Trike Lines

Michael Anissimov has been conducting an online poll of NRx affinities. While questions of principle and method might have delayed this experiment, such procrastination would have been a mistake. The results have already contributed significant information. Most obviously (as already widely noted) the pattern of primary allegiance to the the different trike-tendencies is far more evenly balanced than many had expected. As an intellectual theme — and now as a demonstrated distribution — the ‘Spandrellian Trichotomy’ shows a remarkably resilient stability. The integral pluralism of NRx is becoming impossible to sideline.

Nyan Sandwich has posted a Trike-theory response at More Right. While ultimately skeptical about the pluralist interpretation of the Trichotomy, the order of his argument respects it as a primary phenomenon. Nyan is among those who expect NRx to incline to a concentrated synthesis, or compact unity — superseding its distribution.

Thus it doesn’t really make sense to ask what branch of NRx one identifies with. It’s like asking a physicist whether they think quantum mechanics or general relativity is more true. The point is that the truth is a synthesis of the component theories, not a disjunction.

The natural counter-position to this would be a defense of irreducibly plural integrity, or operational disunity. The lines of controversy released here do not correspond to Trike ‘branches’ but cut across them, and through a number of critical topics, certainly including:

(1) The existence of irreducible triangular schemas within all of the world’s great civilizations, represented within the Christian West by trinitarian theology. How is the relation between the triad and the monad to be conceived? Does this relation vary fundamentally between world cultures? (These decidedly pre-NRx remarks seem very old now, but they remain at least suggestively relevant.) This is the principal Hindu articulation.

(2) To what extent is NRx inherently critical of structurally (rather than demotically) divided powers? (Among the ironies of any consensual NRx commitment to absolute monarchy would be its radical anti-feudalism, or proto-modernism.)

(3) The techno-rationalist aspiration to a super-intelligent ‘Singleton‘ clearly assumes suppression of sovereign plurality. This fully suffices to graft the NRx controversy into the moral-political and theoretical debates over (Right) Singularity.

As a matter of fact, there is scarcely anything NRx agrees upon more consistently than the structure of its disagreements. There are three basic (dyadic) conflicts implicit within the Trichotomy, of which only one has — to this point — been seriously initiated. (Our ‘Theonomists’ have yet to get scrappy.) Much turmoil still lies ahead.

September 25, 2014admin 68 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Neoreaction


68 Responses to this entry

  • E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Says:

    Unity – in – multiplicity. But the strongest always can vie to rule all if he is foolish enough to try (Emperors or Singletons included) it’s a foolishness that strength almost dictates.


    Posted on September 25th, 2014 at 3:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • R. Says:

    I was hoping for something more complex than three pigeonholes.


    admin Reply:

    A perverse comment, since nobody in this wave of discussion is talking about the ‘pigeonholes’ at all (except as a stepping stone to the principle of plurality).


    nyan_sandwich Reply:

    The pigeonholes in the poll force the issue so that people are forced to choose and we get interesting information instead of everyone just countersignalling “it’s more complex than that”.

    In terms of actual analysis of the issue, I sure hope nobody is actually conceiving of this thing as just an allied set of pigeonholes. We really do have a comprehensive analysis that transcends the trike.


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    Yes, I actually agree to this. I’d rather stay an Aristocratic Egalitarian. If I absolutely had to I guess I’d choose techno-commercialist. Fails to take into account the transhumanists who do not want to necessarily rush to infinity, the people who understand HBD but do not want the worst of their vice.

    Also when is moreright getting a monthly comments section again.


    Posted on September 25th, 2014 at 3:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • Reader Says:

    Maybe it’s no more complicated than the fact that these three groups have a common enemy, in the same way that the blacks, hispanics, homosexuals, feminists, and labor unionists that make up the political Left in the USA have a common enemy in successful straight white men.


    nyan_sandwich Reply:

    And a unifying principle in intersectionality and cultural marxism.


    Jane Doe Reply:

    Intersectionality is the force currently driving the most cis white women away from feminism, Marxism ironically destroys organized labor, and the homosexuals are closeting the transexuals and bisexuals to appear less perverse for societal acceptance.


    Posted on September 25th, 2014 at 3:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • RorschachRomanov Says:

    A Shakespearian, 2.0 cyber-punk tragedy is in the works here (Wintermute and Juliet): the techno clan and the Traditionalists, united in mutual loathing of Leftist degeneracy, an alliance with its seeds of destruction already present from the beginning, to become mortal enemies as the Machine God looms in the horizon.


    Erebus Reply:

    Rather like The Diamond Age’s hive-minds and neo-Victorians, coming under the thumb of Philip K. Dick’s old “Unicephalon” vision of a singleton Master-algorithm government. (With all of the darkness and none of the comedy of Mr. Dick’s vision.)
    You could throw in a monkey-wrench in the form of some unforeseen agency — rouge nanotech, extraterrestrials, unearthed conspiracy, whatever — and then you’ve got a compelling pulp sci-fi story.


    Posted on September 25th, 2014 at 5:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • soapjackal Says:

    I really dig my interactions with NRx but beyond slight community tinkering I havent run the gauntlet to really be comfortable (or even worthy but that does make for some weird views on nrx) with attaching said label. I personally have tendencies towards the development of my tribe, applying virtue in my everyday life, and seeking paths towards positive disintegration and general holistic improvement. My search for continual ways to make myself well aware of my general ignorance has led me to some intriguing observations of nrx.

    the more intriguing parts of nrx, past the obvious tweaking (i wouldnt say breaking since alot of time is spent obsessing over progs) of the overton window, really come from synthesis of elements of all 3 areas. The areas where the synthesis does not occur lead to the interesting results of regression and fission.

    Regression being that almost everyone who becomes part of the nrx discussion really just take a few nuggets of insight porn and regress back to prior ideological stances. The actual causation of this is sorta fuzzy on my end. It could be that nrx doesnt actually offer a perch ideologically speaking to function well in that position. It could be that nrx doesnt do more than just exacerbate confirmation biases that said individuals have been making their whole lives. Its plausible that theyre not really breaking any chains in Plato’s Cave and just drawing funny pictures on a small part of the wall with a bit of chalk they found when they looked down. Theres also the odd thought that nrx really is just reliant on modernity to an extent no one is really comfortable in admitting. Regardless of why this happens everyone ends up standing up for the major tenets, even if they are more foundational and specific than many of the adherents of those ideologies really care to think about, they generally were standing up for back in the day.

    Fission. It seems to be a few things. Its growing pains in the development of newer and shinier insights. Its also tribal politics at work that become more exacerbated when people with no leadership skills try to take the reigns and where most of the people don’t really want to think to terribly hard about how hard it is for something to development if it isnt guided in some manner. Then there’s the how all the separate parts of the trichotomy when regressed really don’t care for the full application of thoughts from the other branches. Fission is really spurned on, and simultaneously pushed back, by how vague and meta the whole affair is especially when most attention towards the ‘movement’ is usually quite inaccurate and actually encouraging to those who like thought crime.

    I can’t say that I’m really that experienced in strategy, group dynamics, or even effective political action beyond personal leadership experience and my limited observational capacity. However I have a thought that I hope others can either viciously critique or add upon.

    stop the meta or go the distance.

    Don’t concern oneself with trying to play the metapolitical game if all youre going to do either regress, whole sale react to modernity (and get trapped in the overton window), or become really reliant on insight porn. I am in no way denigrating the fine work of reactionaries or traditionalists. If you want to go down the avenues presented in your regression or reactionary tendencies then just go down those routes and apply critical thought to them to improve it in the best way you can. There is not much wrong with this and just associating these groups together as some new form of reaction (entomologically thats all neoreaction really signifies any way) is not anything more than just opening discourse between the different threads of the alternative right.

    Believe you me I really do appreciate those who do such things like steve sailer as well as jim himself. There are plenty of great things to learn and even the anti-democracy stance doesnt even need to be altered. Accept it and take pride in it.

    Or you could go all the way. Expand down into strange tangents of history and philosophy. Start a project like the freisian school:

    or synthesize something new from the trends that are generally being regressed to. Expand to all great thinkers. Critically examine the enlightenment or play around with weird projects (debunking HBD from a non-prog stance). Take record numbers of hallucinogens and really delve into what meta politics really represents. Stop worrying about signalling and love the bomb.


    Posted on September 25th, 2014 at 5:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lesser Bull Says:

    The trichotomy is flawed because it leaves out sex and gender.

    Even though I’m a God-botherer, when I put on my political hat what I’m most concerned about is sex-roles, family structures, birth rates, and eugenics/dysgenics of the population as a whole, not of one racial group compared to another. And though I could construct an argument from my religious suppositions why those are important, the argument that actually has persuaded me is biological/evolutionary and societal-functional.

    I’m not unique. The relation between the manosphere and NRx is strong. Jim is clearly one of the public Masters of NRx, but he’s not clearly ethno, nor techno-commercial, nor devout. What he is is a flaming sexist.


    soapjackal Reply:

    i have always seen the ethno-nat as a narrow label for general tribalism and social relations.


    Lesser Bull Reply:

    If that’s what ‘ethnonationalist’ is supposed to mean, its a really bad choice. I’ve been hanging around NRx for over a year now and had no idea that ethnonationalism didn’t mean ethnonationalism. I am not an actual ethnonationalist and it would be strange to describe myself as one because I am aware of sexual dimorphism.

    Since it would be possible for a gender roles guys to reject ethnonationalism or even race realism, and since it would be possible for an ethnonat to reject patriarchy (many of them do, in fact), it really makes no sense to lump them together.

    If you remember Spandrell’s (?) chart of Neoreaction, the masculinity/feminity nodes didn’t cluster all that near the ethnonationalist nodes.

    If anything, the patriarchy and TFR folks are probably closer to the Christian traditionalists, though its very possible to be a secular advocate of patriarchy, so the groups aren’t the same.


    soapjackal Reply:

    they for sure are natsoc ethnonationalists, didnt mean to say that ethnonats doesnt mean ethnonat.

    what I meant was that I usually agree with them but where differences are found are that where they focus on white race nations I focus on genetically similar tribes.

    nydwracu Reply:

    There are clear entry-points (Orthosphere, XS) and cores (a return to traditional Christianity, an acceleration into the market as a metasystem) for the theonomists and techno-commercialists; not so much for the ethno-nationalists.

    Or are there?

    ‘Ethno-nationalist’ may be a misleading term; unlike the other two, it existed before the formulation of the trike, so it pattern-matches in ways the others don’t.

    What is it concerned with? What does it do?

    Mike Reply:

    Lesser Bull is right – that this thing of ours has a heavy manosphere influence is undeniable. The example of Jim (clearly one of us, but unclassifiable in the trichotomy) is telling.

    At a minimum, I’d pencil sex/gender relations in as a secular sub-branch of theonomy. Or better yet, we need to reconsider what we call that branch. Instead of calling them “theonomists”, we could call them (say) “traditionalists” instead, with secular and religious subclades. “Sex realists” is another possibility.

    The modern manosphere is mostly secular traditionalism/sex-realism, but there’s a solid religious contingent (Free Northerner, Cane Caldo, Vox Day come to mind immediately).


    Posted on September 25th, 2014 at 6:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lesser Bull Says:

    The unifying theme of NRx is political Darwinism.

    The ethno-nat, patriarchy, and HBD nodes of NRx thought come from taking biological evolution seriously and reaching the natural conclusions (races, sex roles, and behaviors are real, genetically informed, and subject to evolutionary and adaptive pressures).

    The traditionalist strands come from treating social structures and ideas as subject to competition and adaptive pressure, which leads to the natural conclusion (ideas and structures that have been around for awhile are probably fit; new, progressive ideas should be evaluated not on their face value but according to what groups they benefit and how they are adaptations to the memetic environment)

    The techno-commercial folks want to recreate darwinian competition at the economic level, believing it will lead to better outcomes than designed economics. The patchwork is the same thing at the national level. To an extent, ethno-nats believe something like this too.


    Porcupine Eater Reply:

    I agree with the Darwinian framing. I think Nyan Sandwich is correct when he notes that Neoreaction could/should act as a rightward synthesis and that all three sides of the trichotomy combined would result in something more rightwing (hence more Darwinian-competitive, hierarchical, and orderly) than any one side on its own. Since the goal is to move ever rightward I’m not going to pick a branch but work on my own fusionism. Then again, I’m not implying that other neoreactionaries are neoreactionary enough if they aren’t fusionists.


    Posted on September 25th, 2014 at 7:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lesser Bull Says:

    One last thing: It’s not remarkable that the trikes are fairly balanced. It’s remarkable that there are so few votes. Pretty sad how few of us there are in this lack-of-movement.


    hughdecroft Reply:

    I wouldn’t read too much into that. I visit More Right very infrequently. If the poll hadn’t been mentioned here, I would have missed it. Maybe the vote count will start to rise now. OI is sort of the unofficial NRx clubhouse after all.


    Posted on September 25th, 2014 at 7:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • Aeroguy Says:

    Why isn’t anyone talking about the similarity of the trichotomy to the three pegs of the Republican party under Regan? (I haven’t read the link at MR yet so apologies if they have) The techno commercialists and libertarians, the traditionalists and the moral majority, and the ethno-nationalists and national security hawks. United then against the Soviet Union, united now against the Cathedral. I’d say that they are direct decedents and any discussion of the trichotomy would be incomplete without including their history and ancestral links. I think each of the three pegs split, most moved left but a some moved right.


    nydwracu Reply:

    What the hell does ethnat have to do with hawkism?


    Porcupine Eater Reply:

    In this respect Neoreaction has the possibility of backdoor entryism via the mainstream conservative establishment. It’s not as far fetched as it sounds, since Aeroguy notes the alliance between capitalists, fundies, and militarists that has propped up the Republican Party. Oh course the GOP is implicitly ethno-nationalist, but even the Democratic Party can be subverted.


    Posted on September 25th, 2014 at 7:46 pm Reply | Quote
  • scientism Says:

    I think there’s a neglected alternative to Nyan’s account of traditionalism (although it’s probably a perfectly fine account of what most neoreactionaries believe). I don’t accept revelation or the rationalist approach to “social technology”. What’s right about traditionalism is that it questions the limits of rationalism. Each of us is born into a tradition and this tradition is not in need of rational justification. It was precisely the mistake of the Enlightenment (perhaps latent in the Western intellectual tradition all along) to believe that tradition, hierarchy, morality, etc, needed to be “grounded” in reason. It was this philosophical error that brought about a crisis of legitimacy for the traditional order, leading to modernity.

    I suppose this is the central problem I have with a lot of neoreactionary thought: it frequently tries to answer problems created by rationalism using the methods of rationalism. We already know this doesn’t work. People were trying to rationally justify traditional society while it was being dismantled; they lost not because they didn’t have good arguments (they had fantastic arguments, as neoreaction has brought to light) but because they accepted that it needed to be rationally justified (or that they needed to articulate a position in opposition to rational justification, such as “faith” and revelation, rather than dissolve the problem). They chose to play a game where their loss was the only possible outcome (there’s a WarGames analogy here somewhere).

    The recent Radish piece carried a decent quote on this subject:

    “In every culture war the existing customs and traditions of a society are called to the bar of reason and ruthlessly interrogated and cross-examined by an intellectual elite asking whether they can be rationally justified or are simply the products of superstition and thus unworthy of being taken seriously by enlightened men and women. … How do you explain what you have against what had never crossed your mind as something anyone on Earth would ever think of doing? This invitation to reason calmly about the hitherto unthinkable is the source of the uneasy visceral response. To ask someone to reason calmly about something that he regards as simply beyond the pale is to ask him to concede precisely what he must not concede — the mere admissibility of the question.”

    I’d add to this, though, that asking for a reason here is the product of a philosophical pseudo-problem of a kind that needs to be dissolved rather than answered. The inequity and intolerance that progressives find in the world is like the disquiet that philosophy can bring about with skeptical arguments that make us question common sense aspects of the world. It’s a shallow linguistic trick that makes the mundane appear bizarre, unjustifiable and foreign (and in the political realm, unjust, imposed from without, and inequitable).


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    So what you’re saying is Burke.


    scientism Reply:

    No, I’d include Burke among those who provide a rational justification. I think Burke can easily be construed as talking about cognitive limitations and “social technology” in a way that fits Nyan’s account. What I’m trying to emphasise is that the problem is with liberalism/progressivism and its pseudo-problems. These need to be dissolved rather than answered. We don’t owe the opposition (or ourselves) any account of why tradition is useful or necessary or should be preserved, we can and should proceed in a purely negative why by showing that progressivism is chasing philosophical mirages.

    The correct course of action is to dissolve progressivism, not to developing theories of society. Developing theories of society – even if they include accounts of how our cognitive limitations require us to rely on the accumulated wisdom of the ages or mean we cannot hope to rationally design a society – is what got us into this mess.


    ultraZEN Reply:

    True – but once the milk is out the udders aint taking any refunds etc.

    Vilfredo Pareto observed that rationalism is in itself external; i.e – it follows and explains an already unfolding action or phenomena. But in this explaining, it also modulates the perception to such an extent that the explanation now tend to dominate the phenomena it was meant to explain, or rather: it cloaks it. If one is not utterly careful at this stage, one ends up explaining the explanation so to speak, ad aeternum, and then we end up in an ever expanding maze of perhaps clever, but nontheless abstract convolutions.

    This is what to some extent have happened in western thought. Take hierarchy. Hierachy doesnt care if it is rationalized or taken for granted, as it rises under any circumstance where social interaction unfolds. You cannot erase it or dismantle it. You may dismantle a particular expression of hierarchy, but as soon as social interaction occurs, a new one will promptly arise. Following Pareto: you can ciruclate elites, but you cannot eliminate the hierarchal principle itself.

    The neoreactionary insight on this matter is that hierarchy remains, but the perceptions and the rationalizations change. The problem with progressivism is that it leads to dysfunction, devolution and degeneration. Not because progressivism dismantle hierarchies, but because it suffers from the delusion that Hierarchy is dismantable. This mirage leads them ever onwards, meddling in all affairs of life, trying to implement their ‘improvements’ in ever expanding fashion.

    As for genealogy, one cannot fully blame rational analysis and rationalism. These were key components of the Enlightentment, but the main function they carried was to replicate and expand theological concepts from the invisible to the visible realm. Agreeing with Eric Voegelin, we can say that modern progressive political ideology is theology projected outwards: an attempt to re-order the world following what in essence are religious, otherworldy and theological designs. From a theonomic perspective, this process is doomed to perversion as any world-building mode that is severed from Tradition is bent to mutate into mirages of all kinds.

    Our opponents – the progressives – they can be reached by rational analysis as such analysis functions to motivate theological concepts. “Human rights”, “Equality”, “Social Justice”, “Moral Progress” and so on – these are not the rational results of an analytical dismantling of traditional irrationalism. These are just emotional-instinctual buzzwords, stand-ins for gods, paradises and heavenly rewards promised and promised if’s.

    The aim of rational analysis from a neoreactionary anschaaung, is not to convince the prog that his hare-brained mirages are unrational and unreal and will lead us all to collapse. Ours is the long game. We are the black hole growing in the Enlightened cosmos, feasting upon prog matter, prog energy and prog light.

    scientism Reply:


    “The neoreactionary insight on this matter is that hierarchy remains, but the perceptions and the rationalizations change.”

    This is what I take to be the deepest insight of neoreaction. Civilisation remains, but we’ve become confused about the significance of our actions. All that really needs to be done is to get the elites to snap out of their daydream, most likely by pushing the system towards instability. This is why I like AAA as a strategy. (Consider the way Mao’s Cultural Revolution provided the conditions for Deng’s pragmatism in China.)

    The other point I’d make is against the gradualism of the Burkean view. I think changes in material conditions can sometimes necessitate dramatic social change. Achieving clarity about our society is just as likely to lead to greater dynamism, greater adaptability to changing external circumstances, as it is “conservatism.” It’s not the degree of change that matters but whether it’s adaptive vs. pathological.

    Barnabas Reply:

    From James Burnham
    “…political formula rationalizes and justifies its rule and structure of the society over which it rules…the integrity of the political formula is essential for the survival of a given social structure. Changes in the formula, if they are not to destroy the society, must be gradual, not abrupt…A widespread skepticism about the formula will, in time, corrode and disintegrate the social order. It is perhaps for this reason, half-consciously understood, that all strong and long-lived societies have cherished their “traditions” even when, as is usually the case, these traditions have little relation to fact, and even after they can hardly be believed literally by educated men. Rome, Japan, Venice, all such long-enduring states, have been very slow to change the old formulas, the time-honored ways and stories and rituals; and they have been harsh against rationalists who debunk them. This, after all, was the crime for which Athens put Socrates to death. From the point of view of survival, she was probably right in doing so.”


    Porcupine Eater Reply:

    I think people put too much emphasis on Burke being a gradualist. In The Reactionary Mind, Corey Robin makes a pretty persuasive argument that Burke was pretty radical and was more than willing to destroy old institutions and the decadent Ancient Regime in order to create a new order to combat the left. Conservatism isn’t really about conserving anything, it’s about opposing popular rule and equality.


    Posted on September 25th, 2014 at 9:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • Handle Says:

    Twenty years ago, David Friedman wrote his Positive Account or Property Rights which continues to have a large influence on my thinking, any may, in retrospect, have led me to the place I’m at now.

    One of the points he made in that paper was that there was a happy triple coincidence (perhaps not such a coincidence, actually) of three perspectives settling on the same fundamental prescriptions for normative social arrangements and the equilibrium of a functional, cooperative civil order.

    From the perspective of Economics, the criteria to optimize was ‘Efficiency’.

    From the ideological perspective, the criteria to optimize was ‘Justice’. (Friedman points out that laws based on his particular kind of Libertarianism would also happen to create the incentives that would tend to produce Economically efficient outcomes, most of the time, under certain conditions and assumptions).

    And from the positive perspective, the criteria to optimize was ‘Stability’ in terms of the kinds of Nash Equilibria which would arise from gradual evolution, built upon an elaborate framework of Schelling-focal points, and given various game-theoretical considerations of typical and fundamental human conflicts of interest.

    Friedman makes a good case that property rights of the kind that are economically efficient, and just under a Libertarian scheme, are also those that would emerge as stable strategies in repeated games of conflict over control of key resources.

    The parallel seems clear:

    Economic Efficiency (through competitive market discovery and evolutionary catallaxy) is related to Techno-Commercialism

    Libertarian Justice (most the non-aggression principle) is an ideological hope for a basis of a collection of beliefs and set of organizing principles upon which a society can coordinate, and is thus related (I’ll admit this is the most tenuous claim) to the desire to the hopes of the Theonomists.

    And Ethno-Nationalists recognize that the most Stable framework of cultural and moral Schelling points, and the kinds which are likely to produce the highest and most functionally cooperative equilbria, and those that work on target audiences that have as much homogeneity in preferences, attitudes, and behaviors as possible and the greatest potential for natural, instinctive, and robust asabiyya, and cohesion. And that, furthermore, one set of Schelling points is almost impossible to apply to humanity at large (i.e. ‘universalism’), and that rival sets will necessarily and inevitably produce antagonistic clashes and conflicts of vision, and that therefore good fences make good neighbors, and ethno-nations should take care to minimize interactions with other societies and restrict them to those relations most likely to remain on peaceful terms of tolerant coexistence with respect for the principle of Cuius regio, eius religio.

    Anyway, if Nyan_Sandwich wants an inchoate seed of a potential synthesis – or at least some indication of why the three perspectives are oddly compatible and tend to converge in some respects, then I think this is a good starting place.


    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Efficiency is the only one that seems clear. Both the other ones are stretches.


    Handle Reply:

    Yep. Then again, it’s like comparing the set of primary colors with the set of secondary colors. You’ll see more obvious overlap if you focus on those for whom their preferred framework is an instrumental means to an end (of a functional society) instead of a teleological end in itself.


    Posted on September 25th, 2014 at 9:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lesser Bull Says:

    What are the problems each set is trying to solve? What does ‘Progress’ take for granted or even actively work to destroy that each component of NRx is trying to rescue or revive?

    Progress ignores social cohesion. It assumes that cohesion happens magically when Progress happens. Ethnonationals seek to solve this problem in one way, theonomists in another. Both the tribe and the transcendent are solutions to the problem of social cohesion, not necessarily rivalrous but usually in tension.

    Progress ignores the economy. It just assumes that growth will happen unless bad people (“capitalists”) prevent it. Technocommercialists are trying to preserve and promote the kind of economic arrangements that preserve and promote growth, productivity, and innovation.

    Progress ignores individual human capital. It doesn’t see excellence as something that has to be striven for. It blames bad character on outside influences or ignorance. Remove the societal forces that make people be bad, explain to them that they ought not to be bad, and they won’t (‘teach men not to rape’). Progress doesn’t really believe in individual human evil, so it doesn’t really believe in individual human good either. But NRx wants to preserve the possibility of individual excellent both for its own intrinsic value and because NRx recognizes its importance to society. So theonomists want to preserve/promote moral teaching, theonomists and ethnonats offer different solutions to the problem of alienation, and technocoms want the material spurs to excellence and the dissuasions to sucking that competition brings. HBDers want to raise awareness of the genetic component of individual human capital. Patriarchs are aware that individual human capital starts with having children between high quality parents who invest in their children and want to preserve/promote the conditions that make that possible.

    There is some overlap with the far left. The problem of alienation, for instance. What makes the right different is that the right doesn’t believe these problems can reach a perfect solution state. Capitalism and the patriarchal family all inherently have losers. Race realism does too. Ethnonationalism doesn’t, oddly. Maybe why it slides so well into socialism.

    It occurs to me that the technocomms really don’t like to think about social capital, and the Patchwork is a way around this. It shoves all the icky stuff about families and social capital and alienation and all that into the black box of what the monarch CEO decides to do.

    It also occurs to me that some varieties of environmentalism would fit naturally with the other strains here. The problem that is being ignored is the problem of natural resources and biological capital, and the solution–scarcity, limits to growth–is inherently tragic.


    Aeroguy Reply:

    ” The problem that is being ignored is the problem of natural resources and biological capital, and the solution–scarcity, limits to growth–is inherently tragic.”
    I have an affection for empire, healthy empires are expansionary, by conquest or by taming frontiers. As an empire’s success turns it core rotten eventually it loses it’s ability to expand. It is at this point where the most tragic consequences of scarcity are felt and accelerates the stagnation of empire.

    The problem with empire is the world conquering empire, ideally you want many empires at one time or else you have a dearth of ideological diversity and long periods of stagnation (ideologies, the genes of the civilization superorganism). Rapidly advancing new ideologies within a given civilization is like dosing yourself in radiation in hopes that it will give you superpowers. It should be possible to engineer beneficial ideologies but that would have to be done in a Gnon derived process (which is what I would say is the purpose of NRx, implementation will require a more muscular organization) rather than the individual power driven and populist fueled manner that is currently practiced.


    Posted on September 25th, 2014 at 9:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • Antisthenes Says:

    There’s no Ebola-Chan worshipping chaos cult option, so Techno-Commercialist will have to do.


    Posted on September 26th, 2014 at 11:44 am Reply | Quote
  • Dan Says:

    The branches of neoreaction are all connected by cold, red-pill reality.

    Ethnonationalism is linked to male/female relations and traditionalism:

    The rise of feminism and the decline of traditional religion in the west have led to low birth rates which have led to declining populations among European nationalities. The solution recommended from a purely economic-growth-focused perspective, mass immigration, is further threatening the native cultures. Commonly the new arrivals have neither the ability or interest to sustain the civilization that they have found.

    The success of technocommercialism is dependent on creative and technically saavy populations, which ties it back to ethnonationalism, male/female relations and traditionalism:

    We are told that the future will be very African. For some perspective, here is the African space program. Note that there are 600 people working on it.

    All technocommercialist visions fade away if that is the future. So a technocommercialist ought to obsess over how to create more technically saavy people, or else watch their dreams fade away.


    Posted on September 26th, 2014 at 1:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • Erik Says:

    I’ve been considering for a while a fourth branch to suggest adding to the trike, and this seems a good place to bring it up.

    As a group without a name yet: Heartiste/Dalrock/Manosphere stuff, lek mating, sexual constraints, gays really do get AIDS and other dysfunctions at preposterous rates, the true former stereotype of wicked stepmothers which in this day and age has morphed into the wicked step-man-mom-is-banging-this-week, the former eugenic civilizing incentive structure “Be a breadwinner, and you will be high status and receive regular sex from your wife, who has that as a duty”, the current dysgenic decivilizing incentive structure “Be a breadwinner, and you will be a low status office drone. The government will give your money to women banging Rockbanddrummer Harley McBadboy and asking where all the good men have gone; also we’ll call you a proto-rapist if you express annoyance that you aren’t getting any”.

    It’s not techno-commercialism because techno-commercialism thinks this can be solved with exowombs and sidestepped with gay Turings, to the extent techno-commercialism even thinks about this (which seems to be little).

    It’s possibly closer to theonomy, which had the marital debt, but theonomy still blanches from eugenics.

    It’s not ethno-nationalism either, which complains about “mudsharking”, race mixing and the need to save the [insert color] woman, but still suffers from occasional pedestalizing and overlooks non-racial equivalents of mudsharking.

    All three can agree that Harley McBadboy is likely to be the sort of person falling foul of the headsman’s axe in a NRx society, so that doesn’t identify a branch either.


    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Agreed. See my comment above.


    Aeroguy Reply:

    The manosphere is good stuff but I don’t see how it fits outside of the ideas in the tricotomy. All of it’s good ideas are endorsed by at least one part of the tricotomy. What are it’s uniquely good ideas that none of the other three are advocating? I see it an interesting synthesis since there is going to be more than one way the mix the three competing groups. I would say that NRx, the manosphere, and /pol/ are all children of the tricotomy.


    Lesser Bull Reply:

    * All of it’s good ideas are endorsed by at least one part of the tricotomy, etc, etc.*


    1) ‘Endorse’ isn’t what’s important. Most NRxers at least ‘endorse’ significant aspects of the other parts of the trichotomy and maybe even a majority of them. But the trichotomy still exists because its not what you endorse, its what you see as your primary focus of attention. Neither ethnonats nor technocomms nor religious traditionalists take biological accounts of male/female behavior and the implications for civilization and social structures as their primary thing.

    2) there isn’t one part of the trichotomy in particular that endorses all of the Sex Realist view. It’s not subsumed into any of them.

    3) It’s definitely not a synthesis. Sex realism doesn’t start with the insights and concerns of the trichotomy and from those work its way towards sex realism. Its theoretical basis is darwinism as applied to human reproduction, its intellectual basis is collapsing demography and collapsing marriage rates, and its practical basis is people’s real world experience that sex roles don’t work the way the Cathedral says they do. Sex realism isn’t a synthesis of the trichotomy. It’s a unitive viewpoint with its own origin story and causal chain.


    Dire Badger Reply:

    One of the problems of considering the ‘manosphere’ a fourth leg to to the trichotomy is that there are two very distinct, dramatically opposed, and mutually antagonistic sides.

    The ‘sex realists’, who slide just to the right of the religious traditionalists, and the ‘loyal opposition’, who are simply ‘we are victims too’ leftists attempting to place themselves as a new minority.

    Neither group really justifies adding another psychological ‘leg’ to the stable tripodal structure. Just acknowledging that neoreactionaries MAY be right by any member of the trichotomy automatically stabilizes the structure, and lends to a blended view rather than strict adherence to one of the legs.

    Antisthenes Reply:

    @Dire Badger:

    MRAs (i.e. the second group) are not part of the Manosphere (the manletsphere maybe), and cannot be NRx in any sense because they adhere to Cathedral logic wholeheartedly, they just want to have its remit extended to their interests.

    I’d lump the actually manly part of the manosphere in with the primitivists, personally (I haven’t seen any that would disagree with Donovan’s Oorah! Mountain Man! aesthetics).

    Although you’re on the ball in saying that they don’t form a distinct leg of the trike, per se.

    R. Reply:

    Heartiste are blowing things way out of proportion. While the stuff they describe does happen… it’s not universal. Just as PUA methods do not work on every woman.

    Mayhaps it is that the stuff he describes is the one that applies to the fraction of ‘loose’ women who can be found in bars and nightclubs and such.

    That is, not high quality material.


    Aeroguy Reply:

    Haha, the myth of the born high quality woman is just another pretty lie. Some of the darker game techniques actually work better on the girls from intact families and good fathers. A woman is a woman, their instincts are the same. There are good dogs and bad dogs, but while the quality of a dog is partially dependent on the breeding of the dog, most of the dog’s behavior is a reflection of it’s master or lack of one, same thing with women. We live in a world full of feral women, but with game especially when younger, they can be trained. You’re never going to find a high quality woman, rather you have to make one.


    R. Reply:

    No on is ‘born’ hiqh quality, but parental influences are quite important. SO’s may influence their partners to some extent, but most of the wiring is hard to change and already pretty much set.

    A woman is a woman, their instincts are the same.

    That is a bit like saying all men are the same. They’re not.

    You’re never going to find a high quality woman, rather you have to make one.

    Is the situation in America truly *that* dire? I’ve known the women I mentioned for most of my life, and they were raised to be conscientious and well-behaved. Uni did not change that. In addition to that they are good looking and smart.

    blogospheroid Reply:

    The heartiste wing is the only one that seems to care a lot about female beauty. Neither of the original 3 care too much about that. Ethno-nationalists, maybe. But even there, you have clashes with some of the HBD folk saying that men of certain races and women of certain races are more attractive, not just to their own race, but all races. So, yes, even I agree that the manosphere demands a separate note.

    The point is that men care greatly about female beauty today. It is a part of reality. It does jack to improve survival prospects of society, but it is sought after. It is a part of Elua aka human values.


    Kgaard Reply:

    Well they’ve pretty much PROVEN that women of certain races are more attractive, no? Harsh selection in the northern climes led to rampant competition among females, leading to blond hair, blue eyes, white skin — the archetype of beauty the world over. This is why there is such opposition among northern men against immigration of southern men. They want our women but we don’t want theirs. One more way in which men and women are becoming two separate political poles in the west. The 2012 election in the US really made this clear for all to see, with something like 75% of single women voting for Obama. All the big rightie radio talk show guys were commenting on that afterwards. That was the event that really brought the manosphere into the intellectual mainstream, if you ask me. It proved they were right. Today, nobody really disputes their rightness when you think about it. They just dispute the degree to which they are evil.

    One interesting, uh, corollary to this is the relative under-appreciation of Russian women in Europe. Everybody hates the Russians, but Russian women are basically fine. It’s ironic that they are probably most valued inside the US — their primary foe in the Cold War. On an individual basis, Americans really have no experience with Russians and have not built up any sort of hostility or animosity toward them, whereas many Europeans have …


    Posted on September 26th, 2014 at 1:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    Another way to think about it is that all neoreactionary thought is a sort of “Revenge of the Js” — i.e. the judging function in Myers Briggs. The right is J, while the left is about suspending judgment. The left is P (perceiving) all the way down.

    In Jimspeak, P is holy, J is evil.

    Js get shouted down in polite company, but on the internet they can coalesce.

    Js are in fact about 50% of the population so there’s no reason their voice shouldn’t be heard. They were Nixon’s silent majority.

    Nixon himself was probably an INTJ, as I would think many neoreactionaries are. It’s considered the “mastermind” type — respected by others who are dialed in, but written off as deranged by those who are not.

    Anyway … I also agree with prior commenters who say NRX owes a big debt to the manosphere. That’s how I got here. I could never really choose between the three strands because I agree with all of them.


    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    unf. Alex Jones has created the ultimate INT* trap, and INTJ’s are very important.


    Aeroguy Reply:

    J vs P is one of the most misunderstood parts of Myers Briggs. Judging refers to having a preference for using the judging part the personality (thinking or feeling) when dealing with the outer world. While perception refers to having a preference for using the perceiving part of the personality (intuition or sensing) when dealing with the outer world. The real difference is that P types (like me) are procrastinators (which is what I’m doing right now) while J types want to get everything done immediately. A P type prefers to keep their options open while a J type prefers to make decisions immediately.


    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Every INTJ i know, starting with myself, is a Hall of Fame procrastinator. Right now I should be assembling shelves, for instance . . .


    ||||| Reply:

    I don’t see it in MBTI but evolutionary strategy terms. The left is all that favors mutation (dreams of global maximal connectedness when on top, dreams of liberating revolution when on the bottom) and the right is all that favors selection (dreams of hierarchy, merit, competitive striving when on top, dreams of apocalyptic purification when on the bottom).

    Libertarians seem to me an adaptation on the whole interaction between the other two. Their tendencies maximize resource discovery and collection in a growing society but effectively parasitize and subsequently escape withering ones. Soft accelerationism. Obviously this strategy fails in the presence of synchronized globalism, patchwork being the alternative more suitable to their palate.

    Certainly there are more dimensions than these but I’d wager these are the most informative ones.

    Don’t think synthesis is impossible but not sure that it is desirable, more often than not the resulting correlation in errors committed is not sufficiently compensated by the possible increase in fitness.

    Overall the way I see it is

    Slow – CULTURE – Software
    Fast – MEME – Software
    Fast – BRAIN – Hardware
    Slow – GENE – Hardware

    With all of these being connected to each other, the instantiation of such a collection constituting a civilization.

    Fast processes mutate rapidly and converge to local minima while slow ones select against these and place the instances which terminated without converging as starting points for the next batch of processes, with politics being an extremely roundabout way of directing these very general learning tasks embedded into consumer-resource systems, these shitty little hacks being par for the course with evolution.


    Posted on September 26th, 2014 at 2:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dan Says:

    I would argue that fertility of the west is the number one problem, which if solved would help solve all the others.

    If fertility in the west were high, then civilization could spread out from it rather than uncivilization creeping into it. Ethnonationalists would be pleased.

    If fertility in the west were high, then there would be a well of productive people from which dreams of an advanced technocommercialist future could realistically flow.

    If fertility in the west were high, then necessarily women are playing the role of mothers, investing in the future and men must work to support their families, satisfying the traditionalist.

    And more, if fertility in the west were high, then economies would grow and freedom and progress could again be possible, satisfying most other people. While many other factors are involved, failure on the western fertility front dooms all other fronts in the pursuit of civilization.


    Kgaard Reply:

    This is all true, but how do you make having babies within marriage an attractive proposition for a reasonably attractive 25-year-old woman with a 118 IQ and an international relations major from Northwestern? Seems to me that is the nub of the problem. One of the fundamental reasons women in Eastern Europe are more attractive than American women is that their mothers did not have good work opportunities, so the opportunity cost of having babies was low. That is not the case in America, hasn’t been for 40 years, and may not be again for another ?? years. Viewed from this perspective the problem has no answer. The US is now talking about having illegal aliens IN THE MILITARY. So, to me, the logical answer seems to be moving to a poorer, more normal country, no? Slovakia perhaps?


    Lesser Bull Reply:

    I assume you are talking on a personal level, not a societal level.

    I’m happily married with a slew of kids from a high quality woman, so in a way I’m a success story. I know lots of guys who are the same. But I’m probably not very helpful to you because I’m religious and the majority of the guys I know are the same and that was intrinsic to my success.

    This is a subject that needs more than a comment–it probably needs more than a post, it probably needs a dedicated forum for mutual encouragement and discussion–but here’s what I got. The US has its own Slovakia’s. There are lots of intelligent enough, pretty enough American girls in the state schools and the cow colleges and in areas that are outside the narrow elite paths. They may lack ambition, but for the most part ambition in a woman is something she is taught anyway, its probably not that genetic. When you’re dating, mention that you like the idea of having a big family and that you’ve often thought it would be romantic to just run away and elope at an early age. Casually, no pressure or anything. But you’ll often find that a lot of girls secretly want something like this, they’ve just been indoctrinated that they have to keep it quiet or else they’ll be scorned. Girls who are crunchy or granolaesque are more likely to fall into this category, as are girls who have done 4-H or have had horses and animals. A lot of time that’s an indicator of feminine maternal and purity instincts. Elementary Ed and nursing majors are also a pretty good indicator, though often they’re fairly stupid, you’ll have to winnow–a sweet spot here is looking for nursing majors and el. ed. majors at a school that is fairly competitive. Not elite elite, but a cut above. Dancing and music emphases at a school that doesn’t have a super-elite program in that area is also a good indicator. In fact, one thought is to look for some kind of amateur music or theatricals to get involved in. Going overseas is also a real option. I’d also think that there are some kinds of prole rightwing groups that would make good prowling grounds–shooting sports, stuff like that–they’re going to be male dominated, but the daughters and friends of these guys are going to be more easily persuadable to your mindset.

    Whatever option you pursue, you need to be a man about it. Lots of personal success is a big plus when a woman is consciously or subconsciously thinking about becoming dependent on you. Good looks and personal fitness. Dedication to something–a touch of buried fanaticism is catnip to girls who are thinking longterm.

    Be a man; be ruthless. Don’t fart around saying, eh, I don’t like arts or music, or non-elite schools, or horses, or religion, or shooting, or living abroad or whatever. Don’t whine, don’t placate yourself, don’t be a nebbish. Be a goddam hero, make reality and yourself bend to your will, and carry off the prize.

    As I write this, my lovely wife is in the kitchen cutting vegetables for the lunch she is making me. Her dress sways back and forth slightly with each cut. She is pregnant. The house is clean and orderly and beautified by her. My two youngest children are playing some kind of pretend in a corner. They are talking too softly to make out what it is they have in mind. They love and respect me. They obey.

    Make it happen. Glory is forever.


    Kgaard Reply:

    Ha … Usually I AM talking from a personal level but in this particular instance with respect to the 25-year-old Northwestern grad it is from a systemic level. We need HER to be pumping out babies, and there is no incentive for her to do so. More fun to party it up, as a general rule.

    I agree that nurses can be great people. Saintly, almost (at least until they burn out). That said, I’ve found that the easiest way to torture a nurse is to philosophize at her at any length. Ditto elementary school teachers. (Dated one of those for a while and they are cra-ZEE. Never again!) In my own experience I have found that the best women for me are the ones who feel they are too smart for everyone and bore men with their brains. These are almost invariably going to be your INTs and INFs. I’ve never had a problem with super-smart women … I prefer them. That’s why I bemoan the steady drop in western IQs.

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    if you’re not talking personally, then yes the problem is insoluble, like all the other problems of NRx, because our culture refuses even to recognize the problem.

    R. Reply:

    One of the fundamental reasons women in Eastern Europe are more attractive than American women is that their mothers did not have good work opportunities, so the opportunity cost of having babies was low. That is not the case in America, hasn’t been for 40 years, and may not be again for another ?? years. Viewed from this perspective the problem has no answer. The US is now talking about having illegal aliens IN THE MILITARY. So, to me, the logical answer seems to be moving to a poorer, more normal country, no? Slovakia perhaps?

    As a Slovakian, I can observe that the reason women might be prettier* is due to little inbreeding and vigorous population movements in history. You wanna see ugly people, go to the Alps.

    Also they’re less likely to be fat than Americans, or have feminist attitudes. Communism did not allow modern feminism to take hold here.

    C’s were pretty socially conservative by modern standards- porn illegal, homosexuality not illegal but not allowed to be talked about, etc.

    I’d suggest moving to say, NZ.

    Europe is pretty much fucked in the long term. As Africa is fucked and all of their surplus or terrorized population is going to keep travelling here.

    *plenty of people say that about Slovakia, or Czech Republic, but I’ve not seen any systematic examination of the issue.


    Kgaard Reply:

    Yeah? You’re a Slovakian? I was just in Bratislava last week, which is why I used that as an example. Nice town … I’d like to go to Kosice too but it’s a bit of a haul. Been stomping around Central Europe this month. Absolutely fascinated with what I see here. The quality of life is just SO much higher than in the US on all the most relevant measures (Orderliness, beauty of women, nice architecture, great food, no obesity, good beer, better zoos, no crazy people, fewer cops, better taxi drivers … the list goes on and on.) In the Baltics many of the shop clerks or bartenders are fluent or nearly so in three languages — English, Russian and Latvian or Estonian. The Estonian dudes look like throwbacks to the Hanseatic League days. Very impressive. Clearly the Darwinian pressures have been strong up there. Tallinn is almost as far north as Anchorage.

    I’ve been very impressed with Czech Republic too. Reminds me of Pennsylvania 30 years ago. For all the talk about immigration, I’ve seen virtually NIL in the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia or Czech. Unless you want to include Russians. (Lot of tension in Latvia it seems.)

    Anyway this whole trip has been like one big neoreactionary playbook sprung to life. With wealth comes decay. So if you want to get off social decay treadmill you’ve got to go to poorer countries.

    Kgaard Reply:

    Oh, on the beauty of Czechoslovakian women, I think it’s four things:

    1) WWI and WWII wiped out millions of men, so only the hottest women could get a man in the post-war years. This is a factor in Poland, the Baltics, Ukraine and Russia as well;
    2) Communism reduced the incentive for super-smart women (who tend also to be hot) to remain barren;
    3) Czech and Slovak are basically at the crossroads between the Germanic and pure Slavic peoples. Thus they are a mix of the two. Pure Germanic is kind of boring (though technically attractive) while pure Slavic is just not optimally attractive. So the Czechs and Slovaks offer a kind of stylized Germanic look. Just way more interesting than your straight German. I think that’s why so many supermodels are Czech or Slovak.
    4) Then you have the general stuff: decent food, not too rich, plenty of outbreeding.

