Reactionary academics.

GBFM’s dating profile.

– In our increasingly diverse society, we can look forward to more spying and jury trials in which we know the outcome beforehand. Yea!

Athol: “If there is a patron saint of hamster, it’s Sir Humphrey…”

– Francis St. Pol on the antiversity, Michael Animissov on natural order, Nick B. Steves on slavery, Nydwracu on the elites, and Alfredwclark on identitarian religion.

Manosphere posters.

– The latest podcast from the Pritzker Military Library (podcasts here) is on this book and may be worth your time.

18 Responses to Randoms

  1. dearieme says:

    One of the amazon reviews of that book says “Why did we find it necessary to fight a war to end slavery, even though every other country that had slavery ended it without a war?”

    Well, why are Americans far more inclined to kill each other than citizens of comparable countries?

    Americans are prone to violence.

    • Toddy Cat says:

      Euro-Americans are really no more violent then other Europeans, if you correct for age. An examination of homicide rates proves this. Of course, that’s not all Americans, and we all know what groups inflate the homicide statistics.

  2. Jehu says:

    The Northeastern section of our country has a crusading streak a mile wide. The Southeast has a fighting streak also a mile wide. This can create ‘interesting times’, and has before.
    Most Americans would be allergic to a solution to slavery that involved the North basically doing a buyout (in the M&A sense of the word, paying a sufficient unit price per slave that nearly all owners would sell out leaving a politically impotent rump). Probably would’ve cost a lot less than the war, even if you value casualties of war at zero. Such would also require considerable trust, something never in evidence, for good reason.

    • VXXC says:

      Correct. Although both the Northeast crusaders and the Southeastern ethos has spread beyond their historical bounds.

      And the current crop of Crusaders have a degenerate vein a mile deep. Meanwhile the Scotch-Irish are as plucky as ever…

  3. dearieme says:

    Why does the author keep insisting that Washington freed his slaves? My understanding is that his will required them to be freed only after his widow’s death – which clearly isn’t the same thing. His mentions of the War of 1812 seemed pretty flimsy too. His assumption that Jefferson’s beliefs could be deduced from his words rather than his actions is surely plain silly?

    As for taking Lincoln at his word – why? The man was a politician.

  4. JohnK says:

    re: ‘Reactionary’ ‘academics’.

    The label ‘reactionary’ is preposterous for the ‘academics’ listed.

    In Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Daniel Dennett (pictured in the linked article) ends up suggesting that the task of preserving traditional religions in the modern world may be comparable to the task of preserving otherwise-inviable species of animals in zoos, and claims that he has articulated a more sophisticated pantheism that is the rational alternative to irrational religion. [pp. 519-20]

    And then there’s Dennett’s whole ‘Brights’ movement, whereby the truly intelligent ones (aka atheists) re-start the world from Year Zero and take it over forever, making it all better. Except for the breeding part, of course, which atheists don’t seem to have a complete handle on, but that’s a trivial matter, n’est ce pas?

    Pantheism? Atheism? Exterminating the religious? This is ‘reaction’?

    It’s progressivism. Dennett is a full-fledged, rip-snorting, elitist, totalitarian materialist progressive. Anybody who can’t see beyond the mere fact of Dennett’s Darwinism to his total progressivism is proving, definitely and conclusively, his reactionary mala-fides.

    ‘Preposterous’ doesn’t begin to describe this mis-labeling.

    • Foseti says:

      I think you’re right that they’re not reactionary. Broad acceptance of their ideas, however, would overturn so much of the existing order that I wish them all well.

      • Foseti says:

        Also, a surprising number of those of us who do identify as reactionary (regardless of background) seem to be able to discuss the work of these guys. That can’t be entirely coincidental.

      • Vladimir says:

        These people are indeed dealing with the subversive ideas you allude to. However, their principal role is to present these ideas in an appropriately diluted, censored, and packaged form, along with emphatic declarations of ideological orthodoxy, so that the general public is reassured that there is nothing really there that might seriously threaten the dominant ideology.

        (I don’t think they’re being disingenuous, though. They probably honestly believe that they’ve found a way to reconcile their ideology with these unpleasant findings. They also believe that this makes them more enlightened and morally superior over leftists of the more old-fashioned sort, who want to solve the problem by ruthless and thorough censorship and thought-policing of all areas where such findings might emerge. But ultimately, for anyone who is actually outside the bounds of ideological orthodoxy, it all ends up as a good-cop-bad-cop act.)

      • Foseti says:


        I don’t really disagree at all. And yet, none of us were or will be raised reactionaries. The red pill metaphor is popular, but the reality is that the process of discovering the truth is rather slow. One’s journey must go through many phases. The writings of these academics is one of those steps for many of us.

        The idea that many of these ideas can be made palatable to mainstream academia is also highly suspect. At some point, even mainstream academia will have to grapple with the logical consequences of them. There are often more than one road to the same destination.

    • Scharlach says:

      “Elitist” and “materialist” . . . Sounds reactionary to me.

      Dennett and Dawkins and Pinker actively fight against PC in the university, and the former two have made several public statements against the coddling of Muslims simply because they’re not white. Enemy of my enemy, et cet . . .

  5. Five Daarstens says:

    “Euro-Americans are really no more violent then other Europeans”

    Take a look at the video of when the NHL met the Europeans in 1971, it will show a very violent society meeting a non-violent society. I lived in Europe for three years recently and I can tell you the Europeans are still much less violent (excepting the UK).

  6. Aaron says:

    The EU, The Economist, and all good thinking people everywhere are very much in arms that Viktor Orban is right wing leader that adopts political tactics that are commonplace within social democracy/progressivism. Brief video at the Economist here.

  7. asdf says:

    iNotRacist, lol

  8. […] Foseti’s, commenter JohnK rejects my labeling of Pinker et al. as reactionary, writing that it is a […]

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: