Eight commandments for the neoreaction

Nyan draws a line in the sand

*Patriarchy and families are the foundation of society.
*The natural and unmolested course of selection and elimination must be allowed to occur in economics and society.
*Hierarchy is the natural and right way for people to cooperate.
*Different people are different. Equality is a lie.
*Progressivism is an insane religion advanced by a hostile media/academic machine.
*It’s not just “The Jews”.
*Democracy isn’t going to fix these problems.
*Merely denouncing those to the right creates a deadly signalling spiral, so no enemies to the right.

I would expand the last point slightly. Those who notice that females have characteristics that make it difficult to organize large scale cooperation in their presence, but think the leftist program is otherwise OK, are not enemies, but people who have taken one step on the path to dark enlightenment.

Those that think the Jews have mystic superpowers are not enemies, but people who are focusing far too hard on one rather small step to dark enlightenment.

57 Responses to “Eight commandments for the neoreaction”

  1. Neoreactive says:

    It’s a shame Nyanja doesn’t allow comments. I think this set do commandments are a breakthrough, the next level up. Can anyone tell me what the NRx shorthand, meme if you like, is for this: “mutation of mainstream Christian culture as enabled by structural issues in our civilization”?

  2. Art says:

    Seems to me that these days the NR movement is largely about Jews, with just a few old timers desperately trying to pretend that it is not.
    Is that a fair assessment?

  3. Mark Yuray says:

    I would only find quibbles with #2, but that’s an if.

    Salutations to Nyan and Jim.

    • Harold says:

      I too would quibble with #2. Particularly the word ‘natural’.

      • jim says:

        Unequal ability leads to unequal outcomes. Unequal outcomes naturally lead to unequal power and authority.

        The priesthood promises to fix this if we give power to the priests at the expense of everyone else.

        • Harold says:

          Charlatan priests promising to fix unfixable problems is natural.
          The cathedral has the power and authority, they have bested us. It is natural.

          • B says:

            Agreed. The motto of NRx as it currently stands might as well be “might is right, unless applied against us.”

            • jim says:

              The motto of NRx as it currently stands might as well be “might is right, unless applied against us.”

              The world is always ruled by warriors or priests or some mixture of the two.

              We fight priests, not warriors. The stock in trade of priests is lies, not might, which we oppose by truth.

              Thus, for example, the Cathedral generally shuts down opponents by such tactics as sending death threats to themselves.

              Thus, for example, in the shinblade incident, a feminist attended a gaming tournament, and faked up a male physically attacking her, and then twittered about the sexism of the gaming tournament. That is not might.

              If we were revolting against an aristocratic officer caste (which of course we would never do) then your complaint would have some validity.

              Progressivism denies natural hierarchy, for example the supremacy of men over women, while furtively setting up unnatural hierarchy, women over men. That the unnatural hierarchy is furtive is not might, and the methods by which it is upheld are similarly furtive.

          • Just sayin' says:

            NRX needs to do some hard thinking about hierarchy.

            There is probably something positive one can say about it, but it’s not really clear what that something is.

            Hierarchy is vulnerable to subversion. If you take hierarchy too seriously and your heirarchy gets pwned, you end up getting pwned along with your hierarchy.

            See Roman Catholicism. Or the Orthodox Church ordering Matt Parrot to stop being racist.

            There is a case to be made that leaderless or semi-leaderless structures are actually more resilient. This case is, admittedly, somewhat obscured by the tendency of protestantism to splinter into sect after sect and to move rapidly leftward in the process.

            But the leftward movement of protestantism is more about the tenets of protestantism than the organizational structure.

            As a protestant organization gets pwned and moves leftward, we often see right leaning groups splintering off and trying to avoid leftward drift.

            This is a positive thing, even though those groups are unlikely to actually accomplish anything or fully resist leftward drift, due to the limitations of modern Christianity.

            If we find a belief system that doesn’t inherently tend to drift leftward, then I wonder if we’re really better off with a hierarchical structure, instead of a bunch of competing structures?

          • B says:

            >The world is always ruled by warriors or priests or some mixture of the two.

            The world is always ruled by a combination. Even the Mongols rapidly adopted Islam and Buddhism. Force doesn’t work well as a cohesive principle; a society with no asabiyya will collapse as soon as the screws come off.

            >We fight priests, not warriors. The stock in trade of priests is lies, not might, which we oppose by truth.

            Their lies are backed by might, and your “truth” is very nihilistic and weak. I can’t imagine anyone in their right mind volunteering to risk death, or even being inspired to have and raise children as a reaction to the manifesto listed above. By comparison, even the Islam of the goat raping ISIS crew is much better. And by the way, that social darwinism (point 2) is unadulterated shit. A functional society takes care of its weak. Even the Afghans will protect and stick up for a diwani, a madman. Any group that lets the weak fall and die disintegrates under pressure. Even Sparta lost in the long run.

            • jim says:

              >The world is always ruled by warriors or priests or some mixture of the two.

              The world is always ruled by a combination.

              Warriors out of power now. And plenty of examples of places and times where priests were entirely under the thumb of warriors. King David and his sons took no crap from priests.

          • peppermint says:

            haha, what’s an example of a leaderless system then?

          • Just sayin' says:

            “haha, what’s an example of a leaderless system then?”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaderless_resistance

            The nasty brown people over in the Sandbox example is relevant.

            Don’t come back with “bbut they have leaders”, read the article if you don’t understand the concept already.

            Seems to me it is better to be capable of shifting from leaderless to hierarchical structures and back again without missing a beat, than to be married to a hierarchy and pwned when that hierarchy gets pwned.

            A bunch of fanatics who all happen to have the same religion and thus, converge on the same objectives independently are more resilient than a bunch of fanatics beholden to a single hierarchy.

            You can’t stop progressivism by taking out the head prog. But you can take out Catholicism by pwning the head Catholic and the rest of his hierarchy. Maybe the collapse isn’t immediate but stuff enough of their hierarchy with conversos, fags and marxists and they start to go a little wobbly.

          • peppermint says:

            » sandniggers are effective

            now let’s watch some more movies about the glorious French Resistance

            and talk about how the Einsatzgruppen were Hitler’s death squads designed to kill six million Jews, instead of the Soviet partisans who were armed, trained, and led by Soviet generals

            Incidentally, regarding partisan warfare, http://i.imgur.com/6Upuiq8.jpg

          • B says:

            >King David and his sons took no crap from priests.

            What you mean by “priests” in this case was the prophets. King David was told off by Nathan the Prophet, and repented after the Bathsheva debacle. Shlomo, his son, basically had a prophet appoint his replacement over Israel. So you’re incorrect. They very much took crap from the spiritual leaders of the nation. And even the bad kings of Israel, who were not of the House of David, largely shut up and took it when told off.

            • jim says:

              Bathsheba pissed off the mighty men. Nonetheless, David made Bathsheba what in other systems would be called his chief wife, and Solomon, the eldest son of his chief wife, succeeded him, inheriting Abishag and the Kingdom, while David’s eldest son, Adonijah, his rightful heir under the system supposedly in effect, got neither Abishag nor the Kingdom.

              So I see no sign that David repented when told off by Nathan. In fact I can find no sign that Nathan the prophet told off David about Bathsheba, or indeed that anyone, other than his mighty men, could tell off David and live. Where do you get this stuff about Nathan? From someone who wrote two thousand years after the event?

          • B says:

            >Bathsheba pissed off the mighty men.

            No, she didn’t.

            >So I see no sign that David repented when told off by Nathan. In fact I can find no sign that Nathan the prophet told off David about Bathsheba, or indeed that anyone, other than his mighty men, could tell off David and live. Where do you get this stuff about Nathan? From someone who wrote two thousand years after the event?

            No, Jim, I get it by actually reading the sources before talking out of my ass. You should try it, it’s very refreshing!

            2 Samuel 12 King James Version (KJV)

            12 And the Lord sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor.

            2 The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds:

            3 But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter.

            4 And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man’s lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.

            5 And David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die:

            6 And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.

            7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

            8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

            9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

            10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

            11 Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

            12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.

            13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

            14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.

            15 And Nathan departed unto his house. And the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.

            16 David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth.

            17 And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them.

            18 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead: for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice: how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead?

            19 But when David saw that his servants whispered, David perceived that the child was dead: therefore David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead.

            20 Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the Lord, and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat.

            21 Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread.

            22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me, that the child may live?

            23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

            • jim says:

              You have a point, but upon his child by Bathsheba being sick, he repented, but upon his child dying, he unrepented.

              But yes, I concede that Nathan reprimanded David and lived.

          • Harold says:

            “The stock in trade of priests is lies, not might, which we oppose by truth.”
            If we fight for truth how come neoreaction contains athiests who support the promotion of religions they believe are false, and how come these people are not shunned by the fighters for truth?

            “That the unnatural hierarchy is furtive is not might”
            I have heard of “might makes right”, but this is the first I have heard of “right makes might”.

            • jim says:

              If we fight for truth how come neoreaction contains athiests who support the promotion of religions they believe are false, and how come these people are not shunned by the fighters for truth?

              Theology is the least important, and most harmful, part of any religion, the most important part being ritual, which links us to each other, to the past, and to the future, and which represents the promises we make to each other. What makes the Japanese official religion so great is that everyone practices its rituals, while no one believes its theology.

          • B says:

            >If we fight for truth how come neoreaction contains athiests who support the promotion of religions they believe are false, and how come these people are not shunned by the fighters for truth?

            Very good point.

            >I have heard of “might makes right”, but this is the first I have heard of “right makes might”.

            I’d agree with “right makes might,” not in any kind of short term or immediately obvious sense, but for sure in the long run.

          • B says:

            He did not “unrepent.” He broke his fast. Meaning, he’d hoped for additional mercy on top of the mercy G-d showed him when he repented (“And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die”), and the child’s death showed the additional mercy was not forthcoming.

            But David is exemplary in his fear of G-d and his tolerance of dissenters. See his forbearance when he was cursed by Sheva Ben Bikri during his flight from his rebellious son, and afterwards. However, we see with Ahav, not from the Davidic line, and in general an evildoer, he gets told off by Eliyahu the Prophet:

            17 And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, Art thou he that troubleth Israel?

            18 And he answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father’s house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim.

            19 Now therefore send, and gather to me all Israel unto mount Carmel, and the prophets of Baal four hundred and fifty, and the prophets of the groves four hundred, which eat at Jezebel’s table.

            20 So Ahab sent unto all the children of Israel, and gathered the prophets together unto mount Carmel.

            And then we see Elisha the Prophet telling Jehoram, the king of Israel, that he was a piece of trash. And there are other examples. In general, we see the prophets telling kings off and not being killed.

    • Nyan Sandwich says:

      What I was getting at there is that spontaneous order is really important for the organization of culture and economics. I just puked out some words in that general direction. Feel free to reword it for future reference.

      • thinkingaboutit says:

        Deep. This is getting to the core of very interesting developments in science over the last couple of decades. Stuart Kauffman, for one, has been discussing how spontaneous order and self organization are a large missing piece in understanding biology. He also advocates setting up a pantheistic religion to replace secular humanism, sounding somewhat similar to paganism.
        http://www.santafe.edu/media/workingpapers/91-09-037.pdf

  4. Glenfilthie says:

    There is some real interesting thinking going on here – and speaking as an old world conservative I generally like what I see (or rather, I appreciate the intellectual honesty – the events and issues driving it tend to be most unsavoury).

    Yes, you will need to be more respectful to those of us on the right, and you will also need to jump on the anti-Semitism. Your movement has a real problem with anti-Semites posing as NRx intellectuals and it reflects poorly on the rest of you.

  5. Where does one put the ethno nationalist anders breivik ( who killed scores of scandy children )? That is a question of methodology. insanity, but also of inspiration, alliance, and sponsorship. eg geller rb spencer -emerson historical revisionism, cognitive infiltration from the x-national review unz-murdoch-cass sunstein s? And do we not find the same murderous insanity in the Hagee evangelical american right, albeit wholesale with howitzers , not retail like breivik. There fifty thousand brain damaged and limbless american veterans they have to account for, not to mention the trillions looted from the treasury. Likudniks fit somewhere in here as well?

    Or, where does one place the trad-paleos such as E. Michael Jones, clearly contemptuous of much of the west’s conservatives / neoreactionaries. This is a question not of theology but of goals. As Pat Buchanan put it, the French are against terrorism, but what are they for ? Nrx cannot redeem Christianity from its post modern expression but is there a new form of the Faith to knock down its ailing and sick parasitized aging brother?

    Finally, exempting again theology, christology, how to deal with the trad-paleo’s sympathy for the Islamists ? They are anti-democratic, anti-usury, anti-prog, while patriarchal, pro property rights libertarian and anti-immigration. Where is this type? Deposed in Tunisia and Egypt, mostly in Jail or dead, or in exile. Yet a true silent majority opposed to both the jihadi mercs in iraq syria and the wahabi plutocrats in riad. Abroad perhaps only Erdogan in Turkey and the Brotherhood in exile represent this alternative right.

    Lunatics, Paleo trads, Democratic Islamo-reactionaries. Who is ‘to the right’?

    • red says:

      Anders Breivik was a man who couldn’t get laid. Like lots of men who can’t aquire women he found a cause and committed a violent act the furtherance of that cause. Women now throw themselves at him. The people he murdered were the children of the elites who are destroying Norwegian people through mass migration and ethnic cleansing. These are rational actions from his perspective and I don’t feel sympathy for evil people having the same thing done to them that they’ve done unto so many others.

      Breivik isn’t mentally ill. He’s following a very old patten that’s happened repeatilly when the patriarchy is shut down. His and Timothy McVeigh’s (same exact setup as Breivik) attack are more a sign of order and civilization breaking down than something that can be allied with. Lone wolves have no real power beyond the power to help hurry the destruction of the rotten civlation that failed to live up to its end of the bargin. They have the power to destroy a thing, but never to build it anew. You can’t ally with lone wolves.

      • Dave says:

        If you can’t get laid, you can’t have offspring. Seeing as you’re going to the grave childless and unloved in any case, why not take along a few dozen of the assholes who screwed you over?

        That’s why any civilization worthy of the name gave all physically and mentally sound men a chance to marry. As Tuco said in Breaking Bad, “I like doing business with a family man. There’s always a lot of collateral.”

  6. Thrasymachus says:

    The role of the Protestant Reformation in this must be acknowledged, even by those sympathetic to it. The feminization of the Roman Catholic Church must also be acknowledged, since this probably contributed to the Reformation.

    People opposed to the system- I don’t consider myself a neo-reactionary- must be able to put aside certain religious, cultural and ethnic affinities to focus on natural law and its consequences in the modern world.

    • jim says:

      Note that the Roman Catholic catechism requires one to believe that disarmament creates peace, and inequality creates war.

      Roman Catholicism is dead as a doornail.

      • Adolf the anti-White says:

        Since Vatican II, the church in Rome has officially denied that

        1) Water baptism has spiritual effect (See: Baptism of Desire extends to the unsaved)
        2) Jesus is God (See: Muslims worship the same God as Christians)
        3) The Pope has any binding spiritual authority (See: The Orthodox are not heretics)

        Rome’s theology is similar to liberal Protestant theology 30-50 years ago. This means that the Reformation, and the sects that derived from it, are extremely dangerous.

        • peppermint says:

          “baptism of desire” applies to people taking RCIA classes and waiting for baptism at Easter Vigil.

          the Orthodox are not heretics theologically.

          Does what Francis said to his Synod sound like he doesn’t believe in the authority of the Pope?

          Jim has Catholicism pinned down by mentioning the Catechism. The people in /r/catholicism disagree with Jim about those points, but they point to the Catechism as authoritative when they go against modernity. As Zippy says, the Church will issue pastoral directives to ignore homosexuality and humor trannies, and the holdouts will be called uncharitable, and that will be that.

          But that’s just the social issues, which the Polygon believes that churches have a legitimate right to talk about. The Pope is pretty clearly Polygonist on economics and war, as is expected of all clergy in Polytopia.

        • Adolf the anti-White says:

          >the Orthodox are not heretics theologically.
          They reject Vatican I. Is Mormon christology not heretical? They reject Nicene.

          >“baptism of desire” applies to people taking RCIA classes and waiting for baptism at Easter Vigil.
          Nope. From the Catechism

          >Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity (1260)

          So, we can conclude that

          1) Men can be saved without the gospel
          2) Water baptism has no spiritual effect (or, no spiritual effect that was not already gained by a murky desire for God)
          3) Man can do the will of God, while not believing the gospel

  7. anonymous says:

    What is this NR obsession with “there must be hierarchy”?

    There is… Just because you are not on top doesn’t mean that there isn’t a hierarchy…

  8. anonymous says:

    to follow up/expand a little, i guess what i’m trying to say is that in many ways NRx is already here, but it’s being used against you

    see for example this comment by “the z blog” on Steve Sailer’s blog

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/jeb-bush-tells-cheering-car-dealers-that-more-immigrants-more-fresh-meat/#comment-856879

    If you think that sounds far fetched, just look at what states have been doing. In Mass, for example, they tied the gas tax to the CPI. That way, it goes up automatically every year without needing a vote. They have transferred the power of the purse to the spreadsheet warriors of the BLS. That model is being replicated all over the country. Doing it for immigration is an obvious way to get around the problems of citizens voting.”

    • peppermint says:

      NRx is being used against us? what, to you, does NRx mean?

      Here’s a thought on what NRx is. How autistic do you need to be to believe in racism despite the social pressure against it and despite probably not belonging to the master race yourself?

      As an autistic truth-seeker, I feel compelled to give a source for this thought: https://nickbsteves.wordpress.com/2014/12/18/so-where-are-the-american-gulags/

    • R7_Rocket says:

      @anonymous

      You need to understand the origin of social instincts in social animals.

    • Strange how American nationalism is led by border jumpers (John Derbyshire -UK, Peter Brimelow-Canada-UK, Jared Taylor (to Japan) ) with ties to Murdoch or Ronald Unz. . The VDARE nexus includes Sailer.

      • Dystopia Max says:

        Led specifically by “border-jumpers” who actually found the American civilization worth assimilating into and defending, and for that reason hate the more opportunistic immigrants that form the Democratic party vote banks all the more. This statement is inane, and a little forced, almost of the type a paid infiltrator might make.

        Regardless, the quickest way to break the cass sunstein mind control is to give up the addiction to glib responses in favor of actual analysis, like I just did above. And also to announce that when NRx and their rightist allies take over, anyone found under Cass Sunstein’s payroll gets shot in the streets, just to establish that spies and saboteurs are scum and trust-breakers worthy of death in all contexts.

        If you are an infiltrator, and would like to make the world a better place, I would suggest breaking off your career contacts with your paymasters now, then coming here with clean hands and a pure heart, to be assimilated normally. If you do not, and we catch you, death and exile are going to be the only things you have to look forward to once life and death starts getting taken seriously again.

      • josh says:

        Despite your paranoia, it doesn’t really seem like anybody is leading anything. Sailer may have some kind of (very limited) subterranean influence on the actually influential people because he’s interesting and prolific, but really, there is no “movement” to speak of. Certainly these people are having no influence on policy makers or even public discourse among anyone other than a handful on self-referencing internet dorks (how are they not embarrassed by titles like “Why NRx is winning”? Winning! Winning what? Nobody knows or cares who any of you are.) . Seriously, Jared Taylor? Do you think my Mom knows who Jared Taylor is? Do any of the thirty people in the room in which I am sitting know who Jared Taylor is? I wouldn’t worry about him. Why don’t you get back to sending moles into mid-western bowling teams?

  9. Zimriel says:

    I propose to see Jews as potential symbiotes. Those who support the nation are to be cultivated; those who “seek to make the world a better place” – that is, symbiotes gone feral to parasitism – are to be lanced.

    I will, for this purpose, count myself as a Jew.

  10. Korth says:

    It’s long overdue that we assemble a vast compilation of red pills and publish it on Amazon.

  11. Tom says:

    Here’s the proper breakdown of NRx thought:

    http://8ch.net/duck/res/5624.html#5634

    Best overview I’ve yet seen.

  12. Noah says:

    Yeah you are right. Let’s empty all mental hospitals and send these people to prison where they belong. Let’s be tough on criminals. There is no such thing as psychosis. Kevint1972, we need people with your insight into criminality in government.

Leave a Reply