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.



3 thoughts on “Fire and Steel

  1. mindweapon 12/29/2013 / 8:46 AM

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

    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 teh 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 teh 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 deprogrammeed? 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 hsi 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.

  2. SGW 12/29/2013 / 1:01 PM

    While I think that it is important that we all strive to develop our proficiency in the three modes of persuasion, I do think that you overstate the degree the NR lacks certain things at this point in time. As a movement we are definitely dominated by foxes rather than lions and the focus certainly is on logos rather than ethos or pathos, but I think that this is more due to the fact that the movement still is in a fairly early stage of it’s lifecycle.

    Before a movement gets active it first needs to have a good grasp of what it is. I think that this stage is at it’s end, 2013 has been very fruitful when it comes to meta-analyses. To me Laliberte`s “What is Neoreaction” signals the fact that we have mostly come to grips with what we are and that the NR’s infancy is over. At this point in time it is possible to succesfully start developing our virtues and to find a garb that suits us, it also is the time we can start losing some of our baby teeth by colliding into things.

    A point in time in which a memeplex can get attacked in a coherent manner also is a moment where it can be said to exist in a coherent form. Putting a lot of focus on praxis, ethos and pathos at an earlier point in time would’ve been premature in my opinion. It’d be like trying to teach a newborn, who has trouble distinguishing between the environment and himself, how to ride an unicycle.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s