Mark Citadel, Bullycide, Cuckservatives,& Abortion -or- “Hello! My name is Mark Citadel! You killed Anarchopapist! Prepare to die!”

“Hello! My name is Inigo Montoya! You killed my father! Prepare to die!”

“Stop saying that! ”

Offer me money.”

“Yes! ”

Power, too, promise me that.”

“All that I have and more. Please…”

“Offer me anything I ask for.”

“Anything you want…”

I want my father back, you son of a bitch!”

Let’s begin with a trigger warning for Neoreactionaries who are so faint-hearted that explicitly racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, and misogynistic words may prove bothersome to your self-image. I am not a “cultured” man, and I will not use cultured language. If you proceed, do so as an adult prepared to read the opinion of a man who will not mince words so that you may be fed words fit for an infant. Bring your steak knife, and take the cork off you fork.

It’s rare I look check my blog statistics, but I just finished the macro portion of a building design this evening, so I had a few moments to give some thought to this dead blog so I went to take a look.

Nah. That’s a lie. I saw the notification in the upper-right corner of the screen while reading Heartiste and investigated. Adam Wallace, also known as “West Coast Reactionaries,” subscribed to this corpse, and I couldn’t understand why anybody would still be reading. More investigation followed, and I found myself at Mark Citadel’s latest tripe – which may be worse than mine – reading how he’s clearly identified (for himself) somebody as NOT a Neoreactionary based upon that person’s abortion opinions. I suppose this isn’t the first time Mark delineated Neoreaction, and I doubt it is the last.

Eventually, I found where Mark referenced my blog and made me scapegoat for the departure of Bryce Laliberte from the internet. This isn’t the first time Mark’s made this particular accusation, but it beggars the comprehension of any [legal term] reasonable person to assign to the periphery shunned of Neoreaction the power to bully a major lynchpin within the movement to scrub the internet of his presence and remove a presumably revenue-generating (electronic) tome from Amazon. Especially since,

There is a substratum of dissident right thinking (and I use that in the very broad sense of the popular opposition to Conservatism on the grounds of its failures and ideological concessions) that is entryist. This isn’t the active, malicious, and buffoonish entryism that I described when I dissected Kyle Hunt’s views, this is something a little different.

Some may mistake this commentary, and think that I’m trying to police the morality of people who identify as right wing. Nothing could be further from the truth. I actually agree that nobody should be doing that. When revelations about some stupid personal blog post that Bryce Laliberte had written ages ago concerning same-sex attraction surfaced, and he was subsequently [the link to my blog] bullycided from [Bryce’s absent blog] his blog, I said that the entire thing was ridiculous. Those who dig into people’s history to find some personal problem with them are frankly the lowest scum that occupy the edgysphere. They aren’t interested in ideas, only personalities.

But, just to take another example at random, when someone underlines his own works with “Aryan Futurism, Heavy Metal Entheogenic Mysticism, and pitiless hordes of adolescent warriors in rainbow thongs“, and puts forth the virtue of faggotry, that is something entirely different. That has to do with political ideology, not personal morality. The personal morality of political thinkers doesn’t bother me in most cases, and others have dedicated considerable time to elucidating such a well-advised position. It is correct to say that we shouldn’t impose a strict ideological dogma upon rightist intellectual circles today. It’s not possible, and it doesn’t serve any concrete purpose. However, when someone strikes at the heart of the foundation of rightist thought by embracing nihilism and applying it to any number of issues, it ought be addressed with the utmost scrutiny.

The two things have to be separated, in order that we can address not immorality on the right (which I don’t care about), but amoral counter-signaling on the right, which only serves to tell everyone how edgy you are because anyone who isn’t a nihilistic Nietzschean is of course a ‘cuck’. Those who think that race is the only issue of any significance, are just as bad as those who think the Jewish Question is the only issue of any real significance. Shiksa Goddess, meet Aylmer Fisher.

Read through that again, just so you don’t overlook the major thesis, which is, Neoreaction must “address not immorality on the right [about which Mark Citadel “doesn’t care”], but amoral counter-signaling [and theory and advocacy and badthink] on the right,” and, “when somebody strikes at the heart of the foundation of rightist thought by embracing nihilism and applying it to any number of issues, it ought to be addressed with utmost scrutiny.”

Perhaps a refresher is in order so that we’re all signally accurately: what is nihilism? Here’s the “Google” definition.

nihilism, noun: the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless.

in philosophy: extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence. [edit: or relevance to reality]

historical: the doctrine of an extreme Russian revolutionary party circa 1900, which found nothing [of which] to approve in the established order.

Compare to Mark Citadel’s definition of himself.

Some may …think that I’m trying to police the morality of people who identify as right wing. …I actually agree that nobody should be doing that. …The personal morality of political thinkers doesn’t bother me…

So, who wallows in nihilism, and who has belief? Who has rejected a religious principal, and who upholds morality, not in theory, but in practice?

I’ve already linked the blog post that Mark purports proves I’m a nihilist, but all the same, let’s review.

As for signaling, what, in all the writing I’m doing here, makes you think I’m signaling neoreaction? …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. [Bryce quote inserted.] …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, …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, signaling, consider, dear neoreactionary, that we may be sympathizing, not signaling.

Tell me, Mark, how much more explicit should I be? WHERE DOES THAT SIGNAL NIHILISM?

Let’s make something absolutely clear for all and for the record within this thing ya’ll insist upon calling a school of philosophy, or some kind of meta-something-or-other which isn’t held to account to real-world testing. I lack any sort of power to cause Bryce or any other neoreactionary to take any action, adopt any conclusion, or otherwise speak or be silent except with the power of what I write. Very few people who would read this know me outside the words I’ve written here. I did not publish anything about Bryce he had not already published himself. Neither did I go searching for something that I’d never before read. From the blog post:

[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…


If I am not a neoreactionary, if I am an entryist, then you failed a comrade. What’s worse, you have utterly failed to avenge him, rehabilitate him, or otherwise make amends for the errors YOU made. YOU have a responsibility to YOUR comrades, if I am the enemy, and YOU left him on the field of battle with NOTHING to show for it.

If I am not the enemy, then the body count is double.

Besides, Nick Steves himself, of This Week in [Neo]Reaction, wrote that Bryce quit for health or medical reasons (I don’t recall which), so either you, Mark, are a liar regarding my culpability in Bryce’s departure, or Nick’s a liar about Bryce’s reasons. Take you pick. In either case, the responsibility falls upon ya’ll to sort your own qualifications for entry and exclusion: ya’ll certainly made clear I’m excluded, and you did so when I directly addressed the qualifications as you created them.

That’s all old news, of course. You took a swipe at me, thinking I’ve been silent so long that perhaps I’m not reading, but hey, all’s fair in war, and you’re at war with truth, so, “What the hell,” right?

As for your post about abortion, and the half-ass attempted take-down of a soft target, let me show you how this is done, infant.

[Original here.]

To some, [abortion] is akin to murder, …To others, abortion …[is] a eugenic practice… keeping our societies falling into complete idiocracy.

The two sides of this debate are: 1) abortion is homicide, and 2) abortion is a morally neutral medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy. The middle ground is a no-man’s land or amoral ambiguity. Any pro-choice pretense that a 5-minutes-before-birth killing of an unborn child is a homicide begs the ad infinitum argument, “what about five minutes before that?” Let’s be clear about reality here: from conception, the induced death of a conceived human is a homicide. All that remains is the question, “Was the homicide justified?”

 The kinds of people who support abortion access most fervently are those who stand for the things we oppose …legalized abortion is tied to “reproductive freedom,” which has liberated women from the horrible fate of being wives and mothers…

…it is tempting to believe that abolishing legalized abortion would lead to a return to more traditional values, a higher birthrate, and healthier relations between the sexes.

What is meant by opposition to “reproductive freedom” in this context? In this purportedly traditional society, traditional women’s roles include wife & mother. I don’t see ought else. Are traditional roles for men husband and father? Is there anything else?

Ah, but now we get to the thesis. Drum roll, please!

Unfortunately, as our movement gains influence, it is important that we not fall prey to the pro-life temptation.

Bring me popcorn!

First off, the alt Right appreciates what is superior in man, in the Nietzschean sense.

Because neoreactionaries are so clearly fond of Nietzsche!

Second, we …have an appreciation of tribalism and identity. …Life gains its meaning through connections to other members of our families, tribes, and nations.

Pop quiz! How many neoreaction meetups have you attended? Where do your favorite neoreactionaries live? Are they part of your family, tribe, or nation? Which nation?

Being pro-life flies in the face both of these principles.

‘Cause being for baby-killing is the neoreactionary way! Bwahahahahahaha!

First of all, the pro-life position is clearly dysgenic. …In a world with reliable birth control, it is quite easy to avoid an unwanted pregnancy; the only ones who can’t are the least intelligent and responsible members of society: women who are disproportionately Black, Hispanic, and poor.

Nobody wants niggers, spics, or crackers. “Those people,” might vote for Trump! [Never you mind that Trump is a “with exceptions” pro-life advocate.]

A natural experiment in Colorado shows what happens when a state makes contraception and abortion more freely available. …Within a few years, the birth rate of low-income women plummeted. In states where Republican legislatures have enacted a pro-life agenda, the opposite has happened.

Viola, nigger, spic, and cracker infestation averted! More room for diverse immigrants!

The idea that there are capable women out there who are aborting their babies as they delay marriage and climb the corporate ladder is a fantasy.

Because women aren’t delaying marriage or climbing the corporate ladder because abortion is available, they’re fucking AND delaying marriage AND climbing the corporate ladder because contraception, fertility treatments, egg-freezing, and male (and female) fornicators are available, with abortion as a great back-up plan for…

When an intelligent, responsible woman does have an abortion, it is often because the baby has a disease or the pregnancy threatens her health, not because she or her boyfriend forget to use contraception. …there are now 30 percent fewer people with the Down’s syndrome in the United States due to prenatal diagnosis.

‘Cause Down’s is so common in young women! Hurray abortion!

…the pro-life movement dysgenic, [and] its justifications rely on principles we generally reject. …“equality” and “human rights,” especially …The unborn fetus has no connection to anyone else in the community.

Father? Grandparents? Siblings? Buehler? Buehler?

…criminalizing abortion means that the state must step in and say that the individual has rights as an individual, despite its lack of connection to any larger social group.

Seriously, really? Is the alt-right, or neoreaction, or whatever [yes, it’s true, I’m ZFG regarding any differentiation among the Dark Enlightenment] really trying to make the argument that individuals don’t matter as a point of public policy, even in theory? This is about the most convoluted expression of philosophy I can imagine. A woman is permitted to abort a pregnancy and homicide an unborn child because the unborn child has no connection to others as an individual, but the woman does have connections as an individual, so she can homicide at will and unilaterally? Puhleeze!

Surely there’s some reasonable middle ground between libertarian-hell and communal-hell? Perhaps there’s a hell where we don’t argue about whether an individual is sufficiently connected to a community to avoid elective homicide? But while we’re talking about mothers killing children and why it should be allowed…

The mother-child bond is the strongest of human relationships, [fallacies omitted] …When the parent-child bond does not exist for a pregnant woman, society has no business stepping in.

“I don’t want my child, so you have no right to stop me killing it.” How does one arrive at this opinion without 1) assigning ownership rights of children to mothers and 2) thereby making slavery to mothers at conception lawful?

If there were to be a pro-life position that we could accept, it would be based on arguments about what is good for the [White] community. The case would have to be made that abortion is what is decimating the White population and decreasing its quality. While it’s true that a blanket ban on abortion would probably increase the White population in there[sic] numbers, it would, no doubt, decrease the overall quality, as well and leave all races stupider, more criminally prone, and more diseased.

There’s much to parse here. Let’s start with this.

If we’re talking theory, then advocacy for race “A” can be stated as advocacy for race “A.” We don’t actually need to get specific unless we’re arguing for specifics. So, let’s assume we’re arguing specifics. I suspect know that abortion wasn’t particularly common during the expansion of Europeans into the entire world starting no later than about 1500 AD. Are you arguing that all that flowering of European civilization was entirely dysgenic? How is that? If it were dysgenic, then wouldn’t all the 1800-1900 civilization about which we are so proud be a cesspool of idiots and cretins burning peat in the skeletons of grand monuments? Gosh, so many questions! From what I know, the evidence does not support your hypothesis.

…the pro-life agenda would give us the worst of all worlds. Those whom we want to have children would continue to find a way to do what they wanted, while the birth rates among the worst members of society would explode. Childbearing among better classes would probably decrease even further under the strain of the inevitable increases in crime and redistributive policies that would follow.

Causation, causation, causation. Here’s reality: British civilization was, for many generations, under heavy downward pressure with little or no abortion. The richest had large families not because the rich could afford large families, but because the children of the rich could survive childhood. Poor medical science and conscription into regular wars probably helped, too. All this stuff happens AFTER birth, when the natural environment of the organism has the best opportunity to act upon the organism. THAT is Eugenic. It’s called natural selection: those who survive into adulthood and successfully mate have offspring that MAY also survive to adulthood and MAY also mate. Rinse in smegma & repeat. Abortion is an interference with natural selection and therefore dysgenic. If you’re a woman having an abortion, the only (eugenic) reason to abort a pregnancy is to conceive another day. All else is reducing competition for your sexual competitors.

It is as if pro-life identitarians want to force women be wives and mothers by leaving them no other choice …Yet this kind of thinking implicitly affirms the Left’s premise that, when given a choice, women will want to be barren careerists.

Uh… I don’t think you wrote what you think you wrote. The premise is that women will choose to be married mothers, else why bother? Right now, women do not choose. Women try to “have it all:” wife without children until she wants them, children late in life and f her choosing, and a career that fits her imagined schedule for life events. Prohibiting abortion forces a choice which women do not now face. The traditionalist premise is that if women are faced with a choice between career and married motherhood, they choose married motherhood. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?

[Blah blah feminism bad blah blah]

Of course, we cannot return to healthier relations between the sexes over night. Doing so is a long-term project, one that would require non-feminized men who can be worthy partners for women fulfilling their destinies. No one wants to be a stay-at-home wife to a man who is needy, weak, or cowardly.

An alt-right writer says men should man-up. I don’t know why any of us bothers reading this drivel.

I’ve written this before, but I suppose I’m obliged to write this again.

Kill your kids, don’t kill your kids: I don’t care. To be more precise, I’ve abandoned caring, sometime in 2000, to be specific. But if you care about the fitness of the species, and if you want to influence the quality of children and adults projected into the future, then you want as many live births as the species can muster, because that’s how natural selection works its mighty magic, and that’s how civilizations are built, not by targeted culling under the direction of “intelligent” people.

Aylmer Fisher, I hope you appreciate the effort.