Interesting Times

A few years ago, in a time before I knew of The Red Pill or Neoreaction or a whole host of things that I know now, I stumbled across a Sweden-based English Magazine called Interesting Times. They were sadly forced to cease their activities after nine editions, but I devoured those nine editions regardless. Looking back, some of their stuff was a bit ridiculous, but even now, I still hold a certain fondness for that eclectic (and often eccentric) publication that believed above all else that “The future is cyberpunk”.

The future is cyberpunk. It’s not a prediction, but an aesthetic; an aesthetic that I’ve kept with me ever since. It’s an aesthetic that has been rearing its head within me once again in recent months. It’s an aesthetic that has caused me to increasingly looks towards the future for understanding, not just the past (this is one of the reasons I felt that I had to retire the “Legionnaire” pseudonym).

I’ve decided that when I free up the time (and I’ve worked my way through a bit more of my reading list), I’m going to go back and read all nine editions. I’m sure I’d find much of it kitschy, overblown, and overly dramatic. Still, there was also much in there that I didn’t quite have the tools to fully appreciate at the time, and I have no doubt that I could get even more out of it now then I did when I first read it some years ago.

You can join me in doing so here.

I have no doubt that you’ll find at least something of value in it. Will you enjoy it? I’ll leave the blurb from the about page right here below, so you can decide for yourself.

Interesting Times is a self-help magazine for extreme people, helping you survive and thrive in the cyberpunk future of today.

Headquartered in Sweden, the magazine provides a unique perspective on the current age of possibility, where every new happening holds the potential for both disaster and ground- breaking success. The magazine aims to implement total world domination using a shock & awe toolbox of positive thinking, power armor and pornstar girlfriends, edifying the reader with an eclectic mix of interesting subjects including lifestyle design, preparations for the post-apocalypse, and the pursuit of super- human fitness through batmanesque bodyhacking. Building better bad-asses is our main objective and we aim to please.

The suck stops here!

Your mileage may vary, but I can guarantee an entertaining ride.

Friday Night Fragments #31

There once was a blogger named Yarvin
Some right-wingers found him quite charmin’
But Strange Loop was not
As open in thought
And they found his views quite alarmin’

The strange affair of the Strange Loop Affair is probably not going to be news to some of my readers, but it does bear some discussion. To give a brief summary: quarantine protocols regarding Curtis Yarvin — patient zero of the NR24 Lentivirus (an infection that can linger in the body for years before manifesting symptoms) — were nearly violated by the Strange Loop Tech conference, who had invited him to speak without realizing the potential danger. Such breach of quarantine could have exposed innumerable innocents to the ravages of the NR24 virus.

Despite the fallout from this event, there are fortunately no confirmed cases of infection. If you suspect that you or someone you know has been afflicted with the NR24 virus, please contact the proper authority figures so that swift remedial action may be taken.


A new study has come out that is notable not just for its conclusion, but also its awkwardly worded phrasing. I quote from the abstract:

Overall, 14.3% of female and 10.8% of male students had experienced a pregnancy.

Granted, I didn’t go to high school in New York, but in my four years, nowhere near one out of every ten boys found themselves pregnant. Not even close.

Yes, yes, I know what they meant, that’s not exactly the point now, is it?

Kidding aside, I’m not able to access the full text of the article, so I had to turn to media write-ups to get some of the more juicy details, but certain things jumped out at me in a dramatic way:

28.6 percent of self-identified gay or bisexual male students, and 37.7 percent of males who’d had sex with both men and women, had gotten someone pregnant, while only 10 percent of heterosexual male students, or those with only female sex partners, had impregnated someone.

On first reading that I assumed that the reporter covering the story had misinterpreted something. I figured there was no way that could be correct. Yet, if no mistakes were made, those are the numbers that the study found. What are we to make of that?

Those are crazy numbers.

Also of interest this week would be the South Africans mercenaries who have been fighting Boko Haram over the past few months. Most of the coverage has done it’s best to play up the “these guys must be racists because all South Africans are racist so we can’t really root for them even though they are killing people who we will admit to be bad guys” angle, but a welcome breath of fresh air has been the six-part write-up by (Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six).

