The reactionary blogosphere

OneSTDV has a series of questions on the reactionary blogosphere, which I’d like to answer. The questions are italicized and my answers follow.

What do you think, in general, of the reactionary/anti-PC blogosphere (loosely defined as my blogroll and sites one degree away)?

In general, I think it’s about as good as we can hope it would be. I’d like to see it coalesce around some common beliefs. The three strands of the reactionary blogosphere that I follow are the game-related sites, the HBD-related sites and the reactionary politics sites (defined generally as those sites that oppose democracy, though if you have a better definition, I’m all ears). They’re all related. Once you begin to understand what people are really like, democracy becomes an absurdity, as do the ideas that all the races are super-equal and that men and women are totally the same.

What do you consider are its strengths and its weaknesses?

Its obvious strengths are: 1) it has truth on its side and 2) it’s the only place that certain – very important – ideas and concepts can be discussed.

It’s weaknesses are basically a function of its strengths. If you want to discuss certain ideas in modern times, you basically have to do so anonymously. This anonymity obviously limits its size and likelihood of having a broader impact.

Does it need a mainstream head? If so, should this come from an apolitical source (I think so as to avoid the partisan attacks, though Jimmy the Greek and James Watson might argue otherwise)?

No – to the first question. With mainstream-ness comes the closing of our minds to certain topics – this is basically the definition of "mainstream" in modern America. I think the reactionary-sphere can be defined or thought of as the anti-mainstream. To speak of or imagine it becoming mainstream is an impossibility in my mind.

Are there too many differing opinions or too much consensus?

I think lack of cohesion is the problem, as I said above. There isn’t too much consensus since no one really knows how to slow or stop Progressivism. Progressivism has been winning and brutally destroying all its enemies for so long, that’s hard to imagine what non-progressive ideas even sound like. As I’ve said before, it’s hard for us to even discuss ideas without using Progressive language.

Is it too pessimistic, masculine, or unpalatable to a wide audience?

Probably, but that’s a feature not a bug. If we wanted to appeal to a wide audience we’d be democrats, not reactionaries. As reactionaries, we know that anything appeals to a wide audience cannot – by definition – strive for anything above mediocrity.

Is it shrinking or gaining a niche mainstream presence by arising sporadically in news stories like this one?

I don’t think it’s gaining via mainstream sources (it almost can’t by definition), but I think people are increasingly aware of its ideas.

How can the reactionary/anti-PC blogosphere improve?

OneSTDV transitioned his blog from a HBD blog to a reactionary-politics blog and the transition was relatively seamless. This shows that the strands I discussed above are related. This relation should be more explicitly acknowledged.


22 Responses to The reactionary blogosphere

  1. Handle says:

    I’m still working on my own slow effort at Reactionary synthesis. The easiest way to understand it is as the realistic opposite of the human-nature delusions of the Progressives, which are fundamentally religious in nature. The key religious notion is the perfectibility of man (and, by implication, his absolute environmental and material determinism and the fundamental plasticity of character).

    Of course, this is an utterly and demonstrable false concept. It’s not even unfalsifiable, like the existence of the Divine, for example. But that’s really the common thread, as you point out.

    Are men and women “equal” psychologically, their behaviors a result of mere arbitrary social constructions (Blue), or are they fundamentally different in ways that society cannot uncondition, through something much closer to genetic determinism (Red)? That’s Game. Do the same for race or ethnicity – that’s HBD. Do the same for human nature, that’s a political vision more like traditional Aristocracy or Military Hierarchy (the military, of course, has little choice but to take actual human nature into account in order to design a successful structure and organization).

    As far as what the Reactionary Blogosphere is for, I must refer you again to Nock and his brilliant, Isaiah’s Job.

  2. Mark Tully says:

    I don’t see anonymity as a problem by itself. Sure it limits the reactionary’s ability to access certain media, but I think that the problem is mitigated by consistent identity management. Mencius Moldbug on one site is very likely to be Mencius Moldbug on another. There’s a socially significant digital trail that allows for a consistent discussion with the person operating the handle.

    Anonymity is necessary when challenging widely accepted political beliefs, or some other disguise. Digital sharing allows us to talk whereas before we would have had a much harder time networking.

    • Handle says:

      There a difference between anonymity (posting as “anonymous” and pseudonymity. See, e.g., this interview (and BTW, The Epicurean Dealmaker is an outstanding and entertainingly well-written site on the role of Investment Banking in the Financial Crisis:

      TED: Anonymity can indeed foster all sorts of bad, irresponsible behavior, and I am not in favor of it in general. But blogging (or even commenting on another blog) under a pseudonym, as I do, is very different. Anonymity means no identity; pseudonymity means a false or assumed identity.

      For one thing, operating under a pseudonym allows one to build up a corpus of opinion that can be judged in toto. Third parties can develop an opinion of your credibility and the value of your opinions for the very reason that you present a consistent identity, that you do in fact have a name. That this name is false, and a mask, is more a matter of convenience and perhaps professional necessity than it is of deception.

      If people judge my words and opinions interesting, provocative, and worthy, it does not really matter whether they know me as TED or Joe Smith. One can always worry that a pseudonymous commenter or blogger has an ulterior agenda, but I suspect that is both hard to conceal over a long period of time (I have been blogging for over four years) and, frankly, beside the point. I challenge you to find anyone commenting in public who does not have at least one unstated agenda. And yet we should be able to judge and evaluate each other’s contributions nonetheless.

  3. M.G. says:

    There isn’t too much consensus since no one really knows how to slow or stop Progressivism.

    Since Progressivism is linked inextricably to female suffrage, which is itself linked (and inevitably so) to the Industrial Revolution, I fear ‘stopping Progressivism’ is un-reachable goal. In a word, since about 1750, in the West, things couldn’t really have shaken out any other way. How to rein in Progressivism’s most odious excesses is perhaps a more realistic hope.

    I think the reactionary-sphere can be defined or thought of as the anti-mainstream. To speak of or imagine it becoming mainstream is an impossibility in my mind.

    True, but one of the major reasons for this is that the reactionary-sphere is overwhelmingly masculine (nor could it be otherwise). Regarding HBD, I have myself just started a blog to debate workable policy ideas in a mythic ‘Government accepts HBD’ future, but I am also a woman. I’m a woman most women find detestable, but still, my natural pragmatism makes me more optimistic than you that this ‘reactionary-mainstream gap’ (1) could be partially bridged, and (2) that that wouldn’t necessarily be a Bad Thing.

  4. Fake Herzog says:

    How can the reactionary/anti-PC blogosphere improve?

    If you check out my blog, you’ll know the answer I’m about to give — more religion. There are plenty of goofy liberal Christians, but in the end, I really think life would be a lot better for most fans of the reactionary blogosphere if Western Civilization would get serious about (the Christian) religion again.

  5. Spandrell says:

    Reaction/Men rule can be argued, and with a big economic crisis would probably be establishe quite easily.

    But HBD… if it gets into the mainstream, and gets argued openly, well, things will get nasty.
    Because if all races besides whites and NE Asians are incapable of civilization (and the evidence is there) well the rational conclusion is to
    1. Kick them out of the west (including american blacks)
    2. Stop all aid to their countries (causing starvation and massive mortality)
    3. Grab their resources

    So we would be back on the 19th century on steroids, and with science on our backs.

    That´s the reason HBD apollogy is a penal crime in Europe, and social death in the US.

  6. Allan says:

    I don’t see what’s wrong with the traditional definition of reactionary:

    “The desire to see the clock turned back.”

    I call myself a ‘pessimistic reactionary’
    I want the clock turned back
    but I know that’s not going to happen
    it’s going to get worse.

    I suppose John Derbyshire falls into this category.

  7. Somedood says:

    I think the reactionary blogosphere should try to achieve a much larger audience. I do not think that this would require watering down the message at all, I think it is just a matter of putting the arguments (links included) at larger, more heavily trafficked venues. This blogosphere has been around for a number of years now and there are a number of excellent posts on almost any important subject. However impossible, I think if you could somehow sit down every Anglosphere reader with a really good post on a subject of interest, a significant number, say 5% to 10%, would be receptive enough to read other posts and neighboring blogs and become a regular. This might seem fanciful but my point is that I imagine you guys have between all of you no more than 100K readers while awareness is the only thing preventing you from having at least a million.

  8. Gian says:

    So it seems that Reactionary is just a newer word for what was called Social Darwinism in 19C and sociobiology in 20C.

    The desire to see the clock turned back-but do you really want to live with 19C morals?

    • Foseti says:

      Do you really want to live with 21C morals?

    • spandrell says:

      Methinks it was agred that the peak of european morality was Victorian England. When policemen went unarmed and the people owned guns.

    • RS says:

      Critique alt-right ideas? Please do. You should be more specific, though. What do you disagree with in sociobio, soc-darwinism, or 1800s morals?

      I know Darwin was a racial supremicist who explicitly celebrated the replacement of Australoids and North-Ameroids by Britons, and desired this process to go to completion. I have no respect whatever for his writing such things. If I could write in the 1860s or 1880s I would advocate a severe government crackdown on settlement expansion, so as to leave those peoples some space. In fairness, to him, I’m sure he and all colonialists were partly motivated by the fear of their fellow Europeans – see 30 Years’ War, bolshevism, nazism. He had daughters to protect from such wars, and he was glad to see England get a massive new reserve of power over Germany, France, Russia. I don’t deny that European imperialism was very problematic, but when we evaluate it in large part as a crime against other peoples – which is entirely fair to do – we should remember that the motives were not entirely base ones. Germany’s failure to develop sea power and colonies that could secure her iron ore, did cause very real and concrete problems for her people. There truly is no utopia, though people could have done a lot better.

