A New Direction

As many of you know, I wrote reactionary work elsewhere before founding this blog. Then I started up here and created the content you see before you.

At the moment, though, I find myself running out of worthwhile things to say. I think I’m rehashing and preaching to the choir. This has contributed to my spending more time on Twitter, which I think has had an unfortunate effect on my thought patterns as well, making me think in Tweets and making it harder to complete a well-thought-out blog post.

At the same time, I think the Christian reactosphere, and especially this blog, needs to deepen its roots. We have plenty of legitimate complaints about modernity and liberalism, and we can point to numerous ways traditional societies were better. We’ve built and are continuing to build social networks for sharing our thought. Now it’s time to develop the new (or rather the old) political science and philosophy. That means reading extensively in the old reactionaries: Kuehnelt-Leddihn, de Maistre, [the original] Bonald, the whole bunch. It also means reading the works of our opponents, starting with the original liberals: the Lockeans, and offering a thorough critique and a plausible alternative theory. In short, it means putting real intellectual force and work behind our ideas, a lot of which are now more or less unformed. Moldbug has done pretty well in this department, but I for one need some work.

To that end, I’m going to try to move the tone of this blog more toward lengthy philosophical posts for a while. This will necessarily mean that the posts will come more rarely, but I hope they’ll be of better quality. The first thing I’m going to do is commence my series Problems of Liberty, which will be an attempt to persuade natural-rights libertarians to accept reaction. To that end, I have started reading John Locke’s Two Treatises on Government; when I’m finished I’ll begin work on the first post in the Problems of Liberty series.

Also, I think it’s time for us to organise and connect to some degree, rather than acting as lone wolves. My two most recent projects, the Golden Circle and La Mano Roja Y Vengadora, each in its own way, attempt to do just that. So a fair amount of my blogging time will be devoted to those efforts going forward.

Finally, I think we have need of a viable alternative culture as reactionaries. We need our own fiction, our own art, and eventually our own communities and movies. As my primary vocation, as near as I can tell, will be to write fiction, I’ll be contributing to that as much as I can, starting with the alternate history novel I’m working on. The title has yet to be determined but the working name of the timeline is Southern Fealty. It’s important, though, that we not produce ‘ideological art’; my novels are not, and the rising reactionary art should not be, proselytising tools per se. Rather, it is simply art, created by reactionaries, and thus naturally reflecting our values. Great art is not message-centred; but it is message-laden nonetheless. Reactionaries need to be influencing people on a pre-rational level. Besides all which, modern art is simply atrocious and someone has to offer something better. The only ones who can do that are those who believe in Beauty, and those who believe in Beauty are reactionary to some degree.

In sum, that’s where my energies will be focused for a while. I’ll be trying to spend less time on Twitter (though I wont be cutting it out entirely), and my original-content posts will be fewer, longer, and more serious. I’ll also be devoting my time to connecting reactionaries through the Golden Circle and the translated works at La Mano Roja. And last but not least I’ll be trying to dedicate more time to my fiction, which has been sadly neglected of late. I’ll also try to start posting a Reading List Update every two weeks or so, partially to let you know I’m still active and partially because I’ll mostly be reading the kind of stuff I want to promote.

I hope you’ll all stay tuned for the Problems Of Liberty series. Until then, I remain

Your Humble Servant,

The Avenging Red Hand

A Grand Opportunity?

Of late, for reasons unknown to me, the email address associated with this blog has been receiving many emails from strangers, usually Big Important Bankers™, who contact me from their highly sophisticated Gmail accounts.

Attached is the content of one such message. My commentariat, such as it is, is encouraged to provide suggestions for how I am to answer.

I NEED YOUR URGENT RESPOND.

FROM Mr.Pholus Datos.
The Head of File and Auditing Department,
BANK OF AFRICA (B.O.A)
Ouagadougou Burkina-Faso (West Africa)
REMITTANCE OF US$20, 5; MILLION
CONFIDENTIAL IS THE CASE. VERY URGENT ATTENTION.

This message might meet you in utmost surprise, however, it’s just my
Urgent need for foreign partner that made me to contact you for this
transaction I am a banker by profession from Burkina Faso in West
Africa and currently holding the post of director Auditing and
accounting unit of the bank.

I have the opportunity of transferring the left over Funds ($20.5
million) of one of my bank clients who died Along with his entire
family in a plane crash.

All expenses incurred by you and me in this transaction will be
deducted out from the 10% of the total fund before the sharing of the
fund according to the percentages agreed. I will come over to your
country as soon as the transfer is over to receive my own share of the
fund for further investments by your advice. Please I want you to
understand that a stitch in time saves nine so write back and tell me
if you really want to carry out this transaction with me.

From banking experience it will take up to fourteen (14) working days
to conclude this transfer. I sincerely need your help because this
might be my first and last opportunity of hitting big money. I also
would want you to treat this affair as both urgent, top secret and
confidential. I want you to also know that this transaction will
involve some expenses which will be shared among both of us.

This payment will be effected through Swift Telegraphic Transfer.
Your Urgent response is needed for immediate transfer of this fund in
to your receiving bank account.

(FILL THIS FORM BELLOW PLEASE AND RESEND IT TO ME).

Your name in full…………………….. ……..
Your country………………….. ………………
Your age……………………………………..
Your cell phone……………………………..
Your occupation…………….. ……………
Your sex………………………………………..
Your International passport………………
Your marital status…………………………..
Your bank name…………………….. ……….

Best Regards,
Mr.Pholus Datos.

 

New Spanish Blog–La Mano Roja Y Vengadora

To those of my readers who speak Spanish: it may interest you to know that I have set up a new, Spanish blog, designed to bridge the gap between the Spanish and English reactionary blogospheres. With the help of Samuel Gonzalez, a contact from Twitter and my partner-in-crime in Panama, I intend to provide a combination of original Spanish reaction (his work) and translations to Spanish of various reactionary works in English (my own and others’). The translations will probably be a collaboration; I will write the initial drafts and he will edit and clean up my inexpert Spanish.

Anyway, if you speak Spanish and are interested in the Spanish flavour of reaction, please check out La Mano Roja y Vengadora.

Of Left and Right

There exists significant disagreement among political thinkers as to what left and right are, which thinkers and which beliefs should be classified as leftist and which as rightist, and even whether these terms are meaningful. I am going to attempt my own definition of the terms, which will capture and justify as nearly as I find possible the intuitive common usus loquendi. 

To understand the Right, you must understand the Left. These forces are not independent of each other, and the Left came first. Without the Left there is no need for a Right; and indeed a sincere rightist would like nothing better than a world which has no Right, because it has no Left.

The second thing that must be understood is that Left and Right are directions, not positions. This is obvious enough when the first letters are put in miniscule, but oddly, when one capitalises them and uses them to refer to political positions, all of a sudden in the common man’s mind they become fixed. The Founding Fathers, for instance, become ‘conservative’ despite working very hard to overthrow significant parts of the social order they lived under, simply because ‘conservatives’ now support many of their views (though in truth I think it must be conceded that ‘conservatives’ today are far closer to leftists today than they are to the Founders on, for example, the issue of race). The reality is that these terms are relative. To refer to ‘leftist positions’ rather than a ‘leftist direction’, we need a defined centre. And in the modern political milieu the centre is always moving.

I therefore propose the following definition, which I hope will not be dismissed as excessively grandiose: The Left is the party of rebellion against God, or against the natural order, or against reality. Take your pick; as it touches Earth it amounts to the same thing. The Left is the ultimate party of artifice. It elevates reason to the supreme place and rejects the sacred, the transcendent, the natural, and the emergent. Although it claims to want equality, what it in fact wants is an entirely artificial hierarchy constructed by its own reason. This is why when Leftism began it wanted to shrink the state; the old states were organic, sacred, and nonrationalistic. Now, however, that we have ‘scientific government’ and ‘meritocratic democracy’, the state must be built up and indeed must swallow all the old holdouts of natural structure and hierarchy: the family, the church, even local and diverse expressions of the state.

The Right, in contrast, is not a thing. It is not a coherent ideology; it is not a party, it is not an idea. It is an umbrella term that embraces everything that is not the Left. These terms are relative and context-sensitive, of course. If you believe that the political order created by America’s Founding Fathers was basically righteous and should be re-established, you are on the Right by generally accepted standards in 2013. If you thought that in 1775 you most certainly were not on the Right.

This means that the political spectrum is not so much a line as a pair of rays extending at an angle from the left-wing singularity. The farther right you move the more variety and (ironically enough) diversity there is, and the more likely you are to find people who hate each other.

It has been observed that leftists follow the maxim Pas d’ennemis à gauche, that is, no enemies to the left. Leftists are never really scared of other leftists, even if those other leftists are far more ‘extreme’ than they are. Conservatives denounce Nazism and even monarchism far more often than liberals denounce Communism.

Again ironically, this means that ‘guilt by association’ is far more valid as an attack on leftists than it is on rightists. Nazism’s status as right-wing in its own time was debatable. By the standards of today it is certainly right-wing. Nevertheless it has little to nothing meaningful in common with the feudal order, which is also right-wing. On the other hand, social democracy has a great deal in common with communism. Thus, criticising social democracy by comparing it with communism makes a lot more sense than criticising feudal monarchy by comparing it with Nazism.

Again, these are directions, not positions. There is no such thing as a left-wing order, except in the following senses:

a. The left-wing singularity can rightly and absolutely be described as a left-wing order. I doubt, however, that this has ever actually been realised.

b. Any order which is left of ‘the centre’, however defined, can be called left-wing in that context. This is relative; from my perspective, for example, these united States have been irredeemably left-wing since at least 1776.

c. Any order which moves progressively leftward, as ours does, may be called left-wing. The object-level beliefs of progressivism change, but only in one direction: namely, toward more civilisational breakdown, more materialism, more rationalism, and a sharper rejection of God.

Likewise, there is no such thing as a right-wing order, except in the sense that there are orders which stand opposed to the left as it presently exists or as it existed at some point in the past, that is, that are right of whatever centre we choose to use.

So with right and left defined, we can see why rightists have so much trouble forming coherent coalitions; they simply are far less homogeneous than leftists. We also see the coherence of left-wing movements throughout history, which should do a great deal to explain the utter impotence of moderate conservatism. I believe this definition will stand up to the general usage of the terms throughout their history since the French Revolution, and perhaps to a few earlier cases by extension.

Comments are open as always and I welcome any thoughts you may have.

On ‘Racism’

The word ‘racism’ is thrown around a lot in America, circa 2013. This is a problem because the word has several different meanings in popular usage. In some cases it designates things I would consider normal and healthy. In other cases it designates things I dont care about one way or the other. And in yet other cases it designates things that are downright evil.

For example:

Here we have an article applying the term to a genocidal dictator with really dorky facial hair. From this we might conclude that a racist is someone who wants to kill other races of people.

However, this definition is clearly too narrow. Read, for instance, La Wik’s article on George Wallace.

Wallace, whose presidential ambitions would have been destroyed by a defeat for governor, has been said to have run “one of the nastiest campaigns in state history,” using racist rhetoric while proposing few new ideas.[42]

Now Wallace, as far as I know, never killed or tried to kill black people. So we must expand our definition. Let’s try this:

A racist is a person who wishes to harm other races or separate the races by force.

So what if you dont want to separate the races by force, but simply personally prefer the company of your own race? That one’s a little greyer. Here’s a message board discussion on the subject. It seems to be about even-split.

How about sexual preferences? If you only want to date/marry/have sex with women of your own race, is that racist? As far as I can tell, the general opinion is no, but there are dissenters. And if history is any guide, ‘progress’ will push us in their direction rather than the other.

I assert, then, that the term ‘racist’ is worse than meaningless. Not only does it not designate anything approaching a single, universally-agreed concept, but it serves to lump together things that should be distinguished.

A social preference for one’s own race, for instance, is probably natural and healthy (though I’m not prepared to prove that at the moment), but there’s certainly nothing necessarily immoral or destructive about it. Genocide, on the other hand, is agreed by most (including myself) to be horribly evil.

By lumping the healthy (or at least nondestructive) in with the horribly evil, you create a dishonest, or at least sloppy, form of language. Sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking. This is useful for the thought controllers, but not so useful to us. On the Authentic Right our goal is to conform our worldview to reality, not the other way around. We must unite linguistically what is united in fact, and divide linguistically what is divided in fact.

Therefore, ‘racism’ is not a term we should use. Nor is it a term we should permit others to use. Even when the person being called ‘racist’ is truly horrible, as he sometimes is, the use of the word, unchallenged, reinforces the Newspeak lexicon.

Who controls the language controls the thought. Take control of the lexicon; control the discourse.

A Rare Moment Of Candour

While reading about the history of Jim Crow segregation in the postbellum South, I found this gem:

Jim Crow shocked United Nations delegates who reported home about the practice. “Racial discrimination furnishes grist for the Communist propaganda mills,” said a government spokesman. “It raises doubt even among friendly nations as to the intensity of our devotion to the democratic faith.” (emphasis mine)

Source

National Offend A Feminist Week (AKA Bright Week) In Review

This year the week after Orthodox Pascha, known as ‘Bright Week’, coincided with the week before Mother’s Day, known as ‘National Offend A Feminist Week’. I spent the week tweeting whatever sexist gems I could find, which I here present for your consideration:

Monday:

Embedded image permalink

Tuesday:

Embedded image permalink

Wednesday:

Embedded image permalinkEmbedded image permalinkEmbedded image permalink

Embedded image permalink

Embedded image permalink

Thursday:

Embedded image permalink

“Grateful for women’s suffrage? Thank a Klansman!”

Embedded image permalink

‘Old-fashioned women are so attractive…’

‘Do we really need any arguments against women priests after this?’

Friday:

Better late than never...my contribution for the Friday of #nationaloffendafeministweek#NationalOffendAFeministWeek #TomorrowIsSaturday

Saturday:

Embedded image permalink

And that wrapped up the week for me. There were some gems from @FreedomJedi as well, and probably others, that I may post later.