ICAReviews introduced me to Gearoid O’Colmain, who seems to be a French Irishman, or perhaps an Irish Frenchman, who is at least quasi-Marxist, economically leftist, but critical of much of the “left” and especially anti-natalist ideologies like feminism and homophilia, what he calls “bourgeois sexuality.” (This isn’t unique, of course, it’s standard orthodox Communism.) He’s also not afraid to openly criticize Judaism-qua-Judaism and Jews-qua-Jews, almost unheard of on the left, who essentially believe that Jews are demi-gods.
Too good to be true? Of course. Even though O’Colmain is sympathetic toward even right wing nationalism, and doesn’t seem to be anti-white, and is pro-working class, he’s a typical Opus Dei E. Michael Jones type. He does want a New World Order, just one run from the Vatican. In other words, one of these quasi-Catholic LARPers.
We’ll get a global government, whether we like it or not:
Nonetheless, I believe we will have a global super-state in time whether we like it or not. Multipolarity has not brought global peace, nor did the multipolar order of 1913 prevent the first world war.
So, the only solution is to kiss the Pope’s ring:
Only a return to traditional Roman Catholicism could offer the prospect of overcoming the challenges of multicultural Europe. For the basis of European civilisation is constituted, as Alain Soral has wisely noted, by the Greek logos and the Roman caritas which are united in Christianity. Today logos has been buried in liberal and atheistic irrationalism and pseudoscience, while we have lost all sense of the beauty and necessity of Christian compassion or charity.
And “return” (/eyeroll) to the romantic days of medieval Europe:
The Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church was intended by God to be the guide of humanity, a link between heaven and earth guiding all men to their salvation. It was meant to be a one-world government under God. Since the Enlightenment ( a revolt against reason rather than for it) godless elites have striven for the creation of a universal republic, a Promethean dream of humanist supremacy, a universal Anti-Church- a world government under Satan.
Because “humanism” … “humanist supremacy” … is … “Satanic.”
These dorky pseudo-Catholics always want to “return” to the pre-Reformation days, precisely because the history before the printing press is rather spotty so they can project all their romantic notions on it. There’s a hilarious comment on, of all places, that cesspool of Google-Zionist-Globalism, YCombinator’s Hacker News, suggesting that medieval knights weren’t profit-seeking warlords, even though they could have been, but held to some gentlemanly code of chivalry. This is absurd, hasn’t anyone read the actual source materials of the Crusades? Yes, of course, the Crusades were a defensive measure against Muslim imperialism against Europe, and yes, the Catholic chuch did a credible job of federating Europeans to fight off the threat. But just read the source materials. The first-hand account of the Crusades I read, likely the very first primary source, in fact, written by an actual participant, spent the first half detailing the multiple-dozens of European cities the Crusaders would attack, then demand a “market” (I’ll always remember that is the word the translation used.) The entire first half was, “then we camped around this city, and the people surrendered, then came out with the best ‘market’ we had had in weeks. Then we attacked another city, they put up a fight, but we won, and they gave us an even better ‘market’.”
“Market” of course meant the people in the city had to open their gates, then give their food, tools, and weapons (and likely daughters as well) to the invading army – those knights who “weren’t warlords” – otherwise they would get murdered. The Crusaders spent the first half of their journey attacking Europeans until they sacked the recently Greek city of … Constantinople … which was almost certainly the actual goal, before (supposedly, likely mythologically) finishing up in “Jerusalem” – really, a little village called Al-Quds.
Yes, they stopped the Muslim advance – thank Jew-sus – but the only reason these quasi-Catholics have such a hard on for that time period is precisely because the history we have is so vague, and so distorted, they can project their romantic fantasies on that time. That’s why we called it “the Dark Ages” after all. (The only thing comparable is the romanticism we project onto the Greco-Roman culture, which is similarly shrouded in primitive, essentially pre-historiography. Or, for that matter, ignorant Protestant Bible-thumpers romanticizing mythological Old Testament tales about “Israel.”)
But then the Printing Press happened, literacy appeared, and the ugly – and not nearly as romantic – history came into focus. Sorry, Catholic Europe was not at all some sort of utopia. These people reject Voltaire precisely because he had their number. The Catholic Empire was a step in the right direction, but what came after was superior in every way.
I hate to be forced to channel the “New Atheists” of the 1990s (I’m not an atheist) but they are making me: grow up. The Church is a human institution, an outgrowth of the Roman Empire’s war against the Middle East and its imperial assimilation of Oriental cultures. “God” had nothing to do with it. The Pope was never anything more than a bureaucrat – interesting, because he was an example of “soft power” over “hard power.” Interesting, because the Church had an effect on our genetics (monogamy, outbreeding, etc., pace Kevin MacDonald.)
Again, the reason these neo-reactionary quasi-Catholics romanticize this time period is precisely because they know so little about it – we know so little about it. And the reason the post-Reformation period seems so ugly to them is because, for the first time, we have a continuous, written record about the reality – and it’s just not nearly as romantic – reality never is.
I’d have so much more respect for these quasi-Catholics if they at least gave us a reasonable interpretation of the social organization that the Church promoted. You get a little bit of this from Jones, etc., not much, but a little. For instance, the economic aspects of the monastaries, the distributionism economic system, the attempts to federate the monarchies (which you can be assured the Vatican hated, as they wanted Empire, not federation, but soft power can only do so much.)
But come on, it’s 2018. “A link between heaven and earth guiding all men to their salvation. It was meant to be a one-world government under God?” These are supposed to be the alternative to Protestant Bible-thumping? It’s all mystical woo-woo, meaningless verbiage.
I posit that it’s completely empty precisely because they can’t actually make it relevant. They have all the pieces, the instincts are certainly there (natalism, compassion for the poor, federalism, etc.) But they can’t actually bridge the gap from superstition to reality, in fact, it’s precisely the superstition (and their romance of the history) that they are defending – they are NOT actually defending the decent instincts the superstitions were created to explain. Nor are they even really defending the institution (that would be a good angle, IMO.) It’s the “mystery” and the “romance” that they are defending.
Why? Because they can’t accept reality – specifically, the reality of death, I guess. I heard these religion fanatics say this all the time, if there is no “God” then human life is meaningless. Says who? You literally can find no meaning in life without resort to a “god” based on ancient superstitions – and it’s always your particular version of “god” that is the only one?
You see the smart, educated types like E. Michael Jones trying to bridge this gap with his talk of “logos” – that’s how Jones avoids sounding like a superstitious peasant. The superstitious can talk about “God” … the Sky-Father … while the more philosophical types can discuss “logos,” “natural law,” “rationality” and the “order of the universe.” But really, for E. Michael Jones, the only “natural law” that he cares about is how anal sex is gross (I agree, but it’s hardly something to create an entire metaphysics around now is it? That is what animates Jones.) The critique of usury is great, very important, very much needed, but when will they get on with it? Jones actually punts on the economic specifics, he even says, “hey the Pope just said ‘ask your priest’ because we can’t figure out all these fancy financial instruments!”
Gotta give it to the Muslims – they take anti-usury seriously and have actually created serious economic systems without usury – even the Jew bankers have had to create “halal finance” to launder all their oil money.
But also – race? Jones – and I assume O’Colmain – really believe that race doesn’t matter, that genetics don’t matter, that evolution is one of those “godless humanist” plots, and every retarded fetus with a genetic mis-development has a “soul” that must be saved. Africa would be just as technologically advanced as Europe if they just adopted Augustinian Catholic “logos” or whatever.
This is why I can’t be a “right winger” – they are liars, mystifiers, and con artists. Jones is too smart to actually believe any of this stuff – and so is O’Colmain. But they need the, er, “less cognitively evolved” on their side so they can keep up the Universalism and not be “racist.”
They want an Empire.
Isn’t anyone else ready to MOVE ON?
The winners of World War I & II believed that the World Wars were causec by nationalism. The Rockefellers, the CFR, etc., the “Atlanticist liberals” were horrified by the World Wars.
So they wanted to create a “universal” system that would blur the harsh divisions between tribes and nations. The idea was some mixing, some blending, soft borders as opposed to strict borders, lots of intermarriage, would make tribes/nations less likely to start massive wars – that ended up with bombs – some of them nukes – destroying whole cities of men, women and children.
I’m not suggesting that they were right, but these were the smartest, most educated, most elite people of the time. They were well traveled, they knew a lot of languages, they had friends and contacts all over the world. They were well educated in the classics, in science, in history, even theology. Many were Catholics.
(((Curtis Yarvin))) is a middle aged math nerd, from California, who blogged for a couple of years.
I wonder how many NRxers have read little but Yarvin, and haven’t cracked Carroll Quigley even once?
Some early critics of Neo-reaction had some interesting things to say:
Nrx has no intellectual content other than the old tropes of liberal individualist scientism, it merely repackages the global consensus in the guise of telling harsh, “politically incorrect” “truths” which Nrx loyalists all seem to convince themselves are profoundly challenging, but which are in fact very familiar and quite banal, and are already accepted cynically by everyone.
This early critique of neo-reaction just pointed out that these “politically incorrect” truths are already well known by the “progressive elites” and the really existing elites just spread some talking points to keep everyone – or at least the lower orders – from being too scandalized. They don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings. The fact of the matter is – your mother is ugly. You know it, she knows it, and everyone knows it. But it’s not polite to say. Saying it – especially if you say it over and over again – isn’t going to make her less ugly. It’s just going to hurt her feelings and make you angry.
As for the bizarre fixation that neo-reaction has against Protestants, Puritans, liberals, and “modernity” – here’s some food for thought from “Harold Reply” in 2015, when confronting neo-reactionaries complaing about “anti-semitism.”
“People are always on the look out for more scapegoats”
Yes, the Jewish Moldbug is keen to scapegoat Protestants.
“If one thinks that the Jews/Zionists are secretly engineering the demise of Western civilization (as if it’s a new and radical idea…) one should definitely do something about it.”
Why would a reactionary, neo or otherwise, give less credence to an idea because it was not new and radical? Neoreactionaries seem to believe those dead white men were correct about Africans, about female promiscuity, about almost every belief they had for which they are now reviled. Except Jews. They didn’t love Jews because of some strange insanity.
Another critic of neo-reaction, “an inanimate aluminum tube” said:
Neoreaction has an explanation for historical progressivism prior to the middle 1900s. Ultra-Calvinism. Heh. Fair enough.
But neoreaction does not really provide an explanation for the rapid and dramatic shift in the character of progressivism that occurred in the middle 1900s.
In retrospect historical progressivism prior to the middle 1900s looks to have many problematic and potentially problematic elements. But it doesn’t look to have been fully weaponized against the population until the middle 1900s.
At first progressives were like … let’s end child labor and provide a minimum wage for domestic laborers. It took them a remarkably long time to fully implement that stuff. (late 1930s).
Then a few decades later they were like … let’s exterminate the white working class and replace them with a hereditary underclass of mestizo peasants and retarded Muslims. Maybe one follows from the other, but the progress from one to the other was suspiciously rapid and perhaps somewhat out of character with earlier progressive tendencies.
Some stuff happened in between. Power shifted. Neoreaction is fuzzy on what that stuff was. Probably intentionally fuzzy, because digging into that stuff would expose some bad guys who could not credibly be called ultra-Calvinists.
Americans (Whites) say, “the left is anti-white, we need to stop immigration.” The neo-reactionaries say, “stopping immigration won’t solve all of the world’s problems. What we really need to do is end democracy, “demotism” and go back to the feudalism of the 1300s.”
Americans (Whites) say, “the new Jewish oligarchy is anti-white and are trying to genocide the white race.” The neo-reactionaries say, “you’re a nazi, nazis are the real leftists, it’s actually all the fault of the Puritans. America was always bad, we need to end democracy, stop allowing White proles to vote, and restore a king.”
I always thought “restore the monarchy” was especially comical, considering that the infamous “anti-semitic” book, the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, said that Jews wanted to destroy the governments of Europe so they establish a Jewish king – supposedly, the decendants of the Old Testament King David – as the World Monarch, with a capital in Jerusalem.
Then all of a sudden this new movement, started by a Jew, pops up and says, “what we really need is to get rid of democracy and reinstall a King.”
To be clear: I doubt very seriously that Curtis Yarvin even really identifies as a “Jew.” The handful of times Yarvin claimed to be against “anti-semitism” and bragged about how the “nazis” hated him, I don’t think he had Jewish interests in mind at all. I think he was just trying to avoid being called a bad “racist.”
I also don’t think that Yarvin was purposefully trying to obscure the role of Jews in the 20th century anti-white movement. I suspect that Yarvin really did believe that Jews were of marginal importance, and that “progressive Jews” were just copying their liberal, WASP, Puritan/Protestant neighbors. I’m guessing that Yarvin didn’t really care one way or another about Israel.
But it sure turned out that way. Neo-reaction appears at the exact same time as Kevin MacDonald’s work started gaining currency, and it completely distracts from the Jewish role in the “Culture of Critique” – and specifically, the Jewish role in promoting mass non-white immigration into America and Europe. Neo-reaction also points everyone to the distant, romantic past of the middle ages and has virtually nothing to say about the electronic mass media of the 20th century – when these changes first appear, when the rulers of America and Europe decided to “exterminate the white working class and replace them with a hereditary underclass of mestizo peasants and retarded Muslims.”
Neo-reaction has virtually noting to say about those 50 years – between 1930 and 1980 – when Jews became the new ruling class in America, laregly due to their monopoly on the new technologies of cinema, radio, and television, specifically, the half dozen Hollywood studios and the radio/TV networks of ABC, CBS, and NBC – all of these companies sporting a Jewish CEO and massive over-representation of Jews at every level of management.
Instead, Yarvin said it was the “liberals” at Harvard who were just secular versions of radical Puritans that made up the Cathedral.
Ironically, another Jew, Ron Unz, has given a statistically rigorous analysis of the Ivy League schools during 1930-1980 and demonstrated how Jews went from absent – to totally dominant – in those “Cathedral” schools during this exact same period.
Neo-reactionaries reference Curtis Yarvin like he’s an Old Testament prophet. They never cite the rigorous research of Ron Unz, and none of them have even heard of Carroll Quigley.
Another group of NRx-ers that spill tens of thousands of internet words, and never ONCE mentions “television” “radio” or “cinema.” Not in the article, not in the comments.
Everything they are saying is true to one degree or another. Female hypergamy, economic incentives, state power as “alpha male” over average husbands. They even, to some degree, understand the “status” aspect.
But they just don’t seem to get it, they just don’t seem to get that “status” – thus, social mores – are now created and maintained by the mass electronic media.
I know some of these NRx-ers on the “manosphere” side totally get it when it comes to social media. They understand that “thots” are posting pictures of themselves on Facebook and getting a dopamine fix from “likes.” Good. Facebook – social media – is the natural development of electronic mass media.
Of course, these NRx bloggers just don’t seem to notice that blogging is the equivalent of thots posting bikini pictures on facebook – it’s just that the NRx blogging form of social media whoring appeals to, typically, introverted analytical types – and getting comments is the equivalent of “likes” in your bikini picture.
How is it people are so utterly self-unaware? How is it that all these Big Brained Brads never, ever, ever discuss the electronic mass media and how that affected social status?
We all learn in high school that the new technology of the printing press helped spread the Reformation. We all read that FDR’s radio “fireside chats” helped make him popular. But no one can figure out that the post-WWII “television in every home” had a significant, world-altering effect? F. Roger Devlin did point out that cinema introduced Rudolph Valentino which made everyday women less impressed by their husbands because he was literally the most handsome man they had ever seen – and the fact he’s being projected up on that screen fools the lizard brain into thinking you’re actually seeing a real person.
Plenty of the conservatives bemoan pornography and explain that it “tricks your lizard brain into thinking you’re actually having sex.” The worst dregs of the MGTOW-manosphere even talk about VR sex and sex robots and how that will make them independent of women (eyeroll.)
OK, fine, but no one is going to incorporate the general principle of electronic mass media into their analysis of the ills of the modern world?
Is this some sort of conspiracy? Is it just TOO OBVIOUS to point this out? Electronic mass media is a product of the 20th century. We can NAME NAMES – we can point to SPECIFIC PEOPLE in SPECIFIC COMPANIES that controlled the electronic mass media starting from the very beginning.
There were about 5 Hollywood studios in cinema, and radio and later television were dominated by JUST THREE companies: ABC, CBS, and NBC.
Maybe the answer is just too simple, it’s just too obvious, so the Big Brain Brads try to make it really complicated or subtle because, otherwise, how are they going to signal their high IQ, verbal abilities, and higher morality when the answer is just that obvious?
Jim.com is the most active of the remaining (((Curtis Yarvin))) Neo-Reaction blogs. It may be difficult to wade through all the pilpul, but it would be a mistake to think it’s just a Jewish blog. It’s something else. It is “anti-semitic” in the sense it’s against “liberal” Jews, but they take pains to point out that Jews don’t really have any power in America. It’s really the WASPs, the “liberal” Whites, and the progeny of the Protestant Reformation. In fact, the Zionist entity in Palestine is great and a bulwark of Goodness in the Muslim middle east.
The problem with the “Nazis” like TheRightStuff.biz is that they are “too focused on race.” They don’t understand that White women are also a big problem, because they won’t have babies because they are “emancipated.” Also, Jim has this bizarre idea that 9 year old girls are always trying to “seduce” adult men, and it’s pointless to prosecute adult men for having sex with 9 year old girls, instead we should prosecute 9 year old girls for seducing adult men. A commenter, “Jewish Pedophile” agrees.
Jim’s fans say that anyone who is critical of Trump is by definition a leftist. Capitalism and monarchy are the correct ideologies for the goyims. “Nazis” are actually leftists because they aren’t all on board with Trump. Trump is a rightful King in a life-and-death struggle with White Liberal Democrats and we must support Trump taking absolute power.
Jim happily censores 9/11 “Troofers” and often posts against them and has a specific brand of logical fallacy to “prove” that 9/11 “Troofers” by definition can’t be correct. Jim also happily censored “Nazi Anti-Semites” who are also, by definition, wrong because it’s the Protestant Cathedral who rules America, not Jews, Jews being faithful servants of the WASP liberals that run Harvard. There is no evidence that can be marshalled to show Jews are powerful because, by definition, that’s impossible. This is what I’ve called “meta-debunking.” At the simplest level, it goes: “X isn’t true, therefore X cannot be true despite any evidence to the contrary, because X isn’t true.” Jim’s entire argument style is the fallacy of false dilemma.
The factions CAN be understood via an analogy of religion, but of course none of these people are “traditional” Jews, Catholics or Protestants. But there is most certainly some sort of three-way going on here. Let’s try to understand it by swapping the labels.
There are Hebrews, Romans, and Scots.
The Hebrews say they are God’s Chosen People. Truth is not an objective concept and observable reality doesn’t matter. What matters is that if it’s good for the Hebrews, it’s true, if it’s bad for the Hebrews, it’s false. Hebrews matter, no one else matters.
The Romans say, no, Hebrews were God’s Chosen People, but now the Roman Emperor is the True King of the Hebrews and the Roman Senators are God’s Chosen People. Scots are the natural slaves of the Roman Emperor and the Roman Senate. The self-interest of Scots is “demotism” – “demotism” meaning that the rulers are legitimate if they rule in the interest of Scots. Instead, Scots exist for the Roman Emperor and his Senate. The Roman Emperor was appointed by God and the Scots exist to worship the Emperor – but the Emperor is kind and Scots should be thankful they have such a wise and kindly King.
Scots shouldn’t concern themselves with Hebrews and Hebrew power, the true enemy of the Scottish people are Scots who think they should rule instead of Romans. Hebrews have their own country, and they aren’t nearly as kind or sophisticated as Romans anyway. Under the Roman regime, Hebrews are faithful servants of the Roman Emperor – if troublesome at times – and Roman Senators and Hebrews may go into business together, but that is of not concern to Scots, who exist to toil in the fields and factories for the Capitalists.
But Scots are a bunch of liberals and overturned Gnon’s Natural Order. Scots have the temerity to believe THEY are God’s Chosen People, not the Hebrews, and that Scots should rule themselves, not Romans. This is clearly against Gnon’s Designs. Once Scots realize their natural place in Gnon’s order, as faithful servants of the Roman Emperor and his Senate, all will be well again.
If Hebrews end up with all the money and Romans with all the power, it’s not because Romans and Hebrews are working together, it’s because Scots are “leftists” and “liberals” who got uppity and thought they were God’s chosen.