“Have you heard of this guy? Moldbug’s acolyte, who claims everyone misinterprets the original prophet. Only the acolyte himself knows what the wise ones were truly saying.”
A männerbund’s strength is tested once it receives a couple of blows. Reaction has plenty of natural dissenters, ergo the reaction blogosphere is a good place to deliver and receive some blows. Reactionary Future is good at delivering blows. Let’s return some blows.
RF’s main thesis is that the combined works of Moldbug + de Jouvenel is a complete explanation for the way in which power works. I disagree and I see 2 main problems.
The first problem is that the synthesis between Moldbug & de Jouvenel is forced. Moldbug is the San Franciscan intellectual father of modern reaction, de Jouvenel was a French liberal who was realistic about the nature of power. There is some overlap but no definite synchronization of these 2 thinkers. RF forces a connection and by doing so de facto creates a 3-way connection in which he himself becomes the 3rd name in the Brahmin-triangle. In doing so he assumes moral high-ground which allows him to chastise others for not being True reactionaries. Or, well, yeah, they are reactionaries but since reaction has nothing to do with Moldbug it doesn’t matter anyway. Denoting holy status to important works is good and all, but the claim to holiness here is obvious. The power of difficult scripture usually does not lie in the scripture itself but with the person interpreting the scripture.
The second and more pressing problem is that ‘Moldbug + de Jouvenel’ creates a closed system: ‘these works contain all there is to know about power, so study them.’ This amounts to a Brahmin re-education program which I believe to be unnecessary. I find myself in Jim’s camp: we have been led for too long by priests who have failed us. Now is not the time for brahmins to devise new post-progressivism cathedrals. Now is the time for warriors to overthrow the current cathedral and rule like kings. Brahmin signaling should be directed towards advising Vaisyas: Brahmin advice should be practical and useful. RF is barking up the wrong tree by giving Brahmins advice in what holy books they should read instead of giving Vaisyas advice in how to rule. People will read whatever books they will and remember whatever theories they will remember. Repeating the works of smarter thinkers is fair game but putting a lid on it and exclaiming ‘there it’s done now!’ achieves little. It is simply not the way in which Schelling points work.
So in conclusion Reactionary Future over-expanded his intellectual territory. The initial message impresses, but the grandeur is too vapid. Also I disliked that he did not approve a comment I left on his blog. That is all I have to say about that.
Why are Jews so sneaky? Does that question beg an answer? This depends on your stance on the Jew question. Either you’ve already agreed that Jews are sneaky or the thought police is telling you to stop reading this blog. Let us pretend truth is your first and only concern, this makes writing easier for me.
The best book I’ve ever read is Denial of Death, by (((Ernest Becker))). I read it because I was into Mark Manson and the Rawness and they discussed it on a podcast. Denial of Death made a big impression on me. I never read anything like Becker’s psychological analysis of man before. Basically the book was about fear of death as the driving impulse of mankind. Nature is blood red in tooth and claw and man is uncertain of anything, except his death. We are caught between animals and gods (‘gods with anuses’) and in our entrapment we embark on a causa sui project to attain immortality. Among many topics Becker discussed art, depression, psychosis and hero worship. Becker was also the first to explain Freud in a way that made sense to me (Becker’s explanation: replace sex with death). Becker concluded that since we are all in denial about death anyway, we better just make the best of what we have got. You want to be a Christian? Be a Christian.
So what is the problem with this book? Is there even a problem at all? I mean the message is hopeful right? Denial of Death shows immense insight into the psychology of mankind. Well, yes. But one does not exclude the other: a book can be both insightful and subversive. Ask Marx.
The point I will try to make is that often in order to solve a puzzle you have to reach behind the puzzle as opposed to talk to the puzzle. Essentially you work on the basis of assumptions and you test for each assumption. You might assume that Ernest Becker has all the best of intentions. Similarly you might assume that Ernest Becker is subversive. On the individual level both assumptions can be held since individuals believe all kinds of stupid stuff. None the less truth is truth, which means that factually only one of these assumptions can be correct. We cannot prove everything. Many things in life are unfalsifiable. The Jews seem to be very proficient at constructing unfalsifiable realities. Ernest Becker’s book is brilliant. It is also unfalsifiable. Death is simply a metaphor Becker uses to explain the complexity of life. Freud did the same with sex. Christianity did the same with God. So really Becker is not saying anything new. He is just repeating old unfalsifiable versions of reality.
The assumption is that Jews have been selected for a natural talent to verbally explain life. I am reminded of (((Vicktor Frankl’s))) Man’s Search for Meaning or this (((random rabbi))) on the internet:
This is their talent. But I have grown skeptical of their motives. Blame the black pill. Gnon whispers me to stop being a sucker.
Edit: Jim Jim Jim – http://blog.jim.com/culture/heartiste-addresses-the-jewish-question/
I find myself in an interesting situation where I get along better with women than ever before, yet at the same time piss off some women more than ever before. Let’s talk about women.
A woman is always pinging her environment for social cues. She is constantly asking herself the question: who is in charge here? If she is not sure who is in charge, she will test you. If she is sure you are in charge, she will occasionally test you to see if you are still in charge. If no one is in charge she will pretend to be in charge by imitating men who were in charge of her, yet in her actions she will remain a child.
Someone always has to be in charge. The conclusion of reaction is that no one really is in charge. This conclusion is way too scary for working women to contemplate, who instead bury their fear by attributing holy alpha status to the government. The system is in charge! Hence their obsession with protocols, reports and endless meetings. It does not matter that nothing gets done, what matters it that everything looks good on paper.
A working environment which is taken over by women in this way is inherently unstable. It is a spiteful and dysfunctional environment, filled with gossip and childish behavior. How to solve this? The answer is so obvious that no one dares to utter it: put these women in their place. They will shriek and they will throw childish tantrums. Persist with calm demeanor. In the end the working environment will be healthy and productive and these women will be happy for being treated in exactly the way they want to be treated.
De NOS heeft bij mij altijd wel een zekere mate van respect genoten. Neutraal nieuws brengen, niet meer en niet minder. Mijn rotsvaste vertrouwen in Nederlandse staatsjournalistiek vertoonde de eerste scheurtjes nadat concurrent Geenstijl erop wees dat NOS met beelden sjoemelt: zo werd Putin in 2014 extra asociaal neergezet en werd in 2009 een applaus voor de koningin met 8 seconden verlengd. Opvallend is natuurlijk dat we dit alleen maar weten omdat een ander media instituut dit heeft gerapporteerd. Menselijke natuur vertelt ons dat de NOS wel vaker schuldig zal zijn aan ‘aanpassingen’.
Maar no big deal toch? Ok ok, koningin goed, Putin slecht. Maar het is niet alsof ze aan de lopende band leugens verkopen. Toch? Helaas. Harvard eist gehoorzaamheid en zodoende komt de NOS niet onder haar taak als propagandamachine van de linkse staat uit. De NOS verkoopt leugens aan de lopende band. Deze worden vanzelfsprekend op volledig neutrale manier verkocht: ‘we vragen de meningen van de experts, dat is alles.’
No no no. Fuck that. This was supposed to be a piece about the NOS (Dutch state media) churning out propaganda pieces for the cathedral, but the style doesn’t feel right. From an endarkened perspective it is obvious that the NOS is cathedralizing, e.g. here, where white knights agree that we need more women in top positions. But it is difficult to communicate the obvious to the oblivious. I am trying to build bridges between enlightenment and reactionary values but it comes off as weak. I think it is because I am trying to argue on behalf of both groups. But there is an undeniable schism between the groups and when I pretend otherwise I am being fake.
Leftism is degenerate by nature. It infiltrates functioning systems and feeds off their blood. It is exactly like a parasite. Leftist values always destroy long-term prosperity for the sake of short-term profit. Biologically speaking the r-selected abuse the prosperous safety-margins built in by the K-selected. Theologically speaking leftism is just plain evil. Ergo demonic priests have hijacked Western civilization.
The SJW narrative is coming into full swing in the Netherlands. Pillarization is falling apart. This country has no serious intellectual resistance to the r-selected masses. And no serious resistance will amass for a while; the country is functioning too well. Its people are too decadent, too self-satisfied. The Netherlands is a fat pig that makes any migrant watery in the mouth.
A peaceful resolution will never be achieved with the r-selected demons, for they yearn to watch the world burn. As for the infamous moderates – these people will not be swayed by abstract logic. They can only be influenced by power, fertile girls and good art.
EDIT: Nick Krauser once again hits the nail on the head: