Friday Night Fragments #34

Tonight’s edition of the Fragments is dedicated to the new “She Guardian” statue that was recently erected in London because HOLY SHIT TAKE A LOOK AT THIS THING TAKE A LOOK AT THIS INSANE FUCKING STATUE

London She Guardian Statue


London She Guardian Statue


London She Guardian Statue




I recently seized on the chance to watch the documentary “Hot Girls Wanted”, an inside look at the world of amateur porn. It’s a quick watch, and it’s rather interesting. Take a look if that sounds up your alley.

I don’t give much heeds to accounts that attest that all worldly affairs are controlled by an Illuminati. However, these accounts all generally contain a common strain that I find, if not believable, ridiculously amusing. I speak of the idea that the “Illuminati” — or the elite or the powers that be or whatever you want to call them — place symbols of great importance to them all over famous landmarks and important buildings and other places that hold a certain meaning for them. Laughably, I find this to be the best case for any kind of Illuminati because it’s exactly the sort of thing that I would do if I had that kind of power.

Perhaps that’s just my sense of humor.

Also, the idea of an Illuminati or a series of hidden conspiracies is wildly entertaining, if a bit poor in the dimension of practicality and believability. This is more a product of the various details and other specificities present in such accounts, however. The general underlying principle really isn’t all that ridiculous.

Each and every person likes being around people who are like them, from the youngest to the oldest and the lowest to the highest. Each and every person likes feeling like they are a part of a select group, from the youngest to the oldest and the lowest to the highest. Each and every person likes working with others for a common cause, from the youngest to the oldest and the lowest to the highest.

The idea that similar people of a certain tier might get together — surreptitiously or otherwise — and do things that might advance their interests is hardly an outlandish one. As always, however, the devil is in the details, and even though the general principle is always being played out, any potential manifestation of said principle that may be suggested is highly unlikely to be among that select group of possibilities that have actually played out (and/or are being played out currently).

But of course, I am a bit of a schemer with a penchant for discretion, so I would see those tendencies in everyone else, wouldn’t I?

Having worked my way through some private research on the matter of Prohibition, I am astonished by how jarring the parallels are with our own time. The “drys” were the SJWs of yesteryear (as I have mentioned in a previous Fragments), and they acted in exactly the same way as the feminists and “anti-racists” of our time cavort themselves.

Like the SJWs of today, they mucked everything up, expended all they had on instituting a ridiculous utopian vision, and suffered major egg on their face once everything they worked for fell apart (we’re still hoping on that last one coming about sooner rather than later).

Like the SJWs of today, it shook them to the core how they were ignored and mocked by all those who realized what a joke they were. Like the SJWs of today, they truly believed that they were on the right side of history and that they were truly holy for the faith they placed in their cause.

What set them apart from the SJWs of today was that they did not have the culture. Instead, the culture was against them. Hollywood made films glamorizing drinking. Wealthy East Coast brahmins made a point of offering liquid hospitality to all they could reach. The literature of the time period was awash with drink. The flood of booze could not be stopped.

Prohibition failed because really, really liked alcohol, despite all the desires of the Progressives to rewrite people to be otherwise. It’s hard to rally forces to oppose ideas like “equality” or “fairness” or “human rights”, but it’s very easy to get people to rally against anyone who comes off like the Fun Police.

This is why I believe that #GamerGate has been one of the first true insurrections against the progressive onslaught in recent times, because video games, like drinking, happen to be great fun, and there is a dedicated and reasonably-sized sub-culture of people that really, really enjoy this hobby and are willing to go to war for it.

Those who are against the ideas of the progressives would be wise to fight them not solely on those issues that incite disgust in the “ingroup”, but also on those issues in which the SJWs can be painted as tyrannical and in opposition to fun. Not everyone feels a visceral emotional reaction to various social issues, but everybody (except for left-wing activists and anyone who has a Tumblr) likes fun.

You want to hit them hard? Remind everyone around them of how much they hate fun.

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.


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.

Friday Night Fragments #23

When we limit the field of competition solely to “things that I have read”, then one of the great highlights of my week was this beautiful piece by SOBL: When Nixon Calls. There are times when it is painfully obvious that SOBL is using Nixon as his mouthpiece, but there are also times in which I was absolutely convinced that he was just digging up old Nixon quotes that had been lost to the sands of time…until now.

I won’t lie, I’ve always had a bit of a soft spot for Richard Nixon, one that has only become even softer over my time spent in Neoreaction. Nixon was an incredibly capable leader. Paranoid, of course, but all the most brilliant people are. Besides, what’s that old saying about paranoia…you know…the one where they really are out to get you?

Moving on to the actual content of the discussion, there’s quite a bit in there. The aspect of this discussion I have the most grounds to judge is the Middle Eastern analysis, of which I agree with every word. My judgement holds less weight in regard to many of the other topics covered, but they too seem spot-on.

How does SOBL manage to always have such an erudite and informed opinion on so many diverse subjects? Well, the same way we all work towards that goal I suppose…lot’s of reading and thinking on topics across all manner of disciplines.

SOBL also managed to write up a very interesting analysis on some strange article that was floating the idea of Michael Bloomberg running for Mayor of London. I’ve not heard of this article, and even after reading SOBL’s comment on it, I still have no idea what it was going on about.

What is far more interesting, and what the analysis devotes its real effort towards, is the idea of Bloomberg running as a Democratic challenger to Hillary Clinton for the 2016 presidential nomination. SOBL’s touched on that idea before, and I think it is a very interesting one. As far as I can see, Bloomberg is the only true threat that could come out of the blue (or the red or the independent, but neither of those suits his purposes here) with a shot at toppling Clinton.

Bloomberg is older than Hillary, but I think he’s better able to stand up to the ravages of old age than she is. He has more steel in him than she does. Besides, Hillary really likes to drink. That is no insult (it couldn’t be, coming from me), but such a habit does wear a person down, especially at that age.

When I am under stress, I cut out drinking and other vices. They take off my edge, and I need that edge to stay sharp in trying times. However, I can see why someone else might take the opposite track and hit the bottle when the stress gets to be too much. Hillary Clinton strikes me as that type of person. I’m not aware of any evidence that she did this during her tenure of Secretary of State, but if there were evidence, would we know about it? I am not sure how likely this is, but I have a scary feeling that it it more likely than we think.

 One of the scariest things I can imagine for US standing in the world is to follow up Obama’s 8-year foreign policy nightmare with an American Boris Yeltsin. If that doesn’t make you feel very uncomfortable about Clinton in the Oval Office, I don’t think anything will.

Anyway, to cycle this back to my original point: If I were Bloomberg, I wouldn’t be looking into the idea of a run. I would have decided on doing it long ago, and I’d have spent the past several months  putting campaign infrastructure in place and laying the groundwork for an announcement that would blow out of the water all the other announcements.

Nick B. Steves once suggested that the music I sometimes link to on this blog can be broadly defined as “emo-chick pop”. I thought that was a pretty amusing way of putting it (possibly because I’ve popped a few emo chicks in my time hehe). Here’s today’s macabre incantation song:

I’d always suspected that you could take Lolita and make it even more fucked up, but this runs up against the limits of even my twisted imagination. This is just dark. It’s so red-pill it makes even the most red-pill red-pillers of the red-pill internet cease their red-pilling to lie down and scream “No, she’s a good girl! she would never do that! Not all women are like that!”

It is also great fun to listen to. There is something beautifully soothing about the raw, twisted love that exists not despite the pain, but because of it.

Ah, but isn’t all love that way? It seems that women can only truly love in the presence of pain, but how many of us are truly free from this same obligation? Very few of us indeed…do not try to avoid this, for my eyes see deep into the minds of men and I can tell that this is one of those  urges that drives men on even as they lack the ability to merely conceive of the possibility that such an urge might even exist.

To love only in the presence of pain is a feminine love indeed, but who among us does not have a touch of both the feminine and the masculine residing within us? I suspect that in this realm, I have a touch more of the feminine than most men. Perhaps this is why I like this music so much, and why I so clearly see this urge manifesting itself even as all others seem blind to it.

Perhaps there’s something else, however. I have hinted before that I have had some experience with women like this. It is true. What can I say? I like the crazies, and songs like this remind me of some great memories.

Were I a prudent person, I would stop bringing up this “emo-chick pop” stuff, because every time I bring it up I am tempted to go farther and darker than the last time. I am already running up against the limits of what I can say based off of my real-life experience. If I keep pursuing darker material, I will have to look beyond my own experience, and if I keep pursuing this vein, then it is only a matter of time before these Fragments devolve into audio recordings of me reading from 120 Days of Sodom.

Actually, that would be a GREAT turn for this blog to take.

Hey Hestia Society, do I have a project idea for you…

Dark of the Moon

What serves the higher type of men as nourishment or delectation must almost be poison for a different and inferior type. The virtues of the common man might perhaps signify vices and weaknesses in a philosopher.

Whatever is profound loves masks; what is most profound even hates image and parable. Might not nothing less than the opposite be the proper disguise for the shame of a god? A questionable question: it would be odd if some mystic had not risked something to that effect in his mind. There are occurrences of such a delicate nature that one does well to cover them up with some rudeness to conceal them; there are actions of love and extravagant generosity after which nothing is more advisable than to take a stick and give any eyewitness a sound thrashing: that would muddle his memory. Some know how to muddle and abuse their own memory in order to have their revenge at least against this only witness: shame is inventive.

It is not the worst things that cause the worst shame: there is not only guile behind a mask — there is so much graciousness in cunning. I could imagine that a human being who had to guard something precious and vulnerable might roll through life, rude and round as an old green wine cask with heavy hoops: the refinement of his shame would want it that way.

A man whose sense of shame has some profundity encounters his destinies and delicate decisions, too, on paths which few ever reach and of whose mere existence his closest intimates must not know: his mortal danger is concealed from their eyes, and so is his regained sureness of life. Such a concealed man who instinctively needs speech for silence and who is inexhaustible in his evasion of communication, wants and sees to it that a mask of him roams in his place through the hearts and heads of his friends. And supposing that he did not want it, he would still realize some day that in spite of that a mask of him is there — and that this is well. Every profound spirit needs a mask: even more, around every profound spirit a mask is growing continually, owing to the constantly false, namely shallow, interpretation of every word, ever step, ever sign of life he gives.

-Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Sections 30, 40

As always, the bolded emphasis was mine.

I love Nietzsche. I make no secret of it. I devour his works. I have discussed him before on this blog. I obviously don’t agree with everything he said, of course, but I think there is much that he got right, and those matters on which he was wrong he was not 100% wrong.

I don’t consider myself a Nietzschean, as I’ve never met a self-proclaimed Nietzschean who didn’t selectively interpret Nietzsche in such a way that removed all the subtlety and nuance; cherry-picking passages that stroked the ego while overlooking the caveats, implications, and true substance hidden beneath the superficial meaning.

I did the same thing when I styled myself as such. Then I made the effort to actually read Nietzsche, and I realized that in my shallow interpretation, I was not giving the man nearly enough credit.

But enough about Nietzsche. I have no doubt that I shall return to him another time.

Let us talk about anonymity.

Who am I? Donovan Greene. Who is Donovan Greene? Does it matter?

newtwitterphotosquareDonovan Greene is a lie. It is an illusion. It is a front for someone who reveals far less of himself than he is letting on, while at the same time revealing of himself so much more. It is a mask for one who also called himself “Legionnaire”, styling himself under the aegis of the eagle before trading it in for a white raven ensconced in black fire.

Have my words changed since I began? Of course. I am smarter and older and wiser than I was when began this blog, back in 2013 not too long after the Cambrian Explosion of Neoreaction. I expect to look back in 2017 and feel much the same way about my current work as I do when I look back to my beginnings.

I am a better writer and a better thinker now than I was then. I reap these benefits in my “personal” life, that life in which my mask is my face and my face is a mask, but am I truly any less anonymous when I wrap myself in my physical features as opposed to when I speak from behind the veil of the blue and the gold? You will not see my true self either way, for I could stand in front of you, naked and uncovered and speaking nothing but unvarnished truth, and yet still be as mysterious and inscrutable and opaque as I am when I speak from the mouth of the raven. Is one approach really any less anonymous than the other?

Who am I? Donovan Greene. Who is Donovan Greene? It doesn’t matter.

Among the many things I do, I happen to have a few blogs. I use one of these blogs as a platform to communicate with and write for Neoreactionaries and other rare folk who are delving in strange places and doing strange things. It does not follow from this that I must dedicate my life to fighting for the “cause of Neoreaction”. It does not follow from this that I ought to charge into the breach like a good little soldier so that I can join my “comrades” in dying like so many chickens.

That’s all a metaphor, of course. Points if you get the reference, too. I’ve mangled it and paraphrased it, but the essence is still there and it is still recognizable.

I love people who feel that great urge to mass together and charge, of course. They make great underlings, especially when you need someone effective yet dispensable. Let your hammers be your hammers and let them do what hammers do. Just make sure to keep them out of the high command. That’s where you want people with more than one trick.

Not directly relevant to this post, and not all that great a documentary either, but it is informative and it has a good narrative and it does a great job of demonstrating the point that I have just made.

I am a Neoreactionary. So what? Am I under obligation to proclaim this matter to the world? This line of thinking strikes me as identical to the impulse so common among many in the LGBT movement who think that someone who is not straight is obligated to come out and obligated to share who they are with the world.

They are not. You are not. I am not. I am under no obligation to share every meaningless facet of my entity with anyone and everyone. You want to do that? Go for it. You do you. There is no higher advice than “just be yourself”, after all. Be you, but do not make the mistake of assuming that I am like you. I have no doubt that no matter how similar we may be, there are many traits on which we differ, especially if you harbor a strong desire to proclaim who you are. That is an impulse I do not share, Millennial though I am, and raised in that great sea of narcissism and self-indulgence though I was. I am a ship upon those waters, but though the deck gets splashed when the seas froth up and rear their ugly waves, there is little that is touched by the swell.

I am perhaps the one member of the selfie generation who has no desire to parade what I am for all the world to see, who does not need to reaffirm daily that I exist and that I am seen because I knew very well that I exist and that I am seen and I know for a fact that I never need fear that incomprehensible horror lurking in the hearts of my peers: to be ignored, overlooked, and irrelevant.

That great nothingness is the true fear of the internet generation, but I do not fear the nothingness, for the void becomes me and I traverse both it and the world of being and being noticed like a salamander, with a foot in both worlds and eternally comfortable no matter where I am.

I do not understand those who clamor to drop the “anonymity”. I do not understand those who are driven by the impulse to confess their sins or who feel so defensive about their beliefs they seek to actively manage what people think of them by preemptively airing their “dirty laundry”. I must confess the lack of reserve makes no sense to me. Do you bring your resume on dates?

But fine, let’s reframe this to make it about some grand neoreactionary cause. Perhaps you might argue that it is our duty to stand up and suffer whatever consequences may arise from doing so, that it is our responsibility and our burden, and that those who are not willing to do so are cowards who do not deserve to label themselves as Neoreactionaries.

I’m glad for you. I’m proud that you aspire to be a sacrifice. It’s very noble of you, really. I wish you all the best.

What a brilliantly remarkable case study of a natural servant, just begging to be ordered forward into the enemy. What fascinating insights into the mind of a such a creature. Look at how many assumptions are being called into play by this beast!

I have no qualms about releasing the hounds, but there is a time and place to do such things. You really want to make Neoreaction a crusade to which you will dedicate your life? Good. Neoreaction needs crusaders, but don’t delude yourself into thinking that even a metaphorical charge of the cavalry will usher in sweeping reform in the vein that most pleases you. You might hate the modern, but you’ll need the modern to fight the modern. If you aren’t willing to do that, then you’re not in this to win. You’re in it for glory.

Never fight the way you want to fight. Fight in the way that will be most effective for you given: your strengths and your weaknesses, the strengths and weaknesses of your opponent(s), and the context in which you find yourself.

If you are one of those who want to make this into a fight, that is the best advice that I can give you.

(Update: For the purposes of clarification, I wish to make it clear that I do not forthright condemn those who dispense with anonymity, only those who do so out of narcissism. My invective does not apply to those who are merely behaving in accordance with an open, honest, straightforward character).

Release the Hounds…

There are heretics hiding among us, spreading corruption and blaspheming the name of our Lord. We must cleanse ourselves of this blight.

There are witches in this town, cursing us and bringing the devil into our midst! We must find these witches and purge ourselves of these elements before they cast us all into sin!

The Jews have infested every facet of our society. They are leeching resources from honest Germans. It is necessary to cure ourselves of this disease.

Our entire way of life is threatened. There are communists operating at the highest levels of the government, and we must root them out.

hunting-wacistsRacists and misogynists are just as prevalent as ever. They should be named and shamed, for there is no place for them in society today.

The principles of human behavior really aren’t that complicated. There’s really nothing within human action that deviates from a few basic precepts. The same script plays out again and again and again and again.

Pattern recognition. Half of human understanding is pattern recognition. What are we to conclude of those who lack the basic ability to see the patterns that our lives follow?

It really is difficult to see the dignity and worth of each human being when so few of them seem to have even one of those things.

The way that the strong rule over the weak never changes. The way that the smart rule over the average never changes. The way that the powerful rule over the weak never changes. The way that the rich rule over the poor never changes.

The way that the moral guardians rule over those they claim authority over never changes. It matters not whether these guardians are self-appointed or not.

Moral panics never change. Moral panics are the same everywhere, done for the same reasons by the same types of people.

The people stirring up the moral panics don’t have to be wrong. Hell, most of them get at least a few basic facts correct. There were certainly communists in Hollywood and the government in the 1950’s. There were no doubt heretics in medieval Spain. There were certainly Jews in Germany, and Jews do tend to be economically successfully wherever they go.

Sometimes the people being purged are harmless. Sometimes they’re the ones running the show. Sometimes they don’t exist. None of this is actually relevant. The purpose of the moral panic is to precipitate a moral panic. The moral panic itself is just an excuse.

Nothing like a good moral panic to rile up the herd. Gets them all spooked and afraid and desperate for a leader like you who can calm them and show them the way out of the emotional wilds into which they have been plunged. Gets you status points. Allows you to show how dedicated you are to protecting others and keeping the herd safe. Gotta cast out the bad elements, don’t you know?

What’s that? Moral panics have a nasty habit of becoming vectors for their own pandemonium? No, that can’t be it. There are racists hiding here, don’t you know? If you don’t think this is problematic enough to drop everything and start lighting torches, you might be one of them. What’s that? This is getting out of control? Now I know you’re one of them! What do you mean this is going to come back to bite me one day? Nonsense! And who is this Robespierre asshole you keep bringing up?

A good purge is such a human constant you almost get the sense that the urge to do so is written into their DNA. Come to think of it, you’d probably have a more difficult time arguing that it isn’t.

I am generally of the idea that humans are going to have a purge sooner or later. Humans need their chaotic social frenzies the same way they need sex: it’s not absolutely necessary, but they tend to go a little off if they aren’t getting it. The pressure builds and builds and it really is better if you just let it out because not everyone can handle it and very few people can properly channel it into constructive avenues.

Imagine having a pet dog that is loyal and reliable, if a little dumb. Imagine that you love this dog, but that every once in a while it goes absolutely frothing mad and starts barking at everything and clawing at the walls and attacking your neighbor’s cat.

Well, fuck your neighbor’s cat. Your neighbor’s cat is probably an asshole, and hey, maybe this world would be a better place if it was gone. That doesn’t make any of this behavior any less disruptive, though, nor any less problematic.

What could you do with such a dog?

We do not have the choice to not have this dog. We are stuck with it. What we are left with is the burden of devising a plan to channel its impulses in such a way that they are minimally destructive.

How do you make the purge an effective ritual for dissipating their emotion urges without causing collateral damage? How could you time it so that it happens at a very particular time in controlled circumstances? Better yet, how could you set up a system that neutralizes panics before they begin while still granting people the release they need?

These are but a handful of the questions that need be asked in this realm. It is exceedingly difficult to know which questions are the right ones to ask. I cannot imagine how difficult it might be to find and implement the answers.

Friday Night Fragments #20

I was on the Hour of the Jackal last night, as hosted by the infamous Soapjackal. I totally recommend it. If you’re into signaling how cool you are (and you should be), hop on this bandwagon and start showing up for these things. It isn’t going to be long before everyone will be tripping over themselves to talk about how they were totally there (even if they weren’t) just to show off how they’re part of the cool kids club. You may laugh (NRx as the cool kids? lol) but I know this game and I can assure you, this is what’s going to happen with the Jackal Hours.

Besides, if you don’t show up, you’ll miss out on the creation of sweet-ass neoreactionary inside jokes (i.e. like why you should totally invite Nick B. Steves to go snorkeling with you next time you see him). It may sound silly, but what is a culture if not a series of related inside jokes? Do you really want to be shut out of the culture that’s being built?

I hope to catch you all on the Jackal Hour next time it rolls around.

Anyway, the reason I bring this up is because I shared a personal anecdote on the Jackal Hour last night that I think would be fun to share with you all. It was mentioned that cultivating a circle of men with whom you engage in deliberate rituals is key to developing a strong tribe. To corroborate this observation, I shared an experience I had of forming a martial arts club at my university. We weren’t given permission to form an official club (due to safety concerns), so what did this small band of men do? We formed an “unofficial” martial arts club.

All the stuff we couldn’t so as an officially sanctioned club? We do it. Weapons training? Yep. Chokes, armlocks, and all kinds of violent things to knees, elbows, necks, and fingers? Yep. Muay Thai sparring? Every Saturday we strap on the gloves.

It’s a wild ride, and these guys have become some of my best friends. Based on my experience, I can honestly say that if you want to build a tribe, start by punching someone in the face.

Starbucks caused quite a stir this week when it decided to encourage customers to “Race Together” and have conversations about race. It was universally lambasted by people of all ideologies, but more importantly, it confirmed for me the proper way to walk into a Starbucks:

For what it’s worth, I too like my women like I like my coffee: hot, rich, and five or six times a day.

Someone tell Starbucks that we need to have that conversation next.

A few weeks ago, I carved out some time and read Casino Royale, the first and original James Bond novel. It’s a quick read, but a thrilling one. It’s definitely not high-brow literature, but it actually is a fantastic book, even without judging it as the light beach reading that it really is. It’s also seeded with all sorts of tidbits that would trigger the modern-day progressive, in case you need any additional reason to pick it up.

Other books I’ve read in the past few weeks: Anabasis, Collapse, and various books on sustainability that are not worth touching (I had to read them for a project I’m a part of, and I exhort you not to share my fate).

Anabasis was great. Collapse was dull, and, according to a professor I know, inaccurate on several major fronts (such as the rise and decline of Easter Island civilization). Read the former, but not the latter.

I’ve also been working my way through Napoleon: A Life, by Andrew Roberts, and I must say, it is phenomenal. Napoleon is not exactly a favorite figure among many Neoreactionary-types, but he was an amazingly gifted individual and is is absolutely thrilling to read about the things he did and how he did them.

I highly recommend this book, and there’s a quite a few of you in particular who I think would greatly enjoy it. If you think I mean you, you’re probably correct.

Many of my plans for the future are still up in the air, and they depend on various different factors beyond my control, but the common threads run deep, and as they come together and solidify, it seems more and more likely that I’ll be ending up in Washington DC for the next several years. It’s the best-case scenario for me, at the very least, and I certainly intend to make it happen.

There have been stirrings and whispers of a growing Neoreactionary community in the area, and though I personally think that’s a bit of a ways off, I know for a fact that in 2-3 years there’s going to be a strong NRx tribe there, hiding in plain sight.

During my time in DC last summer, I saw the rich potential in that city. I saw the vibrant network of fellow travelers and potential allies. I learned of the growing numbers of those that we could call friends hidden away in that great Sodom on the Potomac. The cultivation of a Neoreactionary community there would not be difficult. All the ingredients have come together and the recipe is practically making itself.

West Coast Neoreaction has been highly active in developing its own unique flair. East Coast Neoreaction has been highly remiss in doing the same thing. People near New York have the opportunity and the numbers to do so, and I hope that they will continue to work towards this development in the future.

Once I get situated, I plan on doing the same thing in DC.

Who else wants to take this thing straight to the heart of the beast?

Questions on Russia with Mitchell Laurel

Recent stirrings in Russia and Eastern Europe, coupled with the latest round of “Where in the world is Vladamir Putin?” have led me to give more thought to what will happen in that part of the world in coming times. I put together a few ideas on the matter, but in the interest of getting a second opinion, I turned to one of the best geopolitical minds in Neoreaction, Mitchell Laurel, who blogs over at A House with No Child.

I e-mailed him with my speculations, and he not only agreed to critique them, but also graciously allowed me to post our exchange here. I present to you the relevant transcript of our discussion, mildly edited for clarity:

Donovan: I’ve been thinking over potential Russian war plans (assuming such a thing will happen, which you’ve convinced me is quite likely if not certain) and was hoping to get your opinion on some of the speculations I’ve been coming up with. Would you mind if I bounced a few ideas off you?

Mitchell: Sure thing,

Ask and I’ll answer, Donovan.

D: Some of the North Sea naval mobilizations and preparations for Arctic warfare don’t make sense if the goal in only a conflict in Ukraine, but would seem to indicate potential for combat in Scandinavian countries, north Russia, or in a colder world (what are the Russian climate forecasts?). Do you think Putin is making preparations in case of a northern front being opened up or do you think he intends to do something along those lines himself?

(I suppose the flip-side of that idea is that Russia’s been training specifically in Arctic warfare over the past several years, some say as part of a plan to lay claim to Arctic territory, so this might not mean nearly as much as I’m reading into it).

Additionally, I can’t help but get the feeling that Putin expects quick gains early on before grinding down into a protracted conflict. Sounds plausible or suspect? My first intuition was that he would only try to take and hold Ukraine, settling into a defensive war, but it’s also occurred to me that he might gamble and plow ahead full-steam into Europe, taking out as many NATO countries as possible before the US steps in. I’m leaning towards the former as more likely, but it is hard to tell. The latter would certainly draw the US in, but if Putin thinks the US will step in anyway, it makes more sense.

Building off that, what if the intent was to draw the US into a protracted conflict in order to suck us into a cataclysmic financial situation that cripples us (or worse)? Russia alone couldn’t do it, but they’ve got China in their corner and the Chinese have been buying quite a bit of gold…

Anyway, what do you think? Do any of these sound plausible or am I totally off-base?

M: Good Evening Donovan,

I don’t think you have it wrong, I do think what you have is ordered incorrectly. I’ll address the points piece by piece.

For starters, conflict in the Ukraine is important, but a footnote to Russia’s larger strategy. In terms of their military prowess they are no threat. They are 20 years behind in military technology and have the morale of the Iraqi Army that defended Mosul (they ran, btw). Nor does Russia seek conflict with Scandinavia, who are no names anyways. Who cares about Sweden, after all.

But you got much closer with your interest in Russian climate forecasts. The Russians see that the coming decades are going to be characterized by more and more extreme cold, in a little ice age scenario at best, possibly a real one at worst. I don’t talk about that much on the blog or in NRx, because it’s not a popular position, but all the signs are there in the markets and in the increase of armaments among the arctic nations. The arctic will also be increasingly important for resource extraction going forward. Also a factor. It’s a great big goldmine waiting for the tech to make it commercially feasible.

Putin has no intention of declaring war on the West. That would be foolish, and in fact he is doing everything he can to avoid it. It is the Americans who pushing as hard as they can for a controlled and limited war that can justify uncontrolled and unlimited political repression and military rearmament. The Americans know they’re on the decline and want to ‘lock-in’ as much of their controlled territory as they can when the dollar goes down. If they fail to lock in the west, Europe will become its own center of influence and a competitor to American might. And if America were to lose the West (or even its East Asian allies) we would see a fall from hegemony which cannot be allowed. The hegemon will take extreme risks to preserve its position.

Here’s the thing about the Russian military. It’s advanced, high morale, and designed specifically for defending Russia. From a military perspective Russia is pretty much impregnable to conventional forces (though vulnerable to asymmetric ones). But in terms of looking outward Russia is fairly useless. Russia doesn’t even have large ships capable of effective amphibious landings (like the Mistral). Russia has the power to knock out the Ukraine in under 24 hours, but not the strength to hold it. Never mind Poland or any nation farther West, that’s just fools talk. They simply don’t have the equipment or the resources to facilitate that kind of expansion.

Again your analytical mistake here was in the application of intentions and purposes. It’s not Putin who wants war and is trying to push into the West. It’s the West, mostly America, that wants war in order to preserve its hegemony. The dollar is going down either way. Everyone knows that. The key question American policy makers have is how can the collapse of the dollar be used to maintain and expand American hegemony? Their conclusions explain why they have been so pro-active in their aggression towards Russia via Georgia, Armenia, the Ukraine, the Baltics, and the ‘Stans.

With Russia, they have a descending set of goals: 1. Break Russia into smaller countries that can be effectively absorbed into American hegemony. 2. Should that fail, provoke and demonize Russia in order to utilize ‘Russian aggression’ to lock-in Europe and east Asia via the TTP and the transatlantic treaty. If they can lock them in American hegemony can actually be expanded despite the collapse of the dollar. The 3rd goal, and the weakest, is simply to postpone the rise of Russia and China, even should America’s hegemony be slowly eroded.

Russia is more a reactive force than a pro-active one in this whole drama. The primary objective of the Putin faction is to secure Russian longevity by eliminating the great enemy that seeks to break Russia, which is American hegemony. Not America itself, but American hegemony. That’s why they’ve made every effort to avoid open war with the Ukraine, to avoid the threat of Europe being ‘locked in’ the American hegemony. Peace plays to their strategy. With their close alliance with China economic gains are on their side and they make more friends every year as the American attempts to maintain dominance become increasingly desperate and drive allies away. In the ideal scenario America falls like the Soviet Union fell, with relatively little bloodshed no full scale war.

I hope that gave you more insight. It would make for a good post, I think. Remember that while American Cathedralist narratives are retarded, the American elite are not. Nor are they helpless. A lot of projects are in motion to maintain their strength. It’s the great game, after all.
M. Laurel

For more great insights, read Mitchell’s work at A House with No Child and follow him on Twitter.