Dark Linkage: Dark Matter Journal

A while back, there was some discussion on Twitter as to what the best name would be for a Neoreactionary scholarly journal.  It was a fun exercise at the time, but since then had drifted to the back of my mind.

You can imagine my delight, however, when I found out that such a thing was being developed.  Dark Matter Journal has just appeared on the scene, with an opening issue that is as stimulating as it is eclectic.

In its own words:

“Dark Matter collects the best essays from the “neoreactionary” sphere and publishes them in an edited form. Original articles are also published. Content in the journal ranges widely, but its primary focus is on the intersection of politics, history, and human biological diversity.

The neoreaction, or the Dark Enlightenment, is not a unified social movement. The authors published here will agree as often as they disagree, and many operate with different priors or within different intellectual frameworks. The journal therefore values and promotes intellectual diversity.

The journal is published quarterly (more or less), with special issues convened for special purposes.

We have a CanonWe have brilliant and comprehensive online magazines.  We now have a scholarly journal.  Much as I am opposed to the idea of Neoreaction ever becoming a formal institution of its own (it would lose so much of its essence), I am delighted by these manifestations of our growing momentum.


The Legionnaire’s Perspective on Immigration: Part One

The topic of immigration has been in the news lately, as the government of the United States was recently discussing the further opening of the borders to immigration from third-world countries. It does look like it won’t happen at this point (the whole affair was probably a trial balloon to test future initiatives), but I still find it interesting that the topic was even up for discussion in the first place.  I am perhaps a little baffled as to why people get so excited about the prospect of filling their country with people who come here to line their pockets with no regard for the history, traditions, and culture of the United States. It is a rather ineffective way of ensuring a population with a high degree of trust, civic-mindedness and low-time preference, which is the basis of a stable and flourishing civilization.

The arguments I often hear tend to focus on the idea that immigration is good for the economy. I suppose this could be true in some circumstances (it certainly was for the US earlier on in its history). I am not certain that the type of immigration we are discussing here would necessarily have those effects, but since my background in economics is insufficient to do a thorough critique of these ideas, my analysis of this matter will not be economic in nature.

What I can’t help but notice is that (in cases of third-world immigration to developed, democratic countries in general) because low-wage, low-skilled immigrant laborers tend towards low-IQ’s and little knowledge of the local language, they are often unable to attain any significant social mobility. This (especially in the US) leads to an immigrant underclass of sorts, with boundaries firmly set on economic and racial lines (Moldbug called this the “Helot” caste). Some will certainly make it out, but most will not.

This stratification continues across political lines. As revealed preferences manifest themselves in voting patterns, political parties realize that they can use this data for political gain. Identity politics arises, and the party best able to cater to this underclass gains not only political advantage, but also an incentive to bring more unskilled immigrants into the country.

So what happens if said party succeeds in this goal? The underclass grows, and given the economic and cultural disconnect with the rest of the country, jealous, resentment, and all-around racial tensions can develop (to say nothing of how the average IQ of the population will steadily drop, a phenomenon correlated with smaller GDP and civic order). Not only this, but as identity politics becomes more and more effective at garnering support and power, politics itself becomes more racialized.

Now, as has been discussed elsewhere, democracy is low-intensity civil war, fought with ballots instead of bullets. The rise of identity politics and the exacerbation of the racial divide in voting patterns can thus be thought of as the incitement of low-intensity race war for political gain.

It can thus be argued that in the US we have a low-level race war, and the ruling body is calling for more reinforcements for the minority side (as opposed to European countries like Switzerland, which are attempting the opposite approach).

So how does this end? A race war of higher-intensity than what we see now is certainly one possibility, though I am no so certain that the likelihood of that is as high as some might believe. I do think that a general tension will arise, though how bad it might be is anyone’s guess. It might end up being negligible in the grand scheme of things. It might be horrific. I would guess that human nature, with its innate tendency to form ingroup-outgroup distinctions, will ensure that as long as there are bifurcations in society that are not only racial, but also economic and cultural, conflict will always emerge. Full-blown race war may not break out, but whatever happens probably won’t be pretty.

I rather hope race war doesn’t break out. The thing about such conflicts is that you don’t get to pick which side you’re on, and the one I’m on lacks any sort of racial identity and solidarity and is burdened by feelings of white guilt and the like. This is not the case for all whites, but it is a significant disadvantage. When you bear this in mind and also consider how the media would no doubt spin the whole affair as a series of hate crimes upon poor, defenseless minorities, I feel comfortable saying that the whole thing would be an unpleasant affair. This is not to say that I wouldn’t do my part to defend myself and those I care about if such things came to pass, but that I would be a reluctant warrior, rather than some kind of racial Blood Knight.

Extreme? Admittedly so. This sort of progression is by no means an inevitability, merely one of many possible paths that a society can traverse. It is certainly the path the US has taken though, and several European countries have exhibited this scenario to varying degrees, though certain factors seem to mitigate this to some degree.

This is one of the problems of immigration that is overlooked in our present discourse. Improperly done, it forces very different peoples with very different races and cultures and histories together, with almost inevitably leads to conflict. Yet I am not against immigration. I do think that it can benefit the host society if properly managed and if it abides by certain principles.

So how to make immigration from less-developed countries work?  I intend to find an answer to this question, not because I have any particular penchant for immigration, but because it strikes me as a fun intellectual challenge.  On a more serious note, immigration, both legal and illegal, is one of those things that is going to happen.  The only way to prevent it would be if every country closed their borders and shot anyone trying to get in or out.  Instead of trying to fight human nature, I see it as more productive to figure out how to make such immigration work for society in a way that makes it more stable and more orderly.  This will be the subject of my next post, and possibly more, if I feel that the issue requires more examination.


(Part Two Here)

Equality as Injustice

I was recently the subject of what you might call “racial profiling”. To give the short version of the story, I was “randomly selected” for a pat-down and a bag search twice in the span of five minutes while trying to board a flight.

I completely understand why it happened. My European ancestry may have granted me fair skin, but I was also a bearded young man flying out of a Muslim country with a copy of the Qur’an in his bag (which I have been reading for academic reasons). That sort of thing tends to merit scrutiny.

One look at my passport, of course, and suddenly everything cleared up and airport security was nothing but smiles and condolences. Western Imperialism, though dead in a strictly political sense, still has its lingering perks.

Despite the efforts of my liberal-leaning colleagues to use this event as a lesson to teach me the evils of racial profiling, I considered the whole thing to be a rather entertaining affair (the only person in my group of students who got more of a kick out of it than I did was the actual Muslim, who was glad that for once someone else was getting pulled aside).

More than that though, I think my being selected was perfectly justified. My physical appearance and the circumstances I was in suggested that I was a member of a demographic that has demonstrated an above-average tendency to plan and carry out acts of terrorism relative to most other demographics. On a pragmatic level, of course, it made sense to give me a closer look. But are the arguments for this sort of behavior only pragmatic in nature?

As long as different groups behave in ways that differ in a statistically significant fashion, certain forms of discrimination will always be justified. If you wish to be fair, you must judge groups based on the collective actions of the individuals who comprise that group, and different actions will merit different judgments. It would be most unfair not to reward say, the Japanese, with shorter waiting times and less scrutiny at airports, because no one of Japanese descent has intentionally crashed an airplane into anything since 1945.

It is thus seems to be the case that treating groups “equally” is be most unfair. Justice is done by making and applying correct judgments, not forgoing them. To cease judgment is to cease justice. To treat people with equality (since it requires the suspension of judgment) is thus a great injustice.

 Equality is injustice.

 “Social Justice” is anything but. Real social justice is giving people exactly what they deserve. Because different groups will act differently, different groups thus deserve having different behaviors directed towards them.

Equality is injustice.

 The quest for equality is a crusade against justice and fairness by individuals so egotistic that they honestly believe their fear of being judged is sufficient grounds for the abolishment of any form of societal judgment. They so fear justice they would burn civilization to the ground in order to avoid it. The cry for equality is only superficially a cry for justice. At its core, it is a plea to not be subject to it.

 Equality is injustice.


Fools rush in and Wise Men laugh…

A great bit of fun was had recently at the expense of Mark Shea, a soft-eyed fellow who finds himself absolutely titillated (whether he admits it to himself or not) by some of the thoughtcrime going on in our corner of the internet. He’s apparently been thinking about us quite a bit, which is flattering, but the fantasies he seems to have about us are unusual enough that a few Neoreactionaries felt inclined to respond to his advances in a manner that was perhaps not quite what he was hoping for.  His belief that the “Dark Enlightenment” is some kind of depraved conspiracy runs so deep it left him vulnerable to some magnificent trolling by Occam’s Razor and a few other folksNeedless to say, Shea ended up with significant egg on his face, and some observers were left wondering if the poor chap secretly delights in the idea of “phenotype examinations”.

Shea’s response to this whole affair was an amusing read, boiling down to what can be summarized as: “My feelings told me this made sense, so I didn’t bother fact-checking. I may have proved that no one should ever take me seriously, but because the comments made fun of me mercilessly instead of being serious I still won.”

An uncharitable reading perhaps.  I have been in somewhat of a hostile mood as of late, and perhaps it is unfair of me to let a tiny bit of that out on Shea.  Poor fool didn’t do anything necessarily wrong, per se, so I’ll cease my condescension of him here.  Let’s take this back to Neoreaction.

The core Neoreactionary demographic is comprised of highly remarkable individuals gifted with incredible intelligence and verbal acuity.  That’s just what it takes to cut it in the ranks of the intellectual vanguard of the Reaction.  Given this, it is an inevitability that when we see just how inane some of the people trying (emphasis on “trying”) to attack us are, we can’t help but laugh at them.

Neoreaction is never going to be appealing to anything other than a highly select and elite (dare I say Aristocratic?) demographic, and our culture is going to reflect that.  Our in-jokes are complex and nuanced, brimming with satire and simmering facetiousness, and if people misunderstand them, well, that merely serves to demarcate ingroup-outgroup distinctions now, doesn’t it?

It all boils down to signalling.  Either your attack on Neoreaction contains the proper signalling to let us know that you’re on our level (or close enough to it) and we should dialog with you seriously, or it doesn’t, and we drag you over the coals mercilessly as punishment for thinking you can take us on.  Consider it the intellectual equivalent of Chris Weidman destroying Anderson Silva’s leg (though this is an inaccurate comparison, for those fighters were relatively evenly matched, whereas the mismatch between Neoreaction and the majority of its detractors is extreme).

Most Neoreaction-phobes aren’t developing arguments to counter our particular breed of anti-modernist ideology.  Instead, they are operating off of a purely conditioned reflex to emotionally react against some of the points we make.  This is why I’ve been toying with adopting the tactic of smearing our detractors as “phobic”.  Though it is a leftist tactic that I find infantile, attacks like Shea’s are purely emotional in nature, and grounded primarily in fear.  These people actually are, to a certain degree, terrified of us.  Hence, I feel my use of the word is defensible on objective grounds.

With that in mind, though, the use of “-phobe” as a suffix to instigate shaming attacks has significant leftist baggage and implications.  I am still fleshing out the details of what I think about this.  It is an amusing thought to twist leftist language against itself, but there are some who say that to adopt their language is to play their game.  This might have some validity to it, and even though I like the thought of beating liberals at their own game, there is the argument to be made that to merely play their game is sufficient for them to win.

I used to not take this line of reasoning seriously, but recently I have been judging it to have more weight.  The tactic is an effective one*, this is true.  However, to merely flip the signs around seems insufficient to truly convey the vast chasm of difference between Modernism and Neoreaction.  It implies that we still mince words within a Modernist framework, which is poor signalling on our part.  The point of Neoreaction is that we are not Modernists.  To imply that we are is to utterly defeat the point.

So do I thus condemn the use of buzzwords like “-phobe” to describe Anti-Neoreactionists?  No.  Though the specific term has significant baggage, the tactic itself serves as a powerful way to put down opponents and proclaim membership within the ingroup.  I think it would be most prudent of Neoreactionaries to do such things, but we’re going to have to think up some neologisms if we want this sort of thing to have a distinctly Reactionary flair.  I’m usually fairly clever with such things, but I’ve been hitting a blank here for good buzzwords.

Anti-Neoreactionists isn’t very witty, but it does work, though it’s a bit of a mouthful and I’m not exactly happy with it.  I’ve heard “Beta Conservatives” suggested for our “conservative” detractors, which amuses me greatly.  I think it plays up nicely how the dynamic between modern conservatives and the left is akin to that of a beta orbiter and an attractive woman (to put things in Manosphere terms for a bit).  When push comes to shove, a “conservative” will White Knight for a liberal against a Reactionary, so the term makes sense in that regard.

It has also been suggested that modern conservatives have “Battered Wife Syndrome”, and this is why they keep crawling back to progressive ideas of “equality” and “democracy”, but I think it would probably be in poor taste to think up slurs in this vein (though the metaphor rings true).

Of course, most attacks on Neoreaction are going to be from rabid leftists.  Some writers (such as Vox Day) have been using “Rabbits” to describe such folk, a term which I believe originates from Anonymous Conservative‘s book on evolutionary psychology and political affiliation.  I kind of like this one, and I think I’m going to begin using it myself.

I also think “Loser Brigade” is pretty funny, if not exactly highbrow.

We could always put them all together (“Hey look, it’s another Beta Conservative from the Loser Brigade” is no doubt going to be my first thought every time I see another attack on Neoreaction from a so-called “conservative”), but I’d rather open up the dialogue.  What terms do my fellow Neoreactionaries think would be good for this purpose?

*Or rather, was, for it is beginning to lose its effectiveness in cowing thoughtcriminals in much the same way that “racist” and “sexist” are now ineffective in silencing determined opposition.


March of the Legionnaire

It has always been a part of the ethos of a Legionnaire to seek out new lands to conquer.  Though the years have continued their march, and the Legions have dwindled into what is essentially non-existence, still does this fire burn in the hearts of many.

I am no longer in the United States, but in northern Africa, in territory that was once a part of the Greatest Empire the world has ever known (and has been a colonial possession of various other empires throughout its history).  This will be my situation for the next several months.  I can’t guarantee either regular posting and engagement with fellow neoreactionaries, but I’ll try my best.  I’ll be a bit slower on the trigger than usual if some big issue or neoreactionary hit piece pops up, but if anything of great importance comes up I’ll make an effort to type up a few words.

I’ve got a few posts in the pipeline that I’m tinkering with at the moment.  No promises when I’ll get them out, but I will still be posting on occasion.  I’m not going dark.

Field reports will also be intermixed with my usual fare.  I’ll obviously be taking a Reactionary perspective in these, which, to my knowledge, is not something that has been done for many, many years (and if one considers the writings of British Imperialists to be Reactionary in nature…they certainly weren’t at the time).

Speaking of Reactionary ideas, though I am surrounded by some of the most left-leaning people I have ever met, there are a few students in my program who, though they don’t even read Reactionary blogs, are most definitively Reactionary in philosophy.  It has been most fun discussing with these individuals the glory of European Civilization, the merits of Empire and the truths of Human Biodiversity, and it was a pleasant surprise for all of us involved.

Reaction isn’t just a little idea we in this corner of the internet have stumbled upon.  It is a broader social phenomenon that we self-proclaimed Reactionaries and Neoreactionaries just happening to be reporting on.