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

You Don’t Know Jack. I Don’t Know Jack.

(I wrote this back in 2007, thus the reference to “The Surge.” But the principles apply now as much as then. In fact, I think they apply MORE now. The increased use of “social media” has merely amplified the bloviation x100 from the ancient times of 2007. In these Presidential Election Crazy Times I thought I needed a reminder of how little I know about the candidates. I truly have NO IDEA what any of them will eventually do when elected. God Bless the United States of America!)

The Poetry of Don Rumsfeld:

As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don’t know
We don’t know.
–Donald Rumsfeld–
Continue reading


I haven’t posted anything here for over two months and am distancing myself from most of the hoopla on the web for now.

First there was Bruce Charlton’s Addicted to Distraction. Then, the other day there was Tony Schwartz’s Addicted to Distraction. That was the final nail in something I’ve been thinking about for awhile. Not disconnecting, but at least disengaging. From the so-called news, from my hourly perusal of Drudge, from obsessively tweeting out links to stuff I thought important. Really, it wasn’t.

Yesterday I was checking out some personnel files where I work and I had a chance to read my own hiring file, the one they put together on me after interviews. Three of my former superiors gave my overall performance, out of 10: 10, 9.5, 9/10. Which is nice, except for the last 10 years I’ve spent like four fucking hours a day on the web reading “news” and making blog posts and so on.

I’ve been coasting on my IQ and natural ability to read, evaluate and brief information very quickly for my whole life. I mean, since kindergarten. I haven’t really applied myself to shit, and here I am at 55 making a solid upper-middle-class salary and living large.

I sure as hell don’t want to die in 15 or 20 or 30 years and think, as the lights go out, “I sure did keep up on useless internet shit.” It’s not all useless, of course, but the trick is knowing the difference…

I’m writing a book about “Sanity.” If I ever complete it I’ll get back here and flog it.

Meantime, you might want to check out Tony Schwartz and Jim Loehr’s book The Power of Full Engagement. One of the authors of the book on full engagement found it nearly impossible to quit his internet addiction.

“Full engagement” is what’s needed, all right. But not on fighting with SJWs, winning internet threads or discussing “news.”

I still might read and comment on your blog, occasionally, so don’t go soft, my niggas.

Recommended Readings

Lucky for me so many men and women of genius have written these things and all I have to do is share them.

From my friends at the Traditional Britain Group, the text of the famous “Road to National Suicide” speech  by Enoch Powell, MP, 21 January 1977. You’ve probably heard of it and surely it’s germane to the current situation:

Both the general law and its Gresham’s corollary point, in contemporary circumstances, towards the resort to physical violence, in the form of firearms or high explosive, as being so probable as to be predicted with virtual certainty. The experience of the last decade and more, all round the world, shows that acts of violence, however apparently irrational or inappropriate their targets, precipitate a frenzied search on the part of the society attacked to discover and remedy more and more grievances, real or imaginary, among those from the violence is supposed to emanate or on whose behalf it is supposed to be exercised. Those commanding a position of political leverage would then be superhuman if they could refrain from pointing to the acts of terrorism and, while condemning them, declaring that further and faster concessions and grants of privilege are the only means to avoid such acts being repeated on a rising scale. We know that those who thus argue will always find a ready hearing. This is what produces the gearing effect of terrorism in the contemporary world, yielding huge results from acts of violence perpetrated by minimal numbers. It is not, I repeat again and again, that the mass of a particular population are violently or criminally disposed. Far from it; that population soon becomes itself the prisoner of the violence and machinations of an infinitely small minority among it. Just a few thugs, a few shots, a few bombs at the right place and time—and that is enough for disproportionate consequences to follow.

The late Lawrence Auster published The Path to National Suicide in 1990. Well done, Larry, but of course it’s already far too late to take the actions you outlined there…RIP.

I highly recommend Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength which I recently read. Nothing is more valuable to the individual NRx Warrior than Will(power). If you read one “self-improvement” book this year make it his one. I’ll post a review and summary soon.

Lastly for now, if you’d like to understand the origin and early history of “The Singularity,” indeed, the origin of almost everything that’s happening in the Data Era, read Turing’s Cathedral: The Origins of the Digital Universe. For the record, I’m a John von Neumann fanboy. What an interesting man! As Richard Feynman wrote:

von Neumann gave me an interesting idea: that you don’t have to be responsible for the world that you’re in. So I have developed a very powerful sense of social irresponsibility as a result of von Neumann’s advice. It’s made me a very happy man ever since.


Demography and Dysgenics: The Challenge of An Ebbing Tide

Since I couldn’t have said it better myself; in addition to the whole great post, this is very much in line with my thinking:

“What is the solution to this ebbing tide of human potential? Nothing more complex or difficult than the assembly of interconnected networks of resilient and dangerous communities (R&D Communities). Such networked communities serve as repositories of existing knowledge and technologies, and provide a place for open inquiry and experimentation/innovation.

“When the global demographic crisis has worked itself out — no doubt in a very gruesome manner, thanks to Putin and other latter day Napoleons — a significant number of R&D communities will be in position to re-build technological and scientific civilisation.”

al fin next level

Global Ageing  Note:  Most Russian Males Die Before Reaching 65 Global Ageing
Note: Most Russian Males Die Before Reaching 65
The developed world is getting older. If a nation can attract very high quality immigrants, it will better withstand the ageing and dying away of its high IQ populations. But the nations that are inundated by violent, non-productive, low IQ populations — via immigration and via differential birthrates of immigrants — will feel the pain of paralytic contraction, increasing poverty, and ever higher rates of violent crime.

Brian Wang provides an interesting graphical look at the future of US demographics in the 21st century.:

The non-Hispanic white population is projected to peak in 2024, at 199.6 million, up from 197.8 million in 2012. Unlike other race or ethnic groups, however, its population is projected to slowly decrease, falling by nearly 20.6 million from 2024 to 2060.

Meanwhile, the Hispanic population would more than double, from 53.3 million in…

View original post 857 more words

I Have Seen the Fnords

And you should consider (think carefully; the consequences are unclear!) seeing the fnords, too.

I know we’re all very sober Neoreactionaries here, hard men of staunch character, Men of Iron.

But the World (Die Welt) is not merely molecules and atoms and quarks, for God’s sake. What the hell is a quark, anyway? As Feynman almost said–it’s a theorie. Spend more time on building your mind and less on quarks. Die Welt includes all matter, all energy, all thought, from Beginning to End.

If I had my way, all the people who want to talk to me, talk seriously, would read this seven times.

Remember: True Initiation never ends.

(We intend to return more practical matters, like thrashing our enemies, next week. But this needed to be said. If it didn’t make any sense to you, fear not; it usually doesn’t).

Maybe We Don’t Need to Win, Just Have Our Own Vine and Fig Tree

A few days ago I made some future references, quick comments and excerpts on others’ posts and ideas that needed fleshing out. The problem is that in the meantime more ideas and posts come down the pike from the many fine bloggers and commenters around the NRx. It’s like drinking from a fire hose, eating an elephant, among other tired cliches.

Then one swallow/bite at a time. Free Northerner gave us a Winning Conservative Strategy and as a former “political professional” I very much enjoyed his ideas, and especially visualizing what they would look like in practice. The picture of a bunch of sign-waving agitators in front of some Prog CEO’s home, yelling at him every time he takes out the garbage, is rather delicious, indeed. A certain portion of the ideas in Free Northerner’s piece were put into practice by the late St. Breitbart, though sadly none of his heirs seem to have stirred up near the trouble for the Left that he did, personally.

The incisive Henry Dampier then did his own spin on what he calls FN’s “laudable goals.” Bottom line: It would probably cost a lot more than a mere $142 million to merely make the effort as outlined, and:

  • Facing an enemy with far greater material resources, it is necessary instead to use unorthodox methods rather than direct confrontation to disrupt and destroy the systempunkts within their economic machinery.
  • Direct confrontation can be easily contained by the left: it is like a frontal assault on a fixed position with a predictable result.
  • The left can trivially contain any direct attack, because it is politically well-fortified against such attacks. It is like trying to attack Rommel’s tank divisions with a bunch of drunk amateurs driving golf carts. They will break at the first sight of the Panzers, and it is not responsible to tell them that they have a chance to win against him.

Agreed. To restate it in a slightly different direction, I don’t believe it’s possible to change society (including the whole of “The West” within that) through some kind of educational, political or propaganda action, given current conditions. As long as Real Housewives, NFL football and internet porn are available for the masses, as long as the grocery stores have some reasonable levels of foodstuffs, as long as the stations have gasoline, and, especially, as long as the welfare, food stamp and unemployment EBT cards still work, there will not be the levels of general desperation in the big democracies for the kind of mass scale upheaval that would result in regime change and a reorganization on nationwide levels to some kind of fiscally conservative, soundly moral society.

Having gotten this aired, it’s actually the earlier part of Free Northerner’s post that I’d like to talk about here:

Escalation dominance essentially means the actor controlling the highest level of violence (in the book’s case, nuclear weapons) can control all lower levels of violence by threatening to escalate the conflict to a higher level of violence. By controlling the tempo and threat of escalation, this actor can steer a conflict in such ways as to win lower level conflicts even in areas where he may be weaker.


Controlling the highest level of violence in American politics means that Conservative can control the tempo of lower-violence political conflicts (voting, law-making, regulation enforcement, etc.) and control the escalation of political violence (ie: voting to voter fraud; debate to ideological firings) through the implied threat of further escalation (you witch hunt me and take my job, I witch hunt you and take your job and reputation; you escalate to assault, I escalate to shooting).

I repeat: I am not advocating shooting liberals or doing anything illegal. My strategy does not include physical violence or criminality. I am simply explaining a concept that will under-gird the strategy.

While I haven’t read the book To Win a Nuclear War that he references, Game Theory is something that I do understand, and either the authors or FN have gone wrong, somewhere. Deterrence of this type works on the principle that the stronger side is actually prepared to use its weapons, even were it to result in the destruction of both sides. So all of Free Northerner’s caveats at the end of the quote essentially invalidate the beginning. The strategy only works if you are actually ready to shoot someone, as many someones as it takes to get your point across and cow the opposition into submission. Thus, his conservative’s campaign to cow the left is built on quicksand.

I don’t want to shoot anybody either. I mean I really, really don’t want it to come to that. Exit, partition, groups of like-minded people going their own way; that’s what I’m hoping for and expecting in the coming years, rather than some actual civil war. However, the basics of deterrence and of “escalation dominance” are already in place, at least in the U.S. and to a lesser extent, Canada.

Isn’t it intriguing that gun laws are practically the only thing that hasn’t been subject to the leftward “ratchet” over the 20 years? Outside of the sinkholes of New York, California and a few other crowded East Coast states, legal concealed carry has come to most of the U.S. On the federal level, after reaching its high water mark in 1993 with the ban on scary “assault weapon” pistol grips and large-capacity mags, so-called gun control is essentially a dead issue. Obama and his minions had their chances, and they didn’t even make a real effort outside of speechifying.

Why not? Escalation dominance.

The United States is in a unique position in world history in that it has a massively armed general population (yeah, Switzerland, big deal). The reason that there has never been a real confiscation effort, no matter how much Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and Barack Obama want one, is that there is near-certainty that too many people would shoot back. In addition, no one knows how many police would actually carry out the orders. In Connecticut this year, tens of thousands of firearms owners apparently refused to comply with new laws, and the State Police were forced to reassure everyone that there would be no door-to-door gun confiscations.

The Left is pretty confident that they can drain the productive economy, reward their allies in business, finance and entertainment, heap scorn on Christians and decency, and get away with it. But they piss their pants at actually going out and prying real firearms out of real people’s hands.

I believe this is why there really will be a fairly amicable parting of the ways between the Left and the Reaction. American leftoids mostly don’t have the balls to shoot and/or imprison enough people who want to separate and live in a different way. They can keep their pesthole big cities and most of the tax-consuming population. Hell, they can keep everything but a few productive, healthy city-states.

Because mostly, from the President on down, they’re keyboard warriors who can’t hit what they’re aiming at.

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.