Ideas Never Rule

Curtis Yarvin (subscribing gives me the dox heebies and I’m not giving him any shekels at the moment, but I have friends who provide) says that ape shall not rule over man and advocates for a “cozy revolution”. Logo on twitter claims that men of ideas drive history, and that men of action dance on their puppet strings. These ideas feel related in my mind. So. Two birds, one shell.

“When men of rank sacrifice all ideas of dignity to an ambition without a distinct object, and work with low instruments and for low ends, the whole composition becomes low and base.”
—Edmund Burke

Yarvin is sounding a lot like Burke these days. Caesar, the actual Caesar, you know the guy, killed a million Gauls and looted a staggering, mind-blowing amount of gold for the sheer thrill of conquest and to get filthy rich. The dignity of Rome’s ancient traditions demanded that Caesar come back home like a good boy to face censure and likely execution. Yet Rome was a degraded cesspit, corroded by party-politics, and Caesar, well, we still use his name to describe a guy who says “fuck that”.

Men of action rule, and are guided by externalities, not the ideals of philosophers. The philosophers who “inspired” the French Revolution did not in fact do so. Rousseau, Voltaire, and the like were merely providing the post-hoc rationalization, in the finest intellectual language, for the revolutions in England in the seventeenth century, and after their careers, served merely to validate the already-powerful civil service of the Sun-King’s absolutist government in its grab for power. Absolutism itself, rather than being ideological, was a development that arose from power struggles between Crown and Nobility, and was later justified by intellectual absolutists and divine-right theorists who arose well after absolutism had been actualized but never named.

As I said, men of action do, and thus inspire the intellectual class. The thoughts and pens of nerds dance on puppet strings when Chad flexes. The ancient dynamic of the bard eulogizing the great warrior has not substantially changed one bit. Marx’s intellectual career was spent justifying Robespierre and the French Revolution, an exact reflection of Carlyle, who spent his on Napoleon and Cromwell. The intellectual than ends his “career” being used yet again, by later fact-men as garment in which to wrap their naked power-politics.

The priest who, having power, attempts to set an idea on the throne invites disaster. Voegelin called them “gnostics”. Men of ideas do not drive history because a man, having power, must master the idea or become mastered by it. If he has mastered the idea, he becomes a Cromwell or Caesar himself. Augustus, in attempting to save the Republic, became the Republic in the flesh, annihilating the ideal. If the idea masters the man, we get the purity spiral. For an idea on a throne means an empty throne, and in its name a simian struggle to occupy the spiritual center begins. This struggle is necessarily to be halted by a man of facts, who plops his quite-human ass, that shit even comes out of, on the throne supposedly occupied by an idea, and often ends up having to kill the idea’s adherents when they object.

Lenin did not take power according to the dictat of Marx, did not take power as the representative of an organized proletariat but rather seized it from fellow elites (the wik article is brazenly tankie, with, I note, a level of prose typical of a 90IQ affirmative action college freshman), and when he attempted to install the ideas of Marx as ruler of Russia, his life and the lives of his true believers were cut short. The man who came out on top was the man who threw away the garments of his priest-LARP and emerged naked, more simian, and infinitely more effective, as the born bandit-king he was.

Yarvin is an engineer, and thinks like one. A government is not installed as a computer program is, not constructed, tested, and debugged by the wise hand of a smart and right-thinking man. Power is wrestled over, tooth and nail: the refined cabinet-politics of the Baroque, honed to as fine and precise an art as their greatest music and painting, have not altered one bit in essence from Carlyle’s megatherions grappling for supremacy in the primordial muck. Yarvin (nor Froude, for that matter) goes into much detail on what happens after-Ulysses strings and bends his great bow. It is undeniably simian. But ape shall not rule over man.

Or shall he? Charles II was restored by Parliament; by a Parliament that had General Monck’s swords resting on the backs of their necks. Not literally, but does it matter if the sword is naked or sheathed? Is one really more… apelike than the other? No matter how many velvet gloves, no matter how fine the embroidery, how rare the silk trimmings, the fist inside is still iron. The iron fist is how chimps go to war, and it is still how governments are made, reformed, and unmade. The velvet glove made the fist more effective indeed, but the value of the glove is beyond the scope of this piece. It is a fact, however, that the decorum and politesse of that era is as dead and buried as the dignity and honor of the Roman Senate in 49 B.C.

