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.

Ein Volk, Eine Vereinigung, Ein Trumpenführer

Seems everyone has something to say about Trump, I’d think it’d be better to put all my thoughts out at once and early on.

Der Donald is one for the history books, regardless how it turns out, his campaign will forever change the political landscape. He’s dominated the airwaves of pop politics like no figure in my lifetime; he’s pushed the Overton window to the Right and pinned the GOPe like it’s one of his WWE appearances. You’ve heard these points before though, let’s search for some original content in the Froude Society brain trust.

As far as politics goes, it’s a good rule to always look at the reaction as closely as the thing in question. The amount of progressive signaling I’ve seen regarding Trump has been breathtaking in scale and intensity. Though I’m not on many social media sites and am rather reclusive, as far as I can tell, the Left of center populace has exploded in rage. Donald was always a controversial figure being as bombastic and alpha as he is, most of the heat was from feminists over his association with Miss America. Being an “A-List” celebrity since The Apprentice , the public was already familiar enough with him that such a widespread response was easily possible among the ignorant, apathetic. Regardless of what pre-wiring was encoded regarding the Don, the vile aimed at him is an extremely interesting phenomena. It is a great example of the Cathedral flexing its might, you can’t get hundreds of millions of people (worldwide) standing for the “2 minute hate” without some mondo strong piety waves. The anti-Trump coalition is some of our best evidence of our enemies’ true nature as a decentralized religious movement, it coalesced in a short few months and has yet to near its final act. Whenever our enemy makes any sudden movements we must know why and to where. Let’s explore some of the ways the Left’s response to Trump may pan out.

Trump may discredit Democracy to a whole new generation of trve Democrats, especially if he clenches the final victory. Such a situation may give a windfall of support to non-electoral Leftist movements, with millions of Brahmins turning to Communism, Obscurantism and Anarchism. Such a shift may be especially notable within ‘Merica, where the progressive base is downhearted under Obama’s false promises; all the while, progressive Americans have historically cherished democratic institutions. Teflon Don is also a convenient poster child for “fascism”, like Bush before him, he is a uniting point for anti-Americanism and anti-imperialism internationally. It’s so much easier to hate a single individual than an idea- thus, the best way to get people to hate an idea is to get that idea easily lined up behind a single individual. In a way, Trump has taken the media pressure off the rest of the Right by hogging all the microphones, he also solidifies an American version of ballot attempts at counter-Revolution already underway in Europe. A pan-Western alternative Right looks increasingly clear to our foes. The Left tends to grow more extreme when out of office, also more spirited and lively. During the Bush years there was a tremendous amount of progressive scheming and subversion afoot, as a child during that period, I was sadly put under their Jedi mindtricks as well. By attaching themselves to the notion of permanent rebellion, our adversaries gain strength and organization, quaking beneath the shadow of Trump’s mob.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the average Brahmin to perceive Trump as literally Hitler, this sparks her deeply programmed fears of fascism. I don’t much disagree with her assessment but I’d have to point out Gentile or Goebbels would roast Trump as a liberal plutocrat. One must remember Fascism and Communism’s dancing relationship, they rise and fall with one another as opposites on the field of liberal democracy, inseparable extrapolations of demotic ideas. This is why there’s also a communist (small c of course) on the ballot, Bernie [mom’s maiden name GLASSBERG] Sanders. It’s loads of fun watching the thinking types “REEEEEEEEEE” at Trump, but in the process we are missing out on the “listen and believe” spectacle of our generation- the campaign for Sander’s nomination. Ire towards Trump has taken the wind out of the positive-comments-only-campaign radiating from America’s #1 Yankee Jew. Materialist ideology has much less pull for the Brahminate now than when Sanders earned his red stripes, therefore his flock isn’t what it could be. Nevertheless, Sanders personifies a legitimate dissatisfaction with neoliberalism that is surely also held by very influential people within the Institutions. Furthermore, if one combines Trump’s support with Bernie’s, Cruz’s, and Carson’s we can estimate over half of the politically active population is against the establishment; that’s huge for an allegedly majoritarian system.

With the “Brown” trap card already face up on the field and Trump’s lifepoints still at 8000, the media does not look to be sending Trump to the Shadow Realm in this round of Yugioh-dueling. Trump is treating the super serious beltway blessings machine as a mere obstacle to beat in order to win his game. I think this disregard for the information organs is what makes them hate Trump the most, he weakens and shames the media by his continued acts of defiance. Even a few apologies or flip-flops may have staved off their wrath, yet he doubled down and dug in so he is now virtually “anti-fragile” from the conventional attacks. Shrugging off the “Brown” card so nonchalantly is incredible, that’s sending the official press back to pre-WWII era power levels. Trump will surely have more gaffs and “unacceptable” opinions before the primaries finish but will probably gain support from some major tragedy, especially if it’s Sunni terror or a financial run.

It’s fun for the Reactionary to take the idea of Democracy as a lowscale civil war to a stronger LARPy metaphor. Trump is a self funded noble rebel with a massive peasant armee that fights without compensation, only for the love of the Prince and hatred for his adversary. The coalition against him looks unbeatable on paper but they’ve been routed at every significant confrontation. Coalition generals promise he’s surrounded but they produce no verifiable casualty reports or territorial exchanges. Trump’s cavalry miraculously evade every new artillery barrage, breaking through they seize the big guns and turn them back around on the scattering forces. Of the Red imperial provinces he’s now invading many notable nobles and generals (Cruz, Carson) have foregone direct confrontation with the Donald, forced into neutrality by mass defections. Necromancers and dark conjurors have tacitly lent their magic to Herr Donald, whom he never recognizes, yet their spells have weakened mental resistances across the realm.

Our sclerotic New Deal state is too feeble to spar with Trump mano-y-mano. The institutions cannot fight Trump on their own but neither can Hillary. He is gifted with a remarkable energy and has sharply criticized Bush and Clinton for a lack of it. This energy is of a classically Protestant nature that is integral to Anglo Fascism, Mosley’s type of Fascism, a deep-seated hatred for indecisive parliamentary chatter.

In the lives of great nations comes the moment of decisions, comes the moment of destiny and this nation again and again in the great hours of fate has swept aside the little men of talk and of delay and has decided to follow men and movements who say we go forward to action! – Oswald Mosley

Trump, never a stranger to effort and perfection, would actually make an attempt at governing well, such a prospect verily terrifies the Cathedral which has deemed good governance as the deadliest political sin. Under budget and ahead of schedule is the opposite of how a bureaucratic democracy wishes to run itself.

Trump has stated many times that he wishes for an election tomorrow. In a non-Anglo/pre-modern political tradition this would mean an armed revolt would have started months ago. Democracy in the West has an uncanny habit of eventually supporting itself. Forceful revolution is unlikely to happen at this level of relative stability but the Trump movement has the Will to overthrow USG, but won’t. Trump has yet to call for violence in his name, which by definition, means he’s not a doctrinal Fascist.

Neocons hate Donald not just for his similarities with “Teutonic nihilists” but for his split from the conventional Jacobin foreign policy. He opposed the Iraq war from the outset and has cited no interest in Whig wars for Democratic post-imperialism. Republicans suffered sticking with Bush era foreign policy with the McCain candidacy but time has passed and they may be able to get away with a new neocon such as Rubio considering the instability of the Middle-East. Donald has already stated he would be “great friends with Vladimir Putin”, personally that’s the biggest reason why I feel Trump’s victory may be necessary, Hillary or an Establishment president may bring us far too close to WWIII. In regards to the unfolding wars Trump is much closer to Putin, and therefore reality, than any of our Trotskyite Reds. Today in Mississippi he went as far as to admit to his crowd that Obama and Clinton created ISIS, such a move should make him a hero to any honest patriot. He’ll be willing to make deals on the diplomatic stage much more akin to classic international law which may end up sacrificing American interests in some troublesome areas. In the words of a Neocon friend:

Trump would cede geopolitical control of the Middle East to Russia

America’s Empire must be weakened if not destroyed for the far-Right to succeed. How far Trump could destroy the Empire is hard to gauge, he’d hardly lower defense spending, in the aforementioned speech he said he was “the most militaristic person in the room”. Regardless of what the DoD priests may warn, I fear Trump may ultimately strengthen the Union’s international might, which would be a disastrous for the Reactionary interest. Hillary or Bernie would guarantee a rapid State Department driven decay into maddened mismanagement. Trump also (ostensibly) knows the warrior caste well and wholeheartedly respects their well being.

Moldbuggian five class analysis well explains the Trump phenomenon, better than any of the media talking heads. Visyas, those of the warrior caste, have hitherto been led by Optimates for several generations, being a lower class without agency Visyas are conditioned to need an Optimate champion to act upon their ignored wishes. The OV alliance has always been a dishonest one, with Optimates frequently underselling V interests by siding with financial powers, liberal thinkers, and militant globalists over their serfs. Trump is the perfect Optimate, his name is synonymous with the very class, every detail of his life strengthens this realization; from the golf courses, to the New York pedigree, to the super model south-Slav wives. Self-funding his campaign essentially announces to the other Optimates that he is going rogue, he doesn’t need a coalition of loyal peers to approve of his actions. I’m skeptical of how much campaign money and Citizens United really effects matters, plutocracy is the way for the US of A, how many 30sec cable ads in October one can barrage seems rather insignificant. What matters from these donations is allegiance- he rejects the methodology of bourgeoisie medium scale political special interest webs- i.e. cigar room old boys club cabals. Such vigorous independence is anti-Republican at its most literal sense and sets Trump up to be quite the Authoritarian. Though such a break from the pack is probably overwhelmingly ego driven, Trump sees himself as a winner and doesn’t need anyone else to help him.

Trump’s support is almost entirely Visya in numbers but he has the ability to levy more Dalits than any other Republican could. Among Dalit blacks and whites Trump is a figure worthy of honest respect. Take a look at this video, Trump has been mentioned in rap music for over a quarter century, his alpha swag compared side-by-side with the toxic Queen Clinton is enough to suppress the Obama Dalit surge as well as overall turnout. Intellectually and memetically Trump has tapped into the potential of the new Rightist Brahminate throughout the West. Amongst young Western men we see more and more that the only political opinions enthusiastically preached are of the far-Right. Outside of places like reddit occupied by Leftists or three letter agencies, only pro-Trump stances are passionately argued for, all the other candidates are worthy of but a brief glance. Western millennial men are incredibly apathetic to politics, supporting Trump is cool because he is contrarian and entertaining. Genuinely thinking Donald will save us all will get you kicked from the HRx and NRx Sith Lord club houses, yet tacit support for his whirlwind of chaos should be very much expected by us at this late hour. Under the veil of this chaos we may corral some warriors out from under their cruel masters to the banner of dissident counter-revolution. We can expose the Vs and Ds to the manly despotism they naturally prefer.

Democracy by being so idealistic has allowed itself to be injured. Such is its critical fragility, anti-democratic thoughts can mortally threaten the system by the formulaic, egalitarian electoral process. If the New Deal Republic had the ability to “draw a red line” to exclude men like Trump it would, yet, the fiction that “any 35 year old natural born citizen can be president” is imperative to the Union’s legitimacy. Trump called the bluff and is now in the process of destroying the Outer party. America’s two party arrangement is rather precarious as we have seen by the examples of her clients where one of the parties falls by some chain of events into a languishing obscurity, Labour in Britain is currently experiencing this by the leadership of treasonous Jeremy Corbyn. Same with the Left in Israel whose timidity about security and quisling enthusiasm about “peace” has  cemented a Likud + allies coalition. Republicans already suffered a period of total weakness from 1930-1948, this can happen again and is likely to transpire, they have lost 5 out of the last 6 popular votes for presidency and are demographically doomed. Ignorant of the cultures they vainly appeal to, the GOPe decided for the 2016 election they would be open-borders and more “moderate” than ever. Also, for downright nefarious reasons, sometime in late 2014, they decided Yeb Bush would be the candidate of choice. By the Republican establishment acting nearly identical to the Democrats, Trump has exposed the dog & pony show for all to see.

Trump is extremely confident about his own victory but I’m not. Not enough people like him to go out and vote Red to overcome the expected Inner Party activism. We can predict the community organizers to fight against him with an unprecedented ferocity and zeal, Clinton or Sanders they won’t care. USG only fights with its full heart when it knows it’s fighting to its Right, with Trump they will struggle against as if he were Tojo or the Kaiser. Voter fraud is completely possible, both at the primary and general election. Even if the election is an honest one, too many reliable conservative voters will never vote for Trump, they’ve bought into establishment morality and will not be caught signaling for a heretic. Traditionally unmoved registered Democrats will show up in the millions to repudiate a man they now despise.

Peace Sells, Don’t Buy It


Part of what makes Moldbug so important is he gave a fully fleshed out critique of progressivism that included the international context. He goes in depth on specific nations, providing incredible sources and nuance. As the far-Right has hither exploded in written material the bulk has failed to reach a comparable breadth. The vast majority of discussion has been a reaction (small r) against liberal ameri-western identity politics. Thus, it’s : blacks, women, gays, and Muslims. This has allowed the most devious progressive memes to pass under the proverbial firing line. We’re taking aim at one of these elusive false virtues today here at Froude Society- it’s Pacifism.

Amongst those of a traditional mindset the idea of Pacifism is as alien as Equality [of result], we just really can’t grasp it like they do. Therefore I formulated a definition as to not confuse the capital “P” variety with similar but distinct memes. Pacifism means that : the use of violence is inherently immoral, nearly always evil, even when employed in self-defense and thus should be eliminated from use by humankind. This rather extreme stance eliminates the non-leftist varieties of peace love, namely neoconservative effectual global pacifism by American hegemony, the Libertarian/ Ancap “non-aggression principal”, and Moldbuggian Passivism*.

There’s many ways by which this issue may be approached from, so it’s best to start with the most distant data. Firstly, we understand through archaeological and anthropological evidence that the idea of the peaceful savage is simply counterfactual. The earliest hominid remains have brutal scars that are obviously inflicted by other humans. Stone age tribes observed in the South Seas and Africa are warlike and rapacious whenever placed near a rival. Warriors have higher social status, slaves are often taken, boys train for combat in their play. Blank-slaters are of course, kooks, but their notions of human nature are ubiquitous and dogmatic. Poll the average Brahmin and she will think prehistoric man was a granola environmentalist, especially if it’s a people like the Amerindian that is generally conceived as an oppressed.

Ancient Western civilization also gives one a glimpse of the “Doctrine of Non-violence”®. Pax Romana immediately comes to mind, yet an elementary reading of Gibbon suggests the “imperium sine fine” was much closer to the neoconservative model than true Pacifism. In the Manichaean versions of God and the After-Life one may roughly interpret pacifismo by a stretch, Jews aren’t exactly told to make war upon rival Jewish sub-tribes. Having one supreme God nevertheless puts war and peace under the same jurisdiction, who naturally blesses and damns the same men with the same eye. Instead of having competing deities causing trouble it could conceivably be imagined a Divine with an ideal, perfect blueprint for man. Ending bloodshed was a profound hope for many outside of the Pax, the old Pagan world was verily “around whites prepare for fights”. Even under Caesar’s justice, the Golden Ass  depicts a violent common Roman life cursed with banditti, communitarian feuds and only vigilante policing; patterns Sicily never abandoned.

Like all tenants of progressivism, Pacifism is a perversion of Christ’s teaching. Of all those perversions, Pacifism might be the closest to doctrinally accurate, He is, after all, also known as the Prince of Peace. To “turn the other cheek” is a profound step away from Scythians drinking from the skulls of their vanquished foes. Gibbon makes a tight case of how Christianity dissolved martial virtues that were so fundamental to Roman Paganism. Yet once Christianity gained state power it upheld the duties of war, be it within the post-Constantine empire, the Northern tribes who took baptism, the Nestorians of the Steppe or the Orthodox ætheopians.

We do not find, of the Christian Religion either, that it always disdained the sword, when once it had got one.


Any discussion of war medieval and its antithesis is incomplete without considering Islam. Conceptually the world is divided into two “houses”, the house of war, where the infidel dwells and another, the house of peace, where lives the followers of Muhammad. Elementary criticism of Islam is the fact that the religion of Peace warred to survive and ecumenical disagreements remain so costly inside it. But mayhaps the racial nature of the lands of Islam also provides a clue to this- it encompasses overwhelmingly the “Brown” civilization. It is the furthest Conquest of Magian Cultural Soul, confined to peoples of certain phenotypic peculiarities and prehistoric environment; those such areas of Eurasia and North Africa which avoided the worst of our ice age’s sheet. Exceptions along the edges which are: Chechen, Uyghur, Punjabi, Javan, Anatolian, Bosnian, Sudanese, Grenadian, Turk- carry forth fearful, brutal memories and whom quake with irredentist tumult to this day.  All aside our own thoughts on any conflict zone or perceived theological truth, past or present;- HRx must praise Mohammetdon resistance to Pacifism sincerely.

Such Weztern impulses that would come to demand Paci conventions, constitutions, treaties, understandings and accords between the globe was, ultimately,  a child of the seventeenth century. Protestantism brought about a storm of religious speculation and discussion. Fed upon by the monastics of the age prior and the Counter Reformation rivalry, it  spawned volumes of literature on the justness of violence, as strife on confessional lines spiraled into total horror. Spanish inquisitions, privateering, and a Thirty Year’s War transitioned happily to the beautiful gentleman’s wars of the 18th century, limited in scope and brutality. Westphalian moderation was unfortunately only part of this response. Dissenters in Britain and extreme protestants in the old Lotharingian lands formulated kooky Utopian visions which included Pacifism.

These aforementioned areas, but most especially South East England, the United Provinces, Geneva, and some Huguenot towns; were not just extremely Protestant but extremely violent in the 17th century. It should be no surprise that the temples and kangaroo courts of Pacifism are in The Hague and Geneva, the seminal text of human rights international law is the Geneva Convention, there of all places! Yes, the same theocratic principality which Calvin preached and Rousseau scribbled. Pacifism is an issue where the crypto-Calvinist hypothesis is iron tight, its conquest the world over is directly linked to the martial and material successes of England and New England. Your average progressive’s devotions for “World Peace” are like something out of a Quaker’s sermon. In media a character often makes a comment that “World Peace” would be their dearest wish, really? We’re so conditioned to this idealism that such a theological phenomena squeaks by all anti-bodies.

Besides Rousseauean happy claps there’s also the dialectical materialist interpretation of pacifism. Classical Marxists and  fellow travelers perceive war making as a scheme of the Military-Industrial complex. War profiteers allegedly steer governments into battle for their own self interest, diverting labor and capital away from workers’ well being. This interpretation reached a zenith in 1918, the Bolsheviks and the accompanying Leftist revolutions in Europe, foremost being Ireland and Weimar. Once Stalin won a M.I.C. of his own, this brand of Pacifism was dropped by the Reds (if they ever had it at all) and taken up instead by social-democrats and the broader liberal left. To this day materialist Pacifism dominates our universities, most continental political parties, and much of the non-Islamic third world. In my AP European History class we sat through the polemical film mentioned at the start of this paragraph. It mostly cashed in on the anti-Iraq war sentiment (Saddam was super volkisch, screw Dubya). They look at the huge bills for military spending and shriek in horror, my disdain for this camp aside, the costs of armaments are admittedly enormous. NATO’s “free market” M.I.C. inflates costs by a considerable margin, Russian/Chinese equipment is a little worse but often a fraction of the cost.

Libertarians, as I like to say, are Marxists in inverse, their attitudes on violence are close to the same. One attacks when private property is violated, the other when the workers are violated. Collective or personal in inclination, they loath the martial virtues as barbarous obstacles to material growth. Libertykin have coined the term Welfare-Warfare state to attack “statism” at both portions of the sovereign duty. In some respects, Libertarians are even more pacifistic than their Leftist cousins, as historically the Liberal regimes of the 19th century were far less bloodthirsty than populist democracies and Red socialisms. Libertarians can’t really justify total war ideologically, but the Left definitely can and has done so. It’s also no surprise that Communism and Libertarianism came from mercantile peoples who in the late modern area suffered humiliating defeats by the swords of the manlier races. Namely Anglo-Sino-Jewish(-Gallic?) avarice versus PrussianYamato-Magyar(-Turkish?) militarism.

It was of course not a Misesian or Leninist peace plan that settled the First European Civil War, but a Wilsonian one. Cathedralist Pacifism as we know it inserted itself to the Entente side by way of Washington and has never lost the upper hand. What France and Italy wanted was far less idealistic and nationally focused. The US entered the war to “end militarism” and “make the world safe for Democracy”- translated to “enforce Pacifism” and “outlaw autocracy”. Moldbug provides us with a fantastic source on the nature of the Wilsonian ideology. Though Wik gives a satisfactory description from Herron alone.

“And so it came about that Professor Herron, pacifist, Socialist, and internationalist, became ardently pro-Ally at the beginning of the war and remained pro-Ally to the end. His faith never left him. Knowing as he did the iniquities of the Entente Powers, the secret treaties and understandings, the jockeying and trading for economic and political advantages even during the progress of the war, and the frightful anachronism of the Russian autocracy, he could still believe that the only hope for a change world lay in the overthrow of the German system. The evils in the polity and social organization of England, France, and Italy were bad enough, but they were eradicable; the evils in Prussianism were basic, innate, ineradicable. It was inevitable, therefore, that he should have desired the entry of the United States into the struggle.”

It is understandable for WWI to elicit such a response, but the League of Nation dreamers perceived they were dealing with a beast more perfect than Man. War was ostensibly outlawed with the Kellogg-Briand pact, which as our high school textbook tells us, directly led to “appeasement” and the Second European Civil War. Is it any surprise that Kellogg and Wilson are both the name of internationalist NGOs with massive endowments? Democracy, when it fights to its Right, goes all out, drafting the whole population and directing the whole economy to annihilate the enemy. “Unconditional surrender” and regime change for the adversary is the only way democracies accept winning, suing for peace with an exchange of territory is completely out of the question.

Both the New Deal Republic and the USSR were ostensibly pacifistic, coupled with mutually assured destruction, the Cold War was kept cold. Pacifism reformed again as the avocation of unilateral disarmament, the well known “peace symbol” is code for nuclear disarmament. The cause to reduce nukes has been sublimated into the cacophony of Green grievance and none of the nation’s with nukes look to be giving the up anytime soon. They did have one notable success  though, Congress South Africa, a blue imperial child Immaculately born from the XXX chromosome womb of State. Our Rainbow Nation gave up their nuclear weapons as a pact of third world post-colonial beta good faith. Disarmament has gone beyond weapons of mass destruction to include the proposed banning of automatic weapons, heavy weapons, basically any fire arm, even knives. Destroying potentially trillions of dollars of products is so idealistic it poignantly signals the nihilism and ravenous lunacy of the progressive vision. “No item on this earth may come between us and Peace, burn the phallic idols of fascism, such shall please Hera, Demos, and Moloc”. As any NRA cardholder could tell you, gun control will do little to stop violence, the right to bear arms isn’t even about safety but about rebellion. To be honest, I cannot see the pro ‘gun control’ side as anything but a saccharine evil that seeks to bring mankind closer to the neutered r/ selected matriarchal rat hive society.

Peace to ZOG, or whomever;  is actually far more violent than past centuries but on the magistrates’ ledger it appears best of ever, less States are openly at war but at a terrible cost. The Twentieth Century , the Century where Militarism was roundly defeated twice, has been so cruel a century it is beyond our comprehension. To the pacifist an appalling amount of low level violence is acceptable to prevent the use of symmetrical force. Pacifists almost always side with the guerrilla or gangster over the soldier who wishes to stop them. They turn a blind-eye to Sunni Islamists, antifa hotheads, or gangbangers holding territory and terrorizing citizens- wailing whenever a force is organized against them.

Regardless, the League and its successor, the UN, are super-American institutions whose major goal is to broker and enforce peace. Ultimately, as the League’s failure proved, such a stable coordination was only possible by American guns and the bankers’ credit. To enact this peace America (and its DoD clients) have become the martial leviathan their ancestors worked so hard to prevent, Whig wars have continued to be necessary to maintain the movement “towards” world peace. Pacifism, like Communism, Democracy, or Free-Markets cannot exist outside the realm of abstraction and temporary circumstance. War is politics taken to its extreme, they are inseparable human phenomena, as long as [geo]politics continues to exist, war will also. This next century looks to have plenty war in store, some of which will be HRx’s best chances at taking power, we must champion the right of combat because through it we may win back our civilizations.

*- Thanks for nickbsteves in the comments for pointing out my error spelling “Pacifism” as “passivism” in nearly half of the instances of the original draft. Passivism is part of Moldbug’s plan for Reactionary conduct to smoothly transition into a sane regime, it essentially means non-activism and to abstain from participating in the democratic grievance game. While I do have problems with the “reset”, neocameralism, and stockholder rule (why this blog is HRx not NRx), I do generally agree with passivism in most instances. Trying to beat the Left as the louder wailing mob is absurd and a waste of effort, it is a game which is designed for us to lose. We have to remember our enemies are usually ill informed, crazy, or evil- it’s hard for them to quantify our activities and beliefs. By being active we elicit their hate and bring their armies against our defenses before we have time to fortify and recruit. This is largely why I am quite distrustful of the Trumpenführer memeplex, as it has swiftly calcified opposition to many genuinely Rightist ideas at an astonishing rate, outpacing whatever shifts to the Overton Window it may have achieved. There are some causes that may be worth our energy, if only to stop them from drifting in a demotist/neocon direction, those being: anti-feminism, anti-Islam, Southern secession, the gold standard, and Euroskepticism.