Tag Archives: nrx

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:

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/11/14/pittsburgh/

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.

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.

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

https://propertarianism.com/

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist%E2%80%93Modernist_controversy

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 AGAINST CENTRAL GOVT, TODAY AGAINST CENTRAL GOVT. THE SAME THEN AND NOW.

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?

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 …

Bang Gang: The Second Sexual Revolution: No Coloreds, No Fags, No Rape, No Jealousy

Revolution Next

By the 1990s, the AIDS scare was over and everyone realized that the plague was confined to male homosexuals, needle drugs, and Africans. The sexual chill of the 1980s was over: the popular culture of film and music had continued to get more and more explicit – some would say “degenerate” – even while people’s actual behavior had become puritanical. The social shift was centered around the mainstreaming of condoms. The official story was that teenagers were going to have sex anyway so they should use condoms to avoid AIDS and pregnancy.

While the first sexual revolution of the 1960s still had double standards and jealousy, the second sexual revolution had shifted. If everyone was promiscuous, then no one was a “slut.” Since no one was getting married or having children any time soon, teenage relationships were by nature temporary and among peers partners were swapped: Jane dated Billy for a while, then Jane hooked up with Billy’s friend Mike while Jane’s friend Sally started dating Billy. The timeline simply got shorter and the number of partners increased.

So it was only a matter of time until the timeline of the relationships got shorter and the partner swapping more immediate. High school parties where couples would disappear into a bedroom simply evolved into high school parties where more than one couple would be in the bedroom, or on the same bed. Or where there weren’t couples as much as groups.

The Rules

Still, there were some lines that were simply not crossed, at least in the 1990s middle to upper middle class Washington DC suburbs of the 1990s. The rules were essentially non-negotiable:

1. No coloreds. Maybe a half Korean girl would be in the mix occasionally, but like an Abercrombie and Fitch catalog, this was a very White affair. Washington DC, even in the 1990s, was most certainly a racially diverse area, but integrated schools had not led to integrated social circles, and rarely intimacy. All throughout the 1980s Black and White couples were lauded by the media (OJ & Nicole) and the United Colors of Bennetton had spent a decade trying to push a slightly less sexual version of the Abercrombie and Fitch orgy aesthetic, but to no avail.

2. No fags. Male homosexuality was simply not tolerated. This was an era when gays were “coming out of the closet” and TV shows like Friends made it clear that “homophobia” was uncool. Nevertheless, teenage boys, even if they talked the talk, were simply not going to walk the walk. They may not have been going around queer bashing but neither were they going to invited suspected gays, much less out gays, to their parties. And the occasional friend, suspected or known to be gay, that was invited to a social party were simply never invited to the after parties.

Of course “bi-curious” girls were not even considered “lesbian,” merely a form of exhibitionist foreplay.

3. No rape. This was the era of third wave feminism. It was not cool to do something to a girl who was passed out – that passed out girl was your friend. It simply was not considered manly and a rough form of “consent” was expected. Of course “peer pressure” wasn’t considered “coercion” and it would be another decade before concepts like “rape culture” would be popularized – quite possibly precisely because a decade or so of these attitudes created a backlash, and the teenage girls who organized these parties had to regain some plausible deniability.

4. No jealousy. Of course people did get jealous, but no one owned anyone and when people did pair off and form serious couples, they simply didn’t go to the parties anymore. This was in a sense, “sexual utopia in power” and F. Roger Devlin might say. Women – really, girls – were the organizers here. They decided which boys to invite and it was their consent that powered the whole culture.

The Style

The style was rave, baby doll dresses and neo-bohemian. The soundtrack was electronic dance music and alternative rock. The drugs were alcohol, marijuana, and MDMA. (LSD and mushrooms were quite often the initiation into the scene, but those aren’t party drugs.)

No one knew anything about “BDSM” or even what it meant, the blindfolds and bondage were simply party favors, a natural development. There was always a certain “switch” dynamic – both boys and girls could be the one being blindfolded and “worked,” but the few times when an actual male submissive would want some sort of humiliation play, it would skeeve the girls out; he would be labeled a “creep” and no longer invited to the parties.

The age to play? 16.

The Hangover

Of course, as always, standards began to slip after the first generation. LGBT became more militant. Consent became blurry. Jealousy, always present, became more pronounced as “experimentation” morphed into “lifestyle” and the window of opportunity to leave it all behind got smaller. It you’re in the scene from 16-26, you’ve had a decade of experience at temporary “relationships” and zero experience with keeping anything permanent. The color line started to blur, which ruined the entire concept of consent, as consent is a cultural norm, shared among those with the same race and culture. Little sisters were not rebelling against the sexual chill of the 1980s as their older sisters had done, thus had a “starting point” that was much further along than their older siblings.

The impact of internet pornography started to be felt. Before, the parties, the social scene, WAS the initiation – it WAS the porn. Once hard core internet pornography went mainstream, boys – and girls – already had expectations, and the expectations were no longer set by peers in their own social circles, but by professional pornographers and pimps from Los Angeles, always eager to “segment” a market in order to micro-market to fetishes with pin point accuracy.

There’s all the difference in the world between BEING the product, and watching a product being advertised.

The End

What finally killed it off was camera phones and social media. Rumors can be denied, video evidence broadcast instantly to thousands could not.

Toronto Film Review: ‘Bang Gang (A Modern Love Story)’

The Future

As the Unabomber Ted Kazinsky might say, technology affects everything and society gets further and further away from the natural order. Only an industrial society would postpone marriage and family formation long past a biologically appropriate age in order to spend the youth’s most productive years learning to run the machines and push the paperwork. Feeding the machine becomes more important that reproducing the race; the machines become more important than the biology. So society will go back and forth between repression and degeneracy as long as it suppresses biology.

The Onion: Teen Wastes Prime Childbearing Years Going To High School

http://www.theonion.com/article/teen-wastes-prime-childbearing-years-going-to-high-33891