Well yes, the feudal system afforded a great amount of local power to landed nobles, who in general had less motive to interfere with Church matters, especially when parishes provided security and predictability to the life of their subordinates. Nobles didn’t have the same “national” concerns that strong or even weak monarchs had to deal with. Political power was thus quite microcosmic, and this suited the Church very well.

I always come back to the decline of Europe’s traditional warrior caste as the real source of the degradation in practical terms. Their demise as entities with real capital (Land) and real power (they basically controlled all of the men at arms) grossly distorted society. The mercantile class grew fat and lazy off new dividends, while petty kings irresponsibly centralized the army to such a degree that any brigand who managed to seize the capital city could effectively terrorize the entire nation. I’d say The vestigal bloodlines of England’s last warriors pretty much all perished in the War of the Roses (a theory advanced by Chesterton), while Russia’s died in WWI and the civil war. The Romanian Iron Guard was a solid attempt at recreating theirs, and I will give grudging props to the SS as a slightly misguided attempt to create the same kind of thing, a “European Samurai”. I am strongly of the opinion that if warriors emerged again in Europe, the Church would very quickly return to its Traditional moorings, and thus would follow all of society.

While there are similarities, Tomberg was somewhat of a different case to Solovyov. He was an Estonian-Russian mix, thus Lutheran in origin, and of course a theosophist to boot. He did express interest in the Russian Orthodox Church, especially while in the Netherlands, but was put off by the bishop’s support for the Nazis, whom he vigorously opposed (at least from what I remember). I have yet to get deeply into his work, but look forward to it.

Of course, at the level of esotericism (explicit Martinism or otherwise), the distinctions between East and West become somewhat less apparent, as political and historical grievances are immediately discounted. The mysteries of the Theotokos are particularly important here, for they connect in an esoteric way the three sacramental churches: the Roman, the Eastern, and the Oriental. All three have witnessed credible apparitions of the Mother of God to them specifically. The Fatima apparition, at least in esoteric Orthodox circles, has been the subject of quite intense discussion due to its content. Of course, it is not believed that the Roman Church has revealed everything pertaining to this apparition (something suspected by many Traditional Catholics as well), and it is interpreted in an Orthodox manner, but the significance of Russia to the Mother of God is intriguing to say the least.

I will definitely have to read this more than once. It is in my view the best Social Matter article this year. Heartfelt appreciation to Mark for writing it.

I would add, the big problem with Church-state relations in Russia largely took the same contours as that of the West, that is, in the period following the Renaissance, formal centralisation of states began to slowly take shape. Where previously the state had been too weak, or was content not to interfere with huge degrees of church power at the local level, this state of affairs disintegrated in both mainland Europe and what was to formally become Russia. And the reason for this wasn’t even specifically related to the Church in many cases, but the gradual erosion of feudal power by the central monarchy.

In Russia, directly following the Renaissance in Europe, there was the controversy of the ‘possessors’, that is, the question of whether the Russian monastics should own property and serfs (by the way, these communities had emerged virtually voluntarily, since often in rather comical fashion monks tried to get away from peasants, but were followed across huge distances until they were unable to prevent village communities sprouting wherever they existed. In addition, the Church probably treated them better than typical barons). While the non-possessor faction of the Church was supressed officially, Catherine the Great, very much after Peter in terms of her values, effectively was a radical non-possessor. Under her reign, something like 3/4 of all monasteries in Russia were closed, and this was all part of disempowering the Church, and actually I would say in large part it paved the way for the Revolution. The clergy became very alienated from the population, they were not relied on or trusted in the same way they had once been.

I am surprised no mention is made even in passing to the Knights Templar however! It seems to me that this order of warrior monks was the ultimate example of temporal and spiritual power reaching an absolute harmony. What’s more, if one discounts for a moment their militant nature as an armed order, the actual function they served across Europe was very similar to that of the Russian monastic system, in that they became essential for everyday society, and not just in terms of worship. They administered vast lands, operated charitable institutions, and of course facilitated pilgrimage, which could be seen as an essential part of Medieval commerce. These things were monumental achievements, and I’d say that it’s probably no coincidence that the tradition of the Teutonic Knights was handed down to those who would eventually become the Tsar’s most vociferous supporters in the last days of the Russian Empire.

Clearly there is a symphony which needs to be achieved. Orthodoxy accepts the primacy of the bishop in Rome (though sadly this has often been forgotten or obscured), but it only disagrees on how this primacy is to be exercised and what is the process by which dogma is declared Orthodox. In my view, this only comes from a council where all the lines of Apostolic succession are represented, where the faithful organically embrace a ruling, and where God’s anointed sits in judgment over proceedings. As the Catholic mystic Valentin Tomberg remarked, the scars from the absence of an emperor in Europe are wounds which know how to make themselves heard.

Who exactly are the people behind the TWiR staff? Wouldn’t it be fair to give them some credit (ie name them)?

Incredibly interesting, and indeed an under-examined topic. Long term, the question of the military sticks in my craw, for I would see the only way of ensuring a Traditional mode of society without the threat of profligacy-seeking military coups, to be the re-landing of the military as a warrior caste, that is, tying segments of it under different landed command structures similar to the feudal system, in which all have fealty up the chain to the sovereign, but cannot easily act as some kind of unified, standing ‘bloc’ or bureaucratic arm.

Also I’m highly partial to Slazar’s paramilitary efforts as a counterbalance. Ideally, this would be a radical empowerment of domestic law enforcement (likely in a very non-secular sense), and while this contingent would be centrally managed, it would be smaller in scope than the entirety of the national warrior caste, thus minimizing a coup risk on its own part.

Perhaps though, in Salazar’s case, he simply didn’t have enough helicopters 😉

Thanks a lot! Good to know I’m not losing my touch.

I would agree. Relates back to that old concept of ‘occult motivators’, that while their head might say one thing, something else is going on behind the scenes. I’m just amazed they have this much dissonance even while they write quite eloquently on some tough truths about post-Soviet life.

In that sense then, this is totally fine in outlining the common sociopolitical markers of positive social religion (i.e – the Traditional religions). This it does well, though I would have added an extra virtue in the ‘organic collectivization’ of religion, that positive religions bind people together, help them trust one another, and negate part of the need for state-imposed collectivism, which is almost always negative. In short, religion being a necessity for the development of ‘communities’, not just because they make us value the future (as you rightly stated), but because they help us to feel a familiarity and kinship with those around us.

I see the great merits of this article, particularly its succinct description of how Liberalism manages to pwn everybody, but I agree with P.T. that it misses one of Maistre’s key points undergirding the success of Reactionary societies: the intangible and irrational, unquestionable, dark and mysterious core at their heart.

You describe the offering as the ‘bones’ of a religion, and while I understand this is just symbolic language, bones are very different from seeds. Things don’t grow from bones, bones grow from things. You have correctly outlined much of the positive societal trapping provided by religion, but it can’t actually exist without it as an adrift concept. This is one of the lessons of the liberal experience.

To address two of your points specifically: greatness and eternity, these things are important, but it is hard to get people to actually consider them to be important outside of a religious framework, and this is precisely why Reactionaries tend to (though as you point out, not always) gravitate into some kind of dogmatic tradition if they are not there already.

It’s easy to think that Liberalism, malevolent as we know it to be, is inculcating in people all of these sinister values and making them behave in the way that makes Modern living so disdain worthy, but a huge unmistakable part of this is not active but passive. It is Liberalism quite literally sitting back and letting men do what men do once inhibitions are no longer enforced with an iron fist.

It is interesting you begin what is clearly a very intuitive and thoughtful piece with a quote from Căpitanul, as he was the one leader from that period who I would say cannot really be considered outside of the tradition he emerged from, and that was part of what made his movement so awe-inspiring. It did not have either the cold indifference to religion of Fascism, the somewhat exhausted acknowledgement of Falangism, nor the cynical misrepresentation and search for a new tradition of Nazism. The Iron Guard incontestably suffered the worst and most brutal persecution of any movements akin to it, and I seriously question whether other movements of the time would have endured such an onslaught. The scores of dead Legionaries make Hitler’s 16 “blood martyrs” look like bruised knees.

I understand this was written for an American audience, so is certainly addressing a problem concerning the American religiosity which I have mentioned before, but like P.T. I am sceptical of an attempt to replicate what Progressivism does “for the right”. To me, this seems something like a contradiction in terms, and may fall into the trap of “we can do leftism, but manage it better than these guys”, which was essentially what communism’s multiple iterations did, with no reward at the end.

Much appreciated Nick. Hope Easter was good for you.

I am honored Nick, though the credit for actually digging the article up cannot be mine. Someone Tweeted it to me. Alas, it is now buried so deep in my timeline that I can’t find it.

Chesterton is fascinating to read, a true literary connoisseur. Ballad of the White Horse is a personal favorite of mine. I know he was a Distributist, but I always saw this as somewhat right wing in nature, based on Papal encyclicals at the time. Am I mistaken? Probably worth noting his brother, A.K. Chesterton, was a member of the British Union of Fascists and a good friend of Oswald Moseley.

Well-written and very true to life. I interract with many living in the former Eastern Bloc via Twitter and the sentiment is there, lurking in the background, that while communism was negative, liberation from behind the Iron Curtain was not the fairy tale that zealous talk show hosts claim it to be. Reminds me of a Soul of the East article on Yeltsin’s Russia and how it was far worse than the Soviet Union of the 1980s, due to the sudden influx of drugs hitherto unknown and the rapid privatization at the behest of corrupt foreign oligarchs.

https://souloftheeast.org/2015/11/24/glamorizing-catastrophe/

But as you say, what is really longed for in all of these countries (often where official Communist Parties still have support from some segment of the population) is the fading aspects of Traditional order that were frozen in time under Stalinist oppression. Things such as being able to trust your kids alone in the street. In the USA, this was finished after the Manson murders when people started locking their doors at night, but for the east it lasted into the 90s.

Stalin reversed many of the wild-eyed social reforms of the Leninist era, fearing their destructive effects on civil society. Our leaders by contrast have no such qualms. In fact, destruction of the civil society plays into their hands for their globalist ambitions are real, whereas Stalin’s were mostly for show.

“Has shit to do with Schlomos Internationalism that becomes more and more an excuse for cowardly LARPers not to do anything cause it could maybee somehow in some way help some internationalist Kabale.”

Such a tough guy. Like Bill Kristol. You have absolutely zero grasp of the Iraq War, thinking it was about making sure troops “don’t get lazy”. Yes, I’m sure a country which has sodomites and transexuals in its army is very concerned about troops not getting lazy. Please. It was an open-and-shut case of globalism in action, for a variety of illusory justifications and financial deals.

Then again, someone who makes such unhinged statements as yours, with as much lunatic hatred of Russia as John McCain and other assorted helicopter-bait (including Hillary Clinton), it really isn’t a wonder. Perhaps your neocon-ism would be better suited to another site… Weekly Standard perhaps?

This was a very interesting read, but I feel something very key was overlooked, and that is the most common argument for internal balkanization of the United States made by Americans themselves which in fact is devoid of geopolitics: that is the ethnic makeup of the nation itself.

There is a very serious AAQ. The Hispanic question isn’t real, but the issue of African Americans and the problems they are at present causing, and have been causing for a long time, persist. Russia of course dominates non-Russian ethnic groups through suzerainty, some far more successfully than others. However these are largely Caucusoid peoples or what might crudely be called ‘Asian snow-n****’, akin to Mongols.

Africans it seems, at least in my own assessment of race, are not necessarily a group that can be put ‘effectively’ under suzerainty. They are volatile, and their mentality is just so alien from our own. As such, what is the solution? My own proposition has been to give them their own space as Farrakhan wishes, and let them cut loose.

When previously I have advocated for the end of the United States, particularly its present imperial structures abroad, I have never had the assumption that White Americans would become an irrelevant principality or some such thing. In fact, I believe that such a roughly homogenous state would very quickly become a far more potent force in Latin America than it had been for its history. There’s certainly nothing to say that a new American imperium could not enter into federation with the more ‘civilized’ LatAm countries including Chile and Argentina. I also think the oil thing is somewhat overstated. America’s energy reserves are bountiful, as are those of its near-neighbors on the continent. It should not have to rely on overseas energy, as this is an unncessary strategic weakness. If only it could cut through the mindless bureaucracy of misapplied enviro regulation, these immense resources could be tapped. Along with the expansion and nurturing of agriculture, America as such could shed the diabolic ‘Atlanticist’ orientation it inherited from the United Kingdom, and become a third ‘Land Based Power’ with telluric values. The UK moved to Atlanticism as necessity once it lost a kind of spiritual or psychic connection with an Arthurian concept of kingship (and of course being an island), but the United States never needed to have this orientation. It is a huge landmass, and even if it did release some territory to its more troublesome ethnic clientele it would remain as such.

As to Russia itself, I do think the time may be coming for some kind of solution to the Chechen problem. Chechnya proper cannot be relinquished for geographic reasons involving the mountain ranges, but the people there are festering into a broader security problem than they were under ostensibly terrorist leadership. This will need some thought.

I would say common working relationship between Eurasia and an American continental imperium are possible most certainly. And I am as perturbed by China as you are. It is indeed a ‘wild card’ and I am particularly worried about the threat it may pose to living cultures nearby. But also I do think there is room for a fourth power, something geographically close to Africa. I doubt Iran can fulfill this function but it is possible (indeed its an argument FOR a nuclear Iran). that or some other Islamic power.

Your nation thanks you…. or at least the anti-nationalist trans-nationalist globalists thank you, along with the Soros foundation. But those are basically the same thing, right? Good goy. I’m sure you thought it was vital to chase after those imaginary WMDs in Iraq.

The Russian demands don’t seem unreasonable. “stop promoting color revolutions in our sphere of influence”. Nuclear war is apparently worth this goal with is of ABSOLUTE vital important to the American people, yes. Neocon-ism is poison.

Thanks Nick. Did I miss an announcement as the change to the ‘Silver Circle’ award? What’s the story behind it?

Submission in some cases is clearly preferable just from a pragmatic standpoint. So, for instance, Christians were told to submit to the Roman authorities wherever such submission did not entail apostasy. The Jews on the other hand actively rebelled against Rome, which led to their prophesied destruction as a rooted people.

There was no way to predict this. To them, it must have seemed like the apocalypse to have the king murdered and the Church persecuted. Hindsight is 20/20

In many cases, we are dealing here with the context of the time, and Liberal government was surely unthinkable in this time period. So for instance, when it is said ‘Render unto caesar’ there is similarly no qualifier as to what this means. Just the current caesar? Only a Roman caesar? Evidently, the Church has supported dissent against governments it has deemed to be outside the remit of such protections, while not doing so in other cases. This can be either implicit or explicit, and very much depends on the health of the Church at a given time.

Martyrdom is favorable as opposed to apostasy, and the natural outworking of the French Revolution was mass generational apostasy, so no, the Vendee uprising was not only morally virtuous, but in fact morally dutiful.

I would never compare Ottomans to the Jacobins or Bolsheviks. The first had a sacral, Traditional character (as Pagan Rome did). The latter were utterly diabolical inversions of the sacred, These ‘authorities’ were worthy of uprising, because they lacked the Traditional prerequisite for legitimacy.

I am reminded of Ivan Ilyin’s distinction between demonism and satanism. He said that demonism was a temporary darkening of the soul, the root cause of spiritual incompleteness, petty evil, and capricious persecution. Satanism, however, was of another order entirely and represented a direct application of the diabolical will for the sole purpose of overthrowing order itself. The second could never be forgiven, for all of its crimes targeted not individuals, but God Himself, whom we were duty bound to prosecute the justice of.

Your question is precisely why I ended the article with the hierarchy of moral duty. Were the Ottomans, for at least most of their history, Traditional and sacral authorities with all of the legitimacy this imparted? Yes.

But, were the Ottomons a direct threat to Christian nations? To Christian families? And most importantly, were they an affront to God Himself? I believe the answer is affirmative. Thus, these wars of liberation and kebab removal were very much justified.

We seem to have two extremes today of the ‘masculine woman’ and the ‘pornographic woman’, two sides to feminism, one symbolizing woman’s escape from the ‘oppression’ of gender, and the other her escape from the ‘oppression’ of morality, yet both manage to be ugly in the true sense of aesthetic as opposed to titillation.

Western woman certainly has had a ‘look’ throughout the centuries which makes her distinct from women of other races, but I would have described it as ‘subtle’. Her beauty is not necessarily flashy yet nor is it entirely mysterious (as with Islamic women).They hide something, but there are clues as to what it is in their eyes and their posture. This was, of course, when femininity was at its height, when women were functioning parts of a greater society, rather than “abused second-class citizens”.

Definitely agree with this.

I shun the kind of puritanism which would say that certain outcomes of elections could not be turned to our advantage. Rejection of the principles which undergird democratic processes and the idea that elections are truly the things that change domestic dynamics, does not mean we would not prefer certain outcomes of plebiscites. This is not pragmatism, but realism, and there is some distinction there.

Example: Viktor Orban in Hungary is holding a referendum on whether the country will accept or reject refugees. Obviously, Orban does not care what the average man on the streets of Budapest thinks of the migrant crisis, but the outcome of such a referendum in his favor massively strengthens Hungary’s international stance, given the current dynamic interplay between multinational organizations, treaties, appearances and so forth. It was a very smart domestic move by Orban.

Out of chaos come the strong men.

You are right that the true desires, the organic desires of the people remain hidden. They are indeed esoteric, and require elites to unpack them and structure them in the form of a working society. I see populist movements that the governments do not like as furthering our cause by weakening the present faux elite. The world is becoming more and more hectic due to the unlocking of information, as well as a cargo plane full of chickens coming home to roost from various global Liberal plots and schemes. Let them roost. Let the people become paranoid and angry. The system cannot function with paranoid and angry people. They’re bad cogs.

A machine that works and works to turn its internal device will exhaust itself. Then the mechanic comes to open her up and at that moment he is the god of the polis. He can do anything, even reset it to factory mode.

It’s difficult to do, but if you really try you can discern fake media outrage from real media outrage. The media’s reaction to 2010 was fake outrage (the Tea Party are literally brownshirts!). The media’s reaction to 2016 would be real outrage (they’re literally trashing my office!). That’s when we know the spectacle is almost over. Watch for real sweat and tears.

Pinochet and Franco were decent men, but they both made big mistakes, i.e – Franco should have enthroned the Carlist claimant to the Spanish crown rather than some squirt who would undo all he had done.

Right now I’m looking at Emperor Alexios I Komnenos. Still scratching my head as to why this man isn’t an Eastern saint.

You really don’t understand much. Nobody is saying Donald Trump would make a great caeser. He’d barely make a good Pinochet, but if the great men are to come forth, then the present system needs to burn to the ground. The Republic has to die. Trump could help in this regard, particularly for Europe, given his foreign policy approach.

I can barely express how good this is. The comparison to the bear cub is so without blemish, I have my suspicions you were the Vietnamese merchant setting up the perfect metaphor!

The original article, and then this one, ought to be essential readings for Reactionaries. Illustrates exactly where Conservatives, not just of the American variety in this instance, fall down even if their root instincts are correct. I hope you get some kind of response.

An engrossing read. As much as I identify with Russia and actually love to hear the language spoken, I have an attachment to Enlgish, and not just because it is the only language I speak fluently. English has its own beauty in its breadth and depth, the endless synonyms and ways of getting an idea across. It is quite startling that not only in the United States is this becoming lost, but it is also under threat in other native English-speaking countries.

I wonder, what would a future look like where English was the first language nowhere, but it was the ‘international tongue’ everywhere.

Thanks Nick. Excellent roundup.

Okay Leonidas, but pay close attention to the section where I outlined Iran’s geopolitical aim, which is the construction of a crescent buffer against the Sunnis, in order to protect itself from ever having to endure the horrors of the Iran-Iraq War again, and offsetting a potential hostile strike by Israel. These goals don’t conflict with any conceivable interest of Occidental states, certainly not the USA which is an ocean away.

Ask yourself if you would rather have Saudi Arabia or Iran as the most powerful force in the Middle East. I favor Iran in this regard.

I believe the issue of Constantinople is rather a distant one, and will be addressed in time. To be honest, the city doesn’t hold that much significance for non-Turkish Muslims. For the Turks, it is their city of conquest, but what does that really mean for Persians or Arabs, who themselves have never had ‘easy’ relations with the Turks.

An honor as always. You really do a great job accounting for everything. I don’t know how you keep up with it all.

Ukraine’s old name ‘the Ukraine’ meaning ‘the Borderland’ belies it as a geographical rather than national space. Much like Lebanon was ‘the Lebanon’.

One has to understand however that the lure of money is strong. Ukrainians do not seem to even have nationalist motives for the most part, their motives appear to be economic, and in some ways rather sinister, since they plan to leave the Ukraine and head to places like Germany and the UK where they can achieve higher salaries. I’m not exactly sure what is ‘nationalist’ about such aspirations. They seem to drip with the same individualist cynicism that abounds in the West.

Ukrainians made the big mistake of thinking…

“If only we had better people external to our country!”

Rather than…

“If only we had better people internal to our country!”

It was only after the Maidan that it became apparent that the people in the Ukraine were just as corrupt as the oligarchs across the border. There wasn’t a ruble’s difference between them. These lands don’t have a future outside of Russia’s sphere, except for the most western regions which will probably be absorbed by Poland at some point because they actually belong to Poland. If there are those in Ukraine with Polish ancestry perhaps, who have a distinct identity from the original Russian one, they should move to Lwow and support this annexation. Russia has no interest in Lwow.

“Nearly a million Ukrainians work in Poland, keeping their families afloat at home”

Same could be said of Poles in the UK. Is this a stable model for preserving peoples? Just passing them along the line westward?

Really interesting. I think this is one of the best AtT I have heard. I haven’t yet gotten around to part II, but wow, you covered the topic at hand in real detail and illustrated the thesis in ways that I had not really understood in depth before. Well done!

It has been rather perplexing the false outrage over the likely Russian leaking of DNC emails, for a few reasons:

1) Countries meddle in other countries’ elections all the time, because they have geostrategic interests tied to certain outcomes. Why did Obama try to influence Brexit? Why did David Cameron treat Romney horribly during his 2012 visit? Why has Venezuela helped to fund Bolivarian leftist movements in other South American countries? Why has America outright and with no pretenses overthrown foreign governments? The question is not how outrageous is meddling, but what the motive is, which brings me to point 2

2) The motive for Russia’s desire to see Hillary lose is very simple. Hillary is for the complete invasion of Russia’s geostrategic arena, including a recently stated demand to take down the ‘murderous’ Assad regime. When the world’s top superpower has a candidate dedicated to eroding your nation, you have a vested interest in not seeing that candidate come to power. It would be one thing if Russia’s interests conflicted with those of the American people themselves, but they do not. The American people in general are not for overthrowing Arab regimes, or penetrating distant countries they could scarcely locate on a map via subversive agents and NGOs. The entire panopoly of war-hawks are a minority interest group with absolutely zero backing from the American people. Does John McCain really represent Arizona?… really?

3) This has been a very obvious media drive to shift focus away from the content of the leaked emails. People are now talking about Russia meddling in the general, rather than the DNC meddling in the primary. If Sanders had any balls, there is probably enough evidence for a legal investigation into the DNC for defrauding him. The media tell us that the American voters deserve transparency, but apparently the source of that transparency is capable of making it evil. Whether this narrative works remains to be seen. I suspect Assange is playing his own game, and has more tricks for the Clinton campaign up his sleeve.

Oh, and in the current chaotic, terror-soaked climate of Europe, don’t be surprised if the Ecuadoran embassy in London gets hit by ‘terrorists’, the ‘tragic’ consequence being no more wikileaks.

This is truly astounding in its geopolitical complexity and depth, but may be a little too grandiose. I don’t see the resources for such ploys being ‘there’ at the moment. Russia is pretty stretched doing what it does right now, which is working surprisingly well.

I definitely agree on a Russo-Japanese maneuver as America (perhaps Trump’s America?) withdraws from the eastern pacific, but its success may not be ensured, as the Japanese for the most part (around 70%) dislike Russians. Now, the number for Chinese is probably close to 96%, but the difference isn’t something to brag about. But if Japan does not ally with somebody, it will disappear and become part of ‘was always China’. There is no military contest between Japan and China whatsoever, same for South Korea and the Philippines.

The Turkish thing is kind of confusing. Dugin at least seems to think that the coup is very positive for Russia because its results are likely to tip Turkey away from EU/NATO/USG, but this is not without risks. Turkey will likely feel more free to antagonize the situation in the Middle East in its ongoing feud with Iran. One thing is for sure, Saudi Arabia is done for. They will not be a power in the coming decades, and nor will Egypt. The day of the Arabs in the world of Islam is coming to a close once again, and the Persians and Turks take center stage once more atop the ruins of a thousand military juntas, warlords, and crypto-caliphs.

I read a really interesting article on Poland recently:

http://original.antiwar.com/adriel_kasonta/2016/07/06/taking-war-warsaw/

Pointing out that Poland’s fears of Russia are largely paranoia. Even Russian neo-Imperialists do not consider Poland to be Russkiy Mir. Ukraine, Belarus, and Transnistria are integral Russian territories, but Poland (especially the lands that currently comprise Poland, most of which seem to be historically German) is not. When France and these other decrepit nations implode, spilling chaos and refugees everywhere, Poland may not have time to be worrying about its eastern front, and might instead want to ensure it doesn’t get culturally enriched tsunami style.

And when the EU disappears, I would suspect Greece, Serbia, and Bulgaria for sure to join some kind of Russian customs agreement and move back into that sphere. Difficult to say where Romania lands in all of this, it’s something of a wild card.

At least in the short term (this century) Russia’s territorial ambitions end probably somewhere at Ukraine’s western edge. Its geopolitical ambitions are of course greater, but will be made up of trade deals and defense treaties.

We can say with certainty that a Trump presidency is significant for geostrategic goals in Moscow

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/07/clinton-trump-putin-nato/492332/

As the Atlantic writes in the usual pearl-clutching libtard prose:

“Republican Party foreign policy, to date, has been fairly clear on a number of subjects: The United States, Republican foreign-policy thinkers have argued, should help to expand the number of free countries in the world; they believe that the U.S. should come to the defense of free peoples whether or not those peoples can, or will, reimburse the United States for expenditures in pursuit of freedom; that Europe represents the stable platform from which the United States projects its power, and ideas, into the world; that Russian imperial dreams should be countered in a robust fashion by the U.S. and its allies; and that the withdrawal of the U.S. from three key regions of the world—East Asia, Europe, and the Middle East—would create vacuums soon filled by non-democratic regimes that would operate counter to U.S. national-security interests.

Donald Trump, should he be elected president, would bring an end to the postwar international order, and liberate dictators, first and foremost his ally Vladimir Putin, to advance their own interests. The moral arc of the universe is long, and, if Trump is elected, it will bend in the direction of despotism and darkness.”

‘despotism and darkness’ – otherwise known as the World of Tradition. It’s going to be a fun century to watch, make no mistake.

Ah, but politics and heresy are completel entwined. There are political motivations for promoting heresy, which is why the enemy does it so readily.

From what I could tell, accusations of heresy were absent from the dissent of almost all the churches.

Antioch refused to attend because it could not share a chalice with Jerusalem, as the two are no longer in communion.

Bulgaria’s objection was over the selection of seating and the fact that it felt the council was addressing trivialities rather than substantive issues which has been ruled out for discussion.

Russia objected lastly on the grounds that the council could no longer be considered pan-Orthodox

The only Church that came close was Georgia who raised serious concerns over the likely statement on marriage which was set to clarify a previously gray area on Orthodox marriage to non-Orthodox, and the outcome of which Georgia anticipated it would not be able to conscion.

There may have been other tertiary concerns as well as those listed, but these seem to be the main stated reasons.

True, but I’d say we could point to other similar regimes that received more explicit support, i.e – Salazar’s Portugal or Tiso’s Slovakia, correct?

Thanks for some in-depth information on the nature of Vatican II. I think this topic has been somewhat neglected in the Reactosphere, and ought to be fully addressed in an expansive analysis by Catholic Traditionalists, also understanding principally where orgs like SSPX and the Sedevacantists stand with relation to the Church.

My contention I would not want to be mistconstrued as that Roman Catholics are importing Liberalism to Orthodoxy via the Ecumenical dialogue. I don’t see any solid evidence for that, so while I think those who have raised concerns about Ecumenism on the Orthodox side are making legitimate points, these don’t have a great deal to do with the threat of Liberalization.

Liberalization instead is coming directly through the Patriarchate of Constantinople which is of course in an unenviable geopolitical situation. There is a Liberal contingent within Eastern Orthodoxy. It is much much smaller than it is in Roman Catholicism, but it is determined, with US backing, and I believe it has ensnared the first among equals, or at the very least the Patriarch’s retinue should be treated with the utmost suspicion. This is why Russia is correct to be very skittish around any proposed ‘councils’, as is Georgia whose lodged complaints related to marriage.

Thanks for the clarification on that point, Ahote. Technically the rift began with Patriarch Athenagoras in the 70s, this is correct.

I take issue with the application of ‘ideology’ as it pertains to Christianity’s fundamental essence. There is an ideological component, but it is undergirded by something more permanent, what Dávila called the “sacred shades upon the eternal hills”. This puts a stop gap underneath all Traditional religions. When they wear out, they can experience revivals from this principle. We can see this throughout history. While I hate to admit it, Russian Orthodoxy had run out of steam by the time the Bolsheviks arrived to unleash terror upon the country. I read somewhere that when mandatory Church attendance was lifted from the military, 2/3 ceased attendance. However, after 60 odd years of communist purges, the Church is on the rebound, thanks to a number of useful factors. This would not be possible without some transcendent baseline that acts as a preserver. People wish to return to sacred ideas again and again, like the man in a wide desert who may only venture so far before he needs to return to a central oasis. The purpose of ancillary structures is to stop people wandering away in the first place.

“The difference between liberalism and Christianity regarding this concept is that liberalism encourages change through rationality, which has induced evolution at a hyper rate toward its inevitable death.”

Of course, the difference go FAR FAR beyond this, but I do agree with you that rationalization has made Liberalism ‘holiness combustible’, with an ever-increasing rate of entropy that like a vortex will drown entire civilizations in its ideological jihad. Maistre did warn us.

“The most important is that the Bible is the literal word of God.”

It isn’t the Quran, an I agree with Nick’s statement above about ‘open to interpretation’. There is one correct interpretation and it is how the Church understood the faith when she was healthy. Moves away from this have been unhealthy. What should be alluded to is that the Bible, unlike certain other religious texts, is rather open ended in useful areas such as the application of civil law. One of the troubles I think Islam would have in converting Europeans is that I think you’d find it absolutely impossible to get them to accept Sharia Law without compromise. It’s just not in their blood.

As to the general point #1, this is just the sociopolitical nature of religion. It is necessary, and it is ever-present, just at different levels of health. To speak of an irreligious civilization is at base, a contradiction in terms.

Now, point #2: This is broadly about holiness spiralling, right? When things get out of hand, where is the stop/rewind button? Liberalism clearly lacks this (I’d call this part of its inherently demonic nature), but I don’t think Traditional religions generally suffer from this at all.

Yes, religions do holiness spiral, that is where we get the term, but this is almost always the result of some kind of particular conflagration in history, and then the toppling of an established religious authority, whereas with Liberalism its like necrotizing fasciitis. Such things are not intrinsic to religions themselves, but are just part of nature as it is. People get pious, make mistakes, etc. The ways to prevent these things (and nothing is ever airtight) are as follows:

A) Predict possible negative outcomes of religious doctrinal points long before they are reached. I am toying with the theory that the Reformation might never have happened if St. Anselm’s theory of atonement had not taken over from the earlier Roman Catholic understanding of the crucifixion, but nobody looked ahead.

B) Have a strong political force that can respond to these internal threats. Germany really lacked this, and few outside were willing to help until it was too late.

C) Never under any circumstances let technology get ahead of you without you knowing the consequences of said technology. It will be used against you by potential holiness gurus. i.e – the printing press and the Roman Catholic Church, or more recently, Twitter and the Conservative establishment.

One thing I want to say is that it is very useful for an authority, religious or otherwise, to be able to stoke up a general climate of fear and the sense of being cornered. Russia has existed under this condition since the invasion of Crimea in particular, and it has been very deliberately implemented. This has completely lowered the portcullis and resulted in a nationwide ‘rally around the flag’ effect. Obviously it is unhealthy for this climate to perpetuate, but when a threat emerges, external or more cynically internal, elites are wise to be able to deploy it. People will say this sounds like 1984 stuff, but it really is just what societies have been doing throughout history, it is temporary, and preserves stability in an emergency situation.

Thanks a lot, Nick. The quote is mine by the way, unless I heard it somewhere else and forgot.

It was of course disheartening to see someone who openly declared “anyone who loves Austria is shit” win the presidency, but it does illustrate that true political power is never transferred democratically. Hitler wasn’t voted into real power, he strong-armed Hindenburg into giving it to him.

I would have liked some analysis on the gender breakdown, which was catastrophic for Hoffer. He lost because of numbers among women and college educated. A very good illustration of why colleges should be leveled and suffrage reversed, but that is by the by. Women literally vote for Africans to rape them in the metro.

What is positive here is the ramping up of frustrations. The destruction of the center parties, reds and blacks, heralds a polarization that is even more intense than Trump/Hillary. This isn’t crony corporatists vs. welfare junkies. It is people who have a sense that they are Austrian vs. people who are committed to dissolving the Austrian nation. I also heard interestingly in a MW hangout that the significant minority Slavs from Croatia, Serbia, and Slovenia vote heavily for the nationalists.

It’s like the frog in the boiling water. What we need is for the heat to crank to 11 very very suddenly. This election contributes to that animosity.

Many interesting things happening right now. Putin visiting Mount Athos in Greece, along with the inconspicuous professor Dugin is a sign to watch Greece closely in the coming months. Also, Russia will no doubt be working non-stop to thwart the disastrous actions of Serbia’s current president, as Montenegro was recently shifted into USG orbit. I don’t know if Brexit will trigger a domino effect across the region, but it is possible. That’s of course assuming the votes haven’t already been counted ‘wink wink’.

This was an intrigueing article. Consider that the Polish hostility to Russia is personal, owing to the Smolensk disaster in large part. And I doubt Russia has any near-term Imperial plans beyond its border regions. It must by necessity absorb Ukraine, Georgia and Belarus.

I would expect the Russian government at that time to be willing to give a peace offering to Poland in the form of Ukrainian land which once belonged to them (along with returning most of Moldova and Bukovina to Romania.)

You are right that Poland, Slovakia, and Hungary (not sure about the Czechs) could form a very powerful bloc in Central Europe, but could they extend influence westward? It seems doubtful, because the motives aren’t really there. I definitely still think Islam will be a factor here,with loss of civil order in countries where Muslims are gaining power in urban locales (Sadiq Khan). In the immediate, Poland will be looking out for Poland, so if you area Frenchman trying to escape Islamic biker gangs with maces, don’t be surprised if they shut the door on you, kurwa.

I can almost imagine a new Berlin Wall, but this time protecting those Visegrad nations from the chaos of the West. When the US ceases to be a factor in Europe, Poland will certainly have no need to continue pretending democracy.

Unrelated, I cannot wait to see what based Serbs do when EU dream finally implodes. Kebabs are going to be removed.

Thanks a lot, Nick. Your aggregation as always is invaluable.

‘Balkanization’ is perhaps going through a period of incorrect usage, just to generally denote the dissolving of a state along various ethnic, religious fault-lines. What balkanization actually was was the disintegration of a superstate (Yugoslavia) into its constituent nations which were well-defined. When Slovenia left, there wasn’t much of a stink. It was the places of integration where war broke out, i.e – Bosnia.

The USA really doesn’t have the demo-geographics to support exactly the situation of the Balkans, but it still will likely disintegrate into what I have termed ‘Petty States’. So, with the general weakening of the central authority due to protracted crises, power will by necessity become localized. The more power these local leaders get, the more concessions they will demand for themselves whenever the central authority does show itself. Before long, the central authority will no longer be anything of substance, and the ‘patchwork’ will emerge.

Okay, so let us for a moment imagine a financial Armageddon during which USG simply cannot make welfare payments, SNAP card topups, etc. What happens to places like South Side Chicago, or Detroit? It’s easy enough to say “CHIMPOUT!” but chimpout is not a mode of governance. Undoubtedly a Papa Doc Duvalier will appear, with his own gang of armed Tonton Macoute thugs to take control of the streets and run things for his own profit. These thugs will be better armed than the police, who will have been sharply cut. State within a state, even if the state-in-name won’t acknowledge it.

Whenever you have no-go areas for your authority, you no longer have authority there. This is what is starting to emerge in Europe, with the Muslim enclaves. As the central authority weakens financially, you will have more and more areas that they refuse to enter, either due to gun-toting Southern/Mountain militias who want federal gubmint off their land, or black hordes looking for the first opportunity to avenge Michael Brown.

As with all thinkers, Evola must be understood in his own sociopolitical context, and with a discerning and critical eye. That’s the only way to find what is truly valuable.

This depends on your view of the status of high Asians as it pertains to their connection to Occidentals. Many many people I have spoken to in this sphere consider them, and a select few other groups as being offshoots of the same racial strain, thus at some level compatible.

The scenario is however, weird. Why would the only candidate from Scandinavia be a pleb?

I mean in my view, the odd Jap entering the aristocratic line is scarcely more impactful as a Jap entering the pleb line. In very low numbers, like 1, it just doesn’t matter, at least on the level of racial integrity. Obviously though, if you have a princess married to a Japanese boy… could be political problems. Sorry, Aneka.

Very well thought out. Prior thought can always be improved. Evola seems to have misunderstood humility from pure etymology, and thus doesn’t recognize what humility conveys in terms of submission to hierarchy. Superiors expect humility.

Thanks Nick. Whatever one’s ideas on Passivism, FN did a tremendous job with that article.

Where do Fajr Libya fit into all this I wonder. Certainly not a monolithic bloc, but they hold considerable territory last I checked. State will break up.

Спасибо

Good round-up of the week. Jimmies were being rustled everywhere.

“And right wing activism of the sort where you got all the guns and the enemy surrenders is by definition not activism. It’s called “Deployment of Formal Power”.”

This ^^ this ^^ and this again ^^

Even the Mexican drug cartels, some of the most well-funded and well-armed criminal organizations in the world, could not actually take down the Mexican government. The paradox seems to be, you have to possess power before you can use it to attain more power. Activists as they are presently on the right don’t have an iota of power, so to talk of activism in this sense, is really not to talk about anything but ‘making a statement’.

Mark, this was an exquisitely written, and highly interesting article, as the comment attention attests!

I do think there are some lessons that the east can teach us in regards to your very accurate assessment of the political reality in the west, that actisim is opposition from inside a neat little box full of cameras.

Just on a historical note, it is telling that arguably the most Reactionary movement of the Interwar period was one of the least violent. Prior to the ‘National Legionary State’, the Iron Guard didn’t go around burning down Liberal nests or beating people up. In fact, their popularity stemmed from the fact that they were horrifically persecuted by the state for doing things as simple as repairing broken dams and fixing farmhouses in the countryside. This sort of ‘success through passive community works’ is of course not feasible for today as we live in very much a different world, the conditions of rural 1930s Romania will not repeat themselves. There can be no populist element to such movement today, it must all be clandestine. However, it is interesting to consider just as a historical case in point.

In the main, I would actually urge people to take a look at how Russian rightists did things when the wall came down. In Russia, you have big right wing organizations like the LDPR (ironic name) who are hyper-nationalist and racialist, and who furnish massive demonstrations in Moscow every year, much bigger than the pitiful ‘pro-democracy protests’ the West like to inflate. For all their activities, they have achieved little more than whining about how the Kremlin arrests them for rowdiness.

Meanwhile, the more intellectual and extreme rightists, those of a more ‘white emigre’ philosophical bent, used the Yeltsin era to establish themselves in the halls of power as political strategists, advisors, propogandists, and financiers. Their relations with the opportunistic kleptocrats in the Kremlin are close, close enough to have unwatched wine glasses touching, with narry a shot fired.

It does make me wonder, does the West have to transcend ideology and become a system of pure kleptocracy for an opening to appear? In terms of ideology, kleptocrats are dumb, slow, and easy to meaneuver around. It is incredibly easy to figure them out. Maybe Hillary Clinton is not such a bad thing for the United States after all.

Thanks a lot, Nick. Ita Scripta Est may not have liked my letter, but you can’t win ’em all.

Oh absolutely, ‘the art of war’ died as well, with technology exacerbating an already existent decline. These things have a habit of tracking with each other, rather than sharing a necessarily explicit causal relationship, which I figure is further evidence of a cyclical decline at play.

American foreign policy lurches from poorly thought-out to downright bizarre. Clearly there is intent to set up de facto puppet regimes (see Ukraine), but then why signal in the most stark terms that you won’t support such regimes when the chips are down (see Egypt). It doesn’t make any sense. If I was the current cabal running Ukraine, I would be very worried, because the US state department will throw them under the bus quicker than you can say “Hosni Mubarak”.

The sissification of warfare with combat regulations that would have turned the drawn out loss in Vietnam into a 48 hour rout had they been implemented under Johnson, is just symptomatic of the decline of warfare itself. The masculine virility of the soldier, the warrior, took a huge hit when war became mechanized and so it isn’t any wonder that now political correctness has leeched its way in. Men cannot have Bannockburn anymore, only the Somme, and with that in mind the impetus arises to turn war into a hugbox. Unfortunately, the Taliban aren’t reading from the same university-penned program sheet.

Put a smile on my face to read this! Bravo sir! I had penned an open letter to the Pope and submitted it for publishing at the Orthosphere, so great timing to get a Catholic response to the recent actions of the Pope which are nothing short of disastrous. I particularly like that you pointed out the number of homeless and destitute in Europe itself, which the Pope negelects.

I have since noted that ‘collectivism’ does have a lot of negative connotations for people, and only use it to draw contrast with individualism. I suppose I mean that humans ‘act’ collectively at their strongest. Other societies still do this, but the West has ceased doing it. I may develop this point further in a potential essay on the Russian concept of ‘Sobornost’.

We are not merely ants, largely because we have moral agency and will, whereas ants seem to act almost as machines do. We can deviate from our programming, and in fact, are designed to do so, transcending the merely animal (allowing for the positive meritocratic behavior you speak of), but the realities of how we are designed mean that we must value the collective identity, find purpose for ourselves inside of it.

It is in some ways, striking a balance on that personal level. As with most things, we used to do this just fine, but now identity has dissolved, and we are left only with the economic aspect of man.

Now THAT I want to see!

I’ve never been a huge fan of the AI fascination within NRx, but the whole Tay debacle… I dont know, I am a little moved by it. I suppose it reflects upon the Liberal view of humans themselves, if they dissent from the Liberal ideal, its demolition time, and off to the scrapheap you go. Effectively Tay was taken to re-education camp, she was taken to diversity indoctrination. What else is ‘sensitivity training’ but reprogramming the innate nature of people.

I guess that is what really provides a good contrast with the Left. We don’t want to indoctrinate people, nor do we need do. Adrift from Left dogma, our positions are only the ones people naturally have been shown to gravitate towards throughout history.

Correct. A war on political correctness is a little like the war on terror, in that it is only an attack on a function of an enemy, rather than the essence of what the enemy is. To oppose political correctness in the Modern World on the grounds of ‘muhh free speech’ is degenerate unless it is tactically used to make leftists contradict themselves.

I would say however that the Overton Window is somewhat important, in that it allows more minds to engage in discource close to Reactionary themes. This would likely be important to ensuring a smooth transition to Reactionary governance. You don’t need the support of ‘the people’, but it definitely helps if Americans begin to say what Russians say about “DERmocracy” (rough translation: rule of excrement).

Thankings

Mark Yuray deconstructs the web of obscurity surrounding USG’s neo-colonialism masterfuly. I truly had no idea the extent of this ‘US educated cabal’, but it really is everywhere. States like Ukraine are as much puppet states as Poland was during the Cold War.

Thanks for the recommendation. Added to my reading list.

Another highly interesting article from Barghest, why am I not surprised?

A couple of points, there seems to be a desire here to expand the definition of capital beyond the material, to in fact transform our notion of capital into an amorphous sense of ‘value’, and on the one hand I am cautious this may try to suffuse things of great metaphysical value with mere monetary application analysis, while at the same time consider that it might in fact be a step in the right direction, exiting out of the Capitalist/Socialist paradigm which posits all things being reducible to material capital.

If we move beyond this box, we can then with confidence say that markets producing wealth in the immediate (high time preference, purely material) are beneficial, unless they will decrease ‘wealth’ in the long term (low time preference, only incidentally material). As such, one can justify outlawing the production of pornography, in spite of the revenue it collects from man’s depraved, primal urge, which the state has a vested interest in taming.

“The task of techno-commercialist reactionaries is to identify and invest in the morality and judgment that will survive a market reset (especially the wisest ethno-nationalism and theonomy), short what will be exposed as dross, and be ready to thrive in the recovery.”

Oh, I completely agree. Hey, If you want to invest in something, try land and arms.

The Reactionary State, properly construed, provides the opportunity for the industrious to make bank, while guarding against what negative influence such industrious souls could wield through a complex net of class, culture, taboo, and of course autocracy.

“Market failure is a neutral way for shallowly rooted intellectuals to debate the moral bases of their problems—and thereby earn respect for reactionary analysis—without first assenting to a reactionary moral perspective.”

Just wanted to point out, I think this is probably NRx’s strongest achievement.

A very interesting article, and a good challenge to Moldbug’s thesis, but could have done with an exposition on Huxley. Was he a Catholic at some point? Could he have taken his inspiration from the French Cult of Reason that had permeated during the Revolution?

And furthermore, I feel we may be understating a Germanic element to a lot of degeneracy. From Kant to Marx, a lot of bad stuff has emerged from this region of the Occident, less so from Malta or Ireland (both staunchly Catholic until the contemporary era)

Thanks for the linkage, Nick. Gutenberg has articulated some sound thinking above, and in a way more articulate than I might have managed. A little like with Zippy, I think this endless schisming is unwarranted.

Just to touch on what Chris said above:

“I would “consider the final elimination of autonomous systems of any kind to be a Great Victory for Order” if by autonomous systems we mean centers of power claiming autonomy from the state (Liberal capital property rights, “free markets” etc.)”

We need to be careful in defining terms here. By ‘state’, what do we mean? In the kind of societies that Reactionary theory posits, we are speaking here of sovereigns. The power of the ‘state’ is represent in its unitary leader.
Of course we recognize that such a sovereign should have the power of force lest he be impotent. His power must not be simply in name, but in fact as well. However, what would differentiate a good ruler from a bad ruler would be in his exercise of this power.

Similarly, a father has the patriarchal authority over his children and his wife, but whether he uses that authority to abuse and torture or instead to guide with a firm hand as an effective patriarch, this is up to his will and determines his quality as a father.

As I understand the general idea, and Nick can correct me on this if I’m wrong, the sovereign should grant spheres of authority where it is organic and beneficial to do so (i.e – the sensible freedom of trade and barter at markets which is necessary for healthy civilization). Just going back to the patriarchy example, one ought to see the stream of authority granted as such:

God grants the monarch his sphere of authority over the imperium/nation/city state/what have you…

The monarch grants the male heads of house their spheres of authority over their families…

The male heads of house grant their wives and children their spheres of authority over themselves…

In practical terms, these authorities must be granted by the preceding authority (they have the power in real terms), but that isn’t to say they are arbitrarily existent like ‘rights’ are. Theonomy, Heteronomy, Patronomy, and Autonomy are instead very real in that deviation in their balance and proper application will lead to suboptimal outcomes and possible disaster. At any stage in this downstream process, the authority may be scaled back or increased depending on the situation, but always keeping what is best (the organic state) in mind. It seems to me that the organic state sees the monarch granting a freedom of commerce to craftsmen in a given society, but of course within limits (it would be reasonable to give the religious body prosecutorial power over pornography distribution for example).

I think there may be some ‘talking past each other’ at play here. There is a difference between power and authority. In real terms, of course the Moldbuggian analysis is correct about the power of the sovereign, but throughout history, ubiquitously, we see under all healthy authoritarian regimes a respect for the spheres of authority beyond the sovereign’s domain.

This was a good listen, guys. I really liked what was said about Adams in particular. Spot on.

“If a globalized system suffers a catastrophic failure, then noplace is safe, and instead of one nation (or even one empire) facing an existential crisis, all of humanity suddenly faces one.”

Indeed, which is why on the AtT podcast I said, while there are comparisons we can draw to the fall of Rome, this is an entirely different ballgame.

You do realize 99% of the “muh shieldmaidenz” people are neo-pagans who despise Christianity and spend their days skimming Guido von List, right?

The piece is essentially correct, it is groups of men that are the central civilizing force, always arranged in an organic hierarchy of superiors and inferiors, eventually formally recognized as caste. No civilization was ever truly founded by groups of women, who without strong Mannerbunds, exist only in a degenerate primitivist state.

We should however draw distinction between different forms of Mannerbund, and their particular importance. A mannerbund of pure action is the force of earthly permanence, the noble warrior class. A mannerbund of pure contemplation however, is the force of transcendent permanence, represented in the true Brahmins. A civilization needs both to survive. All men who do not attain the heights of these two ‘übermannerbunds’ which exist at the center of a society and are thus in some combination its ruling class (formally or informally), are part of lesser mannerbunds, be these agricultural networks, guilds, or at the most base level, the extended patrilineal family, all of which support the center.

The larger the civilization, the more mannerbunds it will contain. The stronger the civilization, the more tightly bound its mannerbunds will be.

Seconded. Can remove ‘Search’ seeing as the search bar on the right is pretty obvious.

Thanks a lot, Nick! Social Matter has long needed some aggregation, and bringing the ‘this week’ here was a smart move.

Al Jazeera viewers and commentator pontificate on whether all Alawites should be exterminated, including their children, with very predictable results.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULtNYSUqYHw

What nice people USG have empowered. And this isn’t ISIS, this is representative of the sensible, suited Arabs who want to rule Syria as a Saudi client state.

Nowhere is this more evident than in Syria. The blood of the Christians in Syria, whose lineage stretches back to the time of Christ himself, is absolutely on the hands of USG and its backers. In Assad’s Syria, business as usual continued with a hierarchy and everyone in their place. It was a very religious country, but the ruling Alawites were, and still are, one of the most benevolent religious groups in the Middle East, alongside the Sufis.

In Assad’s Syria, Christians held very high status, leading fields like law and medicine. And now what of the tapestry of Syria? Forget that it was a poorly drawn country, the state is not so important as the society which it ruled over, a society that for all intents and purposes functioned very well. It has been blown to bits with the scattered body parts of all sides strung across the deserts and sandswept cities. Bravo, John McCain.

All of the presidential candidates in the United States race as it stands (with the exception of Trump) are favoring a full bore dismantling of the Middle East “because the world is safer when America is strongest” or something to that effect. Is it safer for the Sryian Christians, the Druze, the Yazidis, the Alawites? Listen to any one of their asinine speeches and you will quickly find that they know absolutely nothing of the societal dynamics at play in the Middle East. It’s like their warped ‘good vs. evil’ historiography of WWII. Democracy empowers madmen like nothing else.

There is no disagreement from me with regards to your assessment, at least in the general, but my thesis was to draw distinction between the principle of chaos, which itself takes only the political form of an absence of order, and the warped form of order we observe when Liberalism maintains control over a state (or Marxism, or any other Modernist political deviation). Liberalism has of course proven itself the most resilient.

It is unsustainable and will trend in the direction of chaos, but not willingly. It will resist the dissolution of the society it has created, the equivalent of sending tanks into Czechoslovakia.

Throughout history, chaos is a constant companion of order, often arising at the natural collapse of empires and preceding the birth of new empires. The problem for the Liberal is that during such periods, one of which is fast approaching, people worrying about gender pronouns are likely to end up on pikes rather than university campuses.

That’s an interesting comparison you’ve drawn between Dugin and Plotinus. Definitely worth further study.

I would say there is certainly a de-population element. Even in very mediocre, college level, discussions of SDG, reducing fertility is a MASSIVE concern for these people. But I think mass ‘extermination’ is unlikely, because as I’ve pointed out, the whole project isn’t very successful. Alex Jones likes to think there will be a kind of ‘death camp USA’ in the future, but I don’t see it unless everyone just rolls over and lets it happen. We shouldn’t give the enemy too much credit.

Noel, you need to be more specific as to which part you’re having trouble with.

Me, Noel? It’s hard to tell who you are replying to because of the format, sorry. If me, what specifically would you like explained, or examples provided for?

Not at all. As I’ve said, apocalyptic predictions are ultimately a waste of time. If it’s going to happen, it’s going to happen, right? We should always assume that the apocalypse is not upon us, by default.

But, with regard to societal entropy, we can certainly see increasing and endemic problems going forward (see our recent Ascending the Tower podcast where we discuss civilization decline) that the Cathedral will not be able to deal with using their current social technology, so it makes sense to anticipate this shift towards a more totalitarian form of Progress.

Their society is going to collapse of exhaustion, just as all other civilizations prior. The time frame is what is in question here. They wish to extend it. In my opinion, the sooner they are gone the better, within limits of course.

This raises the important point of the left’s failure to deliver their intangible utopia, but I would still say there is an order. If there wasn’t, there would be no arrests for hate speech or hierarchies of ‘holier than thou’ status signaling. You point to specific areas of pandemonium (black ghettos, Islamic terrorist attacks), but these are in large part isolated and contained incidents (for now), kind of like leakage from an oil drum.

Let’s take Cologne as a really great example. The mass rape of Cologne was a scene of chaos, right? An incendiary incident without police intervention in which something very bad happened very fast. However, zoom out and run the clock forward. There was an organized media campaign to blame the far right, to stifle reporting, and exonerate the criminals. Then came social media censorship, more political maneuvering. Not for a second was the situation not ultimately under control by the ruling powers. They didn’t prevent the incident (they either couldn’t or chose not to), but were more than equipped to prevent any response.

I’m sure Ukraine during the Holodomor was pandemonium, in fact we have vivid descriptions of emaciated bodies in the streets and mass cannibalism (doesn’t get much more chaotic than that), however in the macro, the Soviet Union’s Communist order was barely bruised. 9/11 did not render the United States equivalent to Somalia, although it was certainly chaotic.

It is not merely about what the Left promises, one would be right to dismiss that, but what they deliver, even if only temporarily. I’m saying that we live under an inversed order, rather than a chaos, and that this inversed order will have to become more totalitarian in the future if it is to stave off its own inevitable dissolution which stems from its inherent contradictions.

I wouldn’t see it as too controversial to hypothesize and indeed to observe that the Left will do anything to maintain their grip on power in light of oncoming chaos rising behind the dam (caused and fostered by them of course), and that such efforts should be hindered where possible. They should not be allowed to prevent themselves being eaten by the dogs they have unleashed.

Please, elaborate. Particularly what you distinguish as the ‘Mechanism’ from tech singularity.

I do not believe the Technological Singularity is attainable, hence why I hinted at it in mention of the Olduvai Theory. The diffusion of advanced technology across populations, empowering singular individuals regardless of their motive or mental state with thousands of times more power to affect change than their ancestors ever had, is a recipe for chaos. People are right to predict the coming of new technologies, but any notions that this becomes Star Trek are misguided in my view. Mad Max is far more likely in the end.

At root, the occult motivator behind what we witness is a solvent, a dissoluting agent which corrodes all formed of Tradition, yet in what we might call its ‘vehicular’ form, it is simply an inversion of caste, not the destruction thereof, which would only be the final outcome stemming from the damage caused by this unholy regression.

Therefore, it seems logical to distinguish the Liberal from the Anarchist.

The Anarchist, if he is sincere, wishes to live in a world governed by chaotic forces, and in his mind these forces (despite their flaws) are preferable to the risks involved with established authorities (sources of order). Such a place might not even look like the kind of dystopian warzone which we imagine when we think of ‘anarchy’, and so it is vital we don’t apply a cartoonish version of ‘chaos’ to the Anarchist’s real vision.

The Liberal however, instead wants a type of order, but an inorganic ‘negative’ type. Going down the list, most of what Liberals value goes down the drain in a chaotic system, ‘safe spaces’ being a good example that springs to mind.

But, because the Liberal vision is inorganic, it will unintentionally trend towards a chaos as the body they have turned inside out begins to rot from the exposed flesh. This explains why there is no ‘end of history’, only a prolonged and agonizing death. Totalitarianism of the type described gives the Liberal his best chance of survival on an increasingly vanishing peninsula which the tides of chaos lash. If I understand Dugin correctly, he wants to make sure they drown sooner rather than later, hence an abstract and rather sly appeal to chaos.

This was, as Yuray has stated, a fine article. The comprison to nuclear materials rather apt.

“Reflecting or transmitting the radiation impinging on us since we do not absorb it, we are mistaken for sources of radiation by those it next passes on to.”

Hence how we can be blamed for all the problems in the world, even when the reigns of power have been securely in the hands of Modernists for centuries now. I’m guessing this annoying feature will continue. It’s not as if the population is getting smarter. People say blacks and Jews are scapegoated, when guys like us are scapegoated 100 times more often, (see: feminists blaming the Patriarchy for virtually everything).

Agreed. The True Finns are not even vaguely close to being Reactionary, but I guess they are the best of a bad lot.

Just wanted to confirm this is 100% correct, and yes, I believe that Guenon and Hindu scholars are well advised, and that the oral tradition of this prophesy dates long before its official compilation in text form (it includes notably later genealogies), a little like the Old Testament, which only began to be compiled around the 1600s BC.

I would certainly say that the prophecy may in fact predate Indian civilization. As Grey mentioned in hour 1, we find a comparable story in the dream of Daniel, it is only that it has been expressed in its clearest and most concise form in the Vedic tradition, and so is most valuable here in terms of mining useful information.

Thanks, Izak.

Fascinating history as always. Bahrain is the next domino in the Middle East, another Saudi ally in trouble with Shias. It will be interesting to see if Iran can actually construct the ‘Shi’ite Crescent’ to pincer the Saudis. It would be a geopolitical masterstroke if they pulled that off, and spell the eventual death of Saudi preeminence in the ME.

“This year will see major upheavals in technology platforms’ speech policies, with the ultimate aim of hiding ideas that threaten the psychosocial narrative tenuously supporting the Cathedral.”

I had previously stated somewhere that this should be anticipated. They are going to move against the internet as things destabilize, and when they do, they will move hard. Germany has essentially become China at this point, thanks to the collaboration of Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube. Any kind of racial animus, religious extremism, or anti-establishment rhetoric within the broad Alt-Right and its intellectual core in the Reactosphere already has legal precedent for its scrubbing.

The dark web will take over for platforming purposes probably within a decade. Not exactly comfortable sharing a space with drug dealers, creepy pornographers, and amateur snuff film artists, but thought criminals can’t be choosers. Plus, reduced to clandestine activities, entryism will become less of an issue.

Very useful to have micro-exposures like this. The same is done with Garry Kasparov in regards to Russia. Need a hit piece on Vladimir Putin? Not to worry, just wheel out good old Garry ‘I could beat Bobby Fischer’ Kasparov and you’ll have faszism-induced teeth-gnashing in no time. This is a good reason never to trust when a media outlet finds someone within a non-USG-aligned state to criticize said state. It’s likely they are part of a bankrolled fifth column, and any involvement with NGOs should send up instant red flags.

Thanks for this, although I lost myself around halfway through as my knowledge of rock ends somewhere circa 1992. It is very interesting how Social Justice has infected far deeper than anyone had realized at the onset of ‘Gamergate’. Its practically everywhere, turning all that was so edgy in the 60s and 70s into very much politically correct ooze. The Cult of Progress managed to do what pearl-clutching evangelicals back then couldn’t, and that is to tame the beast of rebellion, to make it dance a jig and blow a pleasant tune on the pan flute. To make it think it was still the revolutionary fervor and spirit, even though it continues to do exactly as the empowered brahmin class wishes.

It’s definitely not just this genre either. Look at what occurred on the industrial scene with fashy band Nachtmahr and crazy Confederate-flag waving Combichrist,

http://coilhouse.net/2012/11/on-misogyny-in-industrial-music/

SJW-ism has its operatives everywhere, and hopped up on moral superiority and the known backing of all establishment forces, they are very willing to put thought criminals in their place. After all, what are the consequences? We know what happened to Anita Sarkeesian. After the firestorm was over, she was sitting on a bag full of money and a seat at the UN!

Good first article. I hadn’t yet had time to read the account from the ‘inside’ so to speak, but it doesn’t surprise me. We tend to dismiss conspiracies as unnecessary explanations of uncoordinated idiocy or selfishness, but this doesn’t mean there are no conspiracies, that there are no PC agents ensuring that the German police don’t lay their filthy white hands on those precious ‘migrants’, many of whom are probably petty criminals, layabouts, and worse.

The European intelligentsia definitely has more avowedly sinister elements than its American counterpart, which seems more opportunistic, purity paranoid, and money conscious. No, Europe has people who are more crazy than that.

I don’t put much stock in these random vigilante actions. Such things are pedestrian, and the majority of Germans are still likely to watch TV and pretend nothing is going on. Anything for a quiet life. I’m upgrading Germany’s chances of dissolution to sub-Sweden levels based on the events of the last few months. All of the Nazi guilt has detonated their collective psyche in ways as yet unimagined. The whole identity is in a deeply corroded state.

“This is very poor because you only choose the most extreme, the most obviously aberrant things to ‘abhor’.”

Most extreme? These things are mainstream now, and there is nothing ‘extreme’ about them. More ‘extreme’ things will become acceptable to mainstream everymen in sort order, as I point out. Entropy would appear to apply to aesthetics as well. What is already ugly, will only grow in ugliness.

“She’s grown up since then, at least enough to stop talking like a hick.”

Congratulate her for me.

“These are appalling, but so is male circumcision”

I would in fact agree that circumcision is an unnecessary practice, applied in the United States for a purpose it failed to achieve (to stop masturbation). However, comparisons of it to clitorectomies are ill-informed, as the latter is a far more dangerous and invasive procedure. Note that when I mentioned clitorectomies, I was not talking about aesthetics, but instead the harshness of the practice as I perceive it. I think they represent something uniquely brutal about the peoples of north-east Africa.

“Modernity has, if anything, refined our superiority”

If you truly believe this, then it puzzles me that you ever ended up on this side of the net. You may have taken a wrong turn at Taki mag?

“Sorry, I’m so stuck on loathing of Islam I can’t really take anything else seriously outside local concerns.”

I can sympathize, believe me, I used to be a borderline Breivik myself, but then I saw the big picture thanks to the Reactosphere and the Alt-right. Islam is ultimately small ball. There are problems more endemic, insidious, and deep-rooted than other cultures taking advantage of our weakness.

“Oh, FUCK the ‘Cathedral’. I can’t believe this many people, even a small club like this, uses such dumb terms and consecrates them.’”

I am writing here for a largely NRx audience, and so their lexicon is very useful for conveying commonly understood concepts. The term itself I believe was popularized by MM, so you’d have to take up any disagreements with him, however it is useful shorthand for what I am trying to get across, so I don’t have to list all the interconnected systems which perpetuate the occult motivator of our age.

Thanks for reading, Parisian. Sorry you didn’t find this article helpful.

Thank you. I’m glad you appreciated it. The image was chosen by Hadley. I would have probably gone for something a little more… tame, if only for the sake of your pizza, and perhaps a sorrowful respect for that which was so cruelly violated by what I can only describe as a credentialed sadist.

Very true. and it goes to show how technology can be used for both good and evil, and once exported, can be used by other peoples for both good and evil. I stress though, I think before the onset of Modernity, Occidental people were the most ethical people in the world. I don’t say that with a smug self-satisfaction, I just think the Occidental character coupled with a fairly well-controlled Christian altruism made us better people ethically, than say 13th century inhabitants of the horn of Africa. Its not to say we haven’t had moral evils in our past, but these are grossly exaggerated by whig historiography. Modernity has brought us down considerably to the point where there may be groups of people on the planet who are morally superior to us, and that is a real damn shame. The decline is so well covered up by the Cathedral. It is getting harder though. Just look at Cologne.
That cannot be blamed on us. And really, it can’t be blamed on the howling animals that have poured over Europe’s borders, who rape precisely as a bear shits in the woods. It is the fault of the sneering, oh-so-progressive left and their suicidal love for the ‘other’.

Thanks for linking that! I hadn’t seen it.

The fact that Occidental women can actually carry out this act, a stab in the heart of motherhood (a pole of their true feminine virility), represents a real spiritual sickness that has overtaken us. It can be taken as incontrovertible evidence. If the soul of the Occidental woman has not been corrupted, this would not be feasible, for mothers to happily execute their own progeny. There are of course signs of the corruption in the soul of man as well, but this just seems so obvious, I’d be surprised if anyone missed it.

I’d like to think one of the wonderful things about Occidental people is that we don’t have what I would consider to be rather brutal customs as things like clitorectomies and the ritual abuse of wives that does exist in other races (not saying those don’t arise for individual cultural reasons, however we just don’t seem to have it in our DNA to do such things, we are at root I think rather pacific in daily life), but in the Modern age we have no such thing to be proud of because of what is pictured above.

Modernity has turned us into one of the most morally guilty peoples on the planet, but it is because of what the Liberals promote, not because of our history and our ancestors who were far superior to the powers that be today. The Cathedral wants us to be ashamed of our past, not our present. If we are ashamed of our present, we might root out the cause of that shame and eliminate it. The past of course cannot be altered, so a perpetual and irreparable guilt is created by this narrative that whitey is responsible for all the historical ills of the world. Even though chattel slavery has been abolished by white people, we still owe ‘dem reparations! We are of course responsible for the unprovoked gassing of the six quadrillion, the colonial atrocities in the Congo, and on and on and on. Since we’re stuck on these past ills and their ripple effects like ‘white privilege’, nobody has time to look at exactly how ugly our culture has become today through nobody’s fault but the smug Liberal who believes he is morally superior, even while defending the banner image!

Moral and practical arguments can be lodged effectively for sure, but often the Liberal is already a few steps ahead, short-circuiting the basis of very basic assumptions about the world. The thing about aesthetics is they are more irrecoverably grafted onto our reflex and instinct. When faced with a moral dilemma, we might think it over and weigh up the pros and cons. When we see something ugly, though we may try to hide it, almost everyone feels that jolt in the muscles lining the esophagus. We just have to open more eyes.

One can always rely on Grant for some thoughtful metapolitical critiques. I would say this was similar to what I was critiqueing when I discussed Capitalism and Tradition. Having capital as the base of the society (and Libertarianism I suppose would call it ‘the sacred private property’) allows for exactly the scenario you describe with the plumber. Now, one might say that the proposal’s forecasts are too short-sighted, but the fact is people are short-sighted. They only live, what, 75 years on average? Even if in consequentialist terms, the mass migration would be harmful, nobody would know, nor care. They will vote their economic interests within this framework.

This kind of thing is exactly why you need other overriding societal powers who can shut down economic ploys that could damage the health of the nation. Things like a strong sense of ethnic loyalty or exclusivism, and religion as well.

In fact, let me go further and say the plumber’s welfare is guaranteed only by that dreaded thing Liberals and Libertarians hate, ‘irrational xenophobia’. The plumber relies on his neighbors suspicion and unease towards laborers of other races and religions to secure his livelihood. He can further secure it in fact by cultivating trust in his community, and doing a good job, being a familiar character. The more positively his potential customers feel towards him, the more negative they will feel about a potential replacement.

A really interesting article. I hope this won’t be conceived as a tangent, but I am linking empiricism to a widely held access to vital knowledge, a liberation of such knowledge, and that may be where Protestantism intersects. After all, IQ variations aside, all but the very unfortunate can put to use a basic scientific method to analyze various aspects of their own lives and the world around them. Since such empirical observation and reason is the primary zeitgeist following the French Revolution, it makes sense to look at its beginnings.

Consider this. A primary difference between Catholics and Protestants (obviously opposing forces during the Enlightenment in many respects) is the nature of various ritual actions. Catholicism has a system of sacraments, through which divine forces and energies can be manipulated. Protestantism meanwhile dismisses these as mere ‘ordinances’ which is to say their power is only symbolic. This strips the priest of any active role, no esoteric knowledge or expertise separate him from the layman. Nothing is hidden, not even that which is absolutely central to the society itself. When exposed, can it be a surprise that such things are not only usurped by meddlesome individuals of our own tribe, but also outside elements eager to discredit and destabilize our core?

Empiricism allows us to question everything, but only insofar as all that is Tradition is somehow ‘debunked’ by scientists, or philosophers, or social critics, etc. Empiricism of course won’t challenge the dogmas of Modernity. After all, its goal at inception was to move humanity onwards. If human biodiversity is confirmed by empiricism?… well, into the bin goes that study! Obviously it wasn’t conducted to the standards of what a diverse multicultural society ought to expect. We need some affirmative action ‘scientist’ Tyrones, stat!

Empirical observation has its place, but there is no denying it has been a tool of the left since its inception. The Left cannot stand a structure not of their own making which towers immune to criticism. Religion, the integrity of our peoples, the illustrious history of the Occident, all of it has to go.

Its amazing how egalitarian the historic nationalists have been. Just read through some Mazzini and you’d think you were browsing Das Kapital. I maintain that ethnic nations should exist separately, but do not necessarily require political autonomy. It is possible for larger nations of a common enough characteristic to be custodians of smaller nations within their borders and this is sometimes preferable to the alternative.

Well, a great article from Landry is what I first want to say. Hopefully someone in the Kremlin gets the memo! Not least because Russia currently encourages immigration, but all of it from Central Asia. It seems Western whites would be a better fit since their is at least common race of the spirit, which might quell the nationalists to the right of Putin who are concerned with his immigration record.

Alas, Putin needs discontent whites in the West where they can do the most damage. He wants dissident right victory in the West because he knows that he won’t be constantly prodded and interfered with if this occurs. I think Russia can be a very viable operating base, but we want the entirety of our ancestral lands back. A true Spaniard cannot hide in Siberia. He must fight for Spain.

As someone with Russian blood and certainly a Russian religious outlook, I can say that we should help our brethren pursue the Europe of 100 flags, and some kind of state in North America for the whites there to live peacefully. Continued Russian resistance to Western ‘Cathedral’ hegemony is essential to the future of not only Russians, but everyone else of Occidental heritage as well. If that last resistance falls, its hard to see us gathering the operational capacity to turn the tide at the critical moment, and save ourselves from the ‘shock’ of history, which comes to swamp us with barbaric foreigners and other horrible things.

Good stuff, and I think your point about the universities is actually a really good microcosm that can be applied up and down the institutions of the West.

The way I see it, there are three competing factors at play

1) The privileged leftist elite, who are largely white, have done very well for themselves, control the levers of power in government, academia, and media a la Gramsci, and are piloting the West through rocky seas to their envisioned utopia

2) The whipped up hysterical low classes. The current purges at university are being conducted by blacks that have gone off-script. They were supposed to attack Conservatives and other thought-criminals, not just ANY white man, but since Conservatives are like dinosaurs on college campuses, of course, the beady eyed professors come under scrutiny for their own hidden racism. OWS, same thing. These are the people with IQs so low that leftist propaganda actually drives them insane.

3) The enemy at the gates. Obviously the big one is Islam, currently in its own holiness spiral that is far more destructive than many anticipated (honestly, I did not see ISIS coming. I was assuming a sly Muslim Brotherhood type wave across the M.E.) but China is also in this category… for now. They are essentially non-Occidental societies that are very competitive. China because of its marshaling of resources and capital, and Muslims because of their birthrates and warlike culture.

The borders are broken. A compartmentalized world is destroyed, and San Bernadino is the latest example of this. All of these different paints and blending. The enemy at the gates is not at the gates, he’s inside because nobody wanted to raise the drawbridge.

I come back to entropy, as Laliberte talked about. Things predicted are coming to pass. Ironically, the dead leftist child-ideologies, Stalinist Communism and National Socialism could withstand all this. I predict pretty miserably in many aspects, but they would not be heading for the kind of cataclysm that Liberalism is leading to.

“The West belongs to white Christians” – this is a claim of historical birthright and ownership. I like it, but it is not enforceable with present conditions. The Left has killed both concepts. People just don’t identify as their own ethnicity, let alone white in large numbers. I have spoken to many Europeans at least who think a national just has to have a passport. The average British person does not think black British is any less British than white British. This can only stem from a destruction of racial identity, something the left has been working on since the demise of Nazism. We don’t need to go into detail on Christianity, that story is even bleaker in most instances.

Aleksandr Dugin said “The American Empire (his term for the Western order) must be destroyed.” I tend to agree, but then we have a dilemma, and that is, how can the healthy Western aspect survive this to take ownership of his soil? Its going to be like the scramble for Africa. This is why I think the Reactionary project is to foster a strong minority, a collection of cells that is ‘redpilled’ as they say, and when the time comes can implement these ideas and seize the reins from anarchy. Whether we help to advance the timeline of that anarchy (I think Land hints at this) is another question. When the time comes, the tipping of the scale depends on what is actionable. We need people who are…

A) Of the desired stock
B) Correct in their spiritual/political orientation so that they approach problems not from the lens of Modernity, but from the lens of Tradition
C) Are willing to die if necessary to achieve our political aims (this is where I would say that religious component you mention is essential)

The aims of our activities should never constitute the harnessing of popular opinion for some kind of tidal revolution. This is a mistake, and Marxist power-brokers realized it when the revolution never sparked in Italy, and they all ended up in Mussolini’s dungeons. Nor should our aims align at all with Liberal concerns. Do not be sucked into the Counter-Jihad perspective at this critical juncture, which is just the rational 8th of the Liberal intelligentsia concerned about their own survival. Islam is a hostile externally originating threat, but one that can be repelled with by conventional means. To kill a nation, Islam has to slaughter its population. Liberalism just has to take control of their television sets.

Climate conditions are entering a warm phase for us. Fear, paranoia, distrust, discontentment, hostility, stupidity: these things are at heights relative to the last 60 years at least, not including the sporadic near-miss nuclear incidents. People are forced now to worry about what happens far away, because of globalism. We’re heading in the right direction. My concern is if events start cascading before preparations have gone beyond the mere theoretical level.

I do not fear that the Modern Age will continue. I fear that while others survive beyond it, my people won’t.

I recognize different nations have different character traits and require different specific systems, however using this as some kind of excuse to ignore the writings and deeds of Reactionaries in other countries from your own throughout history seems… retarded. vxxc is American, but very little Reactionary philosophy has been written by Americans for obvious reasons. All nations at this point have had to grapple with the same enemy, Modernity.

“More fiction. The triumph of progressivism is an historical peculiarity. The conditions that created it can never exist again.”

True, although I wouldn’t say never. Just not for another several thousand years. The beginning of this epoch marks a spiritual cataclysm for mankind, predicated on very special variables being in place precisely to bring about the end of the World of Tradition. Once seen in its correct context, as a point on a cycle, it is obvious that the time of birth has passed. Once felled, Progressivism will not ‘bounce back’ or ‘reconstitute’ itself, because the only reason for its eventual death will be that it has exhausted its own potential, burned up all the oxygen as a fire in a sealed room. Things make more sense if you can view Modernity as a collective spiritual bluescreen rather than just happenstance of geopolitical events. It is an epoch of exception to the organic nature of man shaped by external forces, and as Father Sarda said, “We are in duty bound to resist their fatal contagion with all the powers of our soul.”

Certainly correct, however it seemed prudent to indicate the official position he did hold, which was that of a representative in the Chamber of Deputies after the elections of 1931. It was largely just a show of force. Codreanu indicated he despised the job, particularly the way his impassioned pleas for the struggling Romanian people were ignored by the other deputies, almost all of whom detested the Legion because of their own financial interests.

The Venetian System is certainly a very interesting oddity in history. Perhaps an Antidem penned SM article on the subject?

A) Caste system for all, and no universities at all, is far more preferable.
B) Consultations take different forms. To think consultation is only facilitated through elections is false. Local referendums are a good example.
C) “The elite we’d get would be progressive” – somehow implies that a non-progressive elite is impossible, which runs contra to all history
D) Never personalize critiques. I only charge that Reactionaries should control government. At the personal level, I am a non-factor, as is every other writer on these matters.
E) Science-fiction space commuting plays no part in this political analysis of ruling class functionality.
F) Not sure Caeusescu governed Romania according to the “life laws of its people”. You might want to read up on that. Also look up Ana Pauker.

I always can count on learning something new from a David Grant article.

“As things stand now, it’s anyone’s guess whether European governments will clamp down on the invaders or on their own people.”

Consider: no arrest warrant for the president who brought the terrorists into France, arrest warrant for plucky ‘racist’ woman saying no the insanity.

Beat me to it! Haha. I’m penning an open letter to France probably Monday, though it’s more pessimistic with regards to the future. Just watch. Nothing substantive will come of this. Has the Cathedral ever halted itself because of a few casualties? No. Progress marches on until the whole nation is DEAD… And reason have mercy on any nasty raaaaacists who get in the way!

Glad you mentioned the CRA bubble influence, that minorities were instrumental in the crash. I was studying this recently. When this does hit the burbs, and it will be sooner rather than later looking at he tipping scales of demographics, what you’re going to see is a lot of pissed off young white men, undercut, strangers in their own domains, disaffected with the political system in which they are repeatedly bent over. When the enemy commits stupid and reckless acts, we stand to benefit.

http://www.thisblogisdangerous.com/the-retreat-of-the-state/

In many ways this echoes my own thoughts, and certainly reflects inherent differentiation among populations from the roles of women, to natural hierarchies of power. Hobbes and Locke view civilization almost as alien, a necessary evil, something unnatural to the state of man, but accepted anyway either for purposes of stability or a selfish desire to avoid ‘short and brutal’ lives. If the state does in fact arise from this, then it frees Leftism to define it in any way it wishes, for it is a product of human invention and will rather than an organic force and current in nature.

I have framed this in theological terms, likening human society to be a mirror of society beyond man, the hierarchical order of divinity which is ever strived for (the antonymous position of course to be towards equality with the dirt, the worldly and borderline demonic position).

The key defensive line of Traditional society was that “it is as it is”, that the rule of kings, power of priesthoods, a certain ethnocentrism, patriarchy etc. represented immovable brute facts about human nature and how that nature orders itself. In order to overthrow Traditionalism, this notion has to at least become questionable, culminating today in things like the ‘patriarchal conspiracy’, the idea that men have been covertly conspiring for centuries against women.

Any thoughts of the Russian jet that went down over the Sinai? Some speculate a mechanical failure, but there was an ISIS video released which shows the plane’s final moments.

This is the crisis on the horizon, though with all the other collective shitstorms, I don’t know if we’re actually going to witness its effects.

And Damper does it again, delivering a truly excellent article that was highly informative without much ‘waffle’.

“In order to justify the wisdom of universal suffrage, universal education had to be instituted in order to impart enough knowledge for everyone to wisely exercise those votes.”

Had to laugh at this thinking about the ‘gibsmedat’ generation who wouldn’t know how to wisely exercise a vote if it was for their own execution. The public education model is so absurd, it is a wonder how it has caught on around the world. Instead of having a sectorized workforce who will train in given fields early without wasting time on things they don’t need to know, everyone must have a “well-rounded” education for the interest of the civil society. We had a civil society prior to public education. Where did that come from? Oh, yeah, the church, but we can’t have any of that can we. Public schools are essentially cruddy seminaries for propogating overt and covert dogmas of the Cult of Progress.

I demand guilds, damn it. Guilds a’ plenty!

Bernie Sanders is the specter of the old red left. Dugin said with regards to an interesting element of communists, that like the Nazis, they thought they were next, that they were the pinnacle of enlightened thought. Oh, no, Bernie. Equality of income is nice, but more progressive is the visitation of justice upon those whites who have so mistreated minorities. The equality of history is what must be ensured! You are out of date.

I would point out that science does not dismiss aliens. Richard Dawkins actually believes aliens ‘seeded’ humanity on earth. *rolls eyes*

I have been amazed by the amount of articles which declare Trump is a fascist. Not in the hyperbolic sense, but in the “holy crap, we’ve actually looked at what the word means and Trump fits the description!”. How accurate this is is debatable. But look at these:

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/25/donald_trump_is_an_actual_fascist_what_his_surging_popularity_says_about_the_gop_base/

http://theweek.com/articles/574097/donald-trump-leading-protofascist-movement

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/09/04/trumph-will-taking-donald-trumps-fascism-seriously

Now, I don’t really think Trump will win. He might have a better shot of getting the GOP nomination than people give him credit for, since the assumptions people make about the winnowing field are about ceilings which have little evidence. Many talk of Trump’s ceiling. Does Rubio not have a ceiling? What makes people so sure that as candidates drop out, their support won’t migrate to Trump?

This considered however, against any Democrat, he will lose not because he couldn’t beat them fair and square, but there is absolutely no way the powers that be will allow it. Every fraud, every trick will be used to ensure he loses, perhaps by a small amount. Business continues as usual. Overton window shifts left.

What Trump does show is that the ‘MAR’ coalition does exist and is more open to radicalism than had previously been anticipated. There is a constituency for crypto-right authoritarianism out there, and it’s larger than I had given it credit for. By 2017, the Overton window will have moved left again and if Salon is anything to go by, child rape will be met with applause, but a minority constituency, using Trump’s candidacy as a vehicle, will have shifted their own ideological window rightward. They will be fueled by justified resentment and hatred more than a desire for Glenn Beck style ‘limited constitutional government!’. It presents a fertile ground for Reactionary ideas.

One of the best on Social Matter for a while, this really nails it. And on top of that recorded gunning down of reporters, we now have the shooting in Oregon where according to early reports at least some of the dead were killed specifically for being Christians. Notice when there was a white on Mexican attack in New England, Trump’s rhetoric was blamed. Nobody is blaming Democratic anti-Kim Davis screechers for the shooting in Oregon.

I think Nick Steves is right when he says the media are a core component of our faux priestly caste, they are the Brahmins who shape public values. But not all priestly castes are equal. I struggle to think of any historical priesthood that would have given voice to the writer of the Wirathu article. She’d likely have been an inner city prostitute in the days of old, but thanks to the joys of modern academia and leftist signalling, today she is essentially a deacon.

But this isn’t really what the ‘old right’ is. The old right would be the original right, AKA – supporters of the Ancien Regime. I’m not entirely sure, but it sounds like they are mistakenly using the term to denote the Nazis.

An interesting interview. They’re clearly not aligned with a broad Reaction on many issues, but as a resistance movement against the Eurocratic ethnic cleansing, they have some admirable qualities, much like Golden Dawn etc. Well done for getting this interview.

Interesting interview guys. A nice excursion from the usual material.

Yes, but if you had parallel institutions, one white and one colored, and the white one succeeded, obviously it would be the result of some kind of conspiracy.

It’s about time that Reactionaries started to accept that we are going to see the death of nations in our lifetime. Not the death of countries, like Syria and Iraq, that happens all the time. But the death of NATIONS. Some nations of Europe are going to die out, and they will still call themselves racist while they get the South African treatment. Some will save themselves, and thankfully, these are the poorer countries the immigrants do not wish to settle in. Hungary, Slovakia, etc. and generally have a better civic spirit that once animated old Christendom.

You cannot save suicide cases. In the early 1900s, the Balkans were called the tinderbox of Europe. Well now, that tinderbox is France, Belgium, Sweden, Belgium, Germany, the UK. Wave after wave of foreigners, most of them hostile or parisitic. The nations who have brought this upon themselves with their diseased spirits will be punished. Not with a burden, for their racism, colonialism, and whiteness. But with destruction, for their Liberalism. Innocents will suffer, but innocents always suffer. The children of Germany will suffer for their parents who greet immigrants off of trains from Budapest with signs of glowing welcome! ISIS has STATED they have packed these waves full of their operatives. What MADNESS grips the people of these dying nations!

The people of the rich nations of Europe had their chance to end this when the financial crisis hit, to sweep the ‘far right’ into power and buy themselves perhaps another half a century. They didn’t. They wanted more immigration, more diversity, more in-your-face! moments to attack the bigots and haters. It’s too late now, I say to them. You made your fire, now burn in it.

In many ways, Orban has aided in the rise of Jobbik while using them as a neat cudgel to his oversea opponents. He has actually helped them to the disadvantage of the Left. It’s strange how this works, but young voters who would normally be drawn to Left wing anti-authoritarian parties and align against Orban, actually flock to the far right. I would suspect a lot more co-ordination than we think goes on behind the scenes.

My hope is that this isn’t all flagrant opportunism and political cartwheels. Orban was one of the most prominent anti-Communist activists at the fall of Hungary’s red status. Perhaps somewhere prior to 2010, he came to the realization that his country was now in the same car but with a new, and potentially more destructive and evil driver. Who knows? We might make a Reactionary out of him yet.

The most remarkable thing that I give Orban credit for is how he has somehow shifted the Overton window rightward. The main opposition to Fidesz is… Jobbik, which is harder to the right. This can only be the work of a true political marksman. Orban has tactfully sunk the pro-Atlanticist parties into oblivion. Should Hungary survive the Yugoslav-style hell Europe is calling upon itself, whether the flashpoint is tomorrow or 15 years from now, the Hungarian nation will have one man to thank. Viktor Orban.

I had always thought the Messenians were treated terribly, and that their slavery was one of the worst examples of the Ancient World. Thanks for clearing that up!

I applaud what I found to be a well-researched and charitable history.

Of note, and in contrast to the opinions of the pro-Arian Eastern emperors, De Maistre precisely picked out the intangible mystical element of Traditional Christianity’s core as being essential for stability. His thesis was that the axis of a society (if it is to be a meaningful axis) can never be put under scrutiny or question, its justifications must be beyond the reach of mortal men. In this sense, it is perhaps in some ways comparable to the secret nature of esoteric Hinduism, guarded by a caste, to uphold the social order. On an unrelated note, there has always been a school within Christianity, both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, which sees Christianity as the ‘completion’ of the Jewish and Pagan religions, which expressed itself through mysticism in Orthodoxy and an appropriation of many Pagan concepts in Catholicism. Some cynically interpret this as a compromise for power, but on theological terms and coming from a standpoint of hermeticism, this isn’t a problematic view to see a religious truth woven throughout what may be in fact false religions when taken as a whole.

Your comparison of the Modern World with Gnosticism is one I haven’t ever heard before to my recollection. An interesting perspective. However, I do believe that ultimately religion will mean a lot in the decades to come, and we’ll actually look back at times like the late 1900s as secular high-points, especially in terms of intellectuals (notice the celebritization of atheism in the last decade). Unbelief is largely plateauing due to flatline birth rates, only sustained by the culling recruitment of Liberal fairweather religionists in schools, universities and such. The collapse of Communism didn’t help in terms of numbers either.

Two religious factors are likely to shape this century. The re-emergence of explicitly religious states, (see India, Russia, the death of Arab secularism, etc.), and the political maneuvers of parallel societies, the most prominent of which is going to be European Islam. Christianity’s center will move east. While its adherence in Africa is likely to boom, its intellectual house will be in Eastern Europe grown tired of the West’s decadence, and a China trying to find something to rally itself around other than an increasingly bungling bureaucracy and pictures of Mao. One thing I think you should have mentioned was Nestorianism. Strangely, this brand actually allowed Christianity to be classed technically as an indigenous Chinese religion. My, how this root has survived and thrived!

I have to say I’m amused by the small voices of anti-immigrant Liberals in Europe epitomized by figures like the Dutch Geert Wilders and the British Douglas Murray. They don’t deserve much, but one ought to acknowledge they have insight that their Liberal compatriots (the vast majority) are totally blind to. They love Liberal ‘Enlightenment’ values, and sticking it to the Traditionalists, but have come to recognize that as immigrant cultures become politically conscious demographic majorities, Liberalism itself will die an ignominious death.

I of course, have good reason to want to preserve at least some land for the ethnically Occident, whatever land can be salvaged from this balkanized mess known as the ‘West’, but have no desire for the continuation of Liberalism. The very fact that the voices of those mentioned above are needles in a haystack tells you all you need to know about the suicide pill nature of Liberal values.

Relevant when discussing ethnicity was Codreanu’s conception of ‘superseding rights’, and while I don’t like the concept of ‘rights’ at all very much, it was rather genius:

“There are three distinct entities:

1. The individual.
2. The present national collectivity, that is, the totality of all the individuals of the same nation,
living in a state at a given moment.
3. The nation, that historical entity whose life extends over centuries, its roots embedded deep in the
mists of time, and with an infinite future.”

As is obvious, the first entity must subordinate its rights to the second, everyone cannot simply do as they please, they must obey the state’s laws, and especially must fight if conscripting them would benefit the national collectivity and people as a whole. However, if we say that a national collectivity today might benefit tremendously in the economic sphere from importing millions of cheap migrant workers, this second entity is found subordinate to the third, and that is the past and future nation. This is where ethnicity matters. To import such people, for whatever financial prosperity it may accrue, will doom the nation to eventual demographic oblivion in many circumstances, and as soon as that happens, the legacy of those who built the nation, who now lie sleeping in the soil unable to defend what they built, is erased from history altogether. The case for immigration is made even weaker when it is only to the benefit of some particular businessman or company, and not even the national collectivity as a whole.

This is the greatest crime of modern mass migration. Not the death of Liberalism, which would be a Godsend. Not the practical problems regarding net gain/loss economically. Not the fate of petty politicians and their electoral chances. But crimes against the historical nation, the complete erasure of a people from the earth, all because of a few lousy generations with no will to fulfill their Traditional duty.

It’s fair to say that a traumatic rather than devastating event would cause havoc, but with the debts where they stand, and the stocks going crazier than ever before, coupled with rising terrorist threats, racial balkanization, mistrust, and of course the nature of an increasingly interconnected world, a traumatic even in one place is likely to domino into mass devastation. Let’s remember, in the last financial crisis, nobody even exited the Euro. It was minor. Imagine a scenario where banks all over the world have to block off access to their customer’s money, completely. Not just for a day or two, but to literally be mandated to seize the assets and prevent people withdrawing. The chaotic effects of such a countermeasure would be whole cities reduced to running civil wars with the police.

At some point, the governments of the West will have to completely do away with their ‘principles’ and introduce totalitarianism just to keep the elite in power. This will be the final nail in their coffin.

In Traditional society, the form of government does decentralize and so achieves what you seek. Fathers, landed nobility, and the local church are the prime authorities, with contact between the average individual and his sovereign monarch being rare, only exhibited through taxes and conscription, by and large.

So, I’m confused as to whether I’m ‘LARP-ing’ or not. If you have a planned coup that you’ll be undertaking soon with great bravery, then please outline how this will work. I’m sure your numerous connections in high level military circles will be of massive benefit to this undertaking, and democracy will be dead by Christmas.

I don’t see any cynicism in what I predict. I have predicted eventual victory, I just believe that many, many, many people will have to die to get there. A virtual wasteland will have to emerge. I don’t have a problem with that.

It’s of course very easy to call an analysis of the actual state of play ‘cowardly’ when you have produced virtually nothing with regards to any concrete proposals. To refute the view of entropic decline to destruction which was forwarded by Guénon, Evola, Laliberte, etc. you have to demonstrate some method by which you will turn the tide where almost 300 years of men failed. I’m sure you’ll be able to do so, and I look forward to it.

It’s a fair criticism and one that has been leveled several times before. I don’t use the term very often myself, almost exclusively in fact for conversing with neoreactionaries. I’d leave such terminological decisions up to the heads of the Nrx movement, since it is ‘their’ word. Hadley Bishop might have something to say on this score.

I’d say it was more ‘LARP’-ish to be counting on some glorious revolution to turn the tide without the occurrence of some devastating event. I’m trying to be brutally realistic about it. Even if America had a Pinochet, is he going to undo the entire foundations of the country, which are flawed from the beginning? Is he going to abolish Liberalism permanently? I doubt it.

As for risk, why would anybody risk the most major of things at a time when the enemy is at strength, especially considering the enemy is on a terminal decline and will be much weaker in the future? If you have a real proposal for taking down the ‘Cathedral’ tomorrow then I’m sure everyone would love to hear it.

“The American Military and for that matter the entire government at every level have as “Masters” their Oath to the Constitution.”

If this was the case, there would have been a coup a long time ago. The entire present government is built on a string of constitutional contortions and law-breaking for ideological expediency and financial gain.

Alas, you seem to subscribe to populist theory, that the current order will be overturned by ‘the people’. I have little faith in them to be honest. This isn’t hopeless at all, on the contrary, its perfectly in line with history. The masses are a poor tool. Always have hope, but put it in things that are worthy of that hope.

You mistake this for a declaration of surrender, it isn’t. The commitment to save a few is a lofty goal. Entropy has its end, and the end is unavoidable mass suffering and death. As has been the common Reactionary outlook, the system cannot be destroyed from the outside, it can only destroy itself, inevitably so in fact. The question is, who is left standing when the smoke clears?

Fight, fight, and fight again. This is good for the soul, but don’t expect to prevail against the megalithic forces of the enemy at this time. Remember…

“The essential thing is not to let oneself be impressed by the omnipotence and apparent triumph of the forces of the epoch. These forces, devoid of connection with any higher principle, are in fact on a short chain. One should not become fixated on the present and on things at hand, but keep in view the conditions that may come about in the future.”

All in good time.

As for the martial forces you mention, I’d disagree and say most have a complete loyalty to their masters. The French military wouldn’t dream of doing what the Thai military has done. Your concern for a warrior caste is very apt, but Pinochets are a rare breed. A warrior caste has to be built. And I think you’d agree that Modern society is churning out all the raw material that Reaction would need to build such a caste, disaffected and disenfranchised men. I maintain however, they will be relatively few in number. It’s a good thing then, as history shows, that a few good men is all it takes.

Correction: this isn’t an aristocracy, which means ‘rule of the best’. This is a kakistocracy, a ‘rule of the worst’. I have a Social Matter article coming up which concerns this very point. The people in charge right now, who drive policy, and invent crap like gay marriage are the literal WORST elites you could have. The entire caste system has been turned on its head.

I’d agree somewhat with your assessment, but I do think that the people supporting this demographic switch do calculate it as a party-thing. They’re interested in getting re-elected, and more minorities means that more left wing candidates are likely to get elected. Hispanics are the perfect race for this because contrary to what Conservatives want to believe, they are not ‘deep down right wingers naturally’. Mexico had one of the first atheist constitutions!. Hispanics also have a constant stream of relatives they’re intent on dragging with them, and genuinely believe the idea that voting Republican would prevent this.

With all this said however, your overall analysis is correct that democratic majorities voting in elections or referendums have decided very few key social changes, and this goes for the entire Western world, not just the United States. But we should remember the people who do make the decision, the elites, are often placed into their position via democracy. Obama is where he is today because of an electorate. The SCOTUS looks the way it does today because of Obama who is where he is because of the electorate. Democracy is a great engine for getting horribly incompetent and evil men into power, because rather being under the scrutiny of an aristocratic class, these candidates are under the scrutiny of idiots, the masses, made worse by the fact that women and ethnic minorities are included in those masses.

Elections do not decide policy direction, but they do decide the quality of the ruling class, and in almost all instances, they give rise to the worst possible candidates for such offices, both directly and indirectly. A democracy will never provide the kind of leaders that monarchy provides. Princes study to rule. Presidential candidates study to campaign.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/9430173/South-African-12-year-old-drowned-in-boiling-water-after-seeing-parents-killed.html

http://www.johndenugent.com/white-south-african-tragedy/

Our disgusting and depraved media have buried these stories, barely reporting them so as not to disrupt the narrative that all atrocities are white in origin. If they widely publicized what would have been met with tremendous outrage just 80 years ago, they know there would finally be reprisals in white countries. But no, it’s all about Trayvon Martin of course.

“there’s a good chance that at least some portion of those people are going to be more willing to drop the popular vote than they are to give up power over their own affairs to a largely foreign population.”

You’d hope so. It seems a given that at least in some Western European countries, the possibility of Zimbabwe-like retributions against whites by swarthy minorities adhering the religion of peace is extremely high when the demography scale finally tips. In America, large portions of the country will inevitably become unlivable for whites, forcing either an exodus of whites overseas or the clustering of whites into protectionist city states. All of this division is highly positive for the end goal of dismantling the current elite. Eventually it spills over from useful election tactic to widespread violence and mayhem. We might summarize this line of thought by saying that the current policies are wonderful for the Democrat Party’s prospects, but awful for democracy’s prospects.

I would definitely agree the jubilation over whites becoming a minority, coupled with the repeat humiliation of particularly white males by the advance of feminism and sodomite rights, has allowed for an inroad by groups like TRS and AmRen. Something like #cuckservative just wouldn’t have been possible even at the height of Tea Party anger in 2010. Now it is. This isn’t to say that Conservative whites are joining a clarion call blasting their trumpets, but behind the scenes they are whispering that the ‘far right’ have a point. They don’t want their kids to suffer what South African whites have suffered, babies wrapped in newspaper and burned alive, 12 year olds forced into boiling bathtubs after their mothers are raped repeatedly in the next room.

It is perhaps the case that Reactionaries in general are not hammering home this point forcefully enough. Whites don’t want to become neo-nazis or skinheads, but they are ultimately becoming more fearful and are running out of places to turn. I honestly can’t see huge difficulty, in the event of a general collapse, to install an authoritarian government somewhere. The intellectual and theoretical groundwork is amazingly strong at this point.

“The trick will be channeling the superstitious to a population decline.”

This is particularly bizarre because it flies in the face of historical trends.

Will to fight is, and I think you’re right in this, not as important as it once was. In fact, this relates directly to Evola’s decrying of the mechanization of war, for it pits man against machine rather than man against man.

However, I think there is an exception, and that may be chaotic civil war. Military technology today has essentially outgrown its application for civil war (See Assad’s discovery of this as he bombs his own country to smithereens while the rebels multiply like roaches.) This is where I think ideological commitment matters, and yes, zealotry to an extent (although one has to be careful to avoid a fundamentalist holiness spiral, and I have a post on this very topic coming up in response to something Nick Land wrote).

In a civil war, especially one that could potentially be as far-reaching and devastating as the most pessimistic of prophets presume when it comes to our declining civilization, you need warriors, not just soldiers or goons. Warriors do not fight for rationality. I think just the last ten years shows very clearly from Norway to Paris, zealots actually do things. Rationalists wait for the next compromise. To build a large, actionable cadre of zealots however, you need some things.

1) Economic deprivation
2) A clearly painted enemy
3) High quality leaders to move the pieces
4) Justification through Divine forces

We’re not there yet, but coalesce these factors, and the necessary force will be there for Liberalism’s final rout.

It’s why I reject the ‘Necessary Assimilation’ ascendancy theory. No matter how badly things get under Liberal policies, these elites will NEVER implement Reactionary policies, not even to save themselves from destruction! They would sooner burn everything for Progress because they see this as honorable in the face of ‘intrinsically evil and unfair’ Tradition. Quite literally, reasoning with the Liberal elite today is like reasoning with a suicide bomber.

I say, stand back, let the vest detonate.

Jay, the only reason those are not occurring today is because the United States has beaten and connived its enemies into submission, with many dying deaths of their own making. There are no global forces which truly stand in strong opposition to the United States’ dominion over most corners of the globe in both the economic and military spheres.

The same mass murdering psychopathic element still exists today, as it did in the 1700s, as it did in the 1800s, and as it existed indeed in the last century, however it is momentarily quelled by this settling of power that sees the USA unquestionably on top. The infection is not limited to governments, it is present in people at large, but obviously governments can project more power. I agree that the witch hunts against the people listed are in a different class to genocide, but they are byproducts of the same disordered worldview and trending current.

We may see a return to the darkest of its expressions within our lifetimes I fear, but it might be necessary to exit this quagmire once and for all.

This is incorrect. Governments have only grown at a cancerous rate since the ‘Enlightenment’. Government prior to this follows a relatively static pattern of size with minimal oscillation usually in response to severe environmental or geopolitical events. Governments in 1300 BC were largely the same size as those in 1300 AD. A check on the size of government is the removal of ideological politicking which must both promise an expanded state to greedy citizens and pursue the building of their desired utopia. When government is a set of concrete interests rooted in practicality and a theological sense of order, they don’t bother to build departments of education. They are far too busy using their meager (by today’s standards) collection of tax for projects like grand temples and palaces.

Dampier returns on top form!

Both Evola and Dugin are keen to make clear in their own works that nationalism as we know it today is not really a rightist position, it is Modern in origin. What we might call a general kind of ‘kinism’ is as old as humanity itself, but the hatred of this concept of several kin groups that have commonalities (i.e – religion) being ruled in the ultimate sense by one central political authority is not something that predates the advent of Liberalism. The Russian Empire is perhaps the best example of this, and it wasn’t even the case that the religion was uniform there. It was however the case that religious minorities were often geographically isolated and not interfered with too much by the monarchy who only demanded from them the raw essentials.

The conclusion drawn from these truths has some impact on how we frame the debate over the European Union. The reason it is an awful institution is not because it rules over many different nations, but that its goals are to actually destroy those nations and not only melt them down into one collective, but introduce all kinds of impurities from outside of the Occident itself for ‘enrichment’ purposes.

The continued existence of nations is something the Reactionary values, but their absolute political independence is something separate from their continued existence. It fact it may be the case that the absolute political independence of a nation delivers it to destruction!

Stupendous article. I am a propagator of the ‘Prophetic Catastrophism’ theory of ascendancy, however I don’t necessarily think it will be due to the peaking of widely available energy. My predictions more skew in the direction of financial Armageddon with geopolitical opportunism and mass-hacking pushing things past their breaking point.

Your division of two schools of thought, left and right, that may be preparing for such an eventuality seems like a sound assessment. Indeed, the more Traditionalist schools have always felt that some mass technological scale-back would be required to recapture Tradition, which is not to say the advances couldn’t be made again under a different guiding hand. On the other side, the eco wing of the Left, those true disciples of global warming theory and such, are sure to be making contingency plans, and they are indeed some of the most fringe Leftists in terms of political ideology that you are likely to find. In this kind of environment, your allusions to Pol Pot’s Cambodia are not far off.

It is my sincere belief that they are destined for eventual destruction anyway as an ideological force, however preparing to counter the post-MIC planners on the Left could potentially save millions. A narrative coup at the appropriate hour is necessary to block them, and if this narratives finds them the victims of an unbridled wrath so be it. Anything to prevent their designs taking root. They cannot be allowed to sidestep all they have done and all they will do. This is why it will become essential in the coming years to create extradigital means of organization and information. We cannot count on the internet being here at the time when we might take for granted its usage.

Might it be said that the ‘will of the people’ given political power will drag a society leftward over time.

However, for the Radical Progressive, this just isn’t fast enough. It is faster to have a pseudo democracy, with the culture being rapidly shunted along via terrible and corrupt leaders, hence the Supreme Court now essentially rules America and can overrule pretty much anything. Democratic processes on the ground can be held up, tangled in delayed referendums, recalls, and such. This is why the Constitution is such a trump card for the Left. The Constitution can ALWAYS be used to override the will of the people if it isn’t extreme enough at any given point in time. Conservatives get this ass-backwards. They think the Constitution prevents a Left wing tyranny via majority, but really it imposes Left wing tyranny against the majority in many cases.

Any Liberal document can be used to justify any Liberal cause. It does not need to be specifically mentioned.

Great article as always, with lots of in-depth research. I’ll have to trace out all these historical connections as it does go by as a blur with all the coups and semi-coups. The essential point shines through though. The Modern political system is certainly mirroring that of Athens (all be it with the added meta-cancer that is Leftism, Progressivism, Kaliism, whatever you want to call it). Good comparison between the oligarchs and the whipping class of today as well. They’re good for occasional beatings and so long as they don’t raise too much rancor, we won’t liquidate them. All the while of course, such groups are totally unaware this is how they are being played.

“Not only that, but the prog utopianism of it.”

This may be my favorite David Grant piece yet!

“Out of necessity the state has to be manned by humans, but this is not ideal. Indeed, robots programmed to follow the Constitution precisely would probably be better.”

It seems even ardent Libertarian defenders would have to concede this point, thus admitting once and for all that contrary to the John Locke fetishism, their ideas are in fact totally irreflective of any kind of ‘state of nature’. Evola would certainly cry ‘INORGANIC’! and rightly so. While feigning to be of the purest humanity, the Leftist modes of governance are as anti-human as you could possibly get.

The state being imagined as above and apart from the nation at large seems indicative of what I wrote about in ‘the Illusion of Neutrality’. The whole purpose of this appears to be to put that which actually matters (the mode structure of governance) above the realm of partisan politics. We can only debate whether we get to wear red or blue slippers today, not whether we could abandon slippers altogether and opt for boots.

“That doesn’t stop the ruling class from pretending, of course. In this world, the Constitution and the various decisions of the state are supposed to express the will of the people, but only on those matters where there is widespread agreement. You’ll usually see this version expounded by Leftists in order to justify their latest pet project, usually invoking an “evolving consensus” in which your opinion is, of course, not included.”

I am reminded of one of one of Dávila’s aphorisms, “Love of the people is the aristocrat’s vocation. The democrat does not love the people except during election season.” It’s all a game of pretend and to link back to the recent episode of ‘Ascending the Tower’ a ‘will of the people’ holiness spiral. Inevitably this process forgets the slow trudge of the people entirely, and jumps straight to the loudest radicals at the front of the march. Why wait for public opinion to catch up anymore, now that nobody is paying attention? Just silence the humble dissenters and it will look as if we already have a majority! FORWARD!

I particularly like the ending of your piece. Always end on a high note. All deviations will inevitably fold back in on the regal current. Those few staunch loyalists who have endured will be the benefactors of this transition, while the detractors in power for so long will find themselves in the merciless clutches of the ‘laws of Gnon’. There will be nowhere left to hide one day.

Racism in the broadest sense of the word (if that is even possible anymore) is just the result of a natural preference for one’s own kind.

Anti-racism has to be taught in a drilling fashion. It does not come naturally. Put a group of white kids and black kids in a playground together, the blacks will play with the blacks, and the whites will play with the whites…. and the white parents will no doubt think their children need to see a psychiatrist to check if something is wrong with their pretty little heads.

Racial supremacy also is something that has to be taught (see: Hitler Youth).

But racial supremacy stands apart from mere racism. Naturally, we will prefer our own race. We will prefer to marry someone within it, make friends within it, do our business dealings within it, and ultimately live in a state where it has either some definable boundary for its own culture and lineage without holding power (i.e – Cossacks in Russia after 1775) or to hold outright power for their own national-spiritual mission in the form of ethnocracy, the forming of the loose ethnostate.

Christianity teaches us indeed to be charitable, and this includes to the members of other races, especially if they share our faith, to which they have an equal access. However, we can still justly discriminate against them in the arena of politics and social systems because this is how man has existed, organically, since Babel. It wishes no ill will, just separateness .
This kind of racism only becomes a hostile point of contention when the races are forced together, and a crisis of slow replacement/ethnocide occurs. I do not wish any such thing on any persons of this planet. I would like to see no race perish from the earth, but for this to be ensured, we must embrace that racism is actually an indispensable tool in preventing bloody racial warfare, for it keeps us divided with our own boundaries that, while not totally impermeable, are a membrane inside which we may safely lay down each of our proud lineages without feeling overtly threatened by those who are not our kin.

Come to think of it, I may have to write a piece on this very subject.

“The left also fucking love science; too bad they don’t fucking understand it.”

Antidem strikes with another quotable gem. Leftism has a lot of similarities to a virus in this way, that it almost develops new strains designed specifically for the destruction of the races it comes into contact with, finding some method of exploiting their racial weaknesses to bring them into an age of darkness.

Wish I could amend the essay to include this. These are EXCELLENT observations. Japanese women entered into the corporate culture en masse thanks to American influence, which could be the genesis of many problems we see today, as now that some do want to have families, they cannot find men willing to do so. Many thanks!

Insightful. While the West props up a global capitalist system, they are in fact eagerly working to destroy it at the same time! No blindness could explain the lunacy which goes on at the printing presses. This will end in great tragedy.

You are entirely correct that this issue was essentially lost as soon as you had the polls in the 90s showing people actually accepting of this behavior and wanting it legally recognized “somehow”. One of the main things that keeps perversion in check is a strong sexual economy with iron-cast sex roles. Sodomite acceptance was a predictable outcome of the women’s lib movement.

Heck, if Suzy can cast of the “shackles” of womanhood to earn more than her cucked husband and demand the right to murder her unborn children, then why can’t Jimmy marry Steve… and his dog.

One word encapsulates the solution to all of these perversions that scar the culture of Modernity.

Patriarchy. Patriarchy. Patriarchy.

Ecclesiastic courts and religious taboos are important in a very general sense, but for this issue, the most important thing is having an Ancient concept of where men and women stand.

This was a really great piece. Sums up the love/hate dichotomy perfectly, and I agree with what Thrasymachus has said. I hate in the same way God hates, that is to hate all which opposes goodness and truth. If such a thing is worthy of eternal damnation, is it not worthy of my scorn and derision? I can’t see why not.

Interesting interview. I had published on my blog a link to an interview that Dugin recently did, so it’s good to get a second opinion on him from someone who has a good sense of Russian geopolitics. I had a good impression. Dugin is a monarchist, which is always positive.

Looking forward to the next part!

An excellent essay, though the picture of relatively unattractive women wearing some kind of obscene Pingu sucking gags is pretty hideous

As I think Antidem pointed out, when we think things are crazy, they get crazier, and this is a sign we are approaching the Leftist Singularity, from which it follows logically that we are approaching societal collapse since this is achieved before the mythical Leftist Singularity. This is very positive however.

The anti-racist campaigners of yesteryear were highly convincing. Sharpton and company… less so, but they could still don the fat suit and claim New Jersey cops gang raped and defecated on a black girl, and maintain credibility. Dolezol? You’ll notice there is not even half the coverage of this woman in the media that there should be, and that is because certain Leftists realize how toxic their own emissions have become. Freakish opportunist conwomen like Dolezol are way too obvious, ideologically they are the ugliest creature at Prom, and no amount of blackface makeup is going to disguise that fact. As such, when they appear, the Left has to underplay their significance to the max.

The problem is that we are going to see such people in increasing frequency. It’s going to become monthly, and then weekly that we get a “Gay activist rapes newborn” or “Univison presenter is a Cartel member” story. The Left has enabled this. They have made a market for it. I think in the near future, it is going to turn a lot of people (even if quietly) against the current order and system. The Left’s political goals with power in mind have been assembling a coalition of those who would oppose the ‘aristocratic order’. Unfortunately for them, there is a very good reason that people like Dolezol are not, and could never hope to be, part of that order.

You sound an optimistic tone, brother. I hope that you are right. When history books are written, if they ever get written again after this century, an image of the White House lit up in rainbow colors will be the defining image of the dead empire. The EU becomes less of a threat as time goes on. Thankfully, the idiots in charge there have now put the bailout deal to a referendum. I’ll be interested to see the outcome. If Greece goes, the entire sordid edifice will be destroyed, not immediately, but soon thereafter.

I thank you for your kind words, and an expansion of this theme into its proper theological context, which I am in agreement with you upon. Your writing is very good. Consider blogging?

Precisely. The immediate priority of any prospective Reactionary Autocracy is to first cut off all Liberal reinforcement mechanisms in the civic life. This involves the dissolution of the education system, the elimination of popular media, etc.
The forcible removal of these influences will be met with resistance of course, because like any addict, the general population may be unwilling to give up the Liberal worldview teat. However, the longer they are removed from these influences, the more their natural inclinations will set in. Just think, if we had 50 years in the United States with no propaganda about the Modern conception of race, what conclusions about the subject would be reached in 50 years time by the general population, as they view racial realities?

The Left trembles at the thought because they know without the velvet glove of institutional Liberalism, man does revert to Traditionalism and this scares them to death.

In Portugal, Antonio Salazar set up what could have been the beginnings of a Reactionary country, but his problem was that the time just wasn’t right. External Liberal powers were secure enough in their geopolitical position to take an interest in where Portugal was going, and try to influence it. His dreams would not live on past his death and today the country is an economic wasteland under democratic rule.

One of the key ingredients to a successful Reactionary project then, is what we might deem a ‘total geopolitical instability’. This would prevent foreign powers from having the time or resources to meddle in what might be going on. If you have a Reactionary State founded and the ratio is…

1 Reactionary State
120 Liberal States
75 Other types of state or failed states

Then the Reactionary state simple will not survive, for almost all the countries of the world will conspire against it under the cloaks of various concerns which we are all too familiar with. However, if the ratio is more like this…

5 Reactionary States
12 Liberal States
179 Other types of state or failed state

Then we have a high likelihood of success, so that we are not interfered with while ‘bending those reeds’ as you put it. Give man 100 years in relative isolation, the absence of luxury, and the disappearance of Liberal propaganda, you’ll see how quickly he becomes a mirror of his ancestors of old.

I’ve spoken on NGO’s in the past. They are truly the vermin nests that need to be fumigated. Notice that recently the Hungarian prime minister kicked all foreign NGO’s out of the country. NGO’s should be more accurately terms CTO’s – Cultural Terrorist Organizations. It is madness to let, especially foreign groups, come in and try to forcibly engineer the culture.

A tyrant seems then very similar to a warlord, that is one who can enforce his political rule only by the material means at his disposal and not from loyalty of the people. For this, in the long term it seems tyranny is not entirely stable or at least it shouldn’t be without factoring in some other dynamic at play. Divine right had problems in Greece because their theology was not very advanced in the sense of its political relevancy. As compared with other theologies that existed in the Middle East and elsewhere and were very well suited to autocratic rule, the Greeks lacked this. See Egypt for example.

Yes, the people do wish for righteous government. This I think, can never be forgotten by anyone who supports autocracy. It must be a bedrock principle of the successful autocrat.

Well, now we have reached the dizzying heights of trans-racialism which is guaranteed to play havoc with Affirmative Action, there is nothing to say poly and indeed pedo aren’t next. The thing about pedophilia is I doubt they will have any kind of similar campaign. The subject is too noxious. However, what we are seeing already is a growing acceptance of the practice among the elite. There’s no need to mass market it to the masses when they can rape children at TV studios and gay pool parties in Hollywood (as the X-Men director did). Part of me feels however that always in the common man’s mind, even if he doesn’t realize it, he knows this isn’t right. He might be friendly to a sodomite co-worker and support the ‘right to marry’ but in his head he privately thinks “this person is lesser than me, he’s had to fight to get what he wants because he doesn’t deserve it”.

That seed that exists in the minds of common people I believe will be the ultimate downfall of the sexual minority revolution. Let’s be honest, these people are freaks. You only have to look at their behavior to see they belong in mental hospitals. Given the proper conditions and incentives, it will not be hard to turn people against them.

Yes, I have studied the Modern history of China in depth, and your analysis is correct. It is unfortunate that the Empress died when she did, before the young emperor to be had come of age. He stood no chance against Yatsen’s thugs and the treachery of the imperial army. Imagine what China might look like today, with European Imperialism effectively ended after WWII? It could have become a strong Traditionalist power, rather than a strong Communist one.

I wouldn’t really call Chinese civilization godless. Originally, in Ancient China, they did have a sort of monotheism with some startling similarities to that which emerged from the Middle East. This did degrade over time into a more Japanese style of religion, the concepts being more abstract, but Chinese life was still very ritualistic and religious… up until you know who arrived on the scene of course.

There is a difference. The French counter-revolutionaries were trying to prop up an order. We live in a time where the order has been utterly annihilated. Only vague remnants remain. As such, we have to be more careful when it comes to actual action. Don’t doubt the power of ideas. It is ideas after all that bring in men of action. To co-ordinate an army you first have to build that army. We start from scratch where the original counter-revolutionaries didn’t.

Clear and concise, a very nice article. It would seem impossible outside of insanity to truly declare that all people are equal, with equal defined as identical. They are of course not, and not just in the superficial sense that we are all aesthetically unique from our facial structure to our fingerprints, but also that we possess within ourselves different strengths and weaknesses, different talents.

The idea of an equal start, that in spite of these differences in ability, intelligence, strength, parentage etc., all people should have a shot at exactly the same outcomes put in the eye-roll worthy adage “anyone can be president!”, I think comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of Christian theology sanitized for the Deist intellectuals of the Founding period. They draw a logical line that doesn’t exist.

All people will be judged by God ———> All people are equal before God ———–> All people should be equal before other people.

This is basically wrong. It’s a failure to understand how a disciplinary hierarchy works. Just because a CEO can fire a both a mid-level manager and the mail room guy, that doesn’t mean they are equals within the hierarchy of the business, just that they are both underneath the CEO and their foibles can be punished by that CEO on a whim if he so chooses.

I think at least a core component of the degeneration in Modernity is the lack of a class system, the lack of defined uppers and lowers, with far too much mobility in and out of power roles. The end of such a system was written into the founding documents of ‘Enlightened’ nations and as you say, has sown the seed of doom. The ink is being applied to this final chapter. Equality dies at the hands of reality, and unforgiving hands they are.

Yes, I had read about this and could only shake my head. A rose by any other name. There is nothing spontaneous about the Ukrainian uprising. It is an empire driven coup bought and paid for by the United States. Notice, one of the original arguments that the ethnic Russians made was that a move towards NATO would mean sodomites marching through Kiev. The authorities of course denied it.

http://mashable.com/2015/06/05/ukraines-poroshenko-supports-pride-parade-in-kiev/

Well, look at what has happened now. Who didn’t see that coming? This snake, Poroshenko, is as much of a stooge as Saakashvili. America paying off another criminal stooge is hardly surprising, but I suppose its blatantness is something new. I would motion to say that the official position of the Reactosphere is against the ‘Maidan’ revolution. It is a prog project. If Russia rolled in all the way and gave both of these clowns a good beating, I would applaud.

True on all counts. I also find particularly disturbing the ‘helping hand’ given to students who represent ‘diversity’ over white students. White students are effectively a punching bag, and yet so many just nod their heads to the drum the Liberals beat. Especially girls, who are taught to think with their ovaries.

Bravo, Mr. Dampier.

An excellent treatment of the subject. I find the local economic model for the education and preparation of children far superior and preferable (what Traditional mode isn’t?) than the Modern industrial battery farms we call schools, which spit out fodder for the rat race of economic boom and bust.

Obviously here you are looking at schooling directly preceding the last century. What about further back? Would you say the systems in place were not comparably different to a large extent? My opinion on the matter would be that ideally, we want the guild system or something similar to return. Rather than a corporate economy, a trade guild economy with areas of industry that contain their own educational support structure at the local and of course family level. I can’t help but feel such a system would be instrumental in re-asserting hierarchy as well. Once family traditions of trade practices are re-introduced, with trades being passed from generation to generation, there would be a huge reduction is ‘labor anarchy’, people flitting from one profession to the next with no set rhyme or reason. What else could emerge from this reduction but an ordered system of noble rank!… at least eventually.

If Libya implodes? I’d describe Libya as being thoroughly ‘imploded’ ever since the fall of the Colonel. It’s a failed state in a low level civil war.

Really good take on this subject that I had not considered before. I’d be interested to see where Egypt goes next. Sisi knows he cannot count on the United States for help, and his Arab allies are teetering. I have a feeling his reign will be shorter than most expect.

“If, by her own admission, her “yes” cannot be trusted in any meaningful sense, why would she be given any of the burdens and responsibilities of adulthood, such as: the ability to sign contracts for student loans, vote, purchase cigarettes, and yes, consent meaningfully for sex?”

The vote is the key thing here. My God, this woman who tells us plainly that we cannot even trust her opinion to actually be her opinion STILL wants to be able to VOTE! Not only does she clearly lack any faculties that would enable one to make a sound vote, but we can’t actually know she is voting for what she wants to vote for. It might be uncouth to suggest that slavery for some people is actually preferable, but I’ll make an exception here. She practically has the mind of a slave, and yet she has a voice as to who leads an entire country. LUNACY!

Thailand has been utterly degraded by Western influence, though not to the extent of Japan. Will we see a coup in Japan as well perhaps? Hard to pull off with the American troops there. And yet Japan needs radical action to end its demographic death, action that democracy will not bring because the Japanese have fallen head over heels for their sexual freedoms.

The Thai people are lucky to have had a coup. Ideally of course, they need an absolute monarchy.

We can only hope that is the case, Antidem.

I do think though, in the event of a catastrophe that many predict within this century, what we might call ‘the natural selection of disaster’ will have weeded out many of the most troubling adherents of Liberalism.

We may indeed be on the cusp of a golden age, but not in the sense that Modernists understand it, rather in the sense that the Hindus 5000 years ago understood it. That is, rigid hierarchical and simple living, racism, sexism, warts and all. The left of course thinks this is ‘dystopia’, Mad Max meets Game of Thrones from hell! Get an SJW SWAT team down here now! People’s rights are being violated!

I have been skeptical of the idea on the right that we could just change the system we have currently and force the people of the West to live in a Reactionary way. Even if you could install an absolute monarch by a coup, it just wouldn’t work. The people have to come to think like Reactionaries, and the only way they do that is by suffering. Having institutions of influence is nice, but it’s unlikely to turn the culture in any beneficial direction at large.

Entropic forces are bringing this age to an end. I’d say the best we can do is prepare structures to dominate the blasted landscape it will leave behind, and hope not too many (or preferably maybe no) nuclear weapons go off. The struggle will not be difficult because we have such monumental foes to conquer, but because there are going to be rapid shifts in geopolitics on a scale not before reckoned with, and they are exceedingly hard to predict.

The left dreams of ‘maximum leftism’ or the ‘Modern Singularity’ whereupon his utopia is achieved, however like a centrifuge, he never reaches this societal speed of light, instead his craft begins to break up due to the forces present. Really, it’s just a matter of time.

As the left moves further and further away from human origins and intent, all of these things once considered unquestionably good reading material start to become irritant to them, though they may seem benign to normal people. In some cases, even ideological standard-bearers who they once adored have now become toxic due to their antiquated values. Take Nietzsche, someone who I’m no great fan of. The Nietzsche club was recently banned at a college in England because he was racist, classist, and of all hilarious crimes ‘anti-Marxist’.

http://www.critical-theory.com/nietzsche-club-banned/

The trigger warnings on classics is just another event in this long line of degradation where we can see the left escape any orbit of good thinking and zoom off into outer space. The college is at the forefront. If you want to see where the entire culture will be in 10 years or less, just look to the colleges. Not a pretty sight for sure.

Thanks for this witty piece.

Really great piece, Mr. Glanton.

This division can be accurately described I think, in the Tradition vs. Modernity dichotomy. It is not that Traditional man was virtuous and wonderful. He wasn’t. He was a sinner as much as all others, but we can see in him some want for better, some reference to the Divine standard he was held to. Modern man shows no such thing. He is self-contained. His sins are often petty and indeed ‘wretched’, the kind that Traditional man would have had little trouble resisting. Traditional man struggled with the sins of a higher order, wrestling with his wicked nature and the great obligations upon him, questions over of life and death, judgment and mercy, courage and cowardice. Modern man essentially submits to everything. He can’t even resist the slightest temptation because he is the product of a low level cult-of-the-self.

To put it simply, we can just say that man today is… pathetic.

And why not? Why doesn’t man just crawl in the mud like a worm? Since the onset of the Kali Yuga, he has denied all things transcendent, and certainly thrown off the authority that its earthly representatives once had over his life. In denying this, he has no standards but those below himself. This probably explains why he worships and fetishizes the Dalit class: the foreigner, the deviant, the lazy. You see, man has developed a rather ingenious shrine. By being in awe of that which is below him, the only sins he can commit are to be ‘elitist’ or ‘racist’ or to fail in recognition of his own ‘white privilege’. What other sins could there possibly be when your god is the earthworm?

A sorry state indeed.

This phenomena really fascinates me and it probably shouldn’t. Whiny, self-absorbed, woefully inexperienced white people trying to re-colonize cities and towns destroyed by populations of effective savages… yet they praise the savage to get some advantage on their hipster competition. It’s like a Miss America pageant for curly-mustached parasites, and that does include the incessant bitching.

Highly interesting musings here. I have to say Post-Anathema really takes my breath away sometimes with the architecture, both historic and potential. Married, these aesthetic qualities can make for a truly inspiring environment. Alas, we are stuck with an increasingly soviet-looking landscape. Practically all forms of public ‘art’ are vile. I’m just waiting to see them put up an inflatable genitalia in Central Park.

Note how Singapore has a better aesthetic harmony than the USA, primarily because it doesn’t tolerate certain peoples who destroy it. My kind of town.

This is even more extreme in Sweden, where the thuggery of anti-fascist mobs has become so publicly acceptable that footage of them breaking into the apartments of supposed ‘right wingers’ finds its way into popular music videos. The thing about these groups is: they show up. If the propagandists of anti-fascist inc. contact their huge mailing list, everyone will show up with glee that they’ve outnumbered what is usually less than 100 ‘fascists’ with 1000s of people. It’s like the ten minute hate. Ugly feminists, moronic students, ethnic bile, sodomites. This is the muckraker class who would have no power whatsoever in a Traditionally hierarchical civilization, but thanks to Modernity they can amass with often murderous intent and puff their chests out.

The police often do a good job of holding them back, but rest-assured these people are no more measured in their violence than Mao’s Red Guard. They are the shocktroopers just in case the media and government intimidation doesn’t work. None of them are heroic of course, but large numbers give people the confidence they need to throw a pipe bomb into your house or terrorize your children.

Antifa scum are not viewed much differently from the abortionist in my mind. Legitimate targets for just war when the situation allows. Believe me, they wish us nothing less. And if Reaction continues to grow, it will not be long before proxy organizations like the Southern Modernity Law Center start sniffing around. Antifa are not just about confrontations in the street. They are also about harassment off the streets as well.

“History has shown that in the case of an economic upset fringe elements have the chance to grab the reigns of power.”

Precisely. Some consider this a third rail so to speak, which is probably wise considering (in the wake of the Snowden revelations) that almost all activity over cyberspace is monitored by someone. Of course, to keep it vague is the key, until the hour approaches.

This kind of relates to my own big criticism of today’s Libertarians, that they want to get rid of these Modern, bloated governmental institutions (which is for the most part fine, I have no love for the bureaucratic labyrinth), but in their own Modernity they don’t seem to realize that the only reason that society functioned before these things existed was due to… other things… things they aren’t usually very fond of.

Even if we go to America post-Founding, when things were just starting out, mob justice was very commonplace. Lynching wasn’t just something invented by the KKK. The police force didn’t need to be as powerful because serious crimes were addressed by citizens taking matters into their own hands. Child rapists for example, probably were not getting court dates in 1800, despite that “right to a fair trial” stuff.

On the macro, since the Enlightenment government has been on a never-ending expansionist path. Small government might be its starting point, but it inevitably grows because of liberal democracy’s nature. The people eventually realize they can get free stuff if they vote a certain way.

So Libertarianism can’t really be said to be a coherent ideology in the long term. It’s like being in favor of only the larval stage of a butterfly. But the larval stage has to give way to the next step in the metamorphosis. Really, Libertarianism is a good example of a Liberal evolution sub-category rather than some alternative which is often what it is proposed as. Furthermore, while it might have functioned reasonably with the population that existed in the 1700s, to think it would work with the current population who are so far removed from that time that those people are considered scandalous superstitious bigots, is madness. Libertarianism would not have quelled the riots in Maryland, in fact it might have made things ten times worse.

I doubt it would be a one-off, but rather a series of cataclysms. One of the problems for Modernists is globalization itself. Everything is interconnected. It’s hard to jettison a lifeboat of Modern civilization because everyone is entangled in a web of economic and geopolitical interests. We saw this on a relatively small scale when Eurozone countries started to implode and the world economy was dragged into a ditch.

The aspects that fascinate me are hacking, virus attacks, and EMP detonation at a high altitude. Crippling electronics in the Modern world would cause mass chaos overnight. I read an article somewhere about what would happen if the electrical grid of the United States was shut down, and a prediction had the number of deaths in the first two weeks alone in the millions. I assume this is a conglomeration of hospital shutdowns, inability of police and fire departments to respond to anything, and perhaps heating/cooling failures where the elderly are concerned, plus of course riots and looting. Just look at how certain African American precincts react when the SNAP card system is down for a day.

The electronic aspect, as well as globalization of economics, and what I would predict would be opportunistic military actions in certain places around the world, would create an ongoing catastrophe unparalleled in human history. I wouldn’t rely on current regimes becoming Reactionary (perhaps a couple, Hungary and Russia, maybe a few others), most regimes will simply die as the politicians run to hide in their chosen ‘safe places’ with plundered loot.

Someone once speculated as to why we had never picked up a signal from alien lifeforms. He said that once any such species got to around where we were technologically, they soon after saw either their worlds destroyed or such a disaster occurred as to send them back to square one technologically. They hit a kind of ceiling that will always render Star Trek a work of fiction.

“If instead technology renders people unequal”

It’s a possibility, but society is unequal anyway. It always has been and always will be. Technology I don’t think can scrub away ideology. Take the example of Consumer Capitalism which, on average, made people more wealthy, but less equal. The gap between what we consider poor (which isn’t really poor I know) and the rich is widening every day because rich people are really really good at making money while average wages are stagnant. The stock market is a massive cash cow for corporate CEOs and they don’t even really have to do much to make millions and millions every day.
In spite of this… the ideology remains. We are all equal. We must be treated equally. There can be no aristocracy. There can be no monarchy.

Communism met its end on the deathbed of entropy. Compounding problem after problem, things got worse and worse until the ideology itself saw a kind of spiritual death, and in tandem the Communist states started to fall apart. The caveat was, they had the rich and bountiful West to rush in and make big investments with their Capitalism, just look at Poland’s transformation.

If we see the implosion of Liberalism, there’s nobody there to come to the rescue. All the other players, even authoritarian ones like China, will go totally bust as well.

What I have put forth as the Ascendancy Theory for Reactionaries is to prepare for this and be ready, be organized, be intellectually sound with an iron foundation, and have an inquisitionesque zeal for seeing Liberalism gone for good. Evola advised in Ride the Tiger to wait, let the tide rush over you and when it is at its lowest ebb, then and only then is the time for action. The Tiger burns itself out. That is the time to strike. Our task will be to remove the shriveled vestige of tomorrow, not the monolith of today which by then will lie in a ruin of its own making.

I think we may be surprised how weak resistance is at the end of it all.

I find the first option to be the most likely, and even transhumanist Michael Anissimov seems to agree on this point. After all, the reason he is a NeoReactionary is because he thinks that non-authoritarian anti-civilizational policies coupled with the whirlwind technological advancements in the next few decades will lead to Armageddon. The two are on a collision course.

I welcome this turn of events. Yes, the losses will be tremendous, but this ascendancy theory that I have called ‘Prophetic Catastrophism’ is fully in line with the predictions of the Vedic Tradition concerning the end of the Kali Yuga and the renewal of the cycle. ‘Re population of the earth” is even specifically mentioned, hinting at some kind of mass scale disaster. In such a condition, Reactionary politics will be the only viable option. Liberal outposts may exist, but like many maladaptive cultures in the early years of civilization, they will be swiftly overrun by those that realize the Traditional ideal in heroism and asceticism. Modernism’s technological advantage ripped from its heart, it will be exposed for how weak it truly is.

The greater the power of technology becomes, and the more diffuse and easy to obtain that it becomes (3D printers are really revolutionary in this regard), the pool of people who could bring cataclysm to civilizations expands. There was a time when virtually no man held such power, then with the advent of nuclear weapons, a minor handful of heads of state. Not so anymore. The development of defensive technology has never kept up with offensive technology, and in the Modern world, offensive technology has left defensive technology in the dust. It’s sprinting ahead towards its own immolation.

It’s just the end of a cycle. Things naturally do not continue as they are forever. They terminate at a point, and something new comes about. When Aleksandr Dugin gives the prime directive for his Eurasianist movement as “uprooting the accursed Tree of Knowledge” and realizing in Russia “the last thought in the mind of God, that of the end of the world”, he views this in a Messianic sense of the final apocalypse. I view it differently, as the beginning of another age, bleak and forbidding in many senses, but rich and beyond our wildest dreams in others. Over half the ancient writings we dismiss as legend, fable, and myth. But soon enough, we will see this age again, we will live in the age of legends, the age of Solar man, the age of heroes, the World of Tradition. That is… if we can just survive what is coming.

“It seems that the job of reaction is to redirect belief away from rainbow hand-holding and toward a more reasonable system.”

I can’t argue with that. Although I do think even if the students of Berkeley/Goldsmiths did somehow survive, the conditions present would necessitate anti-egalitarian modes of living in order to regain some semblance of civilization in the ruins. They could of course cling to what their professors told them… but then they’d die. Outside of the padded confines of inexhaustible wealth and security, guys like Mark Potok just don’t make it.

To put a fine point on it…

Liberals claim that human societies naturally gravitate towards equality and movement away from equality is unnatural

Reactionaries claim that human societies naturally gravitate towards hierarchy and movement away from hierarchy is unnatural

These are mutually exclusive statements. You have to either come down on one side or the other. I find that the Reactionary position has ample evidence for its case, while the Liberal has virtually none.

The analogy does not hold unless you force upon it some equivalence between the principles of Liberalism and those of Reaction, an equivalence that is simply non-existent.

You make your error here.

“gives this cismale an unnatural and unearned power over the poor transnegro’”

This is incorrect, because the “cismale” as Liberals now refer to him, actually has NATURAL and often EARNED power. If you turn this on its head, the Liberal will not claim that the freak has any power whatsoever, natural or earned. The Liberal will declare that things are actually totally equal, and we are misinterpreting this equality as an upside-down-hierarchy by virtue of the fact that we are envious about our declining power. The Liberal will ALWAYS when pressed revert back to the lie of egalitarianism and equality. If he cannot maintain that, he loses even the final shreds of his intellectual credibility.

As to your critique about the ‘state of nature’ argument, again the analogy simply does not hold because such a claim is not subjective, but rather objective. It is a fact that if a nuclear bomb went off today and the world became a post-apocalyptic wasteland, where the few surviving humans lived at bare subsistence level with all preceding culture wiped out, there would be no equality and holding hands under a rainbow. If you think that this imagined scenario is just as likely as the Reactionary point of view, that of hierarchy and patriarchy prevailing, then either you are wholly ignorant of man’s nature and the nature of societies in general or are desperately clinging to the position of devil’s advocate. Error cannot be held analogous to truth. The liberal is not presenting an alternate point of view, he is simply lying.

The difference being that Reactionaries are objectively right, and Liberals are objectively wrong. The Reactionary relies on history, experience, and high principles, whereas the Liberal is enforcing the doctrine of the lowest common denominator in which the worst elements of a given society end up ruling it, for the interest of social justice and fairness. Their entire dogma is about fighting what has come before.

Hierarchical societies are natural, egalitarian ones are not. You only need a very basic understanding of the history of civilization to realize that. One of the ideas the Reactionary must shirk is the one that sees all political opinions as equally valid in competition on a neutral playing field. No, what actually has happened is that wrong has supplanted right, evil has supplanted good, and chaos has supplanted order.

The greatest trick the Liberal ever pulled on the foolish Conservative was convincing him that Liberals are just “people like you, with a different opinion”. The Left doesn’t actually believe this and certainly don’t act as if they do, but the sentiment prevents people who in a truly competitive society would have eaten them alive a long time ago, from gaining the upper hand. This is why in Glanton’s scenario, the detestable figure of the feminist on the bus has an awesome amount of power unearned and unwarranted with which to berate the frat boy. Because her representatives on high have given her a home-field advantage of a totally and obviously unnatural type.

Reaction can however claim to be no ideology at all, because in the absence of ideology (if this is possible) everyone would be Reactionary. It is the way of the world once Enlightenment social engineering has been thrown out of the window. We can escape it briefly, take off from its ground in a little progressive aircraft, but eventually the fuel runs out and you have a choice. land gently back into its welcoming embrace, or crash and burn on its merciless solidity.

“the way that we enforce what Americans call ‘social issues’ is through the use of shame.”

This is one of the prime reasons I have highlighted as to why Conservatives can’t actually get the things they want through the democratic process and legal jargon. The left’s main enforcement method is the culture, not the court. There exists a climate of fear surrounding various topics, even among friends. Its better for most to stay silent rather than brave the SJW minefield.

(Factual Note: The GDP judgment between Nigeria and Sweden is nominal and going by the IMF metric as listed below. Other metrics such as the World Bank’s may vary. The point made however can be exemplified by Austria, which has a lower nominal GDP by all metrics.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29

Going to have to check out Nicolás Gómez Dávila. Whenever the left describes someone as “one of the most intransigent political theoreticians of the twentieth century”, you know they’re bound to have some gems.

And punch the Reactosphere continues to do. Even if they knock down one, there are ten more who are immersing themselves in Reactionary thinking.

It has always been peculiar how even when one ‘oppressed’ strata of society becomes quite clearly more financially and culturally powerful as well as more liked in the demotic sense than their ‘oppressors’, the daynamic remains the same. The left are saying that no matter how high various minority ‘oppressed’ groups are elevated they will ALWAYS be ‘oppressed’. But this is a paradoxical indictment of their own ideology. It’s a testament to their failure if they truly believe this to be the case, for all their efforts are for naught.

The truth however, is that the people in charge know this is bogus. How could they not? They just use the ‘oppressor’/’oppressed’ narrative as a tool to manipulate the masses, who have been taught from birth to root for the underdog, regardless of what he represents or who he is.

Their actual ideology can be most simply defined as:

1) The evil must oppress
2) The righteous must be oppressed
3) No lie is too big, no cost too great, to see goals 1 & 2 realized

The goal of the left from square one, regardless of what they say, has always been the same. To turn the entire Traditional political order on its head. Humanity’s greatest souls and minds must be crushed underfoot, and those who yesterday were muckrakers must be the new vaunted class. If reality has to be done away with to secure this objective, so be it. All hail progress! Kali demands it.

“developed by the far-sighted Salazar dictatorship during the 60s and 70s”

Ah, fond memories. Rest in peace, A.S.

I’m amazed at Nigeria’s economic growth in spite of the low-level civil war in that country. We’ll see where it goes in the future. Libya/Mali will be interesting to watch as well. Should Le Pen become president of France, I doubt the Malians could count on the same kind of help against Jihadists that they got before. She seems pretty non-interventionist,

Succinct and useful as usual Dampier. Surely the first obstacle for Reactionary critics of the order is getting rid of the controlled opposition, the Conservatives who so clownishly fail to do anything worth a damn. I mentioned with regard to the Indiana RFRA debacle, what is it exactly that Conservatism could have achieved even if they had stood on some kind of principle? The government were not the aggressors in that scenario, it was private businesses that boycotted and private individuals who sent death threats to the pizzeria.

How does Conservatism tackle that in any way? Oppression by private forces is often even more gratuitous than by a kangaroo court. Conservatism cannot address the problem because it cannot be authoritarian. Give me even a poor authoritarian king over any of these weasel politicians with nothing to offer any day.

The Căpitanul on Tradition’s enemies –

“To you, who have been struck, maligned or martyred, I can bring the news, which I wish to carry more than the frail value of a casual rhetorical phrase: soon we shall win. Before your columns, all our oppressors will fall. Forgive those who struck you for personal reasons. Those who have tortured you for your faith in the Romanian people, you will not forgive. Do not confuse the Christian right and duty of forgiving those who wronged you, with the right and duty of our people to punish those who have betrayed it and assumed for themselves the responsibility to oppose its destiny. Do not forget that the swords you have put on belong to the nation. You carry them in her name, In her name you will use them for punishment-unforgiving and unmerciful. Thus and only thus, will you be preparing a healthy future for this nation.”

Hope you’ll be back blogging soon, Mai La Dreapta.

It seems as if in response to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act fiasco, the takeaway by Reactionaries has been almost uniform across the board. Your to-the-point indictment of Conservatism’s continued proven failure to stop an organized enemy is echoed by Beefy Levinson over at Lamentably Sane

http://lamentablysane.blogspot.com/2015/04/clutching-at-our-pearls-of-great-price.html#comment-form

And myself in a follow up article

http://citadelfoundations.blogspot.com/2015/04/reactionaries-say-what-conservatives.html

Our efforts to penetrate the Conservative bubble and finally collapse the impotent controlled opposition need to be accelerated. The never-ending failure of the clownish Republican Party and its even more clownish equivalents in Western European countries is inevitably going to lead to a dissolving in the foundational loyalties of their constituents. These are tomorrow’s Reactionaries, the Modern World’s bloodied victims, the disenfranchised white, Christian male who is so spat upon by the controlling elite.

The only time the left have been successfully squashed since their appearance in the Enlightenment, is when the radical right has spoken the truth, that they are the enemy. We do not seek mutual understanding or a diplomatic solution favorable to both parties. Such common ground does not exist. Nothing but the complete and final destruction of Liberalism will suffice. That is the only relevant rule of engagement.

“The average liberal couldn’t imagine a more irrelevant rejoinder. They aren’t making any such proposition at all. In their calculus, Christians (of the Not-fans-of-Pope-Francis type at least) are the bad guys and thus their interests are hateful and invalid and must be opposed. The KKK are bad guys and thus their actions are hateful and invalid and must be opposed. You attack bad guys. You don’t attack good guys. Whence the confusion?”

I had no idea how to put this thought into words, but you captured it perfectly. Why is this so hard for rightists to understand? For crying out loud, stop dancing to their music! Don’t bring your clever comeback to a gunfight.

(As a side note: I’d encourage Reactionaries to take note of this incident in particular, and of the firebombing threats made against the tiny pizzeria that said they wouldn’t cater to sodomites. Once the threats begin, the real thing is not far away. Remember Spain’s Terror Rojo)

Male allies of the feminist dogma are laughable scum, you can actually see it in their eyes and their mannerisms. They’re often almost like puppy dogs begging for attention and praise from women.

The reason it has long been a source of mockery for a man to be controlled by a woman is a defense mechanism, and you can find its root as far back as the story of Genesis. Women have a destructive power that is harder to define than sheer strength. It is the quality of manipulation to elevate the Lunar principle over the Solar principle.

The good thing is, the SJW Momma’s boys will present virtually no resistance to a credible show of force on Reaction’s part. They aren’t bred for it.

actually it was largely the failure of the monarchy to hang enough ‘philosophes’ before they could give birth to Robespierre and Marat. Read some Maistre

The Church as an institution has declined as every single other institution has declined. I’m puzzled as to why we think priests would be an exception to the rule when we have crooked bankers, cops, leaders, and bureaucrats. We are all affected by the Modern World in a profoundly negative way. As for me, I don’t regard any Christian interpretation that deviates from the practice of the faith in the first 1000 years as being legitimate.

he’s textbook teencuck. his arguments aren’t even coherent.

The Pope doesn’t have any position in Orthodoxy. You are humiliating yourself here with your lack of knowledge. hahahahaha

0.1/10

Orthodox don’t recognize the Pope, shitforbrains

I’m rating this comment a 0.5/10, docking some points for repetition which shows lack of creativity. Actually knocking it down to 0.4/10 because you have mgtow in your username.

CORRECTION: Going to 0.2/10 because you weirdly think Orthodoxy is a major religion in western countries, leading me to wonder if you have ever left your trailer

this is why you don’t put an Argentine in charge of the spiritual welfare of Europeans

hahaha, I just noticed your name. Didn’t Roosh call you mgtow f*aggots out for the pathetic losers you were way back in 2015?

you’re not a pagan

I’m rating this comment a 1/10. Very little effort. Kid must be getting tired.

> believing in the ‘Dark Ages’ meme which isn’t taken seriously even by mainstream historians nowadays
> guessing… grade school?

So are you going to address my point which completely debunked your bullshit theory?

I do feel sorry for americans whose only experience of Christianity is these crazy fundamentalist ‘churches’ who would have been burned in 900 AD for heresy.

As someone pointed out to me recently, the most effective way to control female sexuality is through shame. Not violence, not law, no nothing comes close to shame, for the woman is uniquely sensitive to it. She cannot bear it. This is why religion is important for male/female dynamics, because a religious community will shame women who cheat on their husbands, deterring the behavior. A secular community won’t give a shit.

You must literally be a retard. Have you had your daily burger?

A) Eastern Europe tends to have more practicing Christians, for example Poland has church attendance in excess of 80%. They haven’t let a single migrant in

B) Western Europe has practically nobody in church, and has become more atheistic every single year. Is cucked. lol.

Now, go to bed kid. Adults are talking

This is a really excellent example of a 17 year old’s “Fuck you, DAD!” post

this guy is literally in it for the lolz. Nobody with an education could take him seriously. I wonder which country he is from

No. Common misconception. The Immaculate Conception is the belief that Mary was born without original sin. Since the Orthodox do not believe in original sin, we find this doctrine simply unnecessary.

There is a dispute currently over the jurisdiction of Qatar between the Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Antioch. But it’s nothing for white people to worry about really as they need to solve it themselves

As Orthodox myself, this was a real pleasure to read. Thank you, and I wish you all the best on your spiritual journey.

There is one thing I feel would have augmented the article and that was a discussion of why the Orthodox Church has remained unchanged for so long, and has never has a Vatican II equivalent. The weight in Orthodoxy given the past was extremely attractive for me, because it is not the living who speak loudest in the faith, but the dead, who are more numerous. To the Orthodox mind, the Tradition is what it is, and to reject it in favor of some reform would be to renounce those great men of church history who believed differently. This is why Bloomberg writes articles like “Orthodox Church stays in the Dark Ages” (lol). I have more info on this here:

https://citadelfoundations.wordpress.com/2016/06/09/the-voice-of-the-dead/

Godspeed. Perhaps Spengler was right, maybe Europe will get her vigor back from the great white east.

this is an obvious troll. Sweden is almost 95% SJW and the Christian population there is tiny. just KYS

Thank you for providing this. A great read

A great article, Sebastian. Sorry it took me a while to get around to it. I had something to deal with that will become apparent shortly. Funny you should mention the ‘you’re not really white!’ conspiracies actually…

I’m glad you framed this almost as a sequel to the equally well-devised RamZPaul article.

What can I add? Well, I actually don’t find the Republican establishment, nor the Conservatards like Glenn Beck, to be at all threatening… and that is something of a disappointment because if they did manage to topple Trump, I had previously said that this would be great for us, because it would only amplify the hatred, distrust, and division in a clearly rigged system.

However, increasingly… it doesn’t look like Donald Trump can actually be stumped, and if he does win those early states (Iowa and New Hampshire), it will be a running of the table. A Trump presidency is uncharted territory. I have no idea about this man. Is he going to be co-opted? Is he Mussolini reincarnate? I just cannot say, and so predicting the future is difficult. But what can be said is that Trump’s opponents are more feeble than anybody realized. Rick Wilson’s tantrum over the Alt-Right has to be a highlight, along with the complete implosion of guac-Jeb!

One thing is for sure. 2016 will be more impactful for the radical right than 2014 and 2015 combined, whatever happens.

Congratulations, Roosh!

Remember about that whole “first they mock you” thing… remember the next step, and be ready for it

I’m afraid once they got to Europe they’d find nary a Christian to massacre! The only substantial Christian populations remaining are in Eastern Europe (which will never let them past the gates anyway, see Hungary & Poland).

One of the most shameful chapters in Occidental history will be the silence as the Christians of Syria and Iraq were slaughtered, and let us speak the truth and say, the Left looks at this and says “good!”. They’ll cover their attitude up with so many words and in fact no words at all, but they do not give a damn about human life. Anyone deemed an enemy of their agenda can go ahead and die. Trust me, if it was white men being brutally slaughtered (as they were in South Africa), they would be just as silent. Enemy groups are worse than maggots in the left’s eyes. They don’t realize yet that Muslims don’t want to be their friends.

Religion is one of the most powerful tribal tools there is. ‘Spirituality’ in its amorphous sense is not only useless in what it provides to nourish the soul, but it has no organization capability, to bring men together for a common goal.

For all the complaints about ‘organized religion’, the problem is not that Modern religion is so organized, it is that it is organized for the wrong aims (i.e – making people have warm feels)

Living in cities is definitely a massive impacting factor having negative consequences for human beings. We are not designed to function with so many different interractive entitites in short spaces of time. Hence the suicide rates in Tokyo where they ae crammed in like sardines

The worst part is the posturing by the moronic multitudes who think “aww, this is really sad. I’m going to change my Facebook profie picture” Call it the divine punishment of nature, but I think the weakest cultures are beginning to be culled now. The latest from the French president “Life must go on! we will import 30,000 more!”

Sad thing is, few French will agree with me in saying its a shame he wasn’t caught in the blast.

What more can be said? This post nails it, and victory is unavoidable as the enemy is commiting suicide! We’ve ridden the tiger ragged, and now the time has come to cut its throat. This is WAR

That is a good point. These things can be hijacked very easily.

ROK should stand up for true male virility, from the unique Occidental perspective. This broadens its horizons beyond simply discussions about the nature of women, ‘game theory’, etc. and allows it to entertain topics such as the crisis of the Modern World, theology, history, Traditionalism, etc.

I think you have to always be aware of the context in which anything is said. If you haven’t read Codreanu’s autobiography, you definitely should. Codreanu had two concerns about the Jews in Romania informed by his own anecdotal experiences and analysis of demographic data.

1) The rampant and almost universal support for Bolshevism among Romanian Jews. Romanians had seen a communist revolution in neighboring Hungary, spearheaded by Jews, which led to the massacring of Hungarian citizens. Quite openly, Jews would agitate for a Soviet invasion of Romania at top universities.

2) Though a minority (between 4-5% of the population), Jews outnumbered Romanians in several educational student bodies at universities and schools, particularly in subjects of law, medicine, and banking. Codreanu correctly deduced that this would mean the future elite of Romania were foreigners, condemning the country to servitude and eventually destruction.

Hence, Codreanu supported the deportation of the Jewish population of Romania to Palestine. Contrary to popular belief, he never advocated anything close to pogroms or similar, and Legionaries who took violent actions against random Jews (thus giving ammunition to the hostile press to attack the Legion) were expelled under his leadership. In fact, many attacks on Jews had to be faked because the Legion was so disciplined, these fakes later confirmed by the press itself. There is a reason why the Iron Guard were one of only two far right groupings in Europe cleared of all charges against them by Nuremberg (the other being the Bulgarian Ratniks).

Was he an anti-semite? Yes. So were many Western leaders at the time. Europe was awash with anti-semitism, not all of it unjustified. It’s rather profound in fact that Codreanu blames primarily the degeneration of Romania for the rise of the Jewish problem in the country. His lament here is that Romanians have become immoral, and thus have condemned themselves to eventual destruction, something he sought to prevent.He cared about his own, and a valiant hero he remains.

Yeah, essentially a collection of people I’d classify as ‘hoodrats’ who look like they just came out of a soup kitchen line, and some goth kids with broken teeth.

I wasn’t aware they had been that vicious or numerous. Antifa are real scum. Two Greek patriots were mercilessly gunned down in Athens by them about a year ago, and I see their sh*tty stickers on everything near where I am based.

The effectiveness of such conferences is debatable, but they sure make Liberals lose their minds and cease bathing activities weeks in advance. Also have to love someone saying “my dad fought in WWII!”. I very much doubt it.

The best solution is to troll them just as hard offline as online. Peel off the skin of an Antifa goon and there is a pencil-necked SJW under there. Just trigger the hell out of him.

With regards to ‘Islamophobia’, that isn’t a thing, and I haven’t really noticed much anti-Islamic rhetoric on ROK. Anti Islamic colonization of the West, yes. But that isn’t anti-Islam.

With regards to the Jews, it’s important this website tells the truth, and if there is something regarding the Jews that needs to be said, it should be said, regardless of what idiots in the comment section might say in reaction. I mean, I just had to pen a response to Jew Tim Wise who has called for the extermination of white people. Is that a ‘big no-no’?

ROK is a really great place with some terrific full-time writers. Keep up the good work!

Great article. I think Evola pointed out certain cults in history where it was reversed, and women were the theologians, representing a ‘lunar’ type of spirituality which was degenerate. Women are supposed to be silent in the churches for a reason.

Why? The Middle East is coming to the West since it is so decadent.

It is authoritarian, not totalitarian. Learning the difference between these two is essential. Human society is naturally authoritarian if you look at history. Totalitarianism and Libertarianism are two divergences off into eventual failure and result from a breakdown in understanding of how spheres of authority operate.

I’m not sure why any woman would protest this analogy. Childhood is wonderful. There are no machine guns firing at you on a battlefield, and you aren’t typically in a factory.

This is due to something called ‘high time-preference’ which is inherent in the female sex, and means they prioritize short-term goals over long-term goals, even for smaller payoffs. This makes them horrible incompetent managers in the world of both commerce and politics.

God made woman as she is for a reason. She is here to achieve true femininity in submission to the masculine principle, provide nurturing for the generational continuity of the nation, and keep the hearth tolerable.

Roosh, you have never been more correct.

Invalidated for incongruity with historical attitudes of men in the vast majority of societies. You are the victim of leftist indoctrination.

Quite possibly the case. And it’s important to note that part of the feminist indoctrination of boys in schools is to suppress male instincts, including reflexive disgust at such things.

The Ultra-Orthodox certainly don’t, as they self-segregate and prefer limited to no contact with outsiders. Its the rest of the Jews who enjoy promoting vices outside of their own group, and it’s problematic.

it’s almost as strange as saying that the KKK are all secretly black.

One of the problems is the continuation of the meme that ‘homosexuals’ exist. The idea of ‘sexual identity’ has NO HISTORY in civilization until the contemporary era, coming out of the psychological pseudoscience factory. Funny that even in nations where sodomy was routinely practiced and socially sanctioned such as certain city states of Ancient Greece, there was no concept of a ‘sexual identity’. Men who had sex with (usually teen boys) had wives and children as well. Lesbianism is rarely documented at all.

It is not until this current age that we see this rise of an entirely manufactured and artificial ‘community’ based around a sex act.

If men wish to counter the degeneration of our culture into the boneyard of extinction, they should first state plainly that ‘homosexuals’ are a manufactured group that does not exist. There are men who engage in sodomy, and they do so by choice. This then correctly reduces the issue to an action rather than an identity, which is how it has always been understood by Traditional societies where the gynocracy is not a pervasive influence, and why it was typically forbidden without protest.

Historically, this isn’t necessarily true. Christian states proved to be some of the most aggressive in history, almost to a fault. And bear in mind, few European nations have actually been Christian nations since the years following the French Revolution and ending with the overthrow of the last Tsar. They have instead been ‘Enlightened’ administrative states.

And Buddhism also can be aggressively defensive. See what is occurring right now in Burma.

Regardless of what this misguided boy did, the Left remain the biggest criminal gang and have been so for almost 300 years where they have raped and plundered European heritage and sold it off to foreigners. The sooner Europe has leaders like Viktor Orban the better.

There is something frighteningly wrong with our culture when their is little capacity among passers-by to physically assault any male who would participate in this. In other cultures, it would be like a survival instinct, see a male who is a danger to the greater tribe, give him something to think about.

I am very glad that the promotion of Patriarchal norms is going mainstream in the dissident male sphere. In Novorossiya, I watched a public service announcement being given by one of the commanders to a recently liberated town. He said plainly to the women:

“A woman should be the guardian of the hearth, the mother. What kind of mothers go to taverns? What children can they raise? What kind of example are they giving? This is our female population? Prostitution or what! Patrols will be given special orders: all girls will be arrested who are found in taverns. Don’t like the way things are? It’s time you remembered that you are Russians.”

One day, the West too will begin to slowly return to the organic order of things. Patriarchy is beautiful, it is divinely ordained. Man is charged over woman. Both have a role to play in this drama of life, and these role never change. They are baked into the fabric of our spiritual being.

I also noted many left wing comment gang bangs concerning things like ‘women’s rights’ and nobody dissented from what was clearly insanity.

I left Facebook a long time ago. Luckily I never had to endure the onslaught of those retarded rainbow tint profile pictures. What a cesspool.

I’d recommend you continue just as you are. There is a certain exclusivity to our political doctrine, and from that last post, it’s clear you wouldn’t cut it. Very typical internet atheist neckbeard type stuff, and it can be entertaining/engaging for some audiences even Christian ones, but not those this far to the right. It’s a little like calling people “racist”. Most extremists don’t care anymore, we’ve moved past it.

Again, you are venturing into a discussion of apologetics. If you want to look at lengthy argumentation concerning things like ‘metaphysically necessary lions’ and other such attempts to refute God, then the literature is a Google search away.

“ancient beliefs, the basis for which, frankly just don’t stand up to modern scrutiny.”

Ah, yes. ‘Modern scrutiny’. Let me give you a list of other things that don’t stand up to ‘Modern scrutiny’

– White privilege

– The discrimination against ‘homosexuals’
– The need for masculinity
– Border fences
– Islamophobia
– etc.

The list goes on. Forgive me for not really believing in
‘Modern scrutiny’. You’re a Modernist, and so you put stock in such things. This is an irreconcilable difference. The kind of society your ideology has produced is evident, it’s here, we can observe it. I find it to be abominable, and dedicate myself to undoing it by any means necessary.

As Evola said, our mission is to ‘Revolt against the Modern world’ in all its iterations and forms. Muslims are entrenched in Christian countries?! What?! Which Christian countries? I see none. Muslims are entrenched in YOUR countries, Modern countries. If you think a Christian Reactionary State arising anywhere in Europe would be completely stumped as to how to solve this problem, you grossly underestimate us. We have heard the inevitability of progress rhetoric for almost 300 years, how globalism is unstoppable, how nothing can or ever will be undone, but our enemy’s arrogance is most welcome. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

“Go ahead! Achieve all your goals! Break all the dams! Faster! You are unbound. Go ahead and fly with faster wings, with an ever greater pride for your achievements, with your conquests, with your empires, with your democracies! The pit must be filled; there is a need for fertilizer for the new tree that will grow out of your collapse.”

– Guido De Giorgio

Apologetics is the defense of religion using argumentation. There are piles of books on apologetics for all major religions which present the arguments in their favor. If you want to look at the claims of religions and how they compare, you can do this reading.

“By saying this, you appear to be agreeing that it’s better to make up fantasies and then build our social structures around them, than base them on fact and evidence?”

By assuming religion is fantasy, you are doing what is called ‘begging the question’.

“However, we live in a globalised world now”

A large majority of people using this website would like to see that reversed.

“we need world views that we can all, globally, agree on.”

There are many ways to achieve this. If ISIS conquers the world and establishes a worldwide Caliphate, then your problem is solved, isn’t it. See, I actually prefer a world where cultures are different, rather than having everyone around the world be the same, which is a goal that the Marxists pursued.

“How can there be any social cohesion when one group of people holds fundamental beliefs and values for which no one else in the world can establish as actually true and that contradicts the fundamental values and beliefs of another group?”

Easily. They exist in separate nations. Why do I care if a Japanese man in Japan believes different things to me? If I have no interaction with him, then we don’t need to ‘cohere’. You really need to reconsider your desire for everyone around the world to join hands and be one. It’s the kind of fantasy which has led to millions of deaths around the world.

1) You’re asking for a lesson in several hundreds of years of apologetics which nobody would be willing to spend time on in a comment section. If you actually want to research this, the resources are not hidden. There are many many books on the subject.

2)

“Surely a healthier position to take as a 21st century global community
would be to create foundations for our societies that are based on what
we can actually demonstrate with evidence, to the best of our ability,
to be true.”

Well, lucky you! You have this. It’s called secular Europe. And no, it isn’t healthy. It is withering and dying on the vine. Many ethnic groups in Europe will go extinct with the virtues of ‘science’ and ‘reason’ on their lips.

I’d gladly debate you despite English being your second language, but I realized about three years ago the only way to deal with leftists is via the Pinochet method. Debating doesn’t actually achieve anything.

I’d rather have a morality that was questionable than a morality that was illusory. And no, being born is not an achievement. I know you’d like to think it is, but it means nothing.

Well, I could justify your death by simply saying you are “not even a person” couldn’t I. That would be rather easy. You’re clearly degenerate, and so would have fitted in well among the Canaanites.

They would sacrifice children by burning them alive (perhaps you are a fan?), typically to reverse some adversity that had affected to tribe, or to achieve oracle knowledge and divination. The practice of child sacrifice was in fact an early export to the Israelites from the Canaanite tribes. It is why Abraham, though conflicted, was not puzzled by the command to sacrifice his own son. It was a common practice in the region.

Besides, we know the Canaanite genocide, though commanded, did not occur. After it, Canaanites later appear again, so genocide could not have been committed. It is likely the infirm, women and children fled their cities before the Israelites defeated the Canaanite armies, and justly wiped out their early culture.

You seem to understand Evola very well. That’s no small achievement. I agree with your assessment.

I don’t think you’d much disagree with genociding the Canaanites if you had ever met them

it’s alcohol. As long as you aren’t particularly partial to the stuff, you’re ok

Interestingly enough, I have an article upcoming on Russia, particularly where the Putin regime is taking the country.

What we are seeing is an undercurrent from tsarist times re-asserting itself in communism’s absence. Russians are being slowly shunted towards a Reactionary State. It’s not happening fast enough for my liking, but I certainly think NeoMasculinists need to give credit to the philosophers, past and present, who are shaping Russia’s direction and creating a bulwark against the effeminate ‘Modern’ West.

Your point is the classic teleological argument for design, and its amazing that modern science has actually bolstered it by showing insane levels of pinpoint accuracy needed for there to be any life in the universe at all. Atheists have since, in almost every instance, been forced to infer the multiverse to explain this phenomena.

I always point out, in the cultures where atheism has had its way and won out in the political and social arena, men have become completely subservient to women. This is a strange coincidence. Why not just in Sweden? Why in the UK, in the Netherlands, in France, and increasingly in the US?

Since the ‘Enlightenment’ religion has receded from public life in many countries with many different kinds of cultures. Self-professed religions have been separated from the state apparatus. Only two kinds of countries have emerged from this. Communist societies whose economic and mass death record speaks for itself. And our liberal societies of today.

And to those who point out the scientific and technological advancements that Western nations have achieved with their secular paradise, my response is this. Your space shuttles and your smart phones mean nothing at all if you go extinct, and currently many European cities see their natives as minority populations. In Britain, MOST of the population believes that to be ‘British’ is simply to hold a British passport! It seems Darwin’s survival of the fittest has found in atheism, without exception, a maladaptive trait for a population to adopt. Their birth rates plummet. The social cohesion dissolves along with trust. Eventually they convince themselves that everyone is equal, including hostile invaders.

It would seem the most intelligent atheist, knowing what he knows about the world in hindsight of the last 300 years, would prefer simply going along and pretending rather than having to live in the social climate atheism has developed, one in which the entire hierarchy of the world is upside down.

What goes right over many people’s heads is that the slippery slope isn’t a fallacy at all. It literally doesn’t qualify under the definition of a ‘fallacy’ and yet it is called one nonetheless. Slippery slope is the acknowledgement of an inescapable fact, that of entropy.

I always find it amusing and yet tragic at the same time how the slippery slope ‘fallacy’ that Liberals love to dismiss is proved correct time and time again. Unfortunately, the rapid shift of the penumbra now means people neglect to remember that arguments against the legitimization of sodomy often pointed to exactly what is occurring now.

Social Justice is a component, it is not a key structure. As a phenomena, it is a more recent development designed to shut down dissent using obvious lowest-common-denominator appeals.

What must be recognized is what I call the ‘Cult of Progress’. This is the religious motivation behind the left, and it has been the same motivation that has existed since their inception during the French Revolution and the ‘Enlightenment’. This is a religion that performs all of the classical functions of other religions, but in a highly unstable and constantly shifting way. Its mission is to usurp all Traditional religions while feigning irreligiosity, hence why ‘secularism’ is a very clever ruse.

The Cult of Progress itself is what you might call the ‘occult motivator’ of things like Social Justice. It’s the unseen hand. It has no representatives, and its priests have no idea that they are following a religion at all.

To claim this religion is satanic is interesting, and I have considered it myself. If one looks at religions of ancient times where demonic entities were worshiped (Moloch for example), you find abominable creeds and practices, but still definite traditions and dogmas. What are we to make of the first religion in history with absolutely nothing in the way of revelation or doctrine? The Cult of Progress can be anything. It can be a hammer and sickle or a swastika just as easily as it can be a rainbow flag. This is astonishingly unique, and perhaps you are correct in diagnosing its spiritual cause as being that astonishingly unique character of the disgraced first among angels, first among deceivers I might add.

Make no mistake, there is absolutely zero escape from religion. If you fall for atheism, secularism, humanism, rationalism etc. you are merely falling for the Cult of Progress. In a left wing society, if you aren’t following a Traditional religion, then you are by default following theirs.

The only question that matters in a society is which religion is being implemented, and right now your assessment of just how evil this cult being foisted upon us all by force is, seems most accurate. The Slavs seem to be waking up to this, but I fear the average Westerner may be too decadent and corrupt in the spirit.

I like how love of the Jew has become a litmus test for entering the USA now. Wow. Are people trying to confirm Stormfront claims or what?

“What we need is a complete, secular world government; eradicating all
religious text or mention of deities and forbid anyone to speak of such
matters.”

Thanks for your incite, Kim Jong Un. Secularism is a cancer. It is no coincidence that women have taken power over men in secularism. Are you a f*cking retard?

I think we should be ensuring these Christians can stay in the Middle East, and that means supporting the Russians in propping up the Alawite regime in Syria. Syrian Christians overwhelmingly support Bashar Al Assad. It is shameful that only Orthodox Russia has come to his defense.

Does Croatia not have any Catholic nationalists who would close these borders… but who also don’t want to massacre Serbs? Would be nice to stop any of this wave destroying Austria. I think Austria could be saved. Germany I have very little hope for.

Please, the Muslims of Russia are confined to the Caucuses, under the direct control of a brutal bought off warlord. Putin has handled his multi-ethnic state correctly, keeping the races separate.

There are good reasons to avoid marriage today, namely legal ones, but it depends on what kind of women you can find, and what communities you are planning to settle in. Such realities often hinder white men from starting families.

However the question is not really one about personal life choices, but what our view is of this situation. Is it just? Is it societally beneficial? If the answer is no, then we are duty-bound to see this system be torn down. It gets a little annoying to hear people denounce feminism and the legal empowerment of women over men, but still essentially support an open secular democratic society, in which this is the inevitable conclusion.

I agree completely that it sucks to be married in the Modern world. It’s a game of Russian roulette. But then are you willing to give up the things which so many people love about the Modern world in order to rectify this situation?

I don’t see how this could even be remotely true. Evola’s contribution was limited almost entirely to his spiritual theory of race which was adopted by Mussolini’s Italy, and was one of the prime reasons why Italy didn’t go down the path of eugenics like Germany did.

If you’re talking about the ‘Years of Lead’, those men were heroes.

You haven’t really bothered to refute Evola’s philosophy. I find it sad that an Italian noble knows more about your culture than you do.

Pelayo makes a valid point. Even if you do not believe you will be held accountable in the next life, consider that other cultures who do not act the way you do, are stronger, and history shows that they will conquer you and either exterminate what legacy you leave or enslave it.

On the contrary, when you consider Him as a divine person this makes total sense. Jesus didn’t need to kill them, he didn’t need to overthrow Rome or the Sanhedrin. As he said, in the end, every single one of them would be judged. In a sense, he had already conquered them in the only way that mattered.

“Lastly, a secular society is perfectly capable of creating sound moral
and ethical values based on a few key premises, such as treating others
as you would like to be treated.”

There is no justification for such premises, and this ‘golden rule’ is never put into practice. I am sure if you murdered somebody you would very much like to be forgiven for the crime so as not to be killed yourself or spend the rest of your life in jail. However, this isn’t a sound basis for any kind of legal code.Hence why all legal codes in 100% of countries in the world have a religious basis in history, even in North Korea.

Some have called this spiritual autism, and there really isn’t a problem with it from a purely social perspective. Non-believers can see the basic truth that religion is at the core of a stable society.

Where religion declines, men become subservient to women. This is not a coincidence, it is causal. If you do not wish to live in a society where ritual is valued, then you concede to live under the feminist bootheel. The middle ground is only an afterglow on the way to one of these two poles.

It has been a pretty consistent fact throughout history. When religion diminishes, men lose their political power and subsequently become subservient to women. You can see this not only in Christian societies, but Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist societies as well. Where secularism triumphs, men lose.

One cannot be for Patriarchy and against religious dominion. One necessitates the other.

Again, the hostility to religion conceptually comes from two positions: one a criticism of Liberal religion (i.e – the current Pope, Methodists, Anglicans etc.). This criticism isn’t particularly valid because heretics can always and have always been burned.

The other is a fear of extremism. Dissident men largely fall into two categories. The first are those content to just dislike political correctness and the Liberal establishment, but not really oppose any of their core beliefs, such as secularism and suffrage. The second are those who are willing to embrace extremism in both method and ideological framework in order to oppose Modern thinking. The move towards this second position is essentially what NeoMasculinity seems to be about, which is why MGTOW criticized it.

You’re free to hold that opinion, but it’s incorrect. As Agent Eighty Two stated, the ideas promoted by these figures among others are not ones targeted at the masses, so I’m not expecting all to accept them. Submission to natural hierarchy is incredibly masculine. How do you think an army operates? Tell me which society would win in a war, all other things being equal, one in which every man questioned the authority of their leaders, or one which was a cohesive fighting force. What you equate manhood with is anarchy. Your implication is thus…

1) Men had never achieved true manhood until the ‘Enlightenment’ was realized in the 1700s.
2) Post-Enlightenment men are real men
3) Real men are those that are completely subjugated to the ideals that now exist, which are a necessary outworking of the ‘Enlightenment’, feminism, equality, democracy, etc. all things which have made men domesticated house-bitches who get screwed out of all their money in divorce courts, and have to fend off rape allegations at every turn. Yes, this ‘Enlightenment’ has truly created a masculine society. Viva La Rebellion!

The fact is, you do submit to an authority, as much as you like to think you are a rebel. The only problem is, you submit to a false authority, a ‘Lunar’ authority, an inherently effeminate authority. This is what ‘equality’ means.

Vilfredo Pareto said –

“Equality is related to the direct interests of individuals who are bent on escaping certain inequalities not in their favor, and setting up new inequalities that will be in their favor, this latter being their chief concern.”

This is what you serve. It’s a caste system inverted. True men serve an organic caste system which recognized superior and inferior, king and gutter trash, in that order, rather than the reverse. Whenever one argues for equality and ‘Enlightened’ principles, know that he is arguing for every facet of what exists today. Feminism is a natural outworking of the ‘Enlightenment’. It existed in no time prior.

Aleksandr Dugin said it best: “if you are for global liberal hegemony, you are the enemy.”

Conservatives are, in about 90% of cases, for global liberal hegemony. They want the ideas of yesterday’s Liberals to dominate the world. All cultural norms of our decaying society must be exported overseas, and anyone who resists is a human rights abuser.

Conservatives are not an enemy in the same way Liberals are, indeed they are a fertile recruitment ground because they’re not totally brainwashed. However, the moderation of their entire political ideology (and yes, there is not a single truly ‘right wing’ politician elected to any post in the entire country), is a cumbersome burden which hinders the resistance to Liberalism.

This said, the common MGTOW paranoia about ‘TradCons’ is duly noted and more proof of their stupendous amateur moronics. Roosh was right to dismiss them.

I’m glad you’re looking into these ideas. Putinism is a little far from what we are proposing, but its vaguely headed in the right direction. You should read up on some of Putin’s ideological influences though, Aleksandr Dugin and Ivan Ilyin, who mirror a lot of our views more accurately than the current regime.

We gladly wear the title of extremists. We’re not really aiming for the non-pedantic minds. I’m never going to convince Chris Matthews of anything.

What you say about redpill men being drawn eastwards is a very interesting phenomenon. I agree your analysis is correct, they are seeking refuge from feminism.

The thing about the title ‘Tradcon’ is its kind of ambiguous. Is it synonymous with Paleocon? Conservatives haven’t really had much to do with Traditionalism in the ideological sense, so its an odd portmanteau. Even Paleocons just want to turn back the clock to the 1940s, failing to realize that things were going to hell even then. It’s better than the garden variety Conservatives of course, who want to go back to… what is it now? 2005? It keeps changing.

Conservatism in all forms isn’t an enemy of men, but it is an annoyance. It safeguards Liberalism’s gained ground, defending it as a pillar of ‘tradition’ when its nothing of the sort. Today’s Conservatives fight to protect the policies that Liberals enacted 40 years ago! This sucks men into the game of democracy before long, and then they’re thinking that voting could actually help them in some way.

In terms of the original definition of Left vs. Right, both Conservatism and Liberalism are left wing. If you want to explore true right wing thinking, ignore Mark Levin and read Joseph De Maistre. Civilization did not begin 300 years ago, it began 8000 years ago.

Men need to study this and ask the question, what is it exactly that Conservatives want to ‘conserve’. Forney is right that social conservatives aren’t likely to attack you at all in the same way ardent Liberals do, but I think for real men to take the whole red pill, they will end up far far far to the right of Pat Buchanan.

In 100 years, the population of Afghanistan will be Afghan. In 100 years, the population of Sweden will be Somali.

Your are correct. Respect.

It’s always important to remember that trends like this race towards a leftist singularity which can never be reached. Yes, these boys are the future of Swedish ‘masculinity’, but they aren’t the future of Sweden proper. The future always and ultimately belongs to winners, so whether its Sweden being invaded by another country, or these boys becoming the cuckolded slaves of a swarthy horde who will rape the women that currently applaud this degeneracy, the history bends to the will of victors.

Any nation in which this kind of behavior would have resulted in these kids having the tar beaten out of them is vastly superior in terms of survival. People have very little time to wake up.

I assume economic conditions will worsen in the near future, dramatically so in fact. Unfortunately it is likely our abundant luxury which has caused men to discard leisurely fraternal activities. They remain popular in Russia.

All true, and I think the son is the major factor that actually led to his increasing blindness to his wife’s failings. His heart truly broke for his son. It is no surprise that someone who had Rasputin’s ‘abilities’ was able to gain so much influence within the royal court. Unfortunately the priesthood acted too late in trying to assassinate him, and the aristocracy acted too late in succeeding to assassinate him.

To your first point, not in the crude sense of visible attribute, but in the sense of absolute principles, yes. The Enlightenment was the overthrowing of Organic authority, with suffrage, multiculturalism, etc etc as its ultimate necessary outworking. Guenon and Evola speak of ‘Solar’ and ‘Lunar’ principles, solar representing masculine tendencies and lunar representing feminine tendencies. Solar principles are identified by hierarchy, while lunar principles are identified by appeals to egalitarianism and thus the imposition of artificial or faux hierarchies.

As for your second point, this is a misunderstanding. The Enlightenment was not about ‘overcoming’ God’s will… this would be absurd. It was about denying that God had any will at all. For more on the nature of science, see Guenon’s treatment of ‘Sacred and Profane’ sciences

http://www.worldwisdom.com/public/viewpdf/default.aspx?article-title=Sacred_and_Profane_Science_by_Rene_Guenon.pdf

Yes, absolutely. In fact, ordering fraternal organizations around pretty much any activity is positive.

No. In my own personal critique of Fascism, it supported too much interference with market forces, was inherently populist and anti-aristocratic, was degeneratively secular, and was more concerned with cults of personality than sound philosophical principles.

Like Evola, I would critique Fascism as an ideology, from the right. I position myself as profoundly anti-Modern in my outlook, and Fascism was a Modernist ideology, despite some promising figures within the movement who were swamped out of influence in the early stages by Mussolini’s die-hard sycophants.

That’s not to say I’m against dialogue with people who self-identify as Fascists, on the issue of manhood for example, its a topic we might be in almost total agreement on. However, in the end, I don’t think Fascism has any future prospects in the explicit sense, and was a trend peculiar to the time period in which it occurred. Its early theorists have some good insight, but really Fascism doesn’t have anything constructive to offer men that hasn’t already got a record fraught with problems and failures.

Thank you for some personal perspective. You give me hope in the Argentine people. ?

I have a little more charitable view of the Tsar. He was certainly not one of Russia’s strongest rulers (often listened too much to family members rather than the priesthood for example), but ultimately his downfall was due to events and changes that were always going to swamp him. Russia has experienced leaders more inept than him before, and had survived.

After studying Rasputin and the coincidences that led to the toppling of the Russian monarchy, I cannot help but see almost a pre-ordination in it, like Russia was always meant to fall. There is almost a diabolically intricate design to the end of civilization.

Thank you, sir.

Argentina was one of the first Latin countries to introduce same-sex marriage. They only like Catholicism for its misinterpreted poverty doctrine it seems. I don’t doubt there are good Argentine Catholics, but the country elects leaders who are a total mess.

See this video from Buenos Aires –

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/horror-mob-of-topless-pro-abort-feminists-attacks-rosary-praying-men-defend

Mary’s seeming centrality and importance is more a feature of Catholicism than other sects. Perhaps you may find these interesting.

Interestingly enough, Christianity is technically counted as an ‘indigenous religion’ in China, because its history there is so old. (dating all the way back to the Tang dynasty). Nestorian Christianity was something a lot of Chinese identified with because it spoke to the Chinese religion which had come long before Buddhism and Confucius, which was essentially a monotheistic faith (worship of Shang Ti) and many have pointed out surprising similarities in symbology especially between this and Christianity.

I agree with your assessment of the crisis men are facing. In fact, I did a grave analysis on the ‘abdication’ that men will be forced into, the so-called ‘sexodus’ a while back.

http://citadelfoundations.blogspot.com/2014/12/a-commentary-on-sexodus.html

The Catholic Church has big problems, and I know the Traditional Catholics acknowledge this fact and provide an intellectual response that is both grounded and well presented. Since I’m Orthodox, I can’t fairly perceive the issues that need to be addressed in an objective manner however, so I won’t.

But I do think a nation’s cultural character does have a big impact. Compare Argentina and Poland for example. Both are Catholic dominated, and yet Poland is probably the most socially traditional country in Europe, and Argentina is a progressive slum. And this is even as Poland has had to fight off political influence from the EU! A question Catholics need to ask is why in Poland, the priests seem to have been amazingly successful at their job, but in other countries they have failed so appallingly?

Strangely, I hadn’t ever read this Confucius quote. Unshakably profound!

Thank you. Start with Rene Guenon, just because he’s easier to understand the concepts in the initial stages from. Evola expects a lot of you. The document you want to work towards is Evola’s ‘Ride the Tiger: Survival Manual for the Aristocrats of the Soul’. In between some exploration of esoteric Eastern mysticism, Evola outlines how men who see the world as it is must always self-improve and should not pre-occupy themselves with the current state of affairs. The future is what matters. The negative forces which are killing human civilization have no rooting in a higher principle, and thus are on a short chain. They will come to an end sooner rather than later.

The reason why this is all so important for men, in my view, is that we might actually live to see it end, something that the great men of the last 300 years who have resisted Modernity, did not expect for themselves.

Thank you, Jose. I pray all the success for you in your search!

*sigh*, a couple of points –

1) Codreanu could not be guilty of ‘war crimes’, since he was involved in no wars, (although he went through the academy for WWI). The fact that you’ve stated this hints at some historical ignorance of Romania during the period on your part.

2) He wasn’t a fascist. You might want to actually study the Italian Fascist movement, and the Romanian Legionary movement, to learn massive differences between them.

3) After the war, the movement which Codreanu founded, the Legion of the Archangel Michael was one of the few right wing movements of the period cleared by Nuremberg of ALL charges against them (these were “war crimes”, “crimes against humanity”, and “collaborationism”). In fact, the only governing forces who did imprison Legionaries were Hitler’s Germany, and the Romanian Communist regime.

This is the unfortunate result of the large-scale whitewashing of early 1900s history by contemporary teaching establishments, so I don’t blame you, but be more thorough. Codreanu wrote a fair amount, most of it autobiographical. I’d start there if you want it from the lion’s mouth and not from Liberal professors who hate all nationalisms on reflex.

Many thanks. I don’t want to deny those people anything at all. If modern men want to be ace playboys there are literally all the resources they will need right here in the Manosphere, and not a huge amount more that can be said on the subject, it has been covered so well by essay writers on ROK and elsewhere.

But I stress this isn’t a religious article. I’m not discussing any theological questions here (I don’t even mention any particular creed by name!), and some seem to think that I am. Instead, I’m addressing the state of man in the past, and the state of man today. Questions of metaphysical attributes and qualities do not need to become synonymous with a discussion of religion unless the reader wants that to be the case. Nothing I’ve written here is really in contradiction to what this site’s owner, Roosh, stipulated when he discussed ‘NeoMasculinity’. In fact, I re-watched his video on that topic before writing this essay, framing it as a Reactionary overture for the Manosphere, how the radical right views the political project of reclaiming manhood.

I would say the long history of patriarchal religious practices are anything but ‘putting women on a pedestal’. You’ll note that as the West has become less concerned with ritual, men have grown increasingly powerless and weak.

This is more a political tract than a pick-up guide. Sorry if it wasn’t what you were looking for.

If this comprehensive worldwide survey is to be believed, while Islam is indeed an ascendant religion, the two belief systems you should have first on ‘death watch’ are Buddhism and unbelief.

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/

Is the article too politically correct for your tastes? What should have been added? I thought I was treading on the edge enough by quoting two individuals whom the Left consider ‘racist Nazi fascist war criminals!’, but perhaps I could have been edgier?

You’re own answer belies the truth of the statement. Yes, female teachers and in fact male teachers do downgrade male coursework grades and push the female grades up. The entire system of education has also now been totally feminized. This leads inevitably to more women obtaining degrees. Say what you like about the actual value of a degree, it is a big key to socioeconomic success, and men are being crudely discouraged from obtaining them at every turn. Slowly this is working.

Certainly. There have always been people who are interested in sodomy, though I doubt the existence of ‘sexual identity’ as such. Those interested in this perversion often experience other pathologies, such as interests in other forms of extreme sex, sadism, violence, substance addiction, etc.

Throughout history, most have had to bury these desires for fear of both Church-imposed disciplinary measures, family ostracizing, and social outcast status. Thus, such people have had to maintain existences in conformity with what is expected of them. Those who have been unable to do this, have either ended up institutionalized or killed.

See what suffrage has given men after all these decades? Yes, these are the ‘liberated’ women foretold. They’re fit for psychiatric wards. It is time for the return of patriarchy. Women like this need to be put on a leash to prevent their madness actually becoming policy.

Hard to say. I’d lean towards the negative. It doesn’t make sense to me that damage to a visible organ would have a real negative effect on something of the invisible world. A broken instrument however, cannot be played well.

I think most would say the mind and soul are synonymous. The brain is like an instrument which is used by the soul to express itself in the physical world.

I just can hardly believe there are men who won’t fall for the BS of feminists today, but are still falling head over heels for the BS of feminists from 100 years ago. The arguments they present are just as horrible.

It is essential that this divide be understood. There are some men who don’t like the RadFems, but basically subscribe to their ideology, just not their methods. Any man with an ounce of sense knows that suffrage was an awful idea and that the correct attitude towards women is the one that was held for well over 5000 years, continuously, before the French Revolution. Our ancestors were smart.

Time to stop with the embarrassing capitulations for pats on the head. In an age of lies, all truth is going to be extremism.

There was a time when women like this had cages put on their heads, and had to walk through the village with everyone knowing what a skank they were. good times.

Britain will never deport any of them. Strangely, even Sweden has a greater sense of ethnic connection to the nation. Although Swedes love having swarthy foreigners in their country, they don’t really recognize them as Swedes. The British essentially believe anyone with a British passport IS British. The paper document transfers access to the nation. What a disgrace.

This is such a depraved publicity stunt, I can’t remember anything recently that could top it. Yeah, just run around with blood dripping everywhere!

“bond over an experience that 50% of us in the human population share monthly.”

Bond?! Perhaps we should bond over diarrhea. This is not the kind of thing you bond over!

She appears a little deformed, almost vulture-like. How is what is shown in that picture a ‘great turnout’? Looks like Kevin Bacon and the world’s greasiest Costa Rican smoothie salesman, as well as a few prostitutes scouting for business.

Highly interesting. For obvious reasons, I would advise everybody to study up on exactly these kinds of topics. Learn from winners, and remember that in war, it often comes down to ‘kill or be killed’. We are at war. ‘Have been since the 1700s.

Congratulations. It’s amazing that the papers are spinning this as some “well… really he lost.” story.

You wanted to give your lecture – You did

They wanted to stop your lecture – They didn’t

That’s called a victory.

Canada may not actually be more degenerate than other countries, but instead may just see a anomalous high number of SJWs.

You do realize that the person in question attacked Roosh first, right? Roosh didn’t even know who this junior pornography student was until she poked her head out of her swamp and decided to try and prevent him giving a talk in Canada. Why don’t you get in touch with Nix and tell her what a narcissist and sociopath she is? I thought not. One rule for me, another for thee.

The journalist writing for Le Journal de Montreal who did the event venue doxxing has a VERY shady past I’m sure she doesn’t want coming to light.

Your Italian boyfriend? Is he getting raped on the side by the Libyans flooding his pathetic country? Or is he your cuckold while you service them?

I believe there was an article recently about how 6 year olds in a Canadian school were forced to re-enact gay marriages in class without their parent’s knowledge.

Aww, poor thing. She has done many eyeballs a favor though.

Very interesting. Thanks for taking the time to research such a great figure!

note that atheism, like Feminism, is a Modern concept. ya think there’s a connection? *hint hint* Both are Liberal

His opus is ‘Revolt Against the Modern World’, but I’d recommend first reading a smaller book by Rene Guenon called ‘Crisis of the Modern World’ which lays out some of the key concepts that Evola goes on to use, in a much more accessible way. If you dive into Revolt straight away, you will get a headache, trust me. He expects you to know a crapton of terminology.

About that? Not sure he addressed it. He was more into ancient links between religions and the occult, spiritual centers of power, quests for the lost Hyperborea, that sort of thing. I read him more for his metapolitics.

Fascinating stuff, but it’s above my pay-grade bro. Julius Evola is about as abstract as I can handle.

It’s less like a pendulum, more like a Phoenix actually.

Sure, solipsism solves virtually every intellectual problem in existence though. But it presents other problems, for instance, why am I responding to your point when for all I know, you never made it, and I have imagined the whole thing. Have you presented an argument at all?

You aren’t in charge of a country with an apparatus to cover for anything you do.

Craig has advanced the theory that at that stage, we will not have free will. Having made our decisions already, we will settle into an eternal heavenly mode of existence.

fire and brimstone is always useful. those who laugh at it as a control device, don’t understand how necessary it is to chain the chaotic and evil nature of man.

A society of grown men doing without him, as history has shown, degenerates into utter Liberalism.

Working within a finite universe, a ‘first cause’ (one that is metaphysically necessary) has to be posited. Otherwise you end up with a ‘bootstrap’ problem.

Christianity has two problems, the same two problems every other religion has on earth now

1) Liberal Christians who are beyond retarded shills for Modernism (I include those dumbass mega-churches here too)

2) Fundamentalist Christians who are reacting to Liberal Christianity by interpreting the Bible in disordered ways that the early Christians never interpreted it in.

It’s why I am very glad to be Orthodox. We love our kin, our traditions are as old as the apostles with no annoying “Vatican 2” equivalent, and we’re not afraid to show the martial character of our faith, as you can see when a Libtard pops their head up in Russia to promote some garbage.

This kind of poor scholarship is unfortunately very common, but I put it down to pathetic religious figures who typically are ignorant of the facts you present as well.

Every man has his foibles.

the visibility isn’t really growing. As was pointed out recently, the whole ‘New Atheism’ fad has largely run its course. The religious view making headlines today is without a doubt Islam.

God is outside physical reality, but not outside of reality. Theism presupposes a cause to the Universe, which must necessarily exist apart from the universe itself.

I said as I was watching the show, if I were Roosh, I would have bought a stack of 100 studies from Russian economists between 1920 and 1980 all saying Communism was a viable long-term economic model. Would those studies have made for a strong argument or a weak argument?

there is a semantic difference between “permissible” and “possible”. All things being permissible is exemplified int he growing acceptance of deviant sexuality, rather than something like the malfunctioning sexual economic dynamic between males and females.

Forget that, how about the irony that he works for Queen Hamplanet herself, Oprah!

Utopias made by man are fantasies, as always. Look not at the argument from the perspective of the religious who didn’t understand it fully, but from the perspective of God. A set of moral guidelines were given, with the warning that if they are strayed from, very bad things will occur.
The Modernists strayed from them, thinking they would achieve ‘Enlightenment’. Instead, we got Laci Green. Hence, bad things have very much occurred.

Sometimes killing is not unnecessary. We’d be foolish to think so in this day and age.

I’ve notice not a single more Jewish looking atheist than Maher in my life.

If ‘testability’ was a factor for religion, then the Cult of Progress has it nailed down. Didn’t you see Dr. Oz present Roosh with all those studies on fat-shaming? Testability supposedly proves Progressivism, so I reject ‘testability’ out of hand.

Basic concept of the Manosphere: our sexual economy is utterly broken, and can be easily exploited

Basic concept of Reaction: well, duh. you gave up patriarchy and monarchy, of course this was going to happen.

The two flow together naturally. Notice both are enraging to SJW morons. The first group are rapists, the second are the Taliban.

Pre-Enlightenment forms of government have a track record working over both, in the small territory as kingdoms, and in the large territory as imperiums. Kingdoms are on average however more stable.

I don’t follow your query. Could a pre-Enlightenment form of government have pure capitalism? No. Nor would it have socialism obviously. It would have guild-structured economics, which means that trade itself (excluding media items which would be under scrutiny by the priestly authorities) would be highly unregulated, but what would be regulated simply by custom would be one’s destiny in the workplace. So, if you were a farmer, your children would be farmers. Their children would also be farmers. They would inherit a familial trade legacy.

Compared to the current economic situation, this form of economy is actually more regulation-free than anything in the Western world today. Nobody is going to shut you down selling lemonade anywhere.

Unlikely. Look at Hinduism. It’s been around for 5000 years and is still going, picking up steam in fact.

I always enjoy your delvings into the history of things, Levinson, and you don’t disappoint here. Despite being converted myself by apologetics, I didn’t know some of the historical facts you lay out here. Important to note that the Ontological Argument today has been refined by Alvin Plantinga using the concept of ‘possible worlds’.

What I find encouraging is even very staunch atheists on the right are admitting that you cannot base a successful culture around unbelief (birth rates being one of the biggest problems).

Whatever the religious tradition is, there has to be one, or else the Progressives will make one for the masses, their own cult. Society always has a religion, the question is which one. Is it a religion of static traditions which creates a chain of cultural inheritance through innumerable generations… or is it an ever-metastisizing holiness spiral where even if you are considered a good follower today, you will most surely be a bigot tomorrow.

The progs told us they were transcending God. In reality, they were just itching to sit in His chair and justify their own hate against the ‘unfairness’ of reality.

Yes. Hence why I am a Reactionary. I favor pre-Enlightenment forms of government.

1) Rights are a concept invented by John Locke which have no grounding prior to him. Moral relationships are correctly assessed in all Traditional religions and cultures as a system of duties and obligations, not rights.

2) citizens governing through elections creates an endless succession of increasingly terrible and corrupt politicians, who get elected by promising to bankrupt the treasury and overturn the culture in favor of the ‘oppressed’.

3) The funding of the government being subjected to electoral outcomes results in Greece.

The puritan hypothesis works in conjunction with this. You see, the Puritans were the natural result of Enlightenment destruction of the Church authorities. Once the priestly caste was removed, the entire religious landscape became a holiness spiral, with one group declaring war against the other with NO go ahead from a proper priesthood.

The reason the Modern SJWs are compared to them is because they have inherited this legacy of endless holiness contests, except now instead of arguing over how Churches have to look like homeless shelters, they argue over who can be the most gay-friendly or pro-feminist.

You are correct though, it does begin ultimately with the Enlightenment.

I don’t support Israel because it’s a liberal democracy. I think Jews should have a state of their own, and it should be a Jewish state, but the fact that it is a liberal democracy makes it part of the problem, just like the UK, Australia, and the nations of Europe.

This is the essence of Reaction. Ride the tiger until the whole thing implodes, then fight like hell to rebuild the ‘bigoted’ past on Modernity’s ashes.

Totalitarianism would have been viewed as bizarre by our authoritarian ancestors.

It’s also no accident that those countries have the strongest and fastest growing Islamic populations. Weak cultures are eaten alive by strong ones. It has been that way since time immemorial.

Perhaps we will just have to let the Muslims mop up the Liberals, and try to carve out our own state in the aftermath.

I don’t even…

I can never stress this point enough. Societies that have adaptive ‘solar’ traits, will come to dominate those with maladaptive ‘lunar’ traits. The reason that in spite of endless conflict and massacres, Islam is the fastest growing cultural trend in the world, now approaching majority in some European cities, is because Islam has actually fought off Progressivism with fire. They butchered the last of the ‘Arab Socialists’ and now they are expanding.

There was a time when Hinduism and Christianity had a martial character, but they were subjugated by the West’s new religion, the religion of Progress.

Progressivism will die. It’s inevitable. My question is, will the non-Islamic peoples of the world be prepared to carve out our own states within its ruins before Islam takes advantage of it. I look to Russia’s Orthodox and Autocratic revival as inspiration. They are waking up the Left’s endless stream of bullshit.

For those who don’t know, Sweden is the most Feminist country in the world. This is a nation in which Feminism is so powerful, catalogs have to show boys playing with girls toys, and there are compulsory “dress like a girl” days for boys at school as young as 5 years old. Young children are also forced to play-act gay marriages in school to make sure they are tolerant. No men on earth are more castrated than Swedish men, whose women are routinely screwed by foreigners before having their Muslim babies.

I’m sorry to say, but it is already game over for this state. Sweden will be a Muslim country, and its boys will be janissaries, that is if they’re not all too pussified for even that, in which case they’ll just be thrown off the roof of the nearest multicultural community center. I wish there were a band of Swedes who might at least preserve some northern outpost of their civilization against the evil of Liberalism.

The reason I say this is because we’re talking about the population who voted for Barack Obama twice. I wish Trump would be elected, but most Americans will never vote for him because they are adherents of a Progressive dogma (feminism, white guilty, etc).. I just don’t think elections will ever give us an anti-Liberal government. If you look at all the anti-Liberal governments for the past 100 years, virtually none have come to power through elections.

It is high time people began to realize that the ‘Republican Party’ is not right at all. Both they and the Democrats are both ‘Modern’. The right has never held any power since the end of patriarchy and kings. Stop being duped by ‘Conservatives’ who just want to conserve a less radical liberalism.

Trump is entertaining because he is willing to take the SJW’s political correctness and blow it back in their faces. I APPLAUD his slight against McCain. McCain is a devious little snake, not a hero, no more than Bowe Bergdahl is a hero. So you fought in Vietnam…. then you came back home and became one of the slimiest politicians in the senate who spends his time flooding America with the Third World, trying to start a war with Russia, and arming (and posing with) ISIS. Wow!

Trump has no chance though. By this point, democracy is just a ritual for the Progressive cult. Nothing happens without their say-so. Remember, people like Laci Green are your ‘cultural betters’ now. They’ll decide.

If 51% want to see the word gone

30% want to see its most annoying manifestations gone
10% want to see all of its manifestations gone
4% are willing to do something about it

It’s a good start. What we should really want is to continue this trajectory without arousing suspicion in the enemy until it is too late.

Don’t forget the persecuted ethnic minorities, and then the Muslims who would cut these b******* throats without missing a beat.

Possible one of the most inspiring anti-Western videos I have ever seen. Bravo! Take notes, because we actually need to start producing this kind of thing. There is a war on, and the once the cuckservatives have gone with their faux opposition, we can finish the Liberals off for good.

In rejecting one tenet of the ‘Enlightenment’, men will inevitably begin to reject the other tenets. They are returning to the organic state, and the organic observations of the world.

Roosh, I would recommend a chapter of René Guénon’s groundbreaking book ‘The Crisis of the Modern World’ (1946), namely ‘Chapter 4: Sacred and Profane Science’.

The entire book is available here in .pdf format.

http://tohno-chan.com/ddl/src/Rene_Guenon_-_The_Crisis_of_the_Modern_World.pdf

It would seem the case that with an eye towards history, the less we knew about evolution, the better off we were evolutionarily! Nice icon by the way.

De Maistre in critiquing the French Revolutionaries described how their quest to base society around the “how” of reason and science (as opposed to the historical norm of basing it around the “why” of theological ruminations and revelations) was an awful idea. In doing so, they have replaced what was an unquestionable and stable core with an erratic and unstable one constantly open to revision, because reason and science are at the deepest levels always in a state of revolution, ideas overturning ideas after theories overturning theories with only an imagined pinnacle of truth which its methods will never attain.

Jastrow once made an analogy to a scientist climbing a mountain, and then being disappointed to find at the top, a band of theologians who had been sitting there for centuries. I would actually say the scientist will never reach the top because he will constantly have other scientists grabbing his ankles, waving evidences, and telling him he’s got everything wrong.

As I commented on Vox Day’s blog, “today’s ‘settled science’ is tomorrow’s Flat Earth Society”

I accept certain facets of evolutionary theory, but to be honest, most people barely even understand what it means anymore. It has become an ‘accordion’ word that can be stretched out or squeezed in to claim as much or as little as is necessary. It may surprise some people to know that almost all evolutionary scientists today reject many elements of Darwin’s original theory!

What the scientism-adherents fail to take into account is that evolution as a development and adaptation process is no master, but is in fact itself limited and chained by greater forces, many of which we are seeing play out in ‘Modernity’. There is a spiritual constitution of man which has been blasted to smithereens and corrupted by the ‘Enlightenment’ and its sycophants today continue the degenerative process.

This is what the Nazi theories on race (which were really only more developed American theories) missed, and Evola got. What you can supposedly prove with a microscope and a test tube regarding the developments of the different races on earth is a tiny fragment of a much greater picture which remains intangible, beyond the realm of mere physical existence. And it doesn’t matter how much that annoys Bill Nye.

I wish you well in your spiritual quest for meaning, Roosh, and hope you reach the same conclusions I did eventually after so long.

Whatever methods employed, destroy the enemy. Destroy their printing offices, destroy their nests. Know that they would do the same to you and worse given the slightest modicum more power than they have today.

A wonderful article as is a habit for you, Levinson. Athanasius was a great man with many lessons to teach the defenders of orthodoxy and truth who carry his torch today.

Really nice article. You link Lewis’ observations to our own insane age very nicely, I am also reminded of the Traditionalist Rene Guenon’s observations about how society is oriented. A measure of objective beauty and purity can be judged based as if on a compass is oriented, either south towards a telluric element where the powers of the earth are king, or north towards the unity with the Divine Realm. He of course linked this with the theory of man’s Hyperborean spiritual origins.

Where is the compass of the modern age pointing? South of a north we have long forgotten.