Weekend Featured Video: April 28, 2013

Democracy and Divine Right: by Graaaaaagh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHIUMoHCEP4

Here is a short, yet great video by Graaaaaagh in which he discusses the ‘identitarian’ method of voting (tribalists, populists, and institutionalists), the meaning of voting and it’s transformation from what Moldbug describes as cis-democratic to trans-democratic, and how leftism has destroyed basic mental heuristics to force citizens to turn to written laws and to what he terms a ‘free-market of ideas’.

If you enjoyed this video, please subscribe to his YouTube channel and check out his blog.

Advertisements

Monthly Poll: April 27-May 27

For the first monthly poll, I would like to gather data of my readers’ ideal form of government. Please elaborate on your views in the comment section if they’re derivatives of what is considered ‘normal’ by today’s standards.

Why I am against Democracy (Part One: The ‘Goodness’ of Democracy)

America, the poster child of the Democratic Age

Ah Democracy. The gleaming child of the Enlightenment and the efforts of the French and American Rebellions. Such a grand, illustrious form of government, where Man and his fellow Man are equal, no matter their race, sex, creed, religion, hair color, eye color, length of toe nails, number of shoes they own, or whatever…. It just sure is great isn’t it? We all live in Winthrop’s City Upon a Hill, don’t we? Sending down rainbows, puppies, God-Rays(Oh wait, modern day proponents of democracy tend to lack a little bit of faith in the God(s) department), and freedom from the pulpit (Darn! Another bad, evil reference to religion) top of our ever-so humble position as the morally correct and ideological superior chosen people; we are in reality the guides to a better, more perfect unified world.

Essentially, we’re taught that democracy points to, or is a utopia. That this ‘paradise on Earth’ system of governing is infallible, true, and without equal. That’s what you’re told in the history textbooks, am I right kids? However, there is a little more to the story of democracy and its supposedly impeccable track record. And you won’t find this anywhere near the history textbooks.

Now what I want you to do is to just think about this one simple quote, normally attributed to the ol’ British Bulldog himself, Prime Minister Winston Churchill:

History is written by the victors.

(Churchill is also attributed to another interesting quote, which I thought I would just throw in here since he was already brought up in the context of the previous paragraph)

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

I assume that you have probably heard of it, read it, or casually glanced over the former statement, and you might have even caught sight of the latter as you were cramming information into your shallow mind the night before your big World War II exam in history class. But have you ever thought about the historical connotations of it?

Lets start this Reactionary Enlightenment session with a little what-if game…

You are a time traveler from the present day. Your machine, manufactured from… lets call it the Carlyle Institute, doesn’t allow you to pick a re-entry point into the historical timeline. Instead, you must spin a wheel, causing the machine to select its trajectory based off the initial velocity of its spin. You give it a nice, hard tug, cross your fingers and hope that you do not appear in the deep chill of the ice age, seeing that you forgot to pack adequate winter clothing, and off you go.

Knocked out from the initial time jump, you wake up slightly disoriented by the journey and stumble out of your cardinal red pill shaped device. It appears that you’ve arrived during a late evening near a small, rural town. Checking your time travel universal calendar and GPS gizmo, you are informed that the date is July 1st, of the Year 1863 and that you have fallen into the heart of Adams County, located in southern Pennsylvania. You are also notified of the name of the nearby town: Gettysburg.

Now, for a moment, let us pretend that you slept through all your professor’s boring, self-promoting history lectures generally regarding his over-priced books, and missed the occasionally important slivers of information concerning this date. Therefore, you don’t know that July 1st, 1863 is the date of the beginning of the Battle of Gettysburg during the American Civil War. If you didn’t know that anyway, go read a book on US history for once! Alright, side note over..

Battle of Gettysburg

So, since we’ve just established the fact that you are oblivious to the historical significance of your arrival date, you decide to take a stroll through the surrounding countryside. Spotting a cluster of tents, with ol’ Glory flying high over them, you walk on over to catch up with some old-timey (literally) folk. You happen upon what appears to be a regiment of bruised up soldiers, getting some rest after what appears to have been a long, hard-fought battle. Unbeknownst to you, the old scraggly man you saunter on up to is General George Meade, the commander of the Union forces that led the Army of the Potomac during Lee’s Gettysburg Campaign.

Also unknown to you, is the fact that you carry one of the deadliest diseases in the world called… Let’s call it Rooseveltianism, a disease first discovered after citizens were innoculated with the New Deal in 1933, and now usually contracted by “voting” in representatives who will further the efforts of the Hand-Out/Bail-Out Nation which we currently reside in. To anyone not previously exposed to this ghastly affliction, it causes death at first sight (Okay… just want to point out that voting for Liberals does NOT cause those not familiar with key proponents of Keynesian Economics to suddenly and dramatically die. Just as we have to utilize our imagination to grasp time travel in this example, I am asking you to consider doing the same for this fictitious disease. Don’t worry, we have almost arrived at the conclusion of this fable, and the point of it will be revealed shortly.)

George Meade and his fellow commanders of the Army of the Potomac

As you scratch your head, wondering why the somewhat disheveled old man has just keeled over, along with the majority of his uniformed buddies, you decide that you have overstayed your visit in this serene, yet quaint little neck of Pennsylvania. Just as you turn your back to the moribund regiment, you see a volley of cannonballs sailing over the horizon. You take this as your final eviction notice from the period and scurry on back to your Red-Pill time machine while evading a barrage of heavy fire. Pressing the large shiny “Take Me Home” button, you breath a sigh of relief and brace for the journey. (Notice: for this story, we are making the assumption that time is all on one gigantic timeline, and your actions have interfered with your distinct future.)

After the journey, you stumble on out of your time machine again and breath in the sweet, sweet smell of freedom. Your home in the good ol’ U.S. of A., right? Nope!

You look around and see a plethora of plantation-like homes, still under the guise of antebellum architecture. You observe a black chauffeur driving a seemingly well-to-do white family to go conduct their business in the town. Over yonder, past the memorial to the victims of the War of Northern Aggression, you pick out a band of young black men and women tending to a field, under the supervision of a young white man and his whip.

The Confederate States of America

Due to your ignorant actions back on July 1, 1863, you allowed the Confederacy to crush the remnants of the Union troops at Gettysburg and ultimately win the war.

Now why did I bring up this pointlessly long fable? To draw you into the setting and use it to destroy whatever illusion you had left that is contrary to the notion that one of the reasons why Democracy is considered “Good” is because it has triumphed over “Evil” in the past.

Consider your newfound home in the CSA: Their statues and memorials commemorates what they would call “The War of Northern Aggression”. Why? Didn’t the plain “Civil War” work just fine?

Nevertheless, you currently don’t dwell in the same timeframe of the Universe in which you used to. You don’t live in the era which allowed itself to name that war the “Civil War” out of necessity to perpetrate the bloodshed as between members of a divided house. You are now located in the era which calls the war “The War of Northern Aggression” out of a necessity to portray the bloodshed as between two separate, independent nations. But which perspective is correct? Who is in the right in naming this phenomenon and who is in the wrong?

It is a fairly simple answer: Both are correct. Both names are derived from similar experiences regarding a certain war, with the only factor changed is the fact that you haplessly slaughtered Meade’s army at Gettysburg in one instance of the event, and did no such thing in the other (What we consider to be the “real world”). Therefore, the outcome of the violence was different in both scenarios and this makes the perspectives of the citizens and rulers in the aftermath of the war equally valid, as both happen to be correct in their own situation.

Now, as we can safely state, as with the outcome of most wars, the stronger (or luckier) side was victorious. However, just vanquishing your opponents does not guarantee eternal stability in your newly acquired realm. Citizens of both your original and particularly in your recently acquired territories may still hold sympathies toward your defeated foe. In this example, that would be like stating that members of the Northern States of the CSA still hold anti-slavery, pro-union ideals.

These people will obviously be seen as rebels, or possibly even traitors by their new overseers. Therefore, in an effort to establish and sustain order in the newly acquired states, the rulers have a few options:

  1. Pull a Stalin and purge them
  2. Banish them from your realm
  3. Attempt to sway public opinion in the rulers’ favor in order to lessen the rebels’ revolutionary thoughts

The first two options run into some difficulty because as for the most part, it would be fairly easy to hide an affiliation with a certain group or mindset. Unfortunately, if the new government gets hit with a case of paranoia, a very likely consequence of their newly acquired power, they may recklessly purge anyone even remotely suspected of committing treasonous acts. This first option also runs into issues of morality, but we will not discuss those now as I have not set up a basis for morals in a ‘reactionary’ state yet.

Therefore, by process of elimination, the only option that remains and is plausible, is the third point. In order to impress a different opinion or ideology unto a group of conquered peoples, a newly acquired leader must assume the moral high ground. Ergo, the new leaders attempt to corrupt the masses into believing that the old guard was “Evil” and their new guard is “Good”. They must do this in order to abandon a predisposition towards chaos and seek out a more orderly society, justified by their conquest over a caricature of evil based off the old order. However, there can never be proof that this slave morality and its portrayal of the old as distinctively bad is completely correct, as morals are subjective and vary from Man to Man.

Summary

So, as you can see, new governments or world orders acquired through the use of arms must attempt to portray their vanquished foes as “Evil” and themselves as “Good”. If they cannot justify their right to power through these means, the old ways will begin to surface and expose cracks in the rulers’ grasp of the realm.

As related to our elaborate example, by changing your timeline, you have exposed the myth of an objective and permanent sense of morality, truth, and ideology. The United States of America of today holds a set of morals and ideas of “Good” and “Evil” vastly different to that which is found in your altered Confederate States of America.

Therefore, you can safely make the argument that the foundation of what is labelled as today’s “Democratic” society is bunk and not some perfect system as it is portrayed as. It is only seen as positive today due to the victories over its enemies, which was not determined by which side “right” was on, but by who had the superior military forces. We don’t live in a national socialistic, uber-German state right now, not because a modern democracy is morally above it, but because the Allies defeated Nazi Germany during the Second World War with their military.

Stay tuned for part two, coming soon! In that segment of the “Why I am against Democracy” series, I will discuss the notion of Democracy, its longevity, and how long a democratic system can possible last before making a subtle transition to something much more sinister.

Friday Featured Article: April 19th, 2013

For the first Friday Featured Article posting, I would like to highlight a piece by Christopher Jackson, a high school teacher in the United States. In this article, from American Renaissance, Mr. Jackson describes his personal experiences educating a class comprised of predominately black pupils at a Southeastern United States High School. Although this article is around four years old, I dug it out of AmRen’s archives because it highlights some of the pressing problems with our education system regarding blacks and their mindset towards schooling. Mr. Jackson doesn’t restrain his writing with “political correctness” in any way and through his personal experiences, he is able to paint an image of how black culture has shaped the minds of young African American students and how it has turned them off to the idea of learning, favoring the accumulation of material wealth and multiple “hoes” over knowledge.

Until recently I taught at a predominantly black high school in a southeastern state. I took the job because I wasn’t knowledgeable about race at the time, and black schools aren’t picky. The school offered me a job and suddenly I was in darkest Africa. Except, I wasn’t in Africa; I was in America….

Read the rest of the article here

On Truth

Hello everyone, I will be keeping today’s post fairly short.

I want everyone to ponder this quote, by the English author George Orwell:

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act

You are told by the people situated in the upper echelons of society that what they say is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. But how do you know that their knowledge and message is accurate and not in any way deceitful? Are you just going to go by blind faith and believe them? For those of you readers that are still stuck in the trance of their message, just take a second out of your day and think. Think about what they say. Educate yourself about their opinion, as well as the completely opposite stance. Compare the two and get a more objective answer about the situation. Just because you’re told that some thought is utterly insane and everyone else has the same feeling regarding the idea, it doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t question it to be absolutely sure yourself.

Sheeple

Don’t just have blind faith, my friends.

Update: Twitter and About Me Page

Hello everyone!

I just wanted to give you guys a quick update on how things are looking behind the scenes of The Reactionary Thinker:

  • I have added a more comprehensive About Me page, which can be found under My Ideology, or here: https://reactionarythinker.wordpress.com/about-me/
  • The My Ideology page will be coming along in due time, comprised of moderately lengthy pages, with each one discussing a certain issue relating to my ideology. It may be a little while, just because I wish to really spend some time delving into the ideology and its base ideas, and my schedule is becoming incredibly busy due to graduation approaching quickly.
  • I now have a Twitter channel! Check it out here at: http://www.twitter.com/SGReactionary

That’s about it for now! Make sure to follow if you’re a fellow reactionary or if you are interested in becoming enlightened about this ideology!

On Modern Media: The Gosnell Case

One of the main forces driving the decline of society is the Mainstream Media and the role that it plays in the everyday lives of citizens all around the world. The fine line between opinionated reporting and factual dispatches was swiftly and silently erased many years back.  What we now have as our news sources favor a sensationalist style of media intended to captivate the minds and hearts of viewers, listeners, and readers, and to subliminally sway them towards the opinion of the news agency. Of course, to justify their actions in both the eyes of the audience and their own eyes, they will play it off as the “morally right” or “politically correct” opinion. This can be done by shifting the tone of the story, highlighting certain aspects of a case (instead of objectively covering the entire report), or even blatantly covering up or ignoring an item of news. Now the American media and its boss, the White House, which effectively controls and manipulates the stories related to us by the media [1], can efficiently attempt to change the public’s opinion regarding almost any topic.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell

Dr. Kermit Gosnell

An example of this control is the criminal case of a Dr. Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia, PA. Gosnell, 72, has been charged with eight counts of first-degree murder due to his involvement in his own abortion clinic, the Women’s Medical Society. “What’s wrong with that?” many “pro-choice” citizens would ask, “He, and the mothers who attended the clinic, were just exercising their legal right to an abortion!” It’s not so simple though. The problem stems from what he really did behind the scenes, which is far more grotesque than what an abortion already is. Here is the opening paragraph from the Report of the Grand Jury:

This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable, babies in the third trimester of pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors. The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels – and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths. Over the years, many people came to know that something was going on here. But no one put a stop to it.

Here is the section of the report discussing the condition of his facility:

The clinic reeked of animal urine, courtesy of the cats that were allowed to roam (and defecate) freely.  Furniture and blankets were stained with blood. Instruments were not properly sterilized.  Disposable medical supplies were not disposed of; they were reused, over and over again.  Medical equipment – such as the defibrillator, the EKG, the pulse oximeter, the blood pressure cuff – was generally broken; even when it worked, it wasn’t used.  The emergency exit was padlocked shut.  And scattered throughout, in cabinets, in the basement, in a freezer, in jars and bags and plastic jugs, were fetal remains.  It was a baby charnel house.

[2]

Not only did he murder newborns in inhumane ways, but, as the report puts it, he was a “filthy fraud” who “overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease…” and in at least two occasions, caused the mothers to die as well. Now, why aren’t large media outlets like CNN covering this? It’s a sensational case due to its horrific nature, and would be able to reel in millions of viewers, which would bring along advertisers’ dollars. Shouldn’t CNN be vying for the “best coverage” and more air time of this case with other greedy news outlets like Fox News and MSNBC? It would be a fantastic opportunity for them to attempt to put their own spin on things. Though, as Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post put it:

The only logical conclusion for the absence of coverage is the obvious one: the mainstream media’s overwhelming bias in favor of the pro-choice position. The Gosnell story is the pro-choice movement’s worst nightmare.

[3]

Here is another quote from Rubin’s opinion piece:

One can suspect this story-selection bias is intentional (delinquencies invariably run in one direction), or one can allow that the lack of geographic, political and social diversity in newsrooms causes the MSM to miss such stories again and again. Either way, the mainstream media swim in a stream of bias, bumping along until their course is altered by outside forces. But the mainstream media can no longer get away with the hide-the-story game for very long. Too many alternative outlets are nipping at the MSM’s heels and carrying news the mainstream media won’t. The mainstream media have, meanwhile, turned off large sections of readers and viewers because they think most of the MSM is in the tank for liberals.

[4]

Now, what I’m criticizing here is not the biased “left-wing media” trying to cover up a story that could shake up the debate over abortion. While I am strictly pro-life and believe a case of this nature could change some people’s perspectives on the issue, my main criticism is aimed towards all of the major media stations: Why are you picking and choosing what you should air? Last time I checked, news is not meant to be subjective. It is supposed to present people with facts on matters of importance in order to allow them to formulate their own opinions on the subject. CNN, are you really telling us that stories on “‘90210’s’ Ian Ziering ‘excited’ to join Chippendales” [4] or “5 reasons you want Google Fiber in your city” [5] are more important than a fraudulent doctor that killed babies and women, sold illegal prescription drugs, and spread disease? You, as well as all of the other mainstream news outlets, should at least post a little blurb alerting the viewers of the heinous actions committed by this man.

Even though the case is beginning to pick up some coverage in mainstream news sources, it should have been fully covered from day one, which was when the trial began on March 18th. It didn’t take news sources almost a month to cover the Trayvon Martin case, or the Drew Peterson case. Why wait with another high profile case?

While I am ashamed at the bias occupying the established media stations, I still cannot decide who is more at fault: the media, for committing these acts of manipulation, or the people, willingly obeying and believing anything that sprouts from their television and computer screens into their retinas.

Links:

[1] – http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/19/white-house-official-says-obama-team-controlled-media-coverage-campaign/

[2] – http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/pdfs/grandjurywomensmedical.pdf

[3] – http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/04/14/the-mainstream-media-see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-report-no-evil/

[4] – http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/16/showbiz/celebrity-news-gossip/90210-ian-ziering-chippendales/index.html?hpt=hp_t5

[5] – http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/11/tech/innovation/google-fiber-austin-cities/index.html?hpt=hp_bn5

[Image] – http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/ap_dr_kermit_gosnell_jef_130318_wg.jpg

 

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to The Reactionary Thinker, a blog and news source dedicated to bringing you information pertaining to the ideology often classified as reactionary or far right! I will be using this blog and a YouTube channel, which I will set up shortly, to enlighten members of the reactionary community, as well as those outside of it that have an open mind and take interest in our philosophy. While viewing this blog, I encourage you to expand your mind and attempt to wrap your head around what I will present to you, especially due to the fact that the Far-Right ideology is usually misrepresented by the mainstream media (MSM), our education system, and those generally found to the left of us on the political spectrum. I will make sure to present both sides of all arguments that I make in order to provide you with a less biased and more objective source of knowledge and information, which is lacking in some of the other reactionary blogs and websites that I frequent. In order to ensure the lack of bias, I encourage you to comment with your own sources (as long as you cite them) in order to defend, or even to question my positions.

Now let me give you some background information about myself and why I chose to create this blog. I am currently a Senior in High School and will be attending a highly accredited university for an engineering degree starting in the fall. Throughout my four years of secondary schooling, I have come to realize the degeneracy developing in all echelons of society and in our government, as well as the complete and utter mismanagement of an already broken economic system; I can credit the cause of my realization to the amplification of immoral values by naive teenagers and the culture and society that they submit to. Unfortunately, yet predictably, the societal decline is not being televised. People today from all over the world are being blinded by the ideas of the enlightenment and french revolution: egalitarianism, democracy, and liberalism. Kids are taught in schools that there is no alternative to these three ideas and the media reinforces them by repeatedly promoting them, while at the same time claiming to be unbiased and fair. It is quite a shame that while “Critical Thinking” skills are drilled into kids heads today, they don’t encompass the true philosophical depth that those in times past have held and molded, and any attempt to critically think that questions the modern order is laughed upon, discarded, or worse yet, the thinker becomes the recipient of what liberals and left-wingers do best: derogatory name calling.

Fortunately for myself, I woke up. I asked the most important question that a man could ask today: “Why?” I began to study philosophy, sociology, history, economics, and different forms of government. I found people in the far reaches of the internet just like me. I watched their videos, listened to their podcasts, read their essays and blog posts. All the while, I continued to question more and more of the morals and customs of modern society and its so-called “progress”. Now it is time for me to do my part and spread the reactionary ideology. I can promise you that there is a better world, a better culture out there; all it takes to reach it is work, self-enlightenment, and a commitment to the cause.

There are a few rules which all people that comment must abide by:

  1. No vulgar or profane language
  2. Do not engage in personal attacks
  3. If you are going to argue a point, please cite your sources
  4. Keep your messages on topic for the particular discussion you are involved in

Thank you for taking the time to check out my blog as well as the reactionary ideology. This site should soon be up and running at full capacity, so make sure to check back often and follow it!