I suppose it would be almost trite to predict an increased reliance upon mercenaries as the monopoly of the nation-state on organized violence erodes further. I’m almost embarrassed to predict this, as it’s so obvious, but even though this is akin to the training wheels of making predictions it still seems worth saying.

The Mitrailleuse has a chart up that attempts to plot the political leanings of various media outlets along with..shall we say..the tenor of their delivery. If you look closely you might just find a few very familiar names among the mess.

Life is absurd. That’s half the fun, of course, but there are times when this absurdity grates on a certain kind of person. They might find themselves asking why things are just so strange.

There are many reasons for absurdity, but one of the reasons why things might be made absurd on purpose is as a demonstration of power and a means of enforcing submission. Spandrell touches on one such example from Chinese history in The Purpose of Absurdity. He then goes on to make some clarifications in his follow-up post: The Cause of Absurdity. Both are fantastic reads.

Scott Alexander over at Slate Star Codex put up a gripping post the other day. I would call it a “choose your own adventure” story of sorts, but that would perhaps miss the point. It’s not really that on a surface level, and there’s much more to it beneath the surface level anyway. Definitely well worth a read.

I shudder to throw out even more links when this edition of the fragments has already gone from a collection of short snippets and half-completed thoughts to a link round-up, but NIO has had a couple good posts this week and I would feel remiss if I didn’t give a shout-out to both of them.

The super structure upon which progressive thought resides is the Hegelian theodicy which is heavily derived from Christian theology. Within this theodicy, evil and the negative are overcome by the good and positive in a continuous process of thesis, antithesis and then synthesis until reconciliation of the universe is competed.

Theodicy, Negative Dialectics, and Post Modernism

Phronima are therefore Gnostic style systems which function as parasites on productive and effective civilisation metaphysical structures. Progressivism proper is a phronima. To this effect Jims observation that –

“Progressivism wears the religions it has devoured like a monster that dresses itself in the skins of people it has eaten.”

Is apt, very apt. Genius in fact.

Katechon and Gnosticism as a Civilizational Battle
Finally, since it seems fitting to actually finish off with a fragment instead of just a link, here’s a little back-and-forth from the comments on my last fragments:

Aeoli Pera: Love the map, thanks for posting.

>“People are going to project themselves onto you anyway. Why not give them more to cling to? The honest ones will always see in you truth and the liars will always assume that honeyed words mask bitter realities and those who speak neither truth nor lies will always see only possibilities. It is tempting to encourage such beliefs and sing the siren song of imagination and illusion.”

I recently hypothesized that Gervais principle “power talk” works like this [DG’s edit: post in question here]. A person says something verbally which is meant to trigger one or more associations, which in the end works out as a complex social signaling behavior.

Donovan Greene: I’d say that hits at something essential. Very essential. True “power talk” can get to be far more complex than that, but that might very well be the building block from which all the other tricks and tactics emerge.

Here’s something that might help your examination:

It’s a case study in (among other things) power talk between two (fictional) alpha males. Great example of how power talk fits in with other factors such as political negotiations and holding frame. You might find it useful as you develop your interpretive paradigms.

Get a little power talk in this weekend. You’ll feel better for it.

Friday Night Fragments #7

It appears that we’ve hit the lucky number seven on these round-ups. That’s actually a fair number of fragments, and I’m pleasantly surprised that I’ve so far been able to think of things to put out each week.

Surprises aside, there have been quite a number of interesting things being said elsewhere this past week, and it only seems fair to give credit where credit is due. As such, this is going to be more of a link-fest than anything else this week.

-Free Northerner took me up on the challenge to tackle bisexuality through a Neoreactionary lens. He makes a clear distinction between bisexuality as a behavior and bisexuality as an innate preference, which I think is an important separation to make.

-Illimitable Man has put together a proper examination of “the shit test”. The shit test, like so many red-pill concepts, is widely conceptualized in a very narrow, limited way and given less analysis than is due. I suppose this failure of imagination is a side effect of the tendency of so many red-pill men to have no further ambitions than getting laid and lifting weights. Illimitable Man is one of the few who has any inclination to see a bigger picture, and thus one of the few red-pill guys left who has anything interesting to say. Both his blog and his Twitter are worth following.

