Let us continue with our assessment of the dominant grand metanarratives on the right using the lens of truth as our barometer.
The Reactionary Frame
The reactionary frame, as I outlined in Part 1, maintains that we are beset by materialism and have lost our sense of the transcendent. It counters the progressive view of history with a cyclical one and posits that we have been in moral decline in these decades of ostensible material prosperity and technological progress. The reign of quantity reduces everything and everyone to mere matter which strips out all that is essential and qualitive about life. Liberalism, democracy and socialism are downstream of this greater metaphysical problem. The root of the issue is the Enlightenment. All of this is true. Bob Dylan once sang, liberally stealing from The Great Gatsby, ‘She says, “You can’t repeat the past.” I say, “You can’t? What do you mean, you can’t? Of course you can.”’[1] Okay, but how do we get people born into The Ashes of Civilisation to recover their sense of spirituality? We are surrounded by degradations of all sorts, the internet, smart phones, technology of all sorts and an ‘always on’ culture. In such conditions, I believe attempts to revive genuine traditionalism are basically futile.
What reactionaries have is a yearning for the idea of tradition from the comfort of their living room. When I have said before now that I’m a ‘postmodern traditionalist’, what I mean is that I recognise the flagrant contradiction in this position. It is, in fact, a form of decadence. Everyone can read Julius Evola, but basically no one is going to do the breathing exercises he outlines in The Yoga of Power.[2] The idea of doing some Gregorian chants in the morning followed by a visit to Starbucks or perhaps a spot of Stars Wars afterwards just seems intrinsically absurd to me. The postmodern world makes a complete mockery of earnest rituals. I will never forget going to a Hindu temple and noting that the worshippers had left the Gods a bar of Cadbury’s Dairy Milk and a 1-pint plastic jug of milk. The idea that Shiva shops at Asda is too much. I think the Kali Yuga needs to pass for Spengler’s Second Religiousness to be found. I cannot larp; I will not find faith in old texts, even as I recognise this is the exact problem. This cannot be fixed. The best you achieve is to use the knowledge from the traditionalists to find an inner steel as best you can, but this is mundane Jordan Peterson self-help or BAP-style self-improvement not Evolian transcendence. I do say a few mantras though, they seem to work too, but only for things like earning me money and not shouting at my wife. Like I said, transcendence is beyond a child of the ashes. We may be a long way from it, but all we can do is to attempt to create the conditions for the coming of a Carlylean Great Man who will bring a cleansing fire – but right now most of us would simply settle for a sensible set of leaders who work in our interests rather than directly against them.
The Machiavellian Frame
This is, in short, elite theory and other associated thinkers (Mosca, Pareto, Michels, Burnham, Schmitt, Jouvenel, Francis, Gottfried). This, to my mind, is an entirely accurate and value-free description of power and its functioning. The problem, though, is that it has almost no positive content and seems to suggest that power will always cause the elites to tell blatant falsehoods to maintain their positions – whether it is a lie such as claiming you are God’s representative on earth, or an even worse lie like claiming that the people are sovereign. The full implications of an amoral value-free view of politics that sees only what is and not what ought to be leads directly to the nihilistic void. You are staring directly into the Eye of Sauron, do not pass Go, do not collect $200. The Machiavellian Frame can help us diagnose the issue, it can help us deconstruct power, it can help tell us What Needs To Be Done, but then the practicalities and realties of the answers that generates leads us to some DARK PLACES. The fact is that the vast majority of right-wingers, including likely 100% of the people who will read this post, do not have the personality type, skills, level of commitment, and level of amoral ruthlessness to attain power.
Most people on the right are fundamentally good people, and power is, I’m afraid to say, morally neutral at best and downright evil most of the time. I believe that this fact means that there will be never be a rightwing uprising: your fate is to be dicked around endlessly by people more cunning and sadistic than you are, forever, until moral cuckoldry is entirely dropped. The best you can hope for is ever-so-slightly less evil ones – let’s say Eric Zemmour if you’re French – but be under no illusions, these people will never represent your interests. Wear the boot or have the boot on your neck: there is no in between until your guy is in there – and it’s never going to be your guy until you recognise your enemies absolutely as enemies to be destroyed. This involves skullduggery, lies, dirty tricks, and downright unfairness in the name of an ultimate end. When you’ve destroyed the life of your opponent: taken their job, seized their assets, forced them to sell their house, caused them to get divorced … are you prepared to go in for the overkill and attack them again and again and again even after that? Our enemies never sleep and work to ensure all this and more on a 24/7 basis.[3] Are you prepared to be as cruel and inhuman as them? Of course you aren’t. This is not happening any time soon since nobody – truly – is there mentally. White Christians will never again wear the boot. Christians cannot even stop their own churches from being overrun by pozzed priests. Call me if the Great Purge of those priests ever happens, not in this lifetime. Thus, if the majority of people on the right are a total and complete write-off when it comes to the realities of pure Machiavellian power, and if the coming of the Carlylean Great Man seems so far off as we said, then we are left with nothing much else to do than to de-boomerise as many bright people as we can in the hope that eventually a spine will be found. The best any of us can hope to do right now is survive: help and support each other, build parallel institutions, friendships, communities, while making the core of our thinking more and more clear and refined.
The Conspiracy Frame
In part 1, I discussed thick and thin conspiracy. Thick conspiracy, I believe, serves the regime. JFK shooting, Roswell Aliens, THE ROTHSCHILDS, the Bilderberg Group, Scientology and so on, are very useful to the system as acceptable targets. First, if documentaries are made on these things on mainstream television, if Hollywood movies are made about them, you can be sure that are serving either as containment or distraction. The system funnels dissenters into the arms of KOOKS who then shepherd them into echo chambers where they are safely locked away: ineffectual and mutually reinforcing bullshit to each other while reading badly formatted and cheaply self-published books about Satanic cabals. The utility of this to the system is too obvious to outline.
2020 saw two massive events that caused the kook-sphere and the right-wing to converge more than they usually do: the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fortification of the election. Both topics have caused an exposition in kookery. ‘Alien Man’ Simon Parkes, who used to sell USB sticks with stickers on them for hundreds of pounds as ‘5G guard shields’, released a video on YouTube five hours ago which already has 75,000 views,[4] and another 24,000 views on Bitchute.[5] What’s the hot topic on everyone’s lips? That’s right: has Lt. Gen Michael Flynn been MK-Ultra’d? This is a man who watched the inauguration of Joe Biden and claimed we were watching a hologram and who maintained Trump was still in office … until he didn’t. Something is going to happen, NEXT MONTH. And then when it doesn’t the promise it would is forgotten, and the timeline is expanded. These people represent a huge chunk of Donald Trump’s base and the anti-lockdown / anti-vaccine movements. Obvious and obnoxious BS flows freely among boomers. This serves the system very well to keep normies in line and people caught up in kook circles.
All of this serves as perfect cover for elites to execute actual conspiracies in broad daylight. Even if they have been up to something, the residual social cost and hit in credibility for being associated with the kook-sphere is enough, for example, to create rifts in existing dissident movements.[6] The trouble is, because so much total crap is mixed in with things that are obviously true – for example, governments have been dishonest with statistics, vaccines have been less effective than claimed, masks do nothing, COVID-19 has a low death-rate etc. – it becomes almost impossible to discuss the issue at all without the phrase ‘conspiracy theory’ looming large in the discourse and clouding everything else. If something has the whiff of kook-sphere, even people who are otherwise very radical dissidents end up supporting the official narrative. This is a problem since when it comes to the pandemic it is clear something is up – this is the thin conspiracy. I’ll give a full take on this in a future post, but suffice it to say, the existence of thick conspiracy almost obliterates the ability to discuss think conspiracy.
Conclusion
Before I finish, it is also worth saying that some frames are at a level of remove from the others: thus, the Reactionary and Machiavellian Frames can explain the JQ, but not vice versa. The JQ can explain the Boomer Con frame but not vice versa, and so on. The Reactionary Frame has overlap with the Machiavellian Frame where the Nietzschean Will to Power is concerned: the Carlylean Great Man, Spengler’s Caesar, the Evolian Warrior-Priest are all manifestations of Pareto’s Lion man-of-action, for example.
Anyway, after looking at all five frames in some detail, I conclude: one is outright false (Boomer Con), one is so laden with nonsense as to be next to useless (Conspiracy), one creates a blinding distortion that causes a loss of the granular complexity of the full system (JQ), one is true but basically unactionable (Reactionary) and the final one is true but fraught with moral and material dangers for which over 99% of the right are yet unready (Machiavellian). The prospects seem very bleak, but four out of five of these frames work to undermine trust in the current elites and ferment revolutionary feeling in the hearts of young men – it is only the Boomer Con frame that is completely worthless to that end, and thus if there’s a single thing you can take away from this trilogy of posts it is that whatever frame you are coming from, you must kill any and all last vestiges of the Boomer Con within yourself.
[1] https://www.bobdylan.com/songs/summer-days/.
[2] Julius Evola, The Yoga of Power, trans. Guido Stucco (1949; Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 1992).
[3] https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch.
[5] https://www.bitchute.com/video/JL83uteCUdw8/.
[6] Morgoth has written on this here:
I think traditional worldviews can be accessed via religion. A genuine encounter with Jesus will change you, this is not LARP.
We are in the reactionary frame because the people that are described in the Machiavellian Frame are the ones who seized power by any means necessary then used those positions to bring society and morality down to their level. This creates a more immoral generation than the one before and the most machiavellian of the new generation take power from the previous then repeats the cycle over again. Without christianity to pull men back up to a higher moral standard the degeneration will continue till and outside force acts upon it to a degree that can break the current rulers backs and strips their power away, thus breaking the cycle.
Once this is done society begins an upward cycle towards as higher morality in a feed back loop until it suffers the same kind corruption the previous society and begins the downward spiral once again. This corruption usually caused by prolonged prosperity (from that societies point of view) which causes men to become soft and morally weak so they seek to unburden themselves of the high standards that thier society places upon them.