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.