my eldest son to have a “J” name, and I very much hope that my eldest grandson will have a “J” name as well.  Is this perhaps a bit too much involvement on something that is ultimately meaningless?  I would expect that if you happen to be reading this right now, you recognize that this is an intellectually dishonest question because tradition, even in regards to something like this, does in fact have intrinsic meaning.

As reactionaries, we realize an important truth that seems to go over the heads of many in society today: Tradition is not an impediment to self-expression, but instead, a means of facilitating it.  Where you come from and who you descend from are both key parts of who you are.  In embracing these things, you develop a firmer sense of who you are and what your place in the world can be.  The question “Who am I?” becomes a less menacing conundrum to approach.  In rejecting the context and traditions into which you are born, you reject a part of yourself.

Now, there are some who take solace in the achievements of their forefathers and derive a sense of self from this.  While they have the right idea, I don’t find this to be the most optimal way of going about things.  Being descended from people who did great things should NOT be reason to sit on your ass and become complacent but should rather be an impetus to achieve greater things in life and live up to the glory of your ancestors.  My father’s lineage goes back to the legionnaires of the Roman Empire, and my mother’s to the Normans, the last group of non-natives to ever successfully invade and conquer England.  Is this sufficient reason to gloat and pat myself on the back?

Of course not.  To do so would be ridiculous.  I did not fight for Rome or defeat the Anglo-Saxon armies.  These things are certainly reasons to take pride in my ancestry, but why should I take personal pride in those achievements?  There’s no reasonable way of justifying that.  Instead, these accomplishments put upon me a standard of excellence that I must (at the very least) seek to equal.  I also truly believe that if I cannot find some way to at least equal these heroic efforts, I will dishonor my predecessors and bring shame upon myself.  A bit extreme?  Maybe, but thinking along this sort of line certainly helps light a fire under my ass that provides additional impetus to study hard, stuff my head full of knowledge, push myself in the gym, and get shit done in general.

So when it comes down to it, I won’t begrudge anyone a bit of pride in their ancestry and ethnicity, provided they have a healthy sense of the proper way to view those things.  The rejection of tradition that persists in our modern world is not an optimal paradigm to buy into.  Be aware of your lineage, honor your ancestors, and know where you came from.  If you want to revolt against the modern world, that’s a good place to start.

If you are interested in reading more about ancestry and heritage, I recommend poking around Archeofuturist.  He hasn’t posted anything in about a month, but he was on a roll for a while there, so the archives are pretty good.  Jack Donovan also has a few good things to say as well.  This post, for example, is particularly relevant.


More Thoughts on the Media

At the end of my last post, I threw in a quick paragraph regarding an idea I had as to how to go about inserting neoreactionary memes into more mainstream outlets.  While it got the basic outline for my thoughts on the matter, it didn’t quite go into the sort of depth this topic deserves.  I will try to alleviate that oversight here.

As I constantly allude to, I have a tendency towards the subversive.  Needless to say, my thoughts on media can be categorized in a similar vein.  While neoreactionaries on this side of the pond have done a pretty good job so far of dissipating their ideals through blogs and other online platforms (Twitter in particular has been quite useful), I cannot help but imagine more ambitious possibilities.  The thought of putting neoreactionaries in well-read outlets in which they can reach wider audiences is a titillating thought to me.

This has already begun, on a small-level.  Both Bryce Laliberte and Wesley Morganston have been featured in The Daily Caller (both pieces were fantastic, by the way…my congratulations to the both of you).  The Daily Caller isn’t exactly mainstream, and it caters to a crowd that leans farther right than what is perhaps the norm, but it’s a start.  Being a rather conservative (and honestly, the difference between far-right conservatives and reactionaries only really boils down to a select few positions) outlet, The Daily Caller will be open to our sorts of views in a way that most other media outlets wouldn’t be.  Honestly, it’s a prime outlet, given how reactionary ideals would essentially not need to be disguised under the cloak of subtlety and insinuation.

Now, giant corporate entities like The New York Times are not exactly optimum platforms for this sort of thing.  The barriers to entry and the inertia against right-leaning ideas are just too high.  A clever individual who already writes for such an organization might be able to manage subtle placement of certain ideas, but it won’t be possible for those currently without such a position.

There are other options, though, that might be more amenable to facilitating our positions.  Many local newspapers are often willing to print letters with a more extreme or radical tone (especially in more conservative locales), which presents opportunities that might not even require the sort of subtle and slippery language that one might normally have to use to inject such ideas into public discourse.

Now, some might say that Neoreaction does not need publicity initiatives, that it can get by on the strength of its arguments alone.  I don’t disagree with this.  We don’t need to do more than what it already being done, I just hate to put in only the minimum amount of effort necessary.  If we can increase the rate at which we can build up momentum behind the movement, we increase our ability to ride the wave of history that will soon come in and instigate a return to more traditional, conservative behaviors.  The more support we have, the greater that swing of the pendulum will be.

