At a certain point one must ask why am I here, which to a man means what am I supposed to do?

For if the priesthood is discredited all is naked before the Truths they can no longer obscure with PhD and economic incantations [their existential answer] then all is lost to the rule of the insane and the Evil.

In truth they are already fatally discredtied before those that have lived a noble life in the traditional sense. You see if the Sacred Parchment to which we swore is no longer operative and the contract breached…there remains no bonds to them. It’s then a cold blooded calculation.

Much of what occurs was of course foreseen by Heiinlen.

Do ponder this…good day.

Cheers.

Did anyone actually take it seriously? It seems to me useful as a thought experiment in the trivially true sense. It would be interesting to see it developed as a feasible form of government, but this seems like a hobby of the Dark Enlightenment rather than its vocation.

>Can NR maintain the balance between Why I am not a Libertarian and Why I am not a White Nationalist?

The libertarians are doing everything they can to signal their tribal affiliation with the progs, so I don’t think we need to worry that anyone will confuse them with us or us with them. The WNs have their own reasons for not associating. I think this is a Scylla and Charybdis we’ve already successfully navigated.

>If NR is not to be ruined by its rising popularity, how does it effectively segment itself?

That is the question. I hope an attitude of elitism and anti-populatism continues to be fostered, and wherever the entryist-demotist spirit arises it should be crushed. We don’t need to plan for segmentation. I imagine any splits will be along attitudinal, not doctrinal, lines. The worst thing we could do is try to be popular. The worst thing to happen would be complete indifference from the world. Ergo, the best thing would be if everyone hated us.

For instance: http://antidem.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/open-letter-to-mencius-moldbug/

(I’m interpreting “half-witted antinomianism” to mean something like “people who reject moral universalism but don’t understand NR past that”.)

White nationalism is simply based on an incorrect theory of politics. It is not the case that White polities were subverted by Jews into celebrating White genocide, Whites seeking social status are responsible. When we understand thede, White nationalism is seen as quixotic and self-defeating. It’s also a demotic idea, which is why nationalism leads to propaganda and ruinous demotic war. A newly United Kingdom decided that everyone in its domain was henceforce a Breton; and then by Jingo, they would keep the Russians out of Constantinople; and more recently a Breton of Arab descent is beaten by a mob in China and arrested for attempting to rape a Chinese woman.

Libertarianism is based on the theory that everyone has an IQ of 115; uderstanding HBD means abandoning it. It’s also based on the theory that the dumb market can speak for the nation, which is similar in retardation level to vox populi, vox dei; Carlyle speaks of market democracy as “The choking, sweltering, deadly, and killing rule of no rule; the consecration of cupidity and braying of folly, and dim stupidity and baseness”.

At some point the neoreactionaries may have tension with paleoreactionary White supremacists in that perhaps the race of the future will be significantly different from the White race; and the tension between neoreaction and paleoreactionary traditional Christianity is getting more heated, with Bruce Charlton’s recent post exhorting neoreactionaries to take up the cross.

As to libertarians and White nationalists? They are not paleoreactionaries; a hundred or two hundred years ago they would have been progressives.