A Response to [the Accusations of] Entryism

[EDIT 13 April 2016: I responded to ongoing libels here.]

[EDIT 20 September 2015: ]

[Edit 10 April 2015: It has come to my attention that this post has received more attention than previously according to Bryce Laliberte’s revelation in a long-ago post that he’s experienced “same-sex-attraction.” Regrettably, it was not my intent to “out” Bryce with a quote from his own blog. I presumed the rest of you had completed your reading before class. You know, Moldbug and the guy who wrote the book on Neoreaction seem like required reading to me…

With that said, perhaps a few reminders are appropriate at this point.

  • I’m not particularly tolerant of homoerotic advocacy. At the same time, at least one client is a “confirmed bachelor,” and he (so far) pays me very well and does his work well and he’s not “married,” so I’ve got no reason to be an ass to anybody in particular. Most gay assholes are assholes for reasons entirely unrelated to homosexuality. Since most people are assholes, myself included, this makes the observation of gay assholes fairly irrelevant. None of this changes my opinion that gay marriage is a farce, homoerotic couplings are degenerate, or that particlar erotic acts entail significant personal and public health risks. It’s just that if “same-sex-attraction” is the only speck in a man’s eye, he’s doing quite well.
  • I’m not a Christian, mostly because I got exhausted being the only one. If you’re Christian, please respond with the countersign. If you missed the sign, well, I can’t help you, can I?
  • Since I’m not Christian, arguments based upon Biblical authority or Church tradition won’t convince me. This also explains my general distaste for some of Bryce’s work. His mind is good: (some of) his premises stink.
  • If you take nothing else from these ramblings of mine, please, please, please, read the link I obtained from Bryce’s now-unavailable blog post. The loss of that link from Bryce’s work is really depressing.  Fortunately, I managed to preserve that, at least.

I’ll be out in the woods again this weekend, and then too busy with business to bother much here, so please forgive me if I fail to respond to further queries until considerable time passes. I approve all first-time comments, so you won’t even have that until I check notifications. Again, please accept my apologies.]

So, I wandered back to Twitter after a week reading Tacitus’ Annals and Histories in a tent, mostly detached from telecom connections, and discovered an ongoing escalation within neoreaction against so-called entryists. There are blog posts I could address, but I’ll focus on just one to keep things simple.

[So far as I can discern, AnarchoPapist, aka Bryce Laliberte, invented this particular witch-hunt. More on that, perhaps, later.]

The Right Vidya, writes a description of so-called entryists into neoreaction. His thesis points are as follows.

  • Entryists do not seek to learn from neoreaction. On the contrary, they seek to advance personal goals.
  • Entryists seek quantity of followers (demos) over quality of work (aristos).
  • Entryists signal status to outsiders by repeating established thought rather than creating original work.
  • Entryists “cling” to “right-wing” concepts and attempt to link these to neoreaction – purportedly erroneously. Such non-neoreactionary ideas include PUA concepts, such as thoise promulgated by Heartiste.
  • Entryists attempt to popularize neoreaction when neoreaction is instead a covert collection of passivist thinkers loosely organized.
  • Entryists do not comprehend social status and do not defer to men with greater social status, described for neoreaction as “established NRx writers.”

Vidya then closes with a few choice character attacks,

…an entryist is a parasite: …most are just stupid, …the best interest of neoreaction [is] that entryists are marginalized, ignored, and derided. The truly malignant element will be driven out, while the neophytes with genuine potential will …be corrected in their faulty thinking. Neoreaction is not for everyone…

Consistent with my other work, I’ll disassemble this thesis point-by-point.

Reaction is (summarized to paiful brevity) the argument that modern norms are mistaken and that a return to an established past social norm is warranted by the results of modern norms. Reaction was conceived within France during its social (and political) upheavals at the close of the eighteenth centuries. Neoreaction is a descendant of that movement that advocates, like its forebears, for a return to past social norms, including monarchy. [If ya’ll aren’t following me on these few sentences, or observe some keen error, please edify me. In the meantime, let’s proceed.]

So, in order for neoreaction to claim a just right to defend itself against so-called entryists, it must have a greater claim to aristos than any opposing aristos., else neoreaction is demos by comparison. That, friends, is my thesis.

The first accusation is that so-called entryists do not seek edification: “They are filled with narcissism and unwarranted self-importance.” Or, to quote the founder of western Christianity, Saul of Tarsus,

As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: from which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

[I wonder, Christian, if it grates upon your sense of decency that I, an atheist, quote your Bible, or if the true source of your discomfort is that my belief in its wisdom exceeds your belief in its mythology?]

Most of us who come to neoreaction with interest come from long traditions. My own heritage (not to boast, but to edify) is that of an agrarian South and agrarian immigrant (post Civil War) north, united in me only two generations from subsistence and cash-crop farming. At least one man from each generation of my family has been conscripted into this (USA) nation’s wars, served , and been honorably discharged; I have the USAA membership to prove it. [Upon the instruction of my father and the foolish disregard of said command by my brother, my family will no longer serve as fodder for this tyranny’s meatgriders.] Personally, I am college trained in engineering, with a heavy dose of liberal arts (applied history, sociology, and writing) and management, licensed in multiple states, own my business, negotiate my own contracts, and write my own paychecks. I am once married, still married, with a daughter at a private university, tuition paid without resort to government loans or any other funding except that granted according to merit, and a son besides. I have diligently read much output from the neoreaction movement, from Moldbug through to Bryce, and everything in between. Where I felt it warranted, I have commented upon the fallacies ya’ll proffered as faithful truth, and (less often) encouraged you where I felt your efforts diligent and fruitful.

My question to neoreaction, generally, is this: you wish us to learn from you, who are young in years and young in philosophy; when do you propose to learn from we who are old in years and old in philosophy? I tell you this, with all candor and hope for ya’ll’s good future: you are filled with narcissism and unwarranted self-importance.

Regarding your second charge, that so-called entryists seek quantity over quality: here’s an image of my readership.

Stats

Gentlemen, I’m not doing this for the hits. My “best ever” comes from a mention in Heartiste’s Twitter feed, advocating patriarchy. Another high-performing post regards the British ruckus over so-called “page 3 girls.” If I wanted somebody to care, or wrote for the feels, I’d have quit years ago, when I was still writing on livejournal around 2001, or USENET back in the early 90’s. Further, I don’t think I’m alone in this regard. Most of the gentlemen you consider so-called entryists have been writing for decades, often in obscurity to rival Christopher Hitchens, and often with similarly devastating political reversals. What’s more, many of us aren’t IT professionals; using USENET or any early social media platform wasn’t normal for our generation. What do you think we’re doing here: hookups?

As for signalling, what, in all the writing I’m doing here, makes you think I’m signalling neoreaction? My advocacy for patriarchy? That comes from being a patriarch trained in management. My acceptance of human biodiversity? That comes from mental aptitude that makes conversations with common men an exercise is dog-training. My recognition of the potential and dangers of technological change? That’s a function of my professional responsibilities. My autistic writing? Gentlemen, I’m on the spectrum.

Again, I’m not alone. Ya’ll are out there in your ivory towers, creating metaphysical philosophy as if no man may ever be permitted to apply empirical inquiry to your hypotheses. Only much of what you declare, we already know, and we know your wisdom too well. Let’s examine some bits from my favorite, Mr. Laliberte, circa April 2010, about one month before I commenced my soon-expiring office lease.

Those who know me personally know that I struggle with SSA; same-sex attraction. I am, effectively, bisexual-in-preference, heterosexual-in-practice…

I bring this up to verify that this account of a young man struggling with SSA–who doesn’t want SSA–is accurate, …

I suggest reading the whole thing.

…It is because these are the people (i.e. the GSA; Gay Straight Alliance) who declare themselves to desire helping homosexuals. This is not really what they mean, in ideology or practice; what they mean is, anybody with a homosexual desire should express it immediately and as often as they can and be very belligerent about it…

…It is quite apparent that they do not want to help as a person wants to be helped, but to help them be practicing proponents of their own ideology. …for “in support of men fucking each other up the ass.” [I admit this language is explicit, …]

This is not even to mention the “phobia fallacy,” …per their own terms, a “homophobic homosexual.” No, it doesn’t make sense.

…thus they declare me either to not really have SSA at all, that I’m lying, or that I’m “having difficulty accepting who I am,” as if who I am can be determined by forces outside myself. This latter denial is interesting, in that it is most often these same liberals who strongly advocate an individualism which includes self-determination of identity.

[There, you didn’t know I was reading then, did you, Bryce? Let’s just say I had some time to kill after my time in Scotland.]

Now, at the moment I first read that, I was merely 39 years old. My undergraduate matriculation dates to 1989. My introduction to collegiate insanity was a (sparsely attended) seminar detailing gender stereotypes (against women) in mass media. Fortunately, I was so young I hadn’t yet lost control of my reflexive laughter. Still, all those things Bryce and others observed in 2010 were well and truly established by my arrival at Northwestern University, including BGALA (Bisexual, Gay, and Lesbian Alliance or Association, I can’t recall which). Back then, the thing to do was shut down Sheridan Road to protest apartheid. Meanwhile, I’m attending a lecture by Warren Farrell along with the introductory session of my girlfriend’s Catholic confirmation class, while trying to comprehend structural dynamics as written by Paz (which is still somewhat opaque id you rely on that text).

So, yeah, I empathize. So do a lot of other men. We’ve felt your new-found pain for two solid decades. When you see me, and others, signalling, consider, dear neoreactionary, that we may be sympathizing, not signalling.

Sometimes phrasing is unfortunate, and other times it’s just bloody revealing. “Cling to other right-wing positions” sounds awfully similar to

It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. – Barak Obama

And when I read that kind of language, used so carelessly and so proximate in time to a similar utterance, I wonder, “What, exactly, is the propagandist attempting to accomplish by this characterization?” But we all know the image attempted, so let’s not dwell on the banjo music from Deliverance, and instead discuss again the meaning of REACTIONARY. We’re talking about a person so committed to a reversal of (French) revolutionary thought that he’s willing to throw out every conceivable improvement obtained by said revolution and return to a social system not merely preceding the revolution, but some hundreds of years beforehand – in contrast to CONSERVATIVE, who merely wants to conserve some of the forms and processes from the old milieu, together with the innovations.

Pray tell us, neoreactionary, who better represents reaction, those who “cling to right-wing positions,” like “guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment,” or the reasonable people who want to mix and match the old and the new?

Somewhere along the way, neoreaction became gnostic. I can’t really pinpont when this happened, exactly. If you’ve got some idea, I really wish you’d share it with me, ya know, in the comments.

A buddy – uh, close acquaintance? – once described to me the Freemasons (my great-grandfather was a member; I don’t qualify) as a “society with secrets, not a secret society.” If ever there was a wise model for a subversive group seeking to mold public discourse and public policy, a “society with secrets, not a secret society,” would be the means to accomplish it. Regrettably, neoreaction, and Phalanx, seem destined to choose the path of “secret society.” Much the pity for this incarnation of civilization. Who, I wonder, will be our Tacitus? Not, I suspect, a neoreactionary, for such men will not pursue positions of authority that may subject them to the fate of Seneca, or the revelaed debauchery of Nero (no, no that debauched Nero). The fundamental flaw with keeping neoreaction small and purportedly academic is that is eventually suffers the fate of the shakers: extinction by celibacy. But what do I know? I’m with team patriarchy: membership is predicated upon fecundity. It seems to me that the preservation of a meme, just like the preservation of a gene, requires its reproduction. So far as I know, the manufacturing of a gene, such as neoreaction, is very difficult. Heck, the current batch of neoreactionaries is so astonished by their accomplishment that they seem unable to contain their excitement except by concealing the flame of enlightenment beneath ever-occluding layers of occultism. Meanwhile, their potential allies, having glimpsed the flame, attempt to spread a forest fire, only to be told that the flame is not meant for men, but for gods alone. I caution you, neoreactionary, that bone may be hidden in fat, and meat beneath organs.

Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God; who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel: whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles. For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

Who wrote the Epic of Gilgamesh? Gilgamesh? What about an exhaustive biography of Benjamin Franklin? Ben? No, he wrote a rather thin tome, barely reaching some of the most important moments of his life.

Gentlemen of neoreaction, Curtis Yarvin’s greatest contribution to human thought may not be, at his end, Unqualified Reservations. It may be urbit. The men who correspond with you may not be writing extensively regarding things called neoreaction, or even writing at all. They may, like Peter Drucker, write about management of a business, and you will do well to pay close attention. More likely, they do real work, making sure the lights stay lit in your house. So, when such men send you a note telling you you’re full of shit, perhaps you ought heed. Claiming privilege when the peasant tells you your clothes are missing is bad form, especially if you think he’s a peasant, and he isn’t.

I’ll be other than pessimistic when assessing your final words, Vidya, and ass-u-me that you don’t mean me when you write, “most are stupid,” and instead include me among “the neophytes with genuine potential …[to] be corrected in their faulty thinking.” How, non-presumptuous of you to believe my thinking faulty and so clearly worthy of correction. After all, you and Yarvin have been at this, what, maybe ten years? I’m wearing a sweatshirt 15 years older than that.

Be serious. You are in no position to dictate terms for correspondence. Grow your movement. Grow your morals. Grow your maturity. Take your licks like every other poor slob who built from nothing.

Advertisements

25 responses to “A Response to [the Accusations of] Entryism

  1. Agreed. Major weakness of the movement is the degeneracy of the writers. Most of them can’t, or at least don’t yet, walk the walk. And yet they preach.

    For now, I’m in favor of your line of thought. Because the group isn’t ready yet. Too immature.

  2. I don’t disagree that personalities and personal virtues are an important issue. But I think it is a categorical error to think of neoreaction as a species of reaction. It would be better thought of as meta-reaction, a system of analysis that supports particular reactionary movements. It is not itself a particular reactionary movement and refuses to be coopted for use by a particular reactionary movement. It is itself a particular association however. And, associations of people may, by their very nature, choose to be particular in whatever way they want, and reject entry they view as hostile to their goals for any reason whatsoever. Full stop.

    To be honest, I didn’t see Dante name any names in his post. I knew who (and the type of who) he was talking about and it certainly wasn’t you.

    The boundaries of Neoreaction remain intentionally occult. This is a temporary strategic decision. It is not in the nature of Neoreaction to forever be a secret society. That’s just how it has to be now. The Masonic model is, in fact, one that neoreaction is considering. But it will take many years to bring that to fruition and in the meantime, neoreaction’s adoring fans are just going to have to wait.

  3. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/04/03) | The Reactivity Place

  4. I have to agree with everything in this post. I’m quite frequently surprised by how pompous some of the younger neoreactionaries are. So many of them are practically children, yet act like they know it all! I’ve been blogging since 2001 and had poetry published in literary journals and magazines going back to 1995.

    I had always used to assume NRx types were mainly around Steve Sailer’s age, yet many of these dudes are early 20’s. Nothing wrong with that of course, but knowing where I was at that age, it’s hard to trust that in 15 years they’ll still be promoting the ideas they’re so sure of today.

    • I’ve addressed my own part in this with an edit at the top of this post. Much as I might object to Bryce’s opinons, my intent was not to discuss his erotic yearnings, which are not relevant to the failures of his theses.

      It is amusing to see the neoreaction (lol) such revelations are generating. I’d hoped this community of philosophers and associates was better mannered. Right now, ya’ll are proving my point about the maturity level. We all need to get a bit more serious. Address the flaws in Bryce’s arguments. There’s plenty beam there before the specks become apparent.

  5. First of all, lets make something completely clear. If you’re a 40-something man writing blog posts that consist of airing people’s dirty laundry, or just shit-talking (cause that’s all you’re doing and you know it) then you are a degenerate. This is the kind of behavior I observe amongst 12-year-old girls, homos, and SJWs. Bryce could be a smack-shooting tranny and he’d still be a better writer than you. He’s probably half your age and he’s still a better writer than you. He never needed to personally attack or “out” anyone for anything because he had something meaningful to say, and many people were listening.

    One of the many things I learned from Bryce was to critique someone’s argument, but never to enter a holiness competition. That is for low-lifes who want to feel high and mighty.

    Now more than 10 people will read your blog for a few days. I’m sure you’re so smug, because you are busy being a “patriarch trained in management.” Oh please.

    Aaaand we have this thing about Freemasonry and “societies with secrets.” And we see how you would be a really great choice for any such society, right? You don’t see the irony in your digression into that subject, which was a perfect conclusion to your blog post. You don’t seem to understand how/why conspiracies form. NRx isn’t a conspiracy, my patriarch bro “trained in management,” – NRx is an intellectual movement, led by intellectuals. You don’t seem to understand that. Maybe they don’t teach that in patriarch management school.

    Its actually hilarious that you go on this detour into “Entryist” talk, because you really fit the bill in virtually every way. Again, the irony is completely lost to you because you’re so smug.

    Even more evidence of how low you are is how you spend your time attacking guys that are as right wing as you can get, and then claim to be right-wing. “Hey I’m going to go weasel up some shit on people in the far-right to prove how rightist I am.” What? If you’ve proven anything about yourself, its that you’re a huge raging liability with no respect for all the work that has been done.

    Continue to write blog posts about how its “time to stop reading Dark Enlightenment” when you are obviously reading way, way more DE writing than I even have to consume.

    When you delete this comment (I doubt you’re man enough to leave it up) remember that not a single thing you have written is as reactionary as Bryce’s work. I can see right through all this rationalizing you go into on this post and I’m not impressed. Nobody that writes in NRx should be impressed. You’re a liability who is doing damage and reveling in it. You probably aren’t capable of building anything unique on your own.

  6. Sir,

    The “hits” on this blog usually ran less than 5 per day until a a few months ago. The writing quality isn’t likely to improve. You’re not obliged to read what I write.

    I’ll leave the rest unanswered.

    • Well I hope you’re proud of yourself. You are doing exactly what the enemy does in exactly the same way. You’re hurting your own people, undermining the cause just like any traitor. Funny thing is, even if Bryce is gay, he has more bravery than you. He put his name and his face up there and stood by his work like a man, – like a real reactionary, not some tumblr blogger coward hiding behind a pseudonym.

      Oh no, believe me, I will never return to these dregs of the Internet again, I just came here to make it clear you are not a reactionary, but a degenerate smugly sowing division. These other writers who semi-approvingly comment on your post should be ashamed of themselves. I will not work in the same circles as traitors. Unlike you, I’m in this for keeps.

      How dare they call their own people “degenerates!” They belong with the SJW horde with that attitude. Who in the hell are they to judge, especially when they hide like cowards. Cowardice is perhaps the very worst human flaw. That’s the reason our civilization is in this mess.

      Bryce’s personal issues be damned. He brought more young men into the far-right then you could in your wildest dreams. Now people are leaving and it’s because of you and your smug actions.

  7. “Pray tell us, neoreactionary, who better represents reaction, those who “cling to right-wing positions,” like “guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment,” or the reasonable people who want to mix and match the old and the new?”

    The laughable, clownish failures of Conservatism to do ANYTHING other than move to whatever position leftists occupied ten years prior is damning enough. Just look at the pathetic Republican Party. For a little under 300 years (maybe 200), right wing individuals have been sucked into the black hole of Conservatism, trying to compromise with Modernity… this has been an unequivocal failure.

    (If you’re advocating the Conservative position, don’t call yourself right wing. you’re left-controlled opposition. The original meaning of the term ‘right’ wouldn’t have even come close to including Conservatives, who worship at the altar of Liberal Democracy and its ‘freedom’)

    So now, many are turning away from Conservatism completely. If losing your Apple support for iPod isn’t a worthy price to actually getting rid of Liberalism entirely then you’re not willing to make sacrifices. Aleksandr Dugin is closer to actual Reaction than Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz will ever be.

    “If you are for global liberal hegemony, you are the ENEMY”

    Evola’s advice to sane men was to revolt against the modern world, not compromise and deal with its degenerate faux elite. If Conservatism is represented by David Cameron and the like, then Reaction can be represented by Antonio Salazar, Augusto Pinochet, and Corneliu Codreanu. We don’t need to win the political debate and conversation today. Tomorrow, the entire table will be overturned and Liberalism will have nowhere left to hide.It has become far too used to the battle being waged over ornate marble halls and has forgotten how political disputes were solved for the 2000+ years before it dragged its stinking carcass onto the scene.

  8. Reed, you are diverting attention away from the fundamental issue–homosexuality is moral degeneracy. Like a white knight, you are coming to the rescue of your comrade in neo-reaction arms. How honorable, yet smug.

    ASSUMING that Bryce has at the very least homoerotic tendencies, and at most is full-blown gay, then part of his ideology that he touts is effectively neutered. His situation reminds me of Roy Cohn, Joseph McCarthy’s right hand man (heh!), who was an anti-Communist homosexual who vigorously denounced homosexuality. Ironic, n’est-ce pas? His strength was also his flaw.

    “This is the kind of behavior I observe amongst 12-year-old girls, homos, and SJWs.”

And if Bryce is indeed a homo, does that equate to him being a “shit-talker”?

    “That is for low-lifes who want to feel high and mighty.”



    That is confirmation bias personified. Bryce’s writings wreak of being above everyone and everything.

    • Okay, “homosexuality is moral degeneracy.” Maybe we should start attacking Jack Donovan and find some dirt on him? What about the gay GamerGate dudes that have brought thousands of young people into the alt-right? Should they all go?

      And where should we stop with the purge of people’s (private) “moral degeneracy?” Cause, this blog is named after a notorious S&M domination pornography cartoon. Seems pretty degenerate to me, considering this blogger is trying to run a holiness competition.

      It’s not “white knighting” its common sense: defend your own side. If you want to rip apart every guy on the right for some sin then you’re just carrying the water for the enemy.

      But it doesn’t even matter because this blogger, and all the people from MPC won and knocked out Bryce, so, congratulations, I guess. I personally don’t care what sick shit someone does in their bedroom as long as I don’t hear about it.

      I’m just curious if this is going to continue and this blogger and all these others decide to continue attacking other figures on the right. Really counterproductive, especially considering I agree with most of the stuff this guy writes about. Bizarre that so much hate is being directed towards other people on the far-right. You’re just doing the work of SJWs by running your own witch-hunt.

      • “Maybe we should start attacking Jack Donovan and find some dirt on him?”

        IF Jack rabidly wrote about the sins of homosexuality while secretly engaging in butt sex, absolutely he should be exposed as a hypocrite.

        “Cause, this blog is named after a notorious S&M domination pornography cartoon.”



        Stick to the topic. Our blog host is not the subject here.

        “defend your own side. If you want to rip apart every guy on the right for some sin then you’re just carrying the water for the enemy.”

        Some sin??? Is not homosexuality an affront to natural law? Is not the gay lifestyle one of the fundamental tenets of Cultural Marxism? The onus is on Bryce. He has homoerotic tendencies, yet denounces fagdom as a disease of modernity

        “Bizarre that so much hate is being directed towards other people on the far-right. You’re just doing the work of SJWs by running your own witch-hunt.”

        To maintain credibility, call a spade a spade within one’s ranks, white knight.

      • Congrats! You found me out!

        I’ve said this several times before, but I suppose once more won’t hurt.

        I never intended to “out” Bryce. So far as I know, he’s only ever diddled women, or nobody at all. My point was never his sexuality, but rather his blindness to what has come before and his insistence upon reinventing the wheel at every opportunity.

        This has never been a holiness competition – why the fuck else would I broadcast my entire online presence under the psuedonym of a (not really that notably) notorious (except to BDSM extremists) guro artist. If I’m trying to prove something at all, it’s that EVERY SINGLE PERSON IS OBLIGATED TO CONSTRUCT HIS OWN ARGUMENT INDEPENDENT OF HIS INDIVIDUAL MERIT AND NOBODY GETS IGNORED – not Jack ass-fucking Donovan and not Bryce take-my-ball-and-leave Laliberte and not even Ted my-depraved-mind-is-the-most-depraved-ever Colt. Nobody gets a pass, and nobody gets to play holy.

        Sparta fell because the old blood was too full of hubris to see it needed some fresh infusions of competence. The Old South and several European dynasties were no different. The great lesson all the neo-monarchists need to comprehend is that the system – not the men – are the most critical element of civilizations. Bryce may be the most faggoty fag that ever lived – I don’t know and I don’t care – but that doesn’t matter if we have a civilization with mechanisms in place that put such men into a hierarchy that rewards their contribution and preserves the general welfare. By that same token, Bryce may be the most holy son of a fuck ever spewed from a cunt – but if he disregards established wisdom to indulge in the same self-important hypothesizing that got us this civilization collapsing around us, then he’s no better than everything Reed accuses me of causing.

        Can we please move past libeling Bryce? I never called the guy a faggot; that’s all on ya’ll, and I’m sick to death of reading your unfounded opinions.

  9. Jack’s book is titled “Rejecting Gay Identity” and he’s gay, more or less masquerading as straight, even though he lived in San Francisco for years (wonder what that looked like?) – well I don’t care cause I don’t attack people on my own side, especially when they’re useful.

    So, I don’t really get your point. The “hypocrisy?” Are you just fond of gay-bashing? Cool. Are there a certain amount of pull-ups that absolve a gay from gayness? I don’t think so, and I don’t care cause I’m not a holiness competitor and I don’t want to hear about what anyone does in the bedroom. At all. Both Jack Donovan and Bryce understood that.

    Yeah, hypocrisy is an issue, it’s everywhere. All over your argument. This blog is itself a little hypocrisy log.

    Simple rules to avoid being a hypocrite: Don’t be a holiness competitor, – and don’t undermine your own side.

    I think the only reason you give Jack a gay-pass is because he isn’t as effeminate as Bryce. It’s completely superficial. Really, Jack is an even bigger hypocrite than any of these hypocrites because he claims to be a “man’s man” and claims to “speak for men.” He’s a Frisco gay. He only talks about men so much because he’s obsessed. Bryce never did that shit (assuming he is gay).

    “Call a spade a spade, white knight.” Uuuh. I did. Is this insult supposed to be impressive? If you don’t defend the Right then fine, you may not be a “white knight,” but you are a hypocritical traitor who cherry-picks which gays you want to witch hunt based on their pull-ups and which sins you want to prosecute based on how resentful you are. Amazing how the Right is full of its own worst enemies.

    Goodbye.

  10. “Jack’s book is titled “Rejecting Gay Identity” and he’s gay…”

    Yes, the self-loathing type. Bash his own kind, yet engage in the lifestyle. Please, I urge you to research Roy Cohn. There are distinct similarities here.

    “Are you just fond of gay-bashing?”

    So “gay-bashing” is informing you that, according to neoreactionaries, is an affront to natural law -and- is one of the fundamental tenets of Cultural Marxism? Wow, just wow.

    
“Don’t be a holiness competitor”

    But Bryce was to a T with his writings, and therein lies the rub. You are willing to overlook the neoreactionary position that vehemently opposes homosexuality. If one is a homosexual, they are part and parcel to Cultural Marxism. That was the message by neoreactionaries. Are you willing to condemn his fellow philosophers on this matter ?Bryce was a neoreactionary, correct? So, what say you about these two positions?

    “– and don’t undermine your own side.”

    Patently false. If someone in your network of friends or even your family members repeatedly makes contradictory statements AND persistently acts in a manner that disavows that contradiction, it is one’s obligation to call them out, lest you lose your credibility.

    “Bryce never did that shit (assuming he is gay).”

    No, neo-reactionaries like himself made the claim that homosexuality deviant and immoral. Bryce is allegedly homosexual and conveniently takes a hiatus from his writing. See the philosophical disconnect?

    “ I don’t want to hear about what anyone does in the bedroom.”

    Wake up, Bryce. He and his neoreactionary friends made it their business in this regard!

    “Jack is an even bigger hypocrite than any of these hypocrites…”

    There are no levels of hypocrisy. Either you are or you are not a hypocrite.

    “I think the only reason you give Jack a gay-pass is because he isn’t as effeminate as Bryce…”

    
Strawman. I never gave Jack a gay-pass. Stop lying.

    “hypocritical traitor who cherry-picks which gays you want to witch hunt…”

    You better offer specific evidence rather than get all emotional like a female. I “witch-hunt” hypocrites of ALL stripes–straight, gay, liberal, conservative, Christian libertarian, etc.

    “based on their pull-ups and which sins you want to prosecute based on how resentful you are”

    Resentful of whom? Another strawman on your part. White knight, you are defending your friend—how noble—the philosophical disconnect I noted. Fagdom is evil personified. Do you agree or disagree with this tenet embraced by neoreactionaries? It is a simple question to respond to.

    • I’m not defending my friend I’m defending the Right. And I’m fine with your witch-hunts, I just think you should do them on the enemy, not potentially beneficial people who have proven themselves as producers. That’s all I have to say. It is unfortunate that all this happened. It’s infuriating to me. We lost a good writer who had brought many people into the right. I would say the same thing if Jack or Milo or some other (questionable background) contributor was taken out.

      And I am aware of the Lavender Scare, but this doesn’t really apply. this incident was a kind of trolling/hacking on one guy who was an asset to the Right.

      I’m not interested in writing more so you can break it up sentence by sentence in an attempt to attack me on something that ought to be a clear-cut political issue, “knight.” You continue to call me a “white knight” and I still don’t get it because I am a reader of mythology and that is a compliment as far as I’m concerned so, thanks, I guess. You do realize that “black knight” means a traitor in most stories? “Black knight” is not something you would want to be called. White knights kill for the sake of virtue. Maybe I don’t understand your usage.

      Anyway. I wish you would understand that Bryce was good at attracting smart people to this side. I know you may dislike smart/pretentious/hipster types but maybe you can see that it’s better to have them agreeing with us?

      The Right still insists on destroying itself. I want to stop that.

  11. According to neoreactionaries, which includes yourself, 1) homosexuality is evil personified and 2) homosexuality is part and parcel to Cultural Marxism. So, Reed, if these tenets are part of the neoreactionary philosophy, why are you defending Bryce? Is he not a traitor?**

    “And I’m fine with your witch-hunts, I just think you should do them on the enemy, not potentially beneficial people who have proven themselves as producers.”

    The enemy is Bryce! He is a hypocrite, a point you are completely glossing over.
    Bryce jeopardizes what neo-reactionaries stand for unless his brethren openly takes him to task for not measuring up to his own ideals.

    Here is what YOU wrote about homosexuality—>Another aspect of this is homosexuality, which is also an upper-class phenomenon. Gayness is kept completely secret amongst the poor. It is glorified amongst the rich. I see this most evidently in clubs or fashion magazines where super-wealthy elites are often depicted as androgynous bisexual men. It is echoed constantly in the media with tales of sex-parties and gay sex predators. The pseudo-men of the upper-class supplicate these gays, and have for many years, since the famous gay celebrities of the late Victorian era. The same thing takes place with glorified feminist women who “rose up” with their lucky endowments to raise hell.

    Does this description fit Bryce? A person could make the assumption that you find homosexuality morally repulsive, and that our society is “ugly” as a result of this wicked phenomenon. What say you regarding this characterization?**

    “I would say the same thing if Jack or Milo or some other (questionable background) contributor was taken out.”

    Now “homosexuality” is referred to as “questionable background”??? Your backtracking is becoming legendary. Listen, Bryce took himself out. The finger is pointing at himself. Answer the questions.**

    “I’m not interested in writing more so you can break it up sentence by sentence in an attempt to attack me on something that ought to be a clear-cut political issue, “knight.””

    You would do a service to your cause by actually being forthright here, rather than defending your friend’s fall from grace. Answer the questions.**

    Regarding “white knight”, Roissy will be able to fill you in. Or look up the term in the urban dictionary.

    “The Right still insists on destroying itself.”

    By refusing to acknowledge the hypocrisy of one of its own, yes. And you are contributing to its demise. Answer the questions.**

    • As far as I am aware, Bryce never admitted to engaging in any same-sex activity, and so followed the doctrines of his Church similar to the Traditionalist who shuns the urge to become an adulterer.

      Attacking some inner urge to some activity is patently absurd. NeoReaction seems to have maintained that sodomy is not a sexual activity that is productive to any society and so many would prefer to see it criminalized. Since Bryce only seems to have said that he struggled with profane sexual urges in the past, how does adhering to the NeoReactionary position on this matter render him a hypocrite?

      It was probably stupid for Bryce to write that stuff online years ago (have you seen some of Michael Anissimov’s statements pre-NeoReaction?), but if you look at the facts, I don’t see hypocrisy in Bryce’s position.

      According the tenets of my own tradition, I denounce the evils of pre-marital sex. Am I a hypocrite for, in my youth, lusting after women in my mind before marriage?

      At any rate, look, the damage has been done. In the future, let’s be a little more gracious to each other on the radical right.

      • “Attacking some inner urge to some activity is patently absurd”

        This “inner urge” has been characterized by Neoreactionaries as demonstrating moral bankruptcy. Had Bryce not been part of your club, would you still be saying he has been “struggling with profance sexual urges”, or be vocal in your outrage for his degeneracy?

        “In the future, let’s be a little more gracious to each other on the radical right.”

        That’s the hypocrisy I’m talking about. It’s not about being gracious, it’s about truth. When a person in a movement speaks untruthfully, you call them out on their transgression. Reed Perry blindly came to the defense of his friend, exactly what you have done yourself.

        The mere fact that Bryce has homo-erotic tendencies is proof positive according to Neoreactionaries of immorality. So, in order for him to be castigated, he has to “act on them”? Merely feeling those urges is not cause by neoreactionaries to openly denounce him?

    • GCM,

      I’m pleased to continue approving your comments provided you send me your email address at tteclod@yahoo.com or some other contact info: blog, social network handle, et cetera. I will not share your contact information.

      – “Ted Colt”

Don't bother.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s