Bloody Shovel 3

We will drown and nobody shall save us


Now that Ross Douthat has run an article on neoreaction (no hyphen!) in the august New York Times, perhaps I should take back my previous statements about disassociating with neoreaction because they're a bunch of retards of late. Bad timing! Before Anissimov comes back from his night job at a San Francisco bath-house, I shall proclaim myself Leader of Neoreaction and as such will negotiate with Mr. Douthat for any lucrative deal as the new edgy domesticated right. I have Catholic family too so I'm eminently qualified to deal with Mr. Douthat. He'll need my friendship when God-Emperor Trump comes down to ask him to respond for his articles against the Trump candidacy.

Jokes aside, Ross Douthat is really missing the point. His article argues that neoreaction is racist and evil, but we are often right about many issues and so mainstream conservatism should listen to what we say in order to have something real to say once in a while. He brings up Nicolas Gomez Davila aphorisms as an example of non-evil reactionary wisdom.

But reactionary wisdom like that used to be quite common. Did mainstream conservatism listen to it back then? No. The insight of neoreaction isn't that modernity and leftism sucks. Plenty of people have noticed that since before modernism even got running. Neoreaction explains why modernism happened even though it sucks. Why leftism gets progressively worse, and why conservatism, like the one Ross Douthat represents, is a complete joke. Mainstream conservatism are those few ideas which the left can't outright prohibit at a given moment, because the leftist consensus hasn't moved far enough. Mainstream conservatism was against gaymarriage because the Left hadn't reached an agreement within itself. Once the Left decided on gaymarriage, opposition was outlawed, and mainstream conservatism summarily dropped the issue. The moment that a conservative takes even the slightest hint of reactionary ideas the Left will make sure he is not allowed to speak in public. Journalism isn't about facts. Journalism is the state-run bullshit industry. And the left runs it very tight.

Mainstream conservatives themselves are part of the Left's censorship apparatus. They volunteer to police their own because they want to keep their jobs. See like Douthat himself has dealt with Donald Trump, even though it's increasingly obvious that Trump is a liberal fraud. See what National Review has become. Douthat is of course right that people are increasingly disaffected from mainstream conservatism, as it has moved to the Left much faster than the common people have.

Douthat complains that reaction on top is a set of piecemeal complaints about democratic politics, which the bottom it's yet another nationalist movement based on racial grounds. The reason is obvious. The people on top have read their history and know that going back to the past is neither feasible nor desirable, that there are systemic reasons why the Left always wins, and that the signaling patterns that move modern politics are likely to spiral into complete madness until the whole thing collapses.

The bottom has neither the expertise nor the leisure to engage in historical and sociopolitic analysis. If all politics are signaling, the bottom needs to find a good signaling post to rally around and to fight back against the modern leftist establishment that is destroying the middle class and using foreign barbarians to intimidate them with state-approved violence. And for better or worse, the only set of ideas that can fight leftism today is fascism. Good old secular ethno-nationalism. That works. It's working in France, it's working in Germany, it's working in Hungary. It just won the election in Austria. It may very well make Donald Trump the president of the United States.

If Douthat wants to keep his job in the bullshit industry he better listen to those fascists on the bottom, not to the highbrow reactionaries. Reading me or Moldbug won't get you a job. Being friendly to the God-Emperor might. He doesn't like it. To be honest I don't like it either. But that's the way things work. That's the real message of the reaction.


Leave a Reply
  • Yet its strange viral appeal is also evidence that ideas can’t be permanently repressed when something in them still seems true.

    Gee guys, can you please make it a touch easier for me to sell this mess to the right - the increasing speed of the leftward movement is making it impossible for me to do my job (be ineffectual but also represent people unhappy with progressivism). We used to be able to just stonewall but if we try that now the audience will just switch to non-approved information.


    Ross Douthat

    P.S. Try to remember that the NY Times has a house conservative for a reason.

  • The author of the article doesn't seem to understand what neoreaction is, not sure why he tried to write about it. It's pretty illuminating to read the comments. His readers mostly assume he's talking about reactionaries without any 'neo' part. Guess that part of the internet is still "underground" at least as far as a mainstream newspaper is concerned. Like you, I don't actually call myself a silly-sounding non-descriptive name like 'neo-reactionary' but it's become my internet neighborhood.

  • Actually I agree with Trump about the bathroom bill being stupid. Why regulate bathrooms when you could pass a general civil shield law for individuals and institutions conducting their business according to their beliefs?

      • Indeed. Free association and business's making their own decisions has been dead since at least Civil Rights legislation, which last I checked is basically holier then the Bible. Don't want to bake a gay wedding cake, die bigot!

        Look, either your faction is dominant and society is run based on its ideals, or the other faction is dominant and things are run based on their ideals. That's one of the truths of neoreaction, that liberty is something only a few white people in a particular time and place were able to partially achieve. Letting yourself get rolled over because the other side unites around some zealous bullshit and you don't is a bad move.

        People are uniting behind Trump because he's their best option, but that doesn't make him a great option. If a guy thinks girls getting bathroom raped by perverts is a good idea, how much do you really think he's going to challenge the status quo.

      • Not exactly but he did say the existing [lack of] bathroom laws are fine. Seems like common sense to me.

        When the supposed great one comes to sit upon the Stewart throne is he gonna make homo laws too? Because screw that.

        • As things stand right now, the school system is run in such a way that even if you give every district full autonomy to set its own regulations; 80% will end up providing textbooks full of gay stories, and transexual teachers will be hired preferentially, of course with full rights to use the girls change room.

          4 year olds.

          You may not be interested in sexual deviancy but sexual deviancy is interested in you.

  • In your studies of history, have you ever come across a post to anchor a signaling spiral that might lead to something positive? Liberal progressivism gone completely mad is terrible, ethno-nationalism gone completely mad is terrible, but [insert signaling post here] gone mad isn't all that great but honestly we can live with it.

    • @Ryan Old fashioned Protestant signal spiraling. Most of the United States was evangelized into fanaticism at some time or another. Ending in end points such as Unitarianism, snake handling, Mormonism and those like them. Before sublimating totally into Leftism and atheism the fervor was definitely livable.

      • It also sublimated into complete insanity like the Shakers or Prohibition.

        Signaling spirals by definition are bad, as they spiral out of control. Often though they don't spiral completely, there being some forces which constraint the signaling madness and enforce some sort of stasis. Checks and balances, of a sort.

    • I'd say Confucianism but traditional China was pretty terrible. You could live with it, though, it didn't lead to societal collapse.

      The rationalist spiral since Descartes resulted in efficient government, modern science, hygiene, 19th architecture, vastly improved living standards for all. Then it stopped improving but the spiral goes on, which is taking civilization down with it. Any idea can breed insanity if you don't know when to stop.

  • >even though it’s increasingly obvious that Trump is a liberal fraud

    b-b-buh...but he's the Trumpenfuhrer, man! He's gonna destroy the Cathedral, abolish divorce and homos, hand out testosterone prescriptions to all the bros!

    (either him or Putin, one of them for sure)

      • If he builds the wall, the next administration will just cancel passport checks at the border and bus them in. America's problem is systemic, a function of its stage in the imperial lifecycle. Individuals don't fix systemic problems. Trump is obviously not going to rebuild USG from scratch, abolish the constitution as it currently is, etc.

      • You've got some smart commenters, @spandrell. The asininity quotient in your comment column is remarkably low. May my comment today not raise the quotient!

        Wishful thinking regarding the Trumpenfuehrer is embarrassing. The Donald is what he is. If he won, he'd do whatever he did. When he prides himself on his unpredictability, we should pay attention. We should probably conclude that he is just unpredictable -- where "unpredictable" means that we just haven't got much of a clue as to what he would do as president.

        And I'm all for him. As you say, it's worth it if he builds the wall.

        But making excuses for the man is fairly pointless.

        I will ask this, though: Regarding the topic of males in women's restrooms in North Carolina, would you really like Mr. Trump to come down on the conservative side? And regarding the existence of abortion clinics? Should Mr. Trump fight that battle on conservative grounds, too? Prayer in schools? Women in the workforce? How purely conservative would you *like* Mr. Trump to be?

        We can always vote for Ted Cruz (a good man, as far as I can see), if that is what we want.

        But wouldn't you rather that Mr. Trump be a heterodox nationalist who can compete for the votes of the special-snowflake, faggot-worshiping segment of the Millenial Generation? Wouldn't you rather that Mr. Trump thereby attained the presidency and built the wall?

        Neither restrooms nor North Carolina had been on my mind a month ago. Immigration however had indeed been on my mind. I don't want to get distracted now.

        Politically, maybe the Donald made the right call re North Carolina.

        • An important concept to keep in mind is the idea of political capital. Holding positions of real power lets you accumulate it and then you can spend it on gaining more positions of power/shoring up existing positions (investment), or it can be consumed by implementing policy. Tranies in the bathrooms are a political victory lap, they have fuck you political capital to spend because they have a death grip on positions of real power. The idea is to attain positions of real power (these aren't elected positions), that is to say converting/becoming the elites.

  • So if all politics is signaling, who is Trump signaling to? Whose approval does he seek?

  • 5 pingbacks