This is a reactionary inspired blog which is not within the neoreactionary group. Quantity of post over quality will be the rule.

Contact: Newinternationaloutlook@gmail.com


4 thoughts on “About

  1. Platform building: The original cathedral analysis (not the nonsense it has become) was firmly in the “what did/ does happen” category, De Jouvenel’s analysis is firmly in the “what did/ does happen” category, Carlyle’s analysis of the effects of non-governance is firmly in the “what did/ does happen” category. So unpleasant that even those noticing it could sometimes not bring themselves to state the solution.

    This describes debate within a framework where only those solutions based on what should/must be are acceptable. If you are able to impose a framework where solutions based on what is/was are acceptable, will you then disclose those solutions?


    1. I keep forgetting to switch of comments on this page, but this is a very good comment, so I will answer it here (better to email me really.) My answer, if I read the question correctly is – I don’t know. I see this conundrum with the way Girard talked about the consequences of his mimesis theory (which are pretty dire and utterly anti-modern at core,) and other thinkers that hint at this with escoterism.


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 )

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