A crunch of Bone…

Among my proclivities, I happen to be a casual fan of Mixed Martial Arts.  I even wrote a short paper on it for one of my university courses.  You don’t need to be a fan of the sport though, to have heard the recent news that fighter Anderson Silva, in his bout against Chris Weidman, snapped his leg in two at the shin, ending the match and ensuring that he won’t be stepping into the ring for a good long time.

The responses to this have been fairly predictable.  A lot of people immediately brought up a video made a year ago by Bas Rutten as to how to avoid breaking your shin when throwing low kicks.  Some have pointed out that the injury may have been intentional, as Weidman trained leg checks in order to counter Silva’s low kicks.  Even the mainstream media hopped in on the discussion.  TIME, a once serious and respected media outlet, proved once again their fear of anything even remotely associated with testosterone by labeling MMA “too violent.  I shy away from personal attacks here at “The Legionnaire”, and I won’t make an exception in this case, but I will say that the author of that piece looks like the kind of person who would claim that MMA is too violent.

Do these analyses have some merit?  Yes, but as per usual, I’m going to eschew the obvious point of discussion and focus on something deeper that I see.  Now, the point that all of the previous analyses have made is that they focus on the rarity of something like this, how the odds of it happening are incredibly slim, and even though there might be steps to take to prevent this sort of thing, one would have to be very prescient indeed to prepare and accommodate something like this.

I don’t think I like the underlying paradigm these guys are operating off of.  Yes, something like this is incredibly rare, but far from unheard of.  Injuries happen.  This kind of injury happens.  What all these analyses are doing isn’t just to rationally explain why this happened, but also to comfort themselves, for if you can rationalize why something happened, you can just as easily rationalize why it won’t happen to you.

The overwhelming majority of people who saw this event were made uncomfortable by it.  This is a natural human reaction, as we sympathize with those who feel pain.  In that moment, we all imagined what it must feel like to have your shin bone snapped savagely in half.  Yet running away from an imaginary feeling because it makes you uncomfortable, and rationalizing your actions later is not an optimal way to approach the situation.

The reality that all those individuals seek to deny is this: crippling injuries happen, and are a risk that is run anytime you engage in intense physical activity.  If you’re a martial artist, you have to realize and accept that grievous injury is always a possibility when you step into a fight, even in circumstances as tightly controlled as professional fighting.

Instead of trying to rationalize away incidents like these, it is imperative that you accept that bad things can and will happen to you. This doesn’t just apply to physical harm.  Bad relationships, financial woes, bureaucratic misfortune…etc.  Life has a way of throwing one for a loop every once in a while.

The lifestyle you live and the choices you make certainly affect how much risk you have to live with day-to-day, yet it can never be eliminated entirely.It doesn’t matter how much risk you’re willing to take.  Sooner or later, the downside you fear will happen.  How will you react when that day comes?

This is what I mean when I call on Reactionaries to be men of steel.  We must possess the fiery will and iron resolve necessary to stay focused and disciplined no matter the circumstances that befall us.  This isn’t a reactionary thing, a traditional thing, and anti-modern thing, or anything of the sort.  This is a life thing, one that any Legionnaire would be prudent to embrace.

Accept risk.  Accept danger.  Accept that bad things will happen.  Minimize the odds of them occurring if that’s what you prefer, but never think that you can avoid the unpleasant entirely.

As thoughtcriminals professing beliefs that inveigh against modern orthodoxy, we already take on a certain amount of risk in regard to public perception and financial livelihood.  Every so often, the more public among us get swatted.  We need to accept that this sort of thing could happen to any one of us, and make arrangements to deal with this inevitability, if not for ourselves personally, then for our brethren in revolt against the modern world.  We need to strengthen the bonds among us, and form a community with ties deeper than the electronic.  Then, we can begin assessing courses of action that are not merely reactive, but also proactive.

What will we do when the hammer of the Cathedral swings down upon us, when we are truly tested and forced to fight to survive?  That is when we will truly be defined. That is what we need to be ready for.


Guest Post: Merchants, Mind Control, and Anti-Heroics

I’m not a very sentimental person, but I do take pride in each and every one of the comments I get on this blog.  This comment left by Mindweapon on my post, “Fire and Steel” really struck a chord with me, and I think he makes some points worth mulling over and discussing.

I repost it here with permission and a few small edits.  Consider it to be the first “Guest Post” on “The Legionnaire”.

<em>Yet, beyond writing essays and articles for each others’ sakes, there is little real-world action that we actually undertake.</em>

Well, we need to do right action, not just action for action’s sake.

What is the right action?

What is the conflict in which we are engaged?  What kind of world do we live in?

The answer is, we live in a mercantile world, for the most part, and for now, not a hot lead and cold steel world.  The hot lead and cold steel world can come back with a vengeance, of course.

A mercantile world means that the bad people are using the control and distribution of resources as a weapon.  A weapon of soft control.

Thus we have to face soft control with strategies for reducing it.  By blogging, we take the first step.  We remove the soft control over our minds.

But then we find out that the next level of the Game, the next level of the Soft Control, is the money game.  We don’t go straight from liberating our own minds, to deprogramming others.  If we could, that’d be amazing.  To just have the power to be among people and systematically deprogram them.   All it would take is free speech that no one messes with, or that you may have if you have enough money.

If you don’t have a family, or other such obligations, you could go straight to deprogramming.  I would if I could.  You’d have to hang out in areas where your optimal demographic for deprogramming is.   Personally, I think it’s cities, because those whites are ripe for it.  Most racists I’ve ever met came from big cities — NYC, Boston, LA, Portland Oregon, even Washington D.C.

One thing about city folk is that they yearn to work on the land and be a bit more materially self sufficient.  And rural people would like to have access to cities regularly, or they would if they knew what cities offered.  Cities offer the chance to get really really good at something that is usually not available in the countryside — for example, really good martial arts instructors, really good music teachers and music schools, the chance to hire an elderly native speaker of a target language (for real cheap — like free meals and a little bit of pocket money) to hang out at your house and talk to your toddlers several hours a day, so they get naturally fluent in that language.  A sort of variation on the Chinese “tiger mom” but in our own Aryan way.

So my dream “action” would be to have businesses and apartment buildings in the city in our own ethnic neighborhood, and do exchanges with people in the countryside, so the city people show up at planting time, harvest time, weeding, hay baling, and get paid in food or in time share at the urban apartments.

We need the best of both worlds.  Urban whites need a bug out place and a resilient source of ecological services (food, potable water, physical safety), and rural whites need some eager labor and access to urban living so maybe their kids grow up to be fluent in Chinese and/or martial artists or musicians or dancers.

Also, kids need to do lots of farm labor so they appreciate intellectual activities more.  Working for hours in the fields is very meditative.  It’s only drudge in the first couple of hours, then it becomes a mental groove, a deep meditation.  But it’s always drudge, at least in the process of going to “do it again.”   Child farm labor is what molded Henry Ford and Philo T. Farnsworth, and I’m sure many others.  Farnsworth visualized the television from ploughing a field, seeing electrons dance across his criss-crossed furrows.

But to do all of this, we need to be entrepreneurs.  We need to be Vaisyas.  We need to be owners, because we are ideological outlaws and lepers who will not be allowed any kind of government or corporate sponsorship, and all gov’t and corporate sponsorships must proactively celebrate diversity if at all possible, unless it’s a commando unit or high level engineers who keep civilization running.  Then mandatory diversity isn’t quite so necessary, though still desired.

The only way to avoid mandatory diversity is to own the properties, own the businesses.  We need to be like the Indians and Pakistanis.

In fact, the BOSCO (indian/pakistani) purposeful takeover of all stores in the US was a strategy to drive white people out of the merchant niche, because we could use the merchant niche as a redoubt to raise our armies.

We didn’t pay attention to the merchant niche because it wasn’t heroic.  TV and movies filled our heads with heroic fantasies, and made us ignore the real world around us, so the Hajjis bought all the 7-11’s out from under us.

What is the great virtue of the deprogrammed?  The ability to see what’s in front of his nose.  Not to be arguing in the clouds, hoping the clouds will have an effect on the real world.  They won’t.

Our work is cut out for us, and it is very unheroic but it’s not especially dangerous., except that it’s stressful.  By the way, movie recommendation.  Watch this:

12 parts, watch the whole thing.  Well worth it.  The merchant as warrior.

If you are an employer and/or a landlord, you learn all about the proles.  You learn how they think up close and personal.  You meet a lot of sociopaths — people who only go through life scamming.  For example, landlord reference.  “All my past landlords were bastards who assaulted me and/or went into my apartment and messed up my stuff, but you’re a good guy so you’ll be nice to me.”  Hahaha!  When they say that, it means that they are the scumbags and they got evicted.  One of them used his father, rather than his real ex-landlord, as his reference.

Constantly asking for “a break” or “work with me.”  There are set phrases that the proles use when they want to rip someone off.  You learn to read people, and you get a very very cynical view of mankind.  Any appeal for mercy or generosity is an attempt to rip you off.  Mercy and generosity are merely weaknesses to be exploited.

You know what’s interesting is the Indian landlords get ripped off a lot by Americans.  American sob stories work real good on them, and the Indians are morally intimidated by American proles.  They will probably harden up and learn the culture after a while, but the ones with the accents get pushed around by the proles.

The Indians often make bad business decisions too.  They aren’t naturally brilliant merchants or something; but they do it and no one else does, so it’s kind of a cakewalk for them. That’s why they are so successful — they actually show up and do it, and Americans don’t.

Americans’ heads are full of heroic dreams from TV, and they don’t see what’s in front of their face.

The merchant as the warrior.  Heroic fantasies obscuring grasp of reality. Alliance between city and country.  A retreat to the Vaisya caste, and more!  There’s certainly a lot of ideas in here that Reactionaries could be further refining and weighing.  I have my own thoughts on all of these things that I shall perhaps lay out in the future, but my purpose here today is to merely put forth these ideas for further analysis.


Fire and Steel

I saw something the other day that I must admit I’d never expected to see.  A friend of mine had put some photos up from his trip to the gun range.  I looked through several pictures of this person firing what appeared to be a FAL (I couldn’t quite get a good look at the rifle) complete with the caption “No Mercy”.

Why was this so shocking?  Well, this individual happens to be one of the most politically liberal people I’ve ever met.  Yet, despite his extreme egalitarian sentiments, he recognizes that violence is not only a fact of life, it is indeed the most basic principle of life.

To give some further context, he’s not from the US.  He’s from a foreign county with some history over the past century of paramilitary groups fighting against the government.  As a patriot and a nationalist, he considers it his duty to be proficient with arms in case he ever needs to fight against those who would (in his mind) do his country harm.

Seeing these photos made me think of the great English writer George Orwell. Orwell was a rather left-leaning individual himself, yet still had no qualms going off on his own to fight in the Spanish Civil War.  Indeed, Orwell had no timidity in regard to guns and warfare in general, famously stating: “That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”

Many liberals nowadays would be aghast, to say the least.  The democrats are the party calling for more gun control, after all.  Yet, those on the left have historically tended to like their guns.  Guns were, after all, one of the key inventions that br1535551_10202848631475430_741186523_nought about the decline of feudalism, paving the way for English common law to develop into what we now know as liberal democracy.  The American Revolution was, for its time, and exceedingly liberal concept.  Left-leaning thought spent much of its history waging war against powerful opponents.  I certainly am opposed to liberalism, but I will admit that for a period of time, liberals had to be bad-ass simply by virtue of having to defend themselves against vested interests.

Somewhere along the line though, liberals stopped being tough and battle-ready.  Instead, leftism became mired deeper and deeper in the “victim ideologies”; the slave moralities of feminism, anti-racism, and the like eating away at a movement that (it must be said) at least had some element of masculinity at its core.  Where progressives 100 years ago had as their symbol Theodore Roosevelt, who once gave a 90-minute speech after being shot in the chest, wound dripping blood the whole time, progressives nowadays have Pajama Boy and Tumblr feminists.  Somewhere, something went horribly wrong…

Rather than taking a look at the specifics of what went wrong though (that is perhaps a matter for another time), it makes one consider a more philosophical question:  Do ideologies take on the character of their adherents, or is it the character of its adherents that define the character of an ideology?

Perhaps I equivocate.  It’s fairly obvious that this question cuts both way, and is possibly a chicken-and-egg style inquiry.  Still, allow me to propose one model that might explain how this happens.

Suppose that a movement is born.  The details don’t particularly matter.  What does matter is that this movement will always have the stamp of those first individuals, both the ones who created it, and the early adopters.  If these individuals have a certain characteristic (say, conscientiousness), this movement will always have some element of conscientiousness to it (barring drastic change, which can admittedly happen over time).

Additionally, those who become a part of this movement, if they invest in it to a certain degree, will become more conscientious in themselves.  This will make the movement appeal to more conscientious people, and a significant proportion of the adopters will tend toward conscientiousness.  A feedback loop is set up, and inertia becomes self-propelling (up to a point, the progression eventually stabilizes).  Furthermore, if this movement becomes popular, it will gain a reputation as being full of conscientious individuals, and, by extension, be considered a conscientious movement.

Any difference in membership though, will change the fundamental nature of the movement, just as a large enough infusion of immigrants will change the character of a nation.  In the case of liberalism, the infusing of the ideology with the ideologies of victim-hood made the movement weak and pathetic, coddling the degenerate, embracing servility, and opposed to anything that might possibly be K-selected or aristocratic.  Strength, power, and success became not ideals to be achieved, but “oppressive”.  This is why modern liberals are considered such pussies.

What kind of feed-back loop are reactionaries setting up for ourselves?  We all know what it is at the moment, a whole lot of blogging and talking online, but little in the way of taking real-world action.  You’re not going to find me opposed to intellectualizing over a keyboard, but it’s easy enough to see that this isn’t the feedback loop we want to be setting up for ourselves if we want to see society become even a tiny bit more reactionary.

The beauty of Reaction being relatively new and unknown though, is that there’s still time to alter the feedback loop.  Make no mistake, it’s great that we’re intelligent and intellectual enough to be discussing the topics we’re discussing.  It’s beautiful that we have the cognitive firepower to erase our modernist brainwashing and deconstruct many of the liberal tropes that have taken hold in the popular consciousness.  Yet, beyond writing essays and articles for each others’ sakes, there is little real-world action that we actually undertake.

It suits our interests far more to be also spreading and applying our ideas so that we might shape society into something more to our liking.  This not only will help us bring about a less liberal society, but also affects the feedback loop dictating how our movement is to be perceived.  One day, we are going to have to deal with Reaction being public knowledge, and we will have a reputation to manage.  How can we go about making sure that the general consensus on us Reactionaries is most favorable?

We not only need to be building ourselves into stern, hard men of action and capability, but also need to be setting up an ideological feedback loop to further that effect.  This is both a matter of affecting our public perception (people love the strong horse), as well as genuinely being prepared for the future of the West.  We need to be men of fire and steel, capable of exerting our wills on the world and dealing with whatever the world has in store for us.  We need to become the process of shaping ourselves into Legionnaires.

In this day and age, liberals are pussies and conservatives can’t get anything done.  People need a group they can turn to, whom they can trust and rely upon for whatever is needed.  If the reputation we can cement in peoples mind is that Reactionaries are strong, intelligent, capable, and downright aristocratic individuals who are the people everyone wants at their side in a crisis, we do ourselves a big favor.  All we have to do is make ourselves people who can live up to that image.

2014 looks like a good year to get on that.


Two Houses, both alike in dignity…

Greg Cochran, one of the authors of the book The 10,000 Year Explosion, has helped finish the rough draft of a paper analyzing gene flow in meritocracy.  The basic gist of it is that within a few generations, the inequality between the people on top of society and the people on bottom won’t just be on the level of financial resources, but genetic potential, as the high-status with good genes will seek to mate with other high-status people of good genes.  Basically, even in a pure meritocracy, it’s only a matter of time before a genetic elite arises.

Here at The Legionnaire, of course, we do not fear aristocracy, we embrace it.  We even have a name for this genetic elite: The Natural Aristocracy, and we think they, and not democratically elected officials, should govern.

In the great traditional societies of old, the aristocracy was usually a distinct class of its own, officially recognized as such by societal norms.  Nowadays, the norms are a bit fuzzier.  Sure, we have our own caste system, complete with Brahmins, but the connection between modern Brahmins and a true (read: functional) aristocracy is a bit tenuous.

My personal observation is that a certain aristocracy arises among every caste, consisting of their best and brightest, as well as those that most exemplify the traits that each caste most praises. Case in point, Vaisyas, though not considered the “elite” class, certainly have their own aristocracy.  Historically, this Aristocracy has been represented by figures exemplifying the archetype of the “Southern Gentleman”.  Think of such noble individuals as Robert E. Lee.  Nowadays, it is harder to find such exemplary figures, though those individuals who are moral, upstanding citizens who give back to their communities and are widely revered can be thought of as a certain Vaisya aristocracy.

The Brahmins have their aristocracy as well, though it’s not a very homogenous group.  It’s a grab-bag of high-level politicians (even the Republicans, supposedly representative of Vaisya interest, consist almost entirely of Brahmins who are just a bit less left than their contemporaries), certain celebrities, and others with enough cult of personality to be revered out of proportion to accomplishment (think Neil DeGrasse Tyson, or Jennifer Lawrence).  These are the Brahmin elite, the ones who are revered as an aristocracy of sorts by your typical Brahmin individual.

The modern Brahmin elite make for a pretty poor aristocracy though.  There’s no sense of deep tradition to uphold, nor a sense of responsibility for the greater welfare the longevity and prosperity of society.  Noblesse Oblige has been replaced by voting Democrat.  Duty, Responsibility, Tradition?  Nonsense, let’s have gay marriage!  It’s enough to drive any Traditionalist to revolt against the modern world.

At this point, one might ask the question of whether Reaction has an aristocracy.  Given how Reaction is a loosely-connected movement instead of a society, in a technical sense, we cannot have an aristocracy.  Still, we clearly have individuals who are looked up to and viewed as figures of leadership.  Often times, these individuals could be categorized as Neoreactionary in classification.  Might we expand this to the neoreactionaries in general, the intellectual and abstract fonts of Reaction who often serve as figureheads when The Dark Enlightenment is represented in mainstream media?

I’m not so certain.  Do I consider many neoreactionaries to be aristocratic?  Absolutely.  Yet I am unwilling to call the neoreactionaries the Aristocracy of the Reaction.  There might be some correlation with aristocratic traits, but Reaction in general as not been around long enough to sort itself into different strata.  Though different styles of Reaction are emerging, different social strata are not…

Here’s the thing, Neoreaction especially boils down to two demographics: Upper Vaisyas fighting to defend their history and culture (more than they may realize), and disgruntled Brahmins who realize the current system is a terrible mess, paralleling Rome before the fall.  We’re not an Aristocracy in any real sense, and only a few of us are considered truly influential in regard to Reaction as a whole.

An Aristocracy can only truly exist in an established society.  Until that happens (if it happens), all we’ve got are people who are more or less popular than each other.  Given that the structure of the internet is more conducive to populist structures than hierarchical ones, no internet movement can truly be hierarchical, especially not in the fashion that we reactionaries so desire.  So no, Reaction does not have an aristocracy.

This isn’t the important detail I really want to point out though.  What I want to emphasize here is something a little more subtle, but far more important.  Neoreaction is Vaisyas and Brahmins working together.  This is an alliance of which the symptoms have been noted before, but this underlying fact has (to my knowledge) never been explicitly and bluntly stated as such.

Think about that.  When was the last time that these two castes really came together?  As Theden is so fond of pointing out, Brahmins and Vaisyas are almost always at odds, on opposite sides of any and all culture wars that take place in American society.  On social, economic, and foreign policy issues, among others, they almost always find themselves on opposite sides of the aisle.  For members of each class to find themselves working together means that something dramatic must be happening indeed.

This time of year gives us a lot to celebrate, even in this world that gives us much reason to despair.  This Christmas, let’s also take a moment to celebrate the coming together of Brahmins and Vaisyas in reaction, the two American classes that have historically been in perpetual conflict.  Peace on earth and good will to men indeed.

Merry Christmas, reactionaries of the world.


The Path to Legionnaire: Social

As I stated last time, I believe that 2014 will be the year in which face-to-face meet-ups among people within the Reactionary fold will become increasingly necessary for the future of our various allied movements.  As I have also hinted at but not stated definitively, the next step beyond that will be discussions with people who aren’t necessarily reactionary themselves, but are open to some of the ideas.  I don’t necessarily mean proselytizing, and I especially don’t going door-to-door like some kind of Jehovah’s Witness (excuse me sir, have you a minute of time to hear the words of Moldbug, Land, and LaLiberte?), but any public or semi-public reactionary is going to be perceived as representative of the Reaction as a whole.  How people perceive you will contribute in a large part to how people perceive reaction.  For better or for worse, the medium is the message.

This is why there’s a certain social aspect towards being a Legionnaire.  Now, in all honesty, this is where the writing gets a bit difficult for me.  Dealing with people isn’t really a skill that can be picked up from reading a few blog posts.  It really does require being out there in the world dealing with people, talking to them, figuring out how to play with them and interact in subtle and complex ways.  Social skills tend to either be either intuitive or unconscious, and they come from experience, not theory.

Still, theory can help a bit, as long as you find a way to put it into practice.  I’ll do my best to convey as much as I can, though I suffer from the curse that all people who are naturally inclined towards this sort of thing suffer from, in that I can’t quite put into words a lot of what socially savvy people do.  I’m a natural extrovert with no clue how to give advice to people who tend toward introversion, so I apologize if this isn’t as helpful as I intended.  That in mind, let’s get to the meat of this.  Cheers!

Here’s the thing.  You really can get away with so many more things when people have a high opinion of you.  This can happen in regard to skill-set (if you have unique talents at something interesting or useful), character (are you an upstanding person?), and social reputation (can you cultivate a good reputation and make people love being around you?).  While I’ll be covering the first two aspects at other times in various ways, today I will be focusing on that last particular: social reputation.

As much as some people love to whine about not being judged, humans are judging creatures.  We size people up, sometimes consciously but mostly unconsciously, from the very first second we lay eyes on them.  It’s what we do, by virtue of our programming.  While there are individuals out there who prefer to complain about this and deem it unfair, it’s much more effective to get over yourself and learn how to use this all-too-human tendency to your advantage.

Given this, it should be fairly obvious that first impressions thus count for a lot in how people perceive you.  Someone fit, confident, and well-dressed, gives off a more likeable initial vibe than someone who is the exact opposite.  Obviously, you don’t have to be all of those in order to get people to like you and respect you over time, but why fight an unnecessary uphill battle?  It’s like handicapping yourself before a fight…you’re only doing it to show off and prove something to yourself.

Get those things down pat and a significant portion of the battle is already won.  Additionally, body language is of great importance in how people perceive you (hence my inclusion of two books on body language in the social section of “The Legionnaire’s Reading List“).  Not only can you use body language to gauge how others are feeling (and you should be doing this), you can also use it to tell others how they should feel about you.  What’s more convincing, telling people that you’re confident, or walking into a room with you head held high, your eyes forward, your shoulders pulled back, and a pop in your step?

Leap of a Beta and Free Northerner have great posts on this subject, so rather than re-inventing the wheel I’m going to send you over to each of them, respectively.  I will add to their words though, that great body language is its own reward.  Not only does feeling better about yourself lead to better body language, but better body language leads to feeling better about yourself (as well as other rewards, like increased testosterone), kicking off a positive feedback loop that leads to better body language and a more positive self-perception ,which manifests itself in how you interact with people.  How great is that?

This cuts both ways though, so avoid closed-off, space-minimizing, or otherwise negative body language.

As important as first impressions are though, you need to be able to follow up on them, to walk the walk instead of just talking the talk, as it were.  While traits like being articulate, well-spoken, and diplomatic are important in most circumstances, and should certainly be cultivated, the only factor I wish to consider here is charisma, the ability to charm and engage with people such that they’re absolutely electrified by your presence.

Charisma really boils down to two things: strength and warmth.  By this definition, strength refers to aspects like the strength of your personality, your confidence in yourself, and the firmness of your convictions.  Thing someone who is secure, decisive, and unequivocal.  Warmth refers to things like how well you captivate people, drawing them into your world and making them feel good about being around you.  Think someone with a radiant smile, a good ear, and a way of making you feel like you’re the center of attention.

Someone with both of these qualities is a respected and charismatic person.  Someone with warmth but no strength is your typical doormat, your “nice-guy”, your typical “beta male”.  Someone with strength but not warmth comes off as harsh and intimidating, which is useful in some circumstances, and which is a tack some people might prefer taking, but in those situations when you can’t always rule by fear, charm is your best weapon.  Finally, someone who is neither strong nor warm is either an insecure asshole or an angsty teenager.  Don’t be either one.

An easy way to get people to like you?  Give value to them.  People spend financial capital to buy products that give them value.  They expend social capital to spend time with people who are funny, pleasant to be around, and make them feel good about themselves.

An even better way to get people to like you, though?  Get them to do small favors for you.  The “rationalization hamster” will kick in and people will rationalize their doing things for you by making themselves think they like you (Bold and Determined has a great article here written by a young man who used this trick to weasel his way into a guest post).  Works great in a pinch.  Just be polite about it.  Browbeating people into doing things for you has the opposite effect.

So what to do with all this social ability?  The most important thing you can do with it is to build yourself a solid group of friends that you can rely on.  Yes, being an emissary of Reactionary beliefs is important, but at the end of the day you have to be able to take care of yourself.  That includes your social needs, for humans are social creatures.  Find people with common interests whom you mesh well with and who are a positive influence on you and make them a part of your life.  Give value to them as they will give value to you.  Every man needs a männerbund.  If there was an emergency, do you have buddies who you could trust to have your back?

Honestly, if I have to be the one to tell you that having friends is awesome, there’s probably some troubles happening on your end.  I’m really not sure what I can say if that’s the case.

On a final note, I don’t recommend learning game per se, as I don’t consider it entirely necessary for the purposes of representing the Reaction.  Still, it’s a good life skill, and it’s difficult for any man to respect someone who can’t meet and talk to women.  Besides, the underlying principles (i.e. confidence, holding frame…etc) can be applied to many other facets of life, and will serve you well.

Eh, what the heck.  Go for it.  Life’s better when you know how to  interact with women successfully.  Some of the websites to the right (Heartiste, LaidNYC, Roosh) are “Game” websites.  Check them out a learn a few things.  As always, “The Legionnaire’s Reading List” has a few resources (though “The Game” is more of a narrative designed to convey the message that human behavior has underlying principles that you can learn to rely on, not a “how-to” to picking up chicks).  I’ll see what I can do about getting some seduction stuff into “The Patrician’s Library” as well.

At the end of the day, reputation can be thought of as social capital.  The more capital you’ve acquired, the more you can get away with extreme or unorthodox views and be considered interesting for it.  The charming and the socially aware know just how much they can get away with in each and every circumstances.  There’s a limit to how much one can learn this sort of thing, but anyone and everyone can get better at navigating the ebb and flow of social dynamics, and as an agent of the Reaction, this needs to be another skill in your arsenal.

In summary:

  • You are a representative of the Reaction
  • Social Skills need to be practiced
  • First impressions count for a lot
  • Body Language is key
  • Strength and Warmth comprise charisma
  • Certain social skills more or less relevant depending on personality and specialty
  • Value is the currency of social capital
  • Cultivate a strong social circle
  • Game is useful
  • The better your reputation the more you can get away with


“The Art of War”, Dark Gatherings, and a Happy New Year

I’m a big fan of Sun Tzu’s “Art of War”.  Despite being older than dirt, it still contains insights that are as relevant now as they were back in the Warring States period of Chinese history.  When I was laying out “The Legionnaire’s Reading List“, the work was one of the first books I knew beyond all doubt would be included.

Just as I was certain I would make “The Art of War” a part of my recommended reading, so too am I certain of my favorite passage: “Hide in the deepest recesses of the earth and strike like lightning from the highest heavens”.  The dynamic contrast is pleasing from a literary perspective, and deeply insightful from a tactical one.

There’s a parallel between this piece of wisdom and the way the trajectory of the reaction has been going. Until very recently, Reaction and its various allied movements have hid themselves away in arcane corners of the internet, reading Moldbug posts and keeping to themselves. Yet in 2013, things changed. A tipping point was reached, and the reactionary population started growing exponentially, caving out niches for itself across WordPress and Twitter, a population of tiny ants whose collective actions birthed an entire secret networks of tunnels and caves, hidden from the eyes of the many.

The inertia behind Reactionary ideas (especially the Red-Pill subset) is building. As I frequently state, I believe this is an inevitability being driven by the forces of human nature, echoing a pattern found throughout human history. Still, that’s no reason to sit on our laurels. As the old saying goes, the stars incline us but they do not bind us. The burden still lies on us to make the most of the opportunities we have been (and will be) allocated. We must seize the initiative.

The single biggest focus of reaction in 2014 needs to be to capitalizing on our gathering momentum. The first step in this process? Physical meet-ups. Though the dark corners of the internet have served us well, now is the time to move into meatspace. This sort of thing has been happening on a small-scale already (i.e. the recent #hateupnyc), but it needs to become a more frequent occurrence at this stage of the game. The amount of progress we can make in the realm of refining and planning at these sorts of things vastly outweighs debates over Twitter, and will be vital to ensure the continued development of the Reaction.

 So what do I hope 2014 will look like? Well, the attention that our little sphere has been getting so far has been amusing, but my hope is that in the coming months the discourse on reaction, neoreaction, and the allied movements will be done increasingly on our terms. I doubt this will be the case, and suspect that the opposite will occur, at least on the level of mainstream narrative, but this merely forces us to dominate and frame the discourse that will be taking place on less traditional outlets.

 Given that we will no doubt be getting increased attention from the Eye of Sauron, it would seem that we’ve firmly established our presence on Twitter and other social networks just in the nick of time. In order to counter the smears that the media will seek to propagate upon us though, is will be necessary to get as many people as possible to view us with unsullied lenses.

 While much of that can be done online, a significant portion of this marketing ought to be done in person. It’s not all that difficult to find people in your social circles who might be open to one or two reactionary ideas. From there it’s just a matter of some open discussion of some initially innocuous-sounding ideas, slowly steered towards those topics that venture into crimethink. Don’t jump out the Overton Window. Creep out of it slowly.

 Everyone has their part to play, but the burden of swaying the young and aristocratic will increasingly fall to the neoreactionaries, given our bent toward the intellectual and the abstract, which is the tack that must be adopted in order to be taken seriously by the intelligent and open-minded who are willing to distance themselves from the progressive mindset haven’t yet grounded themselves in concepts like “The Cathedral”.

 Game is the most popular method of applied reaction. Human Biodiversity is an intellectual forbidden fruit of which the thought of biting both terrifies and excites. These two things, will be, I suspect, the two things that will most drive people to take those first few steps down the rabbit hole, and as such, ought to be pushed hard. Feminism is an additional target of opportunity, a slowly weakening ideology with many opponents who can be allies of convenience. Going after it is a smart play in the new year. All reactionaries should make a New Year’s Resolution to crush at least one feminist in rigorous debate.


Any minority idea that wishes to become commonplace must pass through several key transition points. One of the most important ones, it seems, is to have 10% of the population be in favor of it. If the holders of an idea or an ideology can reach this point, and remain dedicated to it, than those first few special snowflakes can build themselves into an overwhelming avalanche.

I have no idea what the United States or any other western country might look like if 10% of the population was in favor of reactionary ideals (nor do I want to imagine just how much shit would have to hit the fan in order for that sort of shift to occur). Still though, in the interest of intellectual curiosity, I’m rather hoping to find out.

 It’s no secret that many people are displeased with what society is becoming, but how many are willing to get extreme about it? Probably not 10% as of yet, how far off can we really be? One of my goals for the new year is to be able to establish definitive answers to both of those questions.

 What reactionaries have done so far has worked well, but the context we find ourselves in is shifting. The divergence between ideologies is growing, and in the tension and discord, opportunity is arising. To paraphrase Machiavelli, the young always benefit more from chaos than the old, and compared to the old battleship that is modernism, Neoreaction is very new indeed.

 2013 was the year to hide away and prepare ourselves. 2014 is the year to strike like lightning.


The Silence hidden in the Sound

It is said “Only music can soothe a savage beast”.  This is actually a bastardization of a line from a play by the English playwright William Congreve, but I think there is some truth in it regardless.  Music can indeed placate a stormy soul, but it can also rouse one to great and terrible deeds.  As with music, so too can the great currents of history that pass over us influence our temperaments, our actions, and maybe even our fates.

Perhaps there is some truth to the mythical notion of time as a song.  Upon this reflection, we might ask ourselves what sort of song our current society is playing.  When I listen to the notes rising from our collective actions though, I hear something disturbing.  The great song of our age is starting to lose its harmony, as many are either beginning to play a different tune altogether, or to stop producing notes entirely.

In one melody, the march of progressivism rolls on, finding ever new victim groups and seeking ever new causes to crusade for.  Gay marriage? Not enough! We have to stop drinking Russian vodka!  Never mind that we’re attacking the wrong people!

In another other, the rumblings of discontent are growing more forceful.  Recently, many news websites have been shutting down their comment sections, most famously Popular Science, which blamed “trolls” for the closure.  The fact that (on basis of anecdotal evidence, admittedly) comment sections seem to be growing more right-wing (or at least, more vocal about certain conservative beliefs) allows for interesting connections to be made if one wishes to connect the dots…

In the cacophony of the great liberal echo chamber, the university system, it may seem as though the world is becoming more liberal.  Drug laws are being relaxed, and the quest for gay marriage marches on.  How few know that the most popular political party in France right now happens to be Le Front National!  How few know that in Poland they burn down memorials to Gay Rights.  Anything that challenges their hedonism and their “feels” must be bad, anything that enables drinking and carousing must be good!

I exaggerate.  It’s not quite like that.  Yet, I am not off-base in pointing out that in the environment that is the collegiate experience, things like gay rights are essentially sacrosanct and not to be critiqued.  The more conservative (or even reactionary) your views, the more circumspect you are…at least in public.  In private, it is not too hard to find individuals who at least sympathize with ideas like rigid eugenics and lessened immigration, are open to criticisms of democracy (to say nothing of feminism), and would be willing to fairly assess other systems of government  (Hong Kong and Singapore are good examples to bring up in this sort of case).  Among those youth who are not devotedly liberal, many are growing increasingly weary of the prevailing ideology.

I am told this is similar to what things were like in the waning years of the Soviet Union.

As I have stated before, I suspect we are moving into a minor cycle of history that will include a swing back toward more conservative/reactionary ideas (as a response to societal strife, instability, and possibly violence), and that we should anticipate this swing of the pendulum and prepare accordingly.  It probably won’t be anything but a minor perturbation on society’s unceasing march away from tradition, stability, and low-time preference, but it will probably be sufficient to at least have the capability to serve our interests.  It will be up to us to prepare, to set aside financial resources that can be relied upon, to cultivate the capability for self-defense and all that entails.  The burden is on us to anticipate a society that will creep ever more leftward and to understand the effects that this will have on spheres of life ranging from economic, demographic, and cultural, among others.  The responsibility lies on us to shape ourselves into people who can handle what the future has to throw at us.

Am I happy that this is what lies in store?  Somewhat.  Part of me would be happy for a simpler time, when society was stable, jobs were plentiful, and it was the most natural thing in the world to have a good job, an attractive wife, and a budding family at a young age.

But that part of me is small.  Here at The Legionnaire, the highest ideal is the pursuit of excellence.  Excellence comes from struggling through hard times, overcoming difficult challenges, and ascending to new heights.  In times of instability, all manner of opportunities for these things are handed to you on a silver platter.  I cannot truly want the past, because that would be a violation of my highest belief.

The future that lies ahead is just as much a blessing as it is a curse.

Nostalgia does nothing but distract us from the time at hand, doubly so when we feel nostalgia for something we never experienced.  There is danger is wishing for the utopian illusion of a romantic fantasy, especially if we are ill-prepared for the reality in front of us.  The future will not allow us the luxury of fond memories, and my generation especially will bear the brunt of what is to come.  It will be a long time before we can finally have grounds to say that the worst is behind us.

All this I hear when I listen to the silence in the sound, the foreboding silence that speaks to trouble lying ahead.