Archived Discussion I: Adam, Argent, James, Octavian

The following was a discussion which took place in the West Coast Reactionaries Skype group on the 19th of October, 2016. A few details have been retracted, and certain messages have been re-arranged to make for easier reading, but I decided that the words shared were important enough to archive here.


Argent: Seriously though, I believe my line on racemixing has been too soft in the past. I am increasingly hardening as I don’t think you can soften on that without softening on other things.

Octavian: Honestly, I feel like I’m softening on my racialism. I don’t know what it is, to be honest. Sometimes I find racialism to be a bit petty. A bit too biologically reductionist.

Argent: It’s less about that necessarily and more about how you want to structure your society. Non-whites are fundamentally different in their behavior, both in kind as well as degree, and accepting them I think necessarily changes things.

Octavian: And there’s also a part of me that feels like the future is inevitably going to be multi-racialism, and I guess I feel that ethnic nationalism just isn’t realistic at this point. These are just feelings, though. Perhaps I’ve swallowed some blue-pills.

Argent: Then it will be globalism, and I view our fight as pointless. Eventually, then, we will either have police states or Toronto: those are the two models of diversity. Living where I do is both black and red in terms of the pills.

Octavian: I do feel, though, that it’s unrealistic to go, “Hey we should just try and go back to the 1950s!”

Argent: I agree. I have largely given up on reaction, I think we need a syncretic, future-oriented ideology.

Octavian: And that’s why I think globalism in one form or another is somewhat inevitable. We should just gear it in our favour I guess.

Argent: Yeah, reaction on its own is not enough. A lot of it has nothing to appeal to urbanites. I work at a white collar job and … my family are white-collar workers, even my Mennonite grandparents.

Octavian: True. The whole rural revival thing is just a L.A.R.P.. I mean, I’d love an rural revival, but it’s just not going to happen.

Argent: I don’t think nostalgia for it is bad — or encouragement — as we need more farmers.

Octavian: Honestly, I’d have no problem with a United Earth Government provided it was controlled by whites. (And far-Right whites too.) Because I don’t think ethnic-nationalist isolationism is really an option. But maybe I’m just being a bit mad.

Argent: I find the E.U. to be one of the most contentious issues in our community.

Octavian: Honestly, my feelings on the E.U. aren’t that dissimilar to Spencer’s.

Argent: I’m between “no E.U.” and “not this E.U..”

Octavian: As it is now, it must be destroyed, yes.

Argent: Then again, you and I are Colonials, and white nationalism is a colonial ideology.

Octavian: True, so we’re not allowed a say.

Argent: Well, I didn’t say that, but I just mean keep in mind your bias.

Octavian: Nah (as in: that’s what Euros say).

Argent: Just because you have a bias doesn’t mean it’s wrong. To a certain extent the E.U. is a product of America getting tired of bailing Europe out.

Octavian: I hate the idea of a homogeneous “white” Europe. In fact, I hate using the term “white” when talking about Europe. But from an international realist perspective, Europe really needs to fucking unite.

Adam: It won’t happen under anything like the E.U.; something new needs to emerge.

Argent: I think the E.U. could be replaced with a more decentralized version — the E.U. parliament needs to die and most of the bureaucracy needs to be taken down, but some sort of alliance like N.A.T.O. 2.0 could work.

Octavian: I liked Lawrence Murray’s idea of a “Treaty of Europa.”

Argent: I mean, there are positive aspects of the E.U.: freedom of movement (not freedom of residency) isn’t bad (imagine having to go through long border crossings if you live in a smaller country); integrated rail system is good; I think a common foreign policy by pooling clout isn’t bad; but the influence on internal affairs needs to be massively reduced.

Octavian: The only real benefit of Brexit is that it will encourage others to leave. If Britain just ends up leaving by its own, then I don’t really see it ending all that well for them.

Argent: To be honest — if we hold-off the L.A.R.P. for a minute — do we really want to back to pre-E.U. where France and Germany have a massive war every twenty to thirty years?

Octavian: And Britain will essentially have to attach itself to the United States. After World War II and N.A.T.O., I doubt that would’ve ever happened again anyway.

Argent: Yeah, which is why America was so adamant on a lot of the changes, at least in my opinion.

Octavian: But it’s a much bigger world now, anyway. A war between France and Germany would seem silly. I mean, there are one billion people in Africa now.

Argent: Once again, I agree, but the current system was created to solve that problem and needs to be rebuilt.

Octavian: Africa literally needs to be subdued by foreign powers.

Argent: I used to be a Neo-Colonialist, back when I was on the Left. I saw reforming colonial empires as the only way to solve the major problems of the third world. Africa in particular was run much better.

Octavian: Honestly, I don’t really care about “solving problems” of the third world. Just containing them really. But the big threat is Asia. Economically at least.

Argent: Long-term I don’t think so. If China doesn’t make a move in the next twenty years they will begin a death spiral. Their demography and environment are fucked beyond belief.

Octavian: I think World War III really is on the cards this century.

Argent: It depends what choice China makes. There were fears that the Soviets were going to choose war over collapse and gamble that they could beat the West.

Octavian: I dunno. I kinda feel Neo-Imperialist right now. I guess it’s because there needs to be some sort of drive. It’ll be really interesting to see how the Earth’s population stabilises.

Argent: #MakeBritianAnEmpireAgain

Adam: Drive comes from the quality of the folk, which is the quality of the men. All else is redundant.

Octavian: This is true. But the drive must be directed somewhere.

Adam: Usually it’s towards God.

Octavian: Perhaps. I might get bullied for it, but there are days when I feel that Nietzsche really was spot on when he said, “God is dead and we have killed him.”

Adam: That’s Protestantism for you.

Octavian: Well, if you want a scapegoat; sure, blame Protestantism.

Adam: It’s a symptom, but Puritanism was where slave-morality really found its contextualisation.

Octavian: I think it’s far deeper than that, but I guess it’s just a personal feeling of mine. Maybe religion can make a comeback, and I’m just projecting upon the rest of society.

Argent: I don’t have an overly negative view of Protestantism myself.

Adam: If you’re implying that Christianity is inherently problematic, then why did Europeans adopt it with such fervour? Further, you’d have to explain the Crusades and all the various exertions of Christian power throughout nearly two millennia. Religion makes a comeback when the men make a comeback. Protestantism is egalitarian heresy and should be purged with fanatical violence, to be honest.1

Octavian: The standard Radical Traditionalist Catholic retort, to be honest — I’m sorry if I’m just not convinced.

Adam: There is no room for debate or philosophising; same with regards to poisons like antinatalism or racemixing. There is a wrong way, and a right way. And that’s fine — in an ordered society, our opinions wouldn’t matter, and we’d be as we were upon punishment of social ostracisation or execution. Who’s to say we even deserve our opinions? Some people certainly don’t.

Octavian: Well it’s just dogmatic, then.

Adam: ‘sall mere opinions.

Octavian: This “ordered society” where “opinions wouldn’t matter” is simply a fantasy. A Utopia.

Adam: Do you think that in a feudal-esque system your opinion would have a bearing on what actually occurred governmentally?

Octavian: Depends what class I was.

Adam: In a democratic system, you vote, or one can become a politician.

Octavian: In a feudal-esque system “government” barely even existed.

Adam: Octavian, I’m under the impression that I’ve annoyed you.

Octavian: I’ll be frank. I’ve been rather annoyed by your seemingly sudden (I may be wrong) adoption of essentially Radical Taditionalist Catholicism. And perhaps I am just a silly Nietzschean atheist who needs to “find God,” but I don’t think I’m the only person who knows you who thinks that you’ve seemingly closed your mind to many ideas in the last year.

Adam: You’re the first person to say anything, but going by recent events there might be more people.

Octavian: I guess it’s just I feel that in this age of turbulence, one must be open to new possibilities.

Adam: I’ve come to more absolutes in the past year, but I don’t think that’s a result of becoming close-minded, but just because I know more and I have more concrete views on certain things.

Octavian: Fair enough. I am still on a journey I suppose.

Adam: On what, though?

Octavian: I don’t know. God, society, reality, everything I suppose.

Adam: My tone has become more absolutist, I know that.

Octavian: Yes, I think absolutism is the better term.

Adam: I used to not know, but now I do. The pagan question, the role of the Church, racemixing, race generally, caste, etc. — my views have all become more concrete. I suppose I should quell my tone, though, because that’s where the charges of arrogance come from; I ought to reign that in.

Octavian: Perhaps I need to take a break from all this for a while.

Adam: Happens to us all. I haven’t this year so far, hence all this bullshit the past fortnight. Things pile up. Debates and conversations, arguments and strong emotions — all this as a hobby is quite taxing; it wears down on people. Woes is notorious for having to take breaks from it, understandably.

Octavian: I feel like one must travel through the undiscovered country, and follow it wherever it may lead. Anyway, Adam, I hope I wasn’t too frank with you.

Adam: No, it’s fine. You weren’t as frank as I was expecting.

[…]

Octavian: Just promise me, Adam, that no matter what that you’ll never stop reading, never stop discovering.

Adam: Absolutely not — and should I stop, everyone I know has permission to slap me, whether figuratively, or physically, if possible.

James: I can’t believe what I just read. No, more like I can believe it, and then realized that I’d need the limbs of Geryon in order to facepalm adequately. I’ll work my way from the top.

It’s a pity — this is excellent article fodder. I already planned this somewhere down the line titled “The Last of the White Race.” Either way, Argent and Octavian talking about race in particular: I chuckled to myself when Argent was speaking about how “non-whites are fundamentally different in behaviour” — you are 100%, Argent. Non-whites are indeed fundamentally different in their behaviour. It’s why your ancestors wouldn’t be able to recognize you, or why most “white-descended” individuals wouldn’t be comparable to their white ancestors. […] I believe Tolkien is instructive in this present sense. When Saruman gave up his authority at the seat of Isengard and instead descended to make an industrial fortress for himself, he went from Saruman the White to Saruman the Grey. This is the same with “whiteness” in European-descended folks: they abdicated their white authority and became as grey as their Sauronic counterparts. […] The problem with race behavior is not the horizontal and petty differences between the various races — like in Toronto or whatever — but the vertical behaviour that would make any superior to others. It isn’t whether or not you walk in the streets or not, it is whether or not you have the courage and mettle to do what is right. Tolkien, again, is instructive in this case. […] Gandalf the Grey, through his sacrifice, becomes Gandalf the White.

[…] Speaking of fantasy literature, the spectre of “L.A.R.P.”ing gets brought up again. It’s both a good and bad thing to bring up. Again, Argent is 100% correct that L.A.R.P.ing represents nothing but a regressive and infantile conception of societal arrangement, but just like with the question of race, the “real” L.A.R.P.ing, just like the “real” race question is missed. The real L.A.R.P.ing is pretending that some kind of race-mixed, quasi- or pseudo-totalitarian, pan-Pale government will save the whole lot. A “united Earth” something-or-other? Good Lord, that’s L.A.R.P.ing at it’s best. Let’s totally roleplay a “whitewashed” modern world. Agrarian nostalgia is certainly to be avoided — but so is this mechanized superstate live action roleplay. L.A.R.P.ing business suits instead of armour, and L.A.R.P.ing long-winded bureaucratic names to enforce Pale Unity is just as delusional. Wake up. Wake up, because the same nihilistic, materialistic, and horizontal policies that keep the modern world as it is are not going to be the solution for any stable “white” society.

And yes: are most North American ideologies north of the Rio Grande infected by colonial sensibilities? Of course. Once again, Argent is 100% correct on this because what is the American ideal? It is the idea that you’ve got a conglomeration of individuals working towards a common creed — a whole system based on ideology rather than nationality.

[…] Interestingly, the other 100% thing you’re right about, Argent, is that “the E.U. could be replaced with a more decentralized version” — why, yes, sir, this is what we used to call the Holy Roman Empire. And what is this Neo-Colonialist wanking in the next few lines? Africa needs to be “subdued”?

Argent: There is no need to pound Octavian into the ground, he’s just thinking out loud.

James: True, I was actually going to say about Octavian that he has a real heart inside of him; there’s a real tenderness in the way he speaks that reveals his transitional phase: the one where he is sincerely looking for answers and grasping at whatever might make sense. There’s a kernel of sincerity in him that is irresistible; there is real generosity and charity in him.

Octavian, I can sense that you’re very tired. You sense the wound and you are trying your best to live with the scabs around the wound. You know the scabs are there to protect the wound, but they itch and you want something more, and I want to encourage that in you. You understand very well that taking the scabs off too early would mean hurting and bleeding again, but you’re starting to realize, I think, that these scabs are not real skin. They’re too hard and unnatural; they were only there to protect you, and sooner or later they have to come off. Hopefully I have understood you correctly in some way, but things like “Africa must be subdued” are parts of this hardened scab. Eventually it must come off so that you can live in the gloriousness of scarred tissue. It isn’t that subjugation of other lands is a bad thing. Not at all, but it is the method, mode, and disposition that one undertakes in order to do so that legitimizes or disqualifies it. Like when someone before mentioned about retaking Constantinople, I say to that person: “Have you retaken your heart? If you want to retake the seat of the Old Empire, have you structured your life in such a way that the prime city in your body has been reconquered? How often are you under siege by your own desires, inadequacies, and inner failings, and yet you project your own impotence onto outward fantasies knowing full well you can’t accomplish them? Is this how you alleviate your guilt?” So if we want to ardently subdue the sub-human, if we ardently want to civilize the uncivilized, then we start with ourselves. The white race has become sub-human and uncivilized; start with the splinter in Europe’s eye — or, rather, as the scriptures say, the whole beam is in Europe’s eye.

Octavian, you are 100% correct that “God is dead and we have killed him,” but you also must understand what that statement means. The moralism of the Victorian world is indeed a carcass; this is the context in which it was spoken, and Adam’s point about Protestantism is not a convenient scapegoat, because Protestantism is not just a bogeyman, but an actual “state of mind.” It is the mindset of the rigid scab pretending to be skin. And I’m glad you aren’t convinced by the “standard Radical Traditionalist Catholic retort,” Octavian. My friend Tom and I like to call them “Ossified traditionalists,”  petrified as they are in their methods of talking and rationalization. Real traditionalism in Catholicism is more beautiful, more organic, and contains more fruit than the mannequin that passes for religiosity that ossified traditionalists present. What you call “dogmatism” is actually the fundamentalism of American Catholicism, which is the same as the kind of fundamentalism that can exist in many Rightist movements.

And now we get to the psychological portion of this morning’s dealings, and this part is less farcical and more serious. As usual, the answer is not the thesis or antithesis but the synthesis. However, I won’t give unsolicited personal recommendations on this, since that wouldn’t be befitting a group setting. I will just say, however, that this last exchange does sadden me. The sincerity is good and encouraging, but the callowness has yet to be overcome.

[…]

James: There is one more thing in relation to what was said between Octavian and Adam that I think is worth mentioning.

The amount of reading does not matter if one does not have the proper internal disposition to acquire what is being conveyed. Just like no amount of sex will produce an offspring if the same contraceptive mentality is adopted, the participation in giving ourselves a new life — a new birth — requires a psychic and spiritual sexual act. It is engaging in the art of taking thesis and antithesis and forming a synthesis, because this is what the sexual act accomplishes in its fullness. Oftentimes, people are afraid that this amounts to miscegenation or a figure of it — this is wrong. Indeed, miscegenation is not the only possible macrocosm of a person who synthesizes opposing opinions; instead, the beauty of the marriage bed can be that figure. Therefore, one must not only read with depths and openness — with the courage of being wounded (like one’s virginity being lost and blood coming forth) — but also with the wisdom of knowing with whom to marry and engage with. Discernment and openness are required for any fruitful study. It is not will-to-read, but depth and discernment, then accomplished through depth and rhythm — loyalty. Then, endurance comes, as one takes all of that and endures the birth of something new inside, even to the point of the death of the old. It is a lengthy process to truly change, and to truly gain knowledge or wisdom. The illusion is this idea that by simply reading we can acquire it; the acquisition of more knowledge is insufficient. It is as foolish as sowing plenty of seed on infertile ground.


1. I didn’t mean that seriously. “To be honest” in the original transcript was shorthand (“tbh”), implying a sort of joke or offhand comment.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Archived Discussion I: Adam, Argent, James, Octavian”

  1. There’s a lot I could say about this exchange, but I’ll keep it (fairly) brief. Certainly there’s an appeal to Catholicism – it provides guidance and direction for one’s own interior spiritual life, a set of strong moral principles to cleave to, and connects us with our ancestors. If universally held, it unites a nation, so that even if it were somewhat racially mixed, everyone’s behaviour would be elevated, and peace between ethnic groups would more naturally emerge, without the imposition of a police state. But how would you impose Catholicism? Even the Church itself is ecumenical, now. In addition, conversion by force would make us as uncivilised as radical Islam. Rather, the evangelists converted people sincerely, by the force of their own example (sacrifice for Christ, e.g. converting the Scots by self sacrifice on Iona), and of course, Divine Intervention. I think that re-evangelising the West is key to regenerating our society, and that this needs to happen amongst women, as well, not just the men. If men elevate themselves, find God, clean up their act, and women continue to be degenerate, our society will not survive.

    Also – there’s a tension between the need to be intellectually curious, and the authoritarianism implicit in reactionary thought. In a lot of ways, we are still moderns, and this will still affect our thinking. Just like feminism still impacts my thinking; a true female anti-feminist would not get involved in public affairs or intellectual debate at all.

    1. Just for the record, my comments about Protestantism in the above exchange are sort of tongue-in-cheek, hence the “to be honest”; I don’t believe Protestants should be genocided, good grief.

  2. “Protestantism is egalitarian heresy and should be purged with fanatical violence, to be honest.”

    I think it’s fair to say that violently condemning an entire religion sect will make you enemies. I do agree that Catholicism is superior — mainly because of its views on the priesthood. Priesthood of all believers is obviously a problematic notion in a right-wing society. But it’s all fair to say that there were valid reasons for the Protestant Reformation — the Church grew corrupt, with indulgences and extravagant spending. I’m actually quite drawn to old American protestant aesthetic, with small, local, austere, independent Churches, serving as pillars for the community. And I would prefer it if different nations differentiated with respect to their religious character, while maintaing faith in the essential doctrines of Christianity. Protestantism is better at accomplishing this than Catholicism — see Anglicanism, for example, which has a distinctively English character. I can see why Italians would respect the Pope’s authority — but not so much why the English would, least of all North Americans. I recommend that you take a somewhat more measured view on Protestantism, or at least reconsider your view to purge all Protestants.

    1. My vitriol against Protestantism is only half-serious. It is, theologically, nonsensical, but I don’t believe that should seriously equate to their genocide. It’s preferable to atheism and materialism, whatever the case; a community has to have a spiritual centre which remains unchanging and permanent.

  3. “We must eradicate the Protestant heretics and cleanse the earth of their filth.” — Adam “one Prot, one shot” Wallace

    In all honesty, Protestantism needs to go. There’s no use defending it. When round two of the 30 Years’ War comes, France better not betray the Church again.

  4. I don’t know much about this but it seems to me that what we’ll end up getting is a compromise between these differing ideological/spiritual centres. I don’t see Catholicism dominating in any European country except in those have kept the faith. I don’t see Christianity dying off either, in places like Britain or the US for example.

    I think we have to come to an understanding, whether you’re a NEETzschean, or a Trad Cat, or a Pagan LARPer like that twat Hyle Kunt from Renegade Whatever.

    I suppose I’m a reluctant atheist. I’d be willing to give Christianity a go if I thought it was going anywhere. But I don’t think it is. I support its expansion, but it isn’t expanding, from what I can see.

    At this time I’m still exploring these ideas. I have no concrete ideas yet. I’m willing to listen to anyone except an asshole (like Hyle Kunt from Renegade So and so) who is so bloody single-minded as to completely dismiss and villify any other perspective or solution to the problems.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s