An essential concept for understanding the Old (or fake) Right and its inability to defeat the Left is "fragility" – normally defined as the quality of being easily broken or damaged. It has been noted that such right wingers are people who either want to ignore momentum and impose a status quo, which means being Conservative, or LARPers, who yearn for some previous unobtainable moment in history. Many of the disagreements on the right basically boil down to "My LARPing doesn’t line up with your LARPing."
But the essential point about those on the Old Right is their sense of fragility, a feeling that any change or shift will make them lose out in terms of income and social status. This inevitably pushes then to the wrong side of the System. Rather than their defended position, it is this fragility and the fears it generates that comes to define them.
They effectively act like people with osteoporosis fearful of any knock or bump. This is why you see New York Conservatives hobnobbing with Democrats – and submitting to their anti-White agenda. Also, many millennials move to the Left against their better inclinations simply because it gets them a job, money, and social recognition, while people on the Right live in fear of SJWs and "social shaming."
There is also, deep within Old Conservatism, a flawed and fragile heart. Since the Enlightenment, Conservatism has come in many flavors: clerical Conservatism; bourgeois and middle-class allegiance to classical liberalism and patriotism; Burkean Legalism; Russell Kirk's fuzzy definition of "value Conservatism" (whose hostility to "ideologies" seems to overcompensate for a lack of internal principles); and so on.
Each peculiar flavor of Conservatism seems to be a fragile attempt to maintain or go back to something, only to lose in the end. GOP Conservatism maintained its place inside the System at the cost of a sense of self: National Review endorsed Martin Luther King as "Conservative," and a few years after "Conservative values" were cited as justifying gay "marriage" too.
In a nutshell, the Right always converts to the Left's "last stuff": the Left has a self and successfully pushes, while the old Right reluctantly converts to the Left's "last stuff." Both the systematic death of each specific flavor of Conservatism and the appalling compromises of the GOP are simply signs of ideological fragility. This is why the concept of fragility is so central to an analysis of the Right.
As a consequence of the Right's fragility, the Left appears much cooler and is more attractive to young people lacking a conscious White identity (America’s under-the-radar self-segregation is a great help in this). The Left pushes "forward" and decides what direction that is, while the Old Right simply focuses on making the journey as smooth as possible.
The Old Right, including the GOP and the unconscious Right that still occupies parts of institutions and power networks, is fragile and frail. It suffers from blows and tries to negotiate, to soften, or even occasionally to LARP as Leftists. The Left meanwhile thrives on dialectics, and repeatedly declares new metapolitical wars: against the Church, against IQ, against traditional sex roles, and today against the European peoples. The Left is somehow robust enough to declare endless cultural wars, and the old Right is frail enough to keep losing each of them.
Fragility applies beyond politics. In France, the North Africans and Blacks who constitute the core of violent gangs have crafted a sociologically interesting expression: babtou fragile. "Babtou" comes from the West African "toubab," used there to designate European Whites. Thus, a babtou fragile means a "wimpy Whitey," as opposed to the babtous solides one can find, for example, in powerlifting or in an elite task force.
The expression babtou fragile has a clear meaning inside the culture it originates from. Those who evolve in a thug culture value being an alpha male in the most brutal sense – akin to what Jack Donovan called a "barbarian." Gangsta-rap proudly endorses the kind of daily violence that normal white people tend to avoid.
Fragility is endemic on the Right. It goes with self-censorship, with getting abused and humiliated by the “stronger.” It is why many young Whites learn game, take the Red (or Black) Pill and go New Right, Dissident Right, Alt-Right or simply lift. Being fragile ultimately leads to death. The atavistic feeling of having one foot already in the grave that one has while in a situation of radical fragility is compelling enough to make one's lifestyle shift completely.
Actually, the frail individual can try to make himself stronger and tougher, or he can remain enclosed in a particular social role or narrative in order to be tolerated, thus "buying" his own social survival within a specific environment. (Which is the case of the GOP and Old Righters – the (Blue) Pillers of any society.)
Given those conditions, Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s 2012 book Antifragile is timely – and it is even timelier in the aftermath of the Paris attacks. The basic idea of the book is to endorse the exact reverse of fragility. Not merely robustness or solidity, not even resilience, but actually benefitting from quakes and blows.
After twenty years working as a trader, Taleb became known as “the dissident from Wall Street.” He wrote several books on chance, hazards, how inevitable they are, and how they can be turned into investment strategies. At first glance, his concept of antifragility, or reverse fragility, appears quite abstract, but has a wide range of applications. Some of those uses are of great interest for Dissident Righters.
Taleb criticizes the managerial state and, more broadly, the modern tendency to impose control on everything in a forlorn attempt to "reduce uncertainty to zero." It is this tendency that creates a lot of unnecessary fragility in society. As examples, non-elected experts try to shoehorn the whole economy into neat, little mathematical models, constraining its organic development and steering it as they think appropriate. The result is a conceited system of politics, acting, at best, on the basis of an incomplete and simplistic picture of the world. By putting burdens on entrepreneurs and rewarding bad economic behavior, they create an increasingly fragile economic situation. National economies are also hollowed out as the growing level of risk becomes globalized and thus even more fragile. Modern managers are fragilitas – promoters of fragility – who negate the organic nature of the economy by mistaking it for a mechanical device, and ultimately wreck it without having to personally pay the price.
As an analogy, strong but simplistic antibiotic treatment tends to undermine a patient's immune system, thus exposing him to further health hazards. Taleb’s insights come close to some of Ted Kaczynski’s ideas regarding technology. Innovations that mesh with natural processes have unforeseen consequences, and if technological progress is cumulative and accelerating, it is likely to lead to an increasingly unstable and fragile world.
Pre-Revolutionary France was a baroque mosaic of lively regions. It was barely controlled by its royal capital, Versailles. Nor was it under control by the mobs of Paris. Centuries of centralization were needed to "create" a French nation by assimilating the various regional cultures to the Parisian-Jacobine idea of nationhood. However, did this effort made France stronger?
The central power gained a lot of leverage to influence local matters, and it handled much more money and thus became more able to raise large numbers of troop. However, all this power did not prevent the rise of an ever-growing public debt. Worse, its hierarchical inertia allowed a more fluid Germany to knock it down in 1940, in spite of the well-equipped and vastly expensive Maginot line built on the border.
For all its colorful baroqueness, Ancient France was actually extremely robust – surviving serious invasions and occupations (mainly from the Anglo-Normans). The centralized Jacobineb state, by contrast, restricted its own economy and became vulnerable to public debt and swift destabilization. The smug bourgeois bohemians who own Paris today are also fragile – as one can see under their mask of false dignity.
Taleb staunchly stands against the blissful excesses of intellectual sophistication and mathematical formalism. He favors an organicist approach towards the economy and society, rather than the mechanical Keynesian models. Attempts to flatten the world – to have it behave as if it had no mountains, irregularities, or heterogeneity – are doomed to fail, and will only create unnecessary fragility.
Against what he perceives as a modern neurosis, Taleb favors a life-affirming perspective, where randomness and unpredictability are accepted as a part of life and used or sublimated for our benefit.
Applications of antifragility mentioned in Antifragile range from hormesis, the use of small doses of poison in order to strengthen an organism against them, to weight training, which creates muscular micro-lesions in order to make the muscle repair and grow.
It also includes phenomena such as the Streisand Effect, whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing it more widely. This was named after Barbara Streisand’s ill-fated attempt to suppress photographs of her lovely residence in Malibu, California, which, of course, had the opposite effect.
According to Taleb:
Left-originating struggles are all tailored for power-grabbing. Feminists do not care much about actual rape and tend to consider it as hardly a news story, or even as something to hide, as when Black or Pakistani men rape white women.
However, they have invented the idea of a "rape culture," a "patriarchy," and a whole conceptual world which aims at having all women – even those living in the most comfortable conditions – feeling like they belong to a man-victimized "class" in the Marxist sense.
Feminism is a war machine that benefits from the disorder it creates. It frustrates women by driving them away from their inner, organic needs, and which leads them to attack their fellow men, then offers itself as a "solution" to the problems it has created.
