new

Principles of Reactionary Thought

1. People are not equal. They never will be. We reject equality in all its forms.
2. Right is right and left is wrong.
3. Hierarchy is basically a good idea.
4. Traditional sex roles are basically a good idea.
5. Libertarianism is retarded.
6. Democracy is irredeemably flawed and we need to do away with it.

______

1. People are not equal. They never will be. We reject equality in all its forms.

This is the most basic tenet of Neoreaction/Reaction. Equality is a lie. Neoreaction and Reactionary thought are fundamentally opposed to it. Aristotle said, “The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.” The idea of equality ruins organic differentiation and makes humanity into a uniform, grey mass. Inequality does not necessarily mean “superior” or “inferior” (though it very well may), but it does mean different. Things which are different are not equal. They can never be. Equality is a failed ideal. It destroys excellence. We could not be more fundamentally opposed to the notion of equality. Evola was extremely clear on rejecting equality in favor of authority and auctoritas. In Men Among the Ruins, he said:

Let us begin with the egalitarian premise. It is necessary to state from the outset that the “immortal principle” of equality is sheer nonsense. There is no need to comment on the inequality of human beings from a naturalistic point of view. And yet the champions of egalitarianism make equality a matter of principle, claiming that while human beings are not equal de facto, they are so de jure: they are unequal, and yet they should not be. [...]
I believe these are mere empty words. This is not a “noble ideal” but some-thing that, if taken absolutely, represents a logical absurdity; wherever this view becomes an established trend, it may usher in only regression and decadence. [...]
From both perspectives, it is rationally well established that the “many” not only cannot be equal, but they also must not be equal: inequality is true de facto only because it is true de jure and it is real only because it is necessary. That which the egalitarian ideology wished to portray as a state of “justice” is in reality a state of injustice, according to a perspective that is higher and beyond the humanitarian and democratic rhetorics. In the past, Cicero and Aristotle argued along these lines. Conversely, to posit inequality means to transcend quantity and admit quality. It is here that the two notions of the individual and the person are differentiated.

If Reaction/Neoreaction is against anything, it is against equality. If someone argues for equality, they are not a reactionary/neoreactionary, but something else.

2. Right is right and left is wrong.

To reactionaries, this is axiomatic. The phrase was popularized by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddhin, who along with Carlyle and Evola, is part of the central canon of neoreactionary thought. If someone disagrees with this phrase, they may be a perfectly delightful person, someone I’d enjoy having tea with, but they would not be a reactionary. Moldbug cites this phrase in his “Journey from Mises to Carlyle” post. In “A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations,” he says:

On the other hand, it is also quite easy to construct a very clean value system in which order is simply good, and chaos is simply evil. I have chosen this path. It leaves quite a capacious cavity in the back of my skull, and allows me to call myself a reactionary. To you, perhaps, it is the dark side. But this is only because the treatment is not yet complete.

Again, basic stuff. He also writes:

The left is chaos and anarchy, and the more anarchy you have, the more power there is to go around. The more orderly a system is, the fewer people get to issue orders. The same asymmetry is why corporations and the military, whose system of hierarchical executive authority is inherently orderly, cluster to the right.

3. Hierarchy is basically a good idea.

In general, hierarchy promotes stability, order, direction, cohesion, and so on. Reactionaries object to the rigid hierarchies of totalitarianism, which turn men into cogs in a machine. (See Fascism Viewed from the Right by Julius Evola for a reactionary critique of fascism, or chapter four of Men Among the Ruins.) If you have trouble distinguishing reactionary thought from fascism, you must read chapter four of Men Among the Ruins, or you will never get it. Rather than advocating rigid hierarchies that crush human autonomy, reactionaries support the “organic State,” which Evola describes:

Every society and State is made of people; individual human beings are their primary element. What kind of human beings? Not people as they are conceived by individualism, as atoms or a mass of atoms, but people as persons, as differentiated beings, each one endowed with a different rank, a different freedom, a different right within the social hierarchy based on the values of creating, constructing, obeying, and commanding. With people such as these it is possible to establish the true State, namely an antiliberal, antidemocratic, and organic State. The idea behind such a State is the priority of the person over any abstract social, political, or juridical entity, and not of the person as a neuter, leveled reality, a mere number in the world of quantity and universal suffrage.

The goal of the organic State is to foster “a process of individuation and of progressive differentiation” of persons, rather than a universalist, leveling aesthetic. Some people are natural leaders, others are not. This is not about all reactionaries fantasizing ourselves to be natural leaders, destined for a spot up the totem poll Come the Revolution. The idea is creating a society that offers a pleasant differentiation and individuation from top to bottom. There are reasons why this actually makes being at the bottom a better and more interesting experience than it is now, but that’s a whole 'nother topic.

4. Traditional sex roles are basically a good idea.

It’s tiresome to go into this one, since the feminists are so rabid about it, but reactionaries basically approve of traditional sex roles. In traditional societies, women did in fact take on some jobs and roles that might be considered careers by today’s standards. They were not all stay-at-home wives, and even if they were, many were extremely industrious. I’m not sure why staying at home, making clothing, cooking, gardening, and raising children is any less empowering or worthwhile than male activities like digging ditches, welding, or sitting at an office desk on a computer all day.

Conversely, if a man chooses to stay home and raise children, many other men will think less of him. No amount of progressive propaganda and reeducation camps will change this, because it’s hard-coded into our brains through millions of years of evolution. Men respect other men who go out into the world and do masculine things. Similarly, the pressure to conform to gender norms is stronger in all-girl schools than in mixed schools, exploding the myth that it is men who instigate and police gender norms, to the detriment of women. People can and do create bizarro-world bubbles where these roles are turned upside-down, but they are not very stable.

Women are less happy today than they were 40 years ago, despite all the alleged advances made by feminism during that time. One reactionary woman I’ve spoken with has said that feminism is fundamentally dishonest because it is a movement for women without children, while it portraying itself as helpful to all women. Another woman says, “I would prefer that norms strongly support functional families and that anyone who wants to do something else has to swim upstream”, which is a fair summation of the reactionary position.

5. Libertarianism is retarded.

Many reactionaries are post-libertarians, i.e., not libertarians. A rite of passage into reaction/neoreaction is the renunciation of libertarianism. I was never a libertarian, so it’s taken me a bit of time to fully understand the relationship between libertarianism and neoreaction, but I understand it now. Libertarians make personal freedom axiomatic, and refuse to consider the negative externalities of that freedom to traditional structures like society and the family. This is anathema to reactionaries.

Neoreaction has a close relationship with traditionalism, which upholds social obligations, norms, some degree of group conformity/homogeneity, and so on. Neoreaction has libertarian qualities, such as advocating for a smaller government and the exclusion of government from traditionally private spheres, but rejects libertarianism overall.

Libertarianism, if it could work at all, would only be suitable for a portion of the population, maybe 15-20%, who are willing to go Galt and lock themselves in a metaphorical fortress against the world. If a libertarian society would leave many out in the cold, libertarians seem not to care. Meanwhile, reactionaries foster community, family, and social cohesion. A couple months ago, I stated, “The “socialism” that traditionalism advocates is family and friends helping each other of their own free will.” That sums up the reactionary position on mutual assistance, which is theoretically compatible with libertarianism, but is not compatible with the mood and spirit of libertarianism as it is in fact lived and practiced. Also, reactionaries tend to view libertarians as excessively materialistic.

For a final tidbit of food for thought on this one, someone on Twitter said, “if you took libertarianism but made the basic social unit the family rather than the individual you would come close to what neoreaction is”. Debatable, but interesting.

6. Democracy is irredeemably flawed and we need to do away with it.

Democracy has been a disaster. Read Democracy: the God That Failed for an explanation. If you have not read at least some of this book, you will be lost. At the very least, reading some of it will give you exposure to serious academic discourse on the failure of democracy. Dismissing anything anti-democratic as “fascism” simply marks you as an idiot, a man of no intellectual depth. At least people like Scott Alexander are capable of going a little deeper and providing a defense of democracy that avoids relying on the fascist boogeyman.

That’s it.

I considered including “opposition to the Cathedral,” here, but decided to leave it out since “Cathedral” is just a lame neologism to outsiders, and I want my posts to be digestible by normal people with no prior exposure to reactionary thought. Also, the question of what the Cathedral is, exactly, is a very complicated one.

I limit the premises to six because I want them to be definitional and exhaustive — anyone who does agree with all six of these premises is almost certainly a reactionary, or at least on the Far Right, while anyone who disagrees with any one of them is almost certainly not a reactionary. We have to draw the line somewhere. Having in-groups and out-groups is another premise of reactionary thought.

(Emphasis original)

Today marks one year since the shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida. An ISIS terrorist barged into a gay club during Latin Night and opened fire, killing 49 homosexuals, cruelly keeping them from killing themselves with HIV and meth. The response from Western civilization’s erstwhile defenders was swift: this was a tragedy! A horror! We must fight the Muslims and keep them from attacking the most disease-ridden and predatory part of our population! Deus vult!

Nobody knew it then, but that was the day the American alt-right, the New Right, and the alt-media in general began its slow death.

I have no love for Muslims and I want to see them get their asses kicked back to the Middle East. But embracing homosexuals in the fight against Islam is like curing a headache with 9 mm to the brainpan. Homosexuality and sexual deviancy are the central reasons why Islam has become an existential threat to the white race. The barbarians at the gates only prey on those who are too weak to fight back, and right now, Western civilization is lying bedridden in the oncology ward as the relatives weep and pray.

...

In the year 2017, white nations possess weapons that can incinerate entire cities in the blink of an eye. We have drones that allow soldiers to conduct assassinations from the comfort of an air-conditioned break room on the other side of the world. Far from the famines and diseases that ravaged Europe during medieval times, we’re so well-fed that we’re becoming obese.

And yet, it is now, and only now, that we are crumbling in the face of Islam.

Even as Muslims attack our nations’ capitals on a weekly basis, we refuse to name them as the enemy. We not only refuse to expel them from our lands, we invite more of them in, and even elect them to run our cities. We’re so deep in denial that even at death’s door, some of us are more concerned with genuflecting to political correctness then actual survival.

The answers as to why this is can be found in the Orlando shooting and the alt-right’s response to it.

The homosexuals who died at Omar Mateen’s hands were dead men walking. They were soulless hedonists with no stake in America’s survival and no concerns beyond immediate self-gratification. They were at the club because they wanted to get drunk, do drugs, and have as much meaningless sex as possible, then stick the taxpayer with the bill once med-resistant AIDS and antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea took their toll. In fact, as Common Filth revealed, one of the sodomites who died in the shooting was connected to Kenboy, one of the “stars” of The Gift, a documentary about gay men who deliberately try to get HIV.

Not only do sodomites have no loyalty to their societies, they have no loyalty to each other. One of the survivors of the Pulse shooting escaped the nightclub through a back door, then barred it, preventing anyone else from escaping with him. How many people died as a direct result of his actions?

If there’s a finer example of the nature of sodomites, I have yet to find one.

There’s no comparison between homosexuals and heterosexuals. When a man and a woman are attracted to one another, they are seeing the continuation of their tribe and the formation of the next generation. They are using their sexuality in the way it is meant to be used. When a man is attracted to another man (or a woman is attracted to another woman), they aren’t seeing another human being, they’re seeing a convenient way to get off.

Babies are produced by heterosexual relationships; all homo relationships ever produce is cum.

The reciprocity and selflessness that defines heterosexual relationships (and is necessary for them to function) does not exist among homosexuals and can never exist. How can two people who view each other as sex meat ever have a normal relationship? This accounts for all the perversions, dysfunctions, and maladies that sodomites suffer, from bizarre paraphilias such as anonymous sex and coprophilia to horrendously high rates of domestic violence among lesbians.

A heterosexual man who sleeps around (or, for that matter, a heterosexual woman who sleeps around) is and will always be morally superior to any homosexual.

No functioning, healthy society would allow Pulse—or the kinds of men who frequented it—to exist. No healthy society would mourn their passing. Indeed, depending on your perspective, Mateen was just taking out the trash, eliminating societal parasites via natural selection. Due to their horrendously self-destructive lifestyles, most of the men in that nightclub would have died young anyway: gays have much shorter life expectancies than the general population.

The Orlando shooting should have been a wake-up call to the non-cucked right. Whites have become addicted to pleasure and indulgement above all else: our highest ambition in life is to be “veal wrapped in cotton,” as Common Filth put it. That’s the real reason why we won’t fight back against Islam or Mexican illegals: because we’re too addicted to sex and pleasure. Because we don’t want reality to intrude upon our bareback hugbox orgy. Undoing this is the only way to save our nations, and it starts with recognizing that homosexuality, transsexuality, and the 31 flavors of gender need to be done away with.

The non-cucked right couldn’t manage even this.

Milo Yiannopoulos and Gavin McInnes responded to the shooting by making out in public. The Right Stuff and other alt-right outlets (there’s no difference between the alt-right and the “alt-lite” when it comes to sodomy) declared that Orlando was another reason to “remove kebab” (even though it was Latinos, not huwytes, who were killed). Donald Trump declared at the Republican National Convention that he was the “voice” of the LGBT community. Not one person asked why our culture had degenerated to the point where gay nightclub bareback orgies had become acceptable.

The alt-media, which castigated mainstream conservatives as “cuckservatives,” collectively cucked out by taking a left-wing position on gay rights.

They didn’t even get thirty pieces of silver for their betrayal. Despite all the outreach to homos that the alt-right did, despite the fact that Trump was the first GOP presidential candidate to wave a rainbow flag, despite the fact that Hillary Clinton was being funded in part by Saudi Arabia (where homosexuality is punished with the death penalty), four out of every five LGBT voters supported the Democrats. Appealing to the survival instincts of gays is always a losing bet, because if sodomites had a sense of self-preservation, they wouldn’t be sodomites.

And now we have the likes of Theresa May declaring that Muslims should “integrate” into our culture. You mean the culture that puts five-year old children on hormone blockers so they can become a wretched facsimile of the opposite sex? The culture where lesbian teachers can prey on underage students and get a slap on the wrist, but a college kid can be arrested for rape if he doesn’t beg his girlfriend for permission to kiss her? It certainly isn’t the culture of blood, soil, and family values that they want Muslims to conform to, not when the “right” to infect others with AIDS is cherished over the right of parents to safeguard their sons from homosexual pedophiles.

Why should Muslims want to become part of this disgusting culture? Why shouldn’t they want to destroy it?

And remember: those Muslims are there because the same people who think being gay is okay brought them here, after bombing their countries to kingdom come. You destroy everything a man has, drag him into your house and force him to watch abominable acts, and you act surprised when he despises you and everything you stand for?

If nationalism is to win, it must confront the corruption at the center of the white soul. The white proclivity for numbness and hedonism—as represented by the sodomite, the tranny, the aromantic demisexual otherkin—must be confronted and cast out. The traitors and infiltrators in the right-wing ranks must be outed and removed.

I’m not that hopeful, not when I see more discussion of moral issues and sexual perversion on a “PUA” site like Return of Kings then I see on any soi-disant alt-right site, or when I see open sodomites like Grindr Greg Johnson trying to drive wedges between men and women. But I could be wrong.