The Progressive Fallacy

I first learned about the naturalistic fallacy (an is is not an ought) in a philosophy course I took recently in which we studied David Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (which should also probably be a favorite among the HBD crowd). The naturalistic fallacy is probably one of the main advantages which progressives have over conservatives, as it gives them an excuse to destabilize society by changing the demographic and cultural status quo from what is naturally desired, homogeneity, to what is more “progressive”, “diversity”. However, we must remember that the logical framework which we are working with is largely a creature of the Whig/liberal academic establishment. I would like to propose a new fallacy: A can is not a should; this is the progressive fallacy. Perhaps using more formal language it could be called the potentiality fallacy, or the fallacy of potentiality. The essence of this fallacy is the equation of potentiality with value. If anyone else has articulated this fallacy before, I would like to know, as I would be somewhat surprised if I were the first one to do so. Maybe this new fallacy will help solve the problem of the leftward ratchet and Cthulhu always swimming left.

An exemplary application: just because you can create a cosmopolitan society of atomized individuals, does not mean that you should.

Or, perhaps more controversially: just because you can genetically engineer humans (or any other organism for that matter) does not mean that you should.

On the Metaphysics of Anti-Naturalistic Thought

I highly suspect that the idea that natural desires are evil, or must be beaten down, has its origins in various ascetical, anti-naturalistic, ways of approaching life. One must admit that there was a massive increase in asceticism in the West with the introduction of Christianity. In any case, anti-naturalistic thought seems to have a basis in life-denying, world-denying religions, the most extreme of which is Gnosticism. Nietzsche countered this anti-naturalistic tendency by arguing that the Overman is one who is able to accept his natural desires and emotions and use them towards constructive ends (source). It is, therefore, interesting that the liberal secularist website Rational Wiki has a somewhat positive view of Nietzsche, and yet it is infested with SJWs who hate the natural emotional desire of Europeans and European Americans to live among their own people and form their own ethnostates. The wisdom which Nietzsche expresses here regarding natural drives is nothing new and seems to echo what I have researched regarding the chakras. This is because it implies that one must first accept and hone the ‘lower’, more ‘irrational’, corporeal drives of one’s self (rather than ignoring or suppressing them) in order to master one’s higher powers, such as the intellect, and spiritual consciousness. See this very good article on the chakras for more information (use Google translate; it’s in Spanish).

In summary: a rootless tree falls. Natural ‘irrational’ desires and emotions are not inherently bad, nor are the traditionalism and romanticism which are based in them, as these are what ultimately keep us grounded and provide a solid foundation for the more mutable aspects of our existence.

One way of portraying Nietzsche’s Overman/Superman/Ubermensch:

Chakra Meditation 2560x1536 by Minyassa
Chakra Meditation 2560×1536 by Minyassa on DeviantArt



Nietzschean Reflections on Tolkien’s Villains

In this post, I am publishing a theory that I have regarding the morality of the villains presented in Tolkien’s novels. Though many villains exist throughout his corpus — dragons, orcs, ungoliants, Suaraman, balrogs, and more — I will be focusing on the main two: Melkor and Sauron. Please note that what I am publishing here is at best a theory, I am not an experienced Nietzsche scholar, though I do find his writings enlightening. It should be remembered, not only for this post but all of mine, that my theories are not usually born perfect, and are almost necessarily modified over a period of time for their improvement. This post will also contain mild criticism of Abrahamic religion in general due to its efforts to create a ‘universal tribe’.

Continue reading “Nietzschean Reflections on Tolkien’s Villains”

On Restoration

James Fraser and Prince Charles Edward Stuart in Outlander

I have been watching small bits of the television series Outlander, which is mostly centered around the Jacobite rebellion of 1745, and it reminded me of a recurring fundamental theme of the neoreaction which I have perhaps insufficiently addressed. What we are trying to achieve is similar to what these Jacobites attempted, a restoration of the old order of society which was destroyed by the Whigs/liberals. At heart, I am a restorationist, and I am an ethnic nationalist. Though I am not a neo-Jacobite (I do feel it is a very romantic cause), I am certainly a restorationist of something much older, more permanent, and more general than Catholic monarchy; the tripartite aristocratic system of Indo-European societies. This, of course, includes monarchy and lower levels of aristocracy which all fall into the second function/estate. It also includes a first estate of priests (which can be Christians, pagans, or simply moral philosophers), and a third estate of free workers and merchants.

Aragorn/Elessar, Tolkien’s symbol of restoration

The fact that I favor this system is why I could never consider myself Alt-Right or a National Socialist; neither system is on the true right; they are incomplete, and really only responses to temporary problems.

Perhaps I am biased towards aristocracy because I myself have multiple lines of ancestry which were at one time aristocratic, including my paternal lineage which is most likely of Norman origin based on surname analysis, but I also recognize that democracy gives unfair advantage towards people of lower IQ who would use it to elect a simple wealth-redistributionist, and thus has some dysgenic effects. Democracy also creates a virtue signalling playground, and thus selects for the genetics of individuals who like to attract attention in such ways.

I think, borrowing from very early European monarchical systems among the Celts and Germans, that a monarch should, under necessary circumstances, be elected (probably by other aristocrats) from a royal family, so as to avoid being stuck with a mentally incompetent ruler who just happens to be heir to the throne.

Who would have the political power of an aristocrat? Possibly as in very early Germanic society, all land-owning men could be counted, who are ultimately vassals of the king. See these articles on the Germanic aristocratic order (12 (see section on law), 3).

As for what ideology each monarchy has; religious traditionalism, ethnic nationalism, or multiethnic capitalism; it must ultimately differ between different states. One single ideology (religious, ethnic, or otherwise) will not fit with each and every group of people for both cultural and biological reasons (which are usually intertwined with each other). It is essential we understand this when trying to advance the concept of an aristocratic form of governance to the normies.


An Allegory of the Three Estates of the Realm

In this post I will present an allegory of the three estates of the realm, using material which is totally unrelated to NRx. Out of respect for my more socially conservative readers, I warn you that I will be referring to some things that may be a bit uncomfortable for you to think about; so you may want to skip reading this post if you are not feeling particularly adventuresome. Keep in mind, if you do read this post, that I am approaching this topic from an analytical, rather than a moralistic viewpoint. Folks on the Alt-Left might find this post interesting. Some people might just find the correlations I observe amusing.

I will follow the model of the three estates of the realm as it is presented on the blog Poseidon Awoke: Realist. The first estate, the religious priesthood, is considered to have the qualities of femininity, short-term outlook, and coercion with speech. The second estate, the warrior-aristocrats, is considered to have the qualities of masculinity, a long-term outlook, and coercion with violence. The third estate, the free commoners, is considered to have the qualities of being evolutionary, having a mid-term outlook, and coercion using remuneration. These three estates are easily traceable back to the three functions of Indo-European society: 1. Sovereignty, 2. Military, and 3. Productivity identified by Georges Dumézil.

Continue reading “An Allegory of the Three Estates of the Realm”

Chaos, Order, Nietzche, and the Future

I think it is clear that the neoreaction is an apollonian movement whereas the Alt-Right is essentially dionysian. This also corresponds to the Mitra-Varuna dichotomy which I discussed a while back where, drawing from the scholarship of Dumezil, Varuna represents a dionysian character whereas Mitra represents an apollonian one.

The Mysterious Past


“In Nietzsche’s early books, he suggested that all great art represents a balance between the wild energies of the Dionysian principle and the ordered control of the Apollonian principle, but his later books indicate a shift in his thinking. He began to feel that Western culture was too Apollonian. Because of this he seemed to imply that Western culture needed art to be more Dionysian to counterbalance its pathologically rational tendencies.”

Have you noticed lately how the most popular television shows these days (Real Housewives, Breaking Bad, any vampire show) are the ones filled to the brim with more chaos, violence, scandal, and unchecked emotions than ever before?  Only 100 years ago, Western culture was pretty uptight, with their suits and manners and monocles. Nietzeche suggested that this Apollonian characteristic had dominated Western psychology, and so art (aka entertainment) should reflect more Dionysian principles in order to create a balance.

View original post 346 more words

Concluding Reflections on Religion

In an attempt to end my discourse dealing with religion, I am writing this post. I have conversed with some reactosphere Christians since publishing my previous post, and I have respect for them as fellow reactionaries. I will now present the conclusion that I have currently reached on the matter of religion; it is not intended to be argumentative with anyone, but it is intended to be sincere: I have read the New Testament, and besides the doctrine of the incarnation, I have found it to have an incontrovertibly negative view of human existence in the flesh. This type of sentiment is particularly strong in but is not exclusive to the Pauline epistles. The physical manifestation of man (the flesh) is seen as something inherently defective, corrupt and bad because it has desires contrary to the law of the Christian God. In my view, this sentiment is a type of cowardice. It is effectively giving up on life, and the human species, including one’s nation/tribe/race altogether. I see improving upon our current existence in the physical realm as a higher road to take, and this is but one aspect of my religion of choice, Cosmotheism.

Supposing that the abused, the oppressed, the suffering, the unemancipated, the weary, and those uncertain of themselves should moralize, what will be the common element in their moral estimates? Probably a pessimistic suspicion with regard to the entire situation of man will find expression, perhaps a condemnation of man, together with his situation. — Fredrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Chapter IX, aphorism 260 (emphasis mine)

As for traditional ritualism, I favor the continuation of authentic European pagan rites as long as they do NOT involve harming humans or using animals in a cruel manner. This ritual system would end up being complemented by the moral framework of Cosmotheism, in the same sense that the ritualism of Shinto is complemented by the moral frameworks of Buddhism and Confucianism in Japan.

For those interested, I am posting some links and videos on various religious topics below. If you have an issue with what the author of any of these articles has written, please argue with that person on their own blog, not mine, thank you. If you wish to comment on something I have written on this page, then you can do so here.

Why Catholicism won’t save us (and it’s not just Vatican II)

Links on Christianity in General

If you would like to take a critical look at Christianity, I have posted the following links: Three articles in Spanish (use google translate if you don’t know Spanish) explaining how Christianity grew in the Roman state, and how it was initially viewed by the Romans themselves. A page containing links to several articles arguing why Christianity ultimately enabled the recent decline of the West. Explore the entire website to find a thorough criticism of Christianity, as well as some explanation regarding how paganism influenced cathedral architecture in the high middle ages. Written from an ethno-pagan viewpoint. An article featuring the work of Tom Sunic regarding the puritans and the corrosive Yankee culture they left behind. (I’m partially descended from puritans and this doesn’t offend me). Curt Doolittle on the Church. Curt Doolittle on the future of religion, and some discussion of religious traditionalism.  A rather rash, but sometimes valid criticism of Christianity.

On Atheism and Christianity 

A video made in response to Black Pigeon Speak’s recent video on Atheism

Cosmotheism  A website containing articles and videos which explain Cosmotheism. The works of William Luther Pierce.

Ethnic Paganism  Authentic Germanic polytheism (ethnic Asatru). Roman religion Hellenismos, ancient Greek polytheism

I tried to find a website regarding a revival of Celtic polytheism on ancestral grounds (Sinsearacht) but couldn’t. “Celtic” paganism at the moment is infested with Wiccans and others like them, so it should be approached with caution.

Esoteric Kekism

I almost forgot!

Niccolo Machiavelli believed that Christian religious piety is not a virtue for rulers. He understood religion was necessary for civilization, however, he did not like the Christian religion, and found it, even in the Catholic form, to be a source of weakness. Read about his views in this article. In some ways he was a pre-Nietzsche Nietzschean. He is certainly someone one must consult if one’s political goals are primarily ethnic nationalist rather than religious traditionalist.

On a Conciliatory Approach Towards Christianity

J.R.R. Tolkien, a very gifted Christian

Nick B. Steves on Social Matter pointed out that I had presented a “cardboard cut out” of Christianity, and since I have admiration for certain Christians, and certain elements of traditionalist Christianity, I have decided to write a blog post on this topic. I experienced Christianity first as the Methodism of my parents. During adolescenthood I became a very serious evangelical for three years. Then, for about a year I experimented with traditional, conservative Anglicanism, after which I decided to leave Christianity alone. I have also researched plenty of information about Catholic and Orthodox denominations of Christianity, including the various ecumenical councils. Although I may not have experienced all forms of Christianity, I may not be as ignorant as I outwardly seem.

Now the problems with low-church Protestantism, and individual interpretation-ism, are obvious to neoreactionaries as forces which have decayed the social cohesion and hierarchical order of the West, and led to whiggish liberalism. I completely understand this, however,  I would find it very hard to take the decisions of ecumenical councils as absolute truth. It’s not my cup of tea. It’s not that I don’t find cathedral architecture or traditional Christian music stunning, I do. One of my favorite Christian music pieces, De profundis, is featured is in the video below.

It’s how Christianity behaves as a moral authority that I have difficulty reconciling with my understanding of how civilizations persist in spite of foreign attack. The Catholic Church, through its authoritative hierarchy, managed include pagan practices of venerating iconography of divine beings (“saints”), and managed to use the Just War Theory to justify the military defence of Europe from invaders during the Middle Ages and Early Modern period. Protestantism has no such filter to justify the continuation of age-old pagan cultural traditions, or national defence, and the iconoclastic spirit of the Mosaic Law, as well as the pacifistic thinking expressed in the Sermon on the Mount came out unfiltered, and produced some of the whackiest people on earth: Adventists, Baptists, Quakers, anabaptists, Pentecostalists and more. So in my view, Catholicism, with its anti-iconoclastic, pagan elements, as well as the warrior ethic it permits, is great in some ways, but it is hard for me to understand it as an authentic continuation of first century Christianity. Thus to me, converting to Catholicism, or another similar form of Christianity, like Eastern Orthodoxy, would essentially be, in my view, lying to myself in a noble way. And I don’t like lying to myself.

If you can find some way to reconcile Christianity, including the “turn the other cheek” ethic, and the eschatology of the meek inheriting the earth (which looks to me like a revolutionary, not a reactionary statement) with the idea of defending a great civilization, people, or culture by force, then more power to you. I cannot. I may just lack the ability to do the proper mental gymnastics. Do not take this as an insult.

If my viewpoint on this subject continues to be a bother to some, I may add to this post, write more posts, or simply point to other websites which cover what I am saying on a more in-depth scale.

And yes, I did listen to the podcast Ascending The Tower – Episode XV, Part 1 – “That Sort Of Christo-Pagan Thing” (link)