Usury has been banned throughout history for a good reason: a usurer is someone who benefits from someone else's disorder.
In a healthy society, someone in difficulty could count on a social safety net – friends and family – and did not need to borrow money at usurious rates. A usurer perceives someone else's loneliness and problems as an opportunity for furthering his own interest.
Since at least the eighteenth century, banks have expanded this logic by financing modern wars. States have been repeatedly indebted in order to finance warfare on a massive scale. In England the Seven-Year War transferred a lot of power from the agrarian owners and nobility to the shareholders of public debt, while the First World War lasted as long as was necessary for the gold to flow out of France, Russia, and Germany into Anglo-Talmudic trunks.
The United States did not benefit much from the disorder, and neither did the millions of Europeans who died. Yet the Rothschilds certainly did.
During much of the 19th-century and the post-1945 period, unbounded capitalism looked successful: railroads spread and automobiles proliferated, countless machines were produced, people enjoyed new homes and new comforts. Big banks already existed, of course, and their interests seemed to be in harmony with that of the people. But when the average Joe had all the household appliances he could handle, and when planned obsolescence and built-in waste could no-longer provide the necessary stimulus, financial capitalism was ready with a better source of profit: chaos.
Feminism destroyed families to get women on the job market, thus impoverishing the average male worker, while creating cheap labour for the capitalists, as well as markets for a host of new products and services to serve the growing dysfunction: powdered milk, baby-sitters, therapists, and even a whole seduction industry as men became isolated and clueless.
Today, wars are declared and countries and companies taken over and torn apart in order to squeeze more money out of them. A large majority of people, both Europeans and Middle Easterner, are clearly losing from that disorder. But there are also those who benefit. When you get fired because of social dumping and find yourself competing with a Chinese wage-slave, be sure that someone is benefitting. And not only does he give zero f**ks about you, but he may even sneer at building his success on the discarded husks of defeated First World "losers."
Fortunately, benefiting from disorder is not an exclusive prerogative of knaves and varlets. The truly robust tend to benefit from their setbacks. In Nietzsche and Kelly Clarkson’s famous words:
Our enemies have their fragilities, and we can be benefit from those disorders, too. How?
There are some examples out there. The creator of Return of Kings, Roosh, turned his own loneliness into an ability to strike at SJWs in a way that benefited many other, isolated, young men. His blog benefits from viral effects and earns enough money to support itself, as well as other projects. Troll activism deliberately creates disorder in an alienating or falsehood-based order. Someone trolling alone may alter the whole social dynamic of a debate, something he could not have accomplished by adhering to social codes.
The Left likes to say that the "Far Right" benefits from financial crisis and other social problems. Aside from the crude attempt at a smear, however, there is at least a grain or acorn of truth in this. The alternative right developed out of a need to answer deep problems created by others. As long as the power that rules the state is alien enough to push us into the "Far Right," instability and fluctuation is somehow our natural state and it would be "fragile" to not accept this.
In France, the Front National has benefited, as an alternative party, from growing immigration and the abandonment of the majority by the elites. Yet, it is also a cheap foil for the Left and old Right, and its leader Marine Le Pen constantly walks a thin line in order to be retain access to the official media. The dissenter Alain Soral, ex-FN member, does a much better job at thriving on dialectics: he creates buzzes, displays huge metapolitical blows, ridicules many official characters, and, as Guillaume Durocher said, may even have rendered the official propaganda ultimately self-defeating.
All the dissenters who make themselves anti-fragile – I'm thinking mostly about Roosh and Soral, but one can find other examples too – have been attacked by the Left. They have turned antifragile because, after being persecuted or cast out, they managed to turn their experience into a benefit in lieu of being crushed – once again Nietzsche’s famous maxim springs to mind.
When someone becomes independent from the system his gains in antifragility lead to escalating attacks on him. This means that he must become even more antifragile to remain so.
The Left wants us to be fragile. They want us to be weak, male feminists, nice guys serving as doormats, rednecks who turn "patriot" for paying taxes or dying in Neocon wars, coward careerists rallying to SJWs when they bully their daily victim, or even cucks apologizing for being on the "Right."
Cucks are admitted inside the System, just like eunuchs in the King's court: they owe their social status and regular income to the System, and have accepted dependence and cowardice as conditions for their wage. I prefer to be called a "white Supremacist" – if somewhat inaccurately – than to scribble about how Dugin or the "Far Right" are Satan in order to please a Jewish boss. While being a eunuch has its obvious cost, to not be one is also costly. What matters is turning those costs into a trampoline, or, as a better analogy, a weight that will develop our strength.
In a nutshell: we must develop our ability to thrive in a state of disorder, and identify which disorder we can thrive in. As a corollary to this, we must also identify what disorder our enemies benefit from, and, more importantly, what disorder – or healthy order – they do not benefit from.
Modern social structures (the State, corporations, and the like) should not matter. One could object that benefiting from disorder is essentially a condition of youth. If you are a childless young man, you may feel like you have no specific responsibilities and are therefore freer to act. But what about those individuals already integrated into the social structure?
I have known Leftists who start to vote for the Front National when they become landlords. Along those lines, young fathers want the State to ensure their children's school, healthcare, and security. If you are tied to a child or a property, you tend to become conservative, because those ties make you more vulnerable, more fragile. Should we then remain childless and keep our property fluid and mobile? In my opinion, the problem does not come down to having children, a business, or being integrated into the social structure. The problem comes from giving that social structure too much importance.
What makes us vulnerable is not our families and our careers but our identification with an overvalued career or frail social status that SJWs can destroy. Rather than bowing down in order to keep such a position, we should apply the principles of antifragility and make it an opportunity to develop as a father figure and role model. A son will grow up much healthier if he learns to take blows by seeing his father actually dealing effectively with them, much more so than if he only has a brainwashing public school, a useless therapist, or an overly emotive single mother to rely on.
Being antifragile is our occasion to go beyond modernity. The doctor Alexis Carrel, in his bestselling Man the Unknown (1935), saw modern civilization as producing a "fat and lazy" human type, passively dependent on the straitjacket of the Managerial State. In the wilderness of metapolitical war we have no time for the luxury of passive consumerism. By seeking antifragility, we renew our connections with our pioneers and conquering ancestors. By crafting alternatives to the System, any showdown becomes an efficient stimulant for our renewal.
Everyone needs at least some order. A complete state of entropy would cause the extinction of all life and benefit no one. As we learn to mock the cherished social order of the cucks, and become antifragile, we must also discern what disorders our enemies feed on, and ultimately move towards an antifragile order that will crush them.
Become a Patron!
But the essential point about those on the Old Right is their sense of fragility, a feeling that any change or shift will make them lose out in terms of income and social status. This inevitably pushes then to the wrong side of the System. Rather than their defended position, it is this fragility and the fears it generates that comes to define them.
They effectively act like people with osteoporosis fearful of any knock or bump. This is why you see New York Conservatives hobnobbing with Democrats – and submitting to their anti-White agenda. Also, many millennials move to the Left against their better inclinations simply because it gets them a job, money, and social recognition, while people on the Right live in fear of SJWs and "social shaming."
There is also, deep within Old Conservatism, a flawed and fragile heart. Since the Enlightenment, Conservatism has come in many flavors: clerical Conservatism; bourgeois and middle-class allegiance to classical liberalism and patriotism; Burkean Legalism; Russell Kirk's fuzzy definition of "value Conservatism" (whose hostility to "ideologies" seems to overcompensate for a lack of internal principles); and so on.
 |
| The history of Conservatism. |
In a nutshell, the Right always converts to the Left's "last stuff": the Left has a self and successfully pushes, while the old Right reluctantly converts to the Left's "last stuff." Both the systematic death of each specific flavor of Conservatism and the appalling compromises of the GOP are simply signs of ideological fragility. This is why the concept of fragility is so central to an analysis of the Right.
As a consequence of the Right's fragility, the Left appears much cooler and is more attractive to young people lacking a conscious White identity (America’s under-the-radar self-segregation is a great help in this). The Left pushes "forward" and decides what direction that is, while the Old Right simply focuses on making the journey as smooth as possible.
The Old Right, including the GOP and the unconscious Right that still occupies parts of institutions and power networks, is fragile and frail. It suffers from blows and tries to negotiate, to soften, or even occasionally to LARP as Leftists. The Left meanwhile thrives on dialectics, and repeatedly declares new metapolitical wars: against the Church, against IQ, against traditional sex roles, and today against the European peoples. The Left is somehow robust enough to declare endless cultural wars, and the old Right is frail enough to keep losing each of them.
Fragility applies beyond politics. In France, the North Africans and Blacks who constitute the core of violent gangs have crafted a sociologically interesting expression: babtou fragile. "Babtou" comes from the West African "toubab," used there to designate European Whites. Thus, a babtou fragile means a "wimpy Whitey," as opposed to the babtous solides one can find, for example, in powerlifting or in an elite task force.
 |
| Fragile Paris |
Fragility is endemic on the Right. It goes with self-censorship, with getting abused and humiliated by the “stronger.” It is why many young Whites learn game, take the Red (or Black) Pill and go New Right, Dissident Right, Alt-Right or simply lift. Being fragile ultimately leads to death. The atavistic feeling of having one foot already in the grave that one has while in a situation of radical fragility is compelling enough to make one's lifestyle shift completely.
Actually, the frail individual can try to make himself stronger and tougher, or he can remain enclosed in a particular social role or narrative in order to be tolerated, thus "buying" his own social survival within a specific environment. (Which is the case of the GOP and Old Righters – the (Blue) Pillers of any society.)
Antifragility, or the Exact Reverse of Fragility
Given those conditions, Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s 2012 book Antifragile is timely – and it is even timelier in the aftermath of the Paris attacks. The basic idea of the book is to endorse the exact reverse of fragility. Not merely robustness or solidity, not even resilience, but actually benefitting from quakes and blows.
Taleb criticizes the managerial state and, more broadly, the modern tendency to impose control on everything in a forlorn attempt to "reduce uncertainty to zero." It is this tendency that creates a lot of unnecessary fragility in society. As examples, non-elected experts try to shoehorn the whole economy into neat, little mathematical models, constraining its organic development and steering it as they think appropriate. The result is a conceited system of politics, acting, at best, on the basis of an incomplete and simplistic picture of the world. By putting burdens on entrepreneurs and rewarding bad economic behavior, they create an increasingly fragile economic situation. National economies are also hollowed out as the growing level of risk becomes globalized and thus even more fragile. Modern managers are fragilitas – promoters of fragility – who negate the organic nature of the economy by mistaking it for a mechanical device, and ultimately wreck it without having to personally pay the price.
As an analogy, strong but simplistic antibiotic treatment tends to undermine a patient's immune system, thus exposing him to further health hazards. Taleb’s insights come close to some of Ted Kaczynski’s ideas regarding technology. Innovations that mesh with natural processes have unforeseen consequences, and if technological progress is cumulative and accelerating, it is likely to lead to an increasingly unstable and fragile world.
 |
| Robust France |
The central power gained a lot of leverage to influence local matters, and it handled much more money and thus became more able to raise large numbers of troop. However, all this power did not prevent the rise of an ever-growing public debt. Worse, its hierarchical inertia allowed a more fluid Germany to knock it down in 1940, in spite of the well-equipped and vastly expensive Maginot line built on the border.
For all its colorful baroqueness, Ancient France was actually extremely robust – surviving serious invasions and occupations (mainly from the Anglo-Normans). The centralized Jacobineb state, by contrast, restricted its own economy and became vulnerable to public debt and swift destabilization. The smug bourgeois bohemians who own Paris today are also fragile – as one can see under their mask of false dignity.
Fragile France
Taleb staunchly stands against the blissful excesses of intellectual sophistication and mathematical formalism. He favors an organicist approach towards the economy and society, rather than the mechanical Keynesian models. Attempts to flatten the world – to have it behave as if it had no mountains, irregularities, or heterogeneity – are doomed to fail, and will only create unnecessary fragility.
Against what he perceives as a modern neurosis, Taleb favors a life-affirming perspective, where randomness and unpredictability are accepted as a part of life and used or sublimated for our benefit.
Applications of antifragility mentioned in Antifragile range from hormesis, the use of small doses of poison in order to strengthen an organism against them, to weight training, which creates muscular micro-lesions in order to make the muscle repair and grow.
It also includes phenomena such as the Streisand Effect, whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing it more widely. This was named after Barbara Streisand’s ill-fated attempt to suppress photographs of her lovely residence in Malibu, California, which, of course, had the opposite effect.
Antifragile Destroyers
According to Taleb:
"The worst problem of modernity lies in the malignant transfer of fragility and antifragility from one party to the other, with one getting the benefits, the other one (unwittingly) getting the harm, with such transfer facilitated by the growing wedge between the ethical and the legal. This state of affairs… is acute today – modernity hides it especially well." (Antifragile, beginning of chapter 23)If our current world suffers from disorder, who gains from it? The first thing that comes to mind is undoubtedly the Left. As a metapolitical force, it frames its own problems, then uses them to get outrage – at the expense of those whom it blames – and gathers support.
Left-originating struggles are all tailored for power-grabbing. Feminists do not care much about actual rape and tend to consider it as hardly a news story, or even as something to hide, as when Black or Pakistani men rape white women.
However, they have invented the idea of a "rape culture," a "patriarchy," and a whole conceptual world which aims at having all women – even those living in the most comfortable conditions – feeling like they belong to a man-victimized "class" in the Marxist sense.
Feminism is a war machine that benefits from the disorder it creates. It frustrates women by driving them away from their inner, organic needs, and which leads them to attack their fellow men, then offers itself as a "solution" to the problems it has created.
 |
| The "Merchant" of Venice. |
In a healthy society, someone in difficulty could count on a social safety net – friends and family – and did not need to borrow money at usurious rates. A usurer perceives someone else's loneliness and problems as an opportunity for furthering his own interest.
Since at least the eighteenth century, banks have expanded this logic by financing modern wars. States have been repeatedly indebted in order to finance warfare on a massive scale. In England the Seven-Year War transferred a lot of power from the agrarian owners and nobility to the shareholders of public debt, while the First World War lasted as long as was necessary for the gold to flow out of France, Russia, and Germany into Anglo-Talmudic trunks.
The United States did not benefit much from the disorder, and neither did the millions of Europeans who died. Yet the Rothschilds certainly did.
During much of the 19th-century and the post-1945 period, unbounded capitalism looked successful: railroads spread and automobiles proliferated, countless machines were produced, people enjoyed new homes and new comforts. Big banks already existed, of course, and their interests seemed to be in harmony with that of the people. But when the average Joe had all the household appliances he could handle, and when planned obsolescence and built-in waste could no-longer provide the necessary stimulus, financial capitalism was ready with a better source of profit: chaos.
Feminism destroyed families to get women on the job market, thus impoverishing the average male worker, while creating cheap labour for the capitalists, as well as markets for a host of new products and services to serve the growing dysfunction: powdered milk, baby-sitters, therapists, and even a whole seduction industry as men became isolated and clueless.
Today, wars are declared and countries and companies taken over and torn apart in order to squeeze more money out of them. A large majority of people, both Europeans and Middle Easterner, are clearly losing from that disorder. But there are also those who benefit. When you get fired because of social dumping and find yourself competing with a Chinese wage-slave, be sure that someone is benefitting. And not only does he give zero f**ks about you, but he may even sneer at building his success on the discarded husks of defeated First World "losers."
Antifragile dissidents
Fortunately, benefiting from disorder is not an exclusive prerogative of knaves and varlets. The truly robust tend to benefit from their setbacks. In Nietzsche and Kelly Clarkson’s famous words:
What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.The downturn can have a fortifying effect, just as the hormetic poison-taker can succeed in mithridating himself. On the other hand, those who f**k us over have their own fragilities. Sixty-eighters and cuckservatives might be benefitting from some or the disorders they have brought upon society, especially if they belong to some well-paid lobby group or work in finance, but their gains will avail them nothing if they got stabbed by a random thug late at night or if their daughter gets raped or gunned down at some rock concert by jihadis.
Our enemies have their fragilities, and we can be benefit from those disorders, too. How?
There are some examples out there. The creator of Return of Kings, Roosh, turned his own loneliness into an ability to strike at SJWs in a way that benefited many other, isolated, young men. His blog benefits from viral effects and earns enough money to support itself, as well as other projects. Troll activism deliberately creates disorder in an alienating or falsehood-based order. Someone trolling alone may alter the whole social dynamic of a debate, something he could not have accomplished by adhering to social codes.
The Left likes to say that the "Far Right" benefits from financial crisis and other social problems. Aside from the crude attempt at a smear, however, there is at least a grain or acorn of truth in this. The alternative right developed out of a need to answer deep problems created by others. As long as the power that rules the state is alien enough to push us into the "Far Right," instability and fluctuation is somehow our natural state and it would be "fragile" to not accept this.
 |
| Alain Soral: sailing close to the wind. |
All the dissenters who make themselves anti-fragile – I'm thinking mostly about Roosh and Soral, but one can find other examples too – have been attacked by the Left. They have turned antifragile because, after being persecuted or cast out, they managed to turn their experience into a benefit in lieu of being crushed – once again Nietzsche’s famous maxim springs to mind.
When someone becomes independent from the system his gains in antifragility lead to escalating attacks on him. This means that he must become even more antifragile to remain so.
The Left wants us to be fragile. They want us to be weak, male feminists, nice guys serving as doormats, rednecks who turn "patriot" for paying taxes or dying in Neocon wars, coward careerists rallying to SJWs when they bully their daily victim, or even cucks apologizing for being on the "Right."
Cucks are admitted inside the System, just like eunuchs in the King's court: they owe their social status and regular income to the System, and have accepted dependence and cowardice as conditions for their wage. I prefer to be called a "white Supremacist" – if somewhat inaccurately – than to scribble about how Dugin or the "Far Right" are Satan in order to please a Jewish boss. While being a eunuch has its obvious cost, to not be one is also costly. What matters is turning those costs into a trampoline, or, as a better analogy, a weight that will develop our strength.
In a nutshell: we must develop our ability to thrive in a state of disorder, and identify which disorder we can thrive in. As a corollary to this, we must also identify what disorder our enemies benefit from, and, more importantly, what disorder – or healthy order – they do not benefit from.
Modern social structures (the State, corporations, and the like) should not matter. One could object that benefiting from disorder is essentially a condition of youth. If you are a childless young man, you may feel like you have no specific responsibilities and are therefore freer to act. But what about those individuals already integrated into the social structure?
I have known Leftists who start to vote for the Front National when they become landlords. Along those lines, young fathers want the State to ensure their children's school, healthcare, and security. If you are tied to a child or a property, you tend to become conservative, because those ties make you more vulnerable, more fragile. Should we then remain childless and keep our property fluid and mobile? In my opinion, the problem does not come down to having children, a business, or being integrated into the social structure. The problem comes from giving that social structure too much importance.
 |
| An SJW about to utter its shrill anti-mating call. |
Being antifragile is our occasion to go beyond modernity. The doctor Alexis Carrel, in his bestselling Man the Unknown (1935), saw modern civilization as producing a "fat and lazy" human type, passively dependent on the straitjacket of the Managerial State. In the wilderness of metapolitical war we have no time for the luxury of passive consumerism. By seeking antifragility, we renew our connections with our pioneers and conquering ancestors. By crafting alternatives to the System, any showdown becomes an efficient stimulant for our renewal.
Everyone needs at least some order. A complete state of entropy would cause the extinction of all life and benefit no one. As we learn to mock the cherished social order of the cucks, and become antifragile, we must also discern what disorders our enemies feed on, and ultimately move towards an antifragile order that will crush them.
Translation: “Seek the order inside the disorder”
Become a Patron!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comment will appear after it has been checked for spam, trolling, and hate speech.