Quo Vadis, Reaction?

In the apocryphal Acts of Peter the original The Rock is said to be fleeing Rome and probable death by crucifixion when he meets Jesus on the road. Peter asks, “Quo vadis?” (Where are you going?”), to which He replies, “Romam eo iterum crucifigi” (“I am going to Rome to be crucified again.”), upon which Peter turns around goes to meet his fate.

It’s been almost three and a half years now since I started blogging here about “NeoReaction” (caps in the original) and the “Dark Enlightenment.” The story of that beginning is here. At any rate, I must say that I saw NRx then as an intellectual hobby of sorts, full of people more interesting than the political types I’d been working for, and with, since 1998. I never truly thought, then, that by whatever name, it would be a thing, written up in national magazines and talked about on the Old Media Sunday shows.

Yet, here we are.

It turned out that the label “Alt-right” would be the one that caught fire, with its hint of racist catnip that Big Media just could not resist. Hillary Clinton, in a move that did absolutely nothing to get her elected, opened her trap and gave “Alt-right” about $100 million in free publicity, Donald Trump became President of the United States (I’m still surprised, to be honest), his advisor St. Steve Bannon was/is excoriated daily as the Alt-Right éminence grise racistis (I know, I know) and in the last few days we’ve had a long Andrew Sullivan piece indeed and entire issue of New York magazine devoted to the Reaction, Alt-right and whatever other terms of opprobrium trembling Acela corridor scribes have vomited out.

Since I don’t want to get too confused, and confusing, myself, for the purposes of the rest of this I use the term Reaction as an umbrella to describe something that has surely evolved and changed from the original trichotomy, which was about Neoreaction, not “Alt-right” whatever that is. Still, I find it helpful after all these years:

trefoil2

Where Based Stick Man, Dark Triad Man and the various young blonds fall in there, I’m not sure, but let us proceed.

Where are you going, Reaction?

Breaking things down:

Facts

A list of things  I find basically indisputable (you’re welcome to dispute then, though):

  • Muslims will continue to out-breed everyone else in Western Europe. The conflicts there will simply ratchet up, a little at a time, until we get Soumission. I don’t think there is any amount of persuasion, demotic politics, blog posts and/or Tweets that can change this. Therefor, Traditional Europeans are going to have to form enclaves and possess the real weapons needed to protect them, or…mass deportation sparking civil war as the only real alternatives to converting. This comes to a head within 8-10 years. No Pan-European Right Wing Savior is going to be sent by history to recapitulate the Gates of Vienna. Suck it up for the long haul Europeans–and have as many children as you can, even if it’s just as a big Middle Finger to your would-be conquerors.
  • Eastern Europe is generally going the opposite direction, and will resist Brussels pressure even unto leaving the EU. They actually seem to understand in Warsaw and Budapest that survival is more important than marginal lifestyle gains from trade! Americans and West Europeans will be migrating there in greater and greater numbers over the next decade. Especially men, for the obvious reasons. How long until we read a piece by some freaked-out feminist that advocates immigration laws stopping Western bros from moving over there and mating with the slim, young, pretty homemaking E. Euro girls? Maybe it’s already out there; if not, remember me when you see the first one.
  • For the United States, let’s lay out some more hatefacts: Black people are not going away, they’re going to be basic thread in the fabric for the long term, so don’t write posts that fantasize about how Awesome things would be if they went somewhere else. America is going to be a multi-racial society for our lifetime and more. As in Europe there is going to be more and more movement toward enclaves of the like-minded, both physical and Phyle or Order types, as in The Diamond Age novel that inspired the background and basis of this blog. I posted about this a good while ago, and stand by what I wrote then.

