Mere Reaction

Secular reaction can’t work. As Bruce Charlton pointed out yesterday, secular cultures must tend always leftward – i.e., toward chaos and death – because at bottom they are guided and governed by disordered passions and desires, and so furthermore are careless of their danger. This will be as true of their noblest exponents and leaders as of their common folk. And we won’t be able to persuade a whole people that the first principles of their secular society are insane using only secular arguments. To sway them, we’ll have to put the fear of God into them. And we can’t give them what we don’t ourselves possess. 

Utilitarian arguments might work for men like JS Mill, but they cut no ice with fools. Secular reactionaries can rightly show that liberalism just doesn’t work in hedonic terms, and must end with the destruction of the species, and indeed of the mob’s own prospects for a prosperous, comfortable, healthy life. But that won’t suffice to convince their determined libertine interlocutors, because by itself it can furnish no immediately compelling reason why they should care about long term success of any sort, more than they care about their next fix. The distant golden future they might obtain through a present uncomfortable privation is a much less certain bet than the pleasures of the next five minutes. To minds darkened by sin or foolishness, or confused by error, lies, and tempting perversions, virtue seems abstract, threadbare, vague, and relatively unreal.

Nor likewise, however convincing it might seem to moral eagles like Aurelius, can any recondite appeal to a merely secular Natural Law compel the common libertine mind, which can respond to arguments that x is the natural end of y, and that z is therefore perverse, by saying, “so what?”

Libertines may, just may be persuaded by a coherent demonstration that sin is absolutely evil, as well as – i.e., ergo – inutile and perverse. But you can’t effect such a demonstration without recourse to the premise that there is an absolute in the first place, and in the second that he knows and cares what we do, and will exact from us all the full measure of his justice. Unless it can be convinced that the absolute is personal, omniscient, omnipotent, and extremely dangerous, the mob will again respond by saying, “so what?”

Secular reaction can’t work. Reactionary arguments can sway the mob only if they are founded on theism.

Nor is it just that merely secular arguments cannot sway our current depraved mob, and so rescue our patrimony by correcting the course of Western culture. Even if our culture was already so overwhelmingly traditional as to pacify secular reactionaries, if it was nevertheless so untraditional as to be secular then it would be doomed to veer ever leftward. For the option to sin is always open to human nature as we find it, and our concupiscent vulnerability to its temptations is ineradicable. So long as we yet live, the arguments between virtue and wickedness therefore proceed interminably, not just in the agora, but a fortiori in the inner life of every human being. They never stop, never reach final resolution of the question of how best to behave, for this question is opened anew with each new moment, until death – of the polis, or of the person – forecloses the option of further behavior. Human culture per se teeters then always, as a whole and in each of its members, on a slippery slope; so even the most virtuous and rigorously traditional culture is ever liable to a precipitous fall.

If virtue is to prevail among a people, so that they themselves prevail, it must win most arguments within most of them, day after day. And because it seems so high, nebulous and attenuated to most minds, virtue can reliably prevail over the siren songs of vivid immediate temptations only as aided by the tremendous visceral horror we all naturally feel at what is taboo. Taboo makes evil concrete, disgusting, and terrific.

We are so made as to want the good, and to abhor evil. Reaction can win its arguments only insofar as it can show that tradition is good, and its alternatives evil, ergo taboo. And this it can do only insofar as it can show – and believe – that there is in the first place such a thing as absolute good. Only thus may the fact and character and limit of taboo be established, understood, taught, and popularly felt as really and imperatively constraining our scope of action.

The crisis of the modern West is the collapse of taboo. So confused are moderns about right and wrong, and about their bases in metaphysics, and indeed in theology, that the only taboo now effective to sway public opinion is the taboo against taboo. But societies cohere as ordered organisms only as guided and coordinated at the outside limits of conduct by a common understanding of what sorts of acts are improper. No taboo, no social order. If we can’t recover taboo of true wickedness, we can’t recover at all.

We cannot recover taboo under the supposition, ineluctably entailed by atheism, that there is really no such thing as wickedness in the first place. If we take atheism to be true, all we have left against utter moral and cultural chaos is the inbuilt wisdom of the body. That’s a lot, to be sure. Our physiology is truly wonderful, and immensely powerful to keep us alive, healthy, and reproducing. But as the very notion of an acquired taste attests, even visceral disgust and chemical revulsion can be conquered by an intellectual volition to explore. The body alone might suffice to keep man alive, but it cannot suffice to procure civilization. The wisdom of the irreligious body can adequate only to the bare minimum of successful family life, and beyond that to barbarity.

For a culture that coordinates more than a clan – for civilization – you need taboo. And for taboo, you need that power of absolute proscription which only religion can wield.

Under the rigorously Pragmatic epistemological criteria of secularism itself, then, the fact that secular reaction can’t work means that it must be false. Policies founded on false propositions can possibly work out, but only insofar as they are somehow poorly implemented. Falsehoods perfectly carried into practice must result in disaster. This is why liberals are forced by reality to resort to unprincipled exceptions in order to lead acceptably pleasant lives.

In secular reaction’s own Pragmatic terms, then, the only sort of reaction that can possibly be correct is theist. Thus, whatever else it may be, mere reaction, properly so called, must at least be theist; and secular reaction must be an oxymoron. Either reaction is theist, or it is not reaction at all.

Despite what secular reactionaries might wish, then, secular reaction is in effect a form of incipient liberalism.

Modernism is at war with reality. It is insane. So we may be sure that sooner or later, one way or another, it will be abandoned. But as man is religious by nature, the social order that spontaneously arises from the facts of human nature – aye, from the principles that found our very bodies – and that will therefore arise from the ruins of the collapse of modernism, will certainly be theist.

Collapse of a social order is never much fun. Reactionaries are to these days as Jeremiah was to his, proclaiming the profoundly distasteful news that our society is corrupt, and insofarforth doomed. We are not therefore much welcome among our fellows, and are likely to pay soon some personal price for our prophetic office. It behooves us then to ensure that our prophecy earns returns meet to its cost. We may not ourselves survive collapse, but we may hope that our testimony might inform our heirs, and prosper their handiwork. The sooner reactionaries repent of atheism and its ruinous moral stupor, and like Jeremiah proclaim also that the strait and narrow path up and out of the present crisis is in fact the Way of the Lord (this being the source of its goodness and the reason of its success), the more efficacious will our prophecy be, the sooner we’ll get through this business of cultural death and resurrection, and the less agony we’ll all suffer in the process.

This means you, and it means me. As falsehoods perfectly implemented lead straight to Hell, so do truths poorly implemented. The single most effective thing we can do to help man through the Fall and Renascence of the West is to turn and examine our own faith and trust in the Lord, and see whether we might not be able to complete and implement them more fully and truly in our own lives. Anything else is just cheap talk, by comparison. Including this post.

151 thoughts on “Mere Reaction

  1. Modernism is at war with reality. It is insane. So we may be sure that sooner or later, one way or another, it will be abandoned.

    I hear this often from self-identified reactionaries, but is it true? Aren’t the Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah instances where man’s rebellion grew so heinous that God Himself had to intervene directly against man’s desire to continue rebelling? There was no willing abandonment of evil. There may not be in this instance as well. I think this is one area where the partnership between Christian and secular reactionaries breaks down since this supernatural understanding of history seems to always get tossed out first.

    • It’s a good question. That God intervenes directly from time to time does not however entail that Nature herself cannot or does not destroy wickedness. God and Nature are both real. To say that modernism is at war with reality then is after all to say that it is at war with Nature and with her God, both. The retribution for wickedness will certainly come from *somewhere or other* in that system of reality. And since everything comes ultimately from God …

      I’m not sure there actually is a partnership between secular and Christian reaction (if there is, then it is certainly much weaker than the fraught alliance between Protestant and Catholic traditionalists!). Indeed, the suggestion of the post is that there is really no such thing as secular reaction, properly so called. Reaction is either theist, or it is not reaction. A reactionary who considers himself secular is then implicitly and unwittingly either liberal, or theist (mostly the latter, I suspect – most people are theist whether or not they yet know it). This is not that difficult a hat trick. People honestly ostend belief in contradictory principles all the time, without realizing the incoherence of their doctrines. Liberal Christians, e.g., consider themselves both liberal and Christian. Not!

      • “A reactionary who considers himself secular is then implicitly and unwittingly either liberal, or theist (mostly the latter,”

        I have yet to see a Christian or Jewish reactionary who views the Old Testament position on women and the family as fundamentally sound and correctly based on the nature of men and woman. They either interpret it contrary to its clear intent and meaning, (as Orthodox Jews have to do because they claim fidelity) or they claim that that is all the bad stuff that Jesus blew off.

      • >>> “A reactionary who considers himself secular is then implicitly and unwittingly either liberal, or theist (mostly the latter,”

        >>I have yet to see a Christian or Jewish reactionary who views the Old Testament position on women and the family as fundamentally sound and correctly based on the nature of men and woman. They either interpret […]

        > I don’t see how what you say about marriage is responsive to the passage you quote.

        Christian “reactionaries” tend to liberalism, even on issues where bible would incline them to be the most reactionary of all. It is unsurprising that the Christian right is soft on race. It is mighty weird that the Christian right is soft on patriarchy – it is the Christian right, not the secular right, that tends to liberalism.

      • This sounds like a joke, but I mean it seriously. The secular right appears to confuse manliness and patriarchy with simply being a dick.

      • > The secular right appears to confuse manliness and patriarchy with simply being a dick.

        Rather, it correctly recognizes that being unmanly and a white knight is synonymous with being a nice guy.

        Which means not that being unmanly is nice, but that we have the wrong standard of niceness. For the correct standard of niceness and manliness, see Sean Connery, for example his famous remarks on slapping a woman.

      • Protecting your women strikes me as manly. Literal chivalric culture strikes me as manly; aren’t you the one who continually brings up Charles Martel as the father of reaction. I don’t have a problem with Connery in that Barbara Walters interview, but if he actually beat her unconscious, that is being a dick.

    • I don’t see any evidence for this. Of the blogs I have visited which discuss the plight of men in the modern age, the secular ones seem only interested in securing an ‘equal footing’ with women on grounds of child custody and alimony, and consider ‘Patriarchy’ to be a concept for Fundies and the Taliban. The largest place on the right where patriarchy is celebrated and advocated seem to be Christian Reactionary writers, because as you point out the Patriarchy is Biblically supported. If you are speaking of a generally Christian websites, then you might be right, but I have yet to come across any Christian self-described Reactionary who is against Patriarchy, and if I did, I would refute him.

      I stress, support for Patriarchal modes of society is a core Reactionary value. You can’t be Reactionary and not assent to it. Perhaps you are confusing Christian Conservatives with Christian Reactionaries?

  2. Pingback: Mere Reaction | Neoreactive

  3. The equation of secular (pertaining to the world, ordinary, non-sacred) with ideological indifference or hostility to religion (secularism) is, I think, first degree assault on the English language.

    • Maybe so. Hm. Call it secularist reaction, then. Or, more plainly, atheist reaction.

      But don’t most atheist reactionaries call themselves “secular reactionaries”? Correct me if I’m wrong about that (I haven’t read nearly as much of their writings as you), but that’s the impression I get.

      • Fair enough, but no “secular reactionary” that I read advocates a secularist government. Period. And if they did, they’d be mocked out of the reactionary sphere. It is obvious that state religions cannot not exist. Secularism is an ideologically based denial of this fact. Secularism, therefore, is transparently leftist. Secular just means worldly. Atheist is neither of those.

      • So I think Charlton is tilting at windmills here. “Mere Reaction” (i.e., not particular reaction) advocates an official religion for a people. Since it is clear that good, stable government has existed in nations with many different official religions, it is not necessary to advocate a particular religion. It is not at all leftist, i.e., egalitarian, to advocate in this way. An inability to personally advocate or believe in any religion does not necessarily constitute hostility toward religion and certainly does not add up to advocacy of official government neutrality toward religion, which reactionaries of all stripes hold to be impossible.

      • Well, but that’s pretty much exactly what Bruce said – as I read his post, anyway.

        Seems to me that perhaps I am the one tilting at windmills. I had the strong impression from looking in from time to time at, say, alt right that there were quite a few self-described reactionaries out there who deplored religion.

      • Pretty much all atheist reactionaries argue from the basis of utilitarianism and empiricism rather than the supernatural. Christian reactionaries begin with the supernatural — God, man’s eternal soul — and work from there. When Christian reactionaries argue for an official religion you get Christianity. When atheist reactionaries argue for an official religion you get patchwork, or some such. Not the same thing.

      • Kristor: There is plenty to hate in religion, when religion becomes (as it did in North America) a destabilizing cultural force in society. I am developing a thesis that this follows more a “High Church” vs. “Low Church” cultural axis, than having anything to do with particular doctrines. (I would of course note that formally low church religious expressions can, in certain cases take on high church levels of stability. And vice-versa.) None of my atheist reactionary pals would be I think stupid enough to doubt the obvious social benefits of religious expression and state sponsorship of it, but also not stupid enough to believe that any religious expression whatsoever will do. It is extremely difficult, and almost certainly false, to not lay the development of progressivism directly at the feet of overly-enthusiastic religious expression.

        Andrew: That’s not even wrong. Substitute “federalism” or “subsidiarity” for “patchwork” and try again.

      • Federalism and subsidiarity are processes, means. What are the ends? For atheists it is efficiency (utilitarian). For Christians, Christianity (saving souls). Two. Different. Things.

      • “Fair enough, but no “secular reactionary” that I read advocates a secularist government”

        This does seem to be advocated pretty vociferously by the so-called ‘Grey Enlightenment’, whom I have denounced on a few occasions. Are you aware of them? They don’t get a lot of attention, and rightly so in my opinion.

      • Mark: I’ve only heard of “Grey Enlightenment” which I’ve always taken to be a sort of third-way half-measure. If so, it would not surprise me that some folks, especially of a libertarian bent, were trying to hold on to the “juiciest bits” of the Enlightenment. I would file this under: Retarded—Not Worth Engaging.

      • Andrew: I get pretty nervous when my government is more concerned with “saving souls” than governing. Western Christians believe in Two Cities. If rulers govern well—i.e., maintain social order, the protections of persons and property—souls will, I think, be saved. Irrespective of their metaphysical prior commitments. If they shirk this duty in lieu of enthusiastic religiosity (e.g., “abolitionism”), then souls will almost surely be lost.

      • Fair enough I guess if I have you on record as being indifferent to the extent government is explicitly organized around Christian principles.

      • “If rulers govern well—i.e., maintain social order, the protections of persons and property—souls will, I think, be saved.”

        Yes, I agree with this wholeheartedly. Note that the great ‘falling away’ from Christianity, has occurred as the government has ceased maintaining social order, redistributed everyone’s property to the Rachel Jeantel’s of this world, and of course overturned the natural hierarchy.

      • Amen. I would argue that, Christianity being true, the principles of Christianity are the principles of reality, and so therefore to the extent that a government is organized properly in respect to reality – is efficient, utile, successful, just according to the Natural Law, and so forth – it is ipso facto organized around Christian principles, whether or not it understands or declares itself to be formally Christian (or, indeed, even knows about Christianity proper). A government that wittingly *tries* to order itself according to Christian principles will however presumably have a better shot at doing so than another that does not, ceteris paribus.

        But either way, an effectually Christian government would not consider the salvation of souls its own proper office, and would leave that to the bishops. Bishops might well then have offices in the government (as, e.g., in the House of Lords), temporal powers over the state (e.g., to anoint or depose or excommunicate kings), and so forth; but not vice versa.

      • Kristor, how about: Anything not explicitly Christian will, over time, become anti-Christian?

      • “Anything not explicitly Christian will, over time, become anti-Christian?”

        Not only is that not Conquest’s Second Law, it is no observable law at all. Not only is no observable law, it doesn’t even make sense. Name a radical social movement in US History that was not both “explicitly Christian” and culturally destabilizing.

      • Yeah. An explicit avowal of Christianity doesn’t seem to be any sort of safeguard against a slide down the slippery slope. Or a leap. Liberal Christians *insist* they are Christian, even when they disbelieve great huge swathes of the Nicene Creed. Or all of it. E.g., the primate of the Swedish Lutheran Church who just met with Pope Francis does not believe in the Virgin Birth. She’s not a Christian at all, really.

        And the principle as you’ve stated it, Andrew – anything not explicitly Christian will, over time, become anti-Christian – is falsified by every conversion to Christianity. I see what you are after, but I think the most we can really say is that a self-consciously Christian polity has a *somewhat* better shot at being ordered according to Christian principles than other sorts of polities.

      • I have you on record as being indifferent to the extent government is explicitly organized around Christian principles.

        Indeed. Government must be organized around principles of order that are transparent to unaided human reason, viz., the duty of governments to protect persons and property, and which therefore are not uniquely Christian. If someone were to propose to “organize” government “around Christian principles” I would immediately suspect them of either not understanding A) the idea of government, or B) Christian principles, or C) both. I would not trust such a person to organize a good government. Ancient Pagans had both good and bad governments; Christians have had both good and bad governments. The difference does not lie in Christian vs. Pagan, but in good vs. bad.

      • Name a radical social movement in US History that was not both “explicitly Christian” and culturally destabilizing.

        Easy. No-fault divorce. Abortion. Same-sex ‘marriage’. Transgender normalization. Normalization of single parenthood. Female supremacy.

      • An explicit avowal of Christianity doesn’t seem to be any sort of safeguard against a slide down the slippery slope. Or a leap. Liberal Christians *insist* they are Christian, even when they disbelieve great huge swathes of the Nicene Creed.

        An explicit avowal of Christianity would include an explicit avowal of certain creeds.

      • I feel quite sure that the primate of the Lutheran Church of Sweden regularly and publicly recites the Nicene and Apostles Creeds. Her avowals are then both explicit and dishonest – i.e., moot, with respect to the sort of public policies she might support. Not to pick on Lutherans; viz., the very existence of the phrase “cafeteria Catholic.”

        Cf. Matthew 7:21.

      • Add new creeds that install social conservatism and traditional gender roles (ie. Christianity). And then see if she’ll recite those also.

      • Why wouldn’t she? She lies to God when she says the Nicene Creed every week, so what would stop her from taqiyyah with respect to other avowals? Obama swore to defend the Constitution, despite the fact that his explicitly stated purpose was to fundamentally transform the United States. People are wicked. They’ll explicitly avow whatever they need to avow in order to achieve their ends.

      • Okay fine. But then you’d just have the same problem with any secular, rightist monarch, professing one thing but doing something else. And if people, on a mass scale, can’t even be bothered to take seriously the meaning of words or ideas they publicly profess to believe than isn’t this just the last and final stage of total despair and nihilism that Fr. Seraphim Rose wrote about? Where society has lost the last little shred of motivation to do anything except stimulate their basest instincts from one moment to the next. What good does proclaiming natural law do in such a situation? The natural law is just words and we don’t pay attention to the meaning of words just like we ignore creeds and oaths. As I said at the beginning of this thread, the problem is supernatural in nature. Our hearts have to transform one by one so that we can hear and understand truths again. There is no reactionary political program that bring this about.

      • Absolutely correct. We are indeed in the last stage of despair and nihilism that Fr. Rose noticed (that’s why there is now, suddenly, this flowering of Reaction, and of Orthogony). There is no reactionary program of a merely political nature that can bring about the sort of fundamental reordering of our social priorities that will be needed if any program at all – including any reactionary program – is to do any good. As Bruce Charlton and I have both written, absent a Great Awakening, both deep and widespread, we are headed for Proph’s Collapse. At that point, with the ordering principles of our current society lying in smoking ruins, and no one crediting them at all anymore – a state of deep depression and despair, but also of exhilaration and grand adventure – the ground will be cleared, and the seeds that we now sow in the minds of men may then have a chance at sprouting, and bearing fruit.

        This is as much as to say that when a society hits bottom, and crashes, and burns, then it is ripe for a Great Awakening.

        If there is a Great Awakening, then Reaction has a shot at establishing a formally reactionary political order. But the political order of a society is the hair at the end of the tail of the dog. The factor from which every other aspect of the society flows, as it were the mind of the dog, is the native cult. If there is no Awakening to reality – physical, economic, physiological, spiritual (these are all integral) – and to true cult, then any program of social or political reform is bootless.

      • But then you’d just have the same problem with any secular, rightist monarch, professing one thing but doing something else.

        The difference is theocracy. Progressivism believes that all religions, rightly understood, are progressivism, so applies state pressure, which is to say, theocratic pressure, and pretty soon you have people of all religions converting to the belief that their religion, rightly understood, is progressivism. This is similar to the Roman imperial system of accepting whatever gods they encountered, and romanizing them.

        Muslims have less of a problem with this, partly because they are accustomed to lying about their religion in the face of superior power, which is to say, American power, so in Egypt the brotherhood told the state department that they believed that Islam, rightly understood, was progressivism, and the state department believed them. Similarly, Libya. They also have less of a problem with this because they cut the throats of apostates. If they believe that someone genuinely believes that Islam, rightly understood, is progressivism, they will cut his throat.

        If the official religion was not progressivism, but some form of Christianity, or for that matter some form of Odin worship, they would not be converting to progressivism. If the official Odin worship religion held that the King was a descendant of Odin, likely the King would be sincere, or adequately simulate sincerity, and pretty soon everyone else would be sincere.

        When the official religion of England was Anglican Christianity, that worked, and if the official religion of America was American Christianity, that would work also. But if your religion is Roman Catholicism, and the American official religion is progressivism, you will find that all your Bishops and priests are progressive, which gives you a problem since the Bible is not very progressive at all, particularly on sex and marriage.

        Now suppose the official American Religion is Roman Catholicism. But the Pope is resident in Italy, and there are, we may suppose, political difficulties between America and whoever rules Italy. And, surprise surprise, the Pope finds that God is on the side of whoever is ruling Italy …. you see there is going to be a problem with that system also..

      • State religions cannot exist ONLY IF one defines “state religion” as NOT self-annihilating. In other words, OUR state religion of “white” self-annihilation EXISTS OBVIOUSLY. Both “us” and the “white” anti-white Supremacist ALL AGREE that white man AND ALL HIS NATIONS are on the brink of annihilation. Some only want it less than others. Yet, ALL kneel to this state religion.

      • Mr. Steves…

        The high IQ “white” male “secular” reactionary is not in real conflict with religion or the Christian religion or even Jesus himself. The “secular” reactionary is at war with the mere concept of The Perfect Man. In the context of white civilIzation, “we” are speaking of the white Supremacist. The “secular” reactionary is actually at war with the white Supremacist and formulates and foments all the variant anti-white Supremacy movements.

        The “secular” reactionary is a last gasp effort on maintaining the smoke screen…

        We know the radical black collective is anti-white Supremacy…

        We know the jihadists are the same.

        The Jew qua have set the standard for anti-white Supremacy…

        And the dykefaggot coalition, by definition, self-annihilating and de facto anti-white Supremacy…

        BUT THE NERDS… They have escaped scrutiny until the end. “They” are truly the “man” behind the curtain. Identity crisis manifest in a myriad of sociological settings. And then there is the Nemesis. White Supremacist. “Book”-learned Christians have a weakness and corrupted sympathy for his fellow high IQ “white” male liberationist.

      • Since it is clear that good, stable government has existed in nations with many different official religions, it is not necessary to advocate a particular religion.

        Well, if the claim is that ‘secular reaction’ cannot work because it is based upon a false premise – atheism – then shouldn’t it matter which religion is advocated? Shouldn’t a nation based upon a false religion suffer the same consequence as one based on atheism (essentially, a false religion itself)? Unless the degree of falseness is what matters (the truer the religion, the better the state which rests upon it)?

      • It seems clear to me, at least upon first consideration, that degree of error does matter, and that the more closely a society adequates to the truth in its political arrangements, the better its chances of success. Thus a pagan society has a better shot than an atheist society, and a Christian society’s chances are better yet. There is of course no guarantee of success even for an explicitly Christian society, as Zippy points out.

  4. It’s a little more complicated than that.

    Taboos, proscription, rules, force, conditioning, etc. are useful and necessary tools for keeping people operating at a very primitive state from running amok. It can also get people up to a certain level of spiritual development. After this point further emphasis on such methods becomes counterproductive.

    Threatening the mob with the terrible consequences of their general rudderlessness and wickedness is often less effective than providing an example of Arete and Goodness for them to observe. The mob at some level has an understanding of craving for Goodness and has been known to wise up pretty fast when presented a concrete implementation of it. Two examples come to mind immediately:

    Historically, we have Master Jesus. The mob of common people would follow Jesus around whenever they heard he was nearby. His apprentices were recruited from the ranks of fairly low status people. All these people knew they had Problems, and could tell Jesus had Solutions — he was the real deal.

    The people who had Jesus nailed up were not the “mob” in the sense of the Obama phones crowd, but rather the religious elite. Jesus had demonstrated by example that the elite were corrupt and poor teachers and that was why he had to go.

    A more modern immediate and limited example of the same sort of thing is Jackie Evancho. As a result of generations of conditioning, good breeding, and a little luck, the Catholics managed to produce an adorable little prodigy singer girl. The mob knows that this girl can channel real Goodness through her voice and takes notice. It’s real difficult to maintain cynicism about the non-existence of Goodness when she’s at work.

    Anyone who listens to Jackie for any length of time will run into a commercial for Team Jesus. (Go watch the YouTube video of Jackie singing the Lord’s Prayer now. I’ll wait.) From there it’s an easy implicit sell to John Q. Public — fornication, drunkenness, disorder, and etc. get you Katy Perry and Meghan Trainor, while discipline, Love, and family get you Jackie Evancho. This isn’t a hard choice even for the mob.

    A useful strategy moving forward is therefore for the various religious groups to mobilize the strongest examples of Goodness they can using all means acceptable to their tradition.

    • To be sure. It is a little more complicated than that, but it is at least that. Taboo is not the only forecondition of civilization, but it is certainly a sine qua non. It is necessary, but not sufficient. Nor perhaps will we convert many minds by bloody thundering of fire and brimstone. But as the last paragraph of the post should indicate, that’s not what I was recommending. On the contrary, I recommended the cultivation of just the sort of personal excellence and virtue you commend. Yet neither can we name and encourage and practice the good without naming and discouraging and abjuring evil.

  5. A mob is sub-human. People listening to a prodigious child-songstress are not a mob; they are an audience. The difference is not merely nominal. The mobs of our roiled cities are not audiences and they have never heard of the child-songstress. Were she placed before them, it would be a repeat of Iphigenia at Aulis. Neither is it the case that a people, no matter how sophisticated, outlives the basic cultural structure of the taboo. Self-denominating sophisticated people mistakenly believe that they have outlived the taboo and no longer need it, but the parlous state of the early Twenty-First Century society refutes their belief.

    One of the first taboos, the law against murder, instituted a seven-fold punishment against the community should anyone vengefully murder the murderer of Abel, that is, Cain. The law against murder, which protected the first murderer, is indeed the foundation of culture.

    • Tom, I never connected the mark of Cain with the beginnings of law. I feel stupid for having missed it; now that you point it out, it is as plain as the nose on your face.

      • Plain and yet paradoxical. The law against murder can’t exist until there is a murder. The law against murder then protects the murderer by name. Moreover, it threatens the community rather than the potential murderer of Cain with retribution.

        The only earlier law in Genesis is the forbidding of the fruit. There is a connection between the forbidding of the fruit and the murder of Abel. The snake manipulates Eve to resent the taboo (from which, incidentally, he is excluded, so that we can attribute resentment to him, too); next Eve manipulates Adam to share her resentment. Cain, the agriculturalist, believes that God values his brother Abel, the hunter, above him and the imagined slight drives him to kill.

        This explains why the Tenth Commandment taboos “covetousness.”

      • I read somewhere recently that the problem with Cain’s sacrifice was that his observation of the ritual rubric was defective, as compared with that of Abel. The problem with Cain’s sacrifice was not that he sacrificed cereal rather than flesh, but that he held back the first fruits of his harvest, whereas Abel offered the unblemished firstborn of his flock.

        As I recall, this notion came from a rabbinical midrash dating from sometime in the early years AD. The difficulty was with the idea that God preferred the sacrifice of animals over the sacrifice of grain. This never made sense to me, or apparently to the rabbis either, because cereal offerings were a regular and integral aspect of the Temple liturgy (viz., the shewbread).

        From the defect of Cain’s intention to sacrifice, the defect of his relation to God followed by simple entailment: the defect of his intention *just was* the defect of his relation to God.

        So Cain was not imagining his alienation from God. It was real, albeit self-inflicted. His envy of Abel, then, was envy of Abel’s more perfect righteousness.

      • On the other hand, Kristor, I’ve heard it said that the reason God required a sacrifice of flesh was because only the spilling of blood would suffice for the expiation of sin. It is only after the perfect sacrifice of flesh – the Crucifixion – that bloodless sacrifices alone become sufficient (i.e. the sacrifice of the altar: “Blessed are you Lord God of all Creation, thanks to your goodness this bread we offer, fruit of the land and work of human hands”, etc.).

  6. That would be the Bruce Charlton who rationalizes away the New Testament position on marriage because it is disturbingly right wing.

    Christianity was left wing and subversive until Charles the Hammer fixed it up. Today’s leftism is just Christian return to form.

    Similarly I have been arguing with an orthodox Jew who refuses to acknowledge that the Orthodox Jewish position on marriage and women has changed radically since old testament times, let alone acknowledge that it has changed radically within my lifetime.

    • Hi James. I had a hunch that post might provoke a comment from you!

      Re your dig at Bruce: I too disagree with some of the things he says – which is to say, I think them mistaken, albeit honest and earnest. But if a man can’t be right about anything unless he is right about everything, then both you and I are just totally wrong, about everything. We aren’t, though, are we? So your dig at Bruce doesn’t quite touch him; isn’t quite about him in the first place, or anyone else, because it has to be just inapt, in regard to anyone at all.

      I’m confused by what you say about Christianity: first it was too rightish for moderns like Dr. Charlton, then that it was too leftish until Charles Martel fixed it up (what books of theology did Martel write?), then that its modern reversion to its ancient rightish type (wait, what? Where? When? Was the Apostolic Succession broken, then somehow restored?) made it leftish again.

      Ribbing aside, I’m sure you have an important point, but your presentation has obscured it. Is Christianity leftist, or rightist, or – what seems more likely – are the strictly modern categories of left and right simply inapposite to Christianity, and for that matter to everything that preceded the French Revolution?

      • The Christianity of Prudentius welcomed illegal immigration of unassimilable barbarians into the Roman Empire shortly before the fall of the Roman Empire in the west. Thus, subversive and left wing. Under Charles Martel we suddenly see Bishops wearing armor and correcting the infidel with great big hammers. If Charles Martel wrote no holy books,he told those that did what they needed to write if they wished to keep their heads on their shoulders.

        “are the strictly modern categories of left and right simply inapposite to Christianity”

        We pretty regularly see Christian heresies with community of property, socialism, and, frequently, community of wives. Obviously these heresies are far left. Those more puritan than Cromwell were clearly to the left of Cromwell, and recognized as such by modern leftists such as Marx. Leftism is an old and common Christian heresy, deriving from its celebration of weakness and defeat.

        And Bruce personally exemplifies this flaw in Christianity.

      • “So is leftism a Christian heresy – I.e., not Christian at all – or is it the true form of Christianity?”

        It is a Christian heresy with an alarmingly substantial basis in the true form of Christianity. Compare and contrast Xenophon and Brennus. Christianity is inherently leftist when compared to Xenophon and Brennus, and in consequence regularly spawns ultra leftist heresies.

      • OK, leftism is a Christian heresy. I.e., leftism is not Christian; it is as Christian, that is to say, as Catharism or Islam, which are also Christian heresies. I’ve said the same thing myself over the past few years, several times.

        Furthermore, Christianity offers a basis for leftist heresies. But this goes without saying, no? Any religion offers bases for all sorts of heresies; it’s the nature of the beast.

        The real question is whether Christianity itself leans essentially and peculiarly leftist. The question doesn’t really make sense to me, because Christianity is not a political philosophy in the first place. It has clear implications for politics, to be sure – patriarchy, private property, loyal citizenship, just war theory, and so forth – but these may be implemented under many sorts of political orders (although not, NB, the leftist social orders – Communist, Socialist, collectivist, etc. – which it explicitly repudiates).

        What essential right wing policies does Christianity reject?

      • One Moldbug passage and you think you understand Roman era Christianity. St. Jerome, on the other hand, must not have been a Christian.

        And you keep repeating this Charles Martel line as if you think its pretty hot stuff. Out of curiosity, do you think that St. Benedict was a “leftist”?

      • “deriving from its celebration of weakness and defeat.”

        I’m not sure where you see this. If it is in Christ’s crucifixion then you are wholly mistaken. The Romans and the Sanhedrin had their goal of killing Christ, presumably permanently, so that he would no longer present a challenge to them, which he did with his multiple miracles and exorcisms as well as of course his radical truth-claims.

        In this respect, both the Romans and the Sanhedrin were utterly defeated. Christ rose from the dead, defying his horrific execution. He then made clear that those who rejected him would see his humanity coming at the right hand of God on Judgment Day. This in fact makes Christianity (in this regard) more right wing than Jewish sects as well as other cults in the Levant and the surrounding area who held that when they died, they would ultimately be losers, walking the depressing halls of the underworld. Their capricious gods (at least in the case of Greece and such) were not going to confer any triumph or victory upon them for their allegiance. Christianity however teaches ultimate, pure victory for those who worship the Son. Upon Judgment, they will be the saved, reaping spiritual riches beyond comprehension. Those who have rejected Him however, regardless of how strong they are, will fall into eternal torment.

      • Hey Kristor, maybe a technical point but someone pointed out that leftism isn’t a Christian heresy because it’s more than the denial of one or more essential Christian dogmas. It’s a Christian apostasy.

      • Great point! Leftist “Christians” generally deny the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the Ascension, the Incarnation, the Atonement (they generally have a Rousseauvian attitude to man, so that sin is usually an empty term in their book) … in what sense, then, are they not rejecting Christianity, period full stop? They make Arius and Nestorius look orthodox.

      • > leftism isn’t a Christian heresy because it’s more than the denial of one or more essential Christian dogmas. It’s a Christian apostacy.

        in general all the doctrines of Christianity get transliterated from the next world to this world – which I have seen regular Roman Catholic priests routinely do and Pope Francis do. This is invariably presented as being more holy and taking the bible more seriously, shortly before tossing the bible altogether.

      • ” Christianity is inherently leftist when compared to Xenophon and Brennus, and in consequence regularly spawns ultra leftist heresies.”

        James, can you give specific, historical examples of Christian far left heresies (I saw one specific example, welcoming of illegal immigration into the empire, in you post above that was pre-modern)? Isn’t this largely a modern phenomenon?

  7. Pingback: Mere Reaction | Reaction Times

  8. I never understood the first thing about the political program of the Reaction. What is that they want?
    Limit immigration–can be done in republican framework.
    Rescind equality ? What does it mean? Withdraw political rights from certain sub-groups etc women, unmarried men, certaIn racial groups?
    Property or educational qualification for voting?
    Full-bore monarchy?

    It must be kept in mind that there have been a host of reactionary restorations in Europe from 1814 (France) to WW2. And ALL HAVE BEEN FAILURES–no exception.

    • “Withdraw political rights from certain sub-groups etc women, unmarried men, [and] certaIn racial groups?”

      No. Abolish lawless privileges masquerading as rights.

      “Property or educational qualification for voting?”

      The former, certainly. Rent-seekers cast their votes with a conflict of interest. Their votes are presumptively invidious and anti-social.

      “There have been a host of reactionary restorations in Europe from 1814 (France) to WW2. And ALL HAVE BEEN FAILURES–no exception.”

      There have also been a host of liberal republics and revolutionary societies in Europe – and elsewhere – from 1789 (France) to WW2. And ALL HAVE BEEN FAILURES – no exception.

    • Reactionaries seek the return of what Evola and Guenon designated ‘The World of Tradition’, as opposed to what we have post-Enlightenment, which is Modernity.

      Limit immigration? Yes, but not in the way that groups like UKIP or the Danish People’s Party want to limit immigration. It would be limited by virtue of the fact that the ethnostate would be hostile to foreigners living among them, driving down wages and such, The Reactionary State features virtually no immigration, and what little there might be would be only with specific highly compatible racial/cultural groups, who would be highly qualified.

      Rescind equality? Yes. Political rights as a general rule would cease to exist. You would have a restored monarchy (or similar system) and an aristocracy. There may be some voter based decisions made on especially local levels where there is no reasons for central powers to be involved at all, and in this situation the voters would be limited to men of good standing, preferably with families and property. With the creation of ethnostates, the racial groups would be living separately.

      There are Reactionary elements in both the Napoleonic era which you cite, and WWII, BUT these are not Reactionary as a whole. As per Kristor’s article for example, the Third Reich was one such very secular scientistic ‘reaction’. Italy was a little closer to the mark, but not so much. I’d say a great example of a state that got most things right would be Salazar’s Portugal, but it was perhaps too early for what he tried to do to transform his country.

      Important to note, the Reactionary vision for the future sees a total leveling of Modern Western civilization. Not half-measures, little pieces here and there in this country or that. Kristor alludes to this in his article. We will be working on the ruins of one of the largest undeclared transnational empires in history, not trying to liberate one specific country from its still very potent clutches.

  9. There is only one taboo remaining in our radically autonomous society and that shall be the social demonization and cultural rejection of the genuine white Supremacist, i.e., the white man who believes in and strives towards objective Supremacy… Er, The Perfect Man.

    In others words, only Christian Supremacists are taboo. So there are no taboos.

  10. Probably up there as one of my favorite articles of yours, Kristor. In fact, I’m going to have to link to it. It’s kind of summed up by saying “No Reactionary can be in favor of a secular state”, rather than saying that people can’t make areligious critiques that can qualify as Reactionary, as I think Steves has pointed out.

    Coincidentally, I just penned a piece on the Modern fear of religious authority. It’s a popular topic.

    Religion is integral to the Traditional state in three ways.

    1) It procures supernatural justification of the state, and is responsible for keeping the state in good graces with the Divine Realm through reverence and ritual (both exoteric and often esoteric in nature)

    2) It acts as a legal body, institutionalized with civic authority to prosecute transgressors.

    3) It perpetuates the taboos around destructive and deviant behaviors, essentially keeping the citizenry in a state of good spiritual health.

    The Reactionary State considers secularism a totally bizarre concept (and you will find this is STILL the prevailing attitude in the Islamic world and in other places). There, there isn’t even a word for religion, there is only a word for ‘way of life’, and that sees politics and religion as inseparable. They go hand in hand.

  11. Even here, a place where white men who worship objective Supremacy congregate to discuss the total perversion of our sensate environment, the TABOO against merely asserting one’s self as a white Supremacist IS STRONG! So not only do Orthosphereans refuse to lexically distinguish themselves from liberated “Christians,” but they irrationally reject the exacting nature of the phrase.

    White Christians ARE white Supremacists and vice versus. This is an unarguable and unbreakable univeral equality and when your adversary “accuses” you of this particular state of being and you DENY IT, you deny being a REAL Christian FOR ALL THE MASSES.

    • thordaddy – on another thread, you gave your highly complex etymological definition of ‘white supremacy’ and the definition you came up with was not anything that ANY Reactionary would disagree with. However, the term ‘White Supremacist’ has an irredeemable noxious quality because of those it is immediately associated with. That is why you will not find that term used here to describe what you mean by ‘white supremacy’.

      • Yes Mark… So the question is how one un-perverts his language.

        This “irredeemably noxious quality” is of the anti-white Supremacists’ making! And you simply accept this transgression. So much so that YOU cannot now linguistically differentiate between true and false Christians without uttering what seems mere personal opinion.

        You cannot deny that you are white…

        You cannot deny that you are Christian…

        You cannot deny that Christian worship objective Supremacy, i.e., The Perfect Man…

        BUT YOU CAN deny that you are a white Supremacist BASED ON THE transgression nature of the anti-white Supremacist???

        The state of affairs in America for the faceless white male is a life CONFINED to anti-white Supremacy. Meaning, in secular-speak, “our” entire “tradition” going back at least 60 years was to ensure that white males DID NOT EMBRACE genuine white Supremacy.

        A collective descent IS INEVITABLE.

      • You seem to be overthinking it.

        The fact is “white supremacy” is taken by 99% of people to mean the belief that white people are racially superior to other people, being a master race. You use the term as a kind of compound way of saying the following:

        “I am a white person who believes in the objective supremacy of Jesus Christ”

        Your translation of this proposition into “I am a white supremacist” seems unnecessary. The mention of being white is out of place. Why not also include a litany of other attributes? e.g – I am a 6 foot supremacist, or I am a right handed supremacist?

      • But is not this image a false portrayal which you’ve unwittingly embraced? Is not the operative equation of the anti-Christian, Supremacy = degeneracy? Is this not self-evidently false?

      • Mark Citadel…

        White Supremacist –> Supremacist would be the ideal progression although everywhere “we” look these attempts at total deracination have deleterious results. As it stands, Christianity faces no true existential crisis. Only white man seemingly faces what appears to be near certain annihilation. And that puts the white Christian in the precarious position of believing in saving what ultimately doesn’t require his saving all the while putting little effort into saving that which faces real extinction.

        So if the complaint is a society with no existing taboos EXCEPT the taboo of being a white Supremacist then one MUST BE a white Supremacist in order to reestablish at least one existing societal taboo. LUCKILY FOR US, it just means being a true Christian.

      • Mr. Citadel and Professor Bertonneau…

        Would you two at least agree that a Christian is a Supremacist in the fullest sense of the word?

        Christians acknowledge the supreme goodness of God. Concerning themselves, they are supposed to recognize their sinfulness and the vanity of their desires. Satan was a Supremacist. Liberals are Supremacists. Christians are students of humility. (TFB)

      • What work is “white” doing in your phrase. You might as well say I am a left-handed supremacist. While its objectively true, it just confuses the meaning. It’s sort of obiter dicta, no?

      • What work does “white” do? Are you serious? I’ve never heard of any legitimate “supremacy” movement that was not “white,” have you? And last time I checked, white man was facing an existential crisis DUE TO THE VERY FACT that he is increasingly prohibited from and shamed about striving towards Supremacy ESPECIALLY in concert with fellow white man.

        How hard is it for modern “white” Christians to understand that they are not allowed to be white Supremacists AND SO they are not allowed to be true Christians?

        You deface Creation and Christianity with your subtle deracination of the white race. In fact, you feign an incredulous belief that you somehow reached Christ in spite of your racial lineage. How did that happen?

      • I love white people and I think that ethnos is both ontologically real and absolutely essential for any civilization to strive for the social good. However, I don’t see why there couldn’t be a Chinese Christian civilization in China under the leadership of the Church and a White Christian civilization in Europe. I don’t see how the idea of supremacy you are talking about is white qua white. I also think that love of ethny is only part of the proper order of charity.

        “In fact, you feign an incredulous belief that you somehow reached Christ in spite of your racial lineage”

        I did what? I still don’t understand your point. Could you answer whether or not a Chinaman can become a Christian?

      • Josh…

        No doubt, a Chinese individual can strive towards Supremacy. He could even adopt “white Supremacy” as his operative paradigm if he so wished. BUT, “Chinese supremacy” is just not relevant to the discussion AND one would be hard pressed to find where “it” actually exists TRUTHFULLY (other than the faithful Chinese Christian).

        To your second question, it seems that the default position of the Kristors, Charltons, Bertonneaus and the like is that they have reached Christ IN SPITE OF their race. I would argue the exact opposite. They reached Christ BECAUSE OF their race. White Supremacy is a real force that obviously proceeded us all AND it is only now within an environment of increasingly nonwhite individuals that this force is going to materialize in a more direct and obvious way.

      • Professor Bertonneau,

        Both Satan and the liberal ARE anti-Supremacists (with the liberal being anti-WHITE Supremacist, in particular)… Both Satan and the liberal reject objective Supremacy, as The Perfect God and The Perfect Man, disrespectively.

      • Josh…

        Any ideology or religion that demands a deracinated adherent IS PATHOLOGICAL. Deracination is a purposeful defacement of Creation. I use “white” in front of Supremacy for a multitude of reasons the two most important being the identifying contextual detail and the exposing of the desires of those that embrace pathological deracination. You understand that your question REALLY MEANS that “white” has no meaning to you. This is not a superior position. This is not a position of advancement or evolution. It is merely evidence of a radical liberation via absolute deracination and the literal defacement of “josh,” the “white man.”

  12. Pingback: This Week in Reaction Aesthetics (2015/05/08) | The Reactivity Place

  13. “secular cultures must tend always leftward – i.e., toward chaos and death”

    Maybe towards chaos, but possibly towards a hideously ordered despotism. “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.” – Thomas Jefferson

    I can’t prove this is an iron law, but secular and revolutionary France and Russia quickly and violently moved in that direction. Yes, their revolutions eventually fell apart, but some despotic regimes have lasted a long time. The was no guarantee that the Nazis would have inevitably lost World War II, and they could have ruthlessly entrenched themselves for a long time had they won, creating, in Churchill’s phrase, “a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.” Hell, after all, seems to have been around a very long time.

  14. It’s pointless to talk of secular reaction and not define this as the movement of high IQ “white” male atheists. Furthermore, the most potent critique to come from this secular reaction is the rings-very-true belief in mainstream “self-annihilation for salvation” Christianity. A deracinated Christianity is not only an affront to absolute Creation, but also just plain NOT Christianity. There is no mandate to self-annihilate (through a process of deracination) in order to appease our God. That the secular reaction helps pen this narrative of a self-annihilating mainstream Christianity is in part due the unwillingness of Christian Supremacists to abhor this false and pathological liberalism cloaked in Christianity.

  15. Why talk about God and God’s truth in this way?

    Everything that is stems from God and everything that is, is of God, so God is impartial. The life of a human or life of an animal, they are both its creation.

    Darwinian truth is no truth at all, as truth is that which is logically true. A culture/individual/animal can be successful even if what it believes in or thinks it knows, is a lie.

    The things that the successful believe in might be lies. In fact cultures usually start out with a lie, a polarization between the good and the evil (or the sacred and the profane). God is beyond this duality. But he does give hints to those who listen.

    To speak of modernity as being without taboo, just take a look at any modern group. If anything modernity is full of taboo: What is a rapist to a SJW, if not profane? Is their belief in eqality not their sacred?

    Or in case of DarkEnlightenment, is the mob not profane? Is civilization not sacred?

    To impose rules on others and say they come from God is just another lie. A will to power.

  16. The more one reads, the more one realizes that this is a false debate meant to obscure that ALL participants are some degree of anti-white Supremacy.

    Mr. Steves…

    Do you believe in the existence of objective Supremacy?

    Kristor…

    Do you believe in the existence of objective Supremacy?

    The problem lies in the fact that Mr. Steves will say “no” or ask, “what do you even mean” and Kristor will say “yes,” but neither man will attribute these CHOICES to their white race. So on the surface is disagreement, but underneath IS AGREEMENT.

    Let’s make “our” white race meaningless in the choices “we” make.

    Deracination IS PATHOLOGICAL. The continuity of life is the very thread of one’s race.

  17. In other words, there is every reason to suspect that Mr. Steves and Kristor chose their respective paths BECAUSE of the ghost of white Supremacy.

  18. The common white man is not going to understand the full brunt of Equality until he can “see” “it” as anti-Supremacy. Universal Equality = The Redundant Phenomenon, i.e., infinte regress. To this General Entropy is the conceptional solution of Perfection. The First Law of Perfection being nonduplication, i.e., no redundancy.

    BOTH SIDES in this struggle are high IQ “white” males EACH denying genuine white Supremacy ONLY differing in absolute degree. Both sides retain a degree of deracinated “spirit” tha then works like infectious disease. Both side protect their favorites and leave the white race out in the cold. It is so much harder to love your fellow white man than it is to love Christ, The Perfect Man, or to love nothing at all. Both sides agree just to forego this struggle.

  19. A society which is not explicitly Christian is – because of that very fact – a society doomed to self destruction.

    Of course most societies are doomed to self-destruction, including explicitly Christian ones. Secularism is a cancer: the fact that you’ll eventually die of something doesn’t make cancer any less of a disease.

    This is kind of like the saying “you get what you pay for,” which is false. The truer statement is “you don’t get what is not paid for.” Often enough we pay for things that we still don’t get.

    Secularism is a disease, a retreat into unreasoning nihilism suitable only for rebellious children.

  20. Zippy says:
    > “Secularism is a disease, a retreat into unreasoning nihilism suitable only for rebellious children.”
    Zippy believes that racism is a real thing, a meaningful word, and is a sin, even though somehow no one had a word for it until the twentieth century.
    If you believe that everyone should read scripture and interpret it for himself, that is rather anarchic, and people succumb to pressure and find progressive readings. If you believe that your church fathers should interpret scripture for you, they are apt to interpret Jesus as the community organizer, a John the Baptist pointing the way to Obama, rather than as Christ the redeemer. You are redeemed neither by faith nor works, but by voting Democrat.
    Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
    Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
    What fruits are the Christian Churches bearing today?

    • If you believe that your church fathers should interpret scripture for you, they are apt to interpret Jesus as the community organizer, a John the Baptist pointing the way to Obama, rather than as Christ the redeemer. You are redeemed neither by faith nor works, but by voting Democrat.
      When did supporting liberal-capitalism become the sine qua non of Reaction™? I guess by this standard Louis De Bonald was a leftist. After all, he wrote against Adam Smith and excoriated the same liberal economics that James217 and “Thordaddy” claim objective SUPREMACISTS white Christians (or something) need to adopt.
      Apparently these people see absolutely no contradiction in an ideology that embraces “techno-commercialism” and “patriarchy.” It seems that if “reactionaries” of this sort ever came to power, the social order they would institute would look something like modern Japan. A very high tech, homogeneous, capitalist society with a veneer of traditionalism. Elsewhere, James217 has explicitly held modern Singapore and Dubai as models. Ah yes, cosmopolitan, decadent and relying on large numbers of third world immigrant slave labor. I thought this was the nightmare dystopia we are all trying to avoid?

      • > When did supporting liberal-capitalism become the sine qua non of Reaction™?

        It has not only been the sine qua non of reaction, but also of the old and new testaments, which back capitalism almost as much as they back patriarchy. Socialism and such violates the commandment against coveting, and both old and new testaments presuppose and take for granted that the owner of capital has a right to maximize his profits, and the employer of labor has a right to any contract freely agreed to.

      • It has not only been the sine qua non of reaction, but also of the old and new testaments, which back capitalism almost as much as they back patriarchy. Socialism and such violates the commandment against coveting, and both old and new testaments presuppose and take for granted that the owner of capital has a right to maximize his profits, and the employer of labor has a right to any contract freely agreed to.

        Yeah and you can pull all sorts of passages out of context to justify the that ridiculous proposition- so what? People read the old and new testaments and find convincing justifications for communism, anarcho-primitivism and everything in between.Also capitalism has nothing do with coveting either of course. By your standard pretty much all of the genuine reactionaries like Bonald were “leftists.”

        As most rightists and traditionalists worth their salt understood, it was the rise of capitalism that destroyed the organic hierarchical order of Christendom. It took economic production out of the family/clan, replaced bonds based on tradition with contracts, it destroys folk cultures and crowds vast numbers of increasingly atomized peoples into cities. It makes the world a smaller place and necessitates the uprooting and immigration of poorer peoples. Meanwhile the Koch brothers write amicus briefs defending gay marriage, US Tech companies pressure states into doing away with “religious freedom” provisions, and the CEO of Apple is gay. I guess that’s just crony capitalism and not the “true free market” though. I thought this was precisely everything we were supposed to be fighting against.

        It is only really in America,(the first true liberally state) that the screwy notion that capitalism is something to be conservative came about. In this sense James127 offers a slightly more radical fusionism but also is just as incoherent and can’t possibly oppose liberalism, because it is just a variant of liberalism with the veneer of traditionalism.

      • I have to agree with Scripta on that. I mean, you cannot help but see the drastically close correlation between the rise of Capitalism and the rise of Modernity. This isn’t to say it’s the only cause or even an entirely direct cause, nor is it to condemn ‘free markets’ in principle since there was certainly little example of ‘welfare states’ or ‘burdensome regulation’ prior to the ‘Enlightenment’. It is however able to condemn the kind of baggage that Capitalism brought it with it, namely the de-personalization of trade, the rise of corporate influence in government, and the death of guilds. All of these things correlate almost perfectly with the social and cultural degeneration that you yourself condemn, as do all of us.

        Compare this correlation with that of Christianity and Modernity. It’s hard to find such a correlation, because Christianity predates Modernity by such a huge timespan. You could link Modernity to Protestantism perhaps, as many have tried to elucidate in some pretty well-written articles, but laying the blame of Modernity at the foot of the Faith at large seems ill-placed.

        Your condemnation of it, Jim, is really only a condemnation of its practitioners at a certain date (e.g – the current Pope). Similarly, the curse of Liberalism is overwhelmingly a project of white men (Jews aside), yet only white men of a certain date. White men were not ‘Enlightened’ pre-‘Enlightenment’. And so I won’t condemn my own race, because I won’t judge something based on its worst excesses.

      • > you cannot help but see the drastically close correlation between the rise of Capitalism and the rise of Modernity.

        Capitalism predates Jesus. Notice his frequent use of parables that take capitalism for granted, for example the vineyard and wage labor, or the talents and capital accumulation. Athens and the Roman Republic were hard core capitalist by modern standards.

        Industrialization and technological advance is a product of the joint stock corporation with Ayn Rand’s hero scientist engineer as CEO. The scientific revolution starts with Charles the Second, and Ayn Rand’s hero engineer CEOs show up running joint stock corporations at about the same time. The diseases of modernity do not show until 1820 or so, about a hundred and forty years after science gets rolling and joint stock corporations start conquering what would become the British empire and advancing applied technology.

      • Like all other things, Capitalism has been liberated from its universal essence and deleteriously confined to the realm of total materialism.

        No man with any self-awareness can ACTUALLY operate outside the Capitalist paradigm. Since Capital is inseparable from the credibility of man himself then the attempted destruction of the Capitalist paradigm is the attempted destruction of man’s desire for greater individual credibility. In other words, in the Capitalist system, the man with the most Capital is the man with most credibility and vice versa. But, in OUR anti-Capitalist system, i.e., socialist system, capital MAY FLOW to the least credible of “men” and these “men” then screech aloud about the broken system of Capitalism with no apparent sense of irony.

        So it is by no means the fault of Capitalism that the modern “white man” of egalitarian zealotry and anti-white Supremacist enmity finds himself immersed in an economic system where capital and man’s credibility have no intimate symbiotic link.

      • It’s probably necessary here to stress what we mean when we use the term Capitalism. I use it in this context, in the same way Evola uses it

        “Nothing is more evident than that modern capitalism is just as subversive as Marxism. The materialistic view of life on which both systems are based is identical; both of their ideals are qualitatively identical, including the premises connected to a world the center of which is constituted of technology, science, production, ‘productivity’, and ‘consumption’. And as long as we only talk about economic classes, profit, salaries, and production, and as long as we believe that real human progress is determined by a particular system of distribution of wealth and goods and that, generally speaking, human progress is measured by the degree of wealth or indigence – then we are not even close to what is essential…”

        Note that even Evola who was critical of Christianity to varying degrees, never embraced any kind of secularism. Would you not agree with Steves, Jim, that the Reactionary cannot under any circumstances subscribe to the creation of a secular state?

      • Mark Citadel…

        One can define Capital truthfully AS man’s intangible credibilty OR one can CONFINE capital to nothing more than a material good. Either way, the attempt at denying white man his pursuit of greater credibility through the destruction of the Capitalist paradigm STARTS with the defining of “capital” as strictly material so that acquiring material goods then becomes the insufficient metric in truly representing the credibilty of the man acquiring such capital goods.

        Who is the man with the most Capital?

        Is it really Gates or Slim?

      • I have no comment on the ‘supremacy’ stuff, but on this:

        One can define Capital truthfully AS man’s intangible credibilty OR one can CONFINE capital to nothing more than a material good.

        That is just … wrong.

        Capital is property. Property is not necessarily or exclusively material. Quite the contrary.

        Credibility, however, is definitely not property. It cannot be alienated from an owner and sold, for example.

        Property – as intrinsically and essentially distinct from persons – consists of objective things (whether tangible or intangible) which can be alienated, transferred, bought, and sold. Farms, hunting grounds, smithies, family homes, corporations, books, software, etc. are property (objective, alienable, transferrable, fungible, etc) — and by the same token are not reduceable to nothing but material objects (atoms and laws of physics).

        The conflation of what is objective and distinct from particular persons – and therefore of property, which is a subset of objective things distinct from persons – with what is material is of a piece with modern reductionist anti-realism: a symptom of the disease of secularism, liberalism, modernism: cancer cells in the metastasized body of modern Mammon-society.

      • Zippy, it is very hard for me to be sure what Thordaddy is saying, because his writing style is so idiosyncratic, and he uses terms in ways that no one else understands. But I am pretty sure that he was in this trying to say something that actually agrees with what you say here, and with some other things you’ve written about property. I think he meant to say, in concord with you, that reducing property or capital to mere physical stuff is gravely mistaken. Further, when he says that “Capital [is one] man’s intangible credibility,” I take him to be gesturing toward something like your point that ownership of property is a function of a general agreement that x does indeed own P. Thus it is in part a function of the credibility of x; the greater his credibility with his fellows, the more credible his claim to P.

        Or something. As I say, I find Thordaddy’s prose almost impenetrable.

      • Kristor:
        Gotcha. I don’t want to misconstrue TD’s position, but perhaps someone who interprets his words the way I did might find my misconstrual and reaction helpful.

      • Zippy

        So you AGREE that Capital, at least, can be intangible? You just disagree that this intangible Capital is then man’s credibility?

        So who is the man with the most Capital?

        And I see nothing Mammon-worshipping in man’s pursuit of greater credibilty, i.e., more intangible Capital. In fact, it seems a universal law of Man to seek more intangible Capital, i.e., greater credibility.

      • Kristor…

        If you need a translation just start with this operative “false equation” utilized by all radical liberationists:

        Supremacy = degeneracy

        Such that…

        Degenerate life = “god”

        So “we” get…

        White Supremacy = white degeneracy

        Such that…

        White degenerate/”supremacist” = “god”/satan

        These are the FALSE EQUATIONS that ALL radical liberals operate under INCLUDING, unfortunately, The Orthosphereans.

        A white Supremacist is a white man who believes in and thus strive towards objective Supremacy.

        I CANNOT get anymore succinct and exacting than that.

        You resist GENUINE white Supremacy BECAUSE you embrace the false equations of the radical liberal and thus disqualify yourself as a Christian.

        Christians WORSHIP objective Supremacy. Ergo, Christians ARE Supremacists. Double ergo, white Christians are white Supremacists. These are TRUE EQUATIONS that attempt to refute. You cannot do it.

      • Well, I hate to let you down, Thordaddy, but I find all those equations ludicrously wrong. Not only do I not embrace them, I think they are nonsense. I can’t think of anything I’ve ever written that might have given any different impression, and the same goes for all the other orthosphereans.

        So I think you are tilting at windmills.

      • Thordaddy:

        So you AGREE that Capital, at least, can be intangible? You just disagree that this intangible Capital is then man’s credibility?

        Correct.

        The thing we refer to as “property” in the property relation[1] is always an object: something objective, which is to say, it is not a subject (a person). A man’s credibility is not an object which can be alienated from the man, bought, sold, etc.

        Therefore credibility cannot be property.

        But not all ‘objectively real things distinct from particular subjects’ (objects) are tangible or material, and in fact even material things in general are not reduceable to nothing but matter. There is more — objectively — to that-car-which-was-stolen-by-Bob or that-house-which-the-Thordaddy-dynasty-has-lived-in-for-generations than just its matter.

        [1] The property relation is an authority that an owner has over or with respect to specific objects (the “property”). As with any authority, the authority is binding on those who are subject to it (e.g., potential trespassers, non-owners, etc). But the property itself is always and essentially something objective (note again, not the same thing as tangible: an object is something real which is not a subject, that is, is not a person, and is distinct and alienable from particular persons).

      • Kristor,

        Christians ARE Supremacists.

        White Christians are white Supremacists.

        Agree or disagree?

        The equations I put forth ARE the false equations of the radical liberationist. I would agree that the white Christians/white Supremacists absolutely reject these false equations.

      • It seems as though by “supremacist” you mean “seeker of the perfections proper to oneself, and in their due proportions.” As in, “seeker of virtue, or excellence.” If so, then yes, agreed: the pursuit of the perfections proper to man – i.e., of holiness and righteousness – is implicit in Christian doctrine. The adjective “white” adds to this only a jot of specificity, like “intelligent” or “Californian.” Thus a Chinese Christian would in these terms be a Chinese Supremacist, a dexterous Christian a dexterous Supremacist, a quadriplegic Christian a quadriplegic Supremacist, and so forth.

        By analogy, to be Christian is to be called to charity toward all men. So, to be Christian *just is* to be called to charity. Likewise, then, to be Christian is to be called to holiness and righteousness – i.e., to the pursuit of the perfections proper to oneself.

        If on the other hand “supremacist” means “one who seeks dominion over others for its own sake,” then “supremacist” does not square too well with “Christian.” Christians seek one thing only, and all other things in due subsidiarity thereto: communion with God. Now among the subsidiary things that Christians might seek – but only to the extent proper to them, mutatis mutandis – is rule over other, lesser men, and for their sake, as a matter of duty and charity to such lesser men. But as with the worship of any other subsidiary good instead of the Most High God, the pursuit of supremacy (construed as dominion) for its own sake would fall under the category of idolatry. It would be like lust, or gluttony.

        What *exactly* do you mean by “supremacy”?

      • Kristor…

        Objective Supremacy = The Perfect Man = He who will do all right = most omnipotent…

        The term “white supremacy” has been used as a psychological sledge hammer for the sole purpose of gaining dominion over the white man via his turn towards radical liberation..

        (S)upremacy does not equal (s)upremacy AND neither represents evil degeneracy as “we” have been indoctrinated to believe.

        And I’m sorry, but one’s race is not really comparable to one’s height, dexterity or any other attribute not actually facing an explicitly perpetrated existential crisis.

      • Kristor…

        Objective Supremacy = Jesus Christ = Man with the most Capital…

        I just thought it went without equating?

      • “Supremacy” is not a person. Nor are whiteness, thinness, tallness, etc. These can all be properties of persons, but they are not persons.

        It behooves us to be careful with equations, if we want our reasoning to be clear, and correct, and (a fortiori) comprehensible and compelling (mea culpa!). E.g., mass does not equal weight; they are different sorts of things, albeit tightly related within any inertial frame.

        I understand now that you mean Christ is objectively the supreme man. Granted. It was not clear before, although I sort of had a hunch that you were trying to get at that idea.

      • Kristor,

        I did not equate Supremacy with a “person.” I was very exact.

        Objective Supremacy = The Perfect Man = Jesus Christ…

        This ^^^ is the Chrisitian’s fundamental assertion.

        Where the anti-Christians manipulate the discussion is within the debate over the existence of Christ MEANT TO OBSCURE their “principled” stance against The Perfect Man IN MERE concept.

        The game has been to accuse white Christians of being white Supremacists and then have those same white Christians vehemently deny IN PUBLIC that they are indeed AT LEAST Supremacists.

        Kristor, you don’t see the problem?

      • Thordaddy, you just made the equation again in the very comment where you insisted you hadn’t made it:

        Objective Supremacy = The Perfect Man = Jesus Christ

        Jesus Christ is a *person.* He is not Supremacy, any more than he is Jewishness or manhood. He is supreme, he is Jewish, and he is a man. But he is not manhood. Do you see the difference between these two types of terms? Confusion of the two types introduces … confusion. This I take it is not your rhetorical goal. Yet with almost every comment you write, my first reaction is, “what the heck does that even mean?”

        I *think* you mean something like, “anti-Christians are against human excellence, especially the sort of excellence that traditionally characterized white Christian men.” But I’m not sure that’s what you mean, even after doing my honest best to read many of your comments as carefully as I can.

      • Kristor…

        “Jesus Christ is a *person.* He is not Supremacy…”

        If this is your stance, I find quite shocking?

        Could you define, for my sake, the belief of one who denies objective Supremacy AS an absolute “thing?”

        My reading of your response tells me that you do not define objective Supremacy as the The Perfect Man and/or Perfection, “itself?”

        What is your definition of objective Supremacy?

      • Jesus is obviously a person. He is supreme, too. But while “Jesus is Supremacy” intends to say something correct, it says it with sloppy English. Its syntax is all messed up. Using proper English, we would say, “Jesus is Supreme.”

        But note that we would not say that “Supreme is Jesus,” as we would have to do if we had drawn a straightforward equivalence between “Jesus” and “Supreme.” Jesus is supreme, but that is not all there is to Jesus. He’s also male, Galilean, human, Divine, born of a Virgin, Son of God the Father, and so forth.

        Likewise he is a certain height. But we would not say that “Jesus is height.”

        Like height, supremacy is not a thing in its own right, but rather a relation of one thing to others. It is a relation among actualities. Only actualities are actual.

      • Kristor…

        It seems to me that one either believes in objective Supremacy or Universal Equality.

        To which side do you accede? Or, do you think there is a middle place?

        Don’t Christians REALLY worship Christ AS Lord… Er, Perfection… Objective Supremacy?

        What is YOUR definition of objective Supremacy IF NOT The Perfect Man/Perfection “itself?”

        My premise is the refusal of Christians to accept that they are Supremacists and this refusal is a form of self-annihilation. A self-annihilating “Christian” is inherently unsound. But, this is what many inside AND outside Neo’s reaction “see.” A self-annihilating “Christianity” as TRUE Christianity.

      • I believe in objective supremacy. I believe that God in Jesus is objectively supreme. I don’t believe that Jesus is supremacy itself, any more than I believe he is tallness itself. Supremacy and tallness are *attributes* of Jesus, but are not Jesus himself. We can say, then, that Jesus is supreme, but we cannot say that Jesus *just is* supremacy, or that supremacy *just is* Jesus.

        Christians do worship Christ as Lord. “Lord” indicates a person, as do “father” and “son.” But a person can’t be lordship itself, or fatherhood as such. We don’t worship Jesus as Lordship, but as Lord. Jesus possesses Lordship – he is characterized by lordship, lordship is one of his attributes – but he is not lordship.

        I don’t see why this is so hard for you. Supremacy is a state or condition. It is not itself a person. It makes as much sense to say “Jesus is supremacy” as it does to say “Thordaddy is confusion.” I.e., none.

        If you want to make yourself understood using a language, it behooves you to use the language according to its syntactical rules.

    • It’s rather hard to understand the thrust of your argument Jim.

      First you say this:

      “If you believe that everyone should read scripture and interpret it for himself, that is rather anarchic, and people succumb to pressure and find progressive readings.”

      Now, I’m agreeing with you Jim. You are correct here,

      “If you believe that your church fathers should interpret scripture for you, they are apt to interpret Jesus as the community organizer, a John the Baptist pointing the way to Obama, rather than as Christ the redeemer.”

      This is just patently not the case, and there is well over a thousand years of history to prove it. What you are condemning is Modernity’s negative influence on Christianity, and how many Christians and indeed churchmen have fallen victim to it.

      However, in a comment above you made the point that the Bible is illiberal, to the radical right on ideas like marriage. So all you are criticizing is not the actual doctrine of the religion, but the way in which it has been warped by Modernity.

      EVERYONE here is also critical of this. Modern Christianity is heretical and we support the pre-Enlightenment mode of our faith. What error do you find in this?

      • > > “If you believe that your church fathers should interpret scripture for you, they are apt to interpret Jesus as the community organizer, a John the Baptist pointing the way to Obama, rather than as Christ the redeemer.”
        > This is just patently not the case, and there is well over a thousand years of history to prove it.
        The last seventy years of history, however, seem to show it patently is the case.
        And, as evidence, Zippy on racism, Bruce Charlton on patriarchy, Ita Scripta Est on capitalism, and, of course, Pope Francis on pretty much everything.

      • “The last seventy years of history, however, seem to show it patently is the case.”

        1,912 years vs. 70 years? I’ll give the 1,912 year period the benefit of the doubt.

      • Zippy, James, et. al. , FWIW, I read somewhere that Pope St. Gregory the Great hated the Lombards as a people and frequently referred to them as “beasts” but no one came up with a unique name for his words and attitudes towards them. I’m not convinced uncharitable words or deeds towards a particular people is a unique sin deserving of its own name.

      • Bruce:

        I’m not convinced uncharitable words or deeds towards a particular people is a unique sin deserving of its own name.

        Whether something ‘deserves’ a shorthand designation or not is entirely distinct – and is far more vague a question generally – from whether or not the thing-to-which-the-shorthand-refers actually exists or occurs or is conceptually coherent. Responding to accusations of careerism by insisting that careerism doesn’t exist or doesn’t deserve its own name is childish, a self-defeating adolescent attempt to declare victory by nominalist fiat.

        At issue is whether or not particular accusations of unjust, base, or objectively antisocial behavior are true: whether or not the accusers are deceived about the truth or are outright liars.

      • > Responding to accusations of careerism by insisting that careerism doesn’t exist or doesn’t deserve its own name is childish, a self-defeating adolescent attempt to declare victory by nominalist fiat.

        “Careerism” does not have a meaning or usage analogous to which you attribute to “racism”, nor usage analogous to that which “racism” actually has.

        Because no meaningful word ever could.

      • zippy, I thought your “careerist” analogy was reasonable and well thought out. As you know, my main objection to the word it’s nebulous use (abuse really) by the left. That said, whether or not it’s a unique sin(from a Christian perspective) deserving of its own category seems like an interesting question.
        If we’re going to categorize it as a sin, why not call it “racial hatred” to clear up confusion and take a rhetorical weapon away from the left?

      • Bruce:
        I think we are at least very close to agreement. I generally avoid using the term ‘racism’ myself because of its pervasive use as a term of abuse by the left; if I did use it, I would probably put the qualifier “legitimate” in front of it, as I do with the term ‘rape’. The way I see it, victims of particular injustices (or injustices rooted in particular motivations) should not be offended by explicitly distinguishing between legitimate instances and illegitimate ones; quite the contrary. And trying to get people to stop using shorthand to refer to things is a losing proposition, so why would someone who has not already raised the white flag bother with it?

      • Zippy, one more thought. I’m not sure that what we call careerism was an observable phenomenon throughout the last 2000 years. Historically, something like what you would call (legitimate) racism has always been with us. Why did Western man never come up with a name for it until the 20th century? Shouldn’t this make us very suspicious of the term?

      • Bruce:

        I am quite certain that too much focus on worldly success – resulting in unjust or socially unacceptable behavior founded in that motivation – has been with us for a very long time.

        Making the disagreement about labels concedes the field to nominalism before the fight even starts. Next thing you know, white supremacists are going to insist on the tactic of setting themselves on fire — and will be puzzled at the modern masses cheering them on.

        And folks who simultaneously insist that capitalism (also a recent modern term) is unarguable and eternal Nature while racism is an anti-concept are, frankly, too tediously stupid to even engage in conversation.

      • Zippy:
        > I am quite certain that too much focus on worldly success – resulting in unjust or socially unacceptable behavior founded in that motivation

        We have a word for excessive focus on worldly success, which focus is likely to result in bad behavior.

        We do not have, and could never have, a word for bad behavior resulting from excessive focus on worldly success.

        And similarly we do not have, and could never have, a word for bad behavior resulting from excessive focus on race.

        Hence the total failure of the actual usage of word “racist” to correspond to the definition that you attribute to it.

      • I think my thoughts were more along the line of there’s already categories of sin to describe the sins that you describe as (legitimate) racism. So why feed the liberal beast?

      • Bruce:

        I think my thoughts were more along the line of there’s already categories of sin to describe the sins that you describe as (legitimate) racism. So why feed the liberal beast?

        Your thoughts are what they are, but it is difficult to respond to something so nonspecific. I suppose I can interpret you to be suggesting that I’ve said something false or given imprudent advice. If that is the case though then it would be helpful to cite precisely where I stated something incorrect or gave imprudent advice. (I’m not sure I’ve actually given any advice, although characterizing postmodern nominalist word games as asinine, adolescent, and self-defeating does I suppose carry implicit advisory content, at least for those who want to avoid asinine adolescent self-defeating acts).

        While I haven’t really given advice, I’ve already said that my own practice is to generally avoid using the term “racism”, especially without very careful qualification. (I follow a similar approach when it comes to words like “freedom”, “equality”, “rights”, etc). Apparently that isn’t enough for some folks, but it isn’t clear what – short of embracing self-defeating lies in the form of adolescent postmodern word games – these folks actually want from me.

      • too tediously stupid to even engage in conversation.
        Yep that about sums up any discussion with [edited as a violation of the Orthosphere comments policy].

      • Zippy don’t interpret me that way – don’t want anything from you – just thinking this through with your help so I hope I didn’t generate hard feelings.
        My own position is that I don’t use the words “racist” and “sexist” and point out how useless they are when others use them. If, as you say, you have to give “very careful qualification” when you use them, then it’s no more awkward to use a different term e.g. “racial-hatred” or “hatred of women” that expresses the objectionable part of someone’s attitude so much clearer.
        I don’t think I’m engaging in post modern, nominalist word games. How we use language matters.

      • Bruce,

        FWIW I am back to thinking that we really aren’t disagreeing, in substance.

        Re: postmodern word games, see James Donald’s posts in this thread and (just as one example) here: http://blog.jim.com/culture/racism-is-an-anti-concept/

        I’ve been a critic of the postmodern nonsense spewing from parts of “neoreaction” for some time now, from (some of their) claims that so-called ‘Game’ can be divorced from inchastity (because Game means just what Humpty Dumpty says it means, nothing more, nothing less) to the crapulous conceptual hash of claiming that racism is an anti-concept (and therefore nobody has ever said or done anything ‘racist’, since the word simply cannot be used in a meaningful way).

        What these things share in common is a language-obsessed postmodern anti-realism. What they share in common is acceptance of the framing of the battleground between modernism and “reaction” as a battle over dominance of language.

        Like secular ‘reaction’ more generally, that kind of postmodern ‘reaction’ is in reality no reaction against modernism at all: it is acceptance of modernism disguised as reaction against it, much as right liberalism is really acceptance of liberalism disguised as reaction against it.

    • Capitalism is the pejorative term for a society government by a for the owners of the means of production or who provide access to the means of production by controlling access to high-powered money. Or something like that.

      Aren’t all of these “progressive” movements really just fodder for capitalism. Isn’t it strange that feminism, whatever its claims, manifests itself in womens’ “right” to do productive work for capitalists at the expense of family life and to try to make up for this by buying more stuff from the capitalists? Isn’t the destruction of ethnic communities and nations driven by the desire to get them to “join the global economy” aka work for the capitalists and buy stuff from the capitalists? Isn’t the endgame of all of this a kind of peonage; labor a global commodity, capital restricted by cartelized global monetary systems, no conception of the common good, more work, less marriage, declining fertility, more bastards, no conception of objective good for humans, more depression, more drugs, more just plain ugly. I’m not sure Charles the Hammer would approve.

  21. The one consistent thing about James Donald’s writing is an incapacity (or unwillingness, which amounts to the same thing) to express the positions of anyone other than James Donald in anything other than poor caricatures.

    Even if it were stipulated that Christianity is disease rather than health that would not help James, whose secularism is itself a cancer. Tu Quoque is not chemotherapy.

    • > The one consistent thing about James Donald’s writing is an incapacity (or unwillingness, which amounts to the same thing) to express the positions of anyone other than James Donald in anything other than poor caricatures.

      Well Zippy, is racism a meaningful word, referring to something identifiable, significant, sinful, and wicked, or is it not.

      And if it is, why did no one have any need for this word or word of similar meaning until the twentieth century?

      • Racism = white Supremacy such that a Japanese scientist who pens a social critique of black females is accused of being “racist” where racist equals “white supremacist.”

        You will also notice how the alt-rite race realist has taken the approach of being indifferent to the accusation or simply zaps “it” of meaning due to “it” being wielded quite liberally. Both approaches signal an anti-white Supremacy underneath.

      • James:

        You’ve failed to grasp (or, equivalently, pretended to fail to grasp) my position on the subject every other time we’ve discussed it, so I have no particular reason to believe that you’ll grasp it if I repeat it yet again. But for the benefit of other readers who may not have read those other discussions, it goes something like this:

        People engage in unjust or socially unacceptable behaviors for all sorts of reasons. There is nothing particularly notable or objectionable about referring to these using shorthand: for example, “careerism” refers to unjust or socially unacceptable behaviors motivated by a hope of career advancement.

        Furthermore, people have (and do) engage in unjust or socially unacceptable behaviors based on racial motivations. There is nothing particularly notable or objectionable about the shorthand “racism” used to refer to those cases.

        That said, probably the majority of the time the term “racism” is used by modern people, the behaviors the speaker are referring to are neither unjust nor (objectively) socially unacceptable.

        This does not invalidate the fact that at times, people in fact engage in unjust or (objectively) socially unacceptable behaviors out of racial motivation. Just as there are both legitimate and illegitimate accusations of rape, there are legitimate and illegitimate accusations of racism (and careerism, for that matter) – even when the majority of such accusations are illegitimate, and when modern minds are so distorted and darkened that they cannot tell the difference.

      • > > Well Zippy, is racism a meaningful word, referring to something identifiable, significant, sinful, and wicked, or is it not?

        Zippy replies
        > for example, “careerism” refers to unjust or socially unacceptable behaviors motivated by a hope of career advancement.

        No it does not.

        > Furthermore, people have (and do) engage in unjust or socially unacceptable behaviors based on racial motivations. There is nothing particularly notable or objectionable about the shorthand “racism” used to refer to those cases.

        Actual usage does not reflect those definitions. Nor is “racism” analogous to “careerism”. “Careerism” does not imply unjust behavior motivated by desire to advance one’s career. Nor was there any need for such a word as “racism” until the twentieth century. Why not?

      • Careerism specifically refers placing undo importance on one’s career. IIRC, in the Republic, Socrates definition of justice is giving each thing its proper due.

  22. What James is trying to say is that modern “Christianity” and its adherents reject objective Supremacy (and thus ARE anti-Supremacists/equalists) and is deracinated to the point of self-annihilating pathology. Ergo, “it” is not Christianity.

    BUT…

    SO IS Neo’s reaction a deracinated pathology which rejects objective Supremacy.

    So the debate is really meant to obscure the fact that two fundamentally identical entities ARE PUTTING ON a disingenuous act in order to cloak their true disposition as FELLOW “white” anti-white Supremacist of various “racist” degree.

  23. It’s not just that Neo’s reaction rejects Christ as empirical fact, it’s that Neo’s reaction rejects “the perfect man” in mere concept. So one is then left to ponder how these high IQ “white” males are going about to social engineer and “perfect” man? And I think “we” all have witnessed that the best this deracinated high IQ cabal can muster is just some unique blend of radical liberation where “homosexual men” and “secular Christians” and “jewish supremacists” can co-exist and thrive as the new vision of “our” society.

  24. Aslan raised his head and shook his mane. Instantly a glorious feast appeared on the Dwarfs’ knees: pies and tongues and pigeons and trifles and ices, and each Dwarf had a goblet of good wine in his right hand. But it wasn’t much use. They began eating and drinking greedily enough, but it was clear that they couldn’t taste it properly. They thought they were eating and drinking only the sort of things you might find in a Stable. One said he was trying to eat hay and another said he had got a bit of an old turnip and a third said he’d found a raw cabbage leaf. And they raised golden goblets of rich red wine to their lips and said, ‘Ugh! Fancy drinking dirty water out of a trough that a donkey’s been at! Never thought we’d come to this.’ But very soon every Dwarf began suspecting that every other Dwarf had found something nicer than he had, and they started grabbing and snatching, and went on to quarreling, till in a few minutes there was a free fight and all the good food was smeared on their faces and clothes or trodden under foot. But when at last they sat down to nurse their black eyes and their bleeding noses, they all said: ‘Well, at any rate, there’s no Humbug here. We haven’t let anyone take us in The Dwarfs are for the Dwarfs!’

    ‘You see,’ said Aslan. ‘ They will not let us help them. They have chosen cunning instead of belief. Their prison is only in their own minds, yet they are in that prison; and so afraid of being taken in that they can not be taken out.’

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s