Strangely, My Comment Was Not Approved

After I posted about White Nationalism I noticed Word Press had some suggestions on related topics and posts, and had a look at a few things. This caught my eye:

Fairy tales for privileged kids: “the anti-white racist”

Well, I think we know what’s coming, do we not? However, the opener was exceptionally…amusing:

A disclaimer before we begin: what I’m about to talk about here are facts. This means they are not up for debate. There are not multiple sides to this story. You are not owed a “reasonable discussion” about this, nor will I “agree to disagree” with you. I’m talking about things that are abjectly, incontrovertibly true. Okay? Okay.

Let’s start things off with a little mathematical proof:

(A) RACISM = [racial prejudice] * [institutional power]

(B) SUM OF [institutional power] held by black people = 0

sub (B) into (A)

RACISM against white people = [racial prejudice] * 0

therefore RACISM against white people = 0

Well, sure. The facts are the facts, after all. Incontrovertibly. Anyway, you can probably write the rest in your mind yourself, obviating the need to actually read the entirely predictable drivel.

However, I did read through and even was moved to comment, simply because some sense of mischief was stirred. Every echo-chamber needs a kick from time to time, if only to see what falls out…so I left this comment:

When you get to define the “facts” that are not up for debate a priori, you can certainly have a real good time for the rest of your piece.

Let’s take one step back; why is all institutional power held by whites? Did everyone else just allow it to happen? Was everyone else defeated by white technology that whites were just lucky to acquire because of Germs, Guns and Steel?

I’d strongly advise you not to look at this too closely. It’s much safer to remain in the echo chamber here, railing against the cruel and unexplained (don’t look too closely!) FACT that whites Run It.

There’s a reason that Colonel Kurtz is left muttering “The horror! The horror!” in Heart of Darkness, but that’s just some story written by a Dead White Male, so I’m sure it has nothing to show you. Don’t. Look. Too. CLOSELY.

Strangely, after sitting in moderation for an hour or so, my comment disappeared. My comment was not APPROVED. However, if Ms. Kahn would care to comment here, I will heartily approve whatever she wants to say, even if it’s a painful, invective-laden personal attack on my penis, whiteness, or parentage.

Bring it on. Somehow, I have my doubts we’ll ever hear from her again.

Nationalisms, White and Otherwise

In the comments to my Alaska post there is a link to “Pioneer Little Europe” (PLE) provided by Alan J. Perrick. As promised there, I’d like to expand on why I don’t consider myself a “White Nationalist”; simply linking to Moldbug’s massive essay is not explanation enough. As usual, MM allows his sense of play and irony to run in this piece; it’s not like one could somehow give the sense of it in a tweet. And yet:

I am not a white nationalist because I don’t find white nationalism useful or effective. I don’t feel it helps me accurately perceive reality. In fact, I think it distorts reality. And I believe white nationalism is a very ineffective political device for solving the very real problems about which it complains.(…)

And, more to the point, what is the one ideology least likely to convince them to change their nefarious ways? What is the system of thought that Brahmins are most powerfully inoculated against? White nationalism! It’s a strategy that couldn’t be better designed to fail. It is almost eerie in its profound and incurable ineffectiveness.(…)

At its best, white nationalism offers a sensible description of a general problem. This problem certainly exists, and it falls under the larger category of bad government. (If allowing the old cities of North America to be overrun and rendered largely uninhabitable by murderous racist gangs isn’t bad government, really, I’m not sure what is.)

But white nationalism offers no formula at all for how to transition from bad government to good government. Indeed, to the extent that white nationalism succeeds in anything, it motivates its enemies, keeping everyone stuck in the same old destructive patterns.

So we have the twin points: Whatever its virtues for Whites qua Whites, White Nationalism isn’t effective and it misses the bigger picture. In my view, Black Nationalism misses the point in the same way for Blacks. Etc.

There’s no doubt at all that generally races, tribes, families and other human groupings are most comfortable around their own. If those calling themselves White Nationalists want to form a community in Kalispell, Montana, best of luck to them.

There’s nothing, it seems, that would blow up one’s reputation in the Red Pill/Dark Enlightenment/Neoreactionary community faster than admitting to being some kind of Universalist (The horror. The horror) but here goes nothing.

I’m a Catholic; just two short years ago I was baptized into the Church, and I take very seriously the doctrine that every human being has in him the Imago Dei – The Image of God. That there are bad people, there is no doubt. There are horrible people, instruments of evil; some of them are black gangsters and murderers in Baltimore and Philadelphia. Some are white gangsters and murderers in Moscow and London. One can argue, and plenty have, that black people are statistically more likely to be gangsters and murderers, but that’s not the point, in this context. I surely agree with Derbyshire’s “The Talk” and have and will make these points to my own son, because they are intelligent precautions dealing with realities.

On the other hand, the nation (city-state) I want to live will be smaller than the United States, and much more focused. Whatever kind of government it has will be ruthless in dealing with seriously anti-social behavior and will not subsidize single motherhood and unemployment. In these conditions I, personally, welcome Jewish physicists, Chinese engineers, Japanese cartoonists, Argentinian dance instructors and Black American former Green Berets, if they’re superb contributors to the polis (did I miss any stereotypes? Apologies).

I don’t want these people because of some idiotic commitment to diversity, or, for Christ’s sweet sake, vibrancy. I don’t at all believe that having a rainbow of beautiful colors and sexual orientations is necessary or desirable in a group.

But at heart, I’m an individualist. Take a shot at that, if you like, and tell me where I’m wrong. But I practice discrimination, not prejudice. I draw lines, and if you’re out of bounds because you’re a thief, a thug or a low-impulse-control lout, I’ll deal with you on that basis. But as an individual, I’ll give you a chance to show me who you are, and if you’re good I’ll associate with you to our mutual advantage no matter where your parents are from.

Probably, most of the people who will end up in my kind of place will be White. Certainly, I feel most comfortable around people like me, just like everyone else who isn’t fooling himself because of the mindwashing he’s absorbed from Cultural Marxism. But I’m not a White Nationalist.

Review: “What is Neoreaction?”

What is Neoreaction: Ideology, Social-Historical Evolution, and the Phenomena of Civilization by Bryce Laliberte

“History since Christ is the history of Catholicism.”

With this opening statement Bryce Laliberte, the AnarchoPapist, lays down a challenge. He tells you, explicitly, that he is imposing a narrative, that all narratives are imposed.

This extensive essay (really, a short book, but Laliberte says “essay” and I’ll follow) is an interesting mix of traditional forms. For hundreds of years after the invention of printing “pamphlets” were a very popular medium with which to disseminate ideas, smaller in format and relatively inexpensive to produce and distribute compared to full-length books, and frequently pseudonymously published when they contained unorthodox, dissident ideas.

“What is Neoreacation?” is a modern-day pamphlet, published on Amazon and yes, relatively inexpensive. The author has chosen to make it, as he writes, “somewhere between a treatise and a manifesto” but in my opinion it does not suffer by not being “one thing or another”: It’s not a just a list of doctrines or a 23-point party program, or a summary of the personalities and trends in Neoreaction so far. What Laliberte has attempted here is an exposition of the ideology of Neoreaction and, just as importantly, the occult motivation identified with it. At the same time he compares and contrasts it with modernism and its occult motivation.

He succeeds.

A word on terminology; Laliberte does a very good job of explaining what he means when using possibly unfamiliar or obscure terms. The read is not easy, though. The author has no fear in using technical language and socio-psychological terms that may not be familiar to the reader. That is why the dictionary was invented. Indeed, since this a Kindle publication, every word can be looked up with a touch. If Laliberte uses the word somewhat differently than the dictionary indicates, that is the sign of something that will stretch the mind a bit from its comfort zone, which is all the better.

For many years this reviewer worked in positions where his skill at reading large quantities of information and digesting them into concise one-page summaries earned his bread and cheese. “What is Neoreaction?”:

Neoreaction is an ideology, not a political philosophy. This important point is often misunderstood by those with a merely surface familiarity and is driven home here with gusto. Its raison d’etre is to guide us toward a society or civilization that is compatible with human flourishing.

The original Reaction was to the excesses of the French Revolution. In some respects, all “progressivism” through today stems from the same Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité that was being reacted to shortly after 1789. However, as Laliberte points out “progressivists of the 21st century are decidedly distinct form their forebears.” Indeed, the rot on our “elite” college campuses and the fear of the personal and economic consequences of speaking out about race, feminism or homosexuality were unknown to earlier opponents of “progress.” Thus, Neoreaction.

What is also Neo is the use of evolutionary theory and biopolitics in support of the Neoreactionary ideology. The author argues that progressive society succeeds in the short run by draining the intellectual and physical resources of itself in order to impose its unnatural egalitarianism. While it may be old news to the well-read, modern conservatives are merely another species of progressive, as anyone with eyes to see would conclude when looking at, say, the U.S. Congress or the British Tories of today.

Ultimately, Laliberte’s big idea is that Neoreaction is an ideology that provides the framework, or the foundation as it were, of a healthy society. It does not prescribe detailed social arrangements, for the optimum of these may vary between populations; what’s best for Singapore may not be for Salt Lake City. It does not prescribe how may branches of government there shall be, or whether there should be a “government” in the classical sense at all. These are the details that are argued and discussed on Neoreactionary blogs and fora daily. Laliberte has laid some steady cornerstones here, as it were.

The implementation of these ideas, as noted on this blog on multiple occasions, is a different discussion. Laliberte seems to agree with me that a reform of the current liberal democratic paradigm with a girding of (neo)reaction is highly unlikely. The levels of debt and dissatisfaction, the fragility of so much of the world’s food and energy infrastructures, lead me believe that some sort of “collapse” is inevitable. It won’t necessarily be a spectacular end-of-the-world in flames event; the “collapse” of the Soviet Union in 1990-91 is a reasonable estimate. Hopefully, not many more people will die on the altar of Progress, after the 100 million killed in the 20th century.

In any event, “What is Neoreaction” provides a basis for the rebuilding in whatever form it takes. If you’re interested in a world more suited to humans, I highly recommend it.

Buy it here.

Possible NRx Territories: Alaska

(The first of a series; places that are the most likely to be congenial to the establishment of a more or less neoreactionary regime).

I have lived in Alaska for many years, and have grown to appreciate some reasons it may be a congenial place to establish some type of sovereign neoreactionary order. These same reasons apply to certain other parts of the U.S., and other parts of the world, which we’ll look at in later entries.

An earlier post outlined some practical aspects of establishing a sovereign neoreationary regime/government (or a reasonable facsimile thereof), and some possibilities:

I see these options, either currently available or becoming available during the historical/technological developments of the next 10-20 years: 1) Taking over the machinery of an existing nation-state; 2) Taking over the machinery of an existing U.S. state (something like the Free State Project); 3) Seasteading/Spacesteading 4) The NR as a world-distributed phyle a la The Diamond Age; 5) A city-state in America 3.0.

From my U.S. point of view, 1) is highly, highly unlikely, 3) only a little less so, 4) is already happening a little at a time (here’s a draft Oath you might want to consider); and some combination of 2) and 5) seem to be not only reasonable but practical, when the time is ripe.

So, a few words about the Free State Project are in order, because I was seriously considering joining back when it got going in 2001-2. There were lively message boards with a lot of smart people and witty talk regarding where and how to try and set it up; the main problem turned out to be…democracy. Wyoming was the completely obvious choice based on population and culture, but apparently a bunch of East Coasters didn’t want to be in some place so far separated from the Kulturny and New Hampshire was voted in. Since that date, of course, perhaps 10 Blue Staters have arrived in NH for every Libertarian, completely blowing the idea–which some of us pointed out back then.

Anyway, they throw a good party.

The general method of concentrating agreeable people into a small geographical area is a good one. Web communities are great organizing tools, but eventually you have to turn off the computer and go outside to real life, and if that includes graffitied, littered, unsafe streets, no sense of community with your neighbors, high taxes flowing to those who contribute little…well, that’s the lot of many millions in the vibrant, multicultural areas of Europe, North America, Australia and other spots around the globe. Friends on the internet can help one bear these circumstances, but no one wants to live like this for a lifetime. If a really safe, prosperous, ethical and free community was established somewhere in the world I have no doubt that tens or hundreds of thousands of the right kind of people would want to come.

So, why Alaska? What are the specific characteristics that might make possible the formation of a neoreactionary polity (city-state? We shall leave that discussion for later).

  • Existing majority independent/conservative/libertarian political culture (e.g., voted heavily against Obama).
  • Huge undeveloped areas of land available for settlement, if developing a completely new community is contemplated (FedGov owns most of it, but it can’t even stop people from blowing dope all day, as of now).
  • A number of pleasant small towns and small cities, where a concentration of NRs would soon have the ability to run things (and a good many locals may already be aligned).
  • A climate cold enough or wet enough (in some areas, both) to screen out the “sunshine patriots” and “fairweather friends.” This is not a bug, but a feature, as only the dedicated are going to leave the temperate zones.
  • Tremendous natural beauty, wilderness, fish and game resources.
  • Physical separation from the continental U.S. (while this is more psychological than real, there are no “progressive” states that would freak out over some “fascists” setting up a polity nearby).

And of course, there are also obstacles and possible negative factors:

  • Alaska’s current economy is heavily dependent on oil (high world prices) and FedGov net tax inflows. Both of these are subject to sudden disruption and change, which could lead to economic depression. Any potential NR community needs an economic plan to be prosperous independent of these factors.
  • Because of geography, distance and transportation issues Alaska is a high cost area for goods and services (though perhaps no higher than Manhattan). There is almost no manufacturing base. Most modern products and foodstuffs must be imported from long distances. Any NR polity or city/state would be vulnerable to economic and physical blockade.
  • Distance from rest of “civilization” would probably discourage a large proportion of potential residents, even compared to Wyoming or other Western U.S. location.

Alaska has some unique and intriguing features to offer as a base for the Neoreaction (and fellow travelers who might not adopt the label but would like to live in the community).

Some of these same pluses and minuses apply to other remote/rural locations, both in the U.S. and in other nations. I would be most interested to hear comments on Alaska, and suggestions for other geographical areas to consider.