Trump

  • The sharpest minds in the field, like Moldbug and Land, have consistently warned that democracy was the problem, thus amelioration could never be found by Electing the Right People ; none the less, almost all our friends hoped in their hearts of hearts for a Trump victory, as a way to slow the Decline, a breathing space, and in some maybe just a secret tiny hope that he would Drain the Swamp and found the House of Mar a Lago, or whatnot. Sorry, we’re not getting a National Monarchy in the States anytime soon (some good fiction may disagree) and Trump v. Deep State has been one-sided so far…how does one root out the Deep State in the U.S.? American Reaction can only route around it, and is actually doing a fair job of that. If all you do is read the online Reactosphere you wouldn’t know how much is going on behind the scenes and “IRL” – it’s considerable.
  • Any attempt to remove Trump through impeachment or the 25th Amendment route would precipitate considerable pushback by the Deplorables and probably act as an enzyme to rapidly speed up the American societal changes described above. So it is to be hoped for–and the smarter Democrats seem to realize this and are backing off the impeachment talk. Trump will serve his term.
  • Even given that, just keep going to the shooting range on a regular basis and keep restocking your ammo. Seems probable to me that in the next 0.1 to 10 years there’s going to be city-level terrorist act in the U.S. It won’t directly affect 99% of the country, but the supply chain and utilities disruptions and consequent urban riots will.

The Rectification of Names

  • #AltRight – Brett Stevens did an excellent summary piece on the term “Alternative Right” last August. In a previous post he had written: “[T]he Alternative Right is an alternative to white nationalism as much as the Republicans. The goal of the Alternative Right is to establish principles by which civilizations thrive, in contrast to the dying principles upon which we base our current time.”
  • Which to me sounds a great deal like how Neoreaction (#NRx) was defined by some, sometimes. The difference, well summarized in 2015 by Butch Leghorn channeling the dear departed Bryce Laliberte is that Neoreaction is a culture. #AltRight is not a culture. Leghorn also identified, in the broadest sense, #NRx with Land’s Cult of Gnon: Gnon is no less than reality, whatever else is believed. Whatever is suspended now, without delay, is Gnon. Whatever cannot be decided yet, even as reality happens, is Gnon. If there is a God, Gnon nicknames him. If not, Gnon designates whatever the ‘not’ is. Gnon is the Vast Abrupt, and the crossing. Gnon is the Great Propeller.
  • This far, far different than Stevens’ Alt Right. In my Rectification of Names, Land’s Dark Enlightenment is the Base of all the rest, of “Reaction,” #NRx, #AltRight, Human Biodiversity, European New Right, “White Nationalism” (however defined), Archeofuturism and various other people and things in their Infinite Variety.
  • One must first be Darkly Enlightened to understand any of the rest of it. It’s not necessary that one read Land’s series; people had managed to Darkly Enlighten themselves and each other long before that.
omega

Mysterious Awakening Image

By whatever name(s), this phenomenon only began and could only have grown and risen higher after the internet and the rapid memetic mutation it enabled. That’s why it’s so hard to categorize and control. Like water, the harder you try and grasp it, the more it slips through your fingers. But like water, it can gradually erode and even destroy the foundations of a…Cathedral. And it will go where Gnon wills it.

All we as individuals can really do is train. Lifting, shooting, unarmed martial arts, and especially mental training. Conscious control of brain states, logic, memory. Teaching our children and other young people we are in a position to influence All of the Above. “Luck is the residue of design.” Strong individuals are the only strength of the Reactionary Collective Unconscious.

That’s where I’m going. I can feel, I can sense, I know that you’re coming with me, because there is no alternative but surrender.

And that’s not you.

Sanity: A Change in Title and Direction

As of today, the blog is retitled “Sanity in the Diamond Age.” While I still have a distinct fondness for the term, and the ideas, of “Neoreaction” and “NRx” I don’t find myself so interested in writing about them at present.

Continue reading

The Nine Laws, by Ivan Throne – A Review

The Nine Laws by Ivan Throne. Castalia House, 2016

UP FRONT: This is not a detached, completely objective review of something in which I have no personal stake, like Michael Howard’s The Franco-Prussian War or Phillip Wylie’s Generation of Vipers (both of which are superb; you should read them). Instead this review is from someone invested in the book in question, not monetarily but philosophically.

Think for yourself.

I first saw the work of Ivan Throne around the beginning of 2016, and I wrote about his blog in April. Two weeks ago he published his full-length book The Nine Laws.

In brief, The Nine Laws has four main parts: 1) The revelation and explication of the Nine Laws, and a detailed essay on each; 2) The Dark World and [what is?] the Dark Triad Man; 3) Training, and; 4) The Arena of Blood and War (that is, the world of today). But before any further detailed description of the main text, we consider the foundational preface, which was posted in full by Vox Day upon the release of the book. Since it’s also available in the “Look Inside” free access portion of the book on Amazon, see it below. Read and mentally enfold. It will avoid the necessity of my providing any detailed introduction: Continue reading

Fisking Michelle Goldberg, or: The Sorry, Sorry Tears of Progressive Doom-Casters

For those youngsters out there who don’t remember the beautiful, carefree internet days of the early 20’oughts, “Fisking” (or, through long use, “fisking”) is a point-by-point refutation and/or analysis of some piece of writing that, in the view of the fisker, is so inaccurate or outrageous that they just can’t let it go. The eponymous Robert Fisk gave us the verb in a rather roundabout way; in 2003 David Pryce-Jones wrote in The Spectator that

‘fisking’, mean[s] the selection of evidence solely in order to bolster preconceptions and prejudices. Just as cardigans or mackintoshes are named after an inventive individual, so fisking derives from the work of Robert Fisk, the Middle East correspondent of the Independent, stationed these many years in Beirut.

Shortly thereafter, though, “fisking” came to mean the line-by-line analysis, criticism and refutation of a piece of “journalism” full of “preconceptions and prejudices” as exemplified by Mr. Fisk. It was often a tool of bloggers on the right as they made their ways and reputations pushing back against the narrative that the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were failing, but really it was an equal opportunity pastime, for those with the gumption to hack through dense terrain.

This all came to mind  when I read Michelle Goldberg’s Fear, Anxiety, and Depression in the Age of Trump. Continue reading

Matthew Crawford, Philosopher for the Dark Enlightenment

I’ve been reading Matthew Crawford’s book The World Beyond Your Head and am stunned by the relevance and application of his insights to Neoreaction, or, more specifically, the “Dark Enlightenment.”

Crawford is a kind of Mike Rowe with a Ph.D., mca guy who left a think tank to restore and repair motorcycles. I had enjoyed his previous book Shop Class as Soulcraft and several times reading it thought “that point is positively reactionary.” But in World Beyond Your Head he has expanded his net to embrace the whole picture of modern Western WoMan and what ails Hir, and his most withering fire is focused on the “Enlightenment” ideas of radical autonomy and individuality that have produced the atomized consumption culture that the NRx critiques. Crawford is not just pointing out the symptoms here, he eruditely traces the root causes of our ailments back to their intellectual sources; not surprisingly, these sources include some named by Moldbug and Carlyle.

I haven’t even finished the book yet, but it got me excited enough to post this, hoping some of you will want to read the book and discuss it, or promote it to the DE community. Crawford gave an excellent interview last year about his ideas, with a plethora of quotables that will give you a flavor:

INTERVIEWER: Tracing the philosophical roots of our fractured mental lives to the Enlightenment and the modern liberal project, Crawford suggests that our very ability to become individuals is under threat — and likewise the possibility for genuine human flourishing. The World Beyond Your Head is a work of philosophy, and of urgency. Pay attention.
(…)
This comes down to a question of how useful the history of philosophy is for understanding the present. It is generally thought to be in bad taste — too idealistic — to assert anything like a necessary connection between the history of ideas and cultural developments. And indeed there are so many determinants of culture that pure intellectual history misses: natural resources, demographics, sheer dumb accident, etc. But I think it is fair to ask how the fate of Enlightenment ideas in the wider society, where they have trickled down and become cultural reflexes, reflects back on the moment of their original articulation. Viewing the Enlightenment retrospectively in this way, we can discern the seeds of who we have become. We may then develop a fresh take on those thinkers, and new reasons to quarrel with them, ultimately for the sake of self-criticism.
My critique of the anthropology we have inherited from early modern thought has a couple of dimensions. The first is sociological, simply noticing how autonomy-talk is pretty much the only idiom that is available to us for articulating our self-understanding, and how inadequate it is for capturing lived experience. It is the idiom of commencement speeches, of daytime talk shows, and also of marketing: You’re In Charge, as the message on the handrail of the escalator at O’Hare puts it. Living in a culture saturated with vulgar freedomism, you may develop a jaundiced view of the whole project of liberation inaugurated by Descartes and Locke. If you then revisit those thinkers, I think your irritation prepares you to see things you would otherwise miss. You are bringing a prejudice with you, but sometimes a prejudice sharpens your vision. Sensitivity to the present, and giving credit to your own human reactions to it, can bring a new urgency to the history of philosophy. What stands out for me, and for other writers I have learned from, is that the assertions those enlighteners make about how the mind works, and about the nature of the human being, are intimately tied to their political project to liberate us from the authority of kings and priests. In other words, it is epistemology with an axe to grind, polemical at its very root. Yet this original argumentative setting has been forgotten.

This is important, because Enlightenment anthropology continues to inform wide swaths of the human sciences, including cognitive science, despite that discipline’s ritualized, superficial ridicule of Descartes. We need to be more self-aware about the polemical origins of the human sciences, because those old battles bear little resemblance to the ones we need to fight. In particular, it is very difficult to make sense of the experience of attending to something in the world when everything located beyond the boundary of your skull is regarded as a potential source of unfreedom. This is, precisely, the premise behind Kant’s ideal of autonomy: The will must not be “conditioned” by anything external to it. Today we get our Kant from children’s television, and from the corporate messaging of Silicon Valley. Certain features of our contemporary landscape make more sense when you find their antecedents in serious thought, because the tacit assumptions that underlie them were originally explicit assertions.

According to the prevailing notion, freedom manifests as “preference-satisfying behavior.” About the preferences themselves we are to maintain a principled silence, out of deference to the autonomy of the individual. They are said to express the authentic core of the self, and are for that reason unavailable for rational scrutiny. But this logic would seem to break down when our preferences are the object of massive social engineering, conducted not by government “nudgers” but by those who want to monetize our attention. My point in that passage is that liberal/libertarian agnosticism about the human good disarms the critical faculties we need even just to see certain developments in the culture and economy. Any substantive notion of what a good life requires will be contestable. But such a contest is ruled out if we dogmatically insist that even to raise questions about the good life is to identify oneself as a would-be theocrat. To Capital, our democratic squeamishness – our egalitarian pride in being “nonjudgmental” — smells like opportunity.

And this gets back to what I was saying earlier, about how our thinking is captured by obsolete polemics from hundreds of years ago. Subjectivism — the idea that what makes something good is how I feel about it — was pushed most aggressively by Thomas Hobbes, as a remedy for civil and religious war: Everyone should chill the hell out. Live and let live. It made sense at the time. This required discrediting all those who claim to know what is best. But Hobbes went further, denying the very possibility of having a better or worse understanding of such things as virtue and vice. In our time, this same posture of value skepticism lays the public square bare to a culture industry that is not at all shy about sculpting souls – through manufactured experiences, engineered to appeal to our most reliable impulses.

th

Philosophical facilitator of “Black Lives Matter”

The ongoing “creative destruction” of capitalism celebrated on the Right clears away settled forms of social life. Cultural progressives find their work made easier by this; they get to re-engineer the human landscape with less interference. They do this by moving the threshold of offense ever lower, creating new sensitivities and then policing them. The institutions of civil society (universities, corporations, etc.) then scramble to catch up with the new dispensation and demonstrate their allegiance to it — by expanding their administrative reach into ever more intimate corners of the psyche. This dynamic has given us a stunning expansion of coercive power over the individual, but it has nothing to with “the government.”
That should be enough to whet your appetite for the whole meal. I think Crawford deserves much more attention from the whole spectrum of Dark Enlightenment thinkers, and this post is my bid for him to begin to get it.

The Failure of the “Social Sciences” is the Failure of Progressivism

There has been no dearth of commentary in the last two weeks on the now-infamous “Reproducibility Crisis.” The original in Science was about psychological studies, but no one with half a brain doubts that reproducibility (and fraud) problems extend to sociology, criminology, Gender and Ethnic “Studies,” and even nutrition and health.

Among the more intelligent looks, Scott Alexander thoroughly explains yes, it’s a crisis in response to this head fake in the NYT by some psych prof with her fingers in her ears. Steve Sailer, a former market researcher, wonders if psychology is more like astronomy, or marketing research? The latter only wants results now; psychology(in a pretend quest to be physics) seeks Permanent Laws of the Entire Universe.

