latest

The basics of Reaction need to be stated, and they need to be stated in a way that excludes our enemies, because we are seeing a whole lot of people saying “Hail fellow reactionary”, who are clearly hostile to us, and not hostile the media/academic/judicial elite that we seek to overthrow, blaming various groups that tend to be allied or sympathetic to reaction for the problems caused by our holier than thou elite, urging reactionaries that the real enemy is group X, where X is anyone who is plausibly an ally or likely to become one.

So, starting with the concepts most likely to offend: The reactionary red pill on women. Which are also concepts that have practical application even while our enemies rule. Next articles in the Reaction 101 series will be more directly political and have less individual application in daily life.

Emancipation was a bad idea. Feral women behave badly and are psychologically disturbed. They need to be redeemed by becoming the property of some man. Women are psychologically maladapted to independence and equality

In any marriage or long term relationship, the woman will endlessly launch physical, emotional, and legal power struggles against her husband or boyfriend, shit tests, which power struggles she wants to lose.

If she wins, she will break up, looking for someone who can conquer her. You just have to win. If the only way to win without going to jail is to send her away, send her away and go dark. But she would rather you beat her. You have to wear the pants. This is the PUA analysis of negs and shit tests, applied to long term relationships.

Women are maladapted to equality. That women find male apes sexually attractive and men do not find female apes sexually attractive indicates that among those humans that whites and east asians are descended from, females have not been allowed to make sexual choices since the days we looked rather like apes. Since female sexual choice is quite common, we should conclude that groups that allowed women sexual choice failed to reproduce or suffered dysgenesis, and perished.

In order to reproduce, and particularly in order to reproduce the white and east Asian ancestral environment, in a cold climate with severe winters that require food and shelter over winter, husbands and wives need cooperate/cooperate equilibrium, and if you have free women, you get defect/defect equilibrium. To impose cooperate/cooperate requires external coercion, in particular that women have to be stuck with the first guy that they have sex with, and are not permitted to be permanently on the prowl to trade up throughout their fertile years.

When allowed to be permanently on the prowl, they tend to practice serial monogamy until around thirty or so when their eggs start running out.

All businesses with women in power are destroyed, unless they are the beneficiaries of some state favor that artificially keeps them in business. Female executives are only useful if under the authority of a sexy alpha male, otherwise they turn on the shareholders, the employees, and the customers, perceiving them as betas.

Subjective personal observation: All sexual harassment complaints result from horny women shit testing terrified men, and then getting frustrated because the terrified men fail their shit tests. This personal observation is statistically confirmed by the fact that a far larger proportion of women complain about sexual harassment in workplaces where the women substantially outnumber the men. There has never been one complaint of sexual harassment against me, and if sexual harassment complaints resulted from social justice warriors tell us constitutes sexual harassment, there would have been a pile of them.

Subjective personal observation: All rape complaints are false and all rape convictions are false, not because real rapes do not happen, but because women do not really mind real rapes and fail to complain. This personal observation is confirmed by the University of Virginia complaints process: The university of Virginia dealt with a big pile of rape and sex complaints, and dismissed every single one without disciplinary action. So Rolling Stone investigated them looking for poster girls and trouble, came up empty.

Men and women very much want to form families and want those families to last into their old age. My wife was eighteen in my eyes all her years, except near to the very end, and even though I sometimes have some pleasant youthful female companionship, I still sometimes find myself shaking and weeping when I remember my wife.

If you look at any successful family, no one is equal. Dad is in charge, mum picks up the socks. In principle, it is possible to form families in a society where men and women are equal, by freely contracting out of equality, but in practice, it is hard, and I see how hard it is for my sons. We have prisoners dilemma with few iterations, so the natural equilibrium between men and women is defect/defect. To prevent defect/defect, to ensure cooperate/cooperate, requires heavy handed coercive intervention by state, family, and society, and this heavy handed coercion necessarily bears far more heavily on women than on men. If you want a society where men and women know sexual love, or if you want a society which has above replacement total fertility rate, women just cannot be allowed to follow their pussies. And this requires a lot of supervision and coercion, primarily keeping women under control, rather than keeping men under control. For most women this requires that they be subject to the potential threat of physical discipline by the men in their lives. For a great many women, this requires that they be subject to the actuality of physical discipline by the men in their lives. So women should never have been emancipated, and some “violence against women” is legitimate, proper, and proportionate. Women, like children and dogs, need discipline and supervision and are never happy if they do not get them. A spoiled child, or a spoiled woman, or a spoiled dog, is never happy. The dog and the woman bark all the time.

Further, sexual impulses set in in girls at a disturbingly early age, usually well before puberty thought there is a great deal of variance, while male sexual impulses set in at puberty, as reliable as clockwork.

Ever greater vigilance against pedophiles” is like telling a chicken farmer he should not fence or cage his chickens, but instead should make the world safe for his chickens to wander wherever they please. When nine year old girls go to an Ariana Grande concert without being accompanied and supervised by male kin, they are going there to get nailed. Restraints on female sexuality have to restrain females, have to be oppressive to women, because being oppressive to men is not likely to work, and is conspicuously and spectacularly failing to work.

The family law of the Old Testament got it right, and modernity is surrealistically deluded, and flat in my face insane. I see in front of my nose stuff that no one else sees, so either I am insane or the world is, and the statistics are strangely consistent with me being sane, and difficult to reconcile with the world being sane. If you are using words for human things and human conduct that the people of the Old Testament had no words for, chances are you are using words for things that have no real existence, anticoncepts, words that are lies, that you are speaking madness and delusion.

The family law and family institutions dictated in Deuteronomy and depicted in the Book of Proverbs lasted for thousands of years. Our current social order is extremely recent. Within living memory, within my memory, it has changed radically in ways that are horrifying, tragic, and terrifying, and everyone is acting like this is normal and nothing is wrong.

Modernity is for me like one of those horror movies where one character sees monsters and another character does not, and you wonder if the monsters are real or just delusion, until you see someone get eaten by a monster. And I see people getting eaten by monsters, in the sense of transparently false rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, sexual harassment et cetera charges, and I also see people who tell me men have nothing to fear, because women never lie, while women have much to fear because they so very very much dislike rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, and sexual harassment. But I also see these men acting terrified, while I am bolder than any of those men who supposedly believe that men have nothing to fear. In part of their minds they must see what I see, because I see their fear, and in part of their minds, the part that speaks and constructs a narrative, they do not see what I see, even though it is right in front of them.

Women get angry because they do not get the supervision, command, and guidance that they crave. Sometimes this anger turns inward, as with cutting and other self destructive acts, and sometimes it turns outward. She feels really badly treated, because she has in fact been really badly treated, but because the real causes of her discontent are unthinkable, she concludes she has been sexually harassed or sexually assaulted, when in fact her mistreatment was lack of sexual assault, lack of a strong hand to discipline her.

Ideas are more powerful than guns, but fashion is more powerful than ideas.

If Trump has a military parade with snappy parade uniforms, we may well win. Trouble is that our elite has been busy making soldiers dress androgynously, because they hate and fear the military. We are always ruled by warriors or priests. If soldiers continue to dress like Elon Musk’s rocket scientists, soldiers, like nerds, will remain low status, and priestly rule will continue.

They probably will not make the marines wear high heeled shoes, but they will make them wear baggy clothes that are interchangeable with the similarly baggy clothes worn by female “soldiers”.

If they parade wearing camo versions of what Elon Musk’s rocket scientists wear, military will remain low status, and thus warriors will be unable to challenge priests.

People in large masses toting guns and moving in unison is impressive, and big rockets are impressive, but to translate that impressiveness into power, need to dress the part. Clothes make the man. Consider Musk’s show with the heavy rocket.

Musk is a showman and Trump is showman, but Musk’s show sucked because everyone was dressed in Silicon Valley Casual that was actually casual. Needed to dress them in Silicon Valley Casual that was actually Silicon Valley Cool.

You look at a bunch of very smart rocket scientists acting and looking like World of Warcraft players who have just cleared a dungeon, and you think “low status”

I want warriors in power, and I want people who make cool toys for warriors in power, and they will need to dress the part.

If the soldiers in Trump’s parade come out wearing camo versions of what Elon Musk’s rocket scientists wear, military will remain low status, and thus warriors will be unable to challenge priests.

Let us imagine how Musk’s heavy rocket launch would have gone if he draped a bikini model over the sportscar that he launched to Mars, if his rocket scientists were better dressed, and if he himself posed with the bikini model and the sportscar wearing nice clothes with a touch of mad scientist. Similarly, however cool a military parade is, (and a military parade, like a rocket launch, is very cool indeed) you are not going to visualize those parading in power unless they dress the part.

Obviously the parade will raise Trump’s approval rating significantly. The problem is, however, at some point he is going to have to demonstrate that an airforce commando outranks a supreme court justice, so we need to raise the approval rating of air force commandos.

My assessment of the fall of Kings that began in the nineteenth century is that kings did not fail because of gunpowder, did not fail because industry rather than land became the source of wealth. Kings failed because George the fourth was fat, lazy, had a fat mistress, a bad tailor, and slept with other men’s wives, but most of all, Kings failed because Beau Brummel made the Puritan aesthetic cool. If King George the Fourth had had better fashion sense and hotter mistresses than Beau Brummel, and if his mistresses had, like Beau Brummel’s mistresses, only been sleeping with him, instead of sleeping with him and their husbands, we would have been fine. Also, if he had gotten off his fat ass and did some kinging, we would have been fine. He failed in the job of being the fount of all honors, mortal and divine (which is to say the job of regulating status competition into prosocial positive sum displays, rather than antisocial negative sum displays). The successors of the puritans took that job, ran with it, and have never let go of it.

So far, however, our attempts to produce reactionary fashion have all been miserable failures, and perhaps we will always fail until we have victorious soldiers exercising power, for all the cool reactionary fashions of the past are based on the uniforms worn by soldiers in victory parades.

But I am now coming around to the view that fashion should feature physically fit men wearing tight clothes that have been personally tailored to them. Standard stretch pants that fit without requiring a belt, and on the top a shirt, perhaps a T shirt, that has been tailored to fit, and tailored to end just below the point on your pants where a belt would be if they needed a belt, which your pants should not. The shirt goes outside the pants, but is almost, but not quite, tight around the pants.

Well fitting clothes are automatically high status. It is the last sumptuary display. An off the rack business suit is not high status. A custom fitted T shirt is high status. Baggy pants are low status. Men wear baggy pants because gangsters who claimed high status on the basis of violence were countersignaling by wearing baggy pants, but baggy pants do not work unless you can also plausibly signal real capability and will to commit violence. Such plausible signals are apt to get you killed, so make sure your pants fit. If you countersignal by poorly fitting pants, have to signal by violence, which can get costly.

Secondly, the costume should contain some element of peacocking, ideally a unique and idiosyncratic element. I now wear a fighting cock feather in my hat, the tail feather of a fighting cock that died in battle. Unfortunately, such feathers do not last a whole lot longer than the cock that donated them. It is tricky to get the right feather attached in the right place. Each fighting cock feather is unique and different (fighting cocks themselves peacock, with longer, floppier, and more diverse feathers than regular cocks). Most fighting cock feathers will do something bad like flopping in your eyes. Need a feather that flops around, but stays out of your eyes and your field of view, while flopping around in the other guys’s field of view.

Big hats are good, and better with something decorating them.

image

Gold chains also good, though male gold chains need to be big. Fine gold chains are girly. Not sure if multiple peacocking elements are a good idea. The Regency Aesthetic failed through excess, which excess justified the Puritan Aesthetic. A gold chain needs to be accompanied by bros or a bodyguard. If no wingman, then no gold chain. if a weak geek neck, cannot support a fighting cock feather.

You cannot peacock unless the alpha male of the group is also peacocking, or unless it is plausible that you are, by at least some metric, the alpha male of the group. Your boss is not going to be peacocking, and if your subordinate is peacocking while you are not peacocking, you will need to do something about it.

Any item of peacocking that draws attention to your head needs a suitably large neck to support its metaphorical weight, as if it had actual physical weight. I have therefore added neck exercises to my exercise regimen. I attach a looped belt to a resistance cord, and pull with my head in different directions, in order for my neck to be strong enough to support the mighty weight of the fighting cock feather in my hat. If you have a geek neck, don’t try to wear a big hat.

Obviously you cannot wear something to job interview or similar occasion that is more dramatic or unusual than your interviewer will be wearing. No peacocking allowed at work or in job interviews, but you can wear better fitting clothes than your interviewer. If Silicon Valley Casual is socially required, you can wear Silicon Valley Casual that just happens to fit you perfectly, as Steve Jobs invariably did. Also, matching colors combined with dramatic clash of colors, so that the clash is clearly intentional, rather than the result of whatever passed the sniff test that morning. If you are going to have a dramatic clash of colors, superhero style, make sure that one major part of your costume matches another part.

Well, this is the latest in a long string of attempts to conjure reactionary meanswear into existence, and all previous attempts have failed embarassingly. Let us see how this one goes. We still need a victory parade with cool manly military parade dress uniforms to really make reactionary fashion stick.

But, lacking a victory parade, physical fitness is something. Reactionary males tend to be markedly stronger and slimmer than progressive males, due to fasting, diet, and lifting iron. Reactionary fashion will succeed, if associated with reactionaty phenotypes.

In the age of feral woman and family breakdown, when fatherhood is illegal, when everyone is a bastard, menswear that is associated with being able to beat people up is likely to succeed. The difference between today and past ages was that in successful civilizations, top fashions were associated with being a member of a group that was able to beat up other groups in organized collective disciplined physical violence, hence the connection to victory parades, while in an age of social collapse and family breakdown, in a civilization in decline, in a time when a dark age looms, when fatherhood has been criminalized, successful fashion tends to be more associated with the capability to perform individual thuggery, hence the perverse and ugly baggy pants fashion. When fatherhood is illegal, only criminals can be fathers. The underlying problem with menswear fashion is that the state is violently, coercively, brutally, and forcefully imposing black mating patterns and white gay mating patterns on white heterosexual males, which mating pattern in turn causes unattractive clothing to be fashionable, and attractive clothing to be unfashionable, the baggy pants fashion being an example of this problem.

If reactionaries are having troubles restoring reactionary fashion, it is because we are having troubles restoring reactionary families, and reactionary families require reactionary male social groups that collectively enforce reactionary socialization on potentially feral women. But, on the principle of fake it till you make it, reactionary fashion can cause the social conditions that will in turn cause reactionary fashion.

Dress like a patriarch, dress like an aristocrat, and have your women dress as if under patriarchal authority. Good fit is patriarchal, and peacocking and physical fitness is aristocratic. You cannot peacock at work if your boss is not peacocking, but you can be physically fit and wear well fitted clothes.