The satanic machine of bodies

Lesson In governance by Legion

Governance in democracy is governance by Legion because there is no one really in charge. The actors in Legion may be able to effect actions and give orders, but their agency is only valid within a very limited scope set out by the system which they operate within. So when a consequence occurs which is the direct result of the actions of those operating within democracy which is clearly disastrous, horrifying and squalid, the understanding that permeates the “right” is that this event will form a wakeup call of some sort, and those in positions of responsibility will correct the issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. Legion cannot correct itself, that requires reason, that is a contradiction; It is evil incarnate, lies are all it can bring to its rescue.

The migration crisis, as all things in democracy, shows this evil in clear and stark terms. I am not surprised that prior to the encouragement of the flood of cancerous immigration the elites ordered the police to not prosecute crimes, and to heavily encourage the hiding of the deluge of crime, rape and verminous behavior. They did the same thing with the full opening of England to the deprivations of the detritus of the third world. The system is directed in one way, and one way only – destruction of order. It may halt for a while, it may give the impression of rolling back (when it isn’t at all,) but it will resume again.

What is striking, is that the ordering of the police to give a free rein to savages is not seen as such, instead Legion convinces itself that the police are racist, and that if only tolerance is extended to depraved savages they will respond in kind. But let us play devil’s advocate, and assume that all of these people could become suddenly enlightened as to the failure of this mesmerizing “tolerance” what would they do? All of these NGOs, activists, civil servants of the diversity and migration departments, what would they do? Close up shop and go home? Resign?  Does this sound even slightly plausible? Because this is the fundamental subtext to the “rights” red pilling and awareness raising.

If you wish to see how this turning of Europe into a shit blasted toilet will effect the liberal elite governance structures, you only have to look at such things as the decolonisation process, including the chaos wrought by liberals in India, Africa, East Asia, as well as the immigration to England and Europe of the third world up until this point ….the list of crimes and horrors brought by “tolerant liberals” is now endless, and what of the architects? They thrive.

What happens when the horrors of what they have wrought are brought to their faces in crystal clarity, the line from A to B undiluted by any complexity? A simple case of action A causing result B? what then? Denial, lies and deflection. Of course, they do not see it as such. How can they? Look at the European Commission. These people have been selected through the progressive mechanisms of the European union. These are dyed in the wool liberals and progressives. Their entire life has been devoted to bringing about the empire of tolerance. Curtis’s “City of god.” What they oppose is slavery and despotism, and they will bring an end to it and bring light to the world.

The elite are bodies that are part of a great beast, a formless mass which moves in unison. They can move, but every move is set within a context from which they cannot escape. This is democracy. Reason is rejected with democracy, it is the founding stone of democracy. This makes me think that maybe Renen Girard was onto something profound as Bertonneau writes in this post:

“”One of Girard’s interlocutors in Evolution and Conversion, João Cezar de Rocha, asks whether the scholar’s indictment of Nietzsche as a virtual Satanist unduly reifies Satan, a question that allows Girard to clarify an essential element of both his apologetics and his anthropology. “One shouldn’t believe in Satan,” Girard responds. Satan assumes the status in Girard’s interpretation of Christianity of “a powerful trope for describing the unanimity of the crowd when it accuses the victim of being guilty, and then murders the innocent victim without any remorse.” Satan functions as “non-being in the sense that the scapegoat mechanism is unconscious.” The name Satan would also represent the panic that attends the breakdown in the community: “In the rivalry business of doubles a transcendental force has always been perceived.” When rival-doubles come to blows, their enmity, in addition to affrighting, exerts an imitative allure, attracting partisans to mimic the combatants and plunging the community into spreading disintegrative violence. The victimary mechanism resolves this violence by focusing ire on the singular – and arbitrarily, selected, hence also innocent – scapegoat. “There is no coordination from outside, the system functions all by itself.” Because the scapegoat mechanism operates automatically, names like “Moira in Greek culture and Schiksal in Heidegger” can stand for the same phenomenon as the name Beelzebub. Girard thinks of Dante, who in The Inferno pictured Satan as “a big machine, a sort of colossal puppet,” fixed in the ice.

So what will happen is that immigration will continue, the elites have set the course. They can maybe halt for a while, but the migration flows take this out of their hands really. Some actors seeing how insane it is may intervene in a limited way and game things to buy some time (like the Australians conservatives did with setting up processing centres abroad) but the chaos will overtake them (as it is doing so in Australia.) The beast will not be stopped without total mastering, and the more you squirm, the greater the reaction from it. Any evidence showing that it is an utter disaster will be covered up spontaneously, without the need for direction from above (but that may come regardless,) and all avenues of embarrassment to this unsecure demonic power will be suppressed. Facebook and Twitter have already begun, and it will continue. The older media are clearly on the case (that area has long been locked up,) and personal discussion will naturally be curtailed as everyone else gets the hint. There is no benefit from resistance, and much to locally be gained from moving with the beast. This has happened before, it has been happening for a long time, and will continue to happen. You want democracy, freedom and liberty? You want rule by law and constitution? This is it, so don’t complain.

How to remove the cancer of liberalism

To remove liberalism, there is only one way, and the logic is irresistible. liberals are not possessed of reason by default. They reject it as is the fundamental premise of all liberal proscriptions for governance – democracy, rule of law, utilitarianism, positivism attest to this. All are applications of scepticism of the efficacy of human judgement in matters of governance in favour of formulas and systems. The result everywhere is utterly horrifying, but the underlying premise is asserted to be flawless, so any bad effects are the result clearly of external influence. But enough of trying to understand the deluded and dirty mind of the liberal, instead we will look at the removal of their influence.

The problem with Liberals is their skeptic base is a constant source of replenishment for them, so even if one manifestation fails to take root, another one is always ready to sprout. Put down one sect of communists, and they shift to another version. Wall off one form of Liberalism, and they just morph into something else. The destructive cancerousness of the fundamental worldview is unfortunately rewarded by unsecure power as a means to break society for its own logical imperatives. The only cure is the enthronement of classical reason in the form of judgement lead governance.

We can take the hypothetical example of Donald Trump as president to guide us on the problems of removing democracy and liberals.

Say for example, Donald trump does become president of the United States, and after inauguration he sits in the Oval Office and thinks “time to get to work.”  He then orders the closure of the state department, the repealing of every piece of progressive legislation of the past 100 years, the closure of the civil service, the purging of progressives from universities and schools, the physical removal of the entire “free” media apparatus and the whole raft of necessary measures to end Liberalism. Would they listen to him? no. The legal challenges and “Republican checks and balances” would kick in, and full siege mode would be in effect. What would Trump’s potential response to this be? He could order the military to intervene, but then the Supreme Court would no doubt declare this illegal, Trump would be impeached and it’s over. Trump can do nothing direct with the democratic apparatus (assuming he wants to.) He could go for a more slow approach by trying to take over the Supreme Court somehow (think Orbanisation,) but is this even slightly conceivable in the USA? I do not see it.

So, with this bleak picture in mind, what are the alternatives? I see two categories of the same thing. Option one is non-governmental actors form which are in para-alliance allowing him to unleash hell on progressives – or rather, he does not stop violence against progressives/ not persecute and then brings the law down on progressives when they defend themselves- something which the progressive have been doing and continue to do against their enemies (it is called anarcho-tyranny generally.) This would need tacit support from the military, police and security apparatus. The second option is Trump merely declares marshal law and works in conjunction with the military to re-organise the USA. This would be far cleaner, but would need to really be military led in the first place.

Both options require the support of the security apparatus.

The inapplicability of Austrian criticism of economic planning to reactionary governance

The economic calculation problem is only applicable to modern governance, which is to say diseased governance based upon liberalism/positivism/ communism/fascism. Applying this criticism to reactionay goverance is disingenuous or idiotic. Society based on heirachy is one in which each level of governance is simple in that concern for, and management of, lower levels is not an issue. Control of everything at once in a spoke pattern is not even on the radar. Think of a business, a functioning military force or medeival society.

Any criticism of authority from the modern period based on socialism or fascism is going to be inapplicable to reactionary governance by default, but the inevitable sluring by labeling it socialist or fascist is tediously predictable. It can be ignored.

Last comments on neoreaction

I do not see much use in further criticism of neoreaction from this point onward, and will merely content myself with the following comments.

The underlying philosophical problems that currently beset neoreaction appear to have no possibility of resolution. In fact, they seem to be completely ignored or not understood at all except seemingly by Nick Land. The main problem is one of determinism versus non-determinism, with Land being fully cogent on the issue. This is the battle ground of modernity, and the central key point derived from Unqualified Reservations via the call for sovereignty of judgement. Land has happily discarded all traces of non-determinism where he could find it, and has retro fitted it with a deterministic modernist core. Right wing Marxism, Calvinism, Guattari and Deleuze – the whole Liberal tradition is reformatted under the guise of neoreaction as an attempt to at once refute modernity whilst affirming its central points of hyper subjective individuality (post modernism?). The echoing in Fascism is curious, and I say that not as a form of reproach.

In less cogent and self aware form, this rejection of non-determinism is incorporated through the approach to governance as a form of scientific endeavor which is accepted prima facie by the rest of neoreaction. Exhibit A in this can be seen from head quarters of neoreaction – The Hestia Society where it is declared:

“We don’t know enough to get all the details right yet, and the idea is too speculative for huge funding, so we can’t pull this off with a monolithic all-or-nothing moon shot strategy like Apollo. We will have to use an incrementally developed and incrementally profitable strategy like SpaceX: To build worthiness, we are doing research and working out the details of the key social technologies on a series of increasingly ambitious civilization-building projects. Eventually we will be able to build city states and fix our whole civilization.”

The clear implication here being that society is testable in a positivist manner, and is fundamentally deterministic. I follow the tradition revived by Moldbug, which can be traced through the likes of Carlyle, De Maistre and others that this is wrong, very wrong. With this in mind, compare the following quote from the Letter to France with the Hestia pronouncement:

“There’s a kind of laser called a femtosecond laser. For one quadrillionth of a second, it’s brighter than the sun. If you are acting politically on the basis of reason and reality, rather than instinct and emotion, you are not starting a fire; you are building a femtosecond laser.

The entire neoreactionary project from both the Land angle, and from the Hestia angle is an attempt to reaffirm modernity. Land is consciously doing so, Hestia is doing so without thinking it through, and in contradiction to the reactionary heritage.

With the above in mind, and disregarding the sub issue that arise from this core issue (as well as many other core issues -see how many of my points from here are refuted by neoreaction) I see no value in continuing to criticize neoreaction as I see no possibility of convergence of opinion. Determinism is built into it, and rejection of modernity is skin deep at best, though most do not see it.

This blog will attempt to carry on the development of the tradition of judgement led formalist political theory in contrast to neoreaction.

Why I am not Neoreactionary

The entire problem with neoreaction having trouble placing itself with regard to the Alt-Right is something that was foreseeable a great deal of time ago, and is symptomatic of Neoreaction having no direction or real purpose, whilst also being pretty much disconnected from Unqualified Reservations and the traditions revived therein.

The core of Unqualified reservations is provided by the understanding that power is upstream of culture, which at a stroke discounts all deterministic and reductionist political concepts. The acceptance of this creates a strange situation with the UR blog, in that the earlier posts in maintaining links to the Libertarian tradition are discordant, but explains why much of the Libertarian tradition is ejected by the end of Unqualified Reservations. You cannot maintain Libertarianism with the understanding of power creating society, it does not work (the invisible hand can take a running jump quite frankly.)

Another central pillar of UR and the reactionary tradition that only seemed to be grasped by Moldbug very late on UR is that a society built on a central power which has the capability to reason will need to be a society which has an ethical system which is antithetical to Libertarianism; it cannot be a hyper-Hobbesian sand box for everyone to do their own thing, this is illogical for many reasons I will explore in the future.

The third major pillar is a derivative of the realisation that power creates culture, and that is that as per De Jouvenel, a power based on rejection of reason in governance is basically psychotic and demonic. It will tear apart the society it presides over for it’s own logical progression and expansion.

On the question of what is to be done to remedy this situation, this is again completely lost on the Neoreaction group because they fail to comprehend Moldbug, as such they have fallen into either advocating outright pacifism, exit, or parallel organisation building in preparation for the Cathedral to subside and gently pass over the reigns. This is very wrong.

Any rectification of the problem in any way shape of form will be a hostile act. The idea of passivism is that things are prepared for in such a way as to not evoke the self-defence of the Cathedral. The action will only be conducted when the Cathedral is sufficiently weak, which will never happen of course, so it is of no threat; it’s just a bunch of wingnut being wingnuts – it is passivism.

In this vein we have the true election , the auto-coup and the reboot all require the utter destruction or removal of Cathedral Liberal influence. This is not negationable.

If we take the above as a working thesis of the tradition from UR (but not fully complete as yet,) we have a very clear distinction from Alt-rightism, but neoreaction does not accept the above, let alone other aspects which flow from these points – which include the non-inalienability of secondary property (which conflicts with formalism of property in the secondary sense at least,) as well as the necessary rejection of case law, and constitutionalism as sovereign etc

What is accepted as neoreaction is largely indistinguishable from the alt-right because it is led by the alt-right and because there is no clear conception or understanding of how to proceed from Moldbug. There has just been a vague hand wavy claim of influence, then complete immersion in special snowflake advocacy of completely irrelevant and contradictory demands as to what should, and should not be acceptable, with a constant claim that no one can ultimately decide.

Neoreaction is in the position of being a perfect example of Liberal/ Protestant governance, except without even the conceit of a constitution (unless you count UR, which is not even read.) This form of organisation is pretty much rejected by the tradition captured by UR, yet here we are.

For any sort of sanity to be brought to Neoreaction, quite a few people will need to be ejected or forced to adhere to the tradition captured by Moldbug. A central organisation will have to act as a gatekeeper for official developments and positions deriving from this tradition, and it will have to be ruthless and intense.

This isn’t going to happen, so neoreaction will morph into all sorts of stupid, get carried away by the Alt-right or sink into irrelevance.

The Milner Group part two


In part one, we followed the exploits of the Milner group leading up to the Second World War and the influence a group of men had on political affairs in the British Empire. First Rhodes and Milner in South Africa (instigating the Jamestown raid for example,) followed by the massive influence of Milner and his Kindergarten in England as a result of his access to the Rhodes funds (augmented by further funds from other elites,) and then finally Lionel Curtis who took the lead following Milner’s death and went full crazy with his world government. Lionel Curtis represents the point at which the British and American elites worked in lockstep, with the creation of significant cross culture entities such as The Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Council on Foreign Relations as well as UNESCO, the UN etc etc

In part two, we will look at the events leading up to, and including the Second World War, which provides some eye opening analysis from Quigley.

To begin with, we have this lengthy passage from page 233 which details the aggressive attetmps to undermine the Treaty of Versaille by the Milner group, along with an exploitation of their psychological motivations for doing so (spoiler – full bore Whigery):



This passage is followed by this observation by Quigley:


The key note here is that Quigley notes that these Whigs had their antennas attuned to any “”despotic” and “militaristic” outlook.” The Whig smells order with the efficiency of a blood hound and then moves against it at all times.

The Milner Group positioning in relation to Hitler, as well as the British position was quite complicated as indicated by Quigley, with there being roughly two major strands of influence in Governmental affairs operating on differing motives and reasoning. On the one hand, Quigley identifies a Chamberlain Group which was happy to appease Hitler as a means to balance forces in Central Europe; especially in relation to Russia, and the Milner group which sought appeasement from a “Christian” based sensibility of conciliation. This is further complicated by the French positions towards Germany which sought to contain Germany, thus making the French and British competitors and not allies. The Milner group as such supplied assurance to Hitler:


While the Chamberlain Group sought to allow Hitler to carve up central Europe, as long as recourse to war was avoided:


In response to French actions which went against this policy, the collective UK establishment:



The British establishment effectively destroyed France, for France’s own sake obviously, so she could become part of the International Community of brotherly love. The mind meltingly psychotic nature of the reasoning of the Milner Group comes through loud and clear on page 271 in the quote from a Sir Arthur Salter regarding the right course of action regarding Japan’s, Italy’s and Germany’s territorial designs:


So as a means to appease the “other” by excessive and early compromise as an act of “Christianity” was employed, and so, Austria, Poland and Czechoslovakia would be carved up:



All of this should be setting of alarms regarding the Liberal Establishment’s position vis a vis Islam. The only question is how low they will go in their Liberal/ deontological “Christian” appeasement of the other, because this is at the point of religious fanaticism. They were happy to serve up entire nations to this Demonic concept and use any excuse at hand (note Lord Lothians criticism of Czechoslovakia as almost the only “racially heterogeneous state in Europe” on page 281 for a grim reminder of this,) so what they will be happy to concede to Islamic societies as a means to combat the “reactionary” wreckers of the indigenous populations of Europe is anyone’s guess, but it won’t be pretty for the lambs served up for sacrifice, as can be attested by Rotherham and Cologne.

On the subject of the Establishment’s position on Hitler prior to World War Two, Page 275 deserves posting in full as follows:


On page 281, Quigley notes that the Milner position regarding Hitler was wholly retarded, whilst at least the Chamberlain position had a logical direction:


Quigley’s book, then goes into areas of pre-World War 2 history which quite frankly astounded me, as they massively contradict the standard line on the narrative of WW2. The first majorly shocking thing is the alleged war scare-mongering regarding Nazi Germany’s capabilities:



The second shocking claim is that the British establishment was split, between the Milner group that wished to fight all out war against Germany (once it became a “Prussian” threat to the light bringing of constitutionalism and rule of law) and the Chamberlain group which wanted a phony war with Germany, and a live one with Russia in the Baltic:




The ultimate outcome of this process was that the Milner group was largely unscathed by their action, whilst the Chamberlain group paid the price. The subsequent adoption of Churchill as prime minister is very odd, and the subsequent spread of the Milner group throughout the war government’s divisions had the same flavor as their takeover in World War One. Churchill comes across as a figure head and stooge in place for the purpose of war fighting, which his subsequent sidelining after the war appears to support. Quigley notes on Page 303:



The Milner group was clearly the backbone of the Liberal movement in the early part of the 20th Century on the side of the British Empire, and from the American side, the role of the likes of Colonel house, Charles Merriam and the rest of the pragmatist/ Liberal establishment is badly in need of review, as they both combined following the Second World War to what we now have: the psychotic Liberal mess that is the International Community.

The most shocking aspect of all of this must be the realization that Liberal believe their own crap. They really do. We are doomed.

Politics of asymmetric conflict

In this article from Andrew Mack dated 1975, the manner in which political questions impinge on the conduct of wars in the modern age (I hate writing modern to describe the current paradigm, I would prefer it be called the chaotic age or something else that doesn’t play into the propaganda of the Liberal tradition.) I found the article as a cited resource in the Trahison des Professeurs article. The article is fascinating and well worth a read, and it makes some very good observations, even if it fails to take into account the full ramifications of them.

One of the more interesting observations is one which was also made by Moldbug concerning the ubiquitous nature of “National Liberation Fronts”

New Picture

For Mack, what has occurred is that the conflicts being of such little relevance for the cosmopolitan power centers of the major nations (France , USA, UK)  it fails to form a unifying event which ensures the full attention, resources and adherence to the war aims and victory of the nation. For the US military and the Red State of America, every war must be the war on Nazism, and the concept that the Blue State could be utterly aimed at making them lose come what may is inconceivable. What Mack failed to realize is that the Nazis and the Japanese were harbingers of order, and were not State Department clients. Moldbug has a lot to say on this here:

“If Algeria and Vietnam were truly growing up and following their own destinies, you might think the former would be ruled by a Dey and the latter by emperors and mandarins. You’d certainly be surprised to find that they both had an organization called the “National Liberation Front.”

And finally, perhaps the subtlest aspect of dependency is power dependency. To whom did this rash of fresh presidents, congresses and liberation fronts owe its existence? Where, exactly, did Macmillan’s Wind of Change blow from? For that matter, who cares about all these people now? Why does a vast river of cash still flow from European and American taxpayers to these weird, camo-bedecked, mirrorshaded thugs?

Well, one theory is that the brave liberation fronts seized power through their own military prowess. Or the unquenchable anger of the people at foreign domination, which could no longer be repressed. Or the fiery will of the workers, which blazed out once too often. Or the shining light of education, which brought the dream of democracy to our little brown brothers. Or… I’m afraid Professor Frankfort has taught us much on this subject.”

But why has Mack and the rest of the Red State been so blind to this? Mainly because his gaze is directed outwards, and not inwards. The assumption that the state behind you is cohesive and of the understanding that you are trying to protect It, and make the world safe for it, is an assumption which is tragically false.

Mack’s article is riddled with assumptions which don’t hold up to scrutiny, but which it is understandable he would make given the model he is working from. So for example when he asserts that “resistance to the Nazis in occupied Europe was very often led by Communists for whom surrender meant extermination” it has to be asked – is this really the case? or is he working erroneously on the premise that friend –enemy cleavage and rational decisions to fight when placed in zero-sum situations explain  what is going on with the National Liberation Fronts? Do people and groups form into fighting forces spontaneously? Or do they do so at the organisation of external organizers or natural elite?

The reliance on the friend/enemy distinction explanation of grouping and war cohesion leads Mack to claim that:

New Picture (1)

But, as we can see from Moldbug, this divisiveness is the key, as it shows a rift in society which is created by democracy, the very same democracy that the likes of Mack defend and spread. The American Red State is like a hero from Greek tragedy working assiduously for its own destruction, nothing it can do short of ending the very thing it is fighting for will save it.

So we can see that fundamentally, the Red States failure to understand warfare in the post World War 2 era is a result of a failure of modelling. The assumption is always that the state is a single entity with a single will and a unified goal. So when the author refers to the US funding of French efforts to contain the Vietnamese problems, he is making a grave error. What he should do is refer to the US military and Red State funding, which is not on the same page as the Blue State centered around the education and media establishments (or maybe it is, but the Red State hasn’t a clue of what the ramifications of their Liberalism are.)

So, having failed to view the conflict with the correct model, Mack makes the assumption that the war being drawn out creates the conflict domestically, as opposed to seeing that the exact opposite is the case– the war is drawn out because of the conflict that already exists, but just gets worse with something now visible for the Blue State to get the heckles up over. The leaders of all of these Liberation Fronts tend to have a very clear common factor which is missed by Mack, and that is their western education.

So, having missed this significance of this connection, and the fact that Democracy ingrains a left wing which wishes nothing more than to fundamentally destroy the nation they operate within, he then fails to grasp that the media within the western nation is also acting against the non-leftist aspects of society; the people’s opinions are made by the media and not reported by it in a neutral fashion.

On a final note, Mack get very, very close the truth of the matter when he considers why it is that Portugal which was by far the weakest of the colonial nations had such a better record of being able to control their colonies before the Spinola coup, also known as the Carnation Revolution. Yes, a revolution named after flowers…we have we seen that before. Wikipedia tells me, although I guessed the details correctly before I started reading, that the coup was lead by communist and socialist elements, and in my jaded and cynical  position, I am presuming the US state department and CIA was all over it, but that piece of research will need to be done another day. All that we need to note is that the functioning government that kept the empire together was replaced by a quisling democracy that assumed its position as a member of the international community, as well as the dismemberment of the colonies and the ethnic cleanings of Portuguese back to Portugal.

Some added dark humour is provided by Wikipedia by the following section

“After the Carnation Revolution in 1974 and the fall of the incumbent Portuguese authoritarian regime, almost all the Portugal-ruled territories outside Europe became independent. Several historians have described the stubbornness of the regime as a lack of sensibility to the “winds of change”.”

“Winds of change” like “progress” and “Germany and England are a nation of immigrants” are examples of power telling you what it is doing and making it clear you better go along or face the consequences.

Portugal has been thoroughly pounded by the international community.