    R. Reply:

    Q: Yeah? You’re a Slovakian?

    A: something like that.

    I mostly agree. Orderliness … some of the better rural areas are almost starting to resemble parts of Austria, if you squint a little. Austria/Germany is way more orderly though.


    No obesity? Well, I’ve seen Americans call 200 lbs women .. ‘chubby’ which kind of really stretches the term. But obesity is here – not as severe as in the US, but definitely here. In fact, by strict definition there are US states (Colorado) which are less obese.


    Architecture.. you probably mean the old buildings, pre 1960. Those are mostly good.

    Newer stuff – can’t say it’s much better here. But I’ve only seen parts of New England. Really liked rural NH. Woods everywhere, not so high pop density.


    For all the talk about immigration, I’ve seen virtually NIL in the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia or Czech.

    Czech Republic has something like 200K Vietnamese (half legal, half not). IMO, they’re the best kind of immigrant, as by 2nd generation they’re mostly doing very well in schools. There is some serious organized crime, Vietnamese mob while very low-key (no one ever finds any bodies) produces enormous amounts of meth and weed for export to Germany. But yeah – most economic migrants go elsewhere, as welfare or wages here are nothing great. Minimum wage in Czechia is $450 per month.. of course everyone is going to Britain where you get way more for sitting on your butt.

    Our own welfare parasites love to collect welfare both here and in the UK.. so beware of travelling by bus from here to there. Might end up sitting next to a gypsy for 24 hours.They often stink, as some of them bathe as often as 17th century Frenchmen… that is twice a year.


    I’m mostly kinda afraid of the future. Short of unceremoniously dumping illegal African migrant back into Africa they’re going to keep coming. Pop growth there is massive. We have a serious amount of deluded ‘Saints’ in the EU.

    Projection of African population is a couple of billion by mid century. Short of some radical neuro-tweaking virus or nano intelligence augmentation Africa is going to keep being a shithole and migrants are going to keep coming.

    It’s not going to end up well.


    1) WWI and WWII wiped out millions of men, so only the hottest women could get a man in the post-war years. This is a factor in Poland, the Baltics, Ukraine and Russia as well;

    This can’t be in effect here. Former Czechoslovakia lost few people in WWII (Jews excepted). Very low overall losses. Poland though… completely different situation. Worst hit region was Belarus though… 30% of population died in the war.

    Also, do not forget the Hungarians. In Slovakia, many people have some ancestors from there.


    4) Then you have the general stuff: decent food, not too rich, plenty of outbreeding.

    About food… does the US really have bad food? I follow some US gun bloggers, and the stuff they cook at home seems pretty good. Seems what sucks in the US is fast food.. etc.. and that many people can’t cook.

    Posted on September 26th, 2014 at 3:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • Raymund Eich Says:

    Anyone else notice parallels between Viktor Frankl’s work in psychology (esp. Man’s Search for Meaning) and NRx?

    Frankl saw the lack of meaning in one’s life as being self-destructive. NRx commends itself to many of us when we see gentile white liberals trapped in quiet desperation and conformist anxiety, and the underclasses wallow in coarse hedonism.

    Frankl also saw three main loci of human meaning: faith, family, and work. The parallels to the NRx trike (traditional religion, ethnonationalism, and techno-catallaxy) should be apparent.

    Which also points out the limitations of viewing NRx from the splitter mindset. Essentially everyone derives some sense of meaning and purpose from two or all three of Frankl’s loci, so the same holds for NRx. (Though, FWIW, only techno-catallaxy provides the enabling technologies to allow one to choose and re-choose his preferred place in the patchwork).


    Posted on September 26th, 2014 at 5:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • an inanimate aluminum tube Says:

    No man can serve two masters. Synthesis impossible. Historical appearance of cooperation between three factions was always temporary. Fission inevitable. Clearly pulling in different directions; only one can win, unless historical trends towards centralization conveniently reverse and allow patchwork, as if by magic. No reason to assume this.

    Uncaged capitalism dissolves moral restraint imposed by Christianity.

    Uncaged capitalism is global, doesn’t need white people; snatches a few, disintegrates the rest and/or replaces them with more efficient hominids.

    Uncaged Christianity cages capitalism with moral restraint.

    Uncaged Christianity is global, doesn’t need white people, all believing souls equivalent, third worlders easier to convert, more interested in religion, faster growing. Drastic measures needed to keep white countries white given current immigrant presence, but these measures utterly unacceptable to Christianity.

    Ethno-nationalists would cage Christianity and Capitalism, make them serve the ethnic group instead of doing their own thing.

    If neo-reaction is neo-cameralism is techno-commercialism then recommend formal expulsion of ethno-nationalists and replacement with “HBD” and formal expulsion of theonomists and replacement with a broad, small t “traditionalism”.

    New neo-reactionary “semi-trichotomy”: techno-commercialism, traditionalism, HBD. Traditionalism and HBD ground techno-commercialism, but don’t compete with it directly. IE: HBD advises you replace whites with mestizos and Asians, but not blacks. Traditionalism helps you determine most efficient order to dissolve surviving social institutions, etc.

    Recommend other groups take similar steps; ie: ethno-nats pay some attention to economic realities and lessons of tradition, but keep eyes on prize and strongly resist attempts at “synthesis”.


    Posted on September 26th, 2014 at 9:08 pm Reply | Quote
  • RorschachRomanov Says:

    From the shadows, a new reactionary blog emerges!

    Here is my video (the blog post being the script):

    P.S. You (Mr. Land) make your appearance at the end.


    Posted on September 27th, 2014 at 12:16 am Reply | Quote
  • SGW Says:

    I don’t really understand the inclusion of the theonomist and the nationalists in NRx as separate lines rather than as staffs of the techno-commercialists. If one supports these things regardless of whether they are economical or not, then what is so NRx about it? Callously pushing homogeneity and religion hardly is something NRx. Why not be a national-socialist, a puritan, or something comparable, rather than a NRx?

    If one only supports these things when they are economical, then how does one differ from a techno-commercialist? Why not have intense debates about whether those who prefer a corporate dictatorship with a diverse citizenry, that primarily uses postmodern architecture and plays patriotic jazz music through the entire patch and those who prefer a corporate dictatorship that uses baroque architecture and caters to French Catholics with traditional leanings, can be reconciled, while we are at it?

    To me the big thing is the whole corporate dictatorship issue, and not so much the multitude of ways these corporations can and will try to differentiate themselves from their competition, and whose taste in hypothetical corporate dictatorships is superior.


    Posted on September 27th, 2014 at 1:14 pm Reply | Quote
  • Linhas da Trike – Outlandish Says:

    […] Original. […]

    Posted on July 26th, 2016 at 11:26 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment