Enjoy the Decline? Not Quite

Recognizing the truth of one key Reactionary observation concerning the Modern World, that of definite, observable entropy, we are consigned by our political knowledge to an inescapable resignation. It is not a surrender, for that would indicate a relinquishing of our resistance, principles, and ultimately our souls. The kind of 'resignation' we observe is an acceptance of our enemy's insurmountable predominance in lieu of the present circumstances, rather than a true end to hostilities. It is to acknowledge that conditions as they are make our victory completely impossible. There will be no revolution, there will be no coups d'état, nor will the current society 'evolve' and slip back into an ordered structure. Deviations from the organic state of man cannot be redeemed with coaxing, but have to be smashed against the cliff face of reality.

smashed so hard all the teeth fall out

There is a phrase that describes one attitude to such an acceptance: "enjoy the decline". We do not try to conserve the current society, the trinkets of our bygone eras which still stand as ignored ornaments today among the rubble. It cannot be conserved, and it cannot be saved. No amount of digging our heels into the riverbed will stop us being carried to its eventual mouth. This said, I find it difficult to see how such a process can be enjoyed. It puts us in a constant state of discomfort and such is the reason we are aware of what is going on. If Modernity didn't chafe us so, we would be Modernists.

The attitude to have is one of a heroic fatalism, a marriage of two concepts that at first seem antonymous. For our society we expect only death. For ourselves we expect only death. But for Tradition, we know that life will soon spring anew and the organic currents of this world will push their way to the surface, humming with life. This is what we dedicate ourselves to, a Reaction that sees the battle already won, not for us, but for our cause. Until we have succeeded in bringing about that which we desire, that which is holy and good, the Reaction does not falter, for it is not ordained to, our spirits forbid capitulation and thus serve the inevitability of our triumph. The Reaction rages on and on.

Our aim is not to bring our enemy down, for it is by his own actions that he will ultimately fall. Our aim is to anticipate his fall, and to have prepared an unconquerable force with one guiding purpose, to achieve palaces from ruins, glory from desolation, and diamonds from coal.

It should be stressed that our hate for the enemy knows no bounds. We are justified in our attacks upon him by this alone, but such attacks always have our primary directive in mind. The Reactionary is perhaps the only political agent who wages war not to defeat the enemy, but to make himself worthy of succeeding the enemy. There is something to be gained by keeping our spirits up, but I contend that any joviality that we can justifiably lift from the present condition of human civilization is taken from the absurdity and comic tragedy of our enemy, not the slow and agonizing death that we have been put through and must now somehow enjoy as if we have embraced a kind of contagious madness. To enjoy such a thing seems impossible, for as individuals, it has robbed us of the lives we should have had, that which our now distant ancestors experienced. Modernity is like a grand thief in the night, and we its arisen victims, are subsequently constant harriers.

René Guénon

one of our most unshakable intellectual pillars

Everyone, and I mean everyone, should head over to Soul of the East and check out their article on René Guénon's attitude towards the end of the cycle, penned by Branko Malic. Some choice quotes:

"When subversion reaches the lowest point, releasing, quite literary, hell on earth, things immediately have nowhere else to go but upwards. Once the lie is absolutely realized, the ground falls out from under it – it can exist only as a parasite on the body of truth."

"Once the luminaries of progress unmask themselves, they can’t help but show what they truly are: a tedious bunch with sinister intent, naked for everyone to see, including themselves."

"So, if we are living out the great End, let’s give it a defiant laugh. For as civilization accelerates into freefall and panic – generally masked as euphoria, just as the freefall is masked as progress –one cannot help but notice how progressively surreal and unavoidably funny it all becomes. So, why not mock the great mockery until it dissolves into nothing from which it came? Come to think of it, when all is said and done, there is not much else left to do besides repentance. The world won’t be redeemed by laughing at its tail-spinning counterfeit, but it’s a step in the right direction."

There is a peculiar comedy to the enemy's self-destruction, which somehow manages to sit aloft with his abominable evil in the face of which we are correctly nauseated. The ever-increasing entropy of our society makes for ever-more inane contradictions, self-parodies, and farcical stereotypes. Why might these bring us joy? Because they are like the scent of death from the opposing side of the battlefield, and now we know the torturers of man gasp their last. The decline carries us all with it, but our enemy's death is theirs and theirs alone. To this we are only interested observers captivated by a spectacle, a pantomime. It is this which might bring us crude joy in the closing edge of the Iron Age.

This is a relatively short piece, but I still think it's an important one. We do not enjoy the decline. We do not go gently into this good night with the rest of the world, but instead we go with defiant laughs, and on our lips a promise to our drowning enemies: "Our torch outlives us! Yours is extinguished here and now! Kill us, persecute us, silence us, do what you will while you can, but know that you have become naught but a cruel joke, and what remains of mankind, within only a few generations, will never even know your ideals existed."

In the end, it is our clear vision and knowledge which brings us pain where others feel blissful nothing. We can see the devil. The rest of the world is oblivious. What better thing then to take our minds off the decay around us, than to ridicule the suicide of Liberalism, to skewer with tact every misstep it makes towards the grave? There is a difference between what we will ourselves to outwardly project and what we are compelled to feel inside, but the two are complementary. We despise the decline, it being unnecessary and destructive to an incalculable point, and consequently we find satisfaction in the downfall of its architects.

here's looking at you, kid

Why Modern Men Must Become Aristocrats of the Soul

My first article published at popular Manosphere hub, Return of Kings. I kindly thank the editor for accepting to publish this article. It may appear to my regular readers as more of a political speech forwarding concepts I've already covered, which would be an accurate assessment. As I have alluded to in my conversations with other Reactionaries, propagating our political vision to other spheres of like-minded thought is a logical step forward in the right direction. Many of the men who read this website, have the potential to become Reactionaries, and along with some other great writers who are pushing the dialogue rightward, I want to contribute to this effort. Call it 'outreach' if you like, horribly bigoted and terrible outreach.

And so in this article, I detail what Modern man is lacking, and the importance of fixing this internal error before pursuing any further political goals or actions against our collective opponents. It is a call to put to bed the kid's table stuff and start saying, "okay, we have a problem. what are we actually going to do to solve it, and to what lengths are we willing to go?"

http://www.returnofkings.com/69347/why-modern-men-must-become-aristocrats-of-the-soul

not everyone can be tsar

but everyone can serve his glorious agenda

In Defense of Book Burning

we're never told that flying towards the fire

was the 1930s version of Twilight

Much has been said of 'book burning'. It was of course popularized in the 1930s with the solidification of the National Socialist's control over Germany. The propagandists of the Third Reich wished to destroy books that were deemed damaging to the national character, and such rallies where hundreds if not thousands of books were heaped upon bonfires were organized by student unions at German universities, and aided in their execution by Adolf Hitler's original muscle organization, the SA. However, this real history of this phenomenon, as usual, doesn't tend to conform with the whitewash we are fed by our cultural betters.

First, the burning of books was not a practice without precedent. For an exhaustive list of all the book burnings in history, one can follow this link. The fact is that the early Christians routinely burnt heretical tracts and forgeries of Biblical documents. Long before, the Athenian state had similarly ordered the destruction of the writings of agnostic philosopher Protagoras. In 213 BC, the Qin Dynasty in Imperial China ordered the destruction of all Confucian texts, favoring Legalism as superior central ideology for the Chinese people.

Books have been burned throughout history, and most often this is condemned almost universally as an assault on knowledge itself. It appears, even if a book is of horrendous quality or forwards lies, even subversion, it should never be burned.

What foolishness. Books are a media item. Even those of the strictest non-fiction are vehicles for an ideological lens, through proposition or presupposition. A state has absolutely no duty to preserve any media item which could prove dangerous to the state itself, since the state is the vanguard of the nation and its traditions, the life of the state takes absolute preeminence over any concerns about the toleration of dissent. Of course, book burnings only take place when the books in question have been permitted to be produced prior to their condemnation. Because the Reactionary must favor censorship of degenerative ideas (historically this has been one of the duties of the priestly caste), he can't really condemn censorship-after-the-fact. For a robust defense of censorship, see here (1, 2).

With regards to Germany in the specific sense, it must be understood just how depraved the Wiemar Republic actually was. With the abdication of the Kaiser after the First World War, Germany became a brand new Liberal Democracy in the truest sense of the word. All sorts of ideas became fair game and were produced in various forms for the public without protest by the government. Germany was no longer in the business of telling its citizens what they ought to believe about the world around them, especially in the arena of moral values. Pornography in particular became wildly popular. What was worse, from this milieu and the growing surge in the psychological pseudosciences, Germany got its own Alfred Kinsey, putting a scientific spin on utter depravity.

