Institutional Suicide

Excessively educating the masses is a surefire way to bring about political instability and social degeneracy. Literacy isn't necessarily a good thing, after all eating the fruit of wisdom marked the original sin. Wisdom is power and power should be centralized in order to maintain authority. People will always stumble onto written works that go against their masters. Things like the rise in Protestantism, The French Revolution, the disgraces of Communism, the rise in secular-liberalism, and our inability to mature can all be attributed to a rise in literacy rates

Education is a good thing; it's a blessing that Mankind can exercise his agency in a such a manner, however it should be reserved for nobility. Teaching stupid people to read will only give them the "revelation" that they can and should break free from their chains. This overloads the formal institutions that seek to serve and/or regulate the masses, oftentimes to the point that the institutions bring themselves to destruction. This can be seen with industry, government, and marriage itself. It has already lead to the end of the institution of slavery for most of The Western World.

Denying the next generation of mass literacy is typically seen as a "Human Rights" violation. Educational institutions are used to indoctrinate the masses to oppose their masters, while they unknowingly bow down to the orders of the lesser elite. In Kindergarden we learn to associate in the most egalitarian fashion, with no semblance of privilege; by high school  we've rejected the lesser divine (patriarchy and our national identity), but once we head into the university we learn to reject the higher divine. We become the most individualistic of thinkers.

Degeneracy is used to describe those whom fail to showcase proper agency, whilst malice is used to describe those who showcase agency in order to fall short from the grace of the divine. We commit the original sin at an exponential rate, thus plunging all of mankind in a state of doom if leftism persists for too long. Thankfully some do possess the intelligence to find education outside of their indoctrinating institutions (Institutions that intend to destroy themselves with the knowledge that they present), these are the people that possess the knowledge to understand that having a master and a slave is a good thing; they are also the kind of people that could potentially be the catalyst for a new narrative, or the revitalization of the old one.

Tradition and Progress aren't antithetical. Think of them as forces like the Ying and Yang, one balances out the other. There are various directions that can and do work for a better political narrative, one must simply erase the false belief that they're better off dead than enslaved; Such a notion is only fitting for a civilization under a suicidal narrative. Institutional suicide will only mean systematic atomization in the long run, and extinction/absorption in another.

edit 9/29/13: I corrected a few grammatical kinks.

Journey into WWE's Mediocrity Part 2: Democratizing The Program

Since October 1999 the The WWE is now a globally traded stock available in The NYSE. In 2008 ever since Linda Mcmahon's senate run the WWE has gone pg striking a contrast in the show's previous content thus forming the "PG" era by the fans, or how I'd like to call it the "PC" era. While the attitude era during the Russo days stepped into Edgytarian territory with constant gimmicks based on pornographic occurrences, the program was still watchable and had a substance to it, nowadays the program sounds like a complete political ad campaign. Smarter fans have called those five years the "Universe" era, where the wwe performers would call the fans in the audience a universe.

Heels would claim not to care, nor represent the people and exaggeratively blame "Each and every on of you" for the shortcomings of other heels. The faces were politicians that represented or upheld the masses. Cena sounds like a house negro like Obama, whilst Brahmin superstar CM Punk would sound like the voice of the 99%. The midcard dreads would act like non-profit workers selling having fun and doing something for the people. The bottom line is this is where Democracy meets Capitalism: A point that's usually as disastrous as it is difficult to watch.

The WWE opened up a pseudo social network on it's site from 2008-2011 up until they wised up and decided to all rely on Twitter. They would do everything to encourage the people to have a voice in the product, which usually leads to IWC members complaining that their voice isn't heard. Storylines usually feature pencil neck general managers in charge of a business and engaging in corruption on the side whilst ridiculing the public. It's sad when the whole politics is evil/democracy mantra that Moldbug keeps referring to actually makes sense here, it's sad that you can some up everything that's wrong with WWE storylines using Moldbug.

Let's not forget the constant campaigns against bullying, breast cancer, and other trendy social issues. The WWE is becoming so Brahmin friendly I'm not surprised that the same fanbase that would ridicule autistic basement-dwelling IWC geeks now joins them and occupies them. Even wrestling is getting a "women" problem like anything people with Aspergers find cool. Maybe it's because Aspies are naturally matriarchal. I shouldn't talk about my own kind that way.

We even have Stone Cold preaching Democratic values whilst promoting television events like power to the people. Now thanks to cellphone apps we could vote for a matchup on Twitter every now and then. Or we could see what trends we've started of pertinence to the WWE, and who's the most liked/followed superstar along with other platforms the WWE likes to promote. I don't think Tout is going anywhere.

The Return of The Rock and his eventual title gain and makeover has ushered in another pretentious era titled "The People's Era". We get the The Rock is The People's Champion, but even that moniker was far too pretentious to work. It seems any character from the past that returns to Raw gets a new pretentious gimmick and personality that represents the masses. Characters that were entertaining are now supposed to be mystically charismatic; Oh really, we loved Cena for his charisma and not for his alpha personality and homophobia?

With the New Mcmahon administration angle their playing to their anti-fashist cards a little better than usual, but at what point do we break the Democracy Now narrative? I for one am willing to wait, I sit through the product on a weekly basis. I voice my opinions through Youtube, this blog, and Tumblr every so often. The WWE has shown that it can finally deliver an entertaining product which is what I've been asking for a very long time, so when will the narrative finally be somewhat functional again? Not everything his to be reactionary, or traditionalistic (I certainly don't expliciate that identification since the words don't fully compliment my views), but things can at least fit their role. You watch wrestling for fun and entertainment, not because you want to see your voice be heard. You wouldn't use a knife as a spoon, that's not what it's for.

Oh, and nice try with giving Darren Young a mini push when he came out the closet, along with starting that grassroots "Ryder Revolution". You're really showing us how democratic of a company you are: Keep pushing for Sopa.

Society in a Vacuum

Civilization requires an explicit hierarchy, lest it fester into vacuous society. Liberalism has roots in Masonry, meaning that it was always a ploy for a bunch of Aristocrats to come into power. Aristocracy requires the removal of Monarchy in order to form. Classical liberalism (which is Libertarianism) formed as a way to get the masses against their monarchical chains, which was highly successful thanks to the rise in literacy. Liberals, like the masons have always held on to baggage that contradicted or opposed the divine.

Anarchism itself is an Aristocracy stripped away from the masses in order to form a society within a vacuum. Anarchism can only work once heavily institutionalized with a consensus of literates, it's only become somewhat democratic since the twentieth century. Actually, the turn of the twentieth century has introduced the democratized version of Classical Liberalism known as Neo-Liberalism, thus forming Libertarianism as a natural reaction to the rise of the New Left. Libertarians starting forming "Right-Wing" counterparts, whom would fall into reactionary viewpoints along with the conservatives. Conservatives themselves were always the group that would slow down the cataclysmic advances of standard leftism.

In between the transition of Aristocratic and Democratic liberalism was fascism, communism, nationalism, and a fondness for dictatorships. Marx advocated a dictatorship of the working class, which may sound quite reactionary now, but it was and still is of negative consequence. Giving the masses free reign for an autocratic ruler that represents them isn't a good thing. Marx himself was a manipulative Brahmin, quite similar to the cultural Marxist professors of today. As for the more nationalistically driven aspects of dictatorship fetishes, they're a consequence of the left intellectually deconstructing anything of divine semblance leaving only profanity and meager attempts at restoring cultural providence.

Going back to the subject of anarchy. Anarchism has also become democratized, with the vacuous and institutionalized role of Anarchy reverting back to the masses separated form their master or elites. The result is that modern strains of Anarchy seek to use everything to give the slaves power and separation from any authority. This is mocked by classical Anarchists as being a contradiction to the older, more sophisticated strain of Anarchism; It's very similar to how the libertarians/classical liberals mock the modern, neo-liberals (Likewise the conservatives).

Capitalism is seeing the worse of this, with the rising decline and/or absorption of the Optimates and the rise of Brahmin rule, Capitalism is the cornerstone for globalistic democracy. No longer will private property be the antithetical force against democracy, but now they will join together. As a result Anarcho-Capitalism has claimed so many of my fellow Aspies on the internet, and for that it will pay. Yet the gradual discontentment with Democracy and it's usage of private property has turned many An-Caps into more reactionary positions. This can be expressed in the rise of Anarcho-Monarchism, Anti-Statism, or Moldbuggean viewpoints that become starter points for more sophisticated reactionary-positions, however in order to compete against the monolithic bastardization of all that is holy, we need something with more substance.

Journey into WWE's Mediocrity Part 1: Death of Territories = Brahmin Dominance

I'd like to start off by saying that the past few months have been excellent for Monday Night Raw. I never saw such a streak of interesting programming since the summer of 2011 which was mostly thanks to Punk and Rhodes for me. The revitalization of The Mcmahon family as a heel staple, Randy Orton as a heel champion, D-Bryan is the top babyface, the incorporation of The Rhodes family into things have all worked together seamlessly. Even Cena was interesting prior to his injuries, and Punk was damn well exhilarating.

Let's move on the the real topic: Wrestling has been in a decline for at least half a decade. Sports entertainment no matter how drenched in kayfabe, and soap opera nonsense is an important aspect of our television culture. Since the 1950's professional wrestling has thrived on the television and vice-versa. Look at the statistics for wrestling programming at it's highest and it's impact on our hyper-capitalistic culture and you'll find that it's a little more than Homoerotic Twister.

Jim Cornette besides being the most liberalistic southerner I've ever heard of can vouch for me on this one. The end of the wrestling territories meant the end for the initial soul of the industry and its talent. Wrestling Started out in little territories all sanctioned out and divided by the NWA; Not the rap group, but rather the National Wrestling Alliance; They insured that not one promotion wouldn't try and dominate the other.

In the Vaisya territory of the south you had legends like Dusty Rhodes, Ric Flair, Magnum TA, and Jerry The King Lawler; In the Brahmin territory of the Northeast coast you had guys like Bruno Sammartino, Buddy Rogers, Billy Graham, Pedro Morales, Bob Backlund and Andre The Giant. For the most part even though The East coast had Madison Square Garden, the star quality of the south always kept them in equilibrium.

Vince Sr. made sure that his business wouldn't bankrupt the other territories, where this son whom bought the company from his dying pops had "better" plans: In the middle of the 1980's Vince was going to take over the nation, which lead the other territories to unify under reaction. Thus WCW was made in order to compete with the WWF. The WWF acquired the one and only Hulk Hogan whom was fired by Vince's dad for playing a major role in Rocky III: He was over in the AWA yet mistreated by the higher ups for his "lack" of technical ability.

The key was to form the Wrestling equivalent of The Superbowl, complete with heavy patriotism to appease to the youth suffering from the nihilism of the Cold War, amongst other wars or future wars of that period. As with anything in the 1980's loving your country was as deep as waving a flag around and chanting "muh freedomz" with colorful protagonists. WCW in it's early NWA/Jim Crocket-esque days got the jump with Starrcade, yet WCW still killed that event with the inclusion of Mr. T and Cindi Lauper.

Future stars taken from the NWA would be repackaged to destroy the territories. Enter The Ultimate Warrior, and The Undertaker. Once the 1980's were over and steroid allegations became rampant WCW had the oppurtunity to rise as a promotion. Eventually they got Hogan and their billionaire in Southerner Ted Turner. It wasn't long until they formed a counter-culture storyline in the NWO from elements of Japanese Wrestling storylines.

WCW was now a southern empire of professional wrestling with it's own program of "Monday Nitro" to compete with WWF's "Monday Night Raw". Before they can be wiped out, The WWF made their own counter culture face in Stone Cold Steve Austin. This time it's a Southerner dishing out payback to his Yankee boss and his spoiled family. This lead the Rock in his peripheral souther glory to shine. Eventually WCW had to fall, their Writing team and booking declined, and Turner (like a liberals) made a bad investment causing Time Warner to crash.

WCW died in a shocking fashion, with the WWF buying them out, then humiliating them in buy broadcasting their show live simultaneously with Raw to reveal the truth to the public. Ultimately this leads to the ridiculously bad Invasion storyline, along with a brand split to keep up with the new talent from WCW and ECW.

As a result we now have TNA that's mostly set in arenas from the south to compete with the WWE. Granted, even with Hogan as head commissioner they still can't compete with the now global corporation that is The WWE. To prove that they cater to a perverted Vaisya audience they broadcast their show on Spike Tv: Home to MMA which is too scary for the Brahmins (aside from the frat boys). Various TNA wrestling gimmicks and characters are too southern for the WWE (Freakin' Cena is from a suburb in Massachusetts).

To compensate for the ultra brahmins in the east coast too radical for Vince we now have ROH to compensate for ECW. Instead of hardcore "wrestling" matches we now have wrestling with a technical pedigree to keep the autistic fans interested. Even though some events are set in the hipsterific parts of the midwest, it's a clear show for the more degenerate flocks of Brahmins.

It's clear that modern wrestling is treading dangerously close waters to Starbucks territory, especially with entertaining yet militantly brahmin superstars like Cm Punk and Daniel Bryan finally getting a rise from the indies to the top spots in the WWE. Other wrestlers that are encircling the midcard and main event seem more like college fratboys in their 30's still in developmental territories learning the basics of working a match.

Patriotic Masochism

Nationalism is regarded to everyone else in the academic system as an ideal that has died along with WWII, however there are ideals within each cast that seek to replace it. Patriotism, although oftentimes used interchangeably with Nationalism holds on to national identity without holding on to any of the substance. Patriots are supportive of the United States without understanding the true essence of any western nation; They support it for it's willingness to accept racial diversity, it's democratic form of government, and it's reverence for Free-Market economics. This means that unlike The Nationalist, The Patriot doesn't truly make the connection that his religion, race, and patriarchy are essential aspects for the nation.

A major consequence of this is that Brahmins can take their egalitarian, bastardized version of Imperialism (Globalism), whilst Vaisyas are given their consumeristic, suicidal version of Nationalism (Patriotism). When the American flag becomes a commercial symbol for individualism, without an honest account to it's history, a problem does start to form. The flag becomes swagger, not to the point that it degenerates into a purely tribalistic thede, but still relatively close.

Just like people that hold on to Irish pride, or british pride even when they're third world blacks or hispanic; Just like when socially reclusive westerners hold on to the more fashionable aspects of Japanese culture, the progression to identity is becoming more simplified. What keeps us together? A narrative based on the divine? our genetic history and soul? At best it's our love for our variety in clothing brands, at worst it's our individual preferences and expressions with these clothing brands.

Anyone that's ever been in a high school-esque environment knows that clothing brands are a very big deal. Such Tribalism is the result of the failures of Patriotic identity. Skaters love Vans; Preps/bros love Ambercrombie or American Eagle, Urban kids love Nike and Adidas, but race and religion are ideas that lead to suspension once they're made explicit. This in turn affects almost every caste. Brahmins, Dalits, and Vaisyas are all being affected by democratic-capitalism and how it institutes Tribalism.

Volatility becomes our very identity. The idea that one day we could become something completely different is held as a modern ideal; In a sense we are becoming "blank slates" with little hiccups of our ancestors greatness, however we've become allergic to the postmodernist emptiness. Our Tribalism is either receding into total meaninglessness, or it's turning into political reaction. A resurgence of Nationalism may eventually form, with our without this nation fully being intact, after all we may need to remove the malignant from our culture.

Political Overreaction

Political reactionaries tend to have a set time preference for a culture they'd prefer. The common joke is that someone is stuck in the 1950's, which is a statement that Barack Obama made to Mitt Romney during one of their debates. Tons of reactionaries would rather move back socially even further than that period of time. A problem does form when political and cultural reaction goes too far, ultimately acting against the traditionalism that most good reactionaries prefer; I'll call this political overreaction.

A common result of political overreaction is the rejection of Christianity. At one point Christianity didn't exist, which may please those who haven't reacted well to the "Slave Morality" present within it. The religion itself acted as a glue which united all of Europe, and helped the White Race dominate half of the globe. These are the kind of people that like to hold on to the soul of the west, without holding on to any of its traditions.

Some Reactionaries also don't take well to the Roman sympathies within our culture to this day. The "dead" language of Latin still prevails to this day within our legal system, scientific analysis, mathematics, and theological discussions. The gradual removal of Latin within our educational is a telling sign of our dying aristocracy.

Political reaction without grounds in Traditionalism gives way to further deconstructionism and image vanity: We all know of that one person that saw "Mad Men" and wished to go back to the 1960's. In fact Hollywood is starting to romanticize any time period before the 21st century simply because the characters held on to more "outdated" principles. I highly doubt the movie Dark Shadows would have been as interesting if not for Barnabas Collin's sexism.

Even the manosphere can channel some reactionary principles, until it becomes too traditionalistic and starts taking out the chains again. Enjoying the decline isn't a traditionalistic sentiment, nor is it a call for any true political reaction. Whilst men of the past had the drive to engage in hedonistic pursuits, they still stuck on to their explicit hierarchies.

Ragnar Redbeard was the pseudonym to a satirical writer who's still being taken seriously to this day. His principle that "Might Makes Right" still holds true in regards to any political principle and the game of life, yet is constantly applied to the most individualistic, deconstructed, and atomized systems. Even the most slavish systems of the day, the morrow, and the over-morrow can still overpower any aristocratic or individualistic system in history. In a world without an explicit hierarchy If I want something from you, and you can't do anything to stop me from taking it, then it's mine; That world isn't this one, by our traditions and our structure there's always going to be a force strong enough to stop you from doing as you please. Such a worldview is an overreaction to civilization itself.

The postmodern system we have today is merely a headless version of the traditional system we've had as a civilization for thousands of years. Political reaction is a very good thing, however it's only good as a means of reconstructing civilizational traditionalism, not as a means of deconstructing these traditions and to return to an even lesser state. Everyone wants principle, regardless of their mental state; A return to these principles is the most appealing thing on everyone's mind consciously or unconsciously, all we have to do is react with the intent to bring about the most essential traditions, rather than the most shallow principles.