I’m not kidding myself.  I know the Reaction will always be an elitist, not a populist, movement I’ve said so previously.  Bearing that in mind, it is still a fact that the more elites we pull to our side, and the more aristocratic youth that sympathize with our principles, the more influence we potentially wield.

I’m big on both increasing and applying ones’ potential.  I really do hate seeing that sort of thing go to waste.


Note: Expansion to The Patrician’s Library

I’ve had books on the mind recently.  Partly as a result of this, I just added a large number of new entries to The Patrician’s Library, linking to full texts of everything from Plato and Aristotle to Hans-Herman Hoppe and Adam Smith.  It’s starting to become a rather fine collection, if I do say so myself.  If you are in need of something exciting to read over this Thanksgiving weekend, take a quick peek around.


The Eye of Sauron

I had a post put together recently regarding the now well-known “Knock-Out” game.  It was mostly written, but something about it didn’t feel quite right.  The message was still unclear.  My point of view quickly turned out to be indefensible.  Frankly, it wasn’t the sort of thing I was willing to put my name to, and I ended up throwing it out.

Was this the right thing to do?  Would I perhaps have been better suited by rewriting the whole thing and putting it out anyway?  Was my choice the most prudent option, given the circumstances?  Honestly, I’m not particularly interested in the answers to those questions.  Most of the fun is in the act of musing on them, not in the final conclusion itself.

Some people stick to platitudes like “Never give up” when assessing these sorts of decisions.  I dislike that sort of process, preferring long and probably unnecessary musings.  It’s a good bit of intellectual fun if you’re into that sort of thing, although you do run the risk of letting those sorts of games interfere with the decision-making process if you take them too far.

But I ramble.  I’ll get to my point.  The eye of Sauron has turned its gaze toward us.  With the recent TechCrunch article, Neoreaction has now, all of a sudden, been shown to be on the radar of the mainstream media.  I’d have preferred this sort of thing had happened on our terms, but we never really had that option, I suppose.  All of you who have read “The Art of War” no doubt share my disappointment.

Now, mainstream outlets will never cast us in an honest light.  It’s just not what they do.  As someone who writes for his university’s school paper, I can assure you that the news is considered a necessary but not sufficient condition for editor approval.  With my gig in the Opinions section, in which we’re supposed to display our ideological predilections, I get a great vantage point to observe what happens to articles that stray too far from what the editors are hoping for.  I’ve noticed typos in the published articles that weren’t in the submitted writings on more than one occasion…

With the increased attention (which will only continue to increase as more and more hit pieces are put out on us), it behooves us more than ever now to continue to refine our arguments and our ideological positions.  We claim to hold the banner of truth, but truth is messyAny time we assume our own correctness, we allow ourselves to become complacent and our arguments to grow staid.  The need to constantly proves our correctness is what drives us to develop stronger and stronger arguments.  Winning over intellectuals is a good first step for us, and the constant refinement of our positions that is required for this process is a beneficial process.  This is why things like the Anti-Reaction FAQ are good for us.  Legitimate, intellectually honest debate leads to the development of better arguments (speaking of which, the list of responses to the Anti-Reactionary FAQ is growing steadily, but could still use more entries).

Still, it is inevitable that some neoreactionary arguments are going to be found lacking.  When these situations arise, we will be faced with the decision between refining the arguments further and retreating from some of the more extreme positions.  The resolution(s) that arise from these turning points are going to divide and define the different subtypes of Reaction.

To consider one example, let us weigh the question of white privilege.  Some reactionaries might be content with denying its existence.  I’m not so sure about this.  It strikes me that there are certainly situations where it is a definite advantage to be white, the same way that in different circumstances it might be more advantageous to ones interests to be a man or a woman, respectively.  I definitely don’t deny that such a thing as white privilege probably exists, although I’m in the same vein as Free Northerner here in thinking that if it does exist, there are legitimate justifications for why this is so.

Once again, I find myself merely stating what is fairly obvious, but if an argument turns out to be flawed, either stop relying upon it, or tweak the argument.  Sound arguments are our one of our best tools for opening up people’s eyes to the world around them.  Some of the traffic we get from increased mainstream exposure will be willing to listen to what we have to say.  A poor argument on our behalf will hurt us more among the intellectually curious and genuinely open-minded (those individuals who we’ll have to rely on bringing into the fold) than any shabby and poorly-framed article.

One final thought before I wrap this up: It might not hurt to get some of our more eloquent and diplomatic spokesmen out there in more mainstream outlets subtly sliding in neoreactionary ideas into what might seem at first glance to be innocuous mainstream drivel.  This sort of priming might have some utility when it comes to shifting people out of the narrow confines of the Overton Window.  It wouldn’t be by much (if at all), but it seem worth a shot.  Larger entities would be nigh impossible to subvert and/or infiltrate in this fashion, but it could easily be done with more local media, as well as publications geared to a more conservative audience.