-The term Neo-Reactionary seems to have made its way to the European continent. This is either convergent evolution of a most linguistic sort, or a poaching of the term (you’ll note they use the hyphen, which is so 2012). For what it’s worth, I’ve had 314 visits to this blog from France since its inception. Make of that what you will…

-There was this:

To publicly promote a political profile of peculiarly self-congratulating moral earnestness it is simultaneously necessary to feed the shadows. What happens unseen is essential to the purification of the image…As democracy ‘matures’, reality is processed increasingly in secret.

Nick Land

The more that your world is an illusion, the more you have to turn to the occult to understand it. In a world of so many illusions, the most dangerous people are the ones who know how to fight in the shadows.

-Finally, Nydwracu proposes a tripartite political classification based on the Atlantean/Hyperborean distinction, but with a third category: Turanian.

I think I’ve got that Atlantean and Hyperborean concepts down fairly well (mercantile, cosmopolitan, driven by creative destruction versus traditional, hierarchical system primarily bound together by ethnic and/or religious ties), but I feel like there’s a lot I’m missing and my interpretations are more akin to a caricature than a nuanced interpretation.

For what it’s worth, I’ve conceptualized the two as mobile river/sea people versus sedentary farmers. The tricky bit is in adjusting these mental conceptions to fit with a three-part classification.

I’m not going to pretend I understand this “Turanian” thing. If this is really a sea/synthesis/land distinction, shouldn’t they be the farmers? What if this thing is more akin to sailors/farmers/miners? That doesn’t seem right, but the only clue as to what Turanian encompasses is “Turkmenistan”, which doesn’t tell me much. Maybe Turanianism relies on having large deserts and massive reserves of natural gas? That would tie in chunks of the Middle East, interestingly enough. This may actually be the correct classification for one or two countries in that region (depends on where the split between Turanian and Hyperborean lies).

Or maybe it just means being the gatekeepers of the Door to Hell.

Atlantean: Trade and commerce; Hyperborean: Agriculture; Turanian: Resource extraction? And where the hell does industry fit in?

I’m really hoping we get a more fleshed-out explanation of all this.

Last week, I devoted a big chunk of the fragments to a quick overview of the way I conceptualized ideas of the “deep state” in American society. Normally, talk of such things goes hand-in-hand with a hostility to the idea of secret elites controlling everything and demands that ordinary people (and/or honest politicians…like there is such a thing anymore) do something in order to throw off the tentacles of the deep state. You won’t see any of that with me. I see no need to respond with some knee-jerk reaction that presupposes that the existence of such a thing is such a bad idea. It might be, but I’m not going to jump to that sort of conclusion straight away. Hostility on my part towards any sort of “deep state” is commensurate with the degree to which its interests conflict with mine (which is the same standard to which I hold pretty much everything), not its existence.

Side note: To what degree is the development of a “deep state” an inevitable outcome of a government that becomes as large and complex as that of the United States? Corruption seems to play a key role in the evolution of such a thing (note how initial analyses of the deep state idea were based mostly on Italy and Turkey). My guess is that you need a large bureaucratic network, a certain level of corruption, and an official diffusion of key power in order to sow the seeds that lead to the formation of such things, but that’s just me spit-balling off the top of my head. I have no doubt that someone with 5 minutes and a better understanding of how political systems form could produce a better analysis, but this seems like a decent (if rough) start.

Related: Nick Land has begun a discussion of how to practically deal with a Deep State while simultaneously laying the ground work for a Neoreactionary defense of such a thing, which has prompted Bryce to start putting together a theory of the Deep State. Is the Deep State the next meal on the Neoreactionary platter? I do hope so.

I’m still not totally convinced that it was really North Korea that hacked Sony, but the media sure did hop on that narrative and run with it. What are we to make of that?


Friday Night Fragments #3

If asked, most people will claim to desire peace:

Techno-commercialist: It does not benefit us to go to war. We gain far more from the current arrangement.
Ethno-nationalist: We simply wish to live in peace among our own kind. We do not care what other people do.
Religious-traditionalist: Peace is harmony is love. God did not make us to be bloodthirsty savages.
All: We desire only to be left alone in peace and live our lives the way we best see fit.

And yet, it is so easy to rile them up for war:

Techno-commercialist: We must eliminate this threat to our stability and prosperity.
Ethno-nationalist: The burden falls upon us to protect our race.
Religious-traditionalist: Deus Vult.
All: We will do what we must to protect ourselves against this threat to us that cannot be stopped any other way.

What shall we make of this?

Bryce Laliberte has been thinking about the destructive effects of public school on children.

I want this sound bite plastered on the doors of every school in this country.

This brought to my mind a memory from this summer when I was meeting up with Aimless Gromar. At some point I mentioned to him that I had gone through my entire K – 12 indoctination education process in the public school system, and he had half-jokingly asked how I had managed to get through it without ending up seriously messed-up.

Let me tell you all a story. In second grade, I was identified as one of the “gifted” children and sent to a special study group with other “gifted” children. We were given more difficult math problems to work on than the other students. The teacher in charge of this group had, for whatever reason, not worked out the answers to these problems beforehand, and so was concurrently attempting to solve them at the same time as her charges. This became an issue when I needed to check my answers, because it was discovered that I was solving the problems faster than the person who was supposed to be teaching the concepts to us.

Experiences like that do not set one up very well for a lifetime of respecting authority and following orders.

Perhaps because of numerous experiences like this one, I’ve always had a bit of an anti-authoritarian streak and a tendency to question the ideas most people want me to have. I credit this tendency — along with my auto-didactic impulses — as being key to my getting through public school without becoming a brain-dead zombie.

Side thought: If you wanted to find a living, breathing example of a philosophical zombie, a public school would be a good first place to look.

In a previous Friday Fragments, I asked which president was the best (as defined by neoreactionary terms). George Washington and Andrew Jackson seemed to be the most common answers (though there was some disagreement on that front). The general theme seemed to be that the earlier presidents were considered more aristocratic, and thus better, than the ones who came afterwards. Given this, I find it especially surprising that no one suggested Thomas Jefferson, who would be my pick for the top spot (edging out George Washington by virtue of the Louisiana Purchase).

Mark Yuray wonders if Neoreactionaries should speak and write in Latin, coming to the conclusion that you should speak the language of those whose ideals you wish to uphold. I wonder what the guy who ENDS HIS POSTS WITH LATIN QUOTES and goes by the name of LEGIONNAIRE thinks about this? Such a pity I can never decide which empire was the best: British or Roman.

For what it’s worth, however, I think the Ottoman Empire was the next-greatest after those two, but don’t expect to see blog posts written in Turkish any time soon.

Intuition is a beautiful thing, and I admit I rely on it more than a careful person should (but not nearly as much as I think would provide me with optimal benefit). Sometimes I get burned (usually when relying on it for trivia and other minute facts), but my biggest mistakes in life have been those when I didn’t follow my intuitions.

Some people have intuitions geared towards big picture ideas and unseen connections, but they can’t see all the steps that are needed to confirm these connections as valid. Some people have intuitions about the inner workings of things, but have difficulty seeing the big picture. As you can probably guess, I think this a manifestation of the verbal/mathematical split I discussed here.

Is progressivism an ideology, or is progressivism a vector?

The new video game Assassins Creed Unity recently found itself being blasted by some left-leaning Frenchies (original french here) for portraying the French Revolution as a chaotic and unstable time period and the revolutionaries as bloodthirsty savages driven by less-than-noble ideals. Quelle horreur!

Yes, the game does do that, which is a major point in its favor. The best part of this portrayal, however? The subtle way that the game paints Napoleon as not only supremely competent, but also dangerously ambitious. It is equal parts impressive and foreboding and is, all in all, a sublime characterization that deserves much credit and acclaim.

That said, the game does not include two of the most interesting characters of the time period: Joseph Fouché and Charles-Maurice Talleyrand, so it loses major points in my book for that.

Also of note: towards the end of the game, the main character has chased down Robespierre and is interrogating him for the location of an assassination target. Robespierre isn’t talking, so your female companion shoves a pistol in his face, blows his jaw off, and orders him to shut up and write down the location in one of the most gloriously satisfying acts of historical license I have ever seen. So there’s that.

If you’ve ever read The Gervais Principle, you’ll understand this next bit, though I’ll try to make it clear to those who haven’t perused that work. I had a realization the other day that the official branches of the US government are made up of losers and the clueless (this is so obvious in retrospect that I cannot believe I didn’t realize this sooner).

Now for the creeping horror: If the official branches are full of these types, then where are the sociopaths who always end up running the show? I’m not sure I can think of a stronger argument than this for the existence of a deep state.

Counter-argument: High-level politicians need to be sociopaths in order to attain their positions.

Counter-counter-argument: The sociopath-clueless-loser dynamic is based on relative differences. The real power players are going to be the sociopaths of the sociopaths (or, perhaps even more dangerously, the sociopaths of the sociopaths of the sociopaths).

Every woman wants you to hurt her, and if you don’t hurt her enough, she will never forgive you for it.


Friday Night Fragments

Given how my thoughts continue to be disjointed and chaotic in recent weeks, it seems only fitting that this post is going to have much the same structure as my last one (for what it’s worth, I’m tossing around the idea of making this a regular thing). Let’s hop in!

I can’t say that I’m the first person to have noticed this, but it has become increasingly clear to me that something fundamentally changes in a person around the 130 I.Q. mark. People below this point generally all process things the same way, just with some people better at it than others. Past 130, the underlying cognitive process seem to change. People being to think about things using process that just don’t exist in the minds of most.

Furthermore, there is a diversity in the way intelligent people process things that does not exist among the mere average. Some are able to make analogies that go above the heads of other people. Some are able to visualize the world and think in symbols instead of words. Some have what can only be described as an insanely powerful intuition, with brilliant answers to problems popping into their heads without conscious thought.

Two people around the 120 mark will generally process things the same way. Two people around the 140 mark might have very different processing styles. Two people around the 160 mark might as well be different species, not just compared to the average 98-IQ rube, but (depending on processing styles) also possibly to each other.

If I recall correctly, Kant once postulated that a perfectly rational agent would voluntarily subject itself to a logical morality (though this might have been someone else…I can’t say I’m all that brushed up on my Kant). I was thinking to myself the other day that the debate over whether God is subject to the laws of nature takes on a very different character if one postulates that God created the laws of logic and the universe and then subjected itself to them.

There are three parts to the great trifecta of mass indoctrination: education, news, and entertainment. The greater prevalence of transsexual characters and actors in the third is one of the opening salvos of World War T.

Take for instance, the show Sons of Anarchy, which has now has entangled one of its main characters in a relationship with a male-to-female transsexual. Surely this is capitulation to the progressive imperative at work?

On the other hand, this is a relationship between a transsexual hooker and a sexually-depraved biker who in previous seasons was implied to be a necrophiliac and who has expressed joy at the thought of doing things such as shoving a flute up a man’s ass when torturing him for information. Both characters have been depicted as sexually deviant (bordering on deranged). They freely admit that their relationship is partly a means of signalling just how far beyond the pale they both are. This subplot might be a means of signalling progressivism, but it’s also a natural development for both of these self-styled “freaks”.

Sons of Anarchy isn’t exactly a progressive show. If anything, it’s anarcho-fascist. It would not be a stretch to think of this show as the narrative version of The Way of Men. This is a show about violent outlaw bikers, after all (one that manages to pull off a level of graphic violence that frequently surpasses anything you would see on HBO).

Side note: Funny how an anti-progressive show like Sons of Anarchy manages to have some of the strongest female characters on TV. It’s almost as if progressivism undermines the ability to create complex, interesting female characters.

It’s a pity that we live in a day and age in which the personal is political, because this is a storyline that is interesting and worthwhile and makes sense for both characters, and now it’s been tainted with the lingering feeling at the back of the mind that this is a bone that had to be thrown to the progressive inquisition.

Do social justice warriors make such a big deal about cultural conditioning and social constructs because they tend to be more impressionable and less capable of discerning good ideas from bad? If this were the case, they would need the heavy hand of an intellect with more agency and cognitive firepower to tell them which ideas are good and bad.

Social Justice Warriors. The natural slaves?

Neoreactionary karaoke.

The trick to being a proficient writer is to write a lot. The trick to writing anything interesting is the a result of having had interesting experiences. The trick to being a writer that can transcend time seems to be to have a remarkable associative horizon. If this is lacking, drugs and altered states of conscious (anything from tiredness to insanity) can serve as a crutch. They can’t match the same heights, but they still provide a boon to the normal, unaltered mind.

A conversation with a radical progressive about women:

“I’m very attracted to Asian women.”

“That’s pretty creepy, dudebro. Better rethink your preferences.”

“I find Latina women to be very attractive.”

“Sounds like you’ve internalized socially constructed stereotypes of Latinas as sensual and hyper-sexual. I’m not even going to go into how wrong that is.”

“There’s something about black women I find very appealing.”

“Congratulations, you’ve just turned them into exotic sex objects. Way to treat them as human beings, asshole.”

“I like white women.”


“I like women”

“Stop objectifying them.”

“I don’t like women”


Neo-paganism serves as anti-modern signalling far more than any sort of framework for religious guidance, but that’s the point. You’ll notice that political moderates and people who are generally mainstream don’t claim to hold such beliefs. Pagans are generally divided between the (far-larger) left-wing, hippie camp and the reactionary/identitarian right-wing brigade.

I’m not opposed to the idea of promoting right-wing paganism as a way of driving people to reaction, but any broad revival of paganism is going to require an incredibly potent necromancy. I won’t profess to any skill in this field of magic, but it strikes me that this is an instance in which pagans could learn from Christians.

There is a long history in the Christian tradition of claiming that saints and other important religious figures have appeared to people to give them guidance and advice. If the pagans want to start taking ground in this new culture war, they might want to try this approach (i.e. “I follow *Odin/Athena/Horus/insert deity* here because *he/she/it* appeared to me and gave me guidance and strength when I needed it most.”)

Feminists make a big deal about violence against women (probably because it secretly turns them on, but that is another discussion entirely). They also claim to stand for equality. Women are subject to male violence at far lower rates than men. Sounds pretty unequal to me.

Promote equality. Slap a feminist today!


Dark Linkage and Fractured Thoughts

The recent election in the United States shows that the bifurcation of American politics is becoming more and more pronounced (this is, of course, a symptom of the boiling over of the culture war). Hostilities continue to escalate, and even the New York Times noticed recently that political discrimination has become far more pronounced than even that great progressive boogeyman: racism.

Commenters across the Reacto-sphere have penned various takes, including the expected invectives against participating in the act of voting (though notably, TRS has a different take). Of particular note is Nick Land, who takes a quick moment to display the kind of evil cunning that American politics is sorely lacking.

Some have claimed that what we are seeing is not a culture war, but a race war, and that soon it will be Whites (and maybe Asians) versus everyone else. This is incorrect. The central conflict is between Whites. Blacks? Hispanics? Asians? Jews? Pawns in the Great White Civil War.

Some forms of governance are more scalable than others. Democracy, for example, is not nearly so dysfunctional in a group of 50 people than it is in a country of 50 million. In fact, the dysfunction per capita is also markedly lower. Similarly, fascism works very well in small groups, though fascist governments on the level of nation-states have a poor track record of longevity.

The degree to which a type of government can be scaled would seem to suggest a certain type of internal efficiency, which would seem to reflect well on its suitability (as well as ease of use). However, unless one is planing on taking a population of 1,000 to a nation-state on the order of 10 million, there is no first-order reason why this should be a factor of any relevance whatsoever. This is, I think, a clear example of the importance of understanding first- and second-order consequences (and possibly third-, fourth-, fifth-…etc).

The cosmopolitan/nativist dichotomy in Neoreaction is no doubt related to (if not just another way of expressing) the brahmin/vaisya dynamic that I explored here. I believe a balance between the two groups to be beneficial. Some people will always be drawn to the idea of travel and foreign adventures. Not everyone is wired to stay within the borders of the motherland and uphold the time-honored traditions of family and culture. That sort of activity is absolutely necessary to the survival of a nation (which is why most people should do it), but assuming that everyone will do it is another way of making human nature a bug, not a feature, of your system.

A nation that wants to thrive will leverage all of its assets. The cosmopolitans will always be with you. Find a way to channel their preferences in such a fashion that benefits you without weakening your culture.

That’s what a smart society would do. That’s what a wise sovereign would promote.

Good fences may make good neighbors, after all, but that’s no reason not to trade gifts on Christmas.

On Twitter this week, new Twitter follower Thorgeir Lawspeaker declared to me his distaste for how certain historical figures are retroactively being declared gay.

There are grounds to contest that some of the figures he named did, in fact, bounce around a bit on the Kinsey Scale (Turing, for instance, stated himself that he was in a sexual relationship with another man when questioned by British police). Besides, worrying about which historical figures are being retroactively being declared “gay” is quibbling over trivialities. Someone who lived 800 years ago might have had a taste for men. So what?

We could, of course, take the position that nobody was gay until Oscar Wilde burst onto the scene, but come now, that would be ridiculous. There are Neoreactionaries who aren’t straight. It would take someone in massive denial to suggest that all notable historical figures were 100% heterosexual.

Nick Land has been an even more fertile source of unique ideas for me than usual this week. Through him I came across this gem asking if we need another East India Company. I’m not sure I want the US government doing any such thing, though I wonder what China would do if someone suggested the idea to them…

Feeling subversive, I suggested to a female friend with a scholarly interest in international development that she could blow the entire field wide open if she examined the EIC from the lens of being the most effective international development organization in history. After a little convincing (her incredulity could have been measured on the Richter Scale), she said she’d be willing to look into the idea.

She’s probably still trying to figure out if I’m some kind of genius or if I’m just insane. Despite my best efforts though, I’m afraid I fall just a bit short on both those fronts. I’ve been wondering lately if a large enough dose of LSD would be enough to push me over the edge into either of those categories (I’m really not picky about which one I end up with, though both would be ideal). If any of my readers have ever tried it, let me know how it went. If anyone feels the need to convince me that this is a really, really bad idea, be sure to speak up.

Who would Neoreactionaries label as the best president? Yes, yes, I know that we all have signalling to uphold and the correct answer is “none of them”. Spare me. Stop playing that game and instead play this one. Which of the 44 men who have held the office of US president did the best job? Don’t be an ass and say Zachary Taylor for dying before he could do anything.

Speaking of labels, let’s talk about labels. Labels can apply even if we don’t want them to, or even if we don’t know that certain labels apply to us. This indicates that identity (being as it is a set of labels that can be conferred) does not rest solely on personal perception. The accuracy of a label derives not from an internal sense of satisfaction, but from a correspondence to the external world.

Social Justice Warriors. The Socratic Method. Labels as contingent on an external world. Connect the dots for fun and games.

The Cathedral as we might normally understand it is switching its loyalties. Where it once supported Israel wholeheartedly, it has now begun to extend its sympathies to Palestine. The proper progressive position is now to uphold the cause of the pooroppressedpalestinianpeoples. However, the US government still stands firm behind Israel. Given that the official government is both the public front and the armed wing of the Cathedral, this is a most interesting tension.

An easy explanation for this dynamic is that the full Cathedral feedback loop hasn’t kicked in yet (in 30 years, the US government might very well be throwing Israel to the dogs for the sake of the Palestinians). Another is that concentrated Jewish influence is enough to counter Cathedral doctrine. The farfetched and highly unlikely explanation is that this signals an internal division in the Cathedral that will be exacerbated as the coming century of fragmentation and disintegration warms up.

One can only hope.


Ask me no questions, I’ll tell you no lies…

I’ve been struggling for inspiration for posts recently.  While I have two in the works at the moment, I’m feeling very ambiguous about them, so it might be a while before they see the light of day.  In my (possibly vain) quest for inspiration, I finally bit the bullet and set up an account, like several other Neoreactionaries before me.  If you’ve got a quick question, head on over and hit me with it…or just follow me…and/or whatever else it is you do with this thing.