Liaucius’ metapolitical essay (1)

Moved into a single entry:

Published in: on August 8, 2013 at 10:19 am  Comments (6)  


  1. This is a very informative article. Thanks for reproducing it. When speaking of the “Conservative Movement” you always hear the familiar names: Burke, Kirk, Belloc, Strauss, etc. But it doesn’t seem that racialism was ever really part of the original Conservative movement. Or am I wrong on that? Is what we consider “Conservatism” really just a right-liberal movement from its inception? It sounds like the Paleo-Cons were the only real Conservatives no matter what there flaws were.

    • The matter of what constitutes conservativism will be addressed in the second and third installments so I won’t really get into that matter now. I will say that I hope you read the coming instalments since they address the matter what should constitute conservatism in the present time.

      American/English conservatism isn’t a real ideology but rather, it’s a healthy disposition lacking genuine prescriptions for action and a strategic outlook for Occidental survival so I find its utility limited even in a historical context and utterly counterproductive now. Conservatism in the American and English context never was explicitly racial and always made concessions to liberalism which prevented the articulation of a meaningful organicism and the prescriptions that arose from it. While that was understandable and even justifiable prior to the industrial revolution that foundational flaw can’t be remedied for reasons that I hope you find apparent in the next few days. Corporatist and Integralist thought (in the classic sense) had far more to offer in terms of the promotion of societal cohesion making it a better expression of the conservative disposition then any of the figures you mentioned.

      Ultimately, it’s about a holistic prescription for thought able to be put into action within the current environment that has led me to embrace the Revisionist Integralism/Organicism school as it combines a healthy disposition with an explicit racialism as its core within a unified spiritual and economic doctrine and a sensible conception of history.

  2. I refer to the author:
    “Any post-mortem analysis of the Second Klan Era naturally raises the matter of what would have happened had the rape and subsequent death of Oberholtzer been concealed, or conjecture about how history might have been different had Stephenson been able to control his depraved instincts. Such conjecture doesn’t seem fruitful given that sexual psychopaths tend to behave in ways that are incompatible with the rational life of self-sacrifice needed of anyone that aspires to revolutionary political leadership. ”
    You speak of “revolutionary political leadership” as if you have some experience and authority in the matter.
    You do not.
    I recall that Rome was founded by rapists and murderers.
    I recall that the English were so successful in their building of the empire of the sun, that most today do not remember that the word “fuck” actually properly means “rape” specifically “forced upon carnal knowledge”.
    I further recall Niccholo di Machiavelli’s words
    “When men succeed, they will always be praised; when men fail, they will always be blamed.”
    ― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince
    It is easy to be a hindsight prophet and keyboard commando, deriding the failure of others whilst overlooking the courage of convictions in the attempt.
    What great deed have you done?

    Do not disdain a man of action for virility. Ghengis Khan said “There is no greater joy in life than to slay your enemy and fuck his women” and now 90% of Chinese have his dna. Cao Cao rebelled and went to war likewise, to fuck. Pussy and reputation, honor as it were perceived in the eyes of fellow men, were the reason a thousand ships were launched for Troy. Throughout the ages, men risk life and limb but for lust, loot, liquor.

    I see no qualification in you to criticise other men who have taken action, until you may rightfully proclaim by mighty deed, bolder and more virile action. The ant who has done nothing has no qualification to pass judgement on the lion who failed but dared. Indeed your entire argument stems from the contempt of the inaction of the WN movement.
    I find it curious that on the one hand you would criticise the WN movement for not taking action yet simultaneously defame men who have taken action but failed. The Chinese have a saying “Ivory does not grow out of the mouth of a dog”, and “a dog views others from a low point of view”.

    A dog barks, only out of impotence.

    You criticise but offer no solutions.
    I shall not make your mistake.

    The undoing is as the doing. To unthread a stitch, follow the thread.
    Previously, kings sought to conquer the world from the bottom up, through conquest, and invariably ran out of resources. Presently, the Jew has conquered the world from the top down, not by war, but by stealth, bribery, blackmail. Thus, the counter is clear, remove his pawns.
    Know this, there can be no nation building without blood. Why simple minded men can understand in war to target officers and generals first, but then don’t have the stomach or sagacity to understand the same is needed in targeted assassinations, is beyond me if not for Robert Kennedy’s quote “Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world which yields most painfully to change.”
    1. The revolutionary is a doomed man. He has no private interests, no affairs, sentiments, ties, property nor even a name of his own. His entire being is devoured by one purpose, one thought, one passion – the revolution.
    2. Heart and soul, not merely by word but by deed, he has severed every link with the social order and with the entire civilized world; with the laws, good manners, conventions, and so called morality of that world. He is its merciless enemy and continues to inhabit it with only one purpose – to destroy it.
    3. The revolutionary despises all doctrines and refuses to accept the
    mundane sciences, leaving them for future generations. He knows
    only one science: the science of destruction. For this reason, but
    only for this reason, he will study mechanics, physics, chemistry,
    and perhaps medicine. But all day and all night he studies the
    vital science of human beings, their characteristics and
    circumstances, and all the phenomena of the present social order.
    The object is perpetually the same: the surest and quickest way of
    destroying the whole filthy order.

    4. The revolutionary despises public opinion. He despises and hates
    the existing social morality in all its manifestations. For him,
    morality is everything which contributes to the triumph of the
    revolution. Immoral and criminal is everything that stands in its

    5. The revolutionary is a dedicated man, merciless toward the State and
    toward the educated classes; and he can expect no mercy from them.
    Between him and them there exists, declared or concealed, a
    relentless and irreconcilable war to the death. He must accustom
    himself to torture.

    6. Tyrannical toward himself, he must be tyrannical toward others. All
    the gentle and enervating sentiments of kinship, love, friendship,
    gratitude, and even honor, must be suppressed in him and give place
    to the cold and singleminded passion for revolution. For him, there
    exists only one pleasure, one consolation, one reward, one
    satisfaction — the success of the revolution. Night and day he
    must have but one thought, one aim — merciless destruction.
    Striving cold-bloodedly and indefatigably toward this end, he must
    be prepared to destroy himself and to destroy with his own hands
    everything that stands in the path of the revolution.

    7. The nature of the true revolutionary excludes all sentimentality,
    romanticism, infatuation, and exaltation. All private hatred and
    revenge must also be excluded. Revolutionary passion, practiced at
    every moment of the day until it becomes a habit, is to be employed
    with cold calculation. At all times, and in all places, the
    revolutionary must obey not his personal impulses, but only those
    which serve the cause of the revolution.

    13. The revolutionary enters the world of the State, of the privileged
    classes, of the so-called civilization, and he lives in this world
    only for the purpose of bringing about its speedy and total
    destruction. He is not a revolutionary if he has any sympathy for
    this world. _He_should_not_hesitate_to_destroy_any_position_,
    _any_place_, _or_any_man_in_this_world_. He must hate everyone and
    everything in it with an equal hatred. All the worse for him if he
    has any relations with parents, friends, or lovers; _he_is_no_

    —Catechism of a Revolutionary,Sergey Nechayev,

    If war is the continuation of diplomacy by further means, then a diplomat, a traitorous politician, is a soldier of further means, and deserves the same bullet any other enemy soldier gets.

    • “You speak of “revolutionary political leadership” as if you have some experience and authority in the matter. You do not.”

      No, I do not claim to have experience and authority on revolutionary political leadership. What I am is nothing more then an activist that deals with normal people face to face in a daily attempt to humbly attempt to advance a cause I hold dear to the greatest extent of my limited abilities. Yet it seems to me that reviewing what others have done, what they achieved and how they failed is a worthwhile exercise.

      Yes, murders and rapists and founded Rome but it wasn’t murders and rapists that made Rome noble nor built a civilization that is worthy of attention. Murderers and rapists also played a key role in the decay of Rome so I find your train of thought less then convincing. Machiavelli did craft many pithy comments and the one you cite is true but I would suggest that one should be praised not so much for doing but for what actually was done or attempted and the rationales behind it. Like wise to point out that failure is condemned doesn’t say much at all about why one has failed nor what can be learned from failure. Further more, not all failure should be condemned but learned from which is what I attempt to do.

      What great deed have I done? Your question seems to imply that only those that have achieved something epic are fit to examine the actions of others. Given that rather then show any signs that you can comprehend what I’ve said you have simply pronounced that I haven’t measured up to some unstated level of greatness and therefor imply that I shouldn’t criticize those that you admire. I would maintain that the point of thinking, reading and writing is to understand what has happened so that others can learn how to better serve the ideals they hold and act accordingly.

      “Do not disdain a man of action for virility.”

      How is it that a rapist exhibits viral action? I shouldn’t disdain rapists? Lacking evidence that acting upon psychopathological tendencies is conducive to the sort of societal values I hold I don’t see why such people deserve the reverence you give them. However, I do understand that rape and pillage undermines the values I hold which is why hold rapists in disdain.

      You say that Ghengis Khan passed his DNA onto 90% of the Chinese people. Presuming that is true and looking at Mongolian history, I fail to see what good has come from his DNA in China or elsewhere.

      “Throughout the ages, men risk life and limb but for lust, loot, liquor.”

      I am interested in a bit more then satiating gut and groin and I pointed out why such drives may not be compatible with productive action.

      “I see no qualification in you to criticize other men who have taken action, until you may rightfully proclaim by mighty deed, bolder and more virile action.”

      I see that you haven’t addressed anything I said so I can’t see much reason to presume that you are able to do so or believe that you are living the values you say you hold.

      “I find it curious that on the one hand you would criticize the WN movement for not taking action yet simultaneously defame men who have taken action but failed.”

      I find it curious that you criticize what I have written but clearly haven’t been able to comprehend what I said. The American WN movement is and has been a spectacular failure for generations. Those that actually care about Occidental humanity recognize that fact and attempt to understand the reasons for the failure. You condemn me for noting the obvious and asking why while praising rape and pillage demonstrating your lack of reason, knowledge of history and your confusion between psychopathy, virility and activism. I gave a historical account of why the Second Era Klan failed which you evidentially haven’t gotten around to reading. I have given Stephenson justly deserved credit for being a charismatic orator and a great organizer. I also pointed that his sexual psychopathy wasn’t good for his cause. Stephenson’s inability to control his bizarre urges sickened a great many Klansmen and devastated support for the Klan among the public at large. His behavior also proved him to be a hypocrite and honestly saying as much is a valid criticism no matter what else he did in life. I would suggest that rather then defend rapists as pillars of viral virtue that you live out you fantasies of rape and pillage among the Mongolians you champion.

    • vigithunor,

      Next time please keep your comments shorter and neater and straight to the point. Otherwise visitors might just scroll it down…

  3. Reblogged this on murderbymedia.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: