Yes, we’re in the same boat as the “racists” now

I was going to write a post on this myself, but Deconstructing Leftism has already done it.

You have probably been reading a little about Christians freaking out about gay marriage now being legal and their beliefs now being essentially illegal. Rod Dreher has spurred some discussion with his articles on the “Benedict Option”, in which Christians will withdraw partially from the mainstream culture to protect their own culture and beliefs.

The thing is the system has had the same way of dealing with dissenters for 60 years or so, and most Christians have been perfectly fine with it. I think Rod would applaud if someone was fired from their job for expressing doubts or disagreement with the ideas of racial equality or gender equality.

Of course- of course– we have free speech in the US. It’s the First Amendment! Enshrined in the Constitution! The government cannot penalize you for expressing yourself in speech or writing! However, we also have civil rights laws, and any person not expressing full belief in racial or gender equality- or, over the last few years, gay equality- can’t be in any kind of decision-making position in supervising employees, renting or selling housing, or loaning money, because he may violate these laws. Since his presence may create a “hostile workplace” he can’t even be employed, strictly speaking.

Associating with such a person is a strong indicator you hold such beliefs yourself, so you must not associate with him, and if he is shown to be a racist or sexist you must immediately disassociate yourself. Better yet to make a point of socially condemning and mocking him. And who wants to be associated with an unemployed, broke, weirdo loser anyway?

Again- Rod Dreher is probably perfectly fine with this…

The Civil Rights movement introduced a new paradigm for American politics.  On other issues, even when one side wins, victory cannot be pressed too far; life must be kept bearable for the other side; politics is fundamentally a matter of tradeoffs and balancing conflicting legitimate interests.  Racists and segregationists, on the other hand, deserve no civility.  They have no legitimate interests.  The federal government is designing a vast apparatus to make sure they aren’t even left alone in their own neighborhoods.  The schools teach their own children to hate them.

I have indeed read quite a few laments from Christians that opposition to gay marriage is now being equated with racism, and they always stress that of course racists deserve to be persecuted; it’s just that we’re nothing like them.  But we are.  (And not just people like me, who are explicitly Christian and racist.)  We’re both heretics from liberalism.

As readers know, I have no problem with the idea of a communal consensus, and I affirm the duty to defend it via censorship.  I’m surprised that, rereading my defense of censorship in light of 21st century praxis, it now reads almost like a libertarian document.  I at least never grant communities the right to dictate private opinions, nor do I allow them any reason not to be satisfied with silence as opposed to coerced affirmation.  The main problem with persecuting racists is that they are persecuted not for deviation from Christian orthodoxy, but for deviation from liberalism.  This is even more obvious in the case of persecuting sexists, since Christianity, being a patriarchal religion, obviously doesn’t delegitimate all gender role differences.  And yet mainstream Christians went along with it, even thanking our godless egalitarian fellow citizens for helping us understand the morality of the Gospels better, without thinking that we thereby accepted the principle of our own condemnation.

Resistance has crumbled.  There is no longer any major issue open for debate.  As soon as an issue can be framed as a “civil rights” issue, the illiberal side loses all legitimacy, and indeed all claim to immunity against the persecution of its members.  (Although, in accord with the 1st Amendment, the state is careful to deliver heretics over to the private arm for punishment.)  And–what do you know!–it turns out just about every issue can be framed as a civil rights issue.

Liberalism means tolerance.  Tolerance means no intolerance.  Therefore, to be perfectly tolerant, liberals must eradicate all dissent.

65 Responses

  1. The Civil Rights movement introduced a new paradigm for American politics.

    Did it really start with the civil rights movement though? We are in the position much more akin to that of the Tories post 1783. We’ve just seen before our eyes an institution that has lasted thousands of years be formally and unceremoniously abolished by a small clique of ultra radical, ultra-affluent, “enlightened,” malcontents chirping on about their newly invented rights and who managed to somehow capture a country. On the other hand I do not make common cause with white Southerners no matter how much the elites hate them. From Madison and Jefferson to Walmart and Coca-Cola to Jimmy Swaggart and John Hagee. How anyone could locate a traditionalist order in the American South when it seems that we can thank Southern whites as largely responsible for some of the worst aspects found in our culture.

    Recall too that feminists have tried to portray pro-lifers as religious fanatics akin to Islamic fundamentalists or fascists and yet pro-lifers have not been marginalized to the extent that the segregationists were. Another somewhat positive outcome of this ruling is that I have seen more run-of-the-mill type conservatives be it Neo Catholics or evangelicals who are now starting to question their over-the-top devotion to Americanism. Finally, our elites have made this issue not just a domestic policy issue but part of our cultural imperialism abroad. I wonder if American traditionalists might be able to look elsewhere for support? This would be a novel development for traditionalists in U.S. at least. So of course the future is very bleak but I don’t think it is going to be quite so one-sided.

  2. “[P]olitics is fundamentally a matter of tradeoffs and balancing conflicting legitimate interests…”

    No, No, No – Does no one read Carl Schmitt anymore?

    Schmitt, a Catholic conservative, argues that every realm of human endeavour is structured by an irreducible duality. Morality is concerned with good and evil, aesthetics with the beautiful and the ugly, and economics with the profitable and the unprofitable. In politics, the core distinction is between friend and enemy. That is what makes politics different from everything else.

    The political comes into being when groups are placed in a relation of enmity, where each comes to perceive the other as an irreconcilable adversary to be fought and, if possible, defeated. “Every religious, moral, economic, ethical, or other antithesis transforms itself into a political one if it is sufficiently strong to group human beings effectively, according to friends and enemy.”

    “The political is the most intense and extreme antagonism,” Schmitt wrote. War is the most violent form that politics takes, but, even short of war, politics still requires that you treat your opposition as antagonistic to everything in which you believe.

    Of course, he denies the possibility of neutral rules that can mediate between conflicting positions; for Schmitt there is no such neutrality, since any rule – even an ostensibly fair one –represents the victory of one political faction over another and is merely the temporarily stabilised result of past conflicts.

  3. As with politics, so with government: “Governing,” says Talleyrand, “has never been anything other than postponing by a thousand subterfuges the moment when the mob will hang you from the nearest lamp-post, and every act of government is nothing but a way of not losing control of the people”

  4. Whenever a victim class (which is code for protected class, which is code for privileged class) is created, a new ‘racist’ is created alongside it. Anyone with even the most minor dissent against such a class is targeted for destruction. The hypocrisy of Dreher is well noted.

    The time has passed for Conservatism, if there ever was a time for it. One cannot nod their heads to one Progressive meme and then shake it to another. You have to swear allegiance and tell them we’ve always been at war with Eastasia and gays have always been our betters, or you have to reject the entire damn thing and dedicate yourself to taking it down.

  5. White Christian = white Supremacist

    An irrefutable equation matched against the First Law of Liberation:

    Supremacy = degeneracy…

    So that…

    White Christian = white Supremacist = white degenerate… White Christians = degenerates!!!

    So simultaneously, in one’s denial of being a white Supremacist, one believes he is denying his degeneracy when he is in fact denying his Christianity.

  6. Thordaddy,


  7. Ita Scripta Est…

    Step 31 for the white Christian is to take a giant leap of faith and reclaim the white Supremacist label as the exacting and unvarnished name for the HIGHEST of white Christians that it really is…

    In other words, in an ordered white Christian society, those at the top would naturally be titled white Supremacists, ie., white men who believe in and thus strive towards objective Supremacy (this in contrast to a “white” anti-Christian society who
    believe in and thus “strive” towards equality).

    All white male Americans subconsciously understand that their entire educational and cultural aim was to create an anti-white Supremacist in one’s self, ie., those who would impose an equality on the best white Christian men.

    This agenda is now so dominant that the best white Christian impose anti-white Supremacy upon themselves. This is what is happening at the Orthosphere as we speak. A self-imposed anti-white Supremacy. Egalitarian “Christianity.” Deracinated and pathological.

  8. thordaddy,

    Have you noticed how often nobody understands what you are talking about? Yet, you keep repeating the same thing in the same words.

  9. I should have made it clear that politics as interest-balancing was a view I was attributing to pre-civil rights America, rather than affirming myself (although a lot of public policy really does come down to balancing legitimate interests, rather than chastising wholly wicked classes of people). Ironically, I’ve been planning to put up a book review of “The Concept of the Political” soon, so I’m pleased that it’s come up spontaneously.

  10. Josh…

    Of course I notice…


    For those who can read a Kristor, Roebuck, Charlton, Bertonneau or Bonald without confusion, claiming an incomprehensiblily of my words signals that one is actually in a state of radical autonomy. And that is you, my friend. You DO NOT WANT TO understand BECAUSE you do not want to have to be a GENUINE white Supremacist, ie., a true white Christian. You have embraced a false deracinated “Christianity” for the real “thing.”

  11. If you say so, boss. And yet, I am happy to be a racist. Go figure.

  12. Josh…

    Then why not call yourself a white Supremacist? That’s what a “racist” is… A white Supremacist.

  13. I kind of get what thordaddy is saying. I think he explained his bizarre choice of language on an Orthosphere thread once – by “Supremacist” he means someone who worships supremacy, i.e. God. So a white Supremacist is a white theist, not someone who inherently believes white people to be objectively superior to other races (which, as Bonald has noted somewhere before, is *not* what racism [tribal loyalty] is actually about). Why he chooses to call white Christians white Supremacists I can only guess, though given the connotation of the phrase it’s likely just shock value. But the funny thing is that this would make me a yellow Supremacist even though I’m in near-total agreement with most of you lot.

  14. Michael Paterson-Seymour,

    That sounds distastefully Machiavellian. A principle well-suited for governing the Leviathans of the past few centuries, perhaps, but very much at odds with feudal/distributist/familiar society, which is what we should be aiming for, is it not?

  15. Michael PS,.
    “In politics, the core distinction is between friend and enemy”
    Do you distinguish politics from civil war?
    Does it not matter that in politics one employs traditional forms of the nation, debates and legal arguments and not employ force?
    We do not kill the political enemy. So the word “enemy” is not really apposite. We should rather say “rival”.

    “Every religious, moral, economic, ethical, or other antithesis transforms itself into a political one if it is sufficiently strong to group human beings effectively, according to friends and enemy.”

    It is rather the reverse. The political rivaly is a weak one. One agrees on the ends, only disagree as to the means. This being the normal course of politics. It must be distinguished from the abnormal or revolutionary politics when there is no longer agreement as to the ends.

    I would rather define politics as a struggle to realize one’s vision of the Good in a City. The word “politics” itself derives from the Greek “polis” meaning City. Since it is a struggle in a City -it must be a law-bound process normally.

  16. John K…

    Why I use that phrase is a) because one is socially verboten from being a white Supremacist as ALL are against such an individual and b) modern “Christians” are actually radical liberals, but obviously not linguistically distinguishable from just plain Christians. So now we have the absurdity of a Palin. Obama, Bonald and Bergoglio all being “Christians,” but none are Supremacists, especially white Supremacists.

    And please note that “yellow supremacy” is no real force as compared to white Supremacy. It would be for you just to acknowledge that you were a Supremacist who is not against the genuine white Supremacist.

    PS I like to define objective Supremacy as Perfection and not just “God.” There are gods who will do anything and there is the God who will do all right. The first gods are the gods of Judaism and Islam. The latter God is The Perfect God of the Bible. It is Perfection that defines true omnipotence AND NOT omnipotence defined by a capability to do anything.

  17. John K,
    “feudal/distributist/familiar society,”
    Are they same?
    Chesterton would be appalled by the notion of familiar society. What would happen to the unrelated people? Is the world to be divided into blood relatives and aliens with no category of neighbors and friends?

    In the actual feudal society, the lord was most unlikely to be related to the serfs. It would have appalled him to marry his children into some servile family.

  18. […] Bonald continues to be an amazing spokesman for the Catholic Legitimist Right recognizing: Yes, we’re in the same boat as the “racists” now: […]

  19. vishmehr24 – Dr Johnson writing in 1775 describes the familial/feudal system that had survived in Scotland in full vigour until the 1745 Rising,

    “The name of highest dignity is Laird, of which there are in the extensive Isle of Sky only three, Macdonald, Macleod, and Mackinnon. The Laird is the original owner of the land, whose natural power must be very great, where no man lives but by agriculture; and where the produce of the land is not conveyed through the labyrinths of traffick, but passes directly from the hand that gathers it to the mouth that eats it. The Laird has all those in his power that live upon his farms. Kings can, for the most part, only exalt or degrade. The Laird at pleasure can feed or starve, can give bread, or withhold it. This inherent power was yet strengthened by the kindness of consanguinity, and the reverence of patriarchal authority. The Laird was the father of the Clan, and his tenants commonly bore his name. And to these principles of original command was added, for many ages, an exclusive right of legal jurisdiction.

    This multifarious, and extensive obligation operated with force scarcely credible. Every duty, moral or political, was absorbed in affection and adherence to the Chief. Not many years have passed since the clans knew no law but the Laird’s will. He told them to whom they should be friends or enemies, what King they should obey, and what religion they should profess.”

    The bond between superior and vassal was one of blood, as well as tenure.

  20. vishmehr24 asks, “Do you distinguish politics from civil war?”

    Schmitt believed that internal order can only be imposed as the necessary means of pursuing external conflicts. For him, a world state is impossible, for “humanity has no enemy.””

  21. Micheal PS,
    So customs prevailing 300 years ago on obscure islands of few thousand people really a viable model for modern societies of 300 million people?

  22. vishmehr24 -It was essentially the model that prevailed throughout Europe, until the Wars of Religion strengthened the central authority, notably in France, but far less so in the German lands.

    The Tudor despotism in England was founded on the destruction of the military aristocracy in the Wars of the Roses. Henry VIII could send More and Fisher to the scaffold; Charles V could not so easily dispose of John of Saxony or the Margrave of Hesse for there the right of conditional obedience enjoyed the security of a limited command. Everywhere the central power was checked, not only by the barony and the clan, but by the burgh and the free city.

  23. Schmitt may believe anything he likes but are his points correct?
    Britain had 300+ years of non-violent politics. Does the word “enemy” really applicable?
    Before the rise of Labor, the ruling establishment came from a narrow circle of elite, educated in same schools, going to same universities. etc.
    In what sense, the Whig and Tory politicans were enemies?

  24. “Everywhere the central power was checked, not only by the barony and the clan, but by the burgh and the free city.”
    I am not gainsaying it. I only doubt that the ruled and the ruling were blood relatives. I doubt that the European aristocracy was given to marrying serfs.

  25. thordaddy,

    Hmm. If that’s the case, we might as well use any variety of equally taboo epithets for ourselves, like “Nazi”, “bigot”, or, as Josh suggests above, “racist”. Except for the simple fact that this has a tendency to derail discussions and mislead people whom we might have otherwise had a chance of converting. From your description it sounds like a major reason you call us Supremacists is to get a kick out of offending people with it, but the resulting confusion amongst us, time wasted explaining your bizarre choice of terminology, and possibility of turning away converts is hardly worth it, is it? Far better to pick a better, more accurately descriptive term, like “traditionalist”, “reactionary”, “authoritarian” or “counter-revolutionary”.

    And I don’t quite understand why white Supremacists are a “force”, as you say, but yellow Supremacists are not. True, I’m ashamed to admit most yellow people in the Anglosphere are shills or servants of the Enemy, but I don’t see why the fact that there are less of us means that we’re not a “force”.


    Forgive my ignorance, but from what I know, it seems to me that distributism is feudalism fitted to an industrial, democratic world, and that both sorts of societies are instances of familiar societies. “Familiar” doesn’t mean everyone’s related – that’s a tribal society. It simply means that the lords/administrators treat their serfs/subordinates as though they were their children, and the latter as though the former were their parents.Mark Citadel in the linked Orthosphere post gives an apt quotation:

    Help was always to be found at the court, as our homes were called, where the church of the village was also to be found. Every newly married couple received a pair of oxen and a plough. Marriages and christenings, at which the boyars often played the part of godfather and godmother, created a real spiritual relationship between the landlord and the villagers… The friendly and familiar relations between the peasants and the boyars are borne out by Rumanian folklore.

  26. Josh and thordaddy, when the blog owner uses the term racist I assume there’s a degree of “own the insult” in his usage. Kind of like snoop dog calling himself the n-word. That and there’s probably a stubborn, screw-you sentiment behind it (which you gotta love).

    Racists are still more radioactive than homophobes.

  27. John K…

    The first thing that you need to understand IS THAT YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE a Supremacist, yellow or otherwise ALTHOUGH “we” are still to believe that you believe in objective Supremacy, ie., The Perfect Man… Er, Jesus Christ.

    CAN YOU NOT “see” the problem above? There is an absolute contradiction that need not even entertain the specter of Liberalism. The cognitive dissonance that manifests with a profession of faith in objective Supremacy all the while denying that one is a Supremacist MUST BE OWNED and acknowledged for the radically liberal mindset that it is. The net effect is the real destruction of true white Christians.

    Now, AS this phrase relates to Liberalism, well the First Law of Liberation speaks for itself:

    Supremacy = degeneracy….

    Such that…

    White Supremacist = white degenerate…

    And lo and behold, YOU ESSENTIALLY agree with this self-evidently false “first law” with your bewildered aversion for being understood as a Supremacist, ie., one who believes in The Perfect Man. You are seemingly unaware that you are, in the eyes of the radical liberationist, A DEGENERATE for believing in The Perfect Man ALL THE WHILE sticking steadfast to the liberal frame that defines “supremacy” ONLY as it relates to desire for superiority over the inferior (an evil and degenerate mindset). Of course, there simply Is no “supremacy” without Supremacy, but this has not stopped the anti-Supremacists from imposing their relativistic conception of “supremacy” on all of society with near unabated “success.” YOU are part of that “success story.” Your capitulation as a self-identified Chrisitan HAS BEEN CRUCIAL.

    A white Supremacist IS A white man who believes in and therefore strives towards objective Supremacy, ie., The Perfect Man…

    That’s it… And your brain must self-scrub all other
    Ideas of “white supremacy” for they are all the perverted manipulations of the anti-Christians.

    Christian = Supremacist…

    White Christian = white Supremacist…

    Deny that one is a Supremacist IS TO DENY that one is a Christian. This is Universal Law. I did not devise this order. I am simply one of the very few who has broken through the total brainwashing…

    The aim to endlessly create anti-white Supremacists IS the AIM to create “white” and nonwhite anti-Christians. There has been smashing “success” in this regards. You only fail to “see” BECAUSE you must ultimately desire a radical liberation that FORCES you to reject objective Supremacy..

  28. Bruce…

    But that’s exactly the problem… Treating the charge as an insult and then reacting with indifference as a manner of “owning it.”. One is simply swimming in all liberal waters.

  29. John K – Thordaddy’s prose is virtually impenetrable. I tried to disentangle it once, but it didn’t get far.

    White Supremacist for him means “a white person who believes in the supremacy of God”

    But this is an abuse of proper terminological structure. It’s like saying I’m a “mechanic supremacist” and thinking this means that I’m a mechanic who believes in the supremacy of God. Mentioning my status as a mechanic is completely irrelevant to a belief in God’s supremacy.

    So, it seems ‘white’ is tacked on to his definition of ‘white supremacist’ as quite literally a trolling device designed to ‘trigger’ Liberals. I’m not against the movement to troll Liberals, but I don’t think Thordaddy’s method is particularly good since it is needlessly confusing.


    What you relay to Vishmehr is my understanding of the actual serf/lord relationship, at least in Traditional Rumania (though it was likely very similar in most Occidental countries and perhaps beyond even). It wasn’t the oppressive environment most belief it to be and though hierarchy was most certainly recognized, it was not a cold hierarchy. Lords had respect for the dignity of their subjects in most cases and wanted to help them where they could, especially since the manor was often times in healthy competition with others, and so working as an effective production hierarchy was in everyone’s best interests.

    People criticize Reaction declaring that we wish to create a callous and calculating ruling class that will deceitfully lord over the masses and exploit them for financial gain. This paints a false picture of the aristocratic vocation. It is just as inaccurate as the similar libel against a priestly caste, that it would serve to fatten itself off the backs of the people in a Reactionary state if given power.

    Aristocratic hierarchy is to man what the hive hierarchy is to the ant. What benefit could a worker obtain by overthrowing her queen, but the destruction of her entire way of life? The warmest and most familiar relationships are those of deference to authority, and loyalty to subject.

    As Nicolás Gómez Dávila said, “love of the people is the aristocrat’s vocation. The democrat only loves the people at election time”

  30. No Mark… I defined white Supremacist in a very exacting manner.

    A white Supremacist is a white man who believes in and therefore strives towards objective Supremacy, ie, The Perfect Man… Er, Jesus Christ.

    To INSIST that this represents an “abuse” of the language or is somehow “impenetrable” IS EVIDENCE that Mark Citadel IS STILL in a state of radical autonomy.

    In fact, you not only fail to define and conceptualize “white Supremacist” in it most truthful manner, YOU JUST PLAIN SUBMIT to the false liberal definition and conception of “white supremacist.” In addition, you show the pathological deracination so prevalent amongst the radical liberals when you insinuate that somehow Christainity is equal across all races. Is it really the case that the Christianity out of Africa or South America or even Russian is going to save the white Christians of America?

    Mark… JUST BE A Supremacist FIRST and quit worrying about your white race being a stumbling block. IF NOT, you are egalitarian at heart.

  31. Mark Citadel…

    Your insistence that this is some kind of trick when it is an application of simple Logos in the face of an absolutely liberated environment signals that you are unwittingly part and parcel to the Grand Deception.

    A white Christian = white Supremacist.

    There is no trick in asserting A = A…

    The REAL TRICK is having Mark Citadel BELIEVE that A = B…

    White Supremacist = white degenerate…


    Oblivious to the equation A = A = B…

    White Christian = white Supremacist = white degenerate…

    White Christian = white degenerate.

    The beauty of the above simplification is that the real enemies of white Supremacy ARE the high IQ jewhites… “Men” of the Equation thus GIVEN NO BENEFIT of ignorance.

    I seek to impose my will on the masses of degenerate high IQ “white” males, who, if are methodically annihilated, will effectively end any notion of extant white Christianty.

    And if that does not bother you THEN at least OWN your pathological deracination.

  32. One of the most catastrophic beliefs of the “intellectual right” is the belief that degenerates will not viciously fight for a degenerate existence.

  33. John K…

    Don’t put words in my mouth. Recognizing absolute Supremacy IN NO WAY subverts its relative application. There CERTAINLY COULD BE a group of men inherently better than any other group of men and racial categorizing such groups makes this no less true. So IF a small collective of white men could persuade a mass of white males to conversion to white Supremacy rooted in the total rejection of self-annihilation including deracination and this ethos is passed along then a claim could be made about a superior group of white men all striving towards Supremacy in reverence to the Absolute Truth. If the aim is holiness through wholeness then race is an absolutely remarkable fact of life.

  34. White supremacist is a term referencing the *political* supremacy of whites over non-whites. This may or may not be superior to our current political regime, but I can’t subscribe to it wholeheartedly as it presupposes democracy, in that presumably all whites would hold some manner of political power (equally?) by virtue of their whiteness, which is stoopid, though perhaps not as stoopid as dividing political power equally among everyone.

    Note that this is a) what people actually mean by the term b) it was created to describe a set of beliefs among people who were already post-Christian, a subset 19th and 20th century progressives and their descendants c) the term was not co-opted and stolen from Christians as if your esoteric definition was the *real* meaning of the term d) it is a grammatically parsimonious term to describe an actual phenomenon.

    Now, you have taken a preexisting term which quite reasonably refers to something else entirely, given it an Amelia Bedelia literalist interpretation to mean something new, and now go around pointlessly haranguing everyone who sees exactly what you’ve done. Everyone has basically been exceedingly polite to you, because we all are “white supremacists” according to your esoteric definition. However, your redefinition strikes me as pointless and trivial. There are literal definitions of communist that probably apply to most of us as well (COMMUNIST = SUPPORTER OF COMMUNITIES).

  35. I feel no inclination to comment on thordaddy’s silly, idiosyncratic use of the phrase “white supremacist”. Comment threads at the Orthosphere have already been derailed on that.

  36. It seems neither Bonald nor Josh is an actual old stock American understanding of the place that “white supremacy” has played in the seemingly inevitable annihilation of white Americans AND whatever Christianity they had hold of. Over and over again, each repeats exactly what is already known by the racially aware. Each is beholden to a conception of “white supremacy” that they can “justifiably” reject and each irrationally rejects a conception they SHOULD fully embrace AS true Christians. The unwillingness to see the connection between genuine white Supremacy, staunch Christianity and the annihilation of whites through a totalitarian regime of anti-white Supremacy shows a rather stunning ignorance of contemporary Murka.

  37. John K,
    “the lords/administrators treat their serfs/subordinates as though they were their children, ”

    I think we have a very different understanding of distributism. I DO NOT
    want any lord/admistrator to treat me like a child. That is sheer progressivism. Distributism is just wide dispersal of property so that power is also dispersed.

  38. Bonald, I’m confused. You are in the “same boat” as the “racists,” but you are not side by side with the white Supremacist?

  39. Mark Citadel,

    I agree entirely. Popular opinion tends to picture the feudal lord as a diabolical overlord in a forbidding castle of black stone who drives his serfs like slaves and tortures and kills them for kicks. But Kristor did an article some time back showing how even a solely rationally self-interested feudal lord would have the welfare of his subjects as his first priority, didn’t he? (Also see below what I said to vishmehr)


    When I say the lords treat their serfs as children, I don’t mean it in the progressive way. The familiar lord does not usurp the authority of the serf’s biological father, any more than an officer who’s a “father to his men” does his soldiers, or a mentor who’s “like a father” does a pupil, or a priest or godfather does a parishioner or godson. He rather humanises the law, tempers justice with mercy, enforces the spirit of the law rather than the letter, represents the personal nature of forgiveness, and is attendant to the specific needs and concerns of his limited handful of subjects. Distributism brings about the devolution of power from the central authority down to the lower rungs of the hierarchy, which would empower and encourage local administrators to develop a familiar relationship with their subjects.


    That I do not think we should call ourselves “Supremacists” does not imply that I do not wish to be, or am not, in fact, what you call a “Supremacist”. You’re conflating the name with the thing, the accident with the essence, the string attribute with the object, etc. Unless you can show that the word “Supremacist” has some sort of ontological privilege such that we cannot think that it is a culturally inappropriate label for the group of persons you call “Supremacists”, we are under no obligations to pander to your linguistic proclivities, and your inference that we are all secretly liberals who subconsciously desire a “radical liberation” is completely ungrounded.

    As a side note, “degenerate” is not an accurate descriptor for what our enemies consider us to be. The idea of degeneracy as something undesirable seems to have been eliminated from their consciousness altogether (which makes them themselves all the more degenerate, but that’s besides the point). I’d suggest changing the RHS term of your favourite equation to “hatred” instead. Or “offensiveness”.

  40. John K.

    I am not conflating anything. You don’t call yourself a “supremacist” BECAUSE a “supremacist” is a baaaad man and you are not a baaaad man. BUT, you are also allegedly not an egalitarian. You are, I suspect, a self-avowed anti-Equalist. In other words, you are a Supremacist. And yet, you still will not call yourself a Supremacist because Supremacists are bad men, ie., degenerates. So the implication is that your own anti-egalitarian stance is a degenerate one by your own admission?

  41. John k.

    The entire purpose of imposing a regime of “Equality” on the masses is to thwart and extinguish any notion swirling about the white man’s mind for a personal ascension and a transcending of the masses, ie., separating and segregating from the radical liberationists. In Murka circa 2015, it is socially verboten and damn near criminal for white men to strive towards objective Supremacy. And then when one takes this reality and goes straight to the modern white Chriatian for an interpretation of the matter, he encounters a total obliviousness of the situation that is entirely inexplicable. So not only does the modem Christian refuse to simply assert that he is, as necessitated by his faith, driven towards Supremacy, but he is also part of the indifferent mass of degenerates TOTALLY UNAWARE that the desire for true ascension and transcending is absolutely the only taboo.

  42. John K.

    You are also missing something else that is rather obvious and critically important in regards to this debate. In the same way that the conception of “white Supremacist” has been perverted by the radical liberals, the 2000 year old understanding of “Christian” has also been perverted to appear as though it were the dual parents of Liberalism. The “Christian” is now the “exemplar” self-annihilator having folded to Liberalism on nearly every front.

  43. I don’t know – the own-the-insult thing works pretty well for the blacks and the queers.

  44. thordaddy,

    My dear friend, I suggest you learn to read. Nowhere has anyone here said anything to the effect that the men you call “Supremacists” are bad or degenerate. However, language, having its end in facilitating communication, is, ultimately, contingent, and dependent on other people accepting it. Insisting on using words in a manner that no-one else does is hence an impairment to communication and an abuse of language, and not, as you seem to constantly insist, a mark of enlightenment or an indicator that one is privy to some great truth about reality. That, in sum, is our problem with you using “Supremacist” in this way. We do not say that “Supremacists” as you define them are bad or degenerate, merely that the connotation and denotation of the word “Supremacist” in popular parlance is such that it would not be wise for us to apply that appellation to ourselves, and that all your unique insistence in using it this way does is cause confusion. Once again, the implication underlying your reasoning is that refusing to call ourselves “Supremacists” for any reason whatsoever means we are not really “Supremacists” – which, as I have said, is a conflation of the name with the thing. We are all anti-Equallists and anti-egalitarians here, which, as you note, means that we are what you call “Supremacists”. That we believe it would be wiser to use a different name does not change this fact.

    I agree with your comments on the regime of equality. Yet I fail to see what this has to do with your insistence of the word “Supremacy”. Why not “arete”? “Virtue”? “Perfection”? They are all different ways to say the same thing, and are, to a one, less confusing to both ourselves and those we may wish to convert or oppose. Unless, of course, you want to use “Supremacist”/”Supremacy” for shock value, which, as I have mentioned above, is generally counterproductive and possibly even costly in terms of souls saved, and basically does more harm than good.

    I’m afraid I’ll have to disagree regarding the corruption of language. Josh has already explained above how the phrase “white supremacist” came about; we cannot claim the phrase to be corrupted because *it has always meant that*. There’s nothing stopping you from trying to give it a new definition, but as you can see it tends to cause quite a bit of confusion, not to mention that the phrase is heavily loaded and tends to engender hostility. A majority of those who call themselves “Christians” are undeserving of the name, yes, but there are plenty of better ways to say “true Christian” than “Supremacist”. “Christian reactionary/counter-revolutionary/royalist/authoritarian monarchopatriarchist/etc.”, to describe political positions. “Saint-aspirant”, if you want to focus on the rigours of a personal striving for holiness (“supremacy”). And if you still insist on using “Supremacy” (which I do not recommend, because “supremacist”‘s connotations taint it, and it implies that there is one position of supremacy that we should be fighting each other for), you could always use a conjugation free of “Supremacist”‘s baggage, like “Supremacy-seeker” or somesuch.

  45. John K…

    Let me make this as simple and straightforward as possible and you will either agree or disagree and are free to explain your decision.

    IF *you* PUBLICLY DENY that *you* are a Supremacist (or white Supremacist) THEN *you* PUBLICLY DENY being a Christian (whether you deny being “white” is another part of the story).

    Do you agree or disagree with this scenario? If you agree, do you not “see” the inevitable result as the True Litmus Test goes global? If you disagree, WHAT EXACTLY IS your disagreement.

    PS I make no claims to enlightenment. I only “see” the inevitable result of a people who seek Final Liberation.

  46. In a further note…

    “white supremacy” does not equal white Supremacy. Again, the insistence that these “things” are equal is simply evidence of an undeserved deference to egalitarianism.

  47. See John K… Your frame is perverted. You sense that I “accuse” you of being a “supremacist.” In fact, I have shown you your willingness to publicly deny your belief in The Perfect Man. What is it to claim one’s self a Christian and then deny that belief in the most explicit way? You are being gamed like so many other passive Christians. It is not good for any of “us.”

  48. Bruce…

    Being a faggot IS AN INSULT…

    Being a nigger IS AN INSULT…

    BEING a white Supremacist IS NOT INSULTING although the PERVERTED MASSES interpret it as an insult BECAUSE their “intellectual” betters HAVE JUST MADE IT SO!

    And so in the first two instances “we” operate under the unspoken law that these insults shall not be hurled publicly or privately AND that somehow the motivation to own these insults IS A GOOD THING. In the latter instance, the “insult” is maliciously tossed about FOR THE DUAL PURPOSE of annihilating lesser liberals with “just cause” (accusing them of white Supremacy) AND PROVOKING average IQ Christians to publicly refute their belief in objective Supremacy. Of course, in this case, owning the insult is only in reference to the term “racist” and this ownership is ACTUALLY rooted in the idea that racist = anything the anti-racist wants it to mean AND NOT the idea that racist = white supremacist to which there would be no elicitation of ownership. So is exponential perversion all around..

  49. John K,
    It appears that many people in the Reaction do not seem to have a conception of authority that is not paternal, neither of relation with others that are not founded in blood.
    Are the concepts and categories of neighbor and civic friendship so gone from the reaction’s mind? This attitude puts the reaction in a very primitive state of mind. Tribal would be a kind word for it. Romantic fantasies about Romanian peasants are not suitable preparations for takeover of power in 21C America.

    I keep advocating a reading of Aristotle. But I guess the Reaction is not an intellectual movement but a romantic one.

  50. vishmehr24…

    What is it in the “concepts” and “categories” of “neighbor” and “civic friendship” that invokes ideas of “authority?” Those very things conjure up ideas of NO authority in my mind. You are seemingly questioning the duty to family by asserting a duty to neighbor citizens… BY WHAT authority IF NOT the “father?”

  51. Bonald… Those at the Orthosphere are ritual and intellectual Christians, by and large. I am a fighter. And only now a fighter Christian. You actually need me at THIS STAGE much more than I need you BECAUSE intellectually I believe in the Christian Assertion more than you and ritually my lot will be in the physical battle as proof of my faith. But we are still allies at the end of the day.

  52. “neither of relation with others that are not founded in blood.” Utterly untrue. A slanderous lie.

    “the Reaction is not an intellectual movement but a romantic one.” Also a slanderous lie.

  53. Thordaddy, no offense friend but I think if you pause and step back for a moment you’ll find that you’re coming off as crazier than hell.

  54. Vishmehr – I think you are misunderstanding the position here. Your criticism seems aimed at the bleeding over between patronomy (the sphere of authority held by fathers as representatives of each familiar unit) and the heteronomic hierarchy (that hierarchy which exists beyond an extension of familial structure and forms a civilizational government).

    Now, I am a proponent indeed of the respect for the authoritative law spheres of autonomy, heteronomy, patronomy, and theonomy. When one tries to usurp the authoritative duties of another, this is in almost all cases negative, so I can understand a base reaction against the idea of a paternalistic aristocracy, it does indeed ring of primitivism rather than civilization, at least in principle.

    However, in practice, we find that the heteronomic hierarchy and the patronomic units do tend to see a stable diffusion across their authoritative borders. Especially in smaller locales, the authority that a patriarch may have over a very large familial line may indeed have an impact upon his possible role as an aristocrat or official. This hasn’t really been shown to be negative or degenerative, and is present throughout the World of Tradition. I give the Romanian example because it was one presented in a book that I was reading recently, but it describes what the hierarchical relationship was like within feudalism, possibly in the general sense beyond the specific.

    We must take account of two big factors at play here:

    1) In the World of Tradition, kin means a great deal more than it does today, so already the notion of one’s ‘countrymen’ is a designation that cuts close to home. Being of the same blood, and infused with a love of that blood and national lineage, the relationship between rulers and ruled will tend to be a thawed one rather than an icy one (unless there is some extravagant influencing factor to the contrary).

    2) Especially with rural economics, the transactions of everyday life involve far fewer people, allowing a closer relationship to take place between lord and serf. Just as the contrast between ancient-style domestic servitude and chattel slavery shows, the fewer people involved, the more warm and perhaps ‘paternalistic’ the relationship between peoples will become.

    Now in terms of ‘paternalism’, I don’t think this is necessarily a good characterization of the modern Progressive regime. It seems easy to prove that this regime actually has no desire to alter the environment and culture by force “for the good of the people”. This platitude is even less applicable to Liberalism than it was for the deeply hypocritical Stalinists. What they do, they do in the service of a Cult, a sect worldview alien to humanity which must be adhered to whether it is for the good of the people or not. People don’t ultimately matter, it is the agenda of the day which matters, and if people have to be butchered and burned to get there, then the good of the people be damned. The Progressive ideology would hold true even if it meant eradicating every person on the planet. It is not, nor has it ever ultimately been about people. ‘People’ have been useful tools.

    So at the low aristocratic level, where the salt of the earth sometimes blows across the threshold of the lord’s doorway, there will be a sense of protectionism for his workers that this lord should feel, and this is beneficial to all involved, and harmful to none. It’s not a paternalism that strangulates nor encroaches. It respects its boundaries and avoids unnecessary entanglements. The lord may vouch for his lowly servants in a dispute with another manor without having good reason to do so, however he won’t ask them to stop using lightbulbs because it might one day cause a hurricane that will blow out their thatched roofs due to global warming. These complex ‘paternalistic’ concerns of Modern governments cannot be mapped onto the Traditional aristocrat. To do so slanders his character and reduces him almost to the level of bureaucrat.

    When you talk about the ‘taking over’ of 21st Century America, I’m afraid you’re in the wrong place. This isn’t Daily Stormer or RevLeft. We don’t take literal swords to the ankles of the ugly giant that is the spirit of the age. She will only be felled by her own gluttony and poor hygiene (and in spite of all warnings, she persists in these habbits). Any take over worth anything in time will occur precisely with the revolving of a Cosmic Cycle, where the forces that undergird Liberalism’s triumph are sapped from beneath her, forces that are sadly beyond the control of mere mortals.

    When the world is a burning, smoldering wreck, when black smoke chokes the sun, war and pestilence scar the land, when there is no refuge from the shockwaves of a now globally endemic ideology in the death throes of suicide, then you can speak of ‘takeovers’, in fact, you can do more than speak, you can break down doors in ruins with rifle butts and brandish swords in the faces of what remains of the enemy. Until such a time however, the Reactionary goals remain simple: Become worthy of inheriting the world which disaster will bring us, and persuade every man with the potential of worth to join this army in the shadows.

    Remember, the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has already been won.

  55. ‘“the Reaction is not an intellectual movement but a romantic one.” Also a slanderous lie.’

    Really? This stuck me as on the nose.

  56. Really there is no capital R Reaction movement. There’s a bunch of different guys (and a few girls) who write a bunch of things on blogs. Some are more focused on race & ethnicity, some are more focused on sex, marriage and patrimony, some are more focused on religion, etc. I assume he’s talking about the guys who associate with this site. I don’t agree that they’re not intellectuals and that if they just read Aristotle like him they’d get it.
    I read his comment as saying we’re a bunch of unlearned, romantic racists.

  57. That may be so Bruce, but you seem simultaneously aware AND oblivious to what is coming down the road.

    YOU, like all those white men at the Orthosphere, MUST BECOME HARDER Christians OR it is nighty-night for you are yours and perhaps the rest of “us.” The problem FOR YOU and those at the Orthophere isn’t your Christianity, BUT your unwillingness to be hard about it AND DEFEND YOURSELF WITH VIOLENCE. I have no such stumbling block. I only need learn more of intellectual and ritual Christianity (this is partially achieved by reading the Orthosphere), but even there I WHOLEHEARTEDLY believe in the Christian Assertion. And what do you know? One “sees” a nexus between the general modern rejection of the existence of The Perfect Man (The Christian Assertion) AND the totalitarian impulse to crush ALL white Supremacists. Can you not “see” where this is going AS it pertains to white Christians? Cannot you not “see” who will be the first in line to take seat at the Inquisition table FORCED to answer to The Litmus Test? Are you a white Supremacist? Are you still oblivious to what it means to say “no?” Are you still oblivious to the understanding of the outside world that white Christians NO LONGER FIGHT for their Faith?

  58. Bruce…

    White Christians are disappearing (being annihilated or losing faith)…

    So Christianity AS WE KNOW IT, is disappearing (being annihilated).

    A reasonable man interprets these facts as an unwillingness on the part of white Christians TO SURVIVE as white Christians.

    And then a reasonable man concludes that this unwillingness to fight for one’s Chrisitian faith MEANS assumingly that one no longer believes in the Christian Assertion.

    And what do you know, this reasonable man with access to modern media is inundated with images and sound bites of self-professed white Christians lamenting the death of Christianity while in the same breath denouncing the white Supremacist.

    It’s astonishing to witness. The double-mindedness is a thing to behold.

  59. Dude, I have seven blond haired blue eyed children . I’m making them as fast as I can.

  60. Bruce… Bless you… You have a lot of future wSs to cultivate and protect. I wish you the best.

  61. Romanticism is a vice of learned people. The romantics were highly learned people.

    But a scholarly effort must put any new insight in the context of existing conversation. And in politics, the conversation starts with Aristotle, and not Locke.

    All this talk of lords and serfs is romantic. What exist and will exist are broken families, jobless men, incomprehensible immigrants etc.

  62. Bruce:


  63. Holy er, there are lots of comments. Sheesh.
    Hey thordaddy (thor!?) I get it.
    But then, I’m not very bright.

  64. TCA…

    If you want to live just because

    You are “brighter” than 99% of the “intelligentsia.”

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: