Dressing Puppets as Priests

I am taking this opportunity to formally denounce the actions of the Russian Orthodox hierarchy in dismissing Father Vsevolod from his duties. Hat-tip Interfax for making me aware of this.

For those unaware, the Very Reverend Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin has been a stalwart advocate for Tradition within the Church, and a stern critic of the Liberal fifth column which exists only to subjugate Russia under the bootheel of USG and the European Union. On issue after issue, he has been at the forefront as the Synodal Department on Church and Society Liaison, giving voice to Orthodox grievances and concerns.

In explaining his dismissal, Father Vsevolod pointed out issues he had raised regarding correct ecclesiastic procedure, along with this:

"I have been trying to tell his Holiness that the tone in the relations with the state that the Church tends to take is wrong, we should be more critical about the immoral and unjust actions by the authorities, we should be more direct when speaking to society, we should in no case suck up to structures that challenge Orthodox faith so clearly as the current administration of Ukraine. We should generally prophesize, not think every time as to who will think and say what, and we should not be afraid of getting into a conflict with those who have power in this world,"

know them by their fruits

It is outrageous that even a man of such high regard and character cannot raise legitimate questions about the current, woefully corrupt government, which has decided rather than to tackle the plundering barons of the Yeltsin era who still work for Russia's degeneration rather than its resurrection, to instead hold them close as loyal backers.

Consistently, the case that I have put forward for Russia has been one of defense and loyalty to my ethnic kin, with a realistic portrait of what needs to be done. My credentials on support for Russia are without question. I put my name to a laudatory article on Return of Kings explaining why Vladimir Putin is admirable, and why the adoration of him by the large majority of Russians is justified. I have praised his Holiness Patriarch Kirill when it was warranted. However none should interpret this as some recognition of the Putin regime's infallibility or status as a truly worthy ruling class. Far from it.

What was Father Vsevolod asking for? The Church to do its job, nothing more. I am fully aware of the perks that some gain from their close relationship to the regime and its backers, but one cannot call themselves a priest if they do not put their duties as priest before all else. The fact is that the current regime, for all the great things it has done to save Russia from certain annihilation at the hands of its enemies, is not a legitimate Russian government, for two reasons:

1) It has failed to establish a monarchical line and an aristocracy, preferring to instead remain by and large a cabal of opportunists bankrolled by criminals.

2) It has failed to return to the Church its full majesty of legitimate power, continuing the ongoing crime of the Soviets.

This is no radical position, but instead exactly what would have been stated  by every pre-Revolutionary patriarch. Where is the tsar? Show him to me. You can point to a great leader, a man who does great things, a man of steel resolve, but not a tsar. While the Orthodox Church must maintain close relations with this uneasy state, it can never renege on the truth of principle. Vladimir Putin has helped to build many churches, he has helped to bring hearts to Orthodoxy from an atheistic backdrop, and he has protected the Russian frontier and character, and for that the Russian people are forever indebted to him. But I seriously doubt this order came from Putin or that he was even aware of it.

More likely, it came from one of the many two-faced oligarchs who have at every corner thrown us to the lions. From where did the order come to dismiss Aleksandr Dugin from his position in the sociology department at Moscow State University? The same people. Who makes millions from the industry of murdering unborn Russian children? The same people. These are the men from the shadows who would stab the entire nation and Putin himself in the back with an obsidian dagger if it meant more profit and their safety from investigation.

In the East, we have a long tradition much different to the West, of deference to the sovereign. Unlike the Traditional Vatican, we do not see the priesthood in society as above that of the sovereign ruler, but instead they are to be his aids, his confidants, his mediators of the spiritual realm, with their own sphere of political and particularly judicial authority. This has been the case since the last Roman emperors in Constantinople. At times, this system has faltered, and the priesthood has become a caste of marionettes for bad rulers, but certainly never for a non-sovereign. I see in this current establishment the echoes of the Soviet collaborators, who fearing martyrdom and failing to trust in God, cast their lot with those who tried to murder the Russian soul. No deep level investigative work needs to be done on certain individuals.

The dismissal of Father Vsevolod is a black mark against the Church, a display of fealty to money-changers over friends and loyalists.

Now more than ever, those who have their heart and soul tethered to the Russian soil, and with eyes towards the Almighty above, must stand resolutely as representatives of the Church's true purpose, the salvation of the Russian people. Just as before, the enemies of the Church have their puppets dancing on strings, but the time is coming to cut the strings. The time is coming for the rebirth of the Russian Empire. Every priest must decide, in private prayer behind closed doors if necessary, are they servants of Mammon, or servants of the true Third Rome?

Have You Failed the Entry Exam?

Be warned, this is long article, but I think its message taken in totality will be very important.

There is certainly no drive for purity within the growing intellectual contingent of the radical right. I have my disagreements with various well-known figures, sometimes on what I consider to be very important issues, other times on things that are negligible.

However, last year within the quarters of NeoReaction, there was a silent coup initiated for the sole purpose of ensuring the survival of the movement's ideas in the face of entryism and hijackers. I'm not going to go into what occurred during this incident, it is history now. What I am concerned about is the broader 'Alt-Right' and its lack of vetting when it comes to who is representative to casual observers of real far right thinking. This is uncontrollable at a central level, there is no approval board, no 'party apparatus' or anything similar. We are a dissident political intellectual school.

With this in mind, there are things we can do to ensure that we put our best foot forward and present the best image for those who might be useful to our cause, but are not yet convinced that we are ideologically sound. Often times you have a small window of opportunity to conduct a so-called 'red-pilling' and if you miss your chance, stumble, embarrass yourself, the intelligent person disappears back into the sea of the masses, probably never to be seen again.

I want to focus in on one episode in particular, a 'hangout' conducted by justly prolific Alt-Right vlogger, Millennial Woes. During these hangouts, people from a diverse set of backgrounds can communicate with each other and debate certain ideas and arguments, uncensored and open. During one such hangout in particular, a man named Kyle Hunt appeared. Mr. Hunt, from what I have gathered runs a relatively successful white nationalist outlet called Renegade Broadcasting. Note that I had never heard of him before, so this was my first opportunity to hear what he had to say. For context, the discussion concerned the Islamic 'refugee' invasion of Europe and its increasingly damaging social effects. He had some interesting ideas to put forward, and I want to engage with them and point out where they are very badly flawed (watch below, and follow along)

"I think it's a little bit ridiculous to kind of just have this discussion going on for apparently a long time (I only caught part of it) where it's just kind of wishful fantasies. You know, 'in our ideal world when we take power, women won't be able to drive, and they'll be kept to the kitchen', or whatever the case may be, when we've got people who, most of them won't even show their faces."

This question of online anonymity, people will remember, was brought up by ex-NeoReactionary Michael Anissimov in an eloquent article here, but I feel a very adequate refutation was delivered by the Oriental NeoReactionary here. Whenever someone asks anybody else involved in fringe political activity which is in some countries, criminal, to reveal their identity, they should not be entertained, just on the reflex that it looks like a setup. I don't think I need to go into the realities about this, as Millennial Woes who so graciously hosted Mr. Hunt has experienced a very similar thing himself. Let's continue:

"What I'm getting at is that, we've got anonymous, faceless men who are demanding that women have no rights, are chattel property, submit completely, basically live under Islamic law, but just for the gentiles"

Now, I could be wrong, but as far as I can tell nobody prior had suggested anything even close to this, and it would appear to be a straw man. Although one person had raised the driving issue, Hunt is at the very least exaggerating the importance of this. Reactionaries demand a relationship between the sexes which correctly reflects the reality of sex differences. Nobody has called for women as 'chattel property', nor has anyone said that in a Reactionary state they would have no civil rights. To compare Occidental Christian patriarchy to Islamic law either betrays a stunning ignorance about one, the other, or both. They are very different things. To suggest that the lives of Russian women in 1522 were identical to those lived by Saudi women today is just... well, I'm not sure what to say. It strikes me as the kind of thing an uneducated feminist would assert.

"What I'm saying is that, this is just kind of ridiculous. Why not kind of get down to brass tax, talk about realistic strategy, how to get to your established goals. I don't think those are legitimate goals whatsoever."

This seems to be a rather sweeping statement by Mr. Hunt. It doesn't imply only a specific disagreement on the issue of patriarchy (a huge issue in itself), but the broader ideology of the radical right as we stand today. And if he does not think our goals are legitimate... what is he doing in a hangout that is ostensibly for Reactionaries?

"But just sitting here and talking about it, yeah, it might draw some more people in, but you're definitely going to alienate the people that we need to continue our line into the future, which is women. I think a lot of this anti-woman sentiment comes about because of the legitimate patriarchy, the Christian patriarchy which hates women, it also hates masculine men. That's why I've got my born-again Pagan shirt on."

To confirm, he does have that shirt on. Now, where do we even begin with how wrong-headed this is. Hunt makes the assumption that to continue our various Occidental genetic lineages into the future, it is necessary to appeal to and draw in women to our intellectual and political crusade. How do these things connect? My assessment of history is that women are largely politically irrelevant when it comes to actual change, even in the Modern world. They can intensify changes brought about by men, but rarely do we ever see women as the movers and shakers of politics. Men set the groundwork and declare how something is going to be, women operate within that framework. Because of this, the Reactosphere does not need women to be heavily involved with it, and this isn't some exclusionary conspiracy on our part. Not only this, but the history of white nationalist movements in Europe (to take a random example) bears the historical reality out. Where were the women in the Third Reich, something I'm sure Hunt has fond ideas about?  Where were they in Mussolini's inner circle? Where were they in Franco's? Women are of course vital to any civilization, but they are nugatory to its politics, which is why their recruitment is of little concern to us,

Apparently Christianity hates women, but also somehow hates 'masculine' men. These would seem so be somewhat contradictory. A religion either moves to one pole or the other, 'Lunar' or 'Solar' as Evola puts it in Revolt Agianst the Modern World. I happen to think that Christianity is a relatively moderate solar religion, as are the majority of religions in documented history. It does endorse patriarchy, but this does not equate with a 'hatred' of women, and it is in fact very laudatory of the good qualities women possess. I have a feeling what we're seeing here is Hunt's belief in equality of the sexes (something which is blatantly falsifiable), and he is simply complaining that Christianity does not endorse his delusion.

can he ever catch a break?

At this point, another voice who uses an avatar of Charlemagne interjects, and Hunt responds incredulously to the avatar.

"Oh, Charlemagne! The guy who's worshiping Charlemagne here, who cut down some of the best and brightest of Europe. Oh, let's worship Charlemagne, a massacrer of European people. That's a great person to idolize. That's why I'm talking about how Christians in this movement, who are taking this kind of, oh, strong patriarchy stance, are foolhardy, idiotic, and absolutely cowardly at the end of the day, because they haven't done anything for our race for at least a number of centuries."

Mr. Hunt gets a little shrill at the end, indicating a deep personal connection to this issue. Odd as it is, it seems to be fueled more by emotion than fact. Charlemagne was of course the famous Holy Roman Emperor, King of the Franks, who united most of Western Europe during the Middle Ages. Battle-wise, he is notable for his incursions into the Muslim-dominated Iberian peninsula. In addition, as no doubt a learned scholar of Pagan history as I'm sure Mr. Hunt is would know, he launched attacks against the Saxons in what we know today as Germany. They were militarily crushed and Charlemagne then attempted to Christianize them. When they refused, somewhere around 4500 were executed in an event known as the Massacre of Verden. Now, the morality or political practicality of such an action aside, to say these people were the "best and brightest" of Europe can only be described as revisionist history. These peoples popularized the term 'barbarian', and that wasn't coming from Christians, it was coming from Pagan Romans! They lived in an uncivilized backwater condition, which has even led outlets like /pol/ to refer to them derisively as "snowniggers". Men undeserving of their fate? Perhaps. Best and brightest of Europe? Not even close. Bright Pagans there were, but these weren't them. And this isn't even touching upon the fact that Pagans have their fair share of blood from 'our race' on their hands, and there isn't a problem with that. Wars happen. Rulers jockey for power. We get it. 

It's also worth noting, and I think Pagans would probably agree with me here, that their record on 'doing things for our race' is currently pretty barren, and has been for centuries. Does that make Mr. Hunt a coward? I'm not sure, and it wouldn't be my place to judge, as he is the arbiter of cowardice. 

"A lot of Christians who are in this movement are chasing away women, actively, that's part of their active role, is to chase away women, to ensure that they have nothing to do with this."

Millennial Woes interjects here and says that he doesn't see the link with Christianity. I just don't see the link with reality. I'd like Mr. Hunt to have provided some specific examples, and he will actually provide some soon, but suspiciously no Christian voices on the radical right such as those of Professor Thomas F. Bertonneau, Dalrock, Vox Day, AntiDem, Bonald, Nick B. Steves, etc. appear on his list.

"Look at the Scriptures themselves, oh, pro-family, Christians are pro-family. Look at the Scriptures about how Jesus is going to come and divide all families."

Attributing this only to ignorance, I'll point out that Hunt ignores the context of Jesus' ministry and teachings in an environment of religiously austere Jews. Considering this, it makes perfect sense that if someone chose to follow His teachings, their family would curse them and might even try to kill them, or else turn them over to the Sanhedrin for punishment. To dress this up as a 'death to family!' Jesus is head-scratchingly bizarre, but then again, its implied we should expect as much from a "Jew book". It's almost as if he watched a Stefan Molyneux video and thought the Second Coming was imminent.

"behold, now I am become death

the destroyer of families"

- St. Stefan

"The biggest pro-white site on the internet, alegedly pro-white, the Daily Stormer, has said that the white race's biggest enemies are not in fact Jews, who are in fact orchestrating white genocide, no, it's white women. And this sentiment has filtered out to the Alt-right because the Alt-right has been infiltrated by MGTOW, by PUA, pick-up artists, many of them not even white, like Roosh."

So, the Christian patriarchal abuse of women is being promoted by... the Daily Stormer, a popular National Socialist outlet with no explicitly Christian ties to speak of as far as I can discern... and possibly Roosh, who while on a spiritual journey, is not a self-declared Christian? This doesn't seem to connect at all with what was asserted earlier. Someone then mentions Roosh's presence at a National Policy Institute conference, and another name is brought forward by Mr. Hunt for objection:

"or Jack Donavon, a butt pirate. Come on, these are the pro-white people that are gonna teach us about manhood?"

I don't know much about Jack Donovan. He is a self-declared 'homosexual' writer on issues of masculinity, made popular by his book The Way of Men. He also wavers on the edges of Paganism. This is the strange thing; under the raw Paganism that Mr. Hunt espouses, there is absolutely nothing morally objectionable about Jack Donovan's lifestyle. He is complaining about it using an implicit morality that was only brought into Europe by... Christianity. I think you can see that Hunt hasn't thought out his arguments well at all by this point, and while there could be legitimate criticisms of Jack Donovan's presence in our circles (his history as a LeVeyan satanist among them), Hunt isn't the one to make those criticisms. You might be able to guess what is coming next when he pontificates on where the Alt-Right came from:

"Did it come out of NRx, NeoReaction, because I've seen both Alt-Right and NeoReaction have similar people, and a lot of them are honestly Jews and degenerates."

I'll just link to Mark Yuray to dismiss this.

"Okay, but you've got people like RamZPaul who wants to be the spokesman for the Alt-Right, and he's signaling so hard against 'Nazis' and against 14/88."

If Hunt attacks any more people, he may find that he's the only pure one left. It seems that he is annoyed that a new rightist force is growing in strength and popularity, and eclipsing the older style of white advocacy of which he is very much a part. We'll get to that more in a moment.

RamZPaul

according to Kyle Hunt, he's doing it "for the shekels!"

I won't quote any more. The last small segment involves Hunt describing how those who diagnose the fatal contagion within Occidental people are traitors, and everything is actually the fault of the Jews. Everything is being masterminded by the Jews, no white people have a hand in the state of our cultures and nations. The JQ is a be all and end all.

That's the end of my analysis in the specific. Look, I don't want to sound like I'm picking on individuals in their weak moments. Mr. Hunt is entitled to his beliefs, and I have no doubt he carries them strongly. However, his entire worldview is incompatible with ours, its not even rightist. This is the misconception that seems so endemic, that if you are conscious about your race and the realities of racial difference in particular, you suddenly belong on the political right and are worth talking to in an ideo-internal capacity. Hunt and others like him are interacting with the Alt-Right because it is drawing attention away from their own outdated kind of politics, things like 'white man marches', something that Hunt organized with very limited success. It's the same kind of white advocacy that has existed since the end of WWII and achieved nothing.

All of a sudden, a new front begins to emerge and takes on the mission of preventing our people's extinction, a front that has refined razor sharp prescriptions over belligerent outbursts. It is understandable that die-hard supporters of the aged methods would be hostile to the emerging consensus on the radical right, but they should know that there is no room for blindness on sex issues any more, nor on a host of other topics about which classical white nationalists are usually clueless. This explains the hostility to figures like RamZPaul, to NPI, and the Right Stuff from people you'd expect to be big fans. The Alt-Right has outgrown Hunt's overly simplistic views in my opinion. The Reactosphere represents its pinnacle, having outgrown those views by orders of magnitude.

The following from Hunt's website sounds more than a little sinister:

this will be eerily familiar to some

As a Slav, I also want to note that Hunt's alleged urge to forget about the Russian boy raped by two sodomite 'fathers' in Australia because one of them was white, and it would be "divisive", sickens me to the core (Giacomo Vallone confirms this). But that's by the by.

Exclusion of people who are attacking our principles while feigning to be more purely 'jew-vaccinated' versions of us would seem to be wise, the above comment taken into account. I do not deny the older-style NatSocs and such their choice of tactics and discourse. Honestly, good luck to them. But we need to define ourselves as being distinct from this, and erect a perimeter wall to ensure that they don't drag us through the dirt. Hunt repeatedly says throughout the video that such-and-such a person is hurting "our movement", "the movement", even when he knows he's talking to a movement that just isn't his movement. Endless obsession with Jews, elaborate conspiracy theories, marches that result in nothing but cruel media ridicule, flat earth speculation?!: this is yesterday's news. Any communication with such people should in future be handled in the same way that communication with an ardent Marxist would be handled, AKA: acknowledging they are outsiders. Apparently aware of this, Millennial Woes took the correct course of action and removed the video from his channel, and requested others remove copies, a request not obliged.

Let this be the final word on the '14/88 crowd'. Their endgame is the Occident, minus ethnic minorities. Our endgame is the Occident, minus the entire pernicious edifice of Modernity. Those are two very different things.

(New blog being linked to by me, everyone should take a read of this post by EsotericTrad which touches on similar themes)

Battling the 'Aesthetics' of Modernity

Another article generously published by Social Matter, here I discuss a form of argumentation that was brought to my attention by Brett Stevens. We can argue for Tradition based upon many things, among them an objective morality and a practical functionality. But just as valid would be an argument from objective beauty. By affirming aesthetics as a manifestation of real rather than perceived beauty, a devastating critique of the left's ugliness can be lodged. Hold up a mirror and expose the unsightly nature of the enemy.

Warning that the banner image will be distressing to most, but I think Hadley had good reason for choosing it, which is explained in the article itself. Make the leftists show their cards, don't allow them to hide,

http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/01/12/battling-the-aesthetics-of-modernity/

Some Hard Truths on Santa Claus

As many will already know, today is the day that we of the Eastern Tradition celebrate Christmas, the birth of our Lord, as per the Julian calender. I really wanted to, on this occasion, turn my sights to topics of a lighter nature than esoteric doctrines or economic theory, something that might bring a smile to people's faces. After all, it is a time of celebration.

Alas, when I decided I wanted to talk about the trappings of our modern holiday season, like a viper this age coiled around the issue and refused to be ignored.

In the West there is an apparently long-held religious practice that people almost universally adhere to, and that is the ritualistic lie of the jolly fat man who brings presents to girls and boys all over the world in a single night. Attack Jesus Christ all you like, but don't dare attack old Kris Kringle. There has been a lot of bomb-throwing in the 'war on Christmas', but very little has been of an explicitly Christian nature. It has instead been over ridiculous things like the color of coffee cups, whether towns are allowed pine trees on public property, and of course how the whole thing is racist because Santa is white. Regardless of this, people who do not participate in the magic of weaving this fantastic tale to their children are met with weird stares. Why wouldn't you lie?

but Christmas without Santa is like...

Christmas

I may be attacked as some kind of scrooge for this, but I think there is a compelling case to be made that this 'event', this hype of Santa Claus that we bring to young ones year in, year out, is in fact damaging to their future. Let me explain.

1) We want our children to believe in the omniscient God of the universe who accounts for their every moral infraction, the arbiter of justice, Someone whom they will not (baring miraculous circumstances) see with their own eyes during their earthly life, Someone whose powers are extraordinary.

2) We tell our children about a character with very similar properties every single year, whose bounty they await with anticipation on Christmas Eve. Santa Claus of course separates the naughty from the nice, and is very damn lenient on who qualifies as 'nice'.

3) Our children grow up, and one day, somehow, they find out that we were lying to them. There is no Santa putting presents under the tree, there is no workshop in the North Pole, and the closest thing you'd ever find to an elf is Warwick Davis.

4) Even after this betrayal of trust, we expect our children to never suspect that we lied about God too, that the Church lied about him, etc.

This is a tragic calculation we make because we are so attached to the cute ignorance of children. We enjoy tricking them, we like to describe everything more wonderfully than it really is. I am by no means blaming the rise of atheism on Santa Claus. There are much bigger factors in play than that, but this is one of those things that sets in at a very early age. Other Christians have, in recent years, also voiced concern about this potentially religiously damaging habit.

I don't want to kill the fun of Christmas. It's a wonderful holiday, but does it need the Santa Claus tale to still capture the imagination? It marks the birth of the incarnate God! And the real St. Nicholas is hardly a damp squib. A miracle-working bishop who gave comforting aid to the destitute children of his region? And let us not forget the legend of Nicholas' presence at the Council of Nicaea, during which he apparently struck Arius across the face for heresy. It would seem prudent to level with our children from the beginning, that at Christmas time, we choose to give to them in order to honor Nicholas' work in Myra, and consider his commitment to Christ.

It's cliche to say that Christmas in the Modern world is representative of a degenerative consumerism, and there is some truth to it, but if done correctly we can bring a lot of joy to the children of our people through the giving of gifts, and all without this bizarre practice of pretending an immortal health crisis gives presents to every child before they wake up on Christmas morning. Consider also that the tradition is a distinctly Modern one. As late as two hundred years ago, Christmas was actually a rather contentious holiday, and some have in fact argued that Santa was a New England Protestant creation to remove the saintly aspects of the original legend, which they found objectionable.

Food for thought, especially when we have such a problem of youth apostasy from Christianity.

Merry Christmas to the Reactosphere. And of course a happy new year. I have a good feeling there will be a lot to cover in the months ahead.

Responding to "Suck it, Whitey!"

Hat tip to the NatSocs over at the Daily Stormer for making me aware of this. Believe me, I wouldn't have known about it otherwise because I don't give much contemporary cinema the time of day.

A-list director Quentin Tarantino, the man behind 90s hit movies like Reservoir Dogs has returned with another cinematic 'masterpiece' to capture the minds of audiences everywhere. It is called the 'Hateful Eight'. The plot isn't worth talking about. It's typical Hollywood bullshit, but laced with more explicitly anti-white overtones than his previous 'slave murders master' garbagefest 'Django Unchained'. The movie features black protagonist Samuel L. Jackson (noted anti-white zealot) killing whites like there is no tomorrow, and one particular scene is likely to leave viewers with a very bad taste in their mouths.

It features a sodomic oral rape of a white man by Jackson. This is told as a recount to his own father, who is then shot in cold blood, a moment the audience is supposed to cheer because he was a 'racist'.

I want to look past the fact that just a few decades ago, NO actor, no matter how z-list would agree to be subjected to this on screen. There was still some shame left. Today, a director working for the Jewish Weinsteins can write this filth up and turn it into a box office hit no problem.

pull the trigger, you waste of skin

This is something of an apex. We'd seen similar stuff before from Tarantino and others: remember 'Inglorious Basterds', which was essentially Jews mass murdering white people for entertainment value? But this is the point of such outrage that some speculate white men may walk out rather than suffer the humiliation of watching it. And that is the intent. Tarantino, a man with very obvious mental problems, who adores Black Lives Matter, has set this scene up to humiliate white men who sit in a theater so that they squirm as the other races laugh at them, embodied in the pathetic actor mock sucking Samuel L. Jackson's cock.

White people, and this is more directed towards American whites, and particularly Southern American whites, are under direct assault. A movie like this is a Jewish-financed gift to blacks, a way to really twist the knife and say, "we got Obama in president yo! He gave us a phone! 'You gonna be minority, yo!" Hate the white man. Degrade the white man. Use his women. Kill him when you feel like it.

I'm drawing two conclusions from this episode, this disgusting attack on an ethnic people I consider to be a distant kin of mine. The first is that, at least in America, overt racism is justified as a defensive counter punch. In the Reactosphere, we have kept discourse at a certain level and that has been necessary to ensure intellectual quality, but it should be unequivocal that when faced with this there is nothing wrong with American whites using racial slurs against those who propagate the worst sewage imaginable. The vulgar racism of websites like the Daily Stormer and as used on /pol/ and other places is commendable as an organic reaction. They are the ones being attacked, whites are the ones being attacked, not the other way around, and its about damn time that we were able to retaliate using the most offensive means possible. At least in the American context, vulgar racism is perfectly justifiable and anyone who disagrees can watch 'Hateful Eight' for themselves. I just want the alt-right types and others to know that I do not discourage your rhetoric, in fact I want more of it because it means you are standing up for yourselves, and should you take it beyond rhetoric that would be fine as well. 

The second conclusion is that we on the right need a co-ordinated and cast-iron embargo upon the media industry. This includes both Hollywood and the music business. I know, its so horrible not to be able to go to the movie theater, right? I mean, you probably don't want to watch Tarantino's cuckold porn, but there are other things that come out of Hollywood you would pay to see. Well, don't. Grow some resistance and forgo movies. Don't pay for them on cable, don't pay for Netflix, don't see them on opening night or any other night. In this battle, the piracy industry is a friend to the far right and the Reactosphere. Let us help them decimate the profits of our enemies, and strangle this entire corrupt foundry in a web of theft. Tarantino's movie was already pirated by some genius, and I applaud that, not that I'll waste the bandwidth illegally watching it, but others who might have paid to see the film will. This is war, and the self-interested thieves of Putlocker, Sockshare, Solarmovie, etc. are valuable assets.

so is everything we believe in

what's new?

Will we send the autistic manchild Tarantino to bankruptcy court? No. The man has made his millions. But we can hurt the industry immeasurably and kill the careers of would-be Tarantinos, by refusing to pay for a single movie, album, or anything else. Why are you enriching the pockets of the same producers who helped Tarantino create his movies? Its an incestuous cabal, nobody in their 'right' mind should be shelling out dollars to watch movies. I am calling for a blanket boycott of everything the Cathedral's media arm produces, barrels upon barrels of poison designed with precision to break down white ethnic identities, spit on our God, defame our history, and ultimately eradicate us. This is not something that can wait until next year. It has to start now. I hope the rest of the Reactopshere, and hopefully the broad alt-right will join me.

And to the pirates: rob 'em blind!

'Capitalism, Tradition and Traditionalism' - An Overview

there's no such thing as a free lunch

I was directed by commenter Chris to give this essay by Rodney Blackhirst a look, and it warrants a little more dissection than I felt could be provided in a simple response. The essay is available in full here.

Blackhirst begins the essay by pointing out the lack of commentary surrounding capitalism in the writings of self-described Traditionalists and those who promote Tradition. While I think he has a point here, it is incorrect to compare something like capitalism to that which finds our scorn as our own antithesis, Progressivism. Capitalism is a method of economy, whereas Progressivism is something of an occult motivator, exercising a consciousness beyond mere utility and outlook. I agree with him in the following descriptor he takes from Hooker:

"[Capitalism] is more than just a body of social practices easily applied across geographical and historical distances, it is also a "way of thinking", and as a way of thinking does not necessarily apply to earlier European origins of capitalism or to capitalism as practiced in other cultures."

We can actually tease apart something as large as the capitalist method of economy and ideas of free markets. A free market would seem to imply only a minimum amount of regulation by the sovereign political power over the means of production, standing thus in a very raw sense, the opposition to socialist or communist modes of governance. However, Blackhirst is urging us to see capitalism as being more far-reaching to entail not only the absence of sovereign regulation upon markets, but also regulation of custom and culture. He notes that this capitalism in practice (I think it is analogous to what I have referred to as 'consumer capitalism', or that in which firms have to power to manipulate virtually any other power present in the society to their direct financial advantage, whether this means control or dismissal) stands in direct opposition to non-sovereign structures within a nation that might somehow hinder profits.

"What this view of labor amounts to, in short, is a regime of anti-craft wage-slavery. In a regime which "divides productive labor into its smallest components" the very idea, not to mention the nobility, of the craftsman is atomized and the very notion that work can constitute a karma yoga disappears altogether."

"Most notably, of course, many traditional cultures -including medieval Christendom - prohibit or curtail usury, but more importantly traditional patters of work and ownership - from worker's guilds and initiatory vocations to the provision of "Commons" and the institution of taxes like the Islamic zakat - operated against destructive accumulations of capital."

Rothschild probably doesn't have the interests of the nation

at heart

According to Blackhirst, these just restrictions resulted in a technological retardation of traditional societies, but I think this betrays a Modern historiography. Certainly there have been low points of technological sophistication in at least the European context, however we forget that the 'age of myth' or the Golden Age is replete with accounts of mysteriously advanced technology, such as the tales of Atlantis, so long as we synthesize our crude concept of technology with manipulatable spiritual powers. This should always be kept in mind.

It is correct to say the Modern era has seen an economy divorced from other concerns and certainly in which it resides over almost everything else, holding society in reverence of king money. Slowly but surely, as other sources of value have decayed, man has been left with only two objects of power, the occult motivation of Liberalism which serves as his new doctrinal handbook, and the extremely functional appeal to his avarice created by our economic systems. The Reactionary sees no problem with wealth inequality, which reflects differences of aptitude, however the people at large will be prone to complaints of wealth inequality if their entire world is centered around capital, that which they may be unsuccessful at accumulating. Marx himself said that communism could never have gotten its start had capitalism not done away with the older system, which was able to effectively distract from common economic hardship.

After laying all this groundwork, the author heads into familiar territory with a laudatory affirmation of guild systems, making this excellent observation:

"It was also important for "negative" reasons, namely to "restrict" or "restrain" the child from an early age before they developed diverse interests and skills. It concentrated them to a single craft. This is a vital mechanism in vocational societies. It is how, in particular, crafts and trades are passed on from generation to generation in one family. Only a residue remains of this in a capitalist order [...] we find a residue of it in the hobby realms of sport and music where we admit - or some of us still do - that, for example, it is quite proper for parents (and/or school) to restrict a student to the violin from an early age rather than let them dabble with different instruments, mastering none."

school prepares you for this

Foolishly I myself had never actually drawn this parallel, but it perfectly illustrates our subconscious acknowledgement that man's organic path is to be directed down one particular channel within which he becomes completely at ease, rather than being told he can "be anything he wants to be", which has of course been the American way, in theory. Blackhirst finishes by hypothesizing a Biblical reference to the capitalist age from 1 Kings.

So what is the verdict here, and what can we draw from this piece?

I have talked about economics before here, but to come to some kind of solid Reactionary conclusion on the matter, I have now devised some key points from my own ruminating on this essay and others:

1) Capitalism as a system goes beyond the mere free market (markets have been "free" for most of human history as sovereigns typically lacked the breadth of reach to regulate them effectively). Capitalism can instead be seen as an attitude beyond market law. It is the first economic attitude in fact, to idolize capital as the 'base' of society from which all other things spring as outcroppings. Socialism makes the same assumption, but has a different utopian vision for which capital must be harnessed by the sovereign "proletariat".

2) A Traditional understanding will see capital as only one of many interests within society. It does not supersede other interests and remains ideologically benign. Its products that interact with our perceptions and ideas will of course be regulated by a religious authority, while its labor to produce will be regulated by a system of cultural normativity. These are, discounting standard taxation by the sovereign for the maintenance of the state and the prohibition of usury, the main influencing agents on the market itself. Otherwise, innovation is rewarded and stagnation remains a suicidal proposition so long as others can innovate. Usual market forces are in play.

3) I am not totally sold on conservation as an ideological point, but this article shifted me slightly and maybe opened my eyes to a bias I have held in light of left wing environmentalism and the global warming hoax. It was one of the disagreements I had with popular 'green-right' blog, Amerika. We may have a gulf between our views on religion (it promotes Nihilism), but perhaps Brett Stevens has a real point with regards to the plundering of resources that must sustain not only our present, but our lineage's future. The right should look at ecological issues far more closely.

i am very open to holding small trees

4) We say that politics should be subservient to culture and spirituality, that the intrigue of the sovereign government never be allowed to hold the nation hostage to fanciful dreams of fundamental transformation, and this correctly views politics as that which is "moved", not that which "moves". Economics should occupy a similar space. If the greatest accumulation of capital is our goal, we may justify the genocide of our people and the importation of cheap foreigners to work our factories. This can never be allowed to enter the mind of any industrialist. Pareto optimization must be biased towards the wellbeing of greater things than the pocketbook.

Do not forget though, this is as applied to the Reactionary State, and says nothing about the present situation. As of now, it appears that more capitalism is beneficial to our end-game. Socialism, for all its economic failings, can add longevity to social orders and lend popular legitimacy to the ruling class, as it has done in Scandinavia. More exploitation, more depressed wages, more lobbying and special interests, more desolation of local industry in favor of outsourcing, through this the Modernist paradigm will be found supremely lacking far sooner. For people to accept the rule of Modernity's antithesis, Modernity itself must be discredited. The reign of quantity makes one rich to a point, then slowly makes them miserable. Misery loves authority.

(Merry Christmas to those using the Gregorian Calender. May peace and the guidance of Jesus Christ our Lord be with you and your family. I am using the Julian Calender, so will have a Christmas related post on January 7th hopefully.)

The Despairing Marxist

members of the Frankfurt School

Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno

No 'school' is perhaps more mentioned with disdain in rightist circles today than the Frankfurt School, established by Jews in Germany at the prestigious Goethe University during the Interwar Period. Like escaped rats coming back to feast on a carcass, these men slithered back into the now divided Germany once the war was over to continue their Marxist activities. There's not much point doing a history on the collective. It's been done to death. Instead, I want to note a perculiar conclusion reached by one of its most recognizable members in the wake of the Holocaust.

Theodor Adorno  was so disgusted by what had supposedly transpired in Germany during the war, that his outlook changed. He was still very much a Marxist, but he had lost the optimism that giddy revolutionaries had experienced during the Interwar Period. In his eyes, what had occured at Auschwitz had to revolutionize the entire assessment of the 'Enlightenment'. He famously said this:

"All post-Auschwitz culture, including its urgent critique, is garbage."

His view was that the Holocaust had proven the Age of Enlightenment an utter failure. Nothing could be taken for granted anymore, and Marx's concept of the inevitable rise of the 'proletariat' was nothing more than a pipe dream built on faulty assumptions. In the penultimate document of pessimism which was penned with the help of his friend Max Horkheimer, Dialectic of the Enlightenment, it is lamented that contra Marx, the capitalist world order was not some improved step on the way to an eventual utopia, but actually the human condition had worsened in that people were being controlled now by being actively encouraged to pursue their own desires rather than having them smashed by an authority. In a sense, Adorno sees a world in which populations are being manipulated more than ever before, but suffer from the collective delusion of thinking they are more free.

Now, make no mistake: Adorno was still looking for some means to achieve utopia, some way to emancipate all those who were so unjustly, to borrow a phrase from Rousseau, "in chains", but in his opinion human reason had proved itself more monstrous and dangerous than anything to ever take pride of place at the center of society.

There are some big mistakes that he makes. His critique is three-pronged, political, economic, and cultural. From the political standpoint, he sees Nazism as the pinnacle of the 'Enlightenment', which is ridiculous. As is evident from history, Nazism thought it was the pinnacle, but was less advanced and dynamic than Liberalism, something that the Communists themselves found out a few decades later. Liberalism is in fact the pinnacle, it is the most advanced of the three contemporary political theories. Do not mistake the fact that it is built on lies, hypocrisies, and principles that revolve like a weather vane as a weakness. These are its practical strengths.

'twas not to be

Communism and Nazism both suffered from not being ridiculous and counterfactual enough.They couldn't change because they were rooted in achievable 'utopias', whether based on a master race or a centrally planned economy. Once this had been achieved, where was there to go when it didn't turn out as wonderful as they had hoped? A Thousand Year Reich? An immortal government of the Proletariat? Hocus pocus. No, Liberalism's great tactical advantage is in fact that the utopia can never be achieved because nobody knows what the hell it looks like. Its only face is chaos. Each generation creates a phantom dream to chase, some new cause, some way in which everything still isn't perfect. The previous generation of Liberals don't understand it? Tough! And they're racist bigots anyway!

Bear in mind, the vast Marxist intelligentsia of which the Frankfurt School was only a small part of failed in their overarching mission. Real Communism is essentially a joke today. The Soviet Union is gone, China has more sweatshop-condition factories than England, and North Korea far from being an egalitarian paradise has turned into a barely functioning fiefdom in search of a few million light bulbs. The entire ideology is dead. Where these schools did succeed was in finding a way to gnaw and destroy what remained of Traditional culture in many Western societies using that "long march through the institutions", but it's not as if Liberalism wouldn't have achieved this anyway, all be it in a longer time frame. Or, if you want to think about it in an even more interesting way, and we observe Communism as a stepchild of Liberalism, it was all part of a grand long game by Liberals all along. Come to think of it, both Communism and Nazism were indispensable to Liberalism's total predominance in the world. The intellectual and conspiratorial Communists finished off what was left of the Church and Patriarchy, while Nazism provided the greatest boogeyman of all time (as Donald Trump supporters know all too well). 

useless to communism

very helpful to liberalism

Adorno wasn't happy. He may not have fully realized what it was which made him so unhappy when he looked at the world, but he seemed at a loss. He and Horkheimer described the dialectic of the Enlightenment as being an argument between the subjugation of man to reason, and the subjugation of man to myth. Out of hand, they dismiss myth, laugh at it through the same fogged up glass that Voltaire and others did. Reason wins out. But where has reason led? In Adorno and Horkheimer's view, reason had led to a catastrophe somehow, but they could not turn back to myth because of course that wasn't conducive to a Marxist vision of a better and more egalitarian future. It is actually amazing how well the narrative fits the Reactionary worldview, as in the 'age of myth' (which comes after the age of memetics, a primitive kind of state), man's concept of the self is not yet 'fully formed' and is open to the cosmos, not able to distinguish itself from nature. In the words of David Ebert, "what we have is a porous sense of self, that is open to these transpersonal forces. And so the self largely has not differentiated itself from this background of cosmic, transpersonal, impersonal forces, which nature is full of and which subjugate the human being and make demands upon him."

Now, to the Reactionary, this is in no way a human that isn't 'fully formed'. This is the most fully formed human being! This is Traditional man! Again, we see the contrast between a view that sees history as a linear progression, and a view that sees history as a cyclical decline.

The essential interesting point I wanted to get across here is that despairing from the Second World War, Adorno and other Marxists like him had a weird moment of clarity on the nature of reason and the peculiar state this newly liberated mankind had fallen into. There was mankind, fully aware, fully formed in his sense of self, marching towards a great bold future and then... something... somewhere... had gone horribly wrong. They spent the rest of their time trying to figure out what it was, but never came up with the correct answer, that it was in fact that transition away from the age of myth which represented man's degeneration into something less than human.