Perhaps I’ll write more about that later if I can sufficiently develop my thoughts on the matter…


The Simple Things

I tend to shy away from writing on things of a more personal nature.  This blog isn;t meant to be about me, but my ideas.  Still, recent events have given me enough to think about, and as writing can be such an exploratory process, I figured I would put some words down and see where they take me…

I’ve been unfortunately rather busy lately, so much so that I’ve had to cut down on time spent practicing martial arts and working out.  In response, I’ve streamlined my workouts to slide easily in among various obligations.  It’s rather simple now:

  • Deadlifts
  • Overhead Presses

High-weight, low-reps on the deadlifts and low-weight, hi-reps on the presses.  Nothing fancy.  Just two basic lifts. It’s not a suitable plan for the long-term, but it’ll do for now.

This has had me thinking on the nature of simplicity.  I’m not one of those who worships at the alter of unpretentiousness, and I try not to shave with Occam’s Razor if I don’t have to.  My predilections tend towards the complex over the straightforward (indeed, one of the critiques of my idea of masculinity was that it was overly complex).  Simplicity isn’t my thing, but I won’t deny that sometimes the simplest approaches are the best.

I’m not the only one with simplicity on the mind recently.  Both Bryce Laliberte and Amos and Gromar have been thinking simple in a different fashion, in trying to devise short and easy sound bites with which to capture the essence of neoreactionary thought.  This fits in with something else that’s been on my mind recently.

See, I’ve been bouncing around how to best spread our ideals.  Now, some might say that neoreactionary precepts are “The Truth” and that when exposed to them, all shall see the light.  I’m not even going to comment on how naive that is.  Truth is never that simpleBecause of that, at some point in time, reactionaries are going to need to figure out how to market themselves.  Sound bites may strike some as distasteful, but as long as we never drop to “Buzzfeed” levels of inanity, and keep our remarks piercing and intelligent, I don’t see any issues arising from our development of quick and easy talking points that we can drop at a moment’s notice.

So I might throw my hat into the ring for this sort of thing.  I’ve always enjoyed seeing how far I can stretch my cleverness.  It seems like it might also be fun to think some more about how to accelerate the memetic spread of reaction.  Putting together a catalog of tactics to achieve this end would be a grand old time.  Piecing all that together while developing a larger PR strategy as a whole?  Now that’s a hefty challenge.  Sounds like just the sort of thing a big-picture guy like me would enjoy.

What can I say?  It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for me to be satisfied with the simple things.


The Rumblings of Discontent

This will be a bit shorter than my usual fare, because I’m merely tying together a few ideas I’ve put forth before.

I’ve previously discussed the possibility that any movement  that could fall under the reactionary umbrella will have to focus on the quality of its members rather than quantity of support, at least in its beginning stages.  As such, I believe that any such movement will initially be spearheaded by the Natural Aristocracy, and that only later on, if it gains momentum, will others rally to that cause.  This will more likely than not be the case, although I am not so unsubtle in my thinking as to be under the impression that this is a hard and fast rule.

Now, who among the aristocracy will be those who spearhead these movements?  Well, those with the least investment in society and with the most to gain from a potential upheaval will always be the ones most likely to push for societal reorganization.  This means, for the most part, the young, a term which I use here to refer to the demographic under the age of 30 (but perhaps most accurately for my purposes here, those between the ages of 18 and 30).

Finally, which demographic (on a very broad level), is the one most likely to stir things up, go to extremes, and be devoted to causes beyond the pale of mainstream thought?  Men.  Men are more likely to be found rioting, revolting, revolutionizing, reinventing and reorganizing whenever things start to get a little unstable.  Because of the male power of violence, men are not only the segment of the population most capable of keeping order, security, and balance within a society, but are also most capable of destabilizing it and undermining it.

This sort of thing has been realized throughout history of course.  Stable societies find outlets for their young men so that they may be content and channel their urges into preserving the order and prosperity of the social structures and superstructures at large.  However, a society that offers few outlets (or even inefficient and suboptimal outlets) will find itself with a backlog of built-up male urges and desires. Combine this with other factors like a lack of economic opportunities and watch a dangerous concoction ferment before your very eyes.

Put this all together and what do we get?  Young, aristocratic men tend to be the forefront of any initiative that seeks to alter the status quo.  Keep them happy and content, of course, and they devote their talents and efforts to the proper upkeep and elevation of society.  Alter the dynamic and give them a society in which the young and aristocratic feel angry, disconnected, and (for lack of a better term) fucked-over and you get a society that will inevitably face major discontentment and fracturing.  Is this going to play a part in the future of the west? Count on it.

Update 11/12/13: It seems Peter Turchin has been having similar thoughts recently.  I love it when I’m not the only one who thinks of these things.


(This post dedicated to AnarchoPapist.  Happy Birthday, Bryce).