Sailer does point out that not all areas of psych seem to have a replication crisis (TRIGGER WARNING – CRIMETHINK AHEAD!):

By the way, some fields in psychology, most notably psychometrics, don’t seem to have a replication crisis. Their PR problem is the opposite one: they keep making the same old predictions, which keep coming true, and everybody who is anybody therefore hates them for it, kill-the-messenger style. For example, around the turn of the century, Ian Deary’s team tracked down a large number of elderly individuals who had taken the IQ test given to every 11-year-old in Scotland in 1932 to see how their lives had turned out. They found that their 1932 IQ score was a fairly good predictor. Similarly, much of The Bell Curve was based on the lives of the huge National Longitudinal Study of Youth 1979 sample up through 1990. We now have another quarter a century of data with which to prove that The Bell Curve doesn’t replicate. And we even have data on thousands of the children of women in the original Bell Curve sample. This trove of data is fairly freely available to academic researchers, but you don’t hear much about findings in The Bell Curve failing to replicate.

And there you are friends: It’s not exactly a reproducibility crisis, it’s a crisis of Progressivism. The entire Prog edifice, that’s supposed to be based on a concrete foundation of Science, is tottering quite badly, because social science is full of big cracks that are widening daily.

DSM_Building_Collapse_2013

This reminded me of something I wrote over four years ago, from a different angle, while ruminating on some of Robert Heinlein’s predictions, in both non-fiction articles and in his science fiction books and stories. I’m an unabashed Heinlein fan, but that has little to do with the piece, which is reproduced (slightly edited) below. It’s not about problems with methodology or even fraud in the social sciences. It’s about their abject failure to deliver what they promised–which is still true as of noon today:

(Original written in May 2012)

The Failure (So Far) of Heinlein’s Vision of “Social Science”

I recently read an article at The Weekly Standard by Andrew Ferguson, “The New Phrenology.” Subtitled “How liberal psychopundits understand the conservative brain,” the piece goes into some detail about the numerous news stories most of us have probably seen lately, with titles like that of Chris Mooney’s book The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science—and Reality.

With that background, I want to make explicit that this is not a political post, nor is it an analysis of the psychology of any particular group. The meta point of “The New Phrenology” has been made powerfully by a number of others–the current state of the “social sciences” is barely scientific, after 100 years or more of effort. The mere gloss of scientism is now provided by colored pictures of brain images, publication in peer reviewed journals and the use, and misuse, of statistics.

One hundred years ago Robert A. Heinlein was about to turn five and people of a wide variety of political and philosophical views, from Freud to H. G. Wells to Woodrow Wilson, believed that economics, psychology and sociology were taking their first firm steps toward becoming true sciences, where national and world economies would be managed in steady prosperity without booms and busts, criminals and the mentally ill would be reformed or healed through drugs and therapy, and populations would be managed toward happiness through education, advertising and techniques like mass hypnosis and official propaganda. Eventually, all of these efforts would be put on a firm base of physics and neuroscience and mathematical statistics, with formulas fed into computing devices and the right answers for societal management coming out.

These ideas can be seen clearly in many of Heinlein’s early works. Indeed, the Future History takes place against a background where this social management is often simply assumed and only mentioned en passim when necessary. In other instances, it is made explicit as an important part of the story, as with the extensive explanation of economic management and Monroe Alpha Cliff’s work near the beginning of Beyond This Horizon or the debate about using mass hypnosis to recondition the populace toward freedom at the end of “If This Goes On–“. In Methuselah’s Children there is mention of statistically rating the impact of words, and the strategic planting of useful rumors based on mathematical formulae. For a good short explication of this idea under the general heading of “social engineering” see the “Logos” section of this article on “If This Goes On–“ by Bill Patterson.

Here in 2012 I would argue that these fields have made very limited progress toward being “science.” In economics, the worldwide Big Bust of the last four years provides compelling evidence that legions of Ph.D. economists are subject to forces far beyond their control, their manipulations of money and interest too much, too soon or too little, too late. Criminals are still with us, in plenty, and while the soma of a wide variety of “anti-depressants” masks the symptoms of perhaps 20% of the American populace, all the billions and indeed, trillions of dollars expended on “scientific research” into education, reform of prisoners and the proper raising of children seems to have merely, mostly maintained the status quo ante in these areas.

But back to “The New Phrenology.” Mostly believing that the mind is just a useful, or useless fiction, the reductionists have deployed the truly wonderful tools of modern medical imaging in the study of the brain and declared the colored pictures taken therefrom the answer to a broad number of questions. Why do people do what they do? Hook them to a forest of electrodes and ask them question or show them some naughty pictures, see what lights up, gather some stats and you’ve got yourself a peer reviewed journal article that will help further your career path in the Academe!

I do not claim that this kind of study is necessarily useless, biased, wasteful or harmful. It may be that discoveries from these techniques really will result in a better life for us and our children.

So far though, what we’ve got is that drug users’ pleasure centers light up when they use, that brain scan color pictures prove that there is no free will, and that political” conservatives” are a fearful, authoritarian bunch. I don’t claim to know the entire field–I just read the newspapers, and that’s what I’m seeing.

It’s a long, long way from the vision of Heinlein and others, during those early, heady days, that all of this research would eventually give us scientific solutions to social problems.

Another side of Heinlein, the rugged proponent of individualism, liberty and the generally untamable nature of Man, would probably be delighted at these developments. So far, that’s the side that seems to be winning in the real world.

To sum up: Those of us who have studied Progressivism in its evolution from “Enlightenment” through Marx through Liberal Democracy through Woodrow Wilson, FDR, the Great Society, Feminism and LGBTIQ understand that it always claimed Science! as its support, as its very foundation. Its opponents were always “theocrats”, “ignorant, uneducated louts”, “behind the times”, and, as above, “Republican science-deniers.”
The Reproducibility Crisis is not just a “problem” in psychology, it is an existential threat to the Progressive worldview. Without the club of “science” and actual results backing their conceits up, Progs have nothing real to support their right to rule.
Of course they are doing, and will do, their best to explain away, confound, obfuscate and deny the problems exposed recently in the “social sciences.” With the help of Cathedral media and universities they’ll partially succeed. These recent developments are not a killing blow to progressivism, but a cut with a few drops of blood oozing out.
The effect of a thousand such cuts is left as an exercise for the reader.

Building a Neoreationary “Tribe”

The NRx is gradually coalescing, making more personal contacts “IRL”, in public and private forums. The NRx, is, to an extent, becoming coherent.

Something that will be useful moving forward is not necessarily The Official Neoreactionary Position® on political or social questions so much as an increasing sense of tribal feeling. In the future I’ll cover how ritual and initiation could fit in with this good. For today, let us touch on the tribal history of the NRx.

(As inspired by this post from Mountain Guerilla):

You see, one of the characteristics that defines a tribe, both anthropologically and practically, is a shared history, whether real or mythic. This history may be ancestral. Generally, all members of a kin-group tribe will be able to trace their ancestry back to a common individual, but often—thanks to the phenomena of intermarriage and adoption in tribal societies, those ancestral bonds are as likely to be mythic as they are to be connected by DNA. In sodalities, like guilds and war-band type tribes of course, it’s almost a given that the shared ancestry of the tribe—the nucleus that makes them a tribe, their “mutual exclusivity,” is going to be more mythic than real.

That’s okay. Why is that okay? I mean, isn’t that a lie?

Let’s back up, for just a moment, and look again at what defines a tribe. A tribe is a social unit that possesses something that defines the group’s boundaries, but also that separates it from the rest of humanity. It’s the “us vs. them” that Jack Donovan discusses in his writing. I refer to it as “mutual exclusivity.” It’s that je ne sais quoi that defines the boundaries of “our” group from others. It doesn’t need to be real, as long as it’s real to the group.

That mutual exclusivity, typically, can be defined as the shared history, ancestry, values, traditions, and customs, of the people of the tribe. Some may be shared with other tribes, but the specifics of how OUR tribe recognizes or exercises them is different enough that it separates us from them. In pre-Christianization Europe, for one example, pretty much all tribes that are now recognized as having belonged to the Germanic linguistic group—the Cherusci, the Allemani, the Marcomanni, the Franks, Angles, Saxons, and Jutes; the Vandals and Gepids, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Burgundians, and Lombards, were “Germanic.” Their languages were all connected. Their cultures shared similarities, but their cultures were not identical. They were separate tribes, even as they shared common cultural characteristics.

Today however, we’re going to discuss one particular characteristic of tribalism and neo-tribalism, the immense value of the shared mythic ancestry of a tribe.

In what can be defined as an “intentional tribe,” such as a guild or war-band type association historically, or in our post-modern context, the intentional grouping of like-minded families for mutual assistance, where shared ancestry is not—and almost cannot—be certain, the mythic ancestry, and the lessons that can be gained from claiming a shared mythic ancestry cannot be overemphasized.

An example of this can be seen in the military, with the adoption of unit lineages. The United States Army says the following about the lineage of the Ranger Regiment: “The U.S. Army Ranger history predates the Revolutionary War.” Now, BY DEFINITION, nothing of the United States can predate the Revolution. So, by citing Majors Church and Rogers, fighting for the British, in the French and Indian War—especially considering Major Rogers’ later loyalties—as ancestral figures for the U.S. Army’s Rangers, is the very definition of a mythic ancestry for the unit. That doesn’t, however, change the fact that the exploits of Rogers’ Rangers, for one, have long served as a catalyst for awesome achievements by members of the unit.

The Mythic Ancestry of the Neoreaction

Let’s consider what “mythic ancestry” we might consciously choose. Our first thought is naturally Unqualified Reservations (UR) and Mencius Moldbug.

It is certainly a lovely coincidence that “UR” pronounced as a word sounds like the birthplace of Abraham, which would surely be a suitable beginning of our mythic ancestry, but we’ll consider that line “taken.” Neoreaction is not exactly a of new Judeo-Christian-Muslim cult, after all.

If I recall correctly, my own exposure to Moldbug began when I ran across this reference by Arnold Kling back in ought-nine – just about six years ago to the day. I also recall immediately blowing a couple or four work hours delving in to the UR archives. I admit I’ve never really been the same, since.

Moldbug and his oeuvre itself is, however, too recent and too passivist to make a functional mythic ancestry. He only began UR, as such, on April 23, 2007. His heroes and mentors are mostly gentlemen of the 19th and prior centuries, which is promising, but generally writers and thinkers rather than men of action. The collected works of Carlyle, for instance, are extremely important and influential in our community, but building a mythos upon writings just doesn’t work for me. Moldbug seems to have a healthy respect for the Cavaliers, and they were men of action, of glorious battle and brave deeds…but they lost.

28 June, 1098

I believe that we ought to consider the beginning of the beginning of the NRx as…28 June, 1098.

The Battle of Antioch.

SiegeofAntioch

A diverse group of the men of the West, starving, depleted, surrounded by Muslims; in other words, London a few years from now:

On Monday, 28 June, the crusaders emerged from the city gate, with Raymond of Aguilers carrying the Holy Lance before them. Kerbogha hesitated against his generals’ pleadings, hoping to attack them all at once rather than one division at a time, but he underestimated their size. He pretended to retreat to draw the crusaders to rougher terrain, while his archers continuously pelted the advancing crusaders with arrows. A detachment was dispatched to the crusader left wing, which was not protected by the river, but Bohemond quickly formed a seventh division and beat them back. The Turks were inflicting many casualties, including Adhemar’s standard-bearer, and Kerbogha set fire to the grass between his position and the crusaders, but this did not deter them: they had visions of three saints riding along with them: St. George, St. Demetrius, and St. Maurice. The battle was brief and disastrous for the Turks. Duqaq deserted Kerbogha and this desertion reduced the great numerical advantage the Muslim army had over its Christian opponents. Soon the defeated Muslim troops were in panicked retreat.

I see the basis, the beginning, of a tribal myth here. The First Crusaders were the Neoreactionaries of their time. They just didn’t know it! I find this no more of a stretch than the U.S. Army claiming soldiers of The Crown as their own.

Following up on events after AD 1098, as above, I’m game to claim the Cavaliers as part of our Glorious Adopted History. Before and after that, fully open to suggestions!