nydwracu niþgrim, nihtbealwa mæst

signals, signals everywhere / and not a thought to think

Reactionary media as immediate strategy

with 40 comments

Reaction has not only registerial goals, goals relating to the structure of the state, but cultural ones. Dysgenic trends threaten not only technological advancement but also the very existence of stable, civilized society. The collapse of long-term monogamy increases the possibility of future violent instability. Whig colonialism dissolves and debases the cultural patchwork of the world, replacing it with the vile orgy, the constant carnival, that already reigns in certain parts of New England. Passivism is no longer a viable strategy; attempting merely to get the word out that Universalism is harmful and philosophically bankrupt may have been defensible thirty years ago, but the situation now is dire. The consensus is that something must be done; but what?

neoreactionaries! there is less time left on the clock than you all imagine! the West, this once great civilization, is dead and rotting. look! look upon the sons and daughters of this age! look at her sidebar! you think those are just screenshots of  isolated instances?  there are thousands more on tumblr alone! communities of kids on kali-yuga overdrive!

point is, the West: stick a fork in it, it’s done.  there’s been a lot of talking, and many more people talking about it before, but we need to start thinking of our options for action. let’s say we’ve got 10 years before it’ll be too late to plan anything; this means the options worth talking about are: fighting, and exiting.

The strategy I outlined in my previous post can be summarized as: disregard Trotskyism, acquire formal power, of the sort that that can be used to acquire further formal power. Note that this is not necessarily progressive; in fact, current trends are pointing toward eventual violent implosion. Over a quarter of registered voters already believe that armed revolution may be necessary in the next few years, and the problem of surplus males is nowhere near as bad as it will be once polyamory becomes normalized, which, given current trends, is inevitable.

But this is a long-term strategy. If accumulating a snowball of formal power is step one, as Nick B. Steves rightly asks, what’s step zero?

What are the grounds on which the battle can be fought? I count three.

  1. Thought. Fight by systematically refuting the Cathedral’s points of doctrine. Establish the Antiversity.
  2. Status. Make dissent respectable. Many already disagree; let them voice it. Handle notes that “the pre-reactionary numbers are swelling beyond almost anyone’s awareness”.
  3. The streets. Actively disincentivize progressivism by forming anti-antifa street gangs. But this is a form of politics largely foreign to America, and it reeks of hooliganism and disrespectability and works against reactionary ends.

Status seems to be the most promising arena right now, for two reasons. First, reaction doesn’t yet have the resources, in either labor or capital, to establish the Antiversity; before it can be established, it must be made establishable. Second, it’s already happening. Matt Heimbach, not a philosophical heavy hitter by any means but a clearly talented political actor, has gotten sympathetic coverage from the Cathedral.

This analytic methodology reflects my training in the Anglo-American philosophical tradition; were I to put on a slightly more continental hat, I would suggest historical studies. I’ve heard comparisons to Weimar Germany and present-day Greece, but both cases were preceded not by the series of abstract catastrophes, distanced from the everyday lives of the people, that currently threaten to cook the country like a frog in a pot, but by a concrete disaster that threatened to make Johnny Dickweed bankrupt and starving unless immediate action was taken. If we are to learn from the successes of previously existing rightist movements (as we should—and leftist movements too, as Foseti has suggested, but I know much less about those, and socialism carries with it certain methods of organization that do not apply outside it), we must first figure out which situations are more analogous: political action is not carried out in a vacuum, but involves responses to concrete situations.

The best analogy that I can find is Italy. Mussolini rose to power in a country that was not faced with an immediate economic or existential crisis, but instead with a general and widespread sense that something was not right. His first major political success was legitimizing support for Italian intervention in the First World War, through a combination of theoretical development and organization of sympathetic monitors; a strategy which served him well in his later formations of broad coalitions of support leading to his eventual ascension to the office of Prime Minister.

This suggests a short-term strategy similar to the one I proposed in January, but with certain important differences. Instead of directly building toward replacing the Cathedral and restructuring the government, the goal now is to normalize dissent: to allow the pre-reactionaries to safely voice their discontents—cultural ones, not governmental ones. And unlike in January, there’s interest from the right places. A reactionary media outlet of the sort I’m talking about here can and will come to exist.

If the culture war is lost, all political goals are hopeless; and the cultural goals are worth working toward in and of themselves.

Comment if you’re interested.

Written by nydwracu

June 14, 2013 at 03:01

Posted in politics

Tagged with

40 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I suspect that the immediacy of this issue is overstated. Firstly, violence tends to occur in cultures with a surplus of young people. Birth rates have been low all around the world, and violence has been on the decline. Secondly, we seem to be receding to a more natural, stable structure. The rich are getting richer (and consolidating their power in other ways), the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is shrinking back towards its historical proportion. As some commentators have noticed, the elite are not practicing what they preach; they are marrying and raising families more often than not. Thirdly, and most importantly, things are considerably better in North America than in the rest of the world. Society is coming apart in Europe, the Middle East, and parts of South America, while East Asia is sitting on a demographic implosion. We live in the Eastern Roman Empire while the barbarian hordes pillage Rome.


    June 14, 2013 at 08:04

    • the problem in a very short list is that
      -boredom is a symptom of something worse
      -boredom is widespread in the west


      June 14, 2013 at 23:38

    • It takes some real reversal of priorities to think things are better in North America, the home of rootless materialism and culture approximation, being invaded by mesoamericans en masse.


      August 19, 2013 at 06:23

  2. I would hesitate to call that portrayal of Matt Heimbach positive. Sympathetic, sure, but it has that “Love the sinner, hate the sin” vibe. Which in this case is a pivoting tactic that allows for greater attack upon Heimbach’s beliefs from the moral high ground. “Look how holy am I that I can even extend my compassion to this benighted soul. Let us help bring him back to the light” etc. etc.

    Status through dissent is predicated on thought. Without the Antiversity, there is no intellectual cohesion. Plenty of dissent being practiced all over the country, but it’s disparate and undirected. Heimbach’s talents are being wasted, his noble dissent simply outclassed.

    Your grounds of battle precisely correspond to Moldbug’s three stages of the Procedure:

    1. Thought. The Antiversity. Undermining the Cathedral’s authority, which ultimately rests on Truth.
    2. Status. Reaction Control. Dissent organized into groups that meet. Socializing. Community.
    3. The streets. The Plinth. Although you seem to have added an element of lawlessness and vigilantism to this, which I think would likely be counter-productive.

    It’s not out of the question that 1. and 2. emerge simultaneously. But the real problem with your Reactionary Media idea is not the mechanism, which appears sensible, but the content. The message is the medium. There’s still so much work to be done in solidifying the intellectual and ideological groundwork. And we still have an unacceptably dim picture of the great beast that we’re fighting.

    Francis St. Pol

    June 14, 2013 at 10:57

  3. First, an overwhelming majority of historical examples of polyamory tend to be polygynous, which would further exacerbate the surplus male problem. However, the scenario that your link presents is not unfamiliar to me, I’ve seen some similar setups among the beta nerds I tangentially know. It seems in such a threesome there is always a clear dominant couple and a more neglected drone. Sort of an instutionalized Alpha fuxx / beta buxx model on a micro level. So yeah, it might be getting more prominent.

    I guess you could call it a market correction for the low status men. Not able to attract and keep even a low status woman, they’ll have to make lemonade from the lemons life has served them. Never discount the forebrain’s ability to rationalize anything you can throw at it.

    Your main points (“grounds on which the battle can be fought”):
    1) This is part of the Gramscian march through the institutions Spandrell mentioned in your last post. Establishing an alternative information/research/academic institution strikes me as a very Right thing to do. We say “Fuck you, we’ll build our own”. The leftist says “Fuck you, let us in too”. However, that’s a long game (two generations, even if successful) and demographics will fuck everything up before that so it’s close to a moot point.

    Anyway, information that discredits the official liturgy isn’t exactly hard to come by these days. Judging from the ever-reliable indicator of newspaper comment sections, there are plenty of proto-reactionaries questioning the doctrine on race relations, global warming and whathaveyou. I’m not sure Antiversity by itself would be much of an improvement to current situation, but…

    2) The status angle is a very interesting one. There is some inherent status available in not-100%-partisan crowds if you have the balls to be a contrarian but I have no idea how to translate that to the macro level.

    Young men respond to whatever it takes to avoid being called a faggot/pussy and whatever gets them girls. If you get that down, you’re golden. A lot of standard Cathedral liturgy is pure faggotry, that could be something to build on.

    3) You’re right that this sort of street activity is less common in America than in Europe, but there are precedents, most notably in the Black Panther movement. In Europe, the obvious current counter-example is Golden Dawn (related: I liked this exchange between a naive American supporter and a Golden Dawn representative). In general, I think you (and a lot of theoreticians around these parts of the blogosphere) underestimate the importance of good old-fashioned community-building backed by threat of violence. Yes, going Hezbollah is not the first resort but don’t discount it’s effectiveness. “We will beat you up if you’re not on board with us” (or more likely something along the lines “if you don’t want to starve, better get on board with us”) is a surprisingly good motivator.

    I think all the points are tied together, actually. Ideologies or even talking points are easier to adopt if they’re being promoted by a high status entity. Even better if that entity has serious muscle behind it.


    June 14, 2013 at 12:12

    • I’m not sure Antiversity by itself would be much of an improvement to current situation, but…

      From what I’ve seen the quality of right wing comment section punditry varies from excellent to embarrassing (something about some “law” about 90% of everything being crap). Many do not know how to answer the more sophisticated prog talking points. As is, it is my impression (and I could be wrong) that this mostly just reinforces people’s pre-existing sense of righteousness and conceptions of the other side. For progressives, this means that they’re fighting against evil bigots that also very conveniently happen to be proles with bad taste in everything and are full of resentment for their social betters, a rationalization Hat-trick. It is somewhat of a lost opportunity given the huge visibility of bluechip MSM websites. The traffic for Takimag is dwarfed by the traffic of National Review which is in turn dwarfed by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. It really sucks when one side has all the megaphones. I don’t know what possibilities and limits exist for online evangelism but it seems obvious to me that either (a) prioritizing quality over quantity or (b) stopping entirely would both represent an improvement.


      June 14, 2013 at 14:50

      • It really sucks when one side has all the megaphones.

        How many people agree with the NYT’s agenda? How many people disagree with the NYT’s agenda? How many disagree with the agendas of both NYT and WSJ and aren’t really sure yet what they’d agree with, only that their concerns aren’t being addressed?

        There are a lot of pre-reactionaries out there. That’s a large potential audience.


        June 15, 2013 at 00:11

        • Agreed. I suppose what I was trying to say is that a well written and well timed comment on a bluechip site can function like a form of guerrilla editorial journalism. As long as the writing is of high quality and doesn’t convey any sort of shrillness or crank qualities, I think that the (mostly prog?) custodians of a media website don’t particularly mind as its like having an unpaid columnist that can generate good content and debate. Even more significantly is that they won’t be held responsible for knowingly harboring a Derb. One of the reasons these comment sections are tolerated, however tut-tut “problematic” they may be, is that its participatory nature makes it more attractive and therefore more profitable. People love high intellect, rhetorical jousting, and novelty and you can give them all three. They’re expecting some *yawn* GOP talking points or some well worn prog moral posturing and those regions of their brain are ready to turn black and fall off, but instead you give them something genuinely challenging. Obviously, this particular sort of “trolling” (if you want to call it that) can also be done collaboratively as to share the workload.

          For example, if you were go to The Economist and register a handle of not merely “nydwracu” but “nydwracu.wordpress.com” so as to tell readers where to go, you could in theory skim off a portion of their readership.

          All this varies quite a bit depending on the venue. Ta-Nehisi Coates is quite uninterested in well articulated critiques of progressivism. I once went to a website that blocked my comments but let all the HURR NIGGERS comments through, go figure. Renting an proxy might also be a wise investment, depending on your plans with regard to your anonymity.

          Anyways, I’m not sure if these are pie-in-the-sky bad ideas or not but articulating them a good first step in figuring that out.


          June 16, 2013 at 00:53

    • One of the hot new progressive merit badges is My Column/Blog/Social Networking Account was Vandalized by Bigots. (It carries much more weight than the Liked A Good Cause on Facebook badge and may even come to eclipse the Adopted Black Baby badge).


      June 14, 2013 at 15:40

    • That conversation between Golden Dawn and the naive american was -awesome-



      June 15, 2013 at 12:35

    • that’s a long game (two generations, even if successful) and demographics will fuck everything up before that so it’s close to a moot point

      This is why it’s important to start fighting as soon as possible. If demographics are lost, everything is lost.

      If the Republicans can be brought to realize that they have no reason to worry about capturing a single nonwhite vote, that’d be a start. How can that be done?


      June 16, 2013 at 21:16

  4. Random dissidence does not aid Our Cause, and in fact, on net, aids the Cathedral, for it is the engine that creates the chaos which in turn serves as its fuel. The 60s-era radicals are all bought and payed for pool-boys for the Cathedral. (Led Zeppelin sells Cadillacs.)

    There are two types of dissidents that may help:

    1) embarrassing stupid shit like Femen, PETA, radical enviro-nazis. Give them small arms and IEDs and let the Cathedral deal with it. Push it on towards the singularity. The Koch brothers should be writing them big fat checks instead of the 504(c) non-profits. That ought keep the Cathedral way too busy to worry about us (or clones of Tim McV. for that matter).

    2) Handle’s Pre-Reactionary Dissidents (HPRDs): disaffected libertarians, extreme social conservatives, MRAs, PUAs, NRA-members, pro-wrestling fans, whoever… people who realize something has gone very wrong for either them or the larger society or (usually) both. But who are not ready to start cracking heads just yet.

    Anything else is useless. “No means yes; yes means anal!” is useless. At best, it reduces the SNR further–strengthening the Cathedral’s propaganda organs.

    The diverse streams of pre-reactionary (type 2) dissent must be aligned to be useful. That is where the Antiversity (Resartus) could hopefully help: ala. Your particular dissent is related to all these other particular dissents in the following ways: X, Y, and Z. Your particularity is important to us here, and it is easy to see why the Modern Structure persecutes it. And here’s how to most effectively channel your particular dissent so that we might topple the Modern Structure, which is our REAL common enemy. What is the Modern Structure? I’m glad you asked, etc… Hopefully a way in to reaction that doesn’t induce immediate and uncontrolled projectile vomiting. An intellectual and moral methadone clinic.

    Nick B. Steves

    June 14, 2013 at 16:18

  5. Regarding street gangs… a qualified yes… provided they are on a short leash and under tight ideological control. Anything less plays DIRECTLY into the hands of the Cathedral. Their principal focus should be humanitarian: helping people like us (however defined) help themselves; educational/edifying (learn to be a man, treat yourself and others with respect, how to get ahead in life without screwing over others, stop beating off, stop eating doritos, etc.); and to the extent paramilitary at all run along the lines of the Guardian Angels… a bit scary but well within the bounds of the law. I don’t think “Street Gangs” will be a suitable name. (Any uniformed, reasonably disciplined group of men is scary… and rightly so.)

    Nick B. Steves

    June 14, 2013 at 16:39

    • … and besides, chicks dig a man in uniform. Unlike the Guardian Angels, no girls allowed in the _____________ Club. And what better way to confer status? But you’d damn well had better earn it! I’d suggest a 3 day water-only fast, and 3 weeks no onanism (and no lying), prior to certification… in addition to objective martial skills and all the other arcana with which our Heroes’ hearts and heads must be filled.

      Nick B. Steves

      June 14, 2013 at 17:20

  6. well
    now that i’ve managed to get closure on my latest major software project addiction, and will soon isolate my software time to a contained and safe environment, I think it’s looking about time to get back to writing.


    June 14, 2013 at 23:20

  7. […] finally noticed that nyd’s linked me today – a neat rebuke (though (probably) not intended as such) that I did want to get in on this […]

    aight | raptros_

    June 14, 2013 at 23:55

  8. Brick by brick, code by code, even dollar by dollar institutions outside of the cathedral-prog system will have to be built that offer an alternative to the current system. I’d even include charity as I feel charity of some seemingly pure form (not fake corporate charity, and most likely food) is going to become a means of tapping high and low within a decade.

    Sometimes I look at the Amish and think they just came to the conclusion that modernity sucked a lot quicker than the rest of us did.


    June 15, 2013 at 00:11

  9. I still think that linking futurism and reaction is a good “Trojan horse” for normalizing dissent. But moving beyond that discussion, we need to be unapologetic. Remember the staff writer on “Girls” who, after people complained that there weren’t any blacks on the show, tweeted that the film Precious didn’t have enough white people in it? And she refused to apologize? That’s the unapologetic tone that will make reaction popular and socially cool. It could already be cool if the people who make ballsy statements didn’t retract them or apologize for them later on. It’s that constant apologetic follow-up to reactionary statements by popular figures that makes reaction uncool and that makes closet reactionaries stay in the closet. And as long as they stay in the closet, we’ll never reach the critical mass that we need.


    June 15, 2013 at 02:26

  10. […] continues to outline our options in reactionary media. I add some thoughts there on useful (and less useful) dissent, and a remarkable As-Yet Unnamed […]

  11. New to this whole thing, but I want to chime in because this is an area I actually have something of value to contribute.

    Your previous post begins at a path forward: Win over the technological elites. This is a correct strategy for three reasons: First, they are an ascendant class, one whose power is waxing and will eventually eclipse both “old money” and “new money.” Second, they are the elites most already in line with reactionary thought. They’ve read Heinlein. They’ve chuckled at Mencken. They’re skeptical of the liberal project, perhaps sympathetic to libertarianism and intuitively attracted to cynical, skeptical forms of thinking. Finally, they placed logistically very well: New media and telecommunications have enormous amounts of what Marxists call “social weight.” Google can shut down the world. Getting their execs on our side would be a master stroke.

    This post explores tentative attempts at moving forward. The previous post on reactionary media is also correct in the broad strokes, but this post has refined and matured the initial impulse. However, I don’t think that these aims are mutually exclusive. Indeed, I think they work best in tandem. I would like to address each in turn:

    First, there needs to be a high brow current of thought, in the style of serious political journals of the Cathedral, to combat the ideas of such point by point at a macro level. This strikes me as absolutely essential. This is the publication that isn’t just respectable, but outside the grasp of anyone but serious intellectuals who know their Plato from their Kant from their Foucault. These are best self-educated people from outside the university. Think of this as the innermost gear, the one that powers everything else.

    The second prong of the attack is a more popular, ranging from highbrow and respectable (a reactionary Economist), to middlebrow and popular (Time) to lowbrow and vulgar, but (this is really important), HIP (think VICE under the reign of Gavin McInnes). Serious and respectable efforts are aimed at Optimates and dissident Brahmins, “red meat” efforts incite the Vaisya to come fully and openly into the reactionary fold and the lowbrow stuff makes it stylish for the kids. This is the second gear, turned by the first, informed our theoretical and philosophical journal.

    Finally, there is your third suggestion. I readily concede that this is playing with fire. However, let us for a moment consider the advantages of controlling such fire. First and foremost, we build soft power. The far-right street gangs of Europe aren’t just kicking in skulls, they’re also providing social services and building valuable links in a new civil society. They are accruing social credit and goodwill for a movement that has previously been marginalized. I’m not sure that this is a genie we want out of the bottle, but I’d be lying if I said that the idea of reactionary thugs shutting down socialist meetings and intimidating Cathedral professors didn’t give me a hate boner.

    Rocky Lazarus

    June 16, 2013 at 12:30

    • The second is in the works. That’s what I was trying to get at here.

      The first is still a long way off in America, but there’s GRECE in Europe. Ideally reaction would take the liberal arts talk as its reference point, questioning and philosophy and all that, and do it outside academia and better than it. Point out that it’s sclerotized into a church — well, a Cathedral — with its own dogma that must not be questioned — or if it is questioned, the questioning has to remain completely within the ivory tower.


      June 16, 2013 at 21:47

    • Oh, and I might add that, in addition to tech elites, we should be currying favor with LEOs and military officers. Ex-military men have historically been a huge source of power for both revolutionaries and reactionaries. In a country with an increasing number of such, their social weight cannot be overvalued.

      Rocky Lazarus

      June 16, 2013 at 14:36

    • I write for Vice. Pitch me ideas. They print whatever I write for them.

      Arred Wade

      June 17, 2013 at 01:33

      • No shit, me too. Love to see what you’ve written for them.

        Rocky Lazarus

        June 17, 2013 at 01:40

        • Handful of freelances in the travel section. Riding trains with some zetas down in Mexico is probably the most notable; should be coming out one of these days. What kind of stuff do you do?

          Something tells me they’d be willing to publish an article about a wingnut fringe movement with a name as dramatic as The Neoreactionaries; something else tells me it would be less than sympathetic. But I do travel writing, and it’s sort of become my habit to use a place as an excuse to cover more abstract ideas like political or religious culture. I’m getting my shit together to write about Tangier Island in Virginia and use it as an excuse to regurgitate the Albion’s Seed argument of distinct Northern and Southern cultures. And as Moldbug has already showed us, identifying the distinct culture of Massachusetts may be half the battle.

          Arred Wade

          June 17, 2013 at 01:53

  12. What is your end goal, anyway? 90% of my attraction to neoreactionary thought comes from the fact that it explains the -systemic- problems with the current form of government. In light of the dark enlightenment, what could possibly be salvaged? What change could possibly occur to counteract the fundamental trajectory of a representative government?

    Sure, Moldbug points a finger at the bay colony theocrats, whose ideology is now embodied in a massive machine we call “The Cathedral.” But as easy as it is to blame the decline on outside forces, both he and Land (the godfathers) put just as much energy into pointing out that democracy will -inevitably- degenerate into collective theft, where the masses throw equality of opportunity under the bus in favor of voting for equality of outcome. So what would you like to accomplish? A national takeover and reform under reactionary principles? Because that’s what I get when I hear you talking about taking cues from Mussolini and the leftist radicals. And anything short of revolution is as pointless as revolution is ludicrous.

    Moldbug makes a strong argument that the proof is in the pudding, and the mismanagement endemic to democracy will be its downfall — so why do we need to organize, again? It seems to me that if one style of political organization is inherently superior, why do you need to convert? Or rather, if we’re going to fantasize about rebooting USG, why not just fantasize about starting a colony that functions on neocameralist principles instead? Because if you think the latter is far fetched, none of us have any business talking about the former.

    Arred Wade

    June 17, 2013 at 01:29

    • I outlined the goals here.

      I’m distinguishing between tactical/short-term goals and strategic/long-term goals. The long-term goal is reboot, so the medium-term goal is organizing toward reboot: winning over the people who can make reboot happen. (Which is something even Moldbug admits needs to happen, but he favors ‘true democracy’, getting 51% of the population to support a reboot: bottom-up rather than top-down.) But the short-term goal is preventing collapse. There has to be something to save.


      June 17, 2013 at 01:47

      • Has he? I always saw Moldbug fairly consistent in advocating “registerial” reboot only after collapse, and being somewhat diligent about not suggesting revolutionary activism.

        Arred Wade

        June 17, 2013 at 02:15

      • wait what constitutes collapse here


        June 17, 2013 at 20:13

        • There are a few possibilities. They all involve the death of the Vaisyas. I don’t think the Cathedral will stop when they’re gone — they’ll still have Antyajas and Frontines to crush.


          June 20, 2013 at 20:39

        • so what about open civil war


          June 20, 2013 at 21:04

        • That’s also collapse.

          As is advance of neoliberalism to the point where the societal fabric collapses entirely and everyone ends up rotting alive with a meth problem.


          June 20, 2013 at 22:06

  13. […] knowledge. The most energetic example (orchestrated by Nydwracu) can be followed here, here, and here. Francis St. Pol’s substantial contribution is […]

    • oh you have got to be kidding me.


      June 17, 2013 at 20:24

  14. Well, either way, I think you’re on the right track. My feeling is that the movement is largely populated by older white men, and as a younger white man, I read the Internet 1.0-style blogs with rapt attention but think a less unilateral format could be better for spreading the ideas. I’ve made a subreddit and linked you in the blog roll — let me know if you disapprove. Also, feel free to link link your posts there, I’m sure people would love to discuss them. http://www.reddit.com/r/neoreactionary

    Arred Wade

    June 17, 2013 at 19:54

  15. […] – Nydwracu on what is to be done and again. […]

    Randoms | Foseti

    June 24, 2013 at 16:06

  16. […] is the project I was talking about here. I have X posts up that won’t be mostly old news to people who’ve been following me […]

  17. Hmm it looks like your website ate my first comment (it was extremely long) so I guess
    I’ll just sum it up what I wrote and say, I’m thoroughly enjoying your blog.
    I as well am an aspiring blog writer but I’m still new to everything.
    Do you have any tips for beginner blog writers?
    I’d certainly appreciate it.


    September 10, 2013 at 12:20

  18. […] Wesley Morganston talks neoreactionary strategy: […]

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


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 169 other followers

%d bloggers like this: