Tag Archives: neo-reaction

Dworkin, De Sade, the Right & the Left

Not long after the Abu Ghraib scandal, on a flight to Paris, I watched “Quills,” an awful and boring film “inspired by the life and work of the Marquis de Sade.” I had read Justine which I thought of as a horror novel, a perverted Steven King story, and knew some details of de Sade’s life and legend. While Quills itself was too trite to work up any moral outrage over, I began to question why de Sade was hailed as a hero by those on the “left” and the reception the film got from the “liberal” Hollywood establishment.

Wasn’t the Marquis de Sade exhibit number one of the rich preying on the poor, the aristocracy abusing the peasantry, the 1% exploiting the 99%? Wasn’t it “nobles” like de Sade who caused the French Revolution? Wasn’t it the cruely of men like de Sade which led to the bloodthirstiness of the guillotines?

I could understand a bit of taboo-breaking and a little kinky naughtiness, but Justine wasn’t that – it was horror, torture porn, and not at all sexy but instead had the same appeal as a slasher flick or body horror: you don’t “enjoy” it as much as forcing yourself to overcome your gag reflex and facing the worst, biological based fears, seems to make you stronger.

But what offended me about Quills was the complete misrepresentation about de Sade’s actual life. Instead of a wealthy and powerful exploiter of the weak and the poor, he was played as some sort of liberty-lover, a fighter against sexual oppression. The only reason de Sade himself wasn’t beheaded is because he switched sides, along with some other minor aristocrats, and joined the “rebels” long enough to save his head, and those of a few others, before the Terror ended.

Here’s the utterly absurd and completely deceptive byline for Quills:

Quills imagines the final days of history’s most infamous sexual adventurer, the Marquis de Sade. A nobleman with a literary flair, the Marquis lives in a madhouse where a beautiful laundry maid (Winslet) smuggles his erotic stories to a printer, defying orders from the asylum’s resident priest (Phoenix). The titillating passages whip all of France into a sexual frenzy, until a fiercely conservative doctor (Caine) tries to put an end to the fun, inadvertently stoking the excitement to a fever pitch. Featuring a cast that includes Academy Award® winner Geoffrey Rush, Oscar nominee Kate Winslet, rising star Joaquin Phoenix, and Academy Award® winner Michael Caine, Quills playfully turns Sade’s story into a sexy, sinister and shattering tale he himself might have written.

The scene in Quills that most sticks in my memory in that of a servant girl begging de Sade to write more “violence” so she could read it and be aroused. This is literally a reversal of reality, it’s having the rape victim beg to be raped. Whatever literary merits de Sade may have, in reality he was a rapist, a torturer, a poisoner, an abortionist and a murderer. He was John Wayne Gacy plus Jeffrey Dahmer, not Christian Grey.

And here Hollywood was making him out to be some sort of sex-positive feminist just giving the ladies what they want!

Apparently, the left has always had this attitude toward de Sade. Some choice excerpts Andrea Dworkin’s chapter on de Sade from Pornography: Men Possessing Women:

https://archive.org/details/PornographyMenPossessingWomenAndreaDworkinPdf/page/n8


The Marquis de Sade is the world’s foremost pornographer. As such he both embodies and defines male sexual values. In him, one finds rapist and writer twisted into one scurvy knot. His life and writing were of a piece, a whole cloth soaked in the blood of women imagined and real. In his life he tortured and raped women. He was batterer, rapist, kidnapper, and child abuser. In his work he relentlessly celebrated brutality as the essence of eroticism; fucking, torture, and killing were fused; violence and sex, synonymous. His work and legend have survived nearly two centuries because literary, artistic, and intellectual men adore him and political thinkers on the Left claim him as an avatar of freedom. Sainte-Beuve named Sade and Byron as the two most significant sources of inspiration for the original and great male writers who followed them. Baudelaire, Flaubert, Swinburne, Lautreamont, Dostoevski, Cocteau, and Apollinaire among others found in Sade what Paul Tillich, another devotee of pornography, might have called “the courage to be.” Simone de Beauvoir published a long apologia for Sade. Camus, who unlike Sade had an aversion to murder, romanticized Sade as one who had mounted “the great offensive against a hostile heaven ” and was possibly “the first theoretician of absolute rebellion .” Roland Barthes wallowed in the tiniest details of Sade’s crimes, those committed in life as well as on paper.

Sade was born into a noble French family closely related to the reigning monarch. Sade was raised with the prince, four years his senior, during his earliest years. When Sade was four, his mother left the Court and he was sent to live with his grandmother. At the age of five, he was sent to live with his uncle, the Abbe de Sade, a clergyman known for his sensual indulgences. Sade’s father, a diplomat and soldier, was absent during Sade’s formative years. Inevitably, biographers trace Sade’s character to his mother’s personality, behavior, and alleged sexual repression, despite the fact that very little is known about her. What is known, but not sufficiently noted, is that Sade was raised among the male mighty.

At the age of fifteen, Sade entered the military as an officer. At this age, he apparently began gambling and frequenting brothels. Purchasing women was one of the great passions of his life, and most of the women and girls he abused during his lifetime were whores or servants. Sade advanced in the military and was promoted several times, each promotion bringing with it more money.

Those leftists who champion Sade might do well to remember that prerevolutionary France was filled with starving people. The feudal system was both cruel and crude. The rights of the aristocracy to the labor and bodies of the poor were unchallenged and not challengeable. The tyranny of class was absolute. The poor sold what they could, including themselves, to survive. Sade learned and upheld the ethic of his class.

Five months after his marriage, Sade terrified and assaulted a twenty-year-old working-class woman, Jeanne Testard. Testard, a fan maker, had agreed to service a young nobleman. She was taken to Sade’s private house and locked in a room. Sade made clear to her that she was a captive. She was subjected to verbal abuse and humiliation. In particular, Sade raged against her conventional Christian religious beliefs. He told her that he had masturbated into a chalice in a chapel and that he had taken two hosts, placed them inside a woman, and fucked her. Testard told Sade that she was pregnant and could not tolerate maltreatment. Sade took Testard into a room filled with whips, religious symbols, and pornographic pictures. He wanted Testard to whip him, and then he wanted to beat her. She refused. He took two crucifixes, crushed one, and masturbated on the other. He demanded that she destroy the one on which he had masturbated. She refused. He threatened her life with two pistols that were in the room and a sword that he was wearing. She crushed the crucifix. He wanted to give her an enema and have her shit on the crucifix. She refused. He wanted to sodomize her. She refused. Sade threatened, harangued, and lectured her through a very long night during which she did not eat or sleep. Before releasing her, he made her sign a blank piece of paper and promise to tell no one about what had transpired. He wanted her to agree to meet him the following Sunday so that he could fuck her with a host inside of her.

