Today I’d like to offer some encouragement to my fellow reactionaries
Sailer: "Much of contemporary politics, therefore, consists of the the winners of the 1960s trying to preserve their gains." It’s too bad it’s still so hard to find good history books on the ’60s.
Homeless people in the ’40s wore suits. Now they shout crazy things at passers-by who studiously ignore them. Progress!
Kalim Kassam points to some thoughts from R. L. Dabney on universal suffrage. He also links to this piece on Anarcho-monarchism.
Jim: "Any organization that calls itself a non government organization turns out in practice to be largely a government organization. It follows therefore, that an NGO is a government doing something evil."
A major difference between real science (as it was) and scientific research (as it is now) can be stated in the form that real scientists aimed to be as honest as possible, while scientific researchers do not allow their honesty to fall below a minimum level.
Whiskey on Sweden. I disagree with his analysis. IMHO, feminism is a symptom of a deeper disease.
By "communist" I don’t mean the current definition, which means "Stalinist". I include under communism everything from communes like the Oneida community to Stalin’s Five Year plans and Mao’s collective farms, to New Deal Socialism-lite, to European "social democracy". Communism is a system where society is collectively regulated by a caste of bureaucrats or intellectuals who rule in the name of the people with the purpose of enforcing equality.
Black people still don’t like homos.
Pat Buchanan on "democracy worshipers"
Private cities as hotels on a grand scale
Someone at Treasury doesn’t want to break up large banks. Do you really think the results would have been different if someone other than Geithner had been Secretary?
I’m always surprised to find out just how aggressive affirmative action has to be, for example. Related thoughts here.
A cashflow approach is much more effective for figuring out where we’re headed. Money flows out to the folks on Wall Street who bankrupted their firms, to schoolteachers who’ve failed to teach their students, to government workers who feel that simply showing up to work is a heroic achievement, to executives and union workers in America’s oldest and least competitive industries. If times are tough and money is tight, that means almost nothing is left over for productive investment. What would have been a short recession will turn into a long depression and decades of higher taxes and slow growth to pay for all of the cash ladled out. Special interest groups will continue to gain in power.
Foseti 
As I’ve said before, I don’t understand this desire to re-define Communism, especially when there is a perfectly good definition out there, that has been accepted for well over one-hundred years. I know Moldbug wants to redefine it as “people to the left of me that I don’t like”, but just because MM wants it does not necessarily make it wise or desirable, no matter how many other things he is right about. Re-defining words to suit your liking is a leftist ploy, and isn’t MM always telling us that we can’t win by playing by the left’s rules? Re-define words all you like, but please keep in mind that no one is obligated to agree with you, and people will not know what the Hell you’re talking about when you call Nixon or Thatcher a “Communist”, when they self-evidently were not. Disappear into that deconstructionist morass, and before you know it, Murray Rothbard is a ‘fascist” and Lincoln is “queer” and Kennedy is a “commie” and words have lost all meaning. I realize that this is a goal of the left, but I have no idea why we on the right are playing along…