Official Reactionary Position

If I meet a tranny in person or on video disguised as a woman, I am apt to vomit. This does not mean that I refrain from text or audio conversation with a tranny. I do, however, refer to trannys as “he” or “him”, and when I hear someone using the other term, it puts me off my food.

A someone who has frequently been nominated for the as yet nonexistent post of Grand Inquisitor of the Neoreaction, I, naturally, endorse the Official Neoreactionary Position.

  1. Talking to, being friends with, showing normal human kindness to a disordered person is not tantamount to:

    a) approving all the free choices that person has made; or
    b) favoring social and/or legal norms that support the person’s disorder; or
    c) joining them in their organization (should it exist); or
    d) inviting them into your organization (should it exist)

  2. If someone wants to purge someone else then show up with an Institution and your name at the top of it, and then there’ll be something to talk about. Until then, all future such attempts to purge are moot, null, damaging, extremely embarrassing, and in very poor taste. This shall be construed as the Official Neoreactionary Position.
  3. I shall be the judge of who I can have a drink with. This should henceforth be construed as the Official Neoreactionary Position on this matter.
  4. Men shit-test men all the time. It may or may not be a good and proper thing to do. But who is the worse: the one who constructs the shit-test, or the one who fails it?
  5. It is the Official Neoreactionary Position that falling prey to hysterical over-reaction to a perceived personal attack is a disqualifying defect in a man who would lead other men.

162 Responses to “Official Reactionary Position”

  1. I know I know about the he she thing. But I’ll tell ya, when a tranny is passing, it is really hard to say “he”. It’s in the brain: the brain says lady (not very attractive lady but lady). Plus it hurts their feelings when ya do, and in certain social situations there’s just no reason to do that.

    I’m not gonna be dogmatic on that one, so long as we all agree this is really a dude.

    • jim says:

      My brain just does not say lady, hence the urge to vomit.

      If it is a good enough emulation to fool me, if he is passing successfully, fine. On detecting I am being fooled, I want to tear my eyes out.

      • peppermint says:

        I prefer the ones who don’t pass, because passing is fraud, and I hate fraud. If too many pass, you start to think that narrow hips, hairy arms, adam’s apple, masculine musculature and hands, are feminine traits. 4chan is an incredible resource in this regard, because the chantards like posting threads full of pictures of trannies, and you can see the differences between them and women.

        For the ones who don’t try to pass, it’s like, who hasn’t felt gender dysphoria at one point? But the real question is, is it a good idea for a person to spend a lot of time acting out of gender – for the individual, and for the society at large? The answer to this question should be informed by the question of where gender dysphoria comes from in the first place. And the first question should inform the second, which is why I think progressive queer theory is incoherent and a failure. Science first, social policy second.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        Steves wants to be liked too much to be a man about this. So his character and, of course, reputation takes a hit because of it. That’s just how it goes.

        Also, the way that people tried to make it a big deal like – “but he is talking to him!” is a strawman the size of a mountain. No… The fact that such a person was and is being RTed constantly, of course, normalises that person’s identity. Have some common sense! But, it wasn’t about that. It was probably about signalling a sort of “coolness” as you see in Steve’s comment about the pronoun. And, if he’s like that, can you imagine Mr. Anarcho (Papist) himself?

        Let’s be men about this, and take ourselves and our associations more seriously.

        A.J.P.

        • My aren’t you a little bitch.

          • jim says:

            It is reasonable to object to calling this man “she”.

            Quite apart from the fact that that accepts the proggy position that sex is a choice, it puts me off my food.

          • It is perfectly reasonable to object to calling a man a “she”. It is not reasonable to do so by piling so many non sequiturs upon one another as Perrick does.

            I have been quite careful never to refer on the internet to Tunney with an unambiguous “she/her”. I’ve used “he” (mostly), occasionally “he-she”, and “Tunneyself”. I refuse to use “it” as it denies personhood, which as a Catholic I simply cannot do under any circumstances.

            Of course, sex cannot be chosen period. Since gender identity arises principally (some LARGE fraction) biological sex, clearly a man born a boy is a man. Language however is quite a bit more a social construct (tho’ of course not entirely).

          • I take that back, I’ve also done a fair amount of sneer quoted “”she”” and “”her””.

          • B says:

            Barrel of honey+teaspoon of shit=barrel of shit.

            Barrel of shit+teaspoon of honey=barrel of shit.

            Entropy, the one way arrow of time and all that. And since Progressivism=worship of chaos=worship of entropy, you can’t be an entryist against it from the right, because you are adding a teaspoon of order to a barrel of chaos.

            • jim says:

              On the other hand, as in the story of the emperor’s new clothes, a few words of truth can rebut a mountain of high status lies.

          • I am happy to submit to the Official Reactionary Position on the subject. Tunney is, I agree, a he, but it does hurt his feelings when you say so.

            • jim says:

              Hard to distinguish between “Hurts feelings”, and “Fails to get him off”. His picture on the Occupy issue was quite disturbing.

          • B says:

            In the real version of the fairy tale, the little boy would have been ignored by everyone. If he’d persisted in making a nuisance, would have disappeared and briefly appeared a month later reading a prepared statement held in shaking hands about the ineffable majesty of the emperor’s new clothes.

            Any realism you manage to inject into the barrel of shit will just be used to give it new life, to keep it from fermenting into collapse a bit longer. It’s like Idiocracy-the only thing that could have redeemed those retards was the very thing that the one normal guy prevented from happening, for just a little bit longer.

            • jim says:

              In the real version of the fairy tale, the little boy would have […] disappeared and briefly appeared a month later reading a prepared statement held in shaking hands about the ineffable majesty of the emperor’s new clothes.

              We have seen quite a few people reading prepared statements with shaking hands to the effect that there is no such thing as race and all races are equal, except that black people are more equal than others. Donald Sterling is having himself declared mentally ill for speaking the truth behind closed doors and drawn blinds.

              On the other hand, this saturates. We have seen two cases where people speaking the truth stuck to the truth, did not disappear, did not wind up reading a prepared statement with shaking hands, who had their lives and assets in places far from the coast and city, far from centers of progressive power: Cliven Bundy and Phil Robertson. Note that Phil Robertson’s hate speech was to quote New Testament at length.

              The BLM ran many of Cliven Bundy’s cattle to death, and tore up water courses and such with bulldozers, but were ultimately forced off his land by the militia.

      • R. says:


        My brain just does not say lady, hence the urge to vomit.

        Pussy 😉

      • Merovan says:

        Hear, hear Jim! Clearly said.

    • Samson J. says:

      Plus it hurts their feelings when ya do, and in certain social situations there’s just no reason to do that.

      You make it sound like meeting “transsexuals” is just like this common thing that we all experience.

      • Welcome to the internet

      • Welcome to NYC. Naw not like it happens every day at all. But when it does, the lizard part of your brain reads woman. And sure, your executive part says I know he’s a dude, but in certain social circumstances it just isn’t worth being insulting to them. To hear Alan Prick tell it, I guess I’m supposed to be duty bound to beat up on every pansy ass I see. But that hasn’t been working out too well lately. I can’t fix society in jail. (Nor feed my family.)

        • jim says:

          Fortunately second person pronouns are genderless – so you don’t need to be insulting to them. However, should refer to them in third person by their true sex.

    • Alrenous says:

      One of the reasons I don’t talk to Tunney. My considered opinion is English has a word for existences not firmly in the gender binary: it. My considered opinion is that Tunney is still human and thus needlessly hurting its feelings is vicious.

      • R. says:

        So, you’d refer to Jamie Lee Curtis as.. it?

        • jim says:

          She is not a trannie. Since she looks disturbingly masculine, the rumor is that she is the result of partial androgen insensitivity – born genuinely intersexual and then treated at birth to be female. This is a different case from a man who has a normal puberty, and then has his balls cut off.

          Cases of partial androgen insensitivity are extremely rare. It is likely she is merely a masculine looking women – and became a horror movie star because of her creepy and disturbing appearance.

          Supposing she is the result of partial androgen insensitivity – still creepy. And a tranny is apt to be a whole lot creepier.

          • R. says:

            Why .. creepy?

            Does this musician seem creepy?
            http://pds2.exblog.jp/pds/1/200805/20/61/e0042361_23414138.jpg


            Cases of partial androgen insensitivity are extremely rare.

            Actually, the prevalence is about the same. (1 in 25,000). Of complete AIS, where the body looks female but lacks a uterus, has internal testes instead of ovaries.

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002163/

          • bub says:

            One staged photo, with makeup (and probably Photoshop) isn’t representative. Here’s a better picture, of a group of genetic males with AIS.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orchids01.JPG

            As you can see, they might look a little … off. But you probably wouldn’t classify them as men in normal circumstances.

            • jim says:

              This is CAIS. CAIS are not trannies. It is reasonable to treat CAIS as females, because they are naturally born with pussies, naturally have no dicks, naturally feminine appearance, feminine behavior, like to play with dolls, like babies, like feminine pursuits such as knitting and housework, and naturally grow quite large boobs at puberty.

              Trannies don’t like knitting etc – they are males who cut their dicks off. It is completely different, a distinctively male sexual perversion.

          • R. says:

            @bub

            It’s not just one staged photo-op. True, she’s not as much of a looker as she used to be, but she was really pretty while young.

            @Jim
            Trannies, like everything, aren’t simple.

            There was a $hitstorm a couple of years back, when Bailey, a Canuck prof published a book outlining the concept of autogynephilia.

            He noticed that (male)trannies fall roughly into two categories. Feminine ones, that seem primarily interested in men and exhibit feminine behaviors (played with dolls as kids, etc) and masculine ones, that before/after transition (which typically takes place later) are interested in women.

            He theorized the first type is innate and the second type is caused by fetishism, and for that he was subjected to persecution.


            It is completely different, a distinctively male sexual perversion.

            I wouldn’t be so sure, really. There are female -> male trannies too. Don’t know much about them.

            Then, female sexual perversions seem more flexible, so perhaps they fixate on less formidable ones.

            • jim says:

              He noticed that (male)trannies fall roughly into two categories. Feminine ones, that seem primarily interested in men and exhibit feminine behaviors (played with dolls as kids, etc) a

              The feminine ones are mighty rare, or perhaps they are merely less obnoxiously visible.

          • Helmuth says:

            This AIS condition is interesting and something I was totally unaware of until I saw it posted here. Bub’s group photo was enlightening–at least one quite beautiful girl front center.

            • jim says:

              AIS – not trannies. Genuinely intersexual at birth, get treated at birth. CAIS sufferers make hot girls without any medical intervention, they play with dolls, knit, do housework. Quite different case from a male feminist having his dangly bits chopped off so that he can participate in female privilege and status.

    • Matthew says:

      There should be a Boy Scout badge for hurting the feelings of degenerates.

      • Dipitty Do says:

        Boyscouts now use the term “criss-cross-applesauce” instead of “indian style” to refer to sitting. Boyscouts are failing.

  2. Van Phauc says:

    The sexual revolution needs to be rolled back. This will be good for women, in the tough love sense, but it will mean a loss of power, influence and recruiting ability for the LGBT community. In that sense, it’ll be bad for them. There may be a more abstract sense in which it will be good for them, but they won’t see that. They’ll fight it tooth and nail and the resulting conflict isn’t going to be pretty.

    Maintaining the grim resolve to do what needs to be done will be difficult. You might start to feel like a dick as you drive one of those giant riot control garbage trucks from soylent green and scoop up hordes of gays and trannies for transportation to the nearest closet.

    Do you feel that having lots of gay and lesbian friends will make it easier or harder for the average neurotypical to maintain a grim resolve do do what needs to be done?

    Gay and transsexual friends –> a personal policy of being nice to homosexuals and transsexuals –> Increased openness to the idea of public policy that is “nice” to homosexuals and transsexuals?

    It’s really, really easy for “post-libertarians” who are still basically libertarian in a lot of ways to slip into an easy tolerance of this sort of degeneracy.

    • jim says:

      First step: Don’t ask, don’t tell. Once they are back in the closet, easier to enforce the closet. Once most of them are in the closet, next step, homosexuality is made theoretically illegal, but the law is only enforced when they get in people’s faces. Transport any that are out of the closet to gay camp, where they can all fuck each other in a great big pile, well away from normal people.

      • Samson J. says:

        First step: Don’t ask, don’t tell.

        YES. We must envision a stepwise process. Whenever I see people getting discouraged about rolling back the Leftist agenda, one of the (many) things I want to say is: remember, they didn’t get here in one big leap; it took them many many small steps, and getting *back* will take an equal number of small steps. They may not even be the same steps (only in reverse) that got us in here in the first place; there may be a different path of small steps back.

        Really, in spite of what we see going on in the media every day, I don’t even think it would take all that much to get society back to a “don’t ask, don’t tell” situation.

        • peppermint says:

          no, we can only step down, never up. We must leap up, all the way to the top of the staircase.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            Hard to ‘leap the staircase’ without some sort of military overthrow, a coup of sorts. Though a neoreactionary coup would be wonderful, there is no groundwork for such a thing at present, nor any prospect of such a thing. Goal 1 would be to make active neoreactionaries the most numerous part of the neoreactionary subset. Moldbug is pro-sodomy and abortion as far as I can tell, but he is not what I’d describe as an ‘active neoreactionary’, just a very smart intellectual. Those of us ready to actually lay a groundwork for the Cathedral to be overturned must first win the neoreactionary internal debate and then expand our influence into institutions from there.

    • That’s reading a hell of a lot into it. We’ll see. At risk of self-promotion, I had earlier noted;

      It is natural and normal for people to be viscerally disgusted by perversion. Being so viscerally disgusted does NOT, however, make you conservative nor a reactionary. Not being so disgusted does not (necessarily) make you a liberal. Some people were raised in progressive environements and were trained to put aside such feelings of disgust. Neoreactionaries understand this disgust, whether they were raised to feel such disgust or not. And they know that society should be run in such a way that such natural disgust is not pathologized. So one can be neoreactionary, support patriarchal hetero-cis-normativity and the raft of opinions that come with it, without deeply feeling disgust at perverted people.

      In short, better to not be disgusted and know why most people are than to be disgusted but have no principled explanation for it. The latter deformation has led to our present legal and social environment. The former has never been tried.

    • bub says:

      They’ll fight it tooth and nail and the resulting conflict isn’t going to be pretty.

      If by “fight it” you mean “bitch about it”, then yes. And that’s about it. The gay rights movement was just the media giving voice to whiny sodomites, while ignoring whiny heterosexuals (i.e. MRAs).

      There are Marxist guerrilla groups. There are ethnic guerrillas. There are Muslim guerrillas. Has there ever been a (significant) gay guerrilla group? No, because it’s just a bunch of decadents whining that people don’t like buttsex enough. Nobody is willing to die for pro-Sodomy activism, and few are willing to spend much of their life in pro-Sodomy activism. (Unless you can use pro-Sodomy activism to build your career)

      Cut off their access to the media, and they’ll go back in the closet in less than a decade. Hell, half of the lesbians will probably go back to men.

      • jim says:

        Gays actually are gay. Lesbians not really lesbian. Female sexuality is inherently flexible. A woman can be trained to enjoy all manner of odd sexual activity.

        If trained to enjoy being dominated, you are training them to shit test you, since domination is hard work that the man has to do. Training submission, more profitable.

        • bub says:

          Gays actually are gay.

          Gays are actually bisexual. It’s a combination of a certain subculture, and an I-will-fuck-anything attitude. Or at least it is for a majority of them.

          http://inductivist.blogspot.com/2010/12/gay-flexibility.html

          And that’s only for those who identify as “gay”, not including those who identify as “bisexual”. A sizable majority of MSM also have sex with females.

          In Darwinian terms, it’s deadly to choose sex with men over sex with fertile women. But having sex with both is fine. That’s what most animal homosexuality is. Bisexuality, where the fertile females still get pregnant.

          Combine the the intense, weird subcultures of modern urban homosexuality, with a disposition toward homosexual behavior, and it’s easy to see how a few of them might not actually have sex with women. But most still do.

          Also, your “Falling Testosterone” page keeps 404ing me when I try to post a response. Your other pages work.

      • Van Phauc says:

        Nowadays “fighting” means 4th generation warfare. In 4th generation warfare all available pressures are used: political, economic, social and military. Gays may not currently be strong on the military angle, but it’s also the least relevant angle. They’re good at using political, economic, social, media and legal pressure against their enemies.

        After all, a significant portion of gays and trnanies are white men, meaning they’re quite a bit more competent than the Democratic party’s average constituent. And they’re committed; it’s the Cathedral or the closet for them.

        No, things are definitely going to get heated once they figure out that we plan to put them back in the closet and dramatically reduce their ability to recruit. Hopefully the Nyan_Sandwhiches of the world have a superhuman ability to resist emotional manipulation from their friends. Personally, I’m less confident that any of my abilities are superhuman, so I prefer to keep my future enemies firmly “othered”.

        • bub says:

          No, things are definitely going to get heated once they figure out that we plan to put them back in the closet and dramatically reduce their ability to recruit.

          Kevin MacDonald anyone? They aren’t acting with some sort of Group Evolutionary Strategy. I don’t harbor a deep, general hatred of mainstream academics, although I realize they’re the reason I can’t say what I think in public.

          They’re good at using political, economic, social, media and legal pressure against their enemies.

          They can barely get a majority to support gay marriage, despite decades of well-funded and well-organized activism. People just don’t like them, for biological reasons. It’s just that expressing that sentiment is unacceptable in mainstream conversation. Kill that censorship, and you’ll get modern Russian values toward homosexuality. If you get to the point where a man expressing pro-Gay sentiments makes him less of a man, support for gay marriage will be under 20%.

          There is a reason the internet’s favorite insult is “faggot”.

          • Red says:

            Actual support for garbage like gay marriage is still quite low. Progressive finally played the either you endorse it or your an outcast card which forced most people who wanted to be left alone to mouth the words.

    • Nobody needs to be executed or otherwise grievously attacked. Given that basic humanistic premise of “what needs to be done” not including “mass murder”, I as a person with Gay and Trans friends have no problem openly endorsing a “what needs to be done” that is to the benefit of more or less everyone.

  3. bub says:

    For some reason, whenever I see a tranny, I think eunuch. A man who has lost his essence, and acts like a woman, but isn’t one.

    • peppermint says:

      And then there are the nullos, who chop of their balls but do not attempt to pass as women. Yes, they are eunuchs, but that is the beginning of the discussion, not the end.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      That’s the reason eunuchs are mentioned and instructed in the Good Book. Even castrated men can be saved provided they properly repent and convert.

  4. Too Many Experiences says:

    I don’t know if trannies sow discord because they’re trannies or if people with defects that cause them to sow discord also manifest in transsexualism. All I know is that the correlation is persistent and undeniable, and “JT” is absolutely not an exception to this rule. You let these people into your community and your life and they will f*cking destroy it. You have been warned.

    • I think trannies who manage to “pass” are a lot like women, only smarter. Of course they sow discord. But you are forgetting, reactionaries are naturally misogynistic.

      • bub says:

        Reactionaries are misanthropic, not merely misogynistic.

      • Too Many Experiences says:

        It isn’t because they’re “like women.” Read what radfems have to say about them and what they’re doing to feminism, it’s actually amazingly perceptive. Rah rah discord when it happens to your enemies, but the enemy of my enemy is still not my friend.

        • peppermint says:

          I believe that feminine means accepting things as they are, while attempting to pass, to fight oneself against the world, is a masculine thing to do. Thus non-passing trannies are more feminine than passing trannies, and women are more attracted to non-passing trannies than to beta lickspittles.

          Trannies seem to want to be feminine in the sense of that God-awful song from Frozen about ‘let it go’ and ‘test my limits’ and ‘the perfect girl is gone’, which is to say, masculinity in a slutty dress with a horrid squeaky voice. I wonder how many trannies would be able to sing Enya’s songs like Smaointe ( http://vimeo.com/47207981 ) with a straight face.

          I have known 2 transwomen. They didn’t like cooking, they did’t like knitting, they didn’t like taking care of children, they didn’t put up with cleaning up after others – none of that, even to the degree of the average man. They just liked talking about how feminine they were, and politics.

          It would be nice to know why they do it and whether we should ignore, suppress, or encourage them. I vote ignore.

          • jim says:

            Unfortunately, I am incapable of ignoring, unless they are capable of passing, and the ones that I notice do not really seem to want to pass.

          • peppermint says:

            yeah, I meant ignore as in social policy, not on a personal level.

            But I should have caught myself anyway, because science before social policy. It’s quite possible, even likely, that suppress is the correct social policy.

          • R. says:

            @jim


            and the ones that I notice do not really seem to want to pass.

            But how do you know how many you actually meet? If they can pass really well, you can’t notice them without x-ray sight..

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        reactionaries are naturally misogynistic.

        This guy is a clown… Somebody show him the door already.

    • JT is a dangerous snake, but for now she is our snake. It is of course not prudent to relax your guard around dangerous snakes, but there is no need to become rude or abusive.

      • Too Many Experiences says:

        If that is your position, then always watch for warning signs, like when discussion becomes about THEM, and sides are chosen, and division is sown. Sort of like what’s happening right now.

      • Matthew says:

        There are millions of men who are not degenerates. There is no reason to listen to anything a degenerate says.

        Similarly with Jews. Why take a chance?

    • scientism says:

      This has been my experience too. Most transsexuals are feminists first and transsexuals second. In fact, I’d describe it as “male feminist sacrificial body modification.” It appears to have different motivations in other cultures, but in the West it’s primarily a political statement combined with exhibitionism.

      A transsexual can induce nerds to treat him with the deference they have for women but pursue gender politics with the aggressiveness of a male, all while being the embodiment of discrimination lawsuit waiting to happen. It’s nuclear-powered entryism. When you’re dealing with someone who lopped off their penis as a statement of Leftist gender politics, you’ve already lost.

  5. Alrenous says:

    I would allow the surgery. Only as a warning to others, though.

    If there’s something wrong with your mind, taking a knife to your body is not going to fix it.

    So there’s gay trannies and autogynophile trannies. But I wonder how significant is the fact that women are both more socially valuable and powerful, and the surgery lets you get on that gravy train. Trade some personal power e.g. upper body strength away for…

    • R. says:


      If there’s something wrong with your mind, taking a knife to your body is not going to fix it.

      I disagree. Trannies, etc, people with body image disorders (like they think their leg isn’t theirs – the opposite of a phantom limb) are quite .. troubled by their mental problems.

      As at this point we can’t fix the mental problem, there’s no solution apart from a physical one.

      Though I’m thinking it ought-a not be covered by insurance, outside of extreme cases.

      • jim says:

        Of course we can fix the mental problem.

        If you are familiar with four chan, you know that these people pick up new perversions and grow out of old ones all the time. It is obvious that prison homosexuality and Afghan homosexuality is environmentally induced. Impose monogamy, and Afghan homosexuality would mostly disappear.

        • nydwracu says:

          Right, that’s the case for some of them, just as scientism’s comment above is accurate about some of them. Societal changes would reduce their number — but probably not to zero. It’s likely to be innate to some extent.

          The question is: is it possible to create the social norms necessary to discourage people from picking up 4chan perversions without totally screwing over the people for whom it’s innate?

          Probably, yeah. There seems to be a norm-analogue of the rule of law these days. And there’s the problem. If you don’t have consistent rule of law under which everyone is equal, you can criminalize homosexuality to keep homosexuals from fucking in public parks or taking over YMCAs or whatever, but exempt Turing when he slips up while talking to a police officer, because he’s Turing.

          (The example of alcohol is useful for arguing against having laws apply consistently to everyone. Some people are genetically predisposed to alcoholism; some people aren’t. If you apply the laws [and the norms] consistently [that is, if you assume equality], either the people who will become alcoholics if they’re allowed to drink become alcoholics or the people who wouldn’t become alcoholics can’t drink. Either solution is suboptimal. Banning, say, feather Indians from drinking alcohol, or banning alcohol within an hour’s drive from a reservation, or something along those lines would be a step up from what we have now.)

          • peppermint says:

            * Turing is overrated. Partly because the Turing machine sounds more real than the other equivalent models, so the concept caught on among engineers.

            * he killed himself with his chemistry experiments. People today reminisce about home chemistry sets that had non-homeopathic quantities of chemicals, that could never be sold today. For good reason. Turing played with chemicals and didn’t wash his hands.

            * his deah was then used by the government to show everyone that moral degeneracy leads to suicide. Which I suppose is what happened.

            * the gay rights lobby today uses his death differently

            * when you lie, you sacrifice a kitten to Satan. Satan thanks you for it; but the proggies have an abbatoir set up.

          • peppermint says:

            normal people think 4chan perversions are weird and do not want to participate. Normal people would regard queers with extreme indifference if not for the Cathedral.

          • Alrenous says:

            Turing was repeatedly warned, even entreated, to keep his gay ass to himself but refused to do so. It wasn’t a matter of a slip here or there, it looked like deliberate activism.

            • jim says:

              In the end, it became obvious that what the activists wanted was not tolerance, which they already quietly had, but power.

              And a social order that will not shoot those that seek power, will lose power to those that seek it.

  6. Dystopia Max says:

    4. Men shit-test men all the time. It may or may not be a good and proper thing to do. But who is the worse: the one who constructs the shit-test, or the one who fails it?

    The one who constructs it. You don’t test God, and you don’t test the image of God with the trifling imaginations of man. Game is for girls, and for keeping away weak-minded men whose psychology is indistinguishable from girls.

    My feelings on this can be aptly summarized by the Wu-Tang Clan: “Shame on a nigga what tries to run Game on a nigga.” Lying and then claiming you were shit-testing later is absolutely anathema to a trusting male society, especially if it intends to rule with anything resembling legitimacy.

  7. Neotransactionary says:

    No 100% normal functional heterosexual man would have anything in the world to do with a tranny.

    These people have been historically renowned for being mentally unstable. The fact that Nrx believes these deranged nutcases are worthy of engagement says a lot about the mental state of Nrx.

    Good luck with the leftward drift into circling the drain, neotransactionaries.

    • spandrell says:

      +1

      Anissimov is a joke but this is a non issue. Come on people, have some standards. At least have enough sense to vomit when you see one at close.

    • R. says:


      No 100% normal functional heterosexual man would have anything in the world to do with a tranny.

      The ones who transition in early puberty or were not masculine much can be pretty good looking. To the point of being physically indistinguishable from CAIS women (XY chromosomes, but looks like a hot woman, caused by insensitivity to androgens). You’re wrong, I’d say.

      If I was rich, or surrogacy/some tech option were affordable, I’d not rule out interest in them. Unlikely, given their rarity and general lack of attractiveness, but not a matter of principle.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      Bingo.

      If you think a good use of your time is being friends with a deranged nutcase you’ve got horrible judgment.

      If you aren’t utterly and totally revolted by trannies then either your disgust module is broken and you should be compensating in an Aristotelian manner and act as if you have a functioning brain by being extra revolted or you’re enough of a progressive to swallow their bullshit on matters sexual and believe some version of their socially corrosive “consenting adults” morality.

      Either way, failure to be repulsed by trannies is a pretty good sign you’ve got a broken mind and lack judgment.

      • peppermint says:

        which puts us in the odd situation of cultivating hatred?

        No, I refuse to hate the people you tell me to. It’s not enough to accuse them of trying to destroy society – they are. Why?

        A meaning it must have, or it would not be here.

        • Red says:

          A friend of mine had a gay friend once. They’d hang out on and off and for several years. Once at a party at my friend passed out and his girl friend put him to bed. He woke up an hour later with his gay friend hauling down his pants to rape him. He proceeded to beat the queer to a pulp. He learned his lesson about being friends or trusting fucked up people.

        • Matthew says:

          Hatred is an essential part of an intellectual toolkit. Without it, you’re just a bottom waiting to happen.

      • >If you aren’t utterly and totally revolted by trannies then either your disgust module is broken and you should be compensating in an Aristotelian manner and act as if you have a functioning brain by being extra revolted or you’re enough of a progressive to swallow their bullshit on matters sexual and believe some version of their socially corrosive “consenting adults” morality.

        This is stupid. Mental illness is contagious through basic respect now?

        Transfolk are deranged in some biosocial way. They can still do good work. What good does it do me to cultivate a hatred to them?

        Transfolk are used as a political weapon against trads. Does this mean I should hate them? Why? They are often not even the ones doing the political agitating and just want to be left alone. Hate the Brahmins pulling the strings and coercing people into those fucked up lifestyles for sure, but what good does it do to hate on the victims?

        • scientism says:

          Why conflate revulsion and hatred? If somebody has terrible hygiene, for example, you can find them revolting, be repulsed by them, politely excuse yourself from their company and not seek them out in future, and I don’t think that would amount to “hatred.”

          I agree with the assertion that ethical commitment should come with the appropriate emotional response. I also agree with your assertion that we should reserve hatred for the people pulling the strings. I don’t think there’s a conflict there. You can feel disgusted by someone and still be polite and even sympathetic (within reason).

          • Point taken.

            I for one have no particular revulsion to JT and many others (I’m from 4chan; my disgust response is rather attenuated), but that eurovision thing is a big NOPE for me.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            Like I said – you’ve got to cultivate disgust for Aristotelian reasons.

            Too much disgust is a vice – too little disgust is a vice also and you obviously tend towards too little disgust.

            Best to be vigilant and overemphasize disgust.

            Especially if you’ve done the opposite and chosen to blunt your own natural healthy disgust response.

            Any man who identifies as gay should bring on revulsion – someone who’s “trans” should prompt the same response as someone covered in shit.

        • Van Phauc says:

          “What good does it do me to cultivate a hatred to them?”

          The Cathedral wants you to come to a live and let live accommodation with transsexualism. “Science”, propaganda and social pressure are all pushing this way and it will only intensify. They just need you to do nothing, accept the “science” and look the other way at night when the trannies emerge from their lairs in the sewers and steal children.

          At an intellectual level you know this is wrong, but coming to that accommodation really is much easier, especially if your disgust module is naturally weak and/or weakened from long exposure to disgusting stimuli.

          If you’re not cultivating a disgust and yes, a hatred towards the condition and the society that would create it, then you may find yourself drifting towards the easy route of accommodation. Staking out a true middle ground seems to be very difficult, as illustrated by the tendency of Christian Conservatism to come to an accommodation with degeneracy after a period of loving the sinner and hating the sin.

          And in the future reactionaries will be like “some 5 year olds are trans, they just are, public policy must reflect that”.

          • B says:

            Bingo. See: Carlyle on hate being the proper response sometimes.

          • jim says:

            If you’re not cultivating a disgust and yes, a hatred towards the condition and the society that would create it, then you may find yourself drifting towards the easy route of accommodation.

            Quite so, but though we should hate the condition, and be disgusted by people who manifest the condition, we should not hate individuals with the condition unless they go out of their way to stick it in our faces.

            And demanding to be called “she” is sticking it in our faces.

          • B says:

            The whole POINT of “the condition” is sticking it in your face. It’s actually the whole point of the sexual liberation movement-it’s not like sluts, homosexuals, etc. were invented in the 1960s-the idea that polite society should obliged to tolerate their advertisement of themselves as such was the innovation.

            • jim says:

              Obviously not true of my friends, who are probably atypical. But obviously true of perversion as a political identity.

              And true of any man who insists that others refer to him as “she”.

          • B says:

            Didn’t you mention that every one of your gay friends had admitted to pedophilia at some point of his life?

            • jim says:

              Neoreactionaries are also allowed to talk to pedophiles.

              If you have moral theory based entirely on direct harm, then pedophiles do a lot of harm, while trannies, who rarely engage in anything that normal people would consider sex, don’t directly do any harm at all.

              On the other had, here is a guy who insists on his right to use the ladies’ rest room: See the smirk

              I think that deviants should have a socially accepted and safe role and place in society: And that place should be low status, with limited interaction with normals, and socially excluded.

              • jewish pedophile says:

                >I think that deviants should have a socially accepted and safe role and place in society: And that place should be low status, with limited interaction with normals, and socially excluded.

                That’s the only proper alternative to simply killing all the faggots: making gays and trannies low status enough that it would be fashionable to look down on them, and unfashionable to look up to them; the diametrically opposite status hierarchy to Current Year. Which is made all the more easy since they *are* disgusting to any normal heterosexual man.

                Failing that, there should harsh measures to keep them in line, up to and including the death penalty.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  To allow men to express love for each other, it is not enough that homosexuality be simply low status. It must be so extremely low status that it is unthinkable, out of sight and out of mind, something whispered about the same way sexual aggression by prepubescent girls is today.

                  Ideally homosexuality ought to be suppressed to the point that thirteen-year-old boys don’t call each other faggot because they don’t know that such a thing is even possible.

                • jim says:

                  We accomplished that level of suppression in much of our past.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  Although to be fair making it low status would certainly help.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Generally I agree with view.

                  I would add that, as someone who holds the position that there is a strong inborn component to homosexuality, that some people really are born (to be) faggots and stay faggots their whole lives, I would like to see that inborn mechanism thoroughly scientifically researched and investigated – so that a cure, or preventive measures, can be found.

                  It needs to be within the Overton Window to discuss “How do we prevent the births of homosexuals.” Currently, it’s way outside the Overton Window, because “wow-just-wow, bigot.”

                  If indeed lifelong homosexuality turns out to be primarily genetic, then those genes responsible for it need to be eliminated. So, at least on some level, the problem, such as it is, needs to be acknowledged.

                  Just as importantly, real lesbianism (not, of course, the fake “horny bi-curious” kind of lesbianism), needs to be biologically eliminated, as it is the source of much of hardcore Feminism. Pretty sure that all the female proto-Feminists and First Wave Feminists were masculine dykes. Big problem.

                • jim says:

                  Male homosexuality is not genetic. Low genetic concordance.

                  Possibly caused by a disease, the hypothetical gay germ, sexually transmitted from adults to pre pubescent boys. Definitely caused by abnormal hormone levels in utero during key periods of brain development. Exogenous progesterone during pregnancy enormously increases the risk of sexual deviance, it is being prescribed like candy, and I strongly suspect it is being prescribed like candy for that purpose.

                  Female homosexuality is not genetic either, but in the case of females, the environmental influences are more straightforward and obvious. Whatever sex girls are exposed to, they will start liking it. All Women are Like That. All lesbians, including Gold Star Lesbians who proudly boast of never having had a relationship with a man, wind up fucking more men than women, and they are usually easy.

                  With males, there really are such things as gays. With women, it is more that all women, every single one, is sexually flexible.

                  Every single lesbian somehow winds up fucking men, more than her supposed female lover. Lesbian lovers gradually stop having sex with each other, over about three years or so, and then, if still fertile age, start having sex with men, even though they still think they are lesbians in a monogamous committed lesbian relationship, just that from time to time in a fit of absent mindedness they have sex with a man. But hey, that sex does not count.

                • jim says:

                  One thing we do know causes male homosexuality is progesterone at inopportune times during pregnancy. The obvious research direction is to carefully monitor hormone levels of a large set of females pregnant or likely to become pregnant, and then see how their male offspring turn out.

                  It may turn out that by regularizing hormone levels during pregnancy, we can eliminate gays.

                  The other thing we do know causes male homosexuality is being sodomized during early puberty and before. That, we can suppress. Theoretically we are suppressing it – but that conflicts with the school program of presenting gays as high status and gay sex as high status.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Maybe the BASED Chinese will pioneer the field of genetically engineering the gay away. I sure hope so, since the Cathedral doesn’t exactly allow the scientists in its limits to ask such un-PC questions as “how to prevent homosexuality,” much less try to find answers. Perhaps the Chinks could design genetic tests for various risk factors for homosexuality, so that gay fetuses can be aborted.

                • alf says:

                  Look at me I traveled back in time now I’m surrounded by quality content.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  We accomplished that level of suppression in much of our past.

                  We achieved that level of suppression pretty recently – no one got that Freddie Mercury had sex with guys and that “Queen” as the name of the band had something to do with that (someone with first hand memory of that time can correct me if that’s wrong).

          • B says:

            Anyone is free to talk to anyone, but given that there is a finite number of hours in our day and days in our lives, why would you willingly interact with pedophiles?

          • B says:

            I can only presume it’s family, given that they trusted you enough to tell you they were pedos and that you continued to talk to them. Condolences.

        • jim says:

          This is stupid. Mental illness is contagious through basic respect now?

          If respect means not treating the ill as ill, and indeed helping them get off sexually, yes, contagious all right. If your friend is a junkie, you don’t lend him money.

          It is simply impossible for me to treat a trannie other than if he was covered in shit, so cannot be friends in real life with a trannie. Gays, however, I treat as if they had a contagious disease – which is reasonable, because they usually have several contagious diseases. I perhaps stand slightly further away.

        • jewish pedophile says:

          Oh look, it’s “Nyan Sandwich” / “Warg Franklin” / Wolf Tivy, the bisexual autistic cuckold, promoting tolerance for trannies. Just like Jews promote various ethnic minorities so people won’t notice much the Jewish minority, perverts promote other perverts so people will tolerate their own perversion. Good thing we know what you are doing and won’t let you get away with it this time around.

          Trannies need to be vomited out, as do “polyamorists” and other such degenerates. Go cry abloo-abloo about not being allowed to promote your perversions anymore.

      • nydwracu says:

        Walking into a movement composed in large part of people who are sick of being told what to have disgust reactions toward and telling them what to have disgust reactions toward.

        Some people have stronger disgust reactions than others, just in general. If you make neoreaction about the object-level, you risk driving away anyone with weak disgust reactions — and they’re the ones who are more likely to go around writing high theory. If you make it about the meta, exit-sortation will, at least to some extent, solve disgust-reaction conflicts.

        • jim says:

          Needs translation into English:

          We should not mandate a prescribed level of disgust, but we should …?

          • nydwracu says:

            If you mandate a prescribed level of disgust, you drive off the people who don’t have it, and probably also collapse into chimp-politics-rationalizing contests.

            If you say that some people have stronger disgust reactions than others, and that trying to force people with strong disgust reactions to see things they’re disgusted by or weaken their disgust reactions is stupid and pointless, and that our political system demands both that stupidity and its opposite stupidity, and that it would be better to have patchwork and easy exit and all that instead of global Cathedral-imperialism, since patchwork wouldn’t devolve into chimp-politics-rationalizing contests like the disgust reaction stuff so often does, and would eventually provide empirical evidence for whether it’s better for a society to promote strong disgust reactions or weak ones, and if strong ones, what they ought to be directed against, and how they ought to be handled, and so on, then you’ve gone from chimp-hooting about whose disgust reactions or lack thereof are better into talking about principles that can be used to actually investigate the question.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          “Walking into a movement composed in large part of people who are sick of being told what to have disgust reactions toward and telling them what to have disgust reactions toward.”

          The Dark Enlightenment isn’t empty of content.

          Progressives say that some things should disgust you. Progressives are wrong and they turn healthy pro-social instincts into anti-social ones.

          The Dark Enlightenment points out that you should be disgusted by some things.

          I, for one, am not sick of being told to be disgusted by some things – I’m sick of being told to be disgusted by things that are normal and healthy. I’m sick of being told not to be disgusted by things that are disgusting.

          We ain’t libertarians.

          • spandrell says:

            +100

            And people’s with weak disgust aren’t necessarily more likely to write better theory. Yes, knee-jerk reactions to everything are often gratuitous, but the theory we need must take into account disgust, if you don’t understand it your theory is likely to be wrong, and become something like the LessWrong drivel, which might be very high but is wrong at many levels.

          • Matthew says:

            Disgustibus delenda est.

  8. […] Nick B Steves on the Official Neoreactionary Position (endorsed by the most right-wing person on the […]

  9. JB says:

    @Nyan Sandwich, I as a person with Gay and Trans friends…, and other similar comments

    IMHO, the problem isn’t having friends. The problem is accepting that “gay” and “trans” people actually exist. The ideas behind these words didn’t exist until a few decades ago, which is excellent evidence that they’re bullshit. “Gay” people don’t exist, only men with disordered sexual desires. “Trans” people exist even less: what we have is men with a very severe and tragic psychological illness. If you treat these categories as if they’re real – for example, saying that “I have gay and trans friends” – you’ve already ceded the disputed ground to the Cathedral.

    My great-grandfather, born in 1916 and recently deceased, proved unable to understand what a “gay man” was supposed to be, and I hope for his sake he never heard about “trans”.

    • nydwracu says:

      There’s more cross-cultural evidence for male transsexuality being a real category than there is for homosexuality being a real category.

      As an estimate, about a quarter of the gays I know, and a third of the lesbians, have had heterosexual sex that I’ve heard about.

  10. B says:

    The fact that Neoreaction and the Dark Enlightenment need to express an official position on trannies pretty much exemplify why I am not an associate. What next, an official discourse upon the proper attitude towards goatfuckers and coprophiles? If a grown man, for whatever reason, chooses to mutilate himself and the English language, and demands everyone else joins in, any reaction or acknowledgement is like entering into a debate with a schizo bum covered in excreta masturbating on the corner. Do we really need a manifesto created by deep thinkers to deal with these situations?

    • jim says:

      We should not participate in the mutilation of the English language.

      We should take the Christian position on weirdos – which means we are allowed to talk to them, and even give them a helping hand.

      However, whenever one refers to a trannie as “she”, he likely gets a jolt of sexual pleasure at your words and touches himself.

      • B says:

        I generally don’t refer to trannies at all-like that bum on the corner, I try to arrange my reality so as not to deal with their existence. And obviously, a guy with a missing dick in a dress is a “he.”

        I’m just kind of questioning the seriousness of a movement with deep debates and manifestoes on Ye Tranffexual Queftion. What next, “An Extended Discourse On Amputation Fetishists”? This is a bit below the brand, and its positioning-it’s like the Prez came out in the middle of the State of the Union address to talk about coprophilia. Come on-at this rate, you guys will never save Western Civ.

        • Simon says:

          I think it is quite clear that neoreaction is dead. It’s just another flavour of leftism. The serious thinkers have already left it for religion.

          • jim says:

            I see the reverse phenomenon. The ones that leave for religion notice that their Pope is to the left of Pol Pot and is about to be promoted from Pope to living saint. So they can reject their pope, which is kind of protestant of them, or they can reject racism, homophophia, sexism, and so on and so forth – even though rejecting sexism and embracing homosexuality means rejecting the New Testament. So they reject the New Testament and go gay.

          • peppermint says:

            Sounds about right, actually. NRx is a criticism of progressivism; the only positive thing to support is throne-and-altar reaction. But the thrones are vacant and the altars desecrated.

            So NRx has another purpose: it must restore the thrones and altars.

          • scientism says:

            Every movement Right is doomed to failure because it defines itself using the terminology of the Left. NRx is no different. I doubt the religious can make themselves truly believe either, not the way people once did; they argue themselves into belief using the same liberal theorising the rest of us use to argue politics. At this point, Christianity is about as useful as paganism.

            Usually when a society gets itself into this kind of pickle, it can rely on being conquered by some other society, but every society on Earth has been infected by liberalism via colonialism, Marxism or self-inflicted ideological subservience (see Thailand). So we’re left waiting for an alien invasion.

          • jewish pedophile says:

            >I think it is quite clear that neoreaction is dead.

            Joke: NRx has already died in 2014.

            Woke: NRx will only be born in 2019.

    • spandrell says:

      You are an associate. You’re always around. Some way of not associating you have.

      Not that your point is wrong.

      • B says:

        I read and comment on a few blogs I find interesting. Most of NRx/DE, since it became a thing, is unreadable, lengthy mental masturbation or rehashes of the dumber parts of 20th century rightism,pledges for Euroneonationalism, Vox Day type neoChristianity, endless humorless rehashes of Roissy and Dalrock and all that. Unfortunately, the percentage of this sort of thing grows as the “movement” grows, because it is much harder to write something new, interesting and insightful than to rehash something banal and clothe it in lots of verbiage. So I don’t read or comment on most of the NRx blogs, and was blessedly unaware of Trannygate until reading this entry. You see, I’m really far behind the newest developments in the Party Line, Comrade, and the Party’s internal struggles and demaskings…

        • spandrell says:

          The party has long moved on beyond most of the blogs that you read. Or that I read for that matter. I say let’em.
          Fluff happens, and all one can do is ignore it. Given there are jo memberships cards, association comes from participation. I know where I participate and so do you

          • B says:

            The party has moved on to 4Chan. Eternal September of Neoreaction. Those who know NRx do not speak of it, those who speak of it (fucking endlessly) do not know it.

            Or, let’s take it another way. People are generally motivated by fear or ego, or superego (on which more in a minute.) Basic marketing theory. NRx has nothing to offer on the fear front-in fact, there is a non-zero probability that being associated with it and its ideas will harm one’s interests on the employment and education front. That leaves ego, and since there are no incentives that it can provide its adherents in the traditional Cathedral form (money, power, status,) it has to create a mutual ego-boosting association, i.e., a circle jerk. To appeal to the superego, you have to create things with high artistic or literary value, for which the majority of NRxers lack talent, depth of soul and life experience. What’s that leave? Right, discussions on whether the tranny should be let in on the circle jerk.

            • jewish pedophile says:

              >The party has moved on to 4Chan. Eternal September of Neoreaction.

              Eternal September earnestly began in 2015. And right now, late 2018 / early 2019, we are seeing a revival of NRx, in large part on this blog. The alt-right has jumped the shark; it is about time that the focus goes back from /pol/ to NRx. For instance, the alt-right is pretty much descending to Nazbol; CR is by no means the only one who holds such views. It seems that TheRightStuff and DailyStormer have both reached the ends of their respective roads; this is where NRx steps in and fills in the gaps.

          • Contaminated NEET says:

            Don’t know 4chan, my man. It might not be your thing, and that’s fair, but it’s not nearly as worthless as it appears at first glance. The culture of anonymity is bracing; there’s nothing else like it, at least not on that scale.

          • Contaminated NEET says:

            Of course, I meant to write: “Don’t KNOCK 4chan.”

          • bub says:

            The prevailing ideas on /pol/ are one of the closest things to NRx out there.

            • jim says:

              Except, of course, for stupidity, enthusiasm for genocide, sexual perversion, and lack of interest in reproduction.

          • Contaminated NEET says:

            It’s the communal id, Jim. That stuff comes with the territory, and some (unknowable) percentage of it is tongue-in-cheek, anyway.

            I can see why some people don’t like 4chan, but I can’t ever go back to regular forums. There’s no board karma, no carefully curated little posting personas, no clique of “forum regulars” constantly stroking each other. Posts are judged by the words they contain, and nothing more.

        • spandrell says:

          Where’s your art men. No sarcasm, I’m kinda begging for a Damascus event.

          • B says:

            Twofold answer.
            First, we are not talking about art per se, but things that deal with the superego, that which is beyond fear and ego. For us, religion plays that role. We have, for instance, the writings of Rav Avraham Hakohen Kook.

            Second, art emerges from the superego when there is some sort of material security after an ideological bloom. We are just now getting into this phase after a protracted struggle for material survival. You can see some art emerging from the settlement movement-for instance, Shmuel Mushnik, who lives in Hevron, is a favorite of mine. I like this painting: http://s1232.photobucket.com/user/DimaKhot/media/ILTerritory/Mushnik/mush132.jpg.html

            J, the water engineer, likes this one:
            http://h2oreuse.blogspot.co.il/2011/02/shmuel-muchnik.html

            As far as NRx is concerned, Moldbug’s prose has, I think, artistic value. In general, I suspect that whatever movement will offer the West a way out of the Modernist trap will be most readily identifiable by its rejection of Modernist paradigms, where novelty and utility are the only goal and truth, and a return to an earnest attempt to discover objective truth and harmony and to express them through art, prose and music.

    • jewish pedophile says:

      >The fact that Neoreaction and the Dark Enlightenment need to express an official position on trannies pretty much exemplify why I am not an associate. What next, an official discourse upon the proper attitude towards goatfuckers and coprophiles?

      >Do we really need a manifesto created by deep thinkers to deal with these situations?

      Typical holiness signalling by B.

      Recall that the Bible also has an official position on sodomites, transvestites, and zoophiles. Those perversions that disrupt society need to be suppressed. The Bible wouldn’t have prohibited sodomy, transvestitism, and bestiality if they had not existed at the time. And had scatlords been disrupting society in 600 B.C., the Bible would’ve officially denounced them, too.

      Also recall that Talmudic rabbis discuss a whole range of perversions and the proper attitudes to them. B is, as usual, a hypocrite, denouncing the goyim for what Jews have spent millennia doing.

  11. Stirrer says:

    Thoughts?

    @heresiologist: Both Jim and Nick B Steves have come down against you, yet you refuse to defer.

    @mikeanissimov: 1) Jim isn’t on Twitter and doesn’t know what is going on here, 2) I’m not convinced by Steves yet.

    @mikeanissimov: Jim has no idea what is going on. He just repeated what he saw on NBS’ blog.

    • jim says:

      I don’t know what is going on, but:

      Talking to gays and leftists is OK. Indeed it is a major part of our mission. We want to persuade them that they are disordered.

      Calling a man “She” means one is being assimilated by progressivism. And one is not doing “her” any favors. One is helping “her” get off on it. When one calls a trannie “she” one is participating in his sexual arousal. It is like giving a gay guy a hug. Urk! You just got cooties all over you.

    • peppermint says:

      haha, he’s not supposed to defer. He’s supposed to keep posting his nonsense, and be paid attention to by no one, unless and until he says something interesting again.

    • Where is the antecedant of Stirrer’s?

      • Nevermind. Doh.

        I thought the discussion had moved on to: What is the Essence of Neoreaction? High Political Theory Cult of Moldbug, or Reactionary Political Movement. (Which is all this whole thing EVER was about, besides Michael’s poor handling of the debacle.)

        Unfortunately, I’m not sure that everyone thinks the discussion has moved on to the same place. Michael’s latest is an impassioned, and not entirely wrong, plea not to include Tunney because of his political views and not because of his tranniness.

        I still think we’re back to a Guard the Door!-What Door? sort of problem.

        • jim says:

          Tunney is an evil version of Scott Alexander: A leftist who is in the process of absorbing some neoreactionary ideas. No one is likely to include Scott Alexander in the Neoreaction.

          • Probably true, about Alexander. The difference is Tunney actually does have social relations with a smattering of (otherwise actual) neoreactionaries. Met him meself at a social gathering last Friday (in case that wasn’t known), bummed a smoke.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            4 years later and we can say this is absolutely wrong.

            Scott Alexander is an evil version of Scott Alexander.

      • I also happen to think that Tunney is well above average on the narcissism spectrum and luuuvs the attention quite a bit more than most (women). Based on his significant experience at the forefront of extreme politics, he is quite expert at hijacking people’s amygdalae. If one wants to “keep him out” then maybe ignoring him is the first best option; he may well go find other friends with easier strings to pull.

        • scientism says:

          That’s because he’s a man wearing a dress to get attention. You saw him on his very best behaviour too: meeting new people, being polite, trying to pass himself off as whatever he’s supposed to be. You got the full act.

          The dumbest thing about this whole “debate” is that Tunney is a former “leader” of OWS who is acting out against his former colleagues. That’s what the pro-NRx posts are: him burning the last group of people who took him in! He’s right there, publicly fucking over his former fiends and colleagues and people are wondering whether he’d be bad for NRx or not. Hmm…

  12. Steve Johnson says:

    …and the crazy trannie outs himself as crazy (beyond the trannie craziness)

    https://twitter.com/JustineTunney/status/473118471593934848

    “Justine Tunney ?@JustineTunney Jun 1

    When geeks eventually take power, there won’t be any mercy for the society that once bullied us from cradle to grave. Be afraid.”

    This guy sounds like he’s ready to go shoot up his High School.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      Why did I capitalize high school? I have no idea.

      • Samson J. says:

        Although I agree with you that there was no real reason to do that, I like capitalizing random nouns – it’s reminiscent of old-fashioned British writing.

    • jim says:

      Has he cut off his dangly bits yet? If so, unlikely to shoot up his high school. But from the look of him, I would guess dangly bits still attached.

  13. […] clarifies the “Official” Reactionary Position on some stuff. By the way, I missed stopping by Jim’s last week and boy was I […]

  14. Dr. Faust says:

    I call them freaks and will not refer to them any other way. They are the outliers who hold no place in society. A society must cater to the needs and desire of its majority populace which means forgoing the needs of its minority groups. Freaks is what we call them for good reason. But the perversion of our world is to pervert whose needs take precedence. The leftist claim that the needs of the minority are more important than the needs of the majority. The needs of the unproductive greater than the needs of the productive. So freaks become status symbols instead of what they are.

  15. Zach says:

    Read first sentence. Agreed. Fell to one knee, coughed for a bit, then agreed harder.

    (Almost literally true)

Leave a Reply