On being freed, Testard went to the police. Sade was arrested, apparently because police interviews with prostitutes revealed that Sade had abused scores of them. Sade was punished because he had become careless in his excesses. He was imprisoned for two months at Vincennes in squalor most distressing to a gentleman. He wrote letters to the authorities in which he begged them to keep the nature of his crime secret from his family.

Sade’s abuse of prostitutes became so alarming that, within a year after his brutal treatment of Testard, the police warned procuresses not to provide Sade with women. Sade’s valet scavenged the streets for victims, some of whom, according to Sade’s neighbors, were male.

In 1768, Easter Sunday early in the morning, Rose Keller, in her mid-thirties, a German immigrant, a widow, a cotton spinner who had been unemployed for approximately a month, approached Sade to beg for alms. He offered her work housecleaning. She accepted. He told her that she would be well fed and treated kindly.

Sade took Keller to his private house. He took her to a dark room in which the windows were boarded and said he was going to get her food. He locked her in the room. Keller had waited for about an hour when Sade came to take her into another room. He told her to undress. She refused. He tore her clothes off, threw her face down onto a couch, tied her arms and legs with ropes. He whipped her brutally. He took a knife and told her that he would kill her. According to Keller, Sade kept cutting her with a knife and rubbing wax into the wounds. Keller believed she would die and begged Sade not to kill her until she could make her Easter confession. When Sade was finished with her, he took her back to the first room and ordered her to wash and rub brandy into her wounds. This she did. He also rubbed into the wounds an ointment that he had invented. He was proud of his invention, which he claimed healed wounds quickly. Later, Sade alleged that he had paid Keller to be whipped so that he could test his ointment. Sade brought Keller food. He took her back to the room where he had beaten her and locked her in. Keller bolted the door from the inside. She unblocked some of the locked shutters with a knife, injuring herself in the process, made a rope of bedding, and climbed out of the window and down the wall. Sade’s valet pursued her and offered her money to return. She pushed him off and ran.

Keller was badly hurt and her clothes were ripped. She ran until she encountered a village woman, to whom she poured out her story. Other women joined. They examined her and then took her to an inappropriate official, since the local magistrate was away. A police official called in from elsewhere took her statement. Keller was examined by a surgeon and was given refuge.

Sade’s mother-in-law, Madame de Montreuil, settled a large sum of money on Rose Keller to persuade her to withdraw criminal charges. Despite the settlement, Sade was imprisoned for nearly eight months …

In June 1772, Sade traveled to Marseilles with his valet, known as Latour. During the course of Sade’s brief stay there, Latour procured five prostitutes for Sade. Sade (in varying combinations) beat, fucked, and forcibly sodomized the women, with his usual threats of worse violence and death. He also had his valet sodomize at least one of the women and himself. In Marseilles, Sade added another dimension to his sexual repertoire: he encouraged the women to eat candies that had been laced with drugs. The women did not know what they were eating. Sade’s defenders claim that the candies were treated with a harmless aphrodisiac and something to encourage flatulence, which Sade found particularly charming. Two of the women became violently ill from the candies, had intense abdominal pain, vomited blood and black mucus. The women believed that they had been poisoned, and there is little doubt that had they consumed the quantities of the candy that Sade had wanted them to eat, they would have become deadly ill. One of the women went to the police. An investigation of Sade’s brutality with the five prostitutes — the forced flagellation, the forced sodomy, the attempted poisoning — led to an order to arrest both Sade and Latour. Sade, with Anne-Prospere as his lover and Latour as his valet, fled to Italy to escape arrest.

Sade and Latour were found guilty of poisoning and sodomy (a capital crime irrespective of force) in absentia. They were sentenced to death. In lieu of the death sentence that could not be carried out, the two men were burned in effigy.

Sade, with an end to his legal troubles in sight, intensified his pursuit of pleasure. He had a procuress known as Nanon find him five fifteen-year-old girls who were taken to Lacoste and forced to submit to Sade’s brutality. Sade’s wife was a participant in these new sexual extravaganzas. She became the prime apologist for Sade’s violence against the girls, even though, as one of them testified, Renee-Pelagie was herself “the first victim of a fury which can be described only as madness.” 3 Parents of three of the girls pressed charges against Sade, who refused to release his captives. One of the girls was horribly injured. She was sent to Sade’s uncle, the Abbe, to keep her from testifying against Sade. Renee-Pelagie did everything possible to keep a doctor from treating the girl, since evidence of bodily injury could be used against Sade and herself as well. Madame de Montreuil, perhaps to protect her daughter, joined with Renee-Pelagie and Sade to try to coerce the parents into dropping their complaints. Meanwhile, Sade forcibly kept the girls at Lacoste. They would be returned to their parents only if no charges of kidnapping were made.

Sade brought more women and girls to Lacoste. Human bones were found in Sade’s garden; he claimed one of his mistresses had planted them as a joke. Nanon, the procures s, became pregnant by Sade. Madame de Montreuil had a lettre de cachet issued for her arrest. Nanon was imprisoned; her infant daughter died at Lacoste shortly after she was born because the wet nurse’s milk went dry.

Sade was again threatened with arrest. He escaped again to Italy. The fifteen-year-old girl who had been most severely injured and had been sent to Sade’s uncle had not, in nine months, recovered from her injuries. She was finally taken to a hospital where the Sade family conspired to keep her from talking with anyone to whom she might reveal what had happened to her. By this time, the Abb6 believed that Sade should be imprisoned.

For a year, Sade traveled in Italy. He complained of being lonely. One of the kidnapped girls, still kept at Lacoste, died. Another escaped and went to the police. Against the advice of Ren6e-Pelagie, Sade returned to Lacoste. More women were procured for him. Sade kept spending money on women while Renee-Pelagie lived in near penury. He hired servants, locked them up, forced them to submit to him. A father of a servant hired by Sade tried to shoot him. The daughter signed a statement defending Sade. The authorities ordered the woman returned to her father. She was not.

Another attempt was made to arrest Sade. He hid. On being informed by Madame de Montreuil that his mother was dying in Paris, he went there. She died before he arrived, but in Paris Sade was arrested under a lettre de cachet. Madame de Montreuil had told the police Sade’s whereabouts. He was sent to Vincennes, where he was imprisoned for nearly six years. In 1784, he was transferred to the Bastille. In 1789, the people of France were near revolution. Sade rigged up an improvised loudspeaker from his cell and exhorted the people to lay siege to the Bastille. He was moved to Charenton, a lunatic asylum. On July 14, 1789, the Bastille was stormed and its warden killed. In 1790, Sade was released from Charenton along with all prisoners who had been imprisoned under lettres de cachet by the old regime.

During the years of his imprisonment in Vincennes and the Bastille, Sade wrote the body of literature for which he is best known (though his literary career did not begin in prison; he had done some writing and even produced and directed theatrical events sporadically). On Sade’s release, Ren6e-Pelagie, whom Sade had subjected to extraordinary scorn and abuse during his imprison- ment, left him and obtained a legal separation. Sade’s bitterness toward her was unrelenting. Apparently he felt that he had given her the best years of his life, which were less than perfect only because he had been maliciously persecuted. He especially blamed Renee-Pelagie for the loss of manuscripts that had been taken or destroyed during the siege of the Bastille. She had failed to rescue them, as he had demanded, and may have burned some herself. In the ensuing years, he set about re-creating the lost work. After his release, Sade also met his daughter as an adult for the first time. He hated her on sight. Early in 1791, Sade began living with Marie- Constance Renelle, to whom Justine is dedicated and with whom he had what his biographers consider a sincere, loving, devoted relationship. Sade was no longer a young rake. In prison he had become very fat, and the French Revolution had deprived him of his power as an aristocrat. Necessity, that fabled parent of invention, gave birth in a few short months to Citizen Sade.

For nearly four years, Sade walked a political tightrope. He played the role of one who had been abused by the old regime, who had no loyalties to the old nobility and was entirely committed to the new society. He made politically correct speeches, renamed streets to reflect the ideology of the revolution, and worked to keep his own property from the legitimate claims of the revolution and of Renee-Pelagie. According to his biographers, Sade’s essential humanism was demonstrated during the Terror when he was on a committee that passed judgment on the Montreuils: he could have denounced them and had them killed, but he did not. It is more likely that Sade, a consummate survivor, had understood that, during the Terror, guilt by past association could endanger his own life. Condemnation of the Montreuils could eventually have led to his own death for his having consorted with them.

Revolutionary leader Jean-Paul Marat discovered the nature of the crimes for which Sade had been imprisoned under the old regime. He denounced Sade but by mistake someone with a similar name was executed. Marat, although he became aware of his mistake, did not live to rectify it: he was assassinated by Charlotte Corday.

Toward the end of 1793, Sade was imprisoned. The charge was that in 1791 he had volunteered to serve the king. Sade insisted that he had thought the regiment in which he had volunteered to serve was Iqyal to the revolution. He remained in prison and in July 1794 was sentenced to death. The administration of the prisons was so inefficient that Sade could not be found. He was not executed. Later that same month, Robespierre was executed, and the Terror ended. Two months later, Sade was released.


It’s interesting too that Catholic apologist E. Michael Jones, in his chapter on de Sade in Sexual Revolution, paints de Sade as a leading light of the French Revolution and especially its disestablishment of the Church and aristocracy. But that’s another revesal, a similar reversal, in fact, to the left’s painting of de Sade as a revolutionary.

De Sade was a member of the Catholic aristocracy and raised by the Catholic aristocracy, and almost certainly sexually abused and tortured as a child by that same class. One can to this very day see a reflection of de Sade’s desecration of Catholic symbols like the Host.

One of the most disturbing stories to come out of the “Catholic abuse crisis” is a ring of three American priests who would befriend altar boys, demand they strip and “pose like Jesus on the cross” while they photographed them nude then “award” them with crosses and rosaries and other pieces of Catholic paraphernalia.

When one reads the brutality against priests during various anti-Catholic movements, from the Hussites to Spain in the 30s, reactionaries are quick to note a Jewish role, but always seem to forget how many of those raised Catholic participated in the worst anti-clerical atrocities.

Considering what we known of the Vatican in the Renaissance era, to the Catholic aristocracy (like de Sade) in pre-Revolutionary France, to the Catholic priests of Boston in the 1970s-2000s, it not difficult to guess where the murderous hostility by former parishoners towards the Church comes from.

De Sade is a product of the French Catholic aristocracy, ret-conned into a “revolutionary” by the new ruling class – and by apologists for the former ruling class. And now, considered some sort of hero of sexual liberty – even a FEMINIST of sorts, by the left and Hollywood.

Maybe Dworkin was right?

Surprise, Surprise: Dyke Nuns Hate Little Boys

(((Curtis Yarvin))) may be a Jew, but his neo-reactionary movement attracted Catholics. In their attempt to demonize Whites, Protestants, Americans, the Enlightenment, and modernity, they have instead introduced a whole new generation to the reason we threw off the yoke of the Catholic church in the first place.

The “Catholic church abuse scandal” is really just the victims of the Catholic church growing up, and now that the Catholic church has lost its institutional power, and now that sexuality is understood biologically and scientifically, the shame conditioning that the Catholic church used for centuries to enslave Europeans doesn’t work anymore.

It’s obvious how homosexuals came to dominate the “celibate” Catholic institution.

Consider: one of the primary complaints about Muslim “refugees” and “immigrants” in the West in how they treat women. One only needs to look at their own culture to understand how different they are than us. For a Muslim boy, when he sees a girl his sexual attraction is coming from her. She is doing something that causes him to feel arousal, and since she is the actor, she is the seducer, it’s ok for him to rape her. He was just standing there, minding his own business, and this girl walked by, acting sexy, therefore she’s a whore. The only way a girl can not be a whore is to cover her entire body because if he can’t see her, she cannot seduce him.

So take a typical scenario in Ireland or America in the 1950s. A boy grows up, begins puberty, but unlike his peers, has no interest in girls at all. The idea of marrying a girl, having sex, and starting a family is off-putting to him. Since the Catholic church tells him that “lust” is a grave sin, and he himself is apparently free of this “lust,” he realizes that he is actually “more spiritual” than his peers. His uncouth, sexually obsessed peers who are obsessed with the girls now reaching puberty, are just not as “spiritual” as he is.

So, he joins the priesthood. He is assigned to work in a boy’s school.

There, all of a sudden these boys start acting sexy, or more specifically, acting gay. It’s not the priest’s own desires coming to the surface, it’s the boys who are acting gay, or acting seductively or acting sinfully. If one of the boys seduces him the priest merely goes to confession, eats a cracker, and all is forgiven.

Lesbians are of course different than gay men. So a girl begins puberty, but unlike her peers, these boys are not interesting at all. In fact, they are quite scary and even disgusting. While her girlsfriends are all crushing on various boys, she’s actually turned off by the whole affair. She can’t understand why her close friendships with her girlfriends are all being interrupted by their growing awareness of boys.

She must just be “more spiritual” than her peers. She is, in a sense, on a “higher spiritual plane.” Unlike the “earthly” desires of her girlfriends, she’s only interested in the “pure” and “spiritual” things.

So, she becomes a nun, and is assigned to a orphanage. There, she has to take care of these disgusting, rowdy, violent, and gross boys, with their little penises popping underneath their pants all the time. It’s up to her, a “truly spiritual” woman without these “desires of the flesh” to whip these boys into line. She, in fact, quite enjoys it when these boys feel shame for their disgusting “lust,” their “sin.” It’s actually quite a power trip, watching these proud boys become ashamed of themselves. For the ones that are defiant, beatings work well. As the “Good Book” says, spare the rod, spoil the child.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/christinekenneally/orphanage-death-catholic-abuse-nuns-st-josephs

It was a late summer afternoon, Sally Dale recalled, when the boy was thrown through the fourth-floor window.

“He kind of hit, and— ” she placed both hands palm-down before her. Her right hand slapped down on the left, rebounded up a little, then landed again.

For just a moment, the room was still. “Bounced?” one of the many lawyers present asked. “Well, I guess you’d call it — it was a bounce,” she replied. “And then he laid still.”

Sally, who was speaking under oath, tried to explain it. She started again. “The first thing I saw was looking up, hearing the crash of the window, and then him going down, but my eyes were still glued—.” She pointed up at where the broken window would have been and then she pointed at her own face and drew circles around it. “That habit thing, whatever it is, that they wear, stuck out like a sore thumb.”

Children are amazing in the sense they will believe pretty much anything you tell them. After all, you’re an adult and children are evolved to mimic older humans. The central image of your religion is a man being tortured and the central story is of a man being murdered for the sins of the world so it’s the “sinful” child’s fault.

Sister took hold of Sally’s ear, turned her around, and walked her back to the other side of the yard. The nun told her she had a vivid imagination. We are going to have to do something about you, child.

Like sociopaths, eventually these predatory homosexuals begin to recognize each other and that’s when they start working together:

A 1998 UK government inquiry, citing “exceptional depravity” at four homes run by the Christian Brothers order in Australia, heard that a boy was the object of a competition between the brothers to see who could rape him 100 times. The inquiries focused primarily on sexual abuse, not physical abuse or murder, but taken together, the reports showed almost limitless harm that was the result not just of individual cruelty but of systemic abuse.

The Roman Empire, eventually Christianized, swept through Europe, enslaving the “heathens” and creating these institutions. At the forefront were these “celibates” that did not have normal sexuality. They were, perhaps, even the first victims of Catholic sexual repression. Unable to accept that they were the perverts, that they were the reprobates, that they were the sinners, they projected that onto others, even children.

Since these children and “heathens” did not feel ashamed of their naked bodies and their natural sexuality, that just proved how the “celibate” Catholics were of a “higher spirituality” and it was their duty to beat – and rape – the devil out of these Europeans.

From the proto-Protestants like the Lollards and the Hussites, to the Reformation itself, eventually Europeans rebelled against these evil, psychopathic Catholics, rejected the “celibate” homosexual priests, the “celibate” lesbian priestesses, and demanded that Church institutions be led by normal, married men and women.

The first mistake that Americans made was to adopt the African custom of slavery, a mistake that harms America to this day. The second mistake Americans made was to import millions of Catholics, mostly in the 1800s, and surprise, surprise, along with them came Jews. It was only a matter of time until they joined up with each other to attempt to re-enslave the real Americans, the posterity of the Protestant Founding Fathers.

Hence, (((Curtis Yarvin’s))) “neo-reactionary” movement and the sick Catholics that follow him.

Was I Right About #NRx Or Was I Right?

https://hipsterracist.wordpress.com/2018/07/24/reaction-is-reverse-psychology-that-works-on-children/

just like bored White housewives who are really into hiring “past lives consultants” to tell them they all are the reincarnation of Cleopatra, ALL – 100% – of these neo-reactionaries automatically assume they are the new Brahmins, the new priest class, if not monarchist pretenders themselves. Not a single one of them thinks, “hey, if we restore the monarchy, I’ll be a pig farming peasant like 95% of my fellow Whites.” Oh, no, not these Big Brained Brads, they are just sure that in a restored monarchy they will get pride of place. … “I’ll be part of the ruling class, after all, I’m such an intellectual I read brilliant Jews like Curtis Yarvin, I will surely be a famous priest in the court of the new monarch and rule over the peasant pig farmer”

https://aidanmaclear.wordpress.com/2018/09/21/the-center/

I don’t see a reactionary coup d’etat happening anytime soon because I don’t see any reactionaries who are willing and able to do so. Of course, if they were they wouldn’t be public about it. But they would probably reach out to us (in absolute secret) because they will need loyal statesmen post-putsch. Which they haven’t done.

Precious.

NRx Zionist Jew Pedophile Advocate Attempts To Defame Hipster Racist

A few months ago I saw some traffic coming to my blog and found it linked by an article titled “I Am A Jailbait” on a blog called “Triweekly Antifeminist” written by an author calling itself “Tom Grauer.” He promotes an idea he calls “Male Sexualism.”

I’m sure you can figure out the basic idea from this quote from his article:

it is perfectly natural, healthy, and normal for all men to sexually desire 15-year-olds. Once you admit to the truth, there is no going back away from the truth. You took the bait – and, the internet being what it is, you are busted forever. Score a victory for Male Sexualism. Every man who admits to it being natural to sexually desire teenagers is a victory for our side.

He then quotes a paragraph from my “Baltimore Stories,” a fictional series about a teenage boy living in Baltimore:

Now, Amanda had gone to high school with us. My first memory of Amanda is helping her break into her father’s house. Of course, her father was obviously rich as shit, judging by the house. I mean, I asked her what was up. She said she hated her father. I said why? She didn’t want to talk about it, and Amy – you know, the little Blondie slip of a thing I had been fucking since she was 15 – just gave me a look that basically said “don’t ask.” Amanda said, “the things he did to me, he owes me. I’d take every fucking cent he had just to get away from him.”

Apparently, this paragraph got Tom Grauer all excited and he decided that now I was a part of his “Male Sexualism” movement, whether I liked it or not. You can simply read the language hinting at some sort of threat:

Once you tell the truth, can’t deny it anymore. It is documented. It is archived for eternity, at least somewhere. No joke, everything ever written is documented. “Hipster Racist,” a blogger, once wrote the following on one of his blogs … What’s that, Hipster? Granted, his story may be fictional. Who knows. But, be it truthful or fanciful, it is revealing. You are one of us, Hipster. … Nor can you effectively shut yourself down. “Delete everything” is just not a viable option in this day and age. Once written, can’t be un-written.

But Tom Grauer deleted that blog and started a new one, called “Male Sexualism Blog: Exploring an Alternative to Modern Sex-Crime Legislation” at tomantifeminist.home.blog. He essentially rewrote his article “I Am A Jailbait” as ““Muh 16” May be The Puritan-Feminist Party Line, But The Party Itself is Losing Popularity” and, apparently to get my attention, posted this comment on my blog as “Surreal.”

Oy vey goyim, muh age of consent, support Palestine.

In the vernacular of the “Alt Right” – and especially the (((Hollywood Nazi))) faction, this sentence means, “Hey stupid goy, the JOOOOOZ you are so paranoid about want you to support an age of consent law and to support Palestine.

“Muh 16” May be The Puritan-Feminist Party Line, But The Party Itself is Losing Popularity

I found it funny – and revealing – that he just couldn’t help himself and freaked out because I sometimes write about the Palestinian cause and the apartheid regime of Jew bigotry in Zionist-occupied Palestine. This makes me a target of Zionist Jews because I support the human rights of Palestinian people. To a Zionist Jew, this is “anti-semitic” and so this Jew has decided to throw around back-handed threats to me, suggest I’m some sort of pervert that wants to lower the age of consent and have sex with 15 year old girls – and points out, on multiple occasions, that even if I were to delete this story, it wouldn’t matter because the internet is forever, etc.

Of course, I’m not the one deleting my blogs and posts – that’s him. Nor am I advocating lowering the age of consent nor creating an ideology called “Male Sexualism” all about normalizing adult men having sex with teenage girls. That would be him, Tom Grauer, who does those things and in fact cites Jewish rabbis to back him up in his four part series, “Obadiah Shoher’s Relevance to Male Sexualism.”

Obadiah Shoher’s Relevance to Male Sexualism, 1/4

Interestingly, like most “neo-reactionary” followers of (((Curtin Yarvin’s))) “NRx” ideology, to Tom Grauer all problems are caused by … “Puritans” (i.e., White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) … and it is these “Puritans” and the modern “Feminist” partners that are oppressing men by making it illegal for men to have sex with girls under the age of sixteen, and, I suspect, to “consume” pornography featuring girls under the age of 18.

He’s not the only NRx blogger who talks about “ten year old girls” being sexually interested in adult men either – so does “Jim” of Blog.Jim.com – another (((Curtin Yarvin))) NRx fan who is also a Zionist and hates “anti-seeeeemites” and Palestinians who also blames “Puritans” for all the problems of the world.

(Full disclosure: I am the decendant of Puritans.)

I would have of course ignored Tom Grauer, in fact never even had heard of him, if he didn’t try to rope me into his bizarre “ideology” by purposefully trying to defame me by mischaracterizing a paragraph from a fictional story.

But when you mention the human rights of Palestinians, it’s really only a matter of time until a Zionist Jew like Tom Grauer comes after you, trying to defame your character, paint you as an “extremist” and an “anti-seeeeeeeemite” and even go so far as to start an ostensibly pro-pedophilia blog to try to defame people by association – or in this case, non-association.

A quick glance at his blog made me think at first he is simply a pornsick man desperately trying to justify his “legal teen porn” addiction – and that may be a part of it.

But when you have a Zionist Jew like Tom Grauer attacking Palestinians and those who support their human rights by trying to defame them as pedophiles, it’s pretty obviously one of those “Canary Mission” employees – professional Zionist hasbara engaged in a smear campaign against anyone noticing Zionist Jew genocide against Palestinians – and “Puritans” – “Puritan” being a code word for “WASP” and, more generally, “White American.”

Anyone familiar with my blogging career knows that I’ve never advocated for the lowering of the age of consent (as far as I can remember I’ve never even written about the age of consent) nor have I ever suggested that men were oppressed by “AOC laws” nor that it’s acceptable for adult men to have sex with 15 or 16 year old girls. Nor have I ever done what NRx Jim and Tom Grauer do and claim that ten year old girls want to have sex with adult men.

That sounds like a pedophile projecting, does it not?

Best advice: stay away from these NRx freaks, advocates for pedophilia, and Jews who are into “neo-reaction.”

Sincerely, “Hipster Puritan.”

Reaction is ‘Reverse Psychology’ That Works on Children

The original Mencius Moldbug essays were great; very interesting stuff, thought provoking, broke a lot of taboos.

There must be something about Jewish verbal intelligence that just captivates the goyim, in the same way that ancient primitive tribes got high off of a small dose of the venom of snakes or various parasites. It figures that conservatives, right wingers, and reactionaries – i.e., the low IQ, low intelligence, low imagination, low executive functioning segment of Whites – get so enthralled by Jewish verbal venom. The same way dumb Whites smoke weed or take some drug and think they are having “deep thoughts.”

So these clever, thought provoking essays by Moldbug, essentially just some “devil’s advocate” push back against modern, post-industrial era “Enlightenment” philosophy, were turned into a bona fide religious cult by former Catholics (and it is mostly Catholics, Catholicism being the religion of the dumbest Whites and half-White Westerners.)

So Moldbug says, hey, we all assume that monarchy is worse than democracy, but is it? Here’s some advantages that monarchy had over democracy.

What do the cultists do? They immediately take all this as not an intellectual exercise to re-think some of our cherished assumptions – oh, no. They take this as a literal command and start declaring themselves “monarchists” and even clever goys like Blog.Jim.com start picking apart Donald Trump’s tie colors and Victorian era British fashion for clues to the “soul” of monarchy.

And just like bored White housewives who are really into hiring “past lives consultants” to tell them they all are the reincarnation of Cleopatra, ALL – 100% – of these neo-reactionaries automatically assume they are the new Brahmins, the new priest class, if not monarchist pretenders themselves. Not a single one of them thinks, “hey, if we restore the monarchy, I’ll be a pig farming peasant like 95% of my fellow Whites.” Oh, no, not these Big Brained Brads, they are just sure that in a restored monarchy they will get pride of place.

It’s all so much like “Reverse Psychology” you used to trick your kid brother into giving you an extra helping of dessert. “You didn’t really want that ice cream anyway, did you?” Like Tom Sawyer and white-washing the fence, these neo-reactionaries all buy it, hook, line, and sinker. “Well, democracy is bad, therefore, we need to find a literal king, with a robe and bejeweled crown, and some bald headed “celibate priest” to restore “Throne and Altar.”

The religious ones are the worst of all. I hate to be one of those types – athiests annoy me as much as anyone – but let’s not beat around the bush here. If you were born in Mosul, you’d be a Muslim and you’d believe the Koran. If you were born in Bangalore, you’d be a Hindu praying to Vishnu. But you went to Catholic school or some Protestant church, so therefore you’re a Christian. You didn’t investigate all the religions and them decide that Christianity was the right one. Of course not. You were brainwashed as a child to believe in Christianity and now you have an emotional attachment to it. If you had NOT been emotionally conditioned, you’d find the Bible, the Old Testament stories – and especially the New Testament stories – to be a third-rate bunch of fairy tales without even the positive, heroic spirit of Hercules.

I personally find the English of the King James absolutely profound, but at least I’m self-aware enough to know it’s due to my childhood conditioning. You can take the most trite statements – even absurd and self-contradictory statements, and rephrase them into the King James English and to me it sounds utterly profound.

When the Beatles’ Paul McCartney smoked pot for the first time, he had some of his paid flunkies follow him around and write down all of his “profound” thoughts and “brilliant lyrics” but the next day – after the weed wore off – it was all just stoner gibberish. Have any of you religious people ever actually sobered up long enough to THINK about the trite and often nonsensical crap your religion teaches you? Typically, it’s either just obvious truisms (that are only profound to children learning them for the very first time) or “koans” that are actually just artifacts of human language and typically you grow out of that “profound” feeling once you’ve grown out of freshman year university classes.

Just a typical example: I’m sure that the sexual promiscuity – and resultant STDs – of the ancient era caused a serious backlash when sexual restraint all of a sudden seemed like an important spiritual discipline. You can see this in the Stoics, who were just as sexually conservative as the most conservative Catholics – sex was only within marriage, for reproduction.

Yet take a reactionary and they think, “well, if sexual indulgence is bad, then complete denial of sexuality must be good!” “If democracy is bad, then monarchy must be good!”

“If people aren’t actually completely ‘equal’ in every way, that means the best society is a totalitarian dictatorship, and OF COURSE I’ll be part of the ruling class, after all, I’m such an intellectual I read brilliant Jews like Curtis Yarvin, I will surely be a famous priest in the court of the new monarch and rule over the peasant pig farmer, not a slave to a syphilitic dictator who rules through genocide and violence while wearing robes and claiming a divine mandate from a vision he had while tripping on the fungus from moldy bread!”

I mean, have you people ever actually read the book of Daniel in the Bible? It’s not “profound” at all, it’s the ravings of a madman. It’s even worse with those people into “mysticism” that think the Jew Kaballah is somehow interesting. Hell, the smartest Jew even pointed out that that the author of the Kaballah was likely suffering from dementia – he called it “the product of neurological degeneration.”

The worse, most awful pop song of the 1990s was “Mister Jones and Me” where the skinny White wrote a love song to some old Black drunk blues musician he met at a bar, and this old Negro’s drunken rambling was turned into profound and poetic “wisdom.”

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away. Reactionaries are even most easily manipulated than liberals or hoi polloi. Reactionaries are the “goth” in high school, the Adam’s Family types. Whatever the mainstream believes, the react against it and believe the exact opposite.

But of course “each thing evokes its opposite” which means that “reactionaries” are the least interesting, and the least thoughtful, people of all.

They think they are fighting priests, dissident intellectuals, and restorers of tradition, when in reality, they are just that stupid kid that got fooled by Tom Sawyer into white washing the fence.

Isn’t Christianity Just Stoicism Plus Hebrew Superstitions?

All the smart Christians like E. Michael Jones talk about Logos as opposed to a carpenter named Jesus. Take out the New Testament narrative, and what is left is just old fashioned classical Stoicism. St. Paul is indistinguishable from the Stoics of his time and from what I recall literally name checks them.

Christianity appears at the exact same time as Vespasian, Titus, and Domition are conquering the Jewish rebels in Palestine. The Jewish rebels believe in a proto-Zionism where a Messiah will liberate them from the kittim. Josephus, being a modern man, realizes that Vespasian is going to win, switches sides and declares his loyalty to Rome, and declares Vespasian the Messiah and attributes the Star Prophecy from Numbers to Titus. Vespasian becomes the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament. The New Testament shows the Romans as the ones who accept “Christ” and the Jews as the ones who reject them. Also the Gospels tell the Jews to submit to Rome and pay their taxes – the very thing the Zionists refused to do.

Take the Cult of Divine Caesar of Julius and Augustus, add in Vespasian becoming the “Messiah of the Jews” per Jospehus and the family of Philo of Alexandria – rich Jews who rejected the rebel Zionists and embraced loyalty to Rome – and after three major Roman-Jewish wars when Rome finally defeats the Zionist Jews and you get the descendant of Vespasian and Titus – Constantine – officially establishing the Church which “just happens” to be a mix of:

1. Stoic philosophy

2. a “Hebrew-ized” version of the Divine Julius cult with themes and history representing the Roman-Jewish war, where the “good Jews” become “Christians” and accept a Hellenized Messiah and pay taxes to Rome.

And what do you know, there’s a bunch of “Christian Flavians” buried under the Vatican.

This might be just interesting history, except we have these “Rightists” like the Social Pathologist telling us we can’t actual take the side of White people until we “restore the West” and “fight modernity” and in order to do that we have to re-embrace Christianity.

But none of these “neo-reactionaries” like Social Patholigist (https://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-religious-dissident-right.html) and Social Matter (https://www.socialmatter.net/2018/06/27/week-reaction-2018-06-24/) are actually interested in Hebrew carpenters, virgin births, and literal nail holes in hands.

They are really only interested in Logos and Stoic philosophy.

So, maybe we can stop privileging Jewish superstitions and 2,000 year old Roman war propaganda and just embrace our actual Western heritage – classical Greco-Roman Stoicism.

Sounds like a win-win to me. We get to keep all that art and architecture while getting rid of pedophile priests and religious whack-jobs obsessed with desert real estate in the Levant.

Athena, Minerva, or Mary: A Rose By Any Other Name …

If NRx Wants To Revoke The Enlightenment, Do Jews Go Back To The Shtetl?

Of all NRx complaints about the Enlightenment, has the emancipation of the Jews ever been mentioned as a downside?

https://nickbsteves.wordpress.com/2015/04/25/this-week-in-reaction-20150424/

Watson, in Jews, Puritans and Whites OH MY!, catches Kevin McDonald pretty much agreeing with the neoreactionary dictum: “It’s not just the Jews.”

Is it really “it’s not just the Jews?” Or is it “it’s never the Jews?”

https://oneirradiatedwatson.wordpress.com/2015/04/23/jews-puritans-and-whites-oh-my/https://oneirradiatedwatson.wordpress.com/2015/04/23/jews-puritans-and-whites-oh-my/

Notice the tone, MacDonald is “caught,” “oh my!” As if MacDonald has never mentioned anything other than Jews. One of MacDonald’s most important pieces was “The Indigenous Culture of Critique.”

This sort of tone might be appropriate in a situation in which Jews are blamed for everything. But in modern America, and the West in general, Jews are blamed for nothing. In fact, it’s a signal of low social status to even notice that Jews have any power at all.

Jews run Hollywood? That’s a “conspiracy theory.” Jews overrepresented in politics? “So what, they work hard and are smarter than you, you’re just blaming your personal failure on Jews!” When Whites were overrepresented in the Ivy League, that was an example of structural racism. Now that Jews dominate the Ivy League, they got in all on merit?

NRx seems quite unwilling to critique Jews for anything at all, don’t they? If Jews caused problems in the 20th Century, we must go back further until we can blame it on some European group. “Sure Jews did this bad thing, but this other person did something bad too, so why blame Jews?”

Here nickbsteves engages in some extremely common philo-semitism:

Not only is it “Not just the Jews,” but, if it were they would truly be the master race psychologically speaking and would pretty much deserve, from an evolutionary perspective, all of the spoils they have obtained.

If we were talking about *any other group* – anyone at all *but* Jews, do you think nickbsteves would say the same thing?

One suspects that everything about the Enlightenment can be criticized *except* that it liberated the Jews.

It’s all very kosher isn’t it?

It would be a mistake to start “counting Jewish noses” in NRx, or pointing to Moldbug’s purported Jewish grandfather. There’s another dynamic at work here. I suspect it is similar to the allergy to ethno-nationalism and explicit advocacy for White interests and instead the focus on IQ. The idea is to create a coalition that includes just enough “diversity” – you know, Jews, White guys with half-Asian children, a smattering of Japanese and Sub-continentals – something that looks like Amren.

Instead of a biological continuum, it’s an artificial group – whoever gets X on the IQ tests.

You know, something that looks like Silicon Valley.

Because anything ELSE would actually draw the wrath of the Synagogue Cathedral.

They are just run of the mill conservatives giving themselves a fancy name and posing as great intellectuals.

NRx: Political Correctness for Right Wingers

You can see it especially in the reactionary Catholics.

Reactionary Catholics prove how “right wing” they are by using terms like “sodomite” and having the “courage” to say that homosexuality isn’t normal. In fact, they even like to point out that anal sex is not just gross, but spreads disease.

Everyone else keeps quiet and looks away uncomfortably because it’s pretty obvious what’s going on.

Yes, liberals do pretend that homosexuality is normal – obviously, no one believes it. Homosexuality is obviously gross and hey – the Pope is right – homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered.” It’s clearly some sort of developmental disorder, perhaps a hormonal issue. In fact, gay marriage is a modern attempt to contain homosexuality.

Before the modern era, gays would join the Catholic priesthood. After all – THAT IS YOUR TRADITION. What do you think “celibacy” is? It’s all the men that don’t want to marry women – you know, homos – so they join the celibate priesthood, put on a dress, run the fancy rituals in the Church, and otherwise keep their homosexuality in the crypto-closet.

The rest of us, we figured this out a long, long time ago.

But you know, those fags don’t always really keep chaste and they have a long, long tradition of buggering the altar boys.

