Why BAPism, why now.

Moldbug’s acknowledgement of Bronze Age Pervert as his leader is a unifying moment for the whole Right. Reaction and Fascism have fused themselves under the most powerful man, the most free man. Moldbug’s formalist theory of leadership selection was fulfilled by BAP for over a year now. He is who is worthy and is to recieve power. Since the meme stuck that ‘BAP is the leader of the alt-Right’, he became, in fact, the leader in all truth. Only he has the lordly gift of natural command. Only he has the ferociousness of character to wield wrathful power to its full justice! 

Every essentialist must submit to the man divinely selected. If one does not submit then one ought not to be trusted in any manner of security or of the soul.  If we are to cut apart the devils of this world then we must forge our dust into the cutting & thrusting bronzed edge of restoration. We are heated by a sun which has sired a champion of a thousand hour meditation under it, within his dominion there is revelation. Energy and vitality, the spinning chariot wheel, the burning metabolic body sculpture. The steamy tropical cycles of incomprehensible beauty and death.

In every respect the Bapist path is the perfect reaction against the present modern state. If we are faced with the life destroying enemy of hideous undifferentiated gynokratia then the counter to it is beautiful ultra-patriarchy. Traditional reaction comes at the question of what to do in a power-political sense. The enemy though has become broadly ignorant and alienated from its own power-political theory. Instead, the enemy has come to define itself corporeally more and more. Now we see them wearing depictions of their genitals as head regalia at their threat displays. We hear them use the neo-materialist claptrap of “black bodies”, “latinx bodies” or “bodies of color” &c. because the enemy has dropped much of their psuedo-spiritual humanitarian ethos. They take to the streets with their progestronic forms on behalf of their progestronic forms. We will end their terrorism by a display of the mightiest possible testosteronic intimidation. By the objective superiority of the body will the doctrine of corporeal equality be extinguished, inshallah.

They have taken their own sexual chemicals to fully destroy the long held social arrangement of our exalted fathers. Bronze age pervertism put obese matriarchy to the grave for five thousand years and it can be done again, gods willing. We have an advantage too that men of the last several generations did not, the degeneracy of the 1880s onward can be firmly placed on a slackening and weakening of men. We can press the advantage of physical training and our own far more advanced and diverse repitoire of hormones to defeat the foe. With such a wealth of knowledge we are able to persue an aesthetic ideal that is the most Reactionary and Heroic to ever may have yet existed, we may please the gods by our beauty so they may bless us. Even though we are so unfree from doing many admirable deeds.

The Cathedral maintains its markets, its bureaucracy and its culture by this unsustainable gender anarchy. A gender war must be fought in order to win the metapolitical battle, BAPism is the only viable path of action, natalism under current circumstance is difficult and far too private. BAP is able to redeem the racial aspect of the alt-Right by firmly placing Aryanism well before Europeanism, he uplifts the race from the shameful mummery of the clay mother goddess statuette into the warm bounds of the marble solar pantheon. Instead of celebrating technical accomplishment or refinement he asks us to remember war making and ferocity. 

Bursting away the built up rust of the last centuries so new myths may be sung. He frees us from the constrictions of historicism and geographism- placing the race question in the light of the Faustian imperial infinity. By having us all take up barbarism the Right is spared from the civcuck middling elements having too much a say, steppe-barbarism and piracy is the purity spiral that can drill us back up out of this whirlpool. This new culture will be anti-fragile to the attaqs against it, it will soon give us victory. 

Long live our liege lord.

Sin Reyes

If I have a thesis for the Latin American political question, it is this: At independence (and thereafter) demotic, nationalist, republican-democratic, & constitutionalist ideas brought in from Europe & the USA destroyed any and all chances at good government.

That is not to say Latin America was not often more properly governed, or that it is not superior to the global north in a number of areas. Rather, I merely aim to form a simple Reactionary answer… that progressivism is the root of the region’s sorrows.

Spain made a lasting fault with their colonial designs that reneged on formal aristocratic hierarchies among the creollo whites. Instead of an organic hierarchy between creollo whites/near whites and peninsulares, the crown split the two segments of the race apart and set the local leaders on a path to rebellion. Which was quick to arrive after the devastation the mother country endured by French and British armies.

One must realize that the Spanish Reactionary tradition is marvelous, but the liberal-constitutionalist tumultsgl of the 19th century had damned the already declining Castilian power as unworthy of its continued mastery over the southwestern portion of the globe. Bourbon era reforms had moved the region forward along the mercantilisitic model by 1800, to then be plopped down directly into the bonds of anglo-capitalism was an inconceivable transition. For three centuries prior Latin Americans had forged an economic arrangement that maintained leisured life at the top, fed by the traditional economies of the Indian communities. Issues of debt, credit, currency and capital were flung upon a civilization unfit for them. I cannot imagine a way of studying Latin America that would get one to conclude that liberal economics was “right for them”, in most every respect and in most every instance it was a disaster.  Over-reliance on precious metals was bad, but, there was always far more wealth in the area than in the tally sheets of financial institutions may have indicated. Their riches have always been undervalued.

Over the course of the 19th century modernization models were attempted earnestly but there seems to have been an acute leadership crisis that made implementation of “rational” praxis unlikely and stunted. The issue most at play was the absurd doctrine of federalization and split sovereignty, fanatically championed by liberal factions. From the start, conservative parties favored a centralized state structure that could manfully deal with the corruption and banditry of the provinces. Imperium en imperio was as pronounced a madness there as in the histories of our own countries. Local oligarchies were caught between anarcho-caudilloismo and populist nationalism, their lives at risk of the assassin’s bullet or to whoever could rig an election. Elections when honest were destabilizing, but the expectation that they should be “free” like the Yanque was a formalist nightmare.

Power determinism, as expressed in our theories, may stand alone and absorb the blame if one wishes. But there’s a ton of nuance here that’s worth checking out. I hope my presentation here will help the lazy Reactionary follower whom you can “red pill” with this predictive frame work, allowing him dialectical ease of mind for the whole business. When one knows that the fundamental political system was compromised then one does not need to worry this or that HBD fun fact about Basque or German or Nigerian genetic mixture in this or that place. Nor does one need to know which or what bad-deal the fiendish technocrat or the pudgy reformerista made with the Northern investor. Power was in improper hands, focused on the accomplishment of impossible goals.


Spiritually one sees as distinct pattern of decline, though a very different one than the American Northeast, more covert and less proselytic. Both Masons and Jesuits in the long run proved to be terrible and ruined everything!  Masonry initially infected Liberals more so than whatever the nominal conservative faction was. Eventually in Brazil they formed competing lodges, one for each party. The cultists were torn away from their transcendental duties to the great mass of society, unable to treat the Church as anything more than a rival camp to fight fancy h’w’yhite civilized POLITICS with. Semi-secret ritual amplified the sins of scheme and treasonous plot, aristocracy crumbled as it stood beside the Church, the middle class was often more intimate with the heresy. Modernization and politicization metastized the middle class which, now “educated”, began to see itself as a “middle class” along the false bourgeoisie consciousness. Secularism paired with liberal (then after 1910, leftist) class antagonistic pamphlets from Spain- and translations from French or English- tore the fabric of civil life to shreds.

Latin America’s Papistry is its most elemental ideological feature. For the first time ever we see evangelicalism entering thanks to tolerating constitutional provisions; blossoming so grandly, we can verify the long held Dixon claim that the Golden Circle could perhaps come under the sway of an energetic & living Protestantism. But the new confession is no less cucked than the Papa‘s. I find it also curious that those Reactionaries who tend towards the barbarism wing on the intensity-of-civilization-scale admire Latin America far more than the so called “throne & altar” civilizationophilic types who are coreligionists of the race in question. If one seeks to know of resistance to industrial society than perhaps the best example is the millions of peasants who continue to live to this very day a near seventeenth century existence. Envy for modern methods was wrong, the produce of industrial capitalism was fouled. Maybe they were never backwards, but faced the direction of truth and God.

I do not give the Latins much agency. And at the basic ideo-memetic level I cannot, though they reshaped the progressivist millstone to suit their particular backs considerably, they were positively infected via a European disease, much like the pathogenic illnesses of first contact, sweeping through in fire and blood. What immunity to liberalism we see in the helots’ disdain of the Republican party is due to the coarse consumerism of the lower mestizo orders. Beyond the sustenance of the family and the honor of close friends, the new Latins are, on average, rather unmolested by pressing topical questions. It has not been ideology, but those who could slow the whirlpool at the given hour, which produced regimes.

We counter signal upon nationalism a lot here, but there’s a way of looking at it all from a congruent nationalist perspective. From an Argentine/Colombian/Dominican nationalist point-of-view, one could say that the given nation rarely gave itself enough credit, esteem, or worth to fulfill the ethos needed for nationalism as a cohesive binder. This is too intersectional for an in-vogue altrightist to entertain, I don’t think it’s possible to get the ‘isolationist’ memester to ever care about this topic, they cannot understand outgroup nationalism, and that is fine. Aside from Mexico and Hispanics within the United States, there seems to be scant possibility of Latin American nation-states intervening northward in whatever political happenings are most dear to our restorations.

Guerre contre le Paraguay, l'Empereur du Bresil et ses deux gendres, le duc de Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha et le comte d'Eu, au camp d'Alegrete

Time is against us exploiting the political potential of the Latins, the last thirty years have evaporated dictatorial governments, Democratic influences steadily gaining headway. The fall of Bolivarian Socialism is happening too soon for RWDSs with a #conquistadormindset to carve up western Venezuela. Technocracy for New Order favors is pragmatic for the legislatures & presidentes, being allowed more freedoms by the weakness of Blue imperium. Now as it is, there is more congruence with domestic formal moneyed power, as America weakens it is maybe more wise to slowly taking back forfeited privileges than to counter-revolt.

For those interested in a project, I beseech you to find more source material. Especially for the 20th century, which even liberal Latin Americanists admit was far more troubling for the region than the long 19th. There is much more to say, but it is a mistake already talking in such sweeping generalities, further discussions on this will be of a closer scope.

Moldbug and HRx

Tech-Com homepatch circa 2420

A post on Xenosystems linked back to the “HRx II” discussion on my HRx intro piece. The mention was to bring up the contradiction between HRx doctrine and Moldbug’s 2007 era Neocameralism. I will not deny that there are great discrepancies between mid-2016 Carlyleism and 2007 Moldbug propositions. To obfuscate to the conclusion that Moldbug is orthodox in his Reaction is the type of lie that would enrage Big Tom. I think Yarvin agrees that he drops a lot of Carlyle. But so does every reader, Carlyle writes mostly in sweeping proclamations, Jonathan Bowden mentions wanting to “throw the book across the room” at times. Moldbug arrives at the Far-Right from a (((libertarian-materialist))) starting point, radicalizing and hardening over the years. Due to his essential characteristics (programmer, Bay-Khazarian, grandson of commies, an atheist) it would be foolish of us to hope he could totally stop “smoking crack”,- as he would say.

Our techcom friends latched onto his yellow residues to craft an ideology incompatible with the supermajority of his work. This is entirely Curtis’s fault though, his proposed plans of action for future statecraft are designed to fulfill classical liberal ideas and demands. When I originally read him three years ago I was struck by the genius of his red pilling material but also the variation of it. Chris B. says it best:

“This hits the core of the problem. Don’t read UR as one long political exposition that is coherent from the start, it isn’t. Factor in time, and factor in intellectual growth. The early stuff (like this neocameralism stuff) is from 2007/2008, and it is what it looks like – incoherent hodgepodge because it is approaching conservation of sovereignty et al from liberal positions. This is not viable, but to expect the guy to understand this from the bat is absurd – no one else did, nor do many even get this even now. The post you linked is from 2013.
The game at present is to try and disregard all of the subsequent clearing of the ground intellectually which Moldbug did AFTER this 2007 stuff, to try and use this early stuff to reboot libertarianism + social darwinism.”

MM suffers a massive drop in clarity and quality in his economic and propositional writings. Awkward metaphor & shoddily-edited verbosity take the place of playful critique and majestic truth-speaking. That is not to say those such works aren’t required for a proper scholarship of him, or that they are without great moments. Our rivals dismiss far more of Unqualified Reservations than we do, but both are guilty of revision. Very few are capable of being a true Moldbuggian due to the disparate poles of the thought that were presented, moderate conserva-neoreactionaries such as Hestia have deliberately taken a middling stand that may straddle this distance. MM states during one of his worst moments that when Carlyle and Mises disagree one should go with the former; but he assures us they agree on most every issue. He knows he was lying there, ARE Rabbi is too high IQ to forget all the catalactic discussion in Chartism and Latter Day Pamphlets. Mises and Carlyle are at odds over the most base elements of human organization. One prescribes more freedom for every ill, the other more slavery. This is a water & oil dichotomy, not a wine & water one, there may be no honest fusion.

By 2014 Yarvin is much less libertarian than in 2007, one cannot be sure if his psuedo-whiggery was ‘ketman’ or positively sincere. What we do see is that his later works were much snappier, darker and more sarcastic. Even B. Steves notices this but sees the sage’s Rightward drift towards his favor rather than HRx’s. Either way, we see moments of doubt about the very validity and worth of political-economy, the only proper Rx pill on the subject.

“What does “growth” mean? It means: “spend more, comrades!” If growth is good by definition, spending is good by definition.”

Furthermore, there are times he wishes, only subtly veiled, to gas the Whigs.

De Jouvenalian Reaction is not compatible with patchwork or sovcorp stockholderism, there are checks and balances with it as well as a degree of shattered sovereignty. Reactionaryfuture errs branding De Jouvenalian Rx as true Moldbuggian, Mencius would not have gone to the lengths of illustrating his program if it was derived via the simple truth of imperium. City state models are a bourgeoisie irredentism to restore medieval privileges; fantasies that forget the post-15th century changes in power flow from the hinterland. Those little polities held up as 20th century prototypes only survived due to great power & institutional sponsorship. Stockholdsmanship lets sovereignty flow to whomever can cough up more dogecoin. This may be a formal arrangement but it can swiftly become unjust or plutocratic. Whenever the mercantile interest is placed in the foremost patriarchy weakens and demotic chaos creeps in. Whether Novgorodians, Athenians, or Dutchmen- the result is anarchy in the long run. Capitalism must give hospitality to chaos, the seeds that which inevitably bloom.

Quoting from Why I am not a Libertarian to prove that NRx is liberal is a correct move but it also marrs Menciianism as liberal in general. Regardless of the sincerity, the post surely recruited many libertarians, so we ought to see it as a positive contribution even if it hurts our claim to his legacy. This post among many contain explicit admissions by Moldbug that he has sympathies for the liberty-vision, even if those sympathies are mostly emotional, personal, or now gone all together.

Neocameralism is still mostly cameralism, the work of Fredrick der Groß. MM read the biography of that prince written by Carlyle. An extremely inaccessible work that I’ve only read a small portion of. Yet I imagine the liberty-set will never read it and reject it wholesale as “le feathery hat xD” or with some comparably nerdy epithet to express their resentment of the heroic. The neo prefix to cameralism seems to expunge the original of its Teutonism and martiality for a hyper whig pass(c)ifism. Libertypes probably have no interest in that multivolume historical masterpiece but the #1 1488er sure did. Seems to me National Socialism had a stronger affinity with Fredrickianism than any reconstituted liberal. I would be quite interested in reading Moldbug’s excuse for Hitler turning to Carlyle’s prose in his final hours.

The German Minister of Finance, Lutz Graf Schwerin von Krosigk, recorded in his diary how in early April in the Führerbunker, Joseph Goebbels read out loud to Adolf Hitler Thomas Carlyle‘s biography of Frederick the Great,

One gets the feeling Moldbug is compelled to include anarchist political economy because he considers the works things of genius. Maybe he did not know the extent the ideology received institutional sponsorship. As a unique expression of civic wisdom, economics may have some value, but it has been perverted by obscurantism & sorcery. The very continued existence of financial chaos, in the light of 102+ years of doomsaging, indicates the universal supremacy of power over money. It is certainly true a materialist ought to be anti-democratic to meet his desires, therefore, we should expect to share the small anti-democratic community with them for a while longer.

Techcom neoreaction has applied their IQ fetish to the supposed economic ignorance of active Reactionaries, they seem to not realize that we are committed to interpreting their scrying as foolish, for essential reasons of causality and modality. Libertyfund pdfs will confirm our suspicion that praxis is unrealistic, non practicable & derived from presumptive models. Our measly 130 math g scores are apparently the reason we don’t kvetch over the prophecy of dogecoin. I would go as far to say that a disproportionately high math-over-verbal IQ is deleterious for the aspiring dark brahman, as an intense contemplation of dead forms logically ends with Planet of the Illithids. The best example is the spittle flicked invective of the paccifisists mourning the death of the eternally immolating Jo Cox. In almost every last concurring opinion was a mention of the loathsome dimness of the “monkey” savages. Apparently anti-humanism was taken to mean anti-man? Again, the worship of deadforms goes counter to the craft of the statesman. Technocratic governance can be found all over Asia & only has an use in transitioning out of bureaucratic democracy. Científicos have been mismanaging the whole twentieth century through! It is positivism stripped of its Gallic details. A master’s degree in chemical engineering has nearly zero relevance to governing. To imagine it is not a waste of a leader’s youth is pure Oriental nonsense, just like memorizing neo Confucian prose or the Shudras.


Moldbug is a greater scientistrist than most anyone in the movement but he would never agree to this profane determinism. Moldbug labeled the AI club “automatists” and firmly rejected all formulaic systems. HRx is a better type of elitism than cram-school supremacy. Carlyle as always:

True nevertheless it forever remains that intellect is the real object of human reverence, and of devout prayer, and zealous wish and pursuit, among the sons of men and even, well understood, the one object.

This post is not intended to be fratricidal but a clarification of claims. Carlyleian and De Jouvenalian Rx cannot pretend to be heirs of Moldbug, but neither can NRx. All of us actively dismiss some fraction of his doctrine in favor of a more consistent doctrine for ourselves. Yarvin brings together contradictory ideas that we must parse into something more useful. He is a crypto-whig but has repented by good works. Any divisions this post may cause is for the better, as Reactionaries have always fought one another, for far more trivial reasons. Let there be no enemies to the Right, but plenty of rivals, too.


Sowing Seeds on Desecrated Ground


There has been much talk about the need to save the West [&Japan] by a resurgence of birthrates. Our held notion is that more children of civilized parentage will be better for mankind and civilization itself. Yet, it has verily became a “Morrison’s Pill” for the ‘alt-Right’, a thing that ought to be done, that WILL remedy our sickness and symptoms. Coming at it from the presupposition of modernity that a higher numerical count at one end of the ledger, invariably moved there by policies; will, surely, by the laws of reigning quantity, reverse the slide towards chaos and doom. “More h’white babyz” is the panacea to the destruction, says our friendly masuclinist demographer. Patriarchy is surely mandatory for order and ample reproduction, it is also true the West is crawling to a genetic halt. These imperative issues are paired with a formulaic lamentation on the nature of gender that is far too optimistic and selectively blind, the state of these troubles is far harder to fix than most any give credit to.

Much of the discussion is framed in economic terms: “we must reregulate the “sexual marketplace””, “we must cast out the dysgenic welfare state”, “capitalism will stop the barbarians from breeding”, ” women need to exit the workforce”, “one man should be able to be the breadwinner again”, ” rent and education costs is too damn high”, etc. This [gender] is the most discussed topic in our ideologies, I trust you already have gotten the picture. Materialistic thinking has sidelined the surreally horrifying culture now in being. I will go as far as to say more children at the current hour is unlikely to be fruitful, especially for homes of good but apolitical stock that would rear outside the influence of Reactionary attitudes.

A qualification, is needed, I am far too young a man to be an authority on this, furthermore I am an only child, though my parents come from families of eight and five children. Not that most commentary on this matter is not also amateur. The purpose of this article is mearly to apply HRx values and insight to the question heretofore.

“Joy to us, for God has given us new life” – a universal refrain sung by all before even man was man. From this Darwinian pack jubilation the tribe is quickly sobered by incessant wails, the new-seen hand greedily clutching for scarce meat. What reptilian drives that brought the babe forth to them were soon in the hindmost, r/selected mechanisms that unfolded nearly at their own volition created a new member for k/ selected society. Consequences for the materialization of that new soul are only immediately understood by the bearing mother, even then she shall excuse all the externalities of the It. Thus is the problem our manospherian pundit now too, is met with;- that the disruption of the environment caused by progeny is rarely ever considered in the fullest breadth.

A child was tough for Neolithic man because of how it compromised security or the extra calories it needed, or the disharmony brought about by paternal disputes. None of these are fully foregone issues, being solved in part by teachology for the corresponding functionalities. In the modern age, spiritual-cultural problems have , in areas of relative excess, totally eclipsed the material in precedent, this applies just as much to birthing as any other area dealing with human beings. When one makes considerations on whether or not to take this or that action on behalf of their child, one only decides after a whole mass of cultural mores give their say. As all has degenerated, so has parenting,  disorder and un-truth are as much the rule here as anywhere.

What I first must note is that essentially mother and father are also slave to the child, but most especially the mother. They are tasked with fulfilling whatever absurd demand is dreamt up the ‘youngin. These tasks are often highly arbitrary, labour intensive, and absolutely useless to the child’s development. Yet to avoid issue with the beast, she will indulge whatever fancy it falls into expressing. Those who drink daily at the well of elitist philosophy do not comprehend how stupid and nonsensical children factually are. Around seven or so they emerge as rational individuals in their own right, but before then they are not going to produce nearly anything of substance for you aside from the sublime, hormonal, and egotistical. I must presume that the campaign for more smart babies is a response to being surrounded by idiots and wishing for a better state of things, I empathize with that improvement more than you can imagine. Yet, I understand that any young spawn is, in many if not most ways, more of a pleb than any given thrall off the streets.

To be a slave to one’s child is a sign of devotion, to buy up a nanny or an equivalent service is frowned on. We do recall that wet nursing, full time servants, and sending kids off for years long periods were all common phenomena for the most regal of generations. Free wage babysitters and 6 hour public disciplinary holding pens are, as you are well already aware, antithetical to all our goals. Personal tutoring, or some equivalent that can produce exceptional scholarly achievement is also vital. For myself at least, I feel there is no burden more demanding than trying to overcome my contemporary education, classical education was exponentially better. The best of us are pathetic by elite Edwardian standards, all the while Titanic sages to the wild public. Most Brahmins and Optimates we would classify of a good pedigree are not qualified in character or wisdom.

Those who breed without militant ideology would turn to the whirlwind of tumbling helpful sources out there, most of which is detestable to us, with nauseous formulæs of Supreme Love lining shelves and holding primacy in search results. Developmental psychology is the enemy here, but we must concede to them some inscrutable facts. Namely first, that growing up is a slow absorbtive process, taking close to a decade to get the hardwiring laid down. But we are also told that- to a large degree- what occurs during the early period is everything [-and nothing]. What is good and what is bad is deal making or deal breaking. Since we are such staunch partisans for Nature in ye ‘ole versus nurture debate, we must rebuke the hysteria of youthful vulnerability. Details which moderns kvetch and yowl over are meaningless in the longrun. With basic needs met good genes will do the work for us, and by basic we do mean only: food, water, shelter, and love. Subsistence living, actual subsistence living, for children is legally “abuse”, but I doubt they would much mind, kids are extremely adaptable.

Historically we know that in the West, and all places really, most parts of society had servants to attend to their children’s duties. Even breast feeding was given up to wet nurses, fathers spent relatively little time with babes and would probably not infantilize themselves for the hatchlings’ amusement. Mothers were vital to many functions but were prone to outsourcing much of the maddening grind, even if it was just to the older daughters.Pre-Rousseauian parenting was absentee and neglectful, yet the 18th century was the highest civilization ever reached, with no one giving a damn about the minutia of diet or sensitivity. Carlyle went cold and malnourished a few times in his youngest days, it being the tough era of the Napoleonic wars, yet, he is smarter than any of us (or of them) raised on Gerber’s Yams® and digitally monitored head sleeping positions!

So, we have this rather compelling notion that modern micromanagerial parenting is intrusive and a useless stressor. That is juxtaposed with the fact that raising a child in a sufficiently noble manner is fundamentally impossible given the grand mass of subverting, opposing actors. Public schools are half prison and half maddrassa, private schools are rapidly declining to keep up with expectations and are an extorting racket. Home schooling runs a horrible social risk and is sadly only available to a few nations. Furthermore, with such a cacophony of potential amusements it is an ever present challenge to steer even oneself, let alone a primitive spawn, into consistently constructive works. One cannot expect to raise a new generation of aristocrats if they’re spending thousands of total hours on videogames or other idle, popular timesinks. You know this, surely you have told yourself that you and your future dear beloved would never fall for such rudimentary pitfalls. Have you considered that the prevailing social lubricants are those latter mentioned idle distractions? (your little prince is much more likely to make a friend discussing Iron Man than his Latin grammar lesson but to deny the latter or allow the former is damnable) Do you have the tenacity to again and again riposte the entry of wickedness? Even if you do hold the line, the threat of rebellion is ever there, it could be only a brief episode, or, at worst, a total loss to the enemy camp.

The managerial state, as it wont to do, wishes for you too, to manage your child, not lead it, certainly not GOVERN it. Modes in use are commonly the worst quackery of that lying devil, “psychology”. Saccharine universalism has combined with a deluge of ” empirical” “studies” on what are the le best means to craft a mustard brown consumption blobule. One of Satan’s favorite phrases :“love conquerors all” is put to action by h’white parents with a searing fanaticism. Dogged cultivation of weakness and excess are the only way a good parent aught to act, to differ from that is “abuse”!  Character is unbuilt by all institutions, those that may buildup some such as sports, are shared with the barbarian and in cases, can guarantee joint injury.

Breeding in 2016 is furthermore ruinous for the man and wife involved with it. Thanks to the usual suspects wrecking the economy you have to be wealthy, not just well-to-do, or “middle class”, but legitimately rich, to fund the optimal environment. Meeting familial economic goals may be a soul death sentence for the working man. Brett has done valuable elucidation on the profane “work” deifying commerce system. “America is a communist country”, therefore all are workers; for your wife to continue to write her poems, for you to continue to hit the gym, are enviable privileges the Peoples’ Market will crush out of yet! Dear ladies, who wither by exposure to a battery of hormonal-chemical baths, transform back to the mammalian mean of mother. This was advantageous via Patriarchy and traditon, today, such passionate surges bend back to maddening anxiety and hysteria. In other words, a low trust society will drive her insane because it is a biological demand but functionally nonexistent.

Assuming that all the intended readership are Brahmins, and in the potential business of multiplying his or her holy caste, then you must reckon with the peculiure difficulties of our ilk. Religion and confessional sect are a priority to you, but Brahmin children are at risk of conversion, even if it’s fully by their own action. Within our trusted confessional grouping, there are great dangers. Drug abuse among Pagan youth can go beyond even my quite liberal standards on stupifyers, Evangelical heresy among Christian youth is chilling, vain retreats to Eastern ascetic ideas can happen to any budding Brahmin. Let us say you do preserve the Truth in their hearts, now what community can they grow that experience with? Unless one lives in the V4, France or maybe Greece and Russia, then there are probably nearly no likeminded comrades for your child to play with, within their traveling distance especially. Urban life is unfortunately unsafe thanks to you know who, rural life is great but lacks some opportunities, suburbia is an abomination. Where to go? Who to go with?

Potential exists to forge the most glorious generation ever, there has never been a stock more majestic and beautiful. Dreadfully, the conditions of infrastructure and social capital are the most inglorious ever. Two individuals devoted to tradition and essential Patriarchy may manage to “ride the Tiger” with their brood, a Herculean feat, but within the range of possibility. Those who could accomplish this are champions, but this new rear guard will have to fight the battles we shall leave unfought. Hopefully Reaction may succeed before they turn of age, but the odds are low. Reaction will have its fiercest struggles in their day, we must pass to them the best tools, which we cannot at present come close to doing.

My stance here has been pessimistic and defeatist, I acknowledge that. Nevertheless, reality is incongruent with rhetoric for the twenty first century Right’s most discussed issue. A large number are in consensus with us on how imperative it is to Restore it, that is fantastic, though I fear that has tricked us into believing that the feat will be easy, it will not be so. Essential sexual röles may be reaped only once much other counter-revolutionizing is taken up simultaneously with it.

O, She was, the Mother of All Battles.

Today at Froude Society, I’ll look at some twentieth century middle eastern history that is also, in part, a book review. Our piece in question is actually a series of interviews conducted by American military historians of Saddam’s General Hamdani during the height of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Since the work was conducted by red imperial agents for the betterment of their mission it must be scrutinized severely, yet, as a primary source, it is likely far more valuable than Woods’s secondary writings on the same subject. Being able to autopsy a recently deceased regime is a privilege for the historian. This food for Faustians should be enjoyed with guilt, as the suffering wrought by Saddam’s ouster is incomprehensible.

Martin van Creveld said that Bush’s invasion was the worst military disaster since the massacre at Teutoburg forest, perhaps hyperbolic, but not wrong. Opposition to the war was one of my first tangible political positions, the ignorant 4/5th grader that I was felt something true. Unless one is a direct recipient of GOPe power there is no possible way to argue in favor of that unlucky catastrophe. In every measure it was a failure. A hanged man from Tikrit was not worth a trillion dollars.

In another respect, the war revealed America’s elemental weaknesses and timidity. Casualties incurred, while unjust, were tiny relative to the total coalition population. Four thousand killed was reached in a few hours on the Western or Eastern fronts. Publics and their opinion makers responded with a deluging ‘war weariness’, expressed in cultural and electoral means. It permanently damaged militarism a la Vietnam as well as the parties who carried out the scheme- namely Bush & Blair. This represented a total inability, be it due to wickedness or hubris, for the hawkish faction to carry through a winning set, even with a cataclysm like 9/11. It was also emblematic of how important the information organs are to martial campaigns and how nonexistent outer party control is of them. “Faux News”, “Rummy lied people died”, ring any bells? I recall in early 2008 or so that the administration and Bush specifically had become the easiest punching bag in town. Monkey George a butt of any ‘stupid’ joke at my suburban white school. Neoconservatism did not error by inability or even political strategy, as Hamdani and Woods posit towards the end. They failed because democracy cannot win military conflicts when it plays by its own mad charade.

As General Hamdani goes into detail regarding, the Sham has been a historical convalescence taking innumerable forms. He notes the well know Sassinid vs. Roman and Ottoman vs. Persian conflicts but there is so much more to it beyond Iraq proper. From essentially Sinai and the Bosphorus to Astrakhan and the Indus, an immeasurable number of tribes and peoples have emerged, most to fall unmentioned. Magian civilizations have already passed through many periods of decadence like the West is going through now. If we are to take Spengerlian cycles truthfully then the West cannot understand the Near East because they are in different stages of their life spans, regardless of the essential facts.

Yet, the Orient has always steered away, in the long run, from a demotism that factually binds sovereignty. Oriental despotism was known to the Greeks and has never lost sway in its homeland. Hamdani presents Saddam as a novel, though arch-typical, Oriental Despot. Even though Hamdani tries to describe him in pseudo-scientific (‘psychological’) terms right before this, the characterization is likely accurate.

We cannot call it schizophrenia, but Saddam lived a life of impersonation, where every personality would emerge in an instant. for instance, in one moment, you would find Saddam Hussein the intellectual, who would think as deeply as a philosopher would over a subject, as a good leader or decision maker. the next moment he would be like a naïve and backward farmer. He would switch from being a civilized person to the stubborn Bedouin personality he held deep within himself. This switching back and forth is what people who dealt with him could not stand.
Saddam saw the importance of the warrior unlike almost any modern statesmen, to a dangerous fault, which should be noted for any future HRx regime’s leadership.
Saddam believed that military effectiveness was a matter of the “warrior”—much as in medieval terms—and the spirit and morale of soldiers, not necessarily of training, organization, or discipline. To him bravery on the battle-field, exemplified by his personal vision of the Arab fighter, was the only reasonable measure of military effectiveness. As Hamdani mentioned in reference to Saddam’s later confrontations with the Americans, the dictator could not grasp the significance of the scale and technological superiority of the American military.
There is also this remarkable insight that makes those in our station connect with Saddam on a spiritual level, he may have been foolish and somewhat mad, but he had his heart set on glory.
…for his whole life, Saddam could only imagine war as a tribal conflict or like the conflict between Alexander the Macedonian and the Persian King Darius, or the conflict between Salahad-din and the Crusaders. I mean this was his concept of war, which did not adapt to modern times. He was always thinking of himself as a kind of Genghis Khan, Hannibal, or Alexander. He had a picture of these tribes or armies fighting with the sword. Saddam never actually realized that there was a huge difference between modern war and ancient war. [In modern war], there are other implications, political implications, international lines that you just cannot cross. Since I could not confront him too directly, I once told Saddam, “Most of our commanders looked at the war from the tribal perspective, more one-on-one warfare and not the bigger picture of modern war or today’s war.” He refused to listen

As troublesome as Ba’athist Iraq was, it was nowhere near as chaotic and insane as its mortal rival. While I plan to do a much deeper study of the Iranian Revolution in the future, from the outset, that event appeared to be more characteristic of revolution than of counter-revolution. Woods on the outset of the scene in 1980:

Even after the purges,the Iranian military had little standing with those in the political realm. Military professionalism was simply not in the vocabulary of Khomeini’s regime. the alternative to the professional military in Iran was a number of revolutionary militias. None of these militias had any serious military training, nor, as Hamdani would describe,did they possess leaders with even the slightest understanding of tactics.

The militias—in some cases no more than small groups swearing fealty to a local imam or ayatollah with political ambitions—often acted independently, obeying no instructions and initiating combat actions without orders to do so. Local Iranian commanders appeared to have had almost complete freedom of action, whatever the strategic or operational consequences might be. This may well explain the fact that some Iranian units began shelling Iraqi towns and military positions in a rampageous fashion before the Iraqi invasion began and before the initiation of large-scale military operations.thus, one can hardly speak of coherent Iranian military operations, much less a strategic conception, throughout the first 4 years of the conflict
Hamdani then goes on to recount the tale of a POW who had traveled 700kms with thirty other men directly to the front lines to meet the commander associated with their Imam,  this is logistically unprecedented in the West since probably the 17th century. Zeal can compensate for so much in war because winning is primarily about getting your opponent to concede, death and destruction to submission may be impossible. As is illustrated in the interviews, Iraq could not muster a military machine grand enough to march all the way to Tehran. While the converse, a conquest of Baghdad, was very much possible. We see here the geographic defence that prevented Roman and Ottoman conquest beyond the mountains east of the Tigris. Saddam, like Hitler or the First Coalition, thought they could swiftly knock out a purged, cannibalizing enemy wrapped in tumult- all three were wrong. I believe this trend is due to the fact that power is always the greatest, and most wieldable, in fresh states & sovereigns.
Supreme leader Khamenei in his younger days
To survive, the Islamic Revolution had to defend itself, in which it succeeded. The majority of the war they were on the counter-attack, their failure to beat Saddam was due to a few factors.
The fact that Khomeini’s military forces, both the regular army and the militia, were increasingly becoming an all-infantry army that relied almost entirely on human wave attacks had a considerable effect on the fighting. The lack of armor and artillery limited the pressure Iranians could put on the Iraqis on the northern front, because while the mountainous terrain on the border favored infantry operations, the more open terrain lying beyond provided Iraqi armor with an enormous advantage, of which it made full use. Similar factors held in the south, where swamps and waterlogged terrain helped the Iranians to the east of Basra, but the more open and urban terrain around Basra and to the west favored the Iraqis.

What differentiated regional military strategy in 1989 has become confused, but there are easy translations to the modern war to be made. Kuwaitis up against Saddam were as woeful as the Gulf Coalition against Yemen. It is very, very clear from the 20th century record that the Hejazi race cannot fight with these technological terms. Arabs continue to prefer fighting to maneuver, as Hamdani notes for all Eastern peoples. Kurds seem to appreciate maneuver the most but that may be US-Soviet influence.

Assad looks to be linking the Ba’ath bond and stacking up on the armour like Hussein before him. During 2011-12 Assadist tanks would roll up to a rebel town like Rambo, only to be beaten by cheap Qaddafi looted rockets. Tanks are very vulnerable now to being spotted from the air, wire guided missiles (Iran can make copies) are sure to destroy unmodified machines. Shiite militias have really maximized the armoured infantry vehicle, putting on extra shielding. All factions have been able to acquire a massive number of anti-aircraft turret mounted pick up trucks. These facts demonstrate that only under quite unusual circumstances will warfare devolve into all infantry slugfests, artillery and some degree of armour has widely proliferated after the opening up of the ex-Communist stocks. Night vision, IEDs, TOWs, and good air support have kept infantry very competitive, well out ranking new reactive armour, Yet we do not see Assad or the ISF/PMUs employing sophisticated tank manoeuver doctrine like the Israelis did in 2006.


Iranian advisors are now considered, in both the Assadist and Western press,  necessary to lead the Arabs against ISIS, or at the very least they are more competent than the Arab armies themselves (& the KRG sort of). Hamdani conceeds that the Iranians did have superior infantry operations at the time. Combine that with time to flesh out doctrine and I am quite certain Iran is becoming a formidable regular  force. Nevertheless, I doubt they could beat an advanced Western army of comparable spirit, but I doubt there is any country that can now advance men enthusiastic and skillful enough to invade and occupy.

With such a devastating loss of life and opportunity, the Shiite Revolution sanctified itself. Random peasants donned the red headband and dutifully charged to their deaths. Such deeds cleansed their societies of decay to such an extent that sclerotic Western peoples are no match without their wealth. While insufficiently Reactionary in many policy areas, the Iranian Revolution was certainly counter-revolutionary spiritually, in that it brought a nation back from liberal modernity to metaphysical supremacy.

The embargo and brain drain were incredibly damaging, it is only now, after the curious rapprochement by State, that their economy can start reflecting the industry of their race. Never ones to miss a redemption story, the international community has leaped to reëstablish talks and trade. Being embargoed in the first place, and for so long, is indicative of how difficult ‘exit’ for a non-progressive state really is.

An unquivering foreign policy ran by the Revolutionary Guard is certain to outplay the Democratic powers and Saudis. Much like Saddam, the Ayatollahs have marketed themselves as the sworn enemy of Israel. All their kvetching on the pobrésitos Palestinianos cannot distract from the fact that war with Riyadh is much more worthy and immanent. Iran has spooked the Saudis and Israelis into an awkward but close alliance. Though dislike of Obama&co is also critical for this odd new couple. An invasion of the Gulf Arab states shall not occur if they can call in the US and Israel, Iran is therefore on the defensive. In that area they have likely succeeded, with the delivery of the S-300 Iran need no longer fear a conventional Zionist invasion, nuclear weapons or not, they are prepared to deflect the Western air-sea stratagems.


The future of Iraq is much more bleak, the continuing terror bombings by ISIS will remain well after the Takfiris are defeated in Mosul and the border with Syria is sealed. It is doubtful Iran will be able to keep Baghdad under their thumb for long, Shiite Arabs never forgot their sacrifice. Yes, a tremendous amount of influence will remain but it will be challenging to maintain the current level of vassalage. With the political situation in Baghdad so volatile at the moment, it is pure speculation to predict what may happen even a few months from now. If Abadi is overthrown and the USA retracts its financial patronage, as it warns, then a chance for an overtly pro-Iranian ruling clique materializes. Tehran’s insistence on sponsoring only religious allies may be too restrictive, and it presupposed a confessional loyalty of their Iraqi compatriots that is not fully there.

HRx Takes Its Exit


It’s not natural for ideological units to maintain a unified big tent for long, history has little precedent of it. Even millennial old institutions like the Catholic Church or the Chinese Empire had considerable splintering during their golden ages. For a marginalized rebellious current, like the contemporary Far-Right, division is much more likely. Not only are rival camps inevitable, they are probably good for us.

I was inspired to pen this post after reading a wonderful four part series by Reactionaryfuture. As a few readers may be aware, Froude Society’s first public notice was voicing reservation to Landian Neoreaction on Xenosystems. A foundational purpose of my writing is to strengthen doctrinally pure, anti-Whig, Reaction. Simply put, Neoreaction is liberal and must be undermined as the standard bearer of the emerging Brahminate.

Never one to shy from the terms “Rightist” or “Reactionary”, I wholeheartedly embrace the distinction #HRx (Heroic Romantic Reaction), as the enumerated rival of NRx. (Credit to Land for coining the term and making it popular, it’s okay the acronym was made up for us.) Let’s examine what distinguishes the two parties.

Moldbug, by laying an immense foundation, was complex enough to be interpreted in very distinct manners. NRx concentrates on his economic writings and proposed solutions: stockholder sovereigns, Patchwork, block-chain protocols, exit, financial incentives, Austrianism, butt coin, ‘the reset’. Alternatively, HRx concentrates on his reading suggestions and historical/international writings: Carlyle worship, high-Toryism/Jacobitism, classical international law, Absolute monarchy, generalist  historiography, imperialism apologia, political theory, and the general aesthetic. It’s fair enough to say that neither side is willing to embrace the whole package; unless Mencius comes back and picks a side we’re going to keep on squabbling over who are his true followers. Regardless, we all agree on MM’s critiques of Democracy, bureaucracy, progressive morality, and the dominant institutions.

I believe this dichotomy is fundamentally spiritual. NRx is a materialist ideology, post-Ancap in essence, it’s no surprise then that many Neoreactionaries started out as Marxists or Libertarians. Conversely, HRx places the metaphysical at the root of all civic affairs. With raw power politics also superseding catallaxy.

The topic at hand is very much so a dichotomy and not a scale. A few this-or-that examples will prove my point: Rule by computer programmers or rule by Kings, Gnon or God(s). Patchwork or Imperivm. Whig or Tory. Mises or Lueger. Protestant or Catholic. British or Continental. Individualist or Tribalist. Modernist or Perennialist. Anglo or Teutonic. Positivistic or Pessimistic. Capitalist or Mercantilist. Realistic or Romantic. Trans-humanism or the Heroic. Corinth or Sparta. Industry or Agriculture. Financial determinism or Political determinism. STEM or the Humanities. Realism or Romanticism. Jew or Gentile. The colour orange or the colour white.

While not all of these are clearcut distinctions they make a lot of sense- NRx is always the former statement, HRx the latter. Being underground for so long, it would expectedly take this many years to figure out how we’re disagreeing so much, and over what.

My suspicion is that it all goes back to the fact that classical liberalism, even in its monarchical pre-1789 version, is effectively Reactionary to everyone not HRx. My neocon friend who reads Macaulay and Blackstone seemed the most radical of counter-revolutionaries a few years ago, now he’s a Straussian traitor who bows to grave false idols. Liberal memes are very hard to break, their illusions can only be defeated by those authors contemporary to the liberal in question. Latent liberalism is what will send any ‘reset’ back on the course to modern madness, purity isn’t just a meme, but a key tenant.

Reaction is a chance to rectify all the wrongs of last four hundred years, not merely the last seventy. NRx may intensely oppose modernity but comes to that conclusion by a rational weighing of pros and cons, not the burning red hand of holy vengeance. Not to discount the commitment of our rivals to resistance, they surely will resist with us nobly. Nevertheless, without embracing the Romantic they will not be able to amass the spiritual energy needed to slay the Adversary. To a disillusioned young Brahmin in search of meaning HRx gives a much more appealing program since it directly satisfies his longing for glory, leadership, and the divine.

Neoreaction isn’t made up of “the trike”, two of the spokes are marginalized and better fit with us here. Techno-commercialism is NRx, one is the other and the other is the one, there is no distinction. If one has any reservations regarding capitalism/economism then EHNN ARRGH EXSC is certainly not the ideology for you. Tech-com thinks of capitalism as some sort of elder-God that must be sacrificed to by all means possible. It does not seek humanities’ redemption but the implementation of a post-human computerized despotism via cyborgs or super machines. Man may be a rough beast but he is our only reliable conduit to what is above and beyond, tech-com forfeits any bets on humanity for good reasons, yet, such a conclusion is untenable for several centuries more and is morally reprehensible. It is betrayal of the entirety of our species to the perceived wills of its own financial and computational tools. The true Reactionary perceives the phenomenal extent of greatness that may be achieved by great men, that fundamentally better results will be achieved by fostering excellence amongst the best of men, rather than tending to inanimate gadgets and lines of code. Disraeli stated it forthright to the materialist liberals of his day:-

That question is this: Is man an ape or an angel? I, my lord, I am on the side of the angels.

Aesthetically, NRx is beholden to two sources, universe of the robots-esque science fiction and the much more admirable Lovecraftian cosmic horror. There is certainly some beauty and grandeur that can be drawn from these reservoirs, nevertheless, they dwell upon very anti-Reactionary things. Primarily a lionization of chaos and entropy. The true Reactionary should hate such, casting it out forthwith!  He aught to strive for growth and structure always, especially so in an environment of pervasive disorder. We may be on the precipice of chaos, but that should only motivate us to strive harder to keep it at bay, to look hither, not down at the abyss. It is similar to the Marxist who obsesses over capitalism to where he cannot think without its presence, yes, it is chaotic out there, we do not need that anti-sucture to think as we do. Why not “Order Patch”, hmm?

Historically “free markets” have in no way been tied to Reactionary leaders or figures, since the position could be identified it was associated with mercantilism. Liberal revolutions: the American, Spanish American, the first French, KuK 1848, were greatly motivated by dissatisfaction with the mercantile policies of the court. Hungarian nationalism and to a lesser extent Italian nationalism, were indistinguishable from the local liberal movements. If one recalls the grievances of the Boston mob they mostly concerned import duties, minor tax for a standing army, and nonsensical “natural rights”. When NRx kvetch about shekels it is clear they have absorbed a tremendous amount of yellow intoxicant. As Rxfuture said, to criticize mercantilist policy as “socialism” demonstrates the narrow vision of our rivals, it is hardly worth a serious repose. Their eyes are so jaundiced that they see Pink when there is only White. Here is Carlyle obliterating libs in LDP:-

“Awake, arise — before you sink to death eternal ! Unnamable destruction, and banishment to Houndsditch and Gehenna, lies in store for all nations that, in angry perversity, or brutal torpor and owlish blindness, neglect the eternal message of the gods, and vote for the Worse while the Better is there. Like owls they say, Barabbas will do ; any orthodox Hebrew of the Hebrews, and peaceable believer in M’Crowdy and the Faith of Leave-alone will do : the Right Honorable Minimus is well enough; he shall be our Maximus ; under him it will be handy to catch mice, and Owldom shall continue a flourishing empire.'”

Firstly, one must wonder what exactly it is about our economics that they find so despicable. Since we hate the international banking cabal™ we would not further any of the financial insanity that is so blatantly criminal. If speculation is under control and the currency is stabilized any state with an able population will meet production needs. What exactly do you need more “growth” for? Over production, excess supply, short sighted planning, egregious waste, are all undesirable, not desirable. Cost of living, as any progressive could tell you, is a small fraction of total wealth available, this is quite advantageous to a wise sovereign seeking stability. Augustus gave the plebs a grain dole and public shows, was he a pinko too, Hurlock? Welfare may be dysgenic but the market is hardly much better, poor and stupid people regardless of the superstructure have more children with birth controls available. An authoritarian eugenics system plus patriarchy is the only way to guarantee human stock moves in the right direction. Neither of which are compatible with personal freedoms and individual rights, and from that, thus too, your precious markets.

Secondly, by acknowledging corporate bodies are all of the same organizational essence then one must also admit that allowing a more powerful corporation into the sovereign space disrupts the sovereign’s absolute control. If your “patch” the size of Lebanon allows Seimans or Coke to operate as they please, you’ll soon realize they are the dominate party simply by their size and wealth. USG Empire isn’t just DoD and State, it has levied corporations the world over to its side, it is impossible the whole world will buck democracy simultaneously, therefore, any reacto-society would have to struggle with a business culture still smoking progressive crack. Employees trained by “Five Habits of Highly Effective People” are not going to facilitate Pagan essentialist hierarchy if there isn’t an iron fist to guide them, the invisible hand will not do. Most all countries who are in opposition to the Cathedral also have national catallaxy, though their success varies wildly. It speaks volumes that Land, the defacto leader of tech-com, chooses to reside in the autocratic PRC even though he hails Capitalism as saviour, political structure ultimately takes precedence even to the most materially minded. I agree with Yockey that the Soviet Union was ultimately more Rightist at the end of the day because economics is not part of the Left-Right spectrum of Calrylean-Menciian theory, or at least mostly irrelevant to it. Yockey’s political theory outlined in The Enemy of Europe is closer to trve Rx than any mechanistic illusion wafting up from our festering yellow under-belly.

Why is the additional production of few more widgets apparently worth the socio-cultural costs of capitalism? I have another tough question- does Neoreaction attempt to be not Whigs in any capacity? If so they do not try at it.

In conclusion, illiberal Reaction is taking our leave from quisling revisionists. They are materialists who wish to govern by protocol, philosophically and spiritually joined to our enemies, at the foot if not at the hip. Any man of faith, be him Abrahamic or Pagan, must realize support of these leaders is a sin. They are deceivers who will stab us in the back the second our fight threatens their avarice, if they even take up arms when the time comes… They reject the hero, they reject the sublime, and thus any exoteric link to the Holy on High. Moreover, they do not even pretend to have any solutions for non anglo-civilizations, we speak truths that ring true for all peoples by historical precedent, that good governance and order is always Good. This is not universalist, this is an impetus for imperialism, we must seize, grasp towards, the chance of Imperivm. Let them be content in their insignificant, measly patches– our dreams are grander than a particularistic covetousness. It is Destiny, God is on our side.

Brief Quote Regarding Scientistry

I’m in a History of Evolution course because it fits my schedule to only have class two days per week. It’s, of course, anti HBD and mono-speciest, but gotta know my enemy. My struggle for survival aloft the ivory tower isn’t the point of this post, though.

Whenever our NRx rivals worship at the totem of science it unnerves me. We may use that totem for our benefit but it is by no means saviour. The disaster of positivism proved that decisively in the nineteenth century.

Anyways, the prof mentioned Darwin was a great celebrity during his Victorian life- so it dawned on me he must’ve personally known Carlyle. A quick goog revealed this incredibly interesting segment from the naturalist’s posthumous published autobiography.

“His [Carlyle’s] talk was very racy and interesting, just like his writings, but he sometimes went on too long on the same subject. I remember a funny dinner at my brother’s, where, amongst a few others, were Babbage and Lyell, both of whom liked to talk. Carlyle, however, silenced every one by haranguing during the whole dinner on the advantages of silence. After dinner Babbage, in his grimmest manner, thanked Carlyle for his very interesting lecture on silence.

Carlyle sneered at almost every one: one day in my house he called Grote’s ‘History’ “a fetid quagmire, with nothing spiritual about it.” I always thought, until his ‘Reminiscences’ appeared, that his sneers were partly jokes, but this now seems rather doubtful. His expression was that of a depressed, almost despondent yet benevolent man; and it is notorious how heartily he laughed. I believe that his benevolence was real, though stained by not a little jealousy. No one can doubt about his extraordinary power of drawing pictures of things and men—far more vivid, as it appears to me, than any drawn by Macaulay. Whether his pictures of men were true ones is another question.

He has been all-powerful in impressing some grand moral truths on the minds of men. On the other hand, his views about slavery were revolting. In his eyes might was right. His mind seemed to me a very narrow one; even if all branches of science, which he despised, are excluded. It is astonishing to me that Kingsley should have spoken of him as a man well fitted to advance science. He laughed to scorn the idea that a mathematician, such as Whewell, could judge, as I maintained he could, of Goethe’s views on light. He thought it a most ridiculous thing that any one should care whether a glacier moved a little quicker or a little slower, or moved at all. As far as I could judge, I never met a man with a mind so ill adapted for scientific research.”

-Charles Darwin

That statement isn’t negative enough to declare the evolutionist an enemy by any means, nor are his theories particularly incorrect. Rather, we must not fear the insult “anti-science”, as that form of inquiry has largely been opposed to our designs besides some glorious exceptions like Newton and Leibniz.  Whatever the “scientific worldview” may be, it is not the HRx one, or any ideology we may find acceptable for that matter.

STEMers may build our missiles or manufacture our pharmaceuticals, but they must not be allowed any power and even less sovereignty. The Rightist Brahminate must work tirelessly to avoid rule devolving to “the telescopes and microscopes of committees and parties” as Lippman wished. Technocratic bureaucracy ends in a singularity much like the modern PRC, to avoid this hellish post-human life, we must take a stand here now.