Friday Night Fragments #13

Bryce put this up last Friday, but I’ll offer a quick commentary on it now. He slipped a sentence in there which I think deserves some attention:

Financial and monetary policies are chosen less because they will demonstrably be good for the economy, but because they appeal to the interests of the ruling class.

Who runs society? By definition, the elites. How do they run society? For the benefit of themselves. This is a dynamic that no political arrangement has ever quite eliminated.

The implication is obvious. Society should be set up so that the elites only benefit if they benefit the society at large. But is is this even possible? How could we completely eliminate any method by which the elite could benefit themselves without benefiting society writ large? Could we? Should we? Would we?

Tricky, tricky, tricky.

There’s something very strange about the world of critics. Art critics, film critics, food critics, they all seem to have the same problem.

How does you legitimize yourself as a critic? You have to portray yourself as discerning and full of taste. One would think that this would lead to holier-than-thou games as critics try to paint themselves as better than other critics and as newcomers try to gain a foothold in this world.

Does this actually happen? I must confess I have no idea. Could anyone with any knowledge of the field help me out here?

I’ve been trying to figure out which country is more likely to leave the EU: Greece or the United Kingdom. The UK wants to pulls out, but Cameron would never do it. Meanwhile, Greece looks like it’s hurtling toward some kind of exit, probably forced but possibly of its own free will. I’d be surprised if both of them were in the EU in two years, but I’ll admit this Euro-drama could play out for a very long time.

For what it’s worth, I’d bet on Greece leaving first (voluntarily or otherwise), with the Brits sticking around for at least the next several years and doing a lot of talking about how they would really like to leave while never actually doing so (mostly due to hemming and hawing and stalling by UK politicians).

Spirit animals. Not the Native American conception, the new age concept. It’s a pretty weird thing. I’m all on board with using symbolic conceptions to convey a dense packet of information, but outside of the general chick-bait factor of the spirit-animal concept, I’m skeptical of its utility. Maybe you’ll pick up some self-knowledge if you actually go on a vision quest or whatever, but mostly this sort of thing is just empty signalling.

Even if you actually rely on cultural symbolism and not just feelings to discuss the concept, it’s still pretty fuzzy (and when something is ambiguous and indefinite enough to make even me skeptical, then you know it’s pretty damn fuzzy).

What’s my spirit animal? The owl. The raven. The cobra. The dolphin. The ferret. The panther. The chameleon. All these and a hell of a lot more on top of them. I’ve got a little bit of everything inside of me.

Don’t aspire to be the type of person who is easily reducible. That’s just unbecoming.

Ever witnessed an argument about capitalism between two college students? It is a sight to behold. I got the chance to observe this the other day. One was arguing that capitalism as a moral ideology is bankrupt. The other was arguing that capitalism as a mechanism for distributing resources is superior to all other systems.

Not one of them realized that they were talking past each other because they weren’t even debating the same topic. Capitalism as a moral belief system versus capitalism as a societal mechanism isn’t a discussion. It’s two people talking about what they think is the same thing but really isn’t.

“I have a disagreement with the tenets of this particular religion.”
“What the hell are you talking about? Lots of people go to church on Sunday.”

Such an exchange would make just as much sense as the discussion these two young men were having.

I tried point this out to them. I don’t think either of them got it. Education really is wasted on the “educated”.

I ended up just sitting back and drinking my coffee instead of wasting words on minds that would not comprehend. Sometimes that’s all you can do.

Proper discourse can only take place between people who are in good faith. If one person has no intention of doing anything more than shouting, yelling, dropping ad hominems, and playing status games, that individual is not acting in good faith. Disagreement over the null hypothesis is not any of these things, but it does reflect a fundamental divide that can only be crossed if both sides are willing to work together.

If this gap cannot be crossed, this generally means that one side does not want it to be crossed. This is especially true if the two factions are highly alike in position, temperament, and belief.

It bears remembering that deepest feuds are not those between factions that are very different, but between those that are very similar. This dynamic has been known to lead to situations in which two factions will end up viciously fighting each other even as both believe wholeheartedly that they should be uniting together to fight a common foe.

If one side insists on fighting the other, it’s their fault if both sides are conquered by their mutual enemy. Great conquerors throughout history have often stirred up trouble between future conquests this way.

People who intentionally and knowingly put themselves in the position of the soon-to-be-conquered always end up with the yoke on their shoulders and the whip on their back, dragging their allies with them while blaming said allies the entire time.

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

There’s an old conception of genius not as something that comes from inside of you, but of something outside of you (usually considered to be God) that flows through you, using you as a conduit to manifest itself.

I’m not totally willing to throw out the modern conception (genius does tend to strike among high-IQ, highly creative people, and that’s not coincidence), but there is something to the traditional conception that doesn’t quite miss the mark.

This past week, I trashed two potential posts, both after having written more than half of them. Neither had quite the same magic that has animated the posts I’ve been writing recently. I’m not doing anything particularly different, but I’m not able to channel the same…whatever it was that was helping me put my thoughts together.

Oh well. C’est la vie. Good posts will resume…well, whenever the spirit moves me, I suppose.



Friday Night Fragments #12

The State of the Union address happened recently, which was a blunt reminder that the political theater in this country really is like a bad movie. I was actually planning on livestreaming it, but I calculated that I would be just as informed about what’s going on with a lot less investment of time if I just read the news recaps the next day (as it turned out, I ended up putting in additional effort and actually read the transcript of the whole thing). With the time I was able to free up, I was able to bang out a post and drink some whiskey. I think I made the right choice.

Still, there’s one thing that I realized about the whole state of affairs here that I don’t think I would have picked up had I not been paying some attention to the whole process.

Legitimacy in our society is partly determined by the ability to entertain. Why is Jon Stewart considered to be trustworthy? Because he is funny. Why do we continue to believe in the legitimacy of our government? Because it can put on a grand spectacle. One cannot help but think of Rome, when politicians won elections based on how well the feasts, celebrations, and gladiatorial matches they sponsored were received.

It’s easy to bemoan this state of affairs and call for something better, but it bears remembering that part of the reason all governments throughout history have managed to stay in power is by awing their subjects. Pomp and circumstance and ritual do much to cement the status quo (or put into place a new one), and the more I ponder on this the I more that I think they are absolutely necessary for sustaining the established order, whatever it may be.

Humans are not just creatures of myth, but also creatures of ritual, and it would be a cruel, dystopian society indeed that would take these things from them.

Mark Yuray takes aim at critical thinking. I step in to defend it. Beor the Old tries to mediate by drawing a helpful analogy. Yuray responds.

It seems we’re converging on the idea that perhaps things like critical thinking, leadership, and public speaking can be improved in the right people with the right training, but the way leftists try to do this is stupid. Sounds about right to me.

Suppose a militaristic, nationalist, right-wing political party comes to power in a major world country (say, for example, a Top 25 state in terms of population) by means of a military coup. This factions clamps down on the flow of immigration, encourages religiosity in the populace, promotes the formation of families and the production of children, and reforms the tax code to allow for the greater flourishing of independent enterprises. Neoreactionaries would be wetting themselves in ecstasy and tripping over themselves to apply for visas.

Suppose a militaristic, nationalist, right-wing political party comes to power in a major world country by means of a popular referendum. This factions clamps down on the flow of immigration, encourages religiosity in the populace, promotes the formation of families and the production of children, and reforms the tax code to allow for the greater flourishing of independent enterprises. Neoreactionaries would be strongly condemning them for promoting demotist ideals and encouraging democratic governance. We would only let them off the hook if they took away the right to vote upon assuming power.

This isn’t entirely unfair, either, as a group that derives support from the masses in such a way is going to feel beholden to the people instead of responsible for them, and this opens the entire country to the same demotic slide that occurs in any nation that allows for too much enfranchisement.

Is this a case of the perfect becoming an enemy of the good, or a case of historically-cognizant foresight correctly pointing out that we have in this case is the proliferation of the bad masked in a facade of the good?

This example is meant to illustrate the ontological/teleological divide that Neoreaction is attempting to build.

In one I my free-roam sessions this week, I spent a good chunk of time reading through various “Polandball” comics. Polandball, for the shamefully unaware, is a cutesy open-source style comic in which various world countries (mostly European) interact with each other in ways that reflect historical relationships and national character. It’s astounding just how often it hits the nail on the head. It’s also dangerously amusing.

Here were some of my favorites:






Dangerously amusing stuff.

There’s a world war one memorial on my university campus dedicated to the men from this institution who went off to fight and die in the trenches of Europe. It’s a little out of the way from the busiest campus hubs, but the route I take to walk downtown takes me past it. I’ve found myself stopping there and standing and staring for longer and longer periods of time as of late. Am I paying my respects to the dead? I don’t know. What I do know is that there is something beyond myself compelling me to stand there and contemplate.

There’s something about this memorial that exists beyond the mere physical. Stand too close, and you can feel the weight of the sacrifice that these men made. It sounds a bit crazy, but the feeling in the air is tangible. These men fought and bled and died in the mud, and that means something. How do I know? Because I can feel it. If you possess any sense of the spiritual, you’ll pick up on it too.

It’s the same way in a lot of old European churches. There’s a feeling in the air that lingers and settles upon you. It is the weight of hundreds of dead men, and it cannot be ignored.

If you have never experienced this, I cannot explain it to you. I can only recommend that if you ever set foot on that great continent, you find your way to a rural village church and read each and every one of the names on the walls. Once you read the same last name five or six times it will hit you.

Fathers. Brothers. Sons. The entire male lines of certain clans, wiped out. Gone forever.

So much death. So many lives taken. So many fires extinguished, banished to eternal darkness, culled by the harvest of Azrael, a feast for the table of Ares. There is a certain symbolism in the imagery of death as a figure with a scythe, and it is a fitting imagery indeed.

The spiritual. The divine. The occult. Call it whatever you like. Something is out there, and that something is very real indeed.


The God that dare not speak its Name

I have a major theological dispute with Islam, and it’s not the one that you might think.

Well, it is the one you might think, but that’s not what I’ll be discussing here. I’d like to focus on a particular point of departure that ties into some neoreactionary ideas.

Islam considers Azrael, the angel of Death, to be one of the archangels that serves God. I think they’ve got it wrong. To co-opt their particular language for a second, Death is not AN archangel. It is THE archangel, and none of the other servants of God can hold a candle to it. Death is the highest of the high, holiest of the holy, and it is to be exalted above all other of the angels.

That language doesn’t quite convey exactly what I mean to say, but it’s how I describe it to people of the monotheistic traditions. When I put it like that, they know exactly what I am talking about.

Death is the great force that shapes nature and the universe. Death is the thing that carves all that has been created. Death is the lord of life. In a very real and visceral sense, Death is God.

Not exactly, of course, but that turn of phrase is hits home in a way that I think is necessary in order to begin laying out my view. Bear with me here.

If I say that all things are carved by a great cycle of creation and destruction and we are all a reflection of this great current that drives the continuation of the universe, people think it sounds all vague and mystical but that it makes sense. They think it sounds all fancy, but then they think nothing of it. The ramifications don’t sink in unless I scream into their faces DEATH IS GOD.

Life makes no sense except in the presence of death.

Death is not God, but it is the highest tool of the thing that philosophers and theologians have attempted to discuss when the refer to the highest entity of the universe.

The Natural Order

The Structure of the Cosmos

The First Mover

The Final Cause



We can never experience this thing, whatever you wish to call it, but we can certainly experience death, and the experience of death is the closest that we can ever come to understand whatever thing it is that we think we are referring to when we speak whatever term we use to refer to it. Whatever this thing is, and whatever its name may be, what we can know about it is that Death is its most exalted servant.

We may not understand GOD (or whatever you want to call it), but we can understand Death, which in the context of our lived experience, acts as “God”.

This specter of death hanging over us all is the that thing that neoreactionaries commonly refer to when they evoke the name of “Gnon”. Those things that preserve that fragile ember of life are those that are said to comply with the will of Gnon. Those that would send us hurtling into the howling dark are said to violate the will of Gnon.

Gnon has no will. He just is, and he is nothing more than that which he is, and death is his most loyal servant, the one who executes his law upon those who rebel against him. Gnon IS a law, and death is the judge, jury, and executioner who would uphold it.

Blood for the blood god. Death for the death god. Sacrifice for the reaper.


Against Critical Thinking?

Mark Yuray is stirring up the waters with his latest post, “Rote learning Rocks, Critical Thinking Sucks“. It’s one of those berserk, no-holds-barred, fuck-everything-that-has-ever-existed assaults on a major progressive meme, so it is to be respected for that reason alone. Rock on, Yuray!

That said, in his desire to slaughter this sacred cow, he goes a bit overboard and swings his pendulum of death a bit too far to the other side.

His first step is to point out that the end results of what progressives say they are trying to promote with “critical thinking” are eerily similar to the consequences of intelligence:

I have a reactionary’s contempt for this new notion. Let’s review what critical thinking is supposed to cover:

– Solving complex problems

– Organizing information

– Communicating ideas

– Questioning dogma critically

– Reasoning

Interesting. It almost sounds like someone who goes through “critical thinking” education is supposed to come out intrinsically more intelligent. Reminder — the elements of an IQ test:

– Verbal comprehension

– Working memory

– Processing speed

– Perceptual reasoning

Yuray makes a very proper point here: that what progressives are actually fetishizing is intelligence (this seems like the proper point to remind everyone that it was originally the progressives who promoted the idea of eugenics to bring about a smarter population). Yuray makes a mistake, however, in conflating “intelligence” completely with “critical thinking”.

Intelligence is a natural property. Critical thinking is what you do with it.

Think of the mind as a vehicle. Intelligence is the engine. Critical thinking is all the parts that transfer the energy of the engine to the rest of the car. The set of parts you get at first can be made more efficient, but they are not the engine, and the engine is not them.

The first two qualities that Yuray mentions “Solving complex problems” and “Organizing information” in particular can be improved by focused instruction in various schema and logical algorithms designed to aid one in achieving those ends. Intelligence is certainly needed to solve complex problems, but having a varied set of tools in your mental toolbox is also a boon. To use a fairly dramatic example, think of how well you could solve various complex problems if you did not have math and language as your tools.

Courses and even university degrees in “Public Speaking” and “Leadership” already exist (despite the fact that both are obviously inborn abilities) and the whole educational system from kindergarten to doctorate programs rests largely on the assumption that all students have the potential to become intelligent, and are all equally capable of doing so.

I spent four years doing high school theater. I’ve seen what happens when you take a shy, nervous, tongue-tied person who can’t even string a cogent sentence together in casual conversation and teach them how to breathe, how to enunciate, and how to pace themselves. I’ve personally trained shy, nervous, tongue-tied people in how to breathe, enunciate, and pace themselves. I’ve seen the dramatic improvements they made not just in stagecraft, but in public speaking. I tell you now that anyone who says that you can’t teach public speaking is flat-out wrong.

Public speaking is one of the oldest subjects to have been taught. The Greeks did it. The Romans did it. Men like Demosthenes would spend hours each day training themselves in the art of public speaking. The reason they devoted such intense energy and devotion to mastering the craft is public speaking is exactly because it can be taught and it can be mastered.

Yuray says that public speaking is like critical thinking in that it cannot be taught. I say that critical thinking is like public speaking in that it can be taught.

One man’s modus tollens is another man’s modus ponens, I suppose (hey look, more examples of logical schema!).

If Yuray wants to make the argument that a man’s absolute potential in such matters is innate, he will face no disagreement from me. I firmly believe that not only is potential fixed, but that most people do not have the potential to be good at “critical thinking” (or public speaking, but here I digress too much). His argument, as stated, is that not only our potential is fixed, but that our ability to make good on our potential is as well. I think this is absolutely incorrect.

The best reading I can give of his stated position is that education can’t improve someone’s potential, it can only give them an opportunity to make good on it. I would agree with this completely. Perhaps Yuray meant to say this, but I will not be so condescending as to put words in his mouth. I refuse to disrespect him by acting as if he is incapable of clarifying something if he so chooses. For what it’s worth, I think he means what he says and said what he meant, which is praiseworthy, not shameful.

I agree with Yuray at least 90% here. Progressive insistence on educating everyone to become critical thinkers is horribly misguided. Critical thinking is, for the most part, something that cannot be improved. My sole point of departure is that I believe that certain aspects of critical thinking can be improved in certain individuals.

Not everyone has the innate capacity to be a surgeon, but those who do can end up doing a hell of a lot of good for the world if that potential is nurtured and developed. Practice is without doubt the most important factor, but that doesn’t mean that properly applied instruction cannot expedite the learning process.

Olympic athletes do not win medals based on genetic potential, though they absolutely need that to succeed. They leverage their innate ability with intense practice and carefully chosen coaches to help them know how they can progress even more quickly. I view critical thinking in much the same light, with the caveat that winning an Olympic medal is dependent on many factors and critical thinking boils down to just two (innate intelligence + the schema & logical algorithms you are applying).

Finally, I would like to end this piece by saying that although I do not agree fully with Yuray on the topic of critical thinking, I do agree with him that there is much to be gained from rote learning, and that for people who are already fairly rigorous thinkers, this is probably the avenue down which they should direct their energies. I myself like to memorize poetry, and the first poem I ever memorized was Robert Frost’s Fire and Ice, which I recommend as a nice, simple start for anyone who wants to get into this habit.

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.


Friday Night Fragments #11

The shadow looms heavy. The scorpion bears the weight of the sting and will suffer the burn when the frothing mess boils into a river of blood. The boar will become the owl as the wrath of those who have been roused turns from a trickle to a river. The strings of the spiders cling to all in the dark as the hydra laughs from behind the veil hidden within the song of the night. Hidden deep beneath the steps of this dance, the portents of the coming fire are rousing from their slumber as foreshock to the rumbling that will shake the plane of the living and beyond.

Fractures. Fragments. Howls in the dark. What comes next is beyond what any of you will ever know.

Wikipedia, you’re nothing to me now. You’re not a brother, you’re not a friend. I don’t want to know you or what you do. I don’t want to see you at the hotels, I don’t want you near my house. When you see our mother, I want to know a day in advance, so I won’t be there. You understand?

I would like to expand on a small point that SOBL made in that piece, one that was tangential to his point. Specifically, this bit:

I have never understood why NBA players and rappers idolize Scarface when Michael Corleone is the real kingpin.

I think this ties in to something I mentioned to a friend of mine recently: that the urge to dominate and the urge to succeed, while often manifesting themselves simultaneously, are not the same thing. They are rather correlated tendencies that run orthogonal to each other. Think of them as fire and ice. While they can certainly both be present in a particular individual, it is often the case that one tends to dominate.

Montana is all fire: filled with bluster and ambitious to the point of insanity. Corleone is ice: cool, calm, and calculating. One is driven by balls and bravado. The other relies on cunning as his weapon.

See how these two types might appeal to different types of people?

The type of person who wants to be the big man, the alpha male looming over his conquered lands, will tend to gravitate towards the fiery archetype of Tony Montana. It’s quite understandable why aspiring alphas like basketball players and hip-hop artists would idolize Scarface.

Different strokes for different folks. Everyone has their own tastes. Give me a moment, however, to defend mine. You see, Montana is a third-rate version of the Joker: all rampaging id and maniacal excess (you’ll note that the same tendency can be observed in fictional characters who are not bad guys, such as Hank Moody in “Californication”). The difference is twofold, however.

First, Montana is trapped in a prison of his material desires, which acts as both a leash that pulls him forward and the noose that hangs him. The Joker has no such weakness. Montana and the Joker may both little more than unshackled id, but Montana is an id driven by desire while the Joker is paradoxically an id without desire.

Second, while the Joker is devious and cunning enough (not to mention unscrupulous enough) to actually get away with his schemes, Montana doesn’t have two brain cells to rub together. He says it himself that all he has in life are his balls and his word, both of which get him in way over his head, at which point his own idiocy and myopic moral code sink him.

And Corleone? Corleone never puts a foot wrong. He out-thinks, out-schemes, and out-maneuvers everyone who threatens him, and he does it not for a pile of toys and a trophy wife but for The Family. Both families.

A great villain is one who entertains us and captivates us and makes us feel like the good guys. A villain who is good at being a villain is one who succeeds at what he set out to do while avoiding the “inevitable” fate of most villains. Tony Montana may be a great villain, but Michael Corleone is good at being a villain.

Aspire to be whichever most pleases you. Just remember that when push comes to shove, the Scarfaces of the world tend to meet nasty ends at the hands of the Godfathers.

Porphyrogenitus and I had a short discussion on Twitter earlier this week as to the struggle between secular progressivism and Islam. We’re both in a strange position in which we would prefer to live under neither system, but we realize that we would more likely thrive in a progressive state. Now, yes, there are a lot of ways to live under progressivism, and a lot of ways to live under Islam (just look at the differences between, say, Morocco and Saudi Arabia). Having lived under both Islam and secular progressivism, the thing that I’ve realized is I actually am better adapted to a secular progressive state. It is a bit weird at first to realize this, though unsurprising upon further consideration. After all, which of these two systems have I been raised in?

I have stronger dislike for the progressive agenda, yet my stake in keeping the racket going is much higher than any possible benefits I would accrue from living in a world dominated by Islamic law; even the loosest and least stringent interpretation.

Life is weird sometimes.

Speaking of Twitter:

If that’s the daily dose of funny, it’s now time for some whiplash. Let’s take a look at how civil liberties are doing!


I’ve got this idea bouncing around at the back of my mind that a bunch of us on the neoreactionary side of things should pull a “Mystery Science Theater 3000” when the “50 Shades of Grey” movie comes out. Great idea, or GREAT idea? Anyway, I’ve no idea how we could co-ordinate this (being somewhat geographically disparate), but consider this a trial balloon to see if there would be any interest.

The media really is a funny thing. One of its purposes is to brainwash you so you lose your mind, and the other is to tell you what the plan is so that you don’t lose your mind.

To clarify:

Try not to lose your minds out there.


The King of Ashes

What do you see?

The first thing you’ll notice is a great preponderance of sweaty men standing around looking nervous and adjusting their ties. You might also notice the not-so-subtle imagery that indicates that Frank and Claire’s relationship is going to deteriorate this season. Try to look deeper.

What is House of Cards? It is a pop culture phenomenon. Frank Underwood is everyone’s favorite politician. He was in the latest “Call of Duty” game. We have real politicians trying to conflate themselves with him to better their image. Frank Underwood is exactly the politician we think we want, and we want him to be guiding us wherever we go.

One of the reasons that House of Cards is so popular is that there is nothing a weak, womanly society desires more than strong man to come in and take charge, and Frank Underwood is exactly the kind of power-hungry psychopath that makes our panties drop. How fitting it is that this new season is coming out so soon after the premiere of the “50 Shades of Grey” movie. If that isn’t some kind of divine portent, what is?

What type of feeling does this trailer try to instill in you? Let me tell you. It wants you to feel the thrill of the hunt and the rush of battle. The air starts to buzz and you can feel the metallic taste of blood on your tongue. Your hair stands on end and lightning starts to hum through your veins. Your eyes being to tingle and you feel an ocean of savagery begin to rise within you while all measure of compassion, empathy, or conscience fades away.

Let the butchery begin. A fitting catchphrase for a show that so revels in it.

Is is any wonder that power hungry schmucks and status-whoring young women love this show? Every intern and low-level wannabe big-shot in DC touches themselves at night at the thought of one day becoming Frank Underwood.

For all those familiar with the Gervais Principle, I ask you, which group of people is most likely to enjoy this show: clueless, losers, or sociopaths? If you guessed that this is a show that placates the clueless who want to be sociopaths, you guessed correctly.

Well, and the losers too. The more the merrier, and there’s really no lack of suckers who will try to internalize this show in a buffoonish quest to become some kind of sociopolitical ubermensch.

The kind of people who can actually learn a thing or two from shows like this are the kind of people who would have learned those things sooner or later. They may not be wired to be wolves, but at least they’ll have sharper teeth than the plodding herd animals who comprise most of humanity. Better to be a fox than a sheep, if nothing else.

Mitchell has rightly pointed out that if you’re being triggered, you’re being played. I will go one step further and say that any time you’re experiencing an externally-imposed emotion, you’re being set up for something.

“We’re murderers, Francis.”
“We’re survivors.”

This is a show that wants you to ask whether there is even a difference between these two things. It wants you to ask this so that you can feel like a badass while being a cog in the machine. It will keep you docile. It will keep you complacent.

Look how edgy I am. I’m a hardcore killer. Fuckin’ yeah I’ll keep working this shitty, underpaid job. I’m a fucking nightmare for wimpy little pussies like Cecil over in accounting. I’m going to do the best fucking job ever on this make-work my boss assigned me while he gives me a pay cut.

Shows like this are brilliant., This is part of the reason why they set us up so well to accept whatever it is they are trying to say. This is a pretty raw deal on our part.

Open mind. Insert programming here.

There is no better way to shut down critical thinking than to tell someone a good story.

I may lie, cheat, and intimidate to get what I want, but at least I get the job done, so I hope some of you were taking notes.

That’s got to be one of the most transparent pleas for blind eyes and excessive power that I’ve ever seen. It is no sin to enjoy this show, but to accept it is to submit to a wolf that declares itself to be your shepherd. People who are willing to accept any and all actions by their elite are being set up to get slaughtered like sheep.

If you’re reading this now, I have bad news for you. You are not a noble white knight. You are not a wolf. You’re a speck in the pile of ashes. Don’t get swept up in the narrative. Keep your wits about you. Avoid getting caught in the currents that are stirred up to keep the fish swimming in the right direction.

It’s the only chance you have.

It would be a great bit of rhetoric to end this post by saying that Frank Underwood is exactly the kind of politician we deserve. I wish we had that much going for us.


Le Coup du Marteau et L’Aube Rouge

It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good,
When the Saxon began to hate.

They were not easily moved,
They were icy — willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the Saxon began to hate.

Their voices were even and low.
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not suddenly bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the Saxon began to hate.

-Rudyard Kipling, “The Wrath of the Awakened Saxon”

I can’t wait for the trial.

You know the one I’m talking about, don’t you?

I suppose not. Let me clarify. Sooner or later (I am guessing this year, but perhaps next), there is going to be a dramatic act of violence against one of the Muslim communities in a major European country. The perpetrator will be caught, and the elites will do their damnedest to turn the trial into a grand spectacle. Can’t make an example out of some racistxenophobicrightwingbigot if no one is paying attention, after all.

A year ago at this time, I seem to recall predicting that it would be either France or Italy that will see the first stirrings of a native revolt against Muslim immigrants. Having considered this position further, I would have to refine my position to be either France or Germany (though Sweden cannot be ignored and might also be ground zero for a nativist backlash). Italy may be the birthplace of fascism, but it’s not being pushed to quite the same degree as other places.

Britain is an interesting case. They’ve always been the most independent-minded of the Europeans (a not unpredictable result of having been cooped up on that island for so long and having the Channel to isolate you from all the squabbling of the neighbors). They’re certainly one of the more likely candidates to say au revoir to the EU, but one gets the sense that they’re not nearly at risk of getting a national hard-on for “removing kebab” as certain other countries.

Anyway, the trial. It’s going to be quite a spectacle. More fuel to the fire, really.

Someone really wants it to happen. Someone needs it to happen.

Let’s get crazy.

Who benefits from the boiling turmoil of ethnic conflict in Europe?

Turmoil in Europe shifts public opinion rightward (as ethnic conflicts are wont to do). A rightward shift in the population does the opposite of benefiting the elite, unless, of course, they are trying to quash such sentiments by crushing them in a dramatic show of force. This could be incentive for them to provoke a nationalist backlash.

I don’t think this is very likely though. It’s a stupid plan, and completely deviates from their usual approach of manipulating the media narrative to serve their own ends. Besides, you would think they would have learned from the Zimmerman and Wilson shenanigans in the states that the unintended consequences are just as powerful (if not more so) than the intended ones.

Unless of course, they wanted to use such a trial to inflame tensions (for whatever reason) and not inflame tensions in order to provoke actions for which they could try someone.

What if the elites are hoping to spark ethnic conflict in order to clear their countries out completely?

You see how complicated this sort of theorizing gets. You also see how most hypotheses that can be generated verge dangerously close to looney-bin territory. And yet, it is exceedingly difficult to know what level of crazy is “too crazy” and the possibility of there being an undiscovered diamond in the rough hangs always over your head.

Right-wing parties like Le Front Nationale benefit from attacks like this, but it’s a stretch to say that they are behind these attacks. They have neither the resources nor the connections to pull this off. To wonder if they are behind it is bad conspiracy thinking.

Putin benefits, as right-wing European political parties stand to gain from a backlash against Muslims, and right-wing political parties are those that are most willing to work with him and help him forge stronger ties with European countries. It helps him solidify control, and I am sure he is well aware of that.

Still, Islamic jihadis aren’t exactly Russia’s go-to tools when subversion is the card they choose to play. They may benefit from occurrences like this, but it would be a hard case to make that they’re the ones instigating them (especially given the complete lack of evidence pointing toward them in any way).

Mitchell has pointed out that it is a possibility that American and/or French intelligence services may be behind this attack. Do I think this is the case? Yes. No. Maybe. As Mitchell puts it: “Mu”. I neither believe nor disbelieve. Belief is a hindrance when trying to suss out this sort of thing.

If Mitchell is correct that the US has been experimenting with using Islamic extremists to further its own ends, though, then we have further reason to cast a wary eye towards the US.

Hell, it’s even worth mentioning the Jews, because A) No good conspiracy theory is complete without them and B) There is literally nothing that I would put past the Mossad. Those guys are like the Lex Luthor of the intelligence world. You would have to go to some pretty insane lengths to be certain that you’re overestimating them.

(Side note: I guess that makes the CIA the Joker.)

I’ll even bring up that had this event not happened, the news cycle would have turned its soulless eyes and insatiable gullet towards the British royal family and payed a bit more attention to the allegations that Prince Andrew had used a sex slave that had been loaned to him by a guy who had 20 different phone numbers for Bill Clinton. If you want a conspiracy theory, this is the node where you should begin. There are so many rabbit holes to investigate that just trying to count them is chilling.

Finally, it bears repeating that the Charlie Hebdo shootings might just have been a random act of violence by two young men who were descended from aggressive, clannish populations and who believed in a religion that can very easily be interpreted to condone all sorts of horrific violence on unbelievers.

Oh, okay, one more theory just for fun. This attack was incited/encouraged/provoked in order to assess which individuals would act most strongly and vehemently against Muslims. As these people are the most likely to be the flies in the ointment in any sort of progressive utopia, any budding bringer of said utopia would be wise to identify them in order to deal with them later as needed.

See how this could be dangerous for people like us?

What if Neoreaction is being used as a honeypot to lure in the people most likely to be troublemakers in a hyper-progressive society?