So those altar boys grow up humiliated and ashamed about what their priests did to them, so they lash out about “sodomites” and build entire political movements around basic, obvious things that liberals – liberals being the smarter faction of society – already know and already figured out.

I’m sorry your priests anally raped you. It’s a crime. But you “NRx traditional Catholics” are just embarrassing yourselves at this point.

Hey Catholics, that IS YOUR TRADITION. That’s what you are fighting for. THAT IS YOUR CHURCH. That is your community. That is what “celibacy” means. Your priests are celibate, your nuns are celibate, your cardinals are celibate, the Pope is celibate.

The Priesthood IS gay marriage, and that is your tradition.

I’m reading a traditional Catholic “neo-reactionary” about how “Islam was the first Protestant reformation” and I’m thinking, yep, that’s right, Islam doesn’t have a fag priest class either, that’s pretty much just a Catholic thing.

That is what the Protestants were rebelling against. Luther and Calvin and every other proto-Protestant complained that “celibacy” led to “sodomy” because the celibate priesthood is just the “traditional” version of gay marriage.

I’m sorry, Father O’Malley shouldn’t have touched your there. Talk to your therapist.

OK, are we done? Good. Now please shut up and stop embarrassing yourself and everyone else.

Does Henry Dampier Read Hipster Racist?

He must, becaue I’ve been saying much of this for nearly two years now:

http://www.henrydampier.com/2015/04/explaining-pop-kink

Conservatives funnel their children into egalitarian institutions, demand inhuman powers of chastity from their children, and then become shocked — just shocked — when the impossible rules result in their cheerleader daughter getting a big belly without knowing who the father is. The absurdity of expecting inhuman levels of restraint from people is also mirrored by the leftist reign of regulations in sexual harassment. Men and women must be forced to be the same, and any outburst of natural attraction is to be punished by the full force of the legal system.

But the article is really about “pop kink” and as usual, he gets it wrong. I almost feel like I might accidentally come across as one of those obnoxious, politically correct Professional Kinksters talking about informed consent and safewords, but like most people, Dampier is reading a bit too much into “kink” and thus, in many ways, missing the significance.

Yes, kink is a place (the only place?) where it’s ok for a feminist or a leftist to act out traditional gender roles. At least among my set, BDSM was, essentially, a long running dirty joke. Take any sort of scenario, and turn it into some “scene.” BDSM was nothing but regular sexy times with the ladies wearing more fashionable clothes. There were a few people we knew that were into it a bit more “hardcore” than others but only the “community” feels as if it is some sort of “identity.”

De Sade’s Justine really has no connection to BDSM. It’s been a while since I’ve read it, but I seem to remember Justine was a philosophical piece about atheism with a torture-murder scene. The utterly awful 2003 film “Quills” was an attempt to turn De Sade into a Kinkster Philosopher Ahead of his Time but it was nothing but pure historical revisionism, as well as a total snoozefest.

No one has ever explained to me what is so terrible about bondage – have people really never tied up their ladyfriend or blindfolded her? They like the suspense. What do you think those fuzzy handcuffs at the novelty store are for? Spanking? Spanking is half sexy and half funny. Are we really going to suggest that is somehow “perverted?” Dominance and submission? Goodness, folks, that is in the Bible. It’s actually a commandment and the Christian ideal of marriage.

From what I can tell, the main hangups people have are pain and humiliation. All I can say is that people often have a complex relationship to pain. Pain is an inevitable part of life, applying pain in a controlled way can be comforting. Pain is sort of the opposite of pleasure, and each thing evokes its opposite. Have you ever had a really good deep tissue massage? You know how it hurts, yet feels really good at the same time?

Humiliation? OK, have you ever had a fight with your ladyfriend then had really great makeup sex afterward? You know, she pushes and pushes and you yell at her. It’s kind of humiliating to her when you put her in her place, but she kind of enjoys it when you take charge. The hilarious “Break Feminazis” scenarios on reddit are all the same basic gimmick, “uppity feminist Wonder Woman gets put in her place by a Real Man.” It’s like competitive comedy writing; it just so happens that many, many feminists actually get really aroused by it.

All the rest of BDSM is just costumes and role-play.

The other thing people don’t get is that, generally speaking, BDSM is a woman’s thing. BDSM scenarios are pretty much the number two fantasy of women, after the sort of standard “Prince Charming rips my bodice.” There are more women into it than men. In fact, it’s all rather understandable from a pop evolutionary pscyhology perspective as well.

I can assure you folks, 50 Shades of Grey is not a harbinger of the Decline and Fall of Western Civilization. It’s a throw away piece of girl porn with some spanking in it. Good grief.

The real issues that the West has is not that lots of girls think it’s sexy to be tied up and spanked, it is economic and social changes that have made marriage and family formation all but out of reach of the working class. Fix that problem and you’ll fix the fertility problem.

As for the divorce issues, it’s really simple and it is, in fact, kind of related to BDSM, at least, power in relationships. The court system gives wives a financial incentive to blow up their marriages. The court essentially hands a woman a grenade and says, “now don’t use this unless you really, really need to.” She now has the power in the relationship.

Imagine a hypothetical future in which wife-spanking was completely legal and accepted. I’m not kidding. A hypothetical future society where a husband was unequivocally in charge of his family, the Head of Household, and if he had to, he could take his wife over his knee and spank her as punishment.

If that scenario immediately makes you think, “that’s just awful. Husbands would just be abusing their wives for no good reason,” well, congrats, you are either a feminist or a conservative, as if all men, most men, or even a really significant minority of men actually like to abuse the women they love. These are the women they have pledged their entire lives to, the future mother of their children, and feminists – and conservatives – think men are just so evil and so awful that it is inevitable they would abuse their power, thus, men cannot be entrusted with any power at all. In fact, it would be better if the wife were in charge. (Hmm, perhaps traditional conservatism is actually full of submissive men. Apparently C. S. Lewis liked his wife to dominate him in bed.)

On the other hand, if that scenario makes you think, “goodness that’s hot, I would be so turned on if my man turned me over his knee when I was acting up,” email hipsterracist@yahoo.com for a good time.