Movies for Reactionaries, Part I

I find that as a reactionary, I have a hard time finding movies, music, or books that don't make my propaganda-dar ring loudly in my mind's ear. This isn't because everyone is out to smother the reactionary perspective, of course; it's because the reactionary perspective is so far from the norm that few artists will harbor perspectives compatible with that worldview. Thus, it is a rare treat when I stumble onto a work that does not break my suspension of disbelief through wildly impractical social, governmental, or even metaphysical mechanics.

I find that the 1970 film Cromwell is not only well acted, directed, and produced, but that it also only minimally set off my bullshit meter. This is not to say that it furthers a reactionary worldview; far from it. Our old adversary Lord Protector Cromwell is the protagonist of this fine film, which makes it decidedly not reactionary in nature.

However, Alec Guinness does such a sterling and identifiable job as King Charles I that he can't possibly be called a villain. Charles certainly provides the opposition to the film's protagonist, but he does so in a way that's readily identifiable, and free from any caricature. It's hard to overstate Guinness's portrayal of Charles; he makes Richard Harris's portrayal of Oliver Cromwell look like dogshit, and Harris is no poor actor indeed.

Finally, this film provides a stark, and meaningful rallying call to all reactionaries: Towards the end of the film, as Charles has been sentenced to death for treason, we have our antagonist's* Braveheart moment, except that it is best described as an anti-Braveheart moment, because while Wallace in the Gibson film expends his last tortured breath to bid the audience to defiance, Charles calmly, and without regret, declares his life to have been only in service to peace. William Wallace bids you violence. Charles Stuart bids you peace.

*The character of Charles I provides the viewer with a stark example that an antagonist is not the same as a villain.

In the wake of the England riots

This list says a lot.

Typical Socio-Progressive Flagwaving

Posted without comment.

So much for the myth of the noble savage

Via la Wik:

"In Arnhem Land in northern Australia, a study of warfare among the Indigenous Australian Murngin people in the late 19th century found that over a 20-year period no less than 200 out of 800 men, or 25% of all adult males, had been killed in intertribal warfare."

An interesting test

Read this article and mentally replace all instances of "Internet Explorer users, use Internet Explorer", etc with, say, "Australian Aborigine, be Australian Aborigine" and all instances of "Opera/Firefox/other browser users, use Opera/Firefox/other browsers" with, say, "Asian/Jewish, be Asian/Jewish".

And then tell me a logical, non-axiomatic reason why an observation about race is more inflammatory than an observation about browser usage.

EDIT: It has been revealed as a hoax, and I admit I didn't catch that the first go around. However, the point still stands: Why aren't people asking for Mr. Murphy's head? Let's say he'd created a hoax about one race being less intelligent than another, do you think he would have gotten off so easily?

Of course not.

Jack The Ripper's Got Nothing on Anders Behring Breivik

I was tempted to do a write up of my thoughts on the recent attacks in Norway, but Moldbug beat me to it.

Which is fine, since he's liable to say it more eloquently than I could.

He did however, leave out the part where any society where any random asshole can pick up a shotgun and proceed to murder 85 bloody people in an hour and a half, has fundamentally failed at the task of law and order. To say nothing of the sort of colossal failure of public contentedness in Western democratized society that is implied for this sort of thing to happen in the first place, how does someone run around on an island for an hour and a half shooting people without being stopped? Hell, I'm reasonably confident that just a plurality of the campers on that island could have tackled him and brought the nightmare to an end. The hell, guys?

And for all of those out there who blame guns, it's clear to me that this guy could have caused just as much carnage with a kitchen knife. This is a fundamental failure of order, not a failure to keep sharp implements away from children.

Anyway, I'm sure MM figures it's so obvious that these attacks are indicative of a failure of order that he needn't mention it. But he has a loyal reactionary readership, and I don't, so I do feel the need to spell things out.

Being that this is the second time I've mentioned Mencius Moldbug on this blog, I figure I ought to mention that if you're reading UE and not UR, there is something wrong with you. Go back, read some of Mencius' introductory writings (which can be found in organized form here), build a red lightsaber, and come back. While I don't agree with MM on every single point, my philosophy essentially begins and ends with his ideas. He's the reason I'm a reactionary, and I typically take my cues from him. If I am a Sith Apprentice, he's my Palpatine.

A New Dark Lord Rises?

Perhaps, in time. It would seem inevitable that one so intelligent, and dedicated, and given over to rationalism would eventually find his inner Voldemort, but then, everyone who thinks thinks their perspective is the most rational.

Those of us who've been so thoroughly disproven, however, tend to be a bit more certain of it than most.

At any rate, you should really read his fanfiction; it's top notch deconstruction, and you might even learn something.

And if our dear Mr. Wrong is reading this, should you decide the red lightsaber is for you, I wish to be the first to welcome you to the fold.