And Monck was no idealist. He was a friend of Cromwell, not a man whose head rung with “dieu et mon droit“. The man of ideas who wanted to reform and remake was… Barebone. I’m sure he thought, or hoped, it would be gentle. A “cozy revolution”. (And I am of course using Barebone as a proxy for his entire “elite”.) Monck was just a dude with an army who was fucking sick of it. When I talk about “men of facts” and “men of action”, this is what I mean. Monck saw the facts, and had an army. More anarchy, King Charles, or King Monck. Charles once tried to get Monck to betray Cromwell. He wouldn’t do it. Now Cromwell’s dead. Monck was loyal to Cromwell. Were he a man of ideas, maybe he would have tried to construct a “Cromwellism”. Since he was a warrior and a man of fact, he sided with reality.

Even Charles II had about a dozen people drawn and quartered. Nowhere close to a million, or fifty million. But he killed people who mattered. If your head is filled with notions of democracy, everyone matters to power. You have to kill a million to make a difference. If you believe in reality, you know that few rule, and you only need to kill a few. This is necessarily a difference of degree rather than kind. Is one really more apelike than another? Democide is to democracy what regicide is to monarchy. One is uglier and causes infinitely more suffering. But is the basic motive any different? Cromwell’s very body was exhumed and hanged. Is this the act of an ape or a man? Did the Restoration suffer greatly for this base and puerile outburst of simian sentiment? This massive… flex?

The answer is, not a bit. Ape indeed rules over man. Monck’s guards had to beat up a lot of puritans in the streets, a simple display of dominance that has remained unchanged since the tribal politics of the chimpanzee. It is time to stop worrying and learn to love the monke, for the difference is not a choice between ape and man. The choice is between the Monck-ape who understands reality and the Robespierre-ape who does not. I don’t know what “caesar” is going to look like for us. The first and second Punic wars of antiquity are precisely analogous to the first and second World Wars of Western Civilization. But we are in uncharted waters, because in our culture-organism’s life-cycle, Carthage won. The maritime mercantile empire ruled by an evil and insane theocracy defeated the militaristic land-empire. I do not know what Carthage’s eventual Caesar would have looked like, but I do know that he would have refused to sacrifice his kids to Moloch.

35 thoughts on “Ideas Never Rule

  1. Come to think of it, we do have precedent. Gay thalassocratic Athens defeated chad militaristic Sparta. Phillip II and then Alexander swept right in, created the Hellenistic world which invigilated itself into the Roman world, kept on trucking in various forms until the fall of Constantinople. Still survives in some form in those countries that keep the Byzantine traditions.

    Barbarian will barge in, install his court tutor as chief philosopher, court tutor will develop philosophical system which will lead to restoration, but be balanced out by a competing philosophical system developed earlier in the gay mercantile thalassocracy. Old luster will never be recovered, but the civilization can survive, including the gay bits, especially the gay bits.

    Which sucks for us, because we’re the Xenophons of our time. Even our accounts of Socrates will take a backseat to gay Aristotelianism and even gayer Platonism.


    1. Well, the Spartans did technically win the Peloponnesian War, a war which reminds me of the Bourbon Dynasty’s successful attempt to prevent the HRE from uniting Europe (fuck the French, seriously) in the 15th century.

      Spengler could not quite grasp what the nascent “Russian” (broadly Rus-Slavic) culture was all about, but looking at their engineering, I think that its soul is a soul of clarifying, simplifying, and purifying. It will probably be left to them to make the pieces of the Faustian West into something stable.

      Our job, if anything, is “tidying up” rather than building something new, clarifying how it all went wrong and how to avoid our mistakes.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Russia was problematic for Spengler to discern because of faustian pseudomorphy. It had a Nordic-German aristocracy which distorted the underlying Russian soul (most evident in Pushkin, but not fully into its own being). Russia still isn’t fully itself and likely won’t be until the Putin period is over – Putin himself is a pseudomorph, Germanophone from a very early age and with possible German admixture to which he won’t admit.


  2. You’re afraid to email subscribe to Yarvin? That’s excessive.

    Free email subscription grants full text.


    1. I have a few throwaway Gmail accounts but Google now requires a phone number (voice or text) to create new ones (and constantly nags me to add phone #s to my old ones haha).

      Yandex lets you sign up, but a few days later they lock your account and require a mobile phone to unlock it. So Yandex is fine if you only need to receive a single confirmation e-mail to set up an account somewhere else.

      I just created an email without a phone and it seems to work, but it might be like Yandex, I don’t know.


  3. My own take is similar, but not quite identical. In truth, Arthur (the man of action) needs Merlin (the man of ideas), and Merlin needs Arthur. Without some ideas to fight for (and to keep his behavior within some decent boundaries), the man of action will become not Arthur, but Tamerlane – a glorified ghetto thug whose motivation is fame, gold, and pussy, and whose destruction never creates anything except pyramids of human skulls. But without action to make ideas mean something in the real world, the man of ideas becomes not Merlin, but Dr. Pangloss – a useless navel-gazer whose hours of philosophizing are a horrible waste of time that would better be spent planting potatoes.

    I left NRx when they turned to “passivism”, which was really just an elaborate excuse for refusing to go beyond the world of ideas. At some point around 2014, they ended up with all the ideas they needed – they’d pushed their idea set as far as it could go. It was impressive, but, well… now what? And it’s not just NRx. A lot of the Dissident Right seems to have the same problem. There’s a huge emphasis on “redpilling” people. They seem to forget that Neo took the red pill in the first 20 minutes of that movie, and the story didn’t end there. He had to learn Kung Fu, grab an M16, and kick a bunch of ass to a hard-driving soundtrack of late 90s techno, post-punk, and glam industrial before he could start freeing his people.

    In short, while it needs both to accomplish anything, the Dissident Right currently suffers from a glut of Merlins and a desperate shortage of Arthurs. Curtis is a good example – he’s far and away the smartest man I ever met, but he needs to get the hell out of San Francisco, move to a small town in Idaho or Montana, buy an AR-15, learn about square foot gardening, put down the Carlyle, and start watching Paul Harrell videos.


    1. If you think “passivism” didn’t include hunkering down in Idaho, then you (still?) don’t understand “passivism”.

      Of course, once Hunkering Down is on the table, one (or, more likely, a group) might be able to do so in Bay or LA or NYC.


  4. >Yarvin is an engineer, and thinks like one. A government is not installed as a computer program is, not constructed, tested, and debugged by the wise hand of a smart and right-thinking man.

    old traditions are strong because they evolved in the same complex systems theyre supposed to work in (called intra-context), underwent a darwinian selection process and were tested, trialed and steelmanned for some 3500+years. so they outperform any designist unevolved untested unselected cross-context newcomer traditions. it might actualy be too late to point this out however.
    I think half of our task is to make technology based traditions happen. since there is no adequate force to counter the ‘progress’ destroying old traditions and natural order stuff. also its very far along; there is almost nothing left, even if the holyness spiral is halted today (other half of task). so whats left of the traditions is just not very net evolved, due to devolution and rot(=dynamic devolution, or ratchet). so then designism, or, technology based traditions become good again.

    humanity does not need any race or ideology in particular. I wouldnt waste my time on ones that are hopelessly rusted through. wich it looks like most here agree includes some of continent (rip). I would go for the ones that have a good return on the investment.

    p.s. most software is not designed, because too complex. it is purposefully evolved. including darwinian trial and error of local scope innovations. corporate calls it agile software development + scrum. maybe youtube search linus torvaldt on the creation of git, if youre bored.


  5. my view is, actual power is pragmatic realist machiavellian riskaffine and a pinch sociopathy(amoral and disregardant of externalities). it will take nearly any opportunity possible. limited only by technological and material constraints, not morality)
    ideologies can distort the thought space and thus create or break opportunities for machiavellian players. they affect (significantly) what is possible and not. I think anyone here has a clue just how significant culture is.
    the interesting question is, to what extend can ideology be modulated, shaped, perhaps even designed? and I would add that technology is unleashed.


    1. “The man who came out on top was the man who threw away the garments of his priest-LARP and emerged naked, more simian, and infinitely more effective, as the born bandit-king he was.“

      The man who emerged on top in the USSR was Stalin—the “grey blur”, the arch-bureaucrat—who captured the party’s bureaucratic apparatus from behind the back of the more cerebral and priest-like Trotsky (who was also celebrated as a military commander in a way Stalin was not). Stalin wasn’t exactly a dashing military commander, though as a man of action he did rob banks; he was, very definitely, a Machiavellian and a realist—his private library contained heavily annotated copies of Machiavelli’s work. Military men often bring order out of priest-induced chaos, but it is not their “Hulk smash” abilities that allow them to do this; it is simply that military life forces them to be more realistic, as does bureaucratic manoeuvring for some people—realists and Machiavellians can be found in all walks of life, but priests tend to buy their own bullshit and so do not look at things realistically more often than most. Stalin was a bandit, a failed Orthodox priest, and a poet; but he was a realist above all—he knew men.

      Napoleon knew men; he knew what men are like. He is said to have invented—or at least popularised—giving out medals. He made men love him; even today there are people who adore him, not every general is so adored—few care for Wellington, even though, technically, he smashed Napoleon. There are many men who are chads, but the chad doesn’t necessarily know how to make men adore him and want to die for a shiny piece of metal with no monetary value—it is not every man who can mint a medal (i.e. invent social value). When Napoleon said,“One night in the brothels of Paris will replace all this,” with reference to the dead on a battlefield, he showed his Machiavellian detachment. He was no sentimental ethnonationalist weeping over his countrymen (perhaps easier for a Corsican); he saw, with the eye of a logistics expert, his true military speciality, along with propaganda, that the human material would be replaced. Bandits are distracted by greed, priests are deluded by pretty stories, and soldiers are unimaginative; but the realist is detached, he is a craftsman whose material is man.


      1. Stalin killed people, and commanded the loyalty of military men who killed people. He did not “hulk smash” the Soviet Union into order, but the same spirit that drove him to rob banks and shoot cops allowed him to impose order; a man who Spengler would call a man of facts. When I talk about warriors and priests, I am referring to natural caste more than occupation. Stalin LARPed as a priest for most of his young life (see my comments on the post “Nationalism”), first as an actual priest and then as a Marxist, because priestliness was higher status in the cucked anglophile Russian Empire. Monck did not hulk smash anybody either, but the dominance displays that enabled them to restore order were just about as ancient and primitive.

        The problem with Napoleon and Stalin both is that they had no aristocracy and no aristocratic tradition of breeding and training excellence behind them. Both were extremely effective at personal rule, but neither were survived by great men. This is the fate of Caesarism in latter days.


        1. No disagreement with that. Regarding the main thrust of the article—ideas versus action—and relating it back to Stalin; he was a practical man and a man of action, but he still sincerely held a minimal set of ideas that guided many of his actions. Stalin was teased by his cronies when he tried to be a Marxist theoretician because he didn’t have the brains for it; he had the nous to manipulate his immediate social circle and bureaucracy, but not enough to play dialectical games. However, he had one constant idea: private property is the root of all Russia’s problems and it must be abolished. I think he really believed that; he certainly led quite a modest life, not the life of Commodus—not dancing girls and luxury. He was a sincere Communist, as he understood it. He tried to implement his idea as much as he could, even though it always failed.

          Unlike Trotsky, Stalin would only follow his idea so far as it did not threaten his rule (even then he misjudged sometimes), and because of this he effectively imposed some responsible limits on the USSR—so breaking, as you know, their holiness spiral. Stalin’s ideas were minimal—he wasn’t an ideas man—but they were there; they guided his behaviour; and they were sincerely held. I think the same could be said of Caesar, a man who was a priest before he was a general. I don’t think there are many men who are just about gold, girls, and glory. All men like those things, and all men want those things—but most men have ideas as well, even if it’s just Stalin’s simple idea. A pure man of action without some minimal ideas wouldn’t sit still long enough to rule, just as a pure ideas man wouldn’t be practical enough to rule. In modern industrial societies, where most people don’t live like Genghis Khan or Blackbeard, even men of action will have a lot of ideas constraining them—even if just from their technical education. In short, I don’t think ideas men ever rule, nor do pure ideas; but even the greatest men of action do not live by bread alone, and they will try to an impose an idea that they got from somewhere on society—if only for reasons of vanity.


  6. Writing of the Roman victory over the Carthaginians at Zama, Belloc relates, “So perished for many hundred years the dangerous illusion that the merchant can master the soldier.”

    Let’s see how long the priest can master the solider, once the solider concludes that serving the priest is now costing him more than simply robbing and killing the priest. I suspect not long at all.


  7. A certain set of ideas is inherent to the actions of the ape. You can name dozens of good reasons to oppose faggotry but we all feel instinctive revulsion to the abomination. Burning your best son on the altar of the great god Baal must feel much the same. A lot of reactionary work is nothing more than burning away the overgrowth of bad ideas.

    Not to sound too much like Moldbug, but we can divide ideas into friendly and hostile. Friendly ideas hew to gnon. Hostile ideas defy gnon, either as costly signalling or as meme introduced by your enemy to your detriment and his benefit. The hostile ideas stand alone but the friendly ideas form part of a complex memeplex. Stalin instinctively eradicates possible and in the same breath suppresses free communication to hamper coordination of his enemies. All very natural, except that Stalin’s state is founded upon an absurd premise which requires him to act with brutal ferocity when Charles II had no such need.

    The hostile ideas are nothing more than out of proportion friendly ideas. Holiness is good and necessary. It’s the spirals that kill us. To preserve themselves over the millennia, the Jews ritually exclude outsiders and form tight cultural bonds. Being Jews, they take this as license to backstab and betray surrounding cultures, leading to everyone hating them. In the same way, the corruption of Christianity turns respect for outsiders into hatred of friends. A single idea on the throne is necessarily a hostile idea because it is out of proportion or idolized. The friendly memeplex, in contrast, is the man of action on the throne, instinct, but amplified to allow for cooperation. It’s not just Genghis Khan that scored the record for getting laid but all his brothers too.


    1. I can’t remember if I included the paragraph or not, but ape/man is not a useful distinction. The useful distinction is between Good and Evil. Good hews to GNON, Evil opposes GNON. We don’t need to call them friendly and hostile; they are Good and Evil. Stalin’s ideas were evil; he killed a lot of good people because his ideas were evil, and a lot of evil people pragmatically to restore order and stability. Stalin instinctively cared more about order and stability than he did the absurd and evil ideas, and ended up doing more good than evil. Charles II’s ideas were good, so he only had to kill a handful of evil people.

      Good and Evil have been with us in the West for a long time. Plenty of ancient stories about order versus chaos, but Beowulf was the first tale written down about Good versus Evil. Our postmodern NRx intellectualism only serves to come, in a roundabout way, back to the early and pure truths of our people, rationalizing them in a way that modern man can understand.


  8. To clarify things, it would best to think about both men as having a God-complex, with the difference being that Hitler unironically believed this, while Stalin had a bit of scepticism about it. This common feature was probably inherited from the male line (it’s funny how the paternity of these two men is hazy) so it was up to their mothers to nurture it into them. Hitler’s mother had German blood, but he turned out badly, while Stalin’s mother had Russian blood, and he turned out well. I wonder which German man from the 19th century also had a God-complex and was excessively intimate with two German and Russian women who absolutely hated each other’s guts?


    1. The “God-complex” is just the gnostic desire to fulfill heaven on earth, viewed from the outside by somebody who does not have the gnostic urge, and in every case it comes from trying to put an ideal on the throne. Men who actually feel or believe that they are living gods, like Alexander, do not try to share the throne with an ideal.


  9. Zeal gives strength. Look to the conquistadors. Look to the Puritans. Look to the Japanese or the swarms of communist subhumans.

    Look to the martyrs.

    You may say the strength from zeal is not an idea on the throne but it is raw power, in the same way as bronze swords or panzers. Moldbug wrote about memetically derived neo-puritan pseudo-religion as the dominant faith of the present age. Others said much the same before him but the analysis is correct. However, to actually grant any strength, poz-puritanism must already hold power: media, education, entertainment and even official democratic power. This they call ‘the moral arc of history.’ Without it, they scurry away like rats or snivel at the boots of their betters.

    Real God-fearing religion, in contrast, allows the faithful to stand as an actual minority. God, unlike the ‘moral arc of history,’ doesn’t need the Grand Army of the Republic or the bombs of the State Department. Otherworldly salvation allows the faithful to laugh at defeat.

    “And what matter if we die? God is not mocked.”

    Reactionaries have long understood the cooperative value of religion but the true power requires true belief. Jim is trying to larp himself into faith but a larper doesn’t make a true prophet. ‘Belief’ in Gnon is nothing more than trying to be clever about how the world works but God watches us as a father looks upon his sons. That’s not a logical or scientific viewpoint but the things that matter most never are. Cynics like to sneer about ‘cope.’ If you already belong to loyal brotherhood or have obedient wife, they ask, what use is God? They fail to see that every layer makes us stronger. There’s always a bigger alpha. Having the greatest of them all on your side isn’t just for women.

    Stumbled upon this on Twitter recently:

    From a video game about a cult. Typical case of our enemy producing propaganda for us. Anyone who could sing that and mean it would have more strength than the same man who could not. BAP is right to talk about aesthetics but actual music that people sing together hints an transcendence. Entertainment, art or recorded music, is seen. A song that a man sings with others is felt. That’s not an idea on the throne but it’s power nonetheless.

    Here’s one praising the cult leader:

    Near the end, you can hear the line “they slandered him with every crime that was within *their* laws.” Viewing the self and the tribe as distinct from society. Reactionaries, alt-righters, etc. already do this but that’s based off hyper nerdy study or isolated personal experience with diversity. Democracy is poison but we haven’t spread a memetically successful counter theory. You and I and Jim know what’s up but good luck convincing the conservacucks. Religion could. Gnon can give no assurances in the face of the apocalypse but God does and ours are apocalyptic times.


    1. Zeal is a weapon that either side can wield. Jimianity, I think, is not successful in creating zealots and inspiring faith, but what is? (rather, the point of it is for smart people to consider Christianity as utilitary and necessary from an intellectual standpoint) How many of our own people would martyr themselves for our dissidence? How many god-fearing Christians in America, even, of true and childlike faith, would martyr themselves over their persecution? Who today would suffer what the early Christians in Rome suffered?

      Need a religion to fight a holy war, and that religion is not here yet, even though I predict that it will be Christian in content. BAP is trying to create a new religion, but when you worship strength and beauty, not all that hard to become strong and beautiful, and just lay on the beach fucking sluts all day. Every normal man already hates the ugliness that surrounds him because Chesterton’s Axe, because it is cucking him out of status and his manly desires, so telling people to hate ugliness is not helpful. Even the most devoted male leftist hates it, but in his case it is self-hate.

      The ancient Indo-European religion revivalists omit the most important part of their faith, which is reverence toward the deified dead ancestor and the sacred hearth-fire, which is what makes property, marriage, and all the other useful social technology, sacred and untouchable. If hard to make moderns believe in the salvation promised by Christ after death, impossible to instill true faith in the protection offered by the ancestor spirits and the living god of the flame.

      We all love our memes about Chad chariot warriors and sunwheels crushing degenerate matriarchies, but being impressed and inspired by dead badasses does not a religion make either. That is also in Christianity, we have Deuteronomy 20:16-18 for the genocide-lovers.


  10. I’m not even sure that “men of action” and “men of ideas” is a useful historical dialectic. The thinkers of American Independence were also the doers, a step or two removed from rabble-rousing and demagoguery, just as Robespierre and Bailly, when they presided over the Tennis Court Oath, or Vaclav Havel, when he assumed power, crossed over from idea to praxis. I think you’re on to something here:

    “The choice is between the Monck-ape who understands reality and the Robespierre-ape who does not.”

    The true dichotomy is between those who understand on what power is predicated, and those who don’t. Those who want to pretend violence isn’t lurking behind their carefully-constructed syllogisms. Jefferson obviously understood this on some level, and the method in which he expressed his ideas affirms this; he knew he had to be a polemicist and a victim to his own polemic, actualizing what he penned. Robespierre and Bailly were never grounded; they were violent, sure, but understood violence idealistically, as a means of power rather than power itself. Havel sold his country out to the Eu, so what does he know.


    1. The American Revolution is a tricky one to evaluate, as it was full of prominent statesmen who were not on board with the more radical ideas in it. What is often glossed over is that the first Republic, the articles of confederation, was stillborn because no military power, and the second one immediately had to put down a rebellion to prove its legitimacy. The US Constitution should be viewed as a peace treaty between thirteen sovereign nations moreso than the willing of a new government into existence, with the federal government installed as a sort of independent body for mediating disputes and conducting foreign affairs. Thus for the first time in history, the holiness spiral was made slow but inevitable rather than fast and bloody. There is no surefire way to put a check on sovereignty once and for all; the result of creating the federal government was that the federal government would slowly and inevitably centralize the entire territory.

      “Ideas versus action” is not a historical dialectic, it simply refers to a type of man, intimately related to the priest/warrior caste distinction, and it is a distinction that generally only holds value in the latter days of a people. In younger days, warriors rule and priests mediate their people’s relationship to the divine. In later days, “how to rule?” becomes a topic of priestly concern, and “systems” and their adherents battle with the men who rule.

      I don’t know if it ever rises to a conscious, philosophical understanding, or if men like Stalin ever make a deliberate choice to abandon their ideas. Every man holds some ideas in his head, and every man takes some sort of action, but the distinction is, do you discard the idea to get your will done, or do you discard the chance for practical effect in the name of the idea? The American Revolution and the early Republic was accomplished above all by effective men rather than idealistic ones. America was a frontier, and there was a lot for an elite to do, which made the priestly holiness spirals take a backseat.


    1. And Jim blogs about US politics from his garden in Australia.

      “” quotes and search

      Yarvin was likely rejected admission to Harvard and has made a name for himself weaving a narrative about Harvard. Like any interesting story, there are shades of truth mixed into the narrative. In this narrative, Harvard is a very influential finishing school, but it is neither the exclusive finisher nor the intellectual heart of power.

      In his Usenet preserved correspondence, Yarvin had a leviathan fetish from at least his collegiate days. From 1991, Yarvin has an archived winner smugly criticizing capitalism and another lauding Misha Gorbachev four months before the USSR collapsed.

      If Trump has demonstrated one thing it is that preserving the rule of law is an imperative to him. One can still make the argument that this imperative will eventually leave him short, but this real story has not been finished.


      1. “Harvard” is a necessary signifier, because the enemy is an informal priest class motivated by a religious sentiment that constantly mutates and evolves. It is important to have a name for the enemy, but since the enemy constantly changes and redefines what it calls itself, it is very hard to name and attack. When we, or at least I, say Harvard, I am not talking about the institution specifically, or a conspiracy intentionally enacted by the institution. “Harvard” means “the religion that motivates our theocratic elite”, because the college is the most ancient and influential member of the Enemy, and because it looks to the observer that Harvard is the center, a little door into Hell if you will, from which all the evil memes radiate.


  11. “Ideas never rule” is why Stalin, a gangster, beat Hitler, who was an idea man through-and-through. It’s ironic, since Hitler’s big idea was just that might makes right.

    If you’re analogizing Carthage to Islam, I see what you mean. But according to Livy, the actual Carthaginians were big-time pedos.

    Also, Moldbug is a lot of pretentious vapors. I never understood why he’s considered so seminal.


    1. “Carthage” is not Islam. “Carthage” is America’s thalassocracy.

      Moldbug was much more based when he was anonymous. When I hear him on podcasts these days, it feels like reading UR without all of the juicy, politically incorrect historical evidence. There was a glimmer of the old Moldbug in his appearance with Borzoi. On the other hand, he points out himself that a lot of what he wrote 10 years ago was novel at the time but has since become totally banal.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Ah, I see. You sent me running to a dictionary.

        I’ll have to check out the Borzoi bit…. I agree about Moldbug. I think it’s because he’s trying to grift and it ain’t pretty, especially given things he wrote years back about the importance of not writing for money or fame. And it’s true that reaction and white nationalism are all but cliched bits of monologue by now. But even that’s an Overton-shift.


  12. Also, IDK who it was who said that “‘Culture’ is just one Jew plagiarizing another,” but I was reminded of this when I saw NRx Yarvin on Ancap Mike Malice’s podcast. Kind of like how EMJ always references Balzac’s remark about Heine walking arm-in-arm with James Rothschild – “Voila! Tous l’esprit juif.”


  13. Hear you’re wrapping matters up. You know where to contact me. (So does Feanor.) Two last thoughts. First, I’ve a whim to set you up with a distant female relative of mine. Second, I’d like to try boar-hunting with spears one day.

    Good luck, man.


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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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