Failure Mode

 Women who choose careers over children are genetic failures.

There might be no better phrase to send most people — especially women — into hysterics than this one.

Is it true?

That doesn’t really matter now, does it? It’s not something that is meant to be true. It is an incantation meant to hurt. It is a stab in the dark at a hole in the armor; a hole that the wearer believes truly does not exist.

Ignorance may be bliss, but what you don’t know is often what hurts you the most.

But I digress. I always do. One of my more consistent habits, really.

Genetic success is defined by the number of grandchildren you produce. This is a fairly common biological metric. It is not enough to have children. Your children must have children. Is a career woman therefore a genetic failure?

Perhaps. Does she sacrifice genetic reproduction for corporate devotion? If so, yes. She is. She has snuffed out her genetic lineage in pursuit of a transient sense of validation (or perhaps because she never imagined that she had the option to pursue avenues other than that which she was brainwashed to do). Does she ever find that satisfaction? It doesn’t matter.

Failure.

It’s hard not to read this as a condemnation of one’s entire being. Genetic failure. There are few epithets more damaging than this. It cuts to the core, and it takes a rather nuanced approach to even begin to defang it.

Da Vinci, Newton, and Caesar were all genetic failures. Does this mean that they had nothing of value to offer to the world?

The progressive mind is one that is generally holistically-oriented (citation needed, I know, I definitely read this somewhere, though I’ve been unsuccessful in digging up the exact source). One of the consequences of this is that terms like “genetic failure” are perceived to represent a holistic invalidation of the entire individual, one that overrides accomplishment in other realms. This is also why progressive identity politics clings so steadfastly to notions such as ethnicity or sexual preference as a determinant of human value, because to the progressive mind such things comprise an all-encompassing assessment of an individual’s worth.

(Side Note: Thinking holistically is far from a bad thing, though it rarely takes you where you need to go without an ability to see the bigger picture. Seeing the big picture, of course, is impotent without an ability to compartmentalize and focus on the gritty details. These abilities, of course, don’t have a proper place in a mind that cannot see the big picture and that is incapable of thinking holistically. The preponderance of individuals who lack just these simple things is staggering. It is enough to make a man believe that most people are walking around with incomplete brains, as if entire nodes were just missing from their neural networks.)

Genes are not the only thing a man or woman can leave behind. Institutions, social structures, cultural artifacts, and works of art are but a small handful of the other foundations on which someone can build a legacy.

Genetic failure is not cultural failure is not social failure is not societal failure is not financial failure is not political failure is not artistic failure. There are many ways to succeed or fail in life. These things are often connected, but it is rare that even the most accomplished of individuals will achieve success in more than two or three of these fields. Reproduction is not the only factor that counts.

And yet, the idea of being a genetic failure cuts harder than the idea of failing in any other realm.

Genetic failure.

There is something heavy about this idea, something heavier than almost anything else. Perhaps we should take a moment to ponder why.

One of the most fundamental aspects of being human is the drive to reproduce. We are wired for it. We are driven to do it, and everyone has a story why.

God. Family. Biology. Lean on whichever rationale you prefer.

We are beings that reproduce. For whatever reason, this is one of our core functions. To fail to do it is a failure to live up to one of the core aspects of being a living, breathing being on this earth.

Most people are never going to do anything so great as to trump the production of children in terms of impact. Most people are not building empires. Most people are not discovering new medical advances. Most people are not revolutionizing the way we live with fantastic machines. Most people, even the exceptional ones, will never have that kind of impact.

I intend to be one of them, of course, but that does not invalidate what I am saying, and I too plan on fathering children.

Perhaps you will not have your name in the history books, but if that isn’t your goal, it doesn’t really matter. Find a mate with the best genes that you can get and raise good-quality human beings. Raise them well and put a few good people on this earth who will work and live for a stable society and the well-being of those who deserve it.

Sure, some of us intend to build the world. But it is not enough to build a better world. You also have to breed it.

Brothers in bondage

Ethno-nationalism has been a contentious subject in our neck of the woods as of late. The hardcore white nationalists and the national socialists have been lambasting Neoreaction and claiming that it is controlled by Jews and hates white people, while many neoreactionaries have fired back by claiming that both groups are functionally retarded, incapable of any thought more complicated than “White people good, Jews and Blacks bad”, and are merely a sink for people who think that society went wrong but who lack the brains to figure out what happened and instead gravitate towards ego-stroking safety blankets that reassure them that all their failures and insecurities are nothing more than the evil machinations of the Jews.

To say that there have been some harsh words is a bit of an understatement.

In response to this, many of the more devoted eth-nats have claimed that Neoreaction is not truly ethno-nationalist, and that Neoreactionaries look down upon and despise ethno-nationalism. A common reaction to this by many neoreactionaries is to point to the trichotomy and claim that ethno-nationalism is one of the foundational assumptions of Neoreaction.

I’m not quite going to do that here, because I think there’s something that must be kept in mind: it’s not so much ethno-nationalism that many neoreactionaries have come to despise, but ethno-nationalists.

In other words, it’s not really ideological. It’s personal. It’s totally personal.

That said, do neoreactionaries reject ethno-nationalism? Well, it’s complicated. Ask ten neoreactionaries as to whether whites ought to form some kind of white homeland and you’ll get a lot of hemming and hawing. I’m not going to pretend I wouldn’t do the same. If that’s your criterion for whether someone is an ethno-nationalist or not, then most (though not all) of us come up short.

Ask those same neoreactionaries whether you think that white people ought to be allowed to congregate and collectively pursue their own interests, and you’d be hard-pressed to find any neoreactionary who would disagree (those who would hesitate to answer the question would do some more out of an inclination to not get bogged down in racial matters, and to conclude that such a preference stems from a tacit support of “white genocide” is the mark of a feeble intellect who deserves all the disenfranchisement that could be heaped upon them).

So it seems fairly clear that neoreactionaries and pure ethno-nationalists are not talking about the same thing when they use the term “ethno-nationalism”. Nick B. Steves has argued (correctly, in my opinion) that what Neoreactionaries are attempting to describe when they use the “ethno-nationalism” term is not ethno-nationalism per se, but rather a certain “Sense of Us” that encapsulates how people connect with those who are like them. I think this is the right direction to explore.

People like to be around those who are like them. Groups of people who are similar are more likely to have strong asabiyyah. People prefer to be a part of groups that have strong asabiyyah. It is not hard to see how all these tendencies reinforce each other.

This creates an interesting dynamic in regard to the subject of nationalism, because nationalism is an modernist attempt to induce heightened asabiyyah in a target population. It has certainly proved itself to be adaptive over the past few centuries, but there is nothing anti-modernist about being nationalistic.

But what of ethno-nationalism in particular? Ancient nations prized blood to a degree that we do not today (or at least, so is claimed by the eth-nats, though I personally suspect they are more right than wrong here). Is not ethno-nationalism thus highly reactionary?

This is incorrect. Ethno-nationalism is a reactionary impulse rooted in modernist assumptions. It is not reactionary. It is reactionary modernist. There is a difference between those two things.

But ingrained ethnic interests exist, do they not? They exist and are hardwired into all human beings, are they not? I am agnostic on this front, but I suspect that the general affinity of people for those who are ethnically similar stems not from hardwired genetic impulses to help pass on the genetic similarity of your related kins (such similarity fizzles out exponentially and seems to have little impact beyond immediate family), but a calculation that people who look like us are more likely to share our norms and are more likely to act in a way that is beneficial to us.

Whom ought I to trust more: the man who shares my culture or the one who does not? If phenotype is a proxy for cultural similarity, am I not rational in assuming that the man who shares my face is more likely share my values and/or is more likely to be looking out for me than the one who does not?

The harder question is this: should I place greater trust in the man who shares my culture or the man who shares my race? Genetics and culture are surely intertwined, but try to answer the question in the manner that it was given. This is a thought experiment, after all, and I’m not sure that I have an answer. Is that not indicative of something?

So do I love my race? I am not sure how to understand that question. I don’t love it the way I love my family, for example, but I will defend it if it is attacked, though I do so because I recognize that in the treacherous arena of identity politics, an attack on a man’s race, religion, or culture is very much an attack on that man himself.

I suppose that I do have an appreciation for “white history”, for it is filled with daring adventures, grand accomplishments, and beautiful ideas, but were this not the case, I would most certainly not take note of it the way that I do, for blood alone is nothing to be cherished and is meaningless if it has done naught. If I love my race in any form, it is an apprehensive and conditional love indeed.

My respect and appreciation for “my race” is based on what they have done, as well as their culture (to a large degree), and — to whatever degree that it exists —their innate character (to a much smaller degree).

All this puts aside, of course, the simple fact that though the ethno-nationalists exhort me to proclaim that my race is white, my race is not “white”. My race is “Italian”, not white. White is not a thing that is, but a category that encompasses certain things that are. To confuse this category for a thing in the same vein as the things it describes is a categorical error.

So yes, there are several fronts on which I criticize ethno-nationalism. All this said, however, I do think that ethn-nats are correct in stating that as whites become a smaller percentage of the population in many traditionally white countries, they will feel increasingly threatened and will begin to feel a certain “white racial consciousness”. White nationalism is going to become more popular, not among anywhere near a majority of whites, but among a certain minority of them. Of more consequence, however, is the degree to which whites are going to start thinking of themselves as whites and the degree to which they come to believe that ethnic tensions are a major driver of societal trends.

And so, in the end, I cannot help but conclude that it is foolish to disregard the concept of white nationalism entirely, for many of the underlying assumptions will spread and become more prominent. Sure, we can quibble over the theory (which is fairly weak), but it is going to have a certain (if limited) practical utility in the future. It has some potential, and it could make sense if applied as one option among many in a much bigger picture. I’m willing to accept this outcome and I think Neoreaction writ large should at least be open to it as well.

Ethno-nationalism is, like all types of nationalism, not reactionary, but because it is a strain of nationalism, it does have potential utility in the modern world. But, what of other types of nationalism? What of, say, religious nationalism, which is also surely well-positioned to take advantage of certain sentiments that will become common in the future?

I will discuss that another time. There is one type of nationalism that I wish to discuss before I wrap up this post: Aristo-Nationalism.

I fully admit that I need a different (read: better) neologism, but what I am trying to get at is the tendency of the Natural Elite to associate with other members of the Natural Elite.

In many of the Natural Elite, there is an affinity for other elites that crosses all other thede boundaries. It is a fact of human nature that people like to spend time with those who are like them, and those natural elite who are gifted with very high reserves of intelligence, charisma, and ambition define themselves most by those traits and consider their peers to be those who share in them, not those with whom they share a certain religion, race, or culture.

Said persons do not necessarily want to associate with whites or blacks or jews or Asian or Catholics or any of the other categories by which “plebians” take note of, but they do wish to associate with other people of all stripes who are also intelligent and charismatic and ambitious and aristocratic.

Is this temperament influenced by ethno-centrism and theo-centrism and clannishness and a whole host of other factors? Of course, but for many in the Natural Elite, the thede with which they predominantly identify is that of the Natural Elite, not an ethnic-based or religious-based or any other based thede that most people would gravitate towards. If you try to get them to identify with an ethnic-based movement, and not one rooted in personal character and admirable qualities, you’re going to have a bad time.

Bringing all this back to the subject of nationalism, I shall reiterate and clarify certain thoughts. Nationalism is neither reactionary nor traditionalist, but modernist, though this does not mean it is without potential utility. This utility stems from the degree to which nationalism is capable of cultivating asabiyyah and in-group solidarity. Insofar that Neoreaction seeks to grapple with issues of nationalism, we should take great care not to put any particular type of nationalism on a pedestal, but to recognize when applying it is useful in a certain context and when it is not. Neoreaction should have no love for nationalism in and of itself — and should focus instead on better understanding the cultivation of asabiyyah — but it is also a mistake to scorn nationalism entirely and unconditionally, for there are limited circumstances in which nationalism can be used as a means to in order to achieve a higher level of asabiyyah.

I hope further debate on the matter does not fail to bear this in mind.

Bleeding Hearts and Weeping Martyrs

You want to save the world with me, you say. What an interesting offer. You seem like a genial fellow, so I expect that you won’t mind if I take a bit of time to ponder this offer.

You say that we should save the world, but the world has always needed saving, and better men than you have tried by the millions. How many have died thinking as you did, doing the things you will do, thinking the things you have not yet thought?

The world will go on far beyond the lives of men. The thing you want to save is not the world. You just think it is.

So let us build a better world you say. Fine. But this does not make you special. This does not make you different. You are still acting the exact same way as everybody else. Consider how that bodes for your odds of success.

Everybody wants better. Everybody wants a piece of that. Better sounds good. Better sounds profitable. Bigger, better, more, for cheaper, on and on and on and on. Forever.

I want better food. I want a better paycheck. I want a better life. I want better things to do. I want a better husband. I want better clothes. I want a better car.

I want a better world.

But I’m sure you’re thinking of others when you want a better world. Why would I ever doubt you?

But don’t you care, you say. Don’t you want to improve the lives of other? Do not your compassion and your empathy drive you towards this goal, or are you an inhuman monster incapable of either one?

Yes, I say. It is true that I do not possess compassion the way you do. It is true that my reserves of empathy are meager and diminished, but I am not bereft of either. An excess can be a malady as detrimental as a deficiency, and cancer can sap a man’s strength in equal measure as malnutrition.

It is not me I fear for, but for you.

I see, I know your type. I know exactly what drives you, what compels you, what keeps you lying awake at night in that dark reverie before you fall to the embrace of sleep. I know indeed, for these distant eyes that to you seem so cold can burn right through you and see you for what you are, which is why you fear them so.

You wish to save the world not because you are driven by compassion but because you burn with a mad desire to assuage the nagging feelings of doubt simmering in the darkest corners of your psyche that tell you that your existence is meaningless and you were put on this earth for no other reason than to die. You think it is altruism that guides you? It is fear, nothing more, fear of the horrifying truth that maybe, just maybe, you are exactly as worthless as you think you are.

Compassion. Empathy. Altruism. Self-sacrifice. Do not let me be the one who must tell you that you fetishize those things because you do not have them, for I will not sweeten this pill with honeyed words and soothing lies.

You are not a noble paladin in shining armor, you are a frightened doe bounding through the woods, driven on by the fear of all the illusions and the nightmares that you imagine would consume you. You push on, your body moving not by conscious choice but out of a panicked instinct to flee from your own existential dread, that black leviathan whose maw you fear more than even the cold embrace of death itself.

You will never outrun that monster. He will hunt you to the ends of the earth, and though you may tire, he never will. Will you never learn that the chase only ends when you face the monster and gamble on what happens when you look him in the eye?

You fear that he will consume you. You fear that he will end you and devour you and prove to you the truth of all your fears, and so you find yourself bounding on, no strength within you to stand and fight but plenty of strength from without to fuel your mad stampede across the earth and to the end of time.

But if you cannot face the monster, how can you face yourself?

If you don’t have the strength to enjoy your nightmares, get out of the way of those of us who do.

But we have to do something, you exclaim, your voice wavering as you cry. But you betray yourself, for well you know that all actions have consequences, and the most monumental consequences are always the ones you did not perceive. The calamities that bring the walls of your hopes and dreams and minor schemes crashing down hide in the blind spots that you do not even know are there.

There is a reason why they say the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and who has the greatest of intentions if not for you?

But everybody wants to save the world.

No. Everybody wants to save themselves.

The world has always been ending. The world has always been in need of saving. We have always walked in the dark of a fallen age.

You want to save the world? Have the strength to walk away.

Maybe then you’ll find the peace you seek.

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

Gnon

GOD

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.

VIVE MEMOR LETI

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.

VIVERE EST COGITARE

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.”

“Racist.”

“I like women”

“Stop objectifying them.”

“I don’t like women”

“Misogynist.”

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!

SPQR

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.

SPQR