      Anyway, my merely being 3% closer to Darwin than mainstreamers are, does not make me responsible for his extremism. Mainstreamers are closer to other, equally nasty and mass-harmful radicals, than I am. In fact, I would say that mainstreamers are pretty close to being nasty and mass-harmful radicals – that’s “arguably, debatable”, and maybe in the future we will see whether it’s correct or incorrect.

  9. Gian says:

    They also had no vote for women, no divorce,no public pornography, swearing in public was penalized.

    Do you really think American men can accept all this?

    • RS says:

      > They also had no vote for women, no divorce,no public pornography, swearing in public was penalized. Do you really think American men can accept all this?

      I used to be a real, real left-bot… An amazing change of heart is already very much accomplished, at least here in my little apartment. You might be next!

  10. Spandrell says:

    It would take time, but people in the end do what they are told to. You should know that if you read this blog. Liberalism isn´t a bottom-up phenomenon. Most things aren´t.

    • RS says:

      Agree. The same masses will do nazism, bolshism, globalist ethnomasochism, imperialism, paganism, christendom, anti-christendom, tribalism, nationalism, moralism, eudaimonism, hedonism, mass murder, democracy, scientism, postmodernism, neoconservatism… I’ve seen it all happen. Heaven knows they didn’t reach all those disparate lands of the soul by some kind of conscientious meditation; they simply followed various minute cadres of potent meditators.

      • RS says:

        Not that it’s all about itnellectuals and their activity. It’s also hugely about man’s nature interacting with conditions, material and semi-material.

  11. RS says:

    Herzog, major Augie fan here. Best novel in America. Maybe Herzog is awesome too, but personally the beginning didn’t hook me in.

    As much as I have serious respect for people’s Christian or other faith, I can’t help my opinion. The (sociopolitical) problem with Christianity is directly embedded in the scriptures. If you aren’t an inerrant-ist, you might even sort of agree with my beefs. (I have to admit I’ve read no New Testment book in full.)

    It’s very hard to really alter the faith in a culturally salutary way. A new scripture might appear, but even if all accepted it, would the acceptance last? It would be a lot younger than the old scriptures. I’ll stipulate that Protestantism is (today) a backbone, and a net backbone, of US rightism. (In the past there was a Protestant right but also a very important Protestant left. Today I don’t think left-Protestantism, though it exists, is majorly important, or passionate on average qua Protestantism. The Catholic hard-right is religiously passionate, but minute in size.) Stipulation done, as a Catholic you may agree that the Reformation, including but not limited to sola scriptura, was something rather deeply unfortunate. To my mind sola scriptura is the dominant aspect of this.

    But how stop that from ever occurring again? That’s a difficult and precarious task.

    What do I object to? Render unto Caesar. There is neither Greek nor Jew. I know ‘turn the other cheek’ doesn’t have to mean groups or polities should not defend themselves. The problem is that it is rhetorically rather an extreme statement and can be read in such a way. Neither Greek nor Jew probably doesn’t have to mean “we just have to keep on f—ing til everybody’s brown”, in the words of the movie Bullworth (which I once found profoundly true as a young prog zombie)… but again it’s a literary hyperbole and I don’t think the corpus of NT texts strongly preclude such a reading. I have read that another anti-preservation or anti-nationalist trope, the good Samaritan, would have been felt as extremely radical and shocking in that place and time, a little like ‘Al-Qaeda hugging’ if you will (not that I myself find Al-Qaeda’s perspective and feelings to be literally totally incomprehensible, though I’m not ‘soft’ on them).

    And how about passages advocating an attack on ‘the strong’ by ‘the weak’, the diffident and meager-souled? The measure of the value of a society by how it treats its weakest people, as Martin Luther King put it. One could say, on a different perspective, its worst people. Today, these people definitely deserve good treatment, but a massive focus on them creates an anti-achievement and as Nietzsche would say, an anti-health and anti-self-discipline ethos. In the malthusian past, when there was not enough to go around, I have to say that the worst didn’t deserve more good treatment than they got: that would have resulted in a progressive degradation of society, which today we can avoid.

    The use of hyperbolic parables and poesies, whose interpretation is very little narrowed down, is a repeated problem.

    I don’t know how to fix any of these things. That’s why I favor a new religion. But as far as I can tell, an overheated ‘war’ of the pens against Christianity is a really foolish thing for rightists, including pagans, to do. Realistically, if a widespread right-pagan movement did start, it doubtless would emanate a certain amount of overheated polemics – but wise people can temper this.

  12. RS says:

    Spandrell, interesting shit.

    Can you see that things are going to go bad, reeeeeaaaaaal bad at least in Europe, whether HBD is banned or not? (I’m not certain if you support the ban. If I recall your previous posts correctly, you may be sort of playing devil’s advocate… and I’m advocating for the devil’s devil.)

    Most people in the world are HBD realists, and in prior centuries everyone was. Every Chink in Malaysia is ‘super-racist’ to the marrow. Yet they were civilized about it. Most people pretty much were, in the past, with some major exceptions. By the way, I don’t think Hitler believed in superiority/inferiority in quite the way one might think. What he really thought was that he needed to conquer Russia and be extremely cruel to Russians (because he was short of food and he theirs – all of it), and that he needed to convince his troops that Russians were inferior, and specifically that they didn’t deserve to live. I doubt that he really felt that way. What he felt in 1941 — and possibly also in 1938 when he imagined what would follow, given his starting a war in ’39 — is that he would get conquered without doing these obscene things to Russia (why he wanted to do the Jewish mass murder may be partly different), and that he was going to do them.

    Thus I think the ideology of annihilatory race war on Russia was mostly just a product of needing, military, to overrun Russia and destroy 10’s of millions of Russians.

    Similarly, I don’t think the bolshies persecuted the kulaks to some extent, or the Ukrainians, because they thought these people were bad and great things (for all Soviet citizens) would stem from dealing them a blow. In reality they believed that greater security for their rule would stem from the blow, and it’s very unlikely that deep down, they mostly believed their own propaganda about why they were doing it.

    Still, these regimes did make tremendous use of racist and class-strife feelings and views that were sincerely held by the masses. ‘That much’ – which is actually kind of a lot – can hardly be denied! Still, everything can be misused. Our rulers today are doing awful things with their apparently tamer ideas. The hope that our own scribblings will not be misused by others, as much as we can fight hard to preempt such misuse, is partly just that, an act of hope and faith. There’s no certainty. Merely to write, about anything that’s important, is kind of a heavy thing. Personally, I suspect the chances of an evil regime taking power among Western Whites, in the next 150 years, is high, and getting higher as problems continue being ignored and lied about. People of moderate soul, yet of immoderately honest and disciplined minds, seem to be the ones who can best avert calamities. It’s best that White consciousness be reborn under moderate and generous auspicies. Otherwise it will get reborn later, when things are far worse, when minds and hearts are far more alarmed and agitated – when Whites are facing gross physical threats just like the German people so obviously were. (I don’t have much sympathy for Hitler, but I have a good deal of sympathy for those who gave him their ballots in ’33.) There is a cosmic, profound wrath and insane cruelty which can well up. We agree that it is harbored right in the center of man, at all times.

    The outbreak of great danger in Europe is coming. The elites are too weak and too slow. If they had the mental and spirital resources to think about what’s happening, they would already be in action. Much blood and anxiety could be spared, if they would simply do something as unoffensive as work out a deal with Muslim lands, where some Muslims can leave Europe each year with some money to help and compensate them. Yet these elites seem to be 1,000 miles away from that kind of mental self-discipline.

    As for your very pessimist take on the 19th., Spandrell – are you referring perhaps to the book Late Victorian Holocausts? I’m not sure just what to think of that debate, quite.

    What we have going for us right now is a great big reservoir of reluctance to engage in racist, classist, religious atrocities – any atrocities. How well stocked will that reservoir be in 60 years in France, in Britain? Only some kind of Stalinist terror could force it to be as full in 2070 as it is today. This is a huge reason why I believe it’s humane and right to have a controlled groundswell of dissident frei-denkerei right now, today.

    What to do with less capable (on average) peoples? One, stop intermarrying with them – by law. Two, don’t blame them for their stuff. It comes ‘directly from God’ or Nature; to a very great extent they didn’t do it. “I just wanted to be happy”, the guy says at the end of Tarkovsky’s Mirror. Three, help them do humane forms of eugenic self-improvement. Even help them with some of our money. We have too much money. Give all peoples the right to exist and the right to develop into something better. Europa and NE Asia also need to develop into something better! What would happen to them in the long term, even if they were the only peoples on earth? Quite possibly, something very bad would, and quite possibly this risk is reduced by improving them. In any case we cannot possibly allow all peoples to go on being genetically degraded. That would be the definition of insanity, and would quite likely destroy the world through war. We must shape up our little collective mind(s), think freely, and intervene, starting now. We really must – not little dudes like me, but everyone. Dysgensis is an extremely dangeorus potential cause of fanatical regimes coming to power, which would be perilous to the whole world if it occured in NE Asians, or Euros, or Pakistan. Potential for helping brew fanatical regimes is by far the most serious warhead that dysgenesis carries within itself.

  13. […] Foseti – “The Reactionary Blogosphere” […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: