Tag Archives: nrx

Sun Tzu, The Myth of the 20th Century, and NRx

I just never get tired of it.

In West Point the first book a cadet reads is Sun Tzu’s Art of War. What’s the most famous quote from AoW?

“All warfare is based on deception”

Here’s the longer quote:

“All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.”

So I’m listening to Myth of the 20th Century, the edition about African colonialization. The resident Yockeyite, Alex, is whining about “pig Americans” and literally his voice breaks – he’s almost going to cry – when he says “Death to America.” (Not at all coincidentally, the only other time I can recall he nearly cried during the podcast is during the epiosde about the 1980s pedophile ring at the Catholic boy’s home in Kansas, “The Franklin Cover-up.” – although he actually blames this pedophile ring on … who else? WASPs.)

It’s so ridiculous the main guy, the serious and intelligent guy – Hank, I think – who just identifies as “Republican” auditorily rolls his eyes and mentions this is when he and Alex get into it.

So what has Alex so upset? The United States LIED. African decolonization was really about the US Empire taking over former African colonies from the old French, Spanish, English and German empires.


Occasionally he makes some point that America allowed non-Europeans – non-whites – to “have a say in European affairs.” But he’s only outraged when America (thus – Protestants, and especially those who beat NSDAP Germany) does this. He rightfully mentions that Fascist Spain brought in African troops to rape and mutilate White Spanish Republicans, and that the French used colonial African troops against Europeans. But he saves his outrage for America. “Death the the pig Americans.”

Remember, this is an American Catholic Nazi-fetishist Neo-Reactionary.

So, what really is NRx, at its core? Well, the Jew that invented it, their “prophet” is of course Curtis Yarvin, whose OBVIOUS goal was to squid squid ink to cover up Jewish power and Jewish anti-whiteness, and to blame all the things the right hates on “liberals” and “the international Protestant conspiracy” etc.

But the ones that took it up were Catholics, the Alex types, although most of them aren’t *really* religious. Instead, they are “Catholics” in the organizational sense.

Forget the religious and cultic aspects. That is to miss the point. How is Catholicism organized?

It’s an imperial, hierarchal, oligarchic system.

You have bishops; the bishops ordain priests, then elevate some priests to bishops. Then the bishops vote one of their own as pope. It’s a self-selecting oligarchy. There is one Pope at the top, his advisors the bishops underneath, the priests are the officers, and the regular people are the congregants.

The smarter wing of NRx, that were called the “techno-commercial” wing, have mostly dropped out as far as I can tell. Which is too bad, because they were the ones that really had something interesting to say. They understood network effects, economics, corporate governance – really interesting group to read.

I don’t know what happened to them. All that is left is the actual religious Catholics, who are boring and irrelevant, and the Jim Donald types, which are really just a club of right-wing purity spiralers, mostly populated by Zionists and some young White guys into the idea of patriarchy and submissive wives (precisely because they are young, economically disenfranchied, and unmarried without children.)

Old perverts like Donald know how to cater to that crowd – I know how to cater to that crowd, and did it very successfully for a year, until it got boring and embarassing, so I dropped it.

So what’s left at NRx? Aside from policing the right wing for “anti-semitism” and anti-Zionism, what really is the core of NRx?

Let’s look at the summary:


Modern history is an epic tale of social decay under chronically bad government, masked by increasing technological wealth. The dominant liberal-progressive ideology is badly out of touch with reality, and actively destructive to civilization.

Two lies are obvious right out of the gate: modern history is NOT an epic tale of social decay. This is just LARPing that the 1400s were better. The second, most destructive lie is that the dominant ideology as of 2019 is “liberal-progressive.”

Liberals and Progressives are very much NOT in charge. We live in a neo-liberal – which really means POST-liberal society, and Progressivism proper died with LBJ, who was its most cynical proponent, and Richard Nixon, the last true progressive. The Reagan-Bush regime buried the very last of progressivism.

(Communists often called themselves “progressive” in English but that was nothing but propaganda, they were NOT in any way, shape, nor form a product of the Progressive movement of Teddy Roosevelt and Margaret Sanger.)

So, more NRx:

The core of our problem is that there is no one with the secure authority to fix things. The core of our solution is to find a man, and put him in charge, with a real chain of command, and a clear ownership structure.

Real leadership would undertake a proper corporate restructuring of USG: Pardon and retire all employees of the old regime; regularize international relations as explicitly either imperial or non-interventionist; nationalize and restructure the banks, media, and universities; and begin the long slow process of organic cultural recovery from centuries of dysfunction.

So, as the techno-commercial wing would say, there “secret sauce” is … centralize executive authority. In corporate terms, they want strong CEO and a weak board of directors. They hate activist shareholders.

OK, but let’s see some data? I know there is a huge corporate management literature about this, and one can read such debates every single day in the Wall Street Journal. NRx doesn’t even address any of that, they instead peddle right-wing historical narrative barely a step above the old John Birch Society, Catholic superstitions and Crusader LARPing, and of course pretentious rehashing of Greco-Roman history – classical studies.

But note the bold section. First, they just want to replace the entire ruling structure of American with … who, exactly? Literally the bloggers think THEY will become valued advisors to the new ruling class, because they promise to offer unquestioning sycophancy – that’s where “God-Emperor Trump” came from.

The second part, just as long as imperialists start telling the truth and stop lying we’ll finally have a good society!

Forget Sun Tzu, we should be open and forthright about our intentions, because only naughty people lie and trick people!

This is childishness. These are not adults with a realistic and “hard headed” view of the world, unlike those naive “liberals” and “progressives.”

What NRx really is: a bunch of lying Jews and Zionists manipulating some old doddering superstitious Catholic nutjobs and some young White boys who aren’t sophisticated and cynical enough to know they are being fed a line of crap.

Sun Tzu would be proud.

A THOT Experiment For Neo-Reactionaries

You’ve been working late a lot and your wife has been really busy with the baby. Your 15 year old daughter has been doing ok in school but you haven’t really checked her grades this semester and you’ve given her some space because you know how teenage girls are.

So one day you get home late, mom is at her mother’s with the baby, and when you walk upstairs you hear noises coming from your daughter’s room. You open the door and find:

A brown immigrant male on top of your daughter, half undressed, and his hands are around her throat.

What do you do?

1. Damn women, because they are all THOTs and shouldn’t be allowed to vote anyway. In fact, democracy itself is at fault, and progressivism promoted egalitarianism.

2. Immediately go to your study, open the laptop and write out a detailed plan about how you are going to install an alarm system and locks on the windows so this sort of thing doesn’t happen again.

3. Realize that neo-liberal capitalism promotes mass immigration and multi-culturalism doesn’t work.

4. Beat that sand-nigger to death and deal with your daughter later.

Second scenario:

Billy and Chaim are having a political debate on the quad at the local college. Billy says that Zionism = racism and that Palestinians have human rights. All of a sudden, Chaim screams that Billy is a nazi and stabs him in the chest and runs away.

What do you do?

1. Realize that Billy is a liberal progressive SWPL who is the real racist and it’s his fault for triggering Chaim, whose grandfather was a Holocaust survivor.

2. Rush to the campus library, check out some medical books and start researching a blood coagulant to thicken Billy’s blood so he won’t bleed to death.

3. Use a magic marker to paint a Hitler mustache on your face and do a “Sieg Heil” salute and give a speech about The Eternal Jew.

4. Grab a first aid kit, use a sterile gauze to stop Billy’s bleeding, call 911 and get Billy to the hospital and then give a description of Chaim to the police so he can be arrested and charged with attempted murder.


The Right Wing Holiness Spiralers

Spandrell at Bloody Shovel is one of the better NRx bloggers, and he makes some good points about The Andrew Yang #YangGang phenomenon.

His Bioleninism idea is just a reworking of cultural Marxism, but this time adding in the queerest of the LGBTQ+ stuff that’s popped up in the last decade.

As usual, though, reactionaries just react and most of them are spiritually, if not physically, old men yelling at clouds. They are always black pilled and expect a collapse at every turn, because they can’t cope with their own mortality. In that sense they are eerily similar to the Global Warming Cult, which is eerily similar to the old American Rapture cults, in turn eerily similar to the (((Austrian))) Goldbug Economic Hyperinflationary Collapse cults. For these reactionaries, everything is always getting worse and the End of the World is at Hand.

The reality is they are getting worse because they are getting older and their own death is at hand. But since misery loves company, they like to pretend the World Is Ending so everyone ages and dies with them.

I wonder if you looked at these neo-reactionaries, if few of them have children and even fewer have grandchildren, which if as true as I half-suspect, makes them a very selected group indeed.

So Spandrell sprinkles in Tranny-Hysteria at least a half a dozen times in his article. It’s understandable because modern Tranny-ism is a horror-show mix of the pedophile hysteria of the 1980s with modern medical horror of Dr. Frankenstein hormone therapy.

But no one would really care if it didn’t have the sex angle, the “degeneracy” angle, because the purpose of neo-reaction (aside from obscuring the Ashkenazi role in the 20th century electronic mass media anti-white propaganda) is to allow conservatives to engage in right-wing holiness spiraling.

The absolute best of the best right-wing holiness spiraler is Jim Donald. Take a “reactionary” idea, say, something like Pauline marriage. The man is the head of the household.

Jim Donald can holiness spiral so long and so fast within a week he’s gone from “wives should honor and obey their husbands” and “women aren’t particularly monogamous either” … to … “men should be ready to beat their wives and all women are biastophiles” and “nine year old girls crawl into my bed while I’m drunk and try to have sex with me.”

Seriously, read it: Blog.Jim.com – it’s astonishing. Don’t forget the comments which are ten or so guys trying to out-do each other in their reactionary anti-liberalism. It’s the Gen X/Gen Z version of what the boomers used to do, “I’m to the right of Attila the Hun – end direct election of Senators!”

Anyway I just wanted to note that there’s nothing new under the sun. Transing kids is a crime and should be punished as such, but tranny-ism – including biological transitioning and hormonal disruption – isn’t new at all.

The Catholic Church did it for years. It isn’t unique to the West either as eunuchs were an important class in imperial China.


If these reactionaries actually cared, they would be going all Ted Kaczynski and forcing an end to artificial estrogen pollution due to plastic grocery bags.

But that sort of environmentalism sounds too “liberal” – even “progressive” – and it wouldn’t allow them to holiness spiral to the right and signal to each other about who’s the most retrograde.

P.S. One of the funniest ones I can remember is one guy seriously going on about how much he loved the petty tyranny of county traffic courts. He loved it that the defendants had to call the judge “your honor” because it teaches these arrogant citizens to respect their betters, or something. It didn’t matter that the tyranny was small, it just mattered that he got to enjoy seeing people scrape and bow to power. He liked the humiliation. It’s sort of a civics version of getting whipped by a dominatrix.

These guys will LOVE Islam.

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:


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?

The Mistake Of Identifying As “Right” Instead Of “Pro-White”

Whether “right wing” or “alt right” or “conservative” or even such right-associated terms as “libertarian,” all the label does is create a ready made excuse to:

a) Exclude Whites from the ingroup.

b) Include non-Whites in the ingroup.

c) Argue over whether an otherwise pro-White person or policy is truly “right wing” or “alt-right” or “conservative” or “libertarian.”

Fortunately, this dynamic helps to clarify things quickly. A Jew like Ben Shapiro can be “conservative” and “anti-left” and “anti-progressive” – he can even be a nationalist (which he is, he’s an Israeli nationalist, a Zionist.)

But Ben Shapiro will never be “White” and he’ll never be a “White Nationalist.” A figure like Ben Shapiro will always, 100% of the time, support Jewish nationalism while attacking White nationalism – any nationalism for Whites. Shapiro will attack immigration restriction in Ireland, Poland, Canada, Italy, and Hungary, but will always support immigration restriction in Israel.

This double standard makes it easy to see exactly what Ben Shapiro is. In theory, there could be an Ashkenazi White Nationalist, there could even be a Zionist Jew that supports White Nationalism, but what’s the point of chasing unicorns?

There are many Blacks and Asians and Arabs that are conservative, right wing, and even nationalist, but they will never be citizens – one of the in-group – in a White nation.

So all being a “conservative” or “right winger” does is to offer up ready made excuses for not being pro-White. To put “conservative principles” or “right wing ideology” above the survival of your race, your people, your family is autism in the extreme, an anti-adaptive trait.

You can’t hug a child with nuclear arms, and you can’t hug a White child with conservative ideology. Ideologies are merely words, a construct of language. People are living beings, flesh and blood. Why should words and ideals take precedence over your own flesh and blood, your own family, your own children?

Commenter Curmudgeon at TOO makes a related point:


On another note, I have long thought the term Alt-Right was a recipe for disaster. The old Left/Right paradigm is long dead, and the sooner nationalists own that label, the better. The majority of people know someone who has a family member or friend that is struggling with economic issues. It is much easier to answer the nonsensical globalist gibberish directly, by answering every statement in terms of ‘why do you care more about the well-being of someone living in a foreign country, whom you have never met, than the well-being of family, friends and neighbours’, and ‘How does immigration make your unemployed neighbour’s life better?’ The truth is, the globalists have no logical answers to these hard questions. Exposing them to folly of their own shallow answers will not turn all of them, I personally have made several unsure of the globalist rant, and turned a few.

“Alt Right” simply became a way to add “right wing” baggage into a promising pro-White movement and led to its destruction. “Neo-reaction” seems to have been created precisely to keep Whites arguing over an ideology and never make racial distinctions – especially, to prevent any mention of the anti-Whiteness of Ashkenazi Jews. In fact, NRx goes to hysterical extremes to include anti-White Ashkenazi Jews as “neo-reactionaries” while anathematizing pro-Whites who object to anti-White Jews or won’t subscribe to various hypothetical intellectual obsessions.

It’s putting the cart before the horse. Without Whites, there aren’t going to be any conservative Whites, nor libertarian Whites. So like a tree falling in the forest with no one around to hear it, no Whites are going to hear you signalling how principled you are about private property rights and the non-aggression principle.

Do you think any non-Whites will care what some conservative, “right wing” libertarian ideologue White thinks about anything?

I’m not White supremacist enough to think they would, or should.

Less Curtis Yarvin, More Carroll Quigley Please

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.

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.


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.

Curt Doolittle Is What #NRx Could Be Without YKW & LARP


Curt Doolittle: I am a philosopher of Natural Law, in the Western Aristocratic tradition, and I work for the Propertarian Institute.

In the early 20th century, the WASP Protestant Modernists were well on their way to something like Curt Doolittle. They were undermined by a Fundamentalist movement that was financed by industry and robber barons to destroy organized labor.


Lyman Stewart (1840–1923), Presbyterian layman and co-founder [along with his brother] of Union Oil, who funded the publication of The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth (1910–15).

This is of course history that will NEVER be taught in modern America. The entire labor history of America is taught from the perspective of Communism, and the specific religious history of the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy is taught through the lens of the hostile urban classes who promoted NOT the science of Darwinism, but social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is not science, it’s religion, it’s a moral system.

The Protestant Modernists that ran the traditional WASP institutions – like Princeton and Harvard – were not anti-religion nor were they anti-Christian. They wanted to harmonize Christianity with observed reality: science. They were the actual hiers of the Protestant reformation – NOT the fundamentalists, who were in fact ignorants manipulated by cynical business elites.

The first Protestant martyrs in the Americans were executed by Catholics for denying the superstition of “transubstantiation.” They believed that Communion was “in remembrance of me.” In fact, not even Eastern Orthodox taught “transubstantiation” in the way Catholics did. For the Orthodox, it was merely a “mystery.” Catholics, in order to preserve their monopoly, taught a false physics – basically, magic – and executed those who stuck to observable reality. Rome forced you to lie.

An enlightened WASP elite that practiced noblesse oblige towards the workers were attacked on both sides: by Communism from the left – a Marxist movement financed by Wall Street – and by a Fundamentalist-Industrial elite from the right. The Salvation Army was used to break strikes, in fact. Why would a Christian group like the Salvation Army be used to deny working class Christians the right to a dignified life, economic organization, and a living wage? Because the Salvation Army was a fundamentalist group being paid by robber barons and led by cynics. The robber barons did not want an educated workforce, they wanted superstitious wage slaves who wouldn’t worry about this life, but pin their hopes on an imaginary afterlife.

Not at all coincidentally, the modern GOP from the end of WWII to the election of Donald Trump has always used the exact same tactic – the GOP is a party run by industrial elites (not necessarily Wall Street – this is an important distinction) – that uses fundamentalist superstition to oppress working class people.

When the American working class rejected this, the Democrats were waiting – the Democrats now controlled by cultural Marxists that had replaced economic class – your relation to the means of production – with identity politics. Democrats paid lip service to the American working class but, in cahoots with Wall Street, instead imported mass numbers of non-white scabs.

Curtis Yarvin’s Neo-Reaction is an ideology started by a Jew and promoted by Catholics that seeks to bring back feudalism.

Curt Doolittle’s “Propertarianism” is an alternative to both Yarvin’s neo-reactionary anti-human LARPing and autistic Jewish-Libertarian “Austrian Economics.”


Protestantism wasn’t a reaction to the bible, it was a reaction to the corruption of the church, the taxation by the church, and the church as a vehicle for foreign rule, just like washington DC and Brussels today.

The church conflated rule, government, and education into a monopoly and used it to entrench costly corrupt bureaucrats, extractive rents, and impose ignorance, in a time of literacy, economic growth, and the expansion of trade in the north, and decline of trade in the south, due to venetian decline as the navy of the byzantines.

The church was a very corrupt parasitic government and the people rebelled against it and restored local government.

This broke the church’s taxation. Broke the church’s corruption. Let loose the dead capital held by the corrupt church (50% of the capital in europe), and broke the church monopoly on literacy, thereby combining literacy, available capital, expanding trade routes, into a great leap forward in european life and standards of living.

Christianity consist of four(or five) rules. That’s it. Four rules you can teach a child. Protestantism ended church tyranny, corruption, impoverishment, and enforced ignorance. Faith was the MORAL language that they described it in, just as we describe today’s economic language in today’s moral prose.

Washington is an unnecessary corrupt parasitic power. Brussels is the same. The church was the same. And people have chosen to localize rule, governance, and choice. Why? Because they can.

Ask why the orthodox church HASN’T failed instead. Ask why the protestant evangelical churches (church of jesus not god) continues to grow. Ask why the catholic church and the protestant churches of GOD fail.

There is no god. There never was a god. There was just a lot of ignorant undomesticated humans who could be exploited by those who possessed literacy.

With literacy, the restoration of Aristotelian reason, and the empirical demands of trade, all ‘god’ religions are dying EXCEPT Islam and Orthodoxy.

John Calvin Broke the Jewish Monopoloy on Finance

John Calvin broke the Jewish monopoly on finance, a monopoly which was enforced by the Catholic church.

For this, a Jew like Curtin Yarvin instinctually reacts with hatred, describing Calvin as “this hateful little phony, this pissant, heretic-roasting tyrant on the lake, Jehan Cauvin.”

More than even Luther, Calvin deposed Jews of their “chosen” status. In theory, Christianity itself did; all good Catholics will say that the Church is the “new Israel,” the “Israel of God.” But in practice, Jews followed Catholicism. To Scandinavia, Judaism came embedded with Christianity. No son of Vikings had ever heard of a “Jew” much less of their status as “chosen by God” if they had not been conquered by the Catholic Church.

Historically, wherever Catholics went, Jews went. Wherever Jews were, they were granted a monopoly on the economic life of a community by the Catholic Church which forbade any non-Jew from engaging in finance and banking.

Then Calvin came along and declared that European man could in fact be “the Elect” and that the Catholic church, that unusual bureacracy on the southern tip of Europe with their origin story based in the ancient Hebrew writings of “Israel,” had no power over the souls of men; the pope’s “excommunication” had no effect on your soul, but if it did it may have in fact been salutary!

In E. Michael Jones’ magnum opus, “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit” he attempts – successfully – to defend the Catholic church from charges of “anti-semitism.”

He points out that wherever Jews went in Europe, the Europeans would revolt against Jewish power, specifically, the Jewish monopoly on finance, called “usury.”

And each and every time that Europeans rose up against Jewish usury, the Jews – physically, literally – ran into the Catholic cathedrals, where the priests and bishops would shut the door before the rag tag band of peasants could capture the Jews who had financially enslaved them and string them up in the public square.

Jews, being what they are, accuse Catholics of “anti-semitism” because no good deed goes unpunished. But Jones is correct, indeed, it was the Catholic church itself which protected Jews from the Europeans.

Depending on how you count, Catholics and Jews tag-teamed Europe for nearly 1500 years, until a bunch of Northern European firebrands, called “Reformers,” broke the Catholic monopoly on social power and, consequently, the Jewish monopoly on the economy.

From that point, North Western Europe rose from a backwater, primitive bunch of tribes to the first truly planet wide civilization, invented the modern world and all its technology, and to the Current Year, sits astride Terra with no competitors in sight …

However … in the first half of the 20th century, the White man invented a technology – electronic broadcast media (radio, cinema, television) – that for still rather mysterious reasons was immediately given over to a cabal of Jews, who completely dominated this new technology through their corporations, ABC, CBS, and NBC.

These Jews, from day one, literally starting with the Superman radio show in the 1930s, immediately attacked the ethnic and social cohesion of Whites and introduced “multiculturalism” and mass immigration.

It took other White men just 50 years until they invented an even superior – and more decentralized – form of electronic mass media called “the internet” or the “World Wide Web” which, in the last 20 years, has all but broken the Jewish monopoly on the media and has engendered a furious backlash against Jewish promotion of “multiculturalism” and mass immigration.

So, a Jew, Curtis Yarvin, invents an ideology and the Jew’s collaborators, the Catholic church, starts to promulgate this new ideology – “neo-reaction” – to once against place the Jews and Catholics as a ruling class over the White man.

Fortunately, they seemed to have peaked a decade ago and White populist liberalism is again on the rise.

Was I Right About #NRx Or Was I Right?


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”


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.