This Week in Reaction

Almost last week, but Behold: The Awesome Radish-ness. Karl has really outdone himself with this one, and that was already an incredibly high bar. An extended meditation on free speech, wherein we find it to be, in classical Who? Whom? analysis, a tool for speaking Power to Truth. Alinsky, Marcuse, Cleaver (Eldridge not June), all the biggies make an appearance, with just a hint of cute cuddly kittentude, and dredged up protestations from old dead white guys who just happened to be right about everything (except their chosen side of history). Honestly, this post rejuvenated the incipient New Reaction in a single day—one small step for a reactionary, one giant leap for Reactionarykind. It’s one of the best things I’ve read all year; and if you haven’t read it or better re-read it or best memorized it, then what on earth are you doing here?

Bryce Laliberte talks about entitlement as a Millennial disease. To the extent they have a sense of entitlement, they certainly learned it from their elders, whose own sense of entitlement, manifested as it is in unsustainable government transfer payments, is literally crushing the current generation. As a parent of several millennials, as well as their younger siblings, I can say I have a horses in this race: my own. Their well-being is precisely what drove me to Reaction®—you’ll take it away when you pry it from my dead, cold fingers.

Laliberte is also seeking patrons. I’ve signed up. You should too. Since there is, as yet, no foundation such as the International Brotherhood of Carlyleans to support new reactionary thought and activities, this is the next best thing. See also, deep thoughts on language, meaning, and “racism”.

This Week In Social Matter…

Over last weekend, Will Fraser offered an interesting guest post on The Schelling Swastika.

On Monday, Laliberte impreccates The Myopia of Modern Economic Theory, which perfectly elucidates my view on the matter: The economy was made for man, not man for the economy.

Bishop rhapsodizes on Über and the Anarchists, and the unprincipled exceptions the latter are willing to make when confronted with the functional fruits of their ideas.

Glanton’s Who’s “We,” Paleface? is a primer on the difference between “we” in the Who sense, and “we” in the Whom sense.

Dampier is positively prophetic with his take on How Fringe Politics Generates Infighting:

In most situations, most individuals on the fringes will protest passionately about their true motivations for participating in what is almost always a fruitless, frustrating, and loss-making social activity. Almost no one in a ‘revolutionary’ or otherwise radical sect will admit that they are motivated primarily for personal reasons: to settle old scores and secure a better position for themselves.

…

Returning to the base motivation for those who become consumed by fringe politics, actually succeeding requires putting resentment aside and focusing on doing what is necessary to achieve the ambition. ‘Ambition’ is considered a nasty word by modern Westerners, but it is simply a necessary fuel for achieving power, and power is what is necessary to implement quality ideas.

Achieving power means discarding the resentment that many on the fringes use to define their identity, and that frustration of ambition is also part of the habit that makes their character. And this is why effectiveness attracts more complaining than anything else on the fringe: to be effective means to take the fatal step forward.

If you think he’s not talking about you, please check your priors.

In other news…

Well, Neoreaction got noticed by The Baffler. For those awaiting a break in the pattern of non-substantive, wow-just-wow! fauxtrage, prepare for disappointment. In my book, Anissimov’s coverage of the coverage was far more edifying.

Anissimov also helpfully pens what I consider to be the definitive word on neoreactionary self-reflection:

Neoreactionary self-reflection is constructive. There is no need to interpret everything as the newest iteration of a status game. That is destructive. If we shout down the newest iteration of sophistication and self-reflection as status gaming, that only dumbs us down, makes us anti-intellectual. The accusation “that’s just for status” can apply to nearly anything, so it’s an accusation that explains far too much.

Whew! That allows this blog to continue to exist.

Free Northerner asks about the well-known Too Young Problem. I see it as a problem that naturally arises from cultural deformities. Reactionary theory suggests, rightly, that we need to change back to older, saner, more logical cultural norms. A significant fraction of the population will agree… in theory. But in practice, virtually everyone was raised within the deformed cultural standard, and they retain a visceral disquiet when challenging the modern norms. When considering allowing your 17 year-old daughter to be courted by a 30 year-old man, the distance between head and heart can be very great indeed.

Sorry but this is all I had time fer this week, and it’s already really late… So much for those stats (darn)!

Remember: Support Bryce and your local chapter of the International Brotherhood of Carlyleans. Keep reading Theden and Social Matter, and with every fiber of your being: Keep on Reactin’! TRP, over and out!!