Category Archives: Profeten

The Riddle of Reactionary Future

“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.


Ernest Becker, Denial of Death and Magic

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 –

Hestia society needs a prophet

“The core of our problem is that there is no one with the secure authority to fix things. The core of our solution is to find a man, and put him in charge, with a real chain of command, and a clear ownership structure.”

Hestia Society de facto is neoreaction*, because civilization is the only morality. Hestia society is a lot like Isaac Asimov’s Foundation. Both groups anticipate civilizational disaster and prepare for it. In Asimov’s version the Foundation turns out to do all kinds of awesome stuff. In real life’s version it is pretty much impossible to say what Hestia society will accomplish.

On a long enough time scale all science turns into stories turns into myths. The Schelling point for neoreactionary wisdom must therefore be easily memorable yet very effective. For the human brain it is ultimately (male) prophets that are best at fulfilling the function of such a Schelling point. Hence the success of Jesus Christ and Karl Marx. Hence also the initial success of the Foundation which was led by the brilliant Hari Seldon; “a mathematician and psychologist, [who] has developed psychohistory, a new field of science and psychology that equates all possibilities in large societies to mathematics, allowing for the prediction of future events. Using psychohistory, Seldon mathematically determines what he calls The Seldon Plan—a plan to determine the right time and place to set up a new society, one that would replace the collapsing Galactic Empire by sheer force of social pressure, but over only a thousand-year time span, rather than the ten-to-thirty-thousand-year time span that would normally have been required, and thus reduce the human suffering from living in a time of barbarism.” 

Wow, what a guy. I mean I know some psychology, but being able to predict the black swan events of the entire universe over the course of 100+ years? Someone wants to live forever. Lead your people, perform miracles, die for a greater cause and make millions cry when they think of you. Be a prophet.

No wonder the Foundation got off to a flying start. So the formula for neoreaction is simple: Hestia Society + Jesus 2.0 = successful neoreaction.

Of course the problem is that you can not backwards engineer a religion. Hestia Society can only influence Hestia Society. ‘Jesus 2.0’ remains the undefined variable**. Any prophet must first show his worth by conquering Hestia Society much like how Genghis Khan first conquered Mongolia. Who in real life is the reactionary prophet? Who is the leader? So far I hear no one making an outright claim to the throne, which I infer by the fact that Hestia Society’s website does not name a leader. This makes sense – as long as a prophet is not standing up that means that the people sitting around the table are no prophets. Which is good to know. Clarity of communication and all.

The only real serious nomination so far is Moldbug, who has declined the offer. Same for me [there say like it matters]. I’m a smart guy but I am no prophet. I am satisfied being a guy who prophecizes about the coming of a prophet.


* or heroic reaction.
**ReactionaryFuture defines Jesus 2.0 -or at least the necessary intellectual framework for such a prophet- as the works of Moldbug + de Jouvenel. These works probably do include all the information necessary for Hestia Society to succeed. Is the Schelling point effective enough? Perhaps. Right now I prefer Jim’s Schelling point.