Magnus Hirschfeld (1869-1935)

one of the most perverted freaks in history

Here is an account of a tour which Magnus Hirschfeld gave of his sex museum to visiting American writers:

"After lunch they were given a tour by a “silly solemn old professor with his doggy mustache, thick-peering spectacles, and clumsy German-Jewish boots” who took them to the extraordinary Gallery of Derangements of the Sexual Instincts. There were displays of fetish objects donated by research subjects of the institute, including a home-made masturbation machine made of a bicycle wheel and used female shoes. There were historical sex aids from across the world and antique steam driven vibrators. The visitors looked at lacy female pants found on the corpses of ferociously masculine Prussian officers and female rubber body parts used by male transvestite prostitutes. The museum exhibited photos and fantasy art including sadistic drawings by ‘Lustmord’ prisoners convicted for crimes of sexual violence and murder. There were torture instruments from a German brothel and paper sailor-dolls made by German homosexuals during the Great War. The dolls were naked except for sailor caps and boots, and had aroused genitals and smiling faces. For a final touch tiny red drops were splattered on for deadly battle wounds."

Hirschfeld was perhaps one of the first campaigners to argue for the legitimization of sexual deviations in the mainstream, his movement supported by other German intellectuals, the most notable of which being Albert Einstein.

With the rise of the Nazis however, his institute became an immediate target of Germans incensed by the damage being done to their culture by Hirschfeld and others, many of these offending authors being Jewish. In raids, books and research papers were gathered up and burned publicly to spare the next generation of irredeemable garbage. Other targets included books denigrating German history, and novels deemed to be encouraging of things such as communism, miscegenation, and pacifism. Garbage of course, is a big consequence of the printing press and the easy access to text-replication technology, and one of the responses to such garbage is to burn it. It's important people get a sense of why the early Hitlerites went after books, because it wasn't primarily about shutting down dissent at this time, it was concerned with purging out literature deemed harmful to the nation. In fact, of all the deplorable things that the Nazis did, this was actually one of the small examples of a noble purpose. 

Apparently we should weep for Hirschfeld's work and the work of his fellow luminaries. I think not. Be honest, if you were put in charge of which media items were to be preserved for the public in a Reactionary State, would you preserve the works of Kinsey? Would you preserve the works of the early suffrage movement, the works of slavery reparation-beggars, the works of Karl Marx? Would you save this, or this, or this, or this, or this, or this, or this? As far as I am concerned, if you would not burn this trash, if you wouldn't love to watch it all go up in smoke on a pyre, then you are mad. How could anyone honestly think that it is enough to unseat the current intellectual class, to destroy the institutions through with they propagate their ideas (schools & universities), and think that somehow you can neglect what they've produced? Has God placed some holy protective aura around intellectual property, for which we seem to have even more reverence than for life itself?

Media is a weapon. Even the political novice knows this. In the hands of evil, media can do immeasurable damage, because it can forward views of the world especially tailored to titillate and pull at heartstrings. It can take advantage of feigned scientific grounding and so-called psychology. Too many on the right believe that if you silence the professor, you prevent the indoctrination, but it's written on every page of the books that people consume on a daily basis, the never-ending stream of crap that issues forth from the worst elements of our society. Worse still, on a mass level there can be no argumentative victory over it. The intellectual current it forwards is perfectly tuned to man's fallen nature, encouraging further, irresistible degeneration. There is only one ultimate vaccine to an influence so strong.

We have this baseless aversion to the idea that any media should be destroyed, and instead believe that the apparatus is enough. No! If you want for the stability of society and for the good of nations both moral and practical, you must come to your senses and endorse the position that one of the first duties of a Reactionary State is the complete incineration of all texts and other media formats which are suffused with the Modern ideology. The Cult of Progress has its Bible, but unlike a static document this is instead a narrative which weaves its thread through every foul tract they produce, fiction and non-fiction alike.

Burn every last scrap of it.

"for our God is a consuming fire."

                                                                                                       - Hebrews 12:29

Paying Tribute to the Kakistocracy

My new article at Social Matter deals with something I observed in a comment section in one Canadian outlet discussing Roosh V.'s recent conflict with feminists in the Liberal swamps of Montreal and Toronto, known for their ex-drug dealing counselors and obese rape-hoax botflies. The 'Enlightenment' didn't really destroy hierarchy, it just turned it on its head. Yesterday's scum is today's overlord, and the masses must pay tribute in acknowledgement of their lowly status. Of course, they try to get us to pay tribute as well, but this has proved fruitless thus far.

http://www.socialmatter.net/2015/08/23/paying-tribute-to-the-kakistocracy/

welcome to the new caste system

Three Religious Strains

You will recall a while back that I linked to a terrific article from Throne, Altar, Liberty concerning the definitions of orthodoxy and fundamentalism in the religious context. I return to this in order to flesh out some details concerning how religion should be viewed from a Reactionary standpoint, and this essay itself is a response to a recent rumination from Nick Land entitled 'Theonomy' where he seems to open his own NeoReactionary door to followers of Rousas Rushdoony's brand of Christian extremism known as 'Reconstructionism'.

It's understandable why the ideas of Reconstructionism appeal to Land. For one, Rushdoony was no Fred Phelps. He was a well-versed theologian and philosopher who adapted off of the Calvinist works of Cornelius Van Til and through his written works crafted a comprehensive ideology which featured both autocratic government as well as libertarian economics.

There are big problems however, and they stem from the movement's inherent fundamentalism. To proceed, let me outline what I see as three religious strains that exist in almost all pre-Enlightenment religions today.

Orthodox - This is religion according to its early origins of organization not only in the specific sense in the World of Tradition, but in its deeper roots via hermeticism to the greater religious tradition woven through all of man's ancient religious practices, reflecting divinely gifted knowledge of the invisible world.

Liberal - The rejection of orthodox religion in favor of subservience to the great parasitic Cult of Progress, with such subjugation resulting in the pliability of any dogma or doctrine and the eventual purging of all significance of the religion in question, with regard to both politics and spiritual connection.

Fundamentalist - A reflexive backlash against the degenerative toll that Liberalism has on religion, or in select cases shortfalls of religious orthodoxy, this movement seeks to interpret sacred texts in ways most antagonistic to anything deemed Liberal or potentially erroneous, thus almost always degenerating into a chaotic holiness spiral, becoming rapidly unstable as a result.

So all religions are undoubtedly orthodox (small 'o') before the 'Enlightenment'. Liberal religion does not emerge until after this. Some fundamentalist strains do appear beforehand, the greatest being perhaps the original design of Protestantism forwarded by Luther, however this has also made an appearance in other religions around the world as well, though contained more effectively in those circumstances.

Rousas John Rushdoony (1916-2001)

I believe Rushdoony to be theologically mistaken in the belief that Old Testament Civil Laws have not been abrogated, but I doubt this means much to Land, so I will for a moment reflect on some practical concerns about Christian Reconstructionism.

1. It believes in theonomy, which is a positive and correct Reactionary viewpoint. In spite of what critics say, the Reconstructionists are not theocrats (see my own article on the confusion surrounding theocracy). However, even though Rushdoony himself said the following, "Christianity is completely and radically anti-democratic; it is committed to spiritual aristocracy," he still believed in the separation of church and state, an entirely Tradition-anathema position, which denies the sovereign a necessary spiritual and ritual legitimacy. Although church and state have always been definite institutions that are distinct from one another, to separate them in this regard is to cause damage to both, church in the short term, and state in the long term. Secularism and the existence of explicitly religious laws cannot work in harmony long-term. The contradiction is a dissolving agent.

2. The enforcement of Old Testament Civil Law is almost completely unworkable in a practical sense. In theological terms, this is self-evident, for it is the reason for Christianity's existence that the Jews were unable to keep these laws, and in fact failed miserably at doing so. Through the Reconstructionist advocacy of a return to these specified laws, they rob Christianity of one of its great political advantages and that is its legal flexibility which allowed sovereigns and the church, with the knowledge of the Moral Law, to craft their own Civil Law around this as the situation and culture required it. To view the Bible as Rushdoony does is to give Christianity its own Sharia Law, something that is alien to the orthodox practice of the religion, and brutally limiting.

3. Christian Reconstructionism leaves absolutely no room for coercion, in spite of what critics say. Rushdoony seemed to believe that a revolution in the soul of man could occur on a mass level so as not to require any violence whatsoever for the establishment of the Reconstructionist State. While I am certainly in favor of a non-coercive citizenship, with free exit at any time, and do believe that the souls of men must experience change before society does, to think that a Reactionary State could be established with no force whatsoever is foolhardy. It puts too great a faith in too many a people. What men's souls in which the aristocratic ideal can be restored will be a relative handful.

 And so I return to the discussion of those three religious strains: orthodox, liberal, and fundamentalist. Liberal religion is a dying proposition. It's a proxy for the Cult of Progress and essentially a laughing stock at this point. Fundamentalism is a very easy alternative, as it presents confident solutions without any hesitation or doubt in its principles. The problem is that it is inherently flawed because today, it is thoroughly Modern and very much a response to Liberalism in general. Much as Fascism did, fundamentalism recognizes a real problem and immediately grasps for a bold new solution without much thought to past experience of tried and tested method. Let us be honest and say that the Islamic State is not the Umayyad Dynasty. That's not to say it couldn't eventually transform into such a political body if a coup were to occur, but right now it is driven, as is Christian Reconstructionism, by a fanaticism that is out of touch with its ancestral and historical roots. Sunni Islam as a whole is trapped in a holiness spiral that destroys all hope for stability, and ISIS is only the latest iteration on this whirlwind come to clear away the exploits of Arab Socialism. From the article I first linked to above, I want to post some key excerpts:

"The publication of The Fundamentals, the statements by the Niagara Bible Conference and the Presbyterian General Assembly, and the entire fundamentalist movement in general arose in response to a specific problem – the growth of unbelief, formulated as doctrine, in the Protestant denominations. This formulated unbelief was known as modernism or (theological) liberalism. Either term is apt because it was a product of the Modern Age and the predominant ideology of that Age which is liberalism. The Modern Age was an Age of rebellion against tradition and authority, which liberalism regarded as shackles that robbed people of their freedom and blinders that kept from them the light of reason and science [...] The fundamentalists believed they were contending for sound or orthodox doctrine against heresy and unbelief. There are those who would say that this is ironic because fundamentalism did not itself represent what has historically and traditionally been considered orthodoxy within Christianity. There are a number of different reasons given for this charge. One would be that the denominations most heavily represented in fundamentalism are those that arose out of the English Dissenting or Non-Conformist Movements and their counterparts in continental Europe, i.e., the churches traditionally considered the Radical or left wing of the Protestant Reformation."

Fundamentalism is already problematic because it emerges out of Christian traditions which got their start opposing the priestly caste of Catholicism, and as such represents a rebellion against authority. It is no wonder that such movements once unleashed are hard to contain and control. They lack the discipline of hierarchy and instead rely on groundswell. They remain at base demotic currents in religious thinking which are uniquely susceptible to frenzy.

In addition, when we take the divine origins of such texts seriously, as we must when discussing them as a basis for any state, we have to be very careful how we treat them. They most certainly cannot be treated as other texts are, and the orthodox are in alignment with fundamentalists on the inerrancy of Scripture, however the fundamentalists take this a step to far, and thus corrupt the texts with human error.

"To understand what the doctrine of inerrancy means and does not mean requires a great deal of common sense, a commodity which is sadly in short supply in our day and age. It means only that the Bible is inerrant in what it asserts and teaches. It does not mean that because a sentence is found in the Bible it must therefore be taken as true in every possible sense without reference to its context,. [...] Fundamentalism, however, insists that the Bible be interpreted as literally as possible. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, insists that the Bible be interpreted as traditionally as possible. "

Any religious text interpreted as one might interpret a textbook (and this is essentially what fundamentalists do), is going to fly off the tracks badly when implementation of biblical principles in life fails to cohere with reality. I'm not saying that Christian Reconstructionists are the most guilty in this regard, but they are interpreting the Bible in a way it has never been interpreted before, often in a way that almost makes their practice indistinguishable from Ancient Judaism, but only in theory. Such a view is not a sound bedrock from which Reaction can build. It's far too unstable and impractical, and when we talk about religion we aren't discussing something that is a component of the state. Religion is not the crow's nest of a ship, but the engine room, it's the central axis and core around which the civilized society functions. Error here is perhaps most catastrophic of all for any political project. The problem is not zealotry, the problem is zealotry in a non-Traditional direction through which dire ends are realized.

fundamentalism can start of at a civilization level

but there's always the risk it degenerates into primitivism

None of this is to say that Christian Reconstructionists could not be useful allies against Modernity, and we can all name several different non-Reactionary groupings that would also qualify in this regard. However, when it comes to the development and refining of the Reactionary State, even at only the foundational level, the path must be through orthodox religion, rather than fundamentalist religion. In this day and age, building a political ideology with any real adherence to revealed Divine truth is extreme enough. There is no need to take it to dizzying heights from which we might end up crashing to earth through an endless inquisition.

Diminishing Returns on Grievance Investment

amazing what some blackface makeup and a high-powered curling iron

can do for your social status

In his latest essay at Social Matter, Henry Dampier discusses the post-historical bias, that is the Left wing belief in 'Progress' and the inevitable improvement of human civilization of course carried out by them. Through the endless revolution against Tradition, they cannot see any devised future endeavor as a potential failure, and cannot see any old ways as successes. Dampier writes:

"Liberals have to portray themselves as continually winning against remnants of traditional evil, even when the struggle becomes absurd. Stopping the triumphant parade of new rights threatens to bleed off the momentum of the entire project, which is why new ones need to be invented constantly, and why more enthusiasm needs to be redirected to uplifting and importing the third world."

In large part, Liberals today do battle with Liberals yesterday. The remnants of Tradition have been so thoroughly scrubbed and blotted out that there are nothing but memories of it to attack with the rain of rhetorical fury. Where are the patriarchs? Where are the racists? Where are the religious traditionalists? Silent, hidden, or non-existent. The lack of suitable 'evil' targets for the Cult of Progress to wage its holy jihad against forces them to set up new cottage industries of grievance through which they can go after people who, while Liberal, are not sufficiently Liberal. In a never-ending purge, the Cult and its Liberal adherents must necessarily cull what were their best and brightest, over and over again! In doing so, they preserve the momentum that Dampier talks about.

This is not a good long-term strategy however. While the momentum of the Cult's ongoing revolution is kept alive by this engineered struggle, the illusion of the eternal underdog in a battle against a conspiratorial band of Traditionalists who still control everything, the Cult pays a price for this shameless tactic. It pays this price because it must seize on ever more bizarre and off-the-wall subdivisions of an underclass. The more extreme the agenda becomes vis-a-vis the natural state of Tradition, the more that the Cult of Progress has to scrape the barrel of societal detritus in order to find leaders for its marching columns.

Let me illustrate this with a simple illustration of how our revolutionaries have changed over time since the 'Enlightenment'.

Since the end of monarchy and aristocracy, the hierarchy of man has been put into an upside down orientation with its most degenerate elements in control of the revolution, giving the orders, writing the laws, forging the cultural taboos of tomorrow. This is not enough however, It is not enough that the lowest caste is in power, no, the lowest elements of the lowest caste must be brought to prominence: the outright freakish and certifiable, the talentless and evil, the pathological and deceitful, those who just yesterday, the revolutionaries wanted to hide and keep below the plane of attention and respectability. I doubt Martin Luther King would have wanted to be associated with the 'transracial' Rachel Dolezal. Similarly I'm sure the Founding Fathers would have beaten Betty Friedan with a shoe and told her to get back in the kitchen. At the level of individuals rather than macro-societal degeneration, we can actually see entropy in action almost in real time. Why does the Cult of Progress have no George Washingtons today? Why are they stuck with the condescending smirk of a Hawaiian/Kenyan charlatan who was once a member of the 'choom gang'?

Because of this decline in the quality of the revolution's faces, the Cult of Progress is losing credibility. Not in a way that threatens the Cult's dominance in society, but in a way that at least threatens the momentum, and for a movement that like the shark, cannot stop lest it die, this is a huge hazard that must be addressed. This is why the revolutionaries must expand the state itself and embrace the bullying tactics that they decried as monstrous when conducted by Mussolini's Blackshirts. It's a compensation mechanism. The more outlandish the left's core constituency and leading figures become, the more dissent against them has to be uncompromisingly squashed.

As I outlined in my previous post however, this comes with drawbacks. Eventually, when all pretenses have to be jettisoned and freedom of speech is finally torn to shreds by the Cult who will declare it an anathema to tolerance and diversity, this will wound them critically. At that point, the majority of their power will be held by bayonet and bayonet alone. The ideology which inspires the masses to revolt will be withering and dying like any high hopes of the Chinese peasants forced to cook their babies as Mao's Great Leap Forward starved them to death. Championing the cause of the economically deprived, racially marginalized, and sexually repressed has its mileage for certain, but when you have to hold up 'transracial queer furry otherkin' as the next conquest of the civil rights march, the act has worn thin. And it is worth noting that this has no prospects of improvement. There simply is no fertile soil from which the Cult can raise up the kind of leaders they had in generations past. They laced the whole farm with toxins and now only fruits bearing lesions and tumors spring forth. It will only get worse, not better.

The Cult of Progress then is trapped in a downward spiral. They of course consider it to be an upward spiral that will culminate in a utopia of understanding between gender dysphoric midget mimes and illiterate street thugs, but then this is indicative of their own insanity. We often look at the questions of civilization's disintegration through the lens of irresponsible economics, wider cultural or religious degradation, ethnic pollution, and shifts in power dynamics, however just as important is to recognize the changing faces of the revolution, both those who bellow into microphones and those who nod happily in the gathered masses. This too, like the portrait of Dorian Gray, is becoming snarled and ugly due to the spiral. We know that at the end of this spiral, is the death of the Cult. Those loyal to it will, in the end, fall victim to the dystopia that they create and the natural and human forces it unleashes upon the world, or else be executed in a timely manner by those with any sense of retributive justice.

vision of the Progressive utopia

soon to be dashed on the rocks of mass poverty, famine, and war

When Will We Know?

We cannot dream of hands, and yet still hands will be necessary. Hands do not provide deliverance, and yet without them the fire that does has no carrier, no entourage, no escort.

One ascendancy theory as it pertains to Reaction is the idea of Populist Theory. This puts forward the notion that due to the entropic nature of Modernity, it will eventually become unbearable for the population and they will, perhaps slowly, turn against Liberalism itself and not just specific outworkings (i.e - the all-expansive state, abortion, etc). I've stated previously that I reject this somewhat simplistic, optimistic, and rather anti-Reactionary idea. If the very political system we propose rejects populism, how on earth will populism be what brings it to power? People often present the example of the Third Reich, however this doesn't hold because raised by populism, the National Socialist movement remained populist, just with a very rigid control over what was popular. We are imagining a system where nothing really becomes popular in the modern sense of the word. Man at large ceases to be a political force, with the levers of politics put under the hands of a stratified ruling class. No mass rallies with chanting and saluting, just the hierarchy and only the hierarchy.

The unrealism of the prospect stems from a misunderstanding of the endemic nature of Modernity, and man's magnetic attraction to decline and ultimately, evil. You will never get the majority of people in any country to revert to a Reactionary viewpoint. Remember, the difference between Reaction and Traditionalism is one of status. A society can indeed be majority Traditionalist, but can never be majority Reactionary, because in the world where a Reaction is necessary, it is the thing that stands still, that stands against the current which moves over everything in a tidal motion. As Dávila alluded to, we exist in a fast-moving river that has as its only destructive countermand, the emptying out finally into a vast nothing. The river will not run back up to the sacred mountains, no. The survivors must walk from the sea, to the shore, and scale them on foot.

Populism is correctly rejected. Damn the people. They have damned themselves and most will never listen, not to sane men and certainly not to the will of God, either responding with the blankness of indifference or the scorn of the committed Progressive cultist. This does not mean however that we condemn our politics to the thin air. For there to be Reaction, it follows that there must be Reactionaries.

Know that when I speak of awakening, this is never in the sense of populism or revolution. It is in the sense of an activation of those who possess the characteristics that already would orientate them towards the most contrarian position of all, that of the anti-Modernist. This I do believe, that as society degenerates and disintegrates, there will be more who have nothing to lose by shedding the illusions of our society, because it will have less and less to offer. They will join us and stand shoulder to shoulder with us in resistance, faces to the wind, expressions of defiance.

How many? Impossible to say. Let us be generous and say that the West today find itself with a little less than 1% of adult males committed to Reaction in some form. This could grow as high as perhaps 8 or even 10%, but unlikely more than that. Still, this is potentially over twenty million men. A minority army, but armies are always tested for success upon a uniting motive. We're not there to overthrow the system, but to be around when it overthrows itself, when the enemy knocks his head so hard, he's left bleeding all over the pavement for his own stupidity! As his culture dies, our subculture will thrive because we are the sole political force cognizant of the inescapable shell of truth off of which every act of free will rebounds in some direction when fired. This is an adaptive advantage of enormous potential, but its a minority-tappable source. This is its weakness, its low ceiling of potential adherents.

So, I arrive at the question of when will we observe the potential become reality? When will we know that the radical right has in fact succeeded in its current mission and has become 'worthy'? When will it have the necessary fortitude and following to etch Liberalism's tombstone?

There are three signs that should be watched for, in sequence:

the begging and pleading stops whenever we want it to

1: Conservatism's Downfall - This may already be occurring. Conservatism could once get away with its inevitable capitulation to Liberalism as society moved 'forward'. This dynamic is starting to come apart due to entropy's increasing rapidity as it approaches its destruction-point. Things are simply moving too fast for any cover shadow to be provided to the Conservatives. They can no longer trudge in a penumbra of temporal ideological obscurity because the Radical Progressives are moving the levers of power at a new pace with which they cannot conceivably keep up. Britain provides the most advanced example of this. See how the Conservative Party in 1988 enacted under Thatcher, 'Section 28', which is effectively the same as Russia's current anti-gay propaganda law. Today, members of parliament from the very same party are openly calling for the arrest of Christians with a traditional view of marriage as terrorists. The Republican Party is effectively a joke in the United States, currently being trolled by Donald Trump and hounded by white nationalists on their own online media outlets. As a result, people on the right are becoming completely disaffected by the system. They are starting to see that Conservatism offers no actual resistance to people who are clearly mentally unstable. Once Conservatism ceases to be a political force in any meaningful sense, this sign will be completed, men of the right will have abandoned an illusion. To those who say that Conservatism will continue to exist as it has done before, I put to them the change in left wing societal mutagenic rates. Conservatism can survive and even thrive in societies where the left still works from the playbook of incrementalism. When this is thrown out in favor of quick bureaucratic and judicial fiats to enforce the left's vision of egalitarianism, and to which the mainstream right has absolutely no recourse to placate their supporters with, Conservatism loses its cover and burns in the light of impotence.

don't dismiss it, prepare for its inevitable implementation

2: The Desperate Crackdown - With entropy increasing at such an rapid pace, societal instability in the West, and by globalist extension the world, will soon become very apparent as our economic issues surrounding debt and stock bubbles hit a ceiling. Civil order will break down, particularly in poorer neighborhoods, and threats overseas are likely to grow in strength. This isn't the collapse, It's a birth pang which the elite will be able to control and contain, even with an unhappy public. They have built up enough institutional largess to secure this. The massive bureaucracy is their law and order rainy day fund. However in such a climate, more people will be attracted to political and religious ideologies that run counter to the Liberal elite's interests, as their ability to provide luxury fades. This will be the justification for a widespread crackdown on dissent. It won't be the Gestapo or the KGB dragging people away in the night, but will more likely look similar to what China has today with mostly technology-borne censorship and suppression. The UK's new anti-terror legislation which gives police the discretion to shut down blogs that promote any "anti-democratic" ideology is the blueprint for this hardening, and no, the 1st Amendment will not protect you in the United States, no more than the Court of Human Rights will protect Europeans. The Reactosphere, which by this time may be a much larger enterprise, will have to retreat into what will likely be a hustling and bustling 'darknet' beyond the reach of most governmental agencies. It will also have hopefully grown to include physical 'samizdat' institutions and think-tanks which, even if banned outright, can exist underground. For a great article on the coming crackdown on free speech, see West Coast Reactionary, Adam Wallace's latest essay.

the Nicadori

look them up

3: Spontaneous Heroism - Once stage 2 is in effect, our movement for sane Traditional government will only gain sympathizers and to a lesser extent, actual members. The mask will have fallen and the order will exist in a form that only has the external appearance of more strength, but is in fact weaker, for it will have shed any illusions of continuity from its supposed principles which have served as an effective camouflage for its operations. The freedoms it proclaims will only exist for some, those privileged high castes being exalted and buttressed today by every member of the yellow press and every politician. All kinds of calumnies and injustices will be heaped not only upon our heads, but upon the heads of anyone deemed to be either a threat or an obstruction to the increasingly insane elite. Because of this, there will be a flare of resistance that burns right up until the point of the eventual great coming apart of all civilization tied into the global mainframe. This resistance will be displayed in heightened and oftentimes violent incidents, some disorganized and momentary, others ominously confusing, their perpetrators disappearing quickly into the growing swell of general discontent from which these valiant actions will emerge. Such actions will not be revolutionary. They will be retributive and consolidating. It is in this resistance that man will regain in some small part his lost heroic virtue. This will initiate a ratcheting effect, as the elite who will lose popularity to infighting among interest groups and general inadequacies, will only instigate more fury when they try to clamp down on those who do justice. And so hastens the eventual disintegration of the Modern State. 

Let us say hypothetically that stages 1 and 2 have passed, and we exist in the 'interesting times' of stage 3, and you one day sit in a private gathering to hear a dissident luminary opine on some topic, whether it be the destruction of male headship and masculinity, the selling off of Occidental land into the hands of foreigners, the deprivation which will show no sign of relenting, or the lies and underhanded political tactics of our enemies. Let us say that this meeting is crashed by the rent-a-goons of the apes in charge, and by this point they may increasingly rely on ginned-up left wing mobs where they once relied on police. Like Mao's China, they want people's courts rather than military courts, but their 'people' are a smaller group and less competent. Then let us say that as these vipers move to stifle the Reactionary talk, something goes horribly wrong for them. Then you will know that the stage is truly set. Gone are the days of developmental digital posturing and the benevolence of party politics and overton windows that couldn't be shattered. Then you will know that the animating spirit of past millenia has found us worthy of reward, and our enemies worthy of destruction. Then you will know that it will not be long, that the day of the Reactionary State, is not far off.