Patriarchs, Putsches, & Pesky Commenters

A brief interlude to discuss three topics that do not require a full length article to delve into. The second part of ‘Gazing Into the Age of Kali’ is upcoming probably late next week.

Firstly, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and all Rus’ has condemned the Eurovision Song Contest in the official statement of the church, declaring it “repulsive” on the back of what was most certainly an engineered victory handed to Austrian tranny, Thomas Neuwirth. Declaring the continued degeneracy of the competition to be repulsive to our soul and our culture,” His Holiness the Patriarch puts voice to the opinions of the Orthodox faithful, including your humble correspondent. It is a shame that we have not heard such unequivocal condemnation from the Catholic Church of the current referendum in Ireland which has legalized perversion of marriage in that historically Catholic country by popular vote, with a large number of clergy openly supporting the measure. This kind of heresy cannot be left unchecked, for it is the destroyer of souls.

After uncertainty about who owned the NeoReactionary brand since a rash of argument, doxxing, and excommuncation, it would appear that the quixotic intellectual movement has fallen directly under the governance of the Hestia Society for Social Studies, the root organization controlling the Social Matter website, a friend to this blog. This putsch, while I cannot swear fealty to it since I operate outside of NeoReaction, has my good wishes going forward with the hope that the ‘Dark Enlightenment’ can continue providing good commentary on our decaying civilization, and solutions to the problems that the radical right faces with a look towards the future.

The final point I want to address concerns commenters in the Reactosphere. I have tackled this topic briefly before when reflecting on how the Reactosphere should ideally operate, but I wanted to elaborate.

Occasionally, flunkies for leftism wander over to this dark and uncharted corner of the net to essentially spout off their talking points. These include but are not limited to both ardent Liberals and more often self-declared Libertarians, as well as trolls who might take issue with the ‘tone’ of the radical right, and stand aghast at how politically incorrect what they are reading is. It’s fair to say every operator of any blog has the authority to police their comments as they see fit. Some prefer a wide open debate, others prefer more control to weed out the viewpoints that are toxic sludge (i.e – supporting perversion or attacking the Faith).  On this blog at least, I won’t be ‘tolerant’ of liberals at all. If a Conservative who is genuinely seeking to understand the real right wing wants to engage, then we can have a discussion. However, if you are a leftist hell bent on promoting your own anti-Traditional ideology, you can take your pablum elsewhere. This is the policy I recommend for every Reactosphere blogger, because often times such people will provoke a derailing of a given discussion into needless sidetracks which are just not even debatable points on the radical right.

I think it was Bonald who said something to the effect of, “I’m a monarchist, and since this is my blog, I’m the absolute monarch of the comment section. Don’t like it, go somewhere else.”


6 thoughts on “Patriarchs, Putsches, & Pesky Commenters

  1. I reserve the right to delete comments and ban people from my blog for any reason, but I'm obscure enough that I don't receive many comments anyway. Sometimes it can be instructive to third parties if a liberal is chimping out in response to something you've written.


  2. 'Can't argue with that. And of course a liberal chimpout can be entertaining at times. Just that on blogs where you get a discussion going on a certain topic, it's annoying when a Liberal succeeds in hijacking the debate and forcing the people present to defend things that should already be givens on this part of the internet (eg – the inherent differences of race for example). In the early days of any blog it will rarely be a problem, but as a blog's viewership grows, then the annoyance can present itself.


  3. First link in the post is broken.

    Leftist commenters appear to be problematic, but libertarians, provided that they're not of the left-wing variety, can be easily enough converted to reactionary cause (especially far-right anarchists, as they already believe in having private government and usually already have reactionary leanings anyway), just give them Hans-Herman Hoppe and Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn to read and voilà!


  4. Thanks for informing me about the link. Fixed.

    I think certain kinds of Libertarians are susceptible, but a great many people who adopt the label are not willing to take it out to its fullest extent and so even Hoppe would be too radical for them.


  5. I flat-out refuse to let anyone of the left, or evangelifeminist, to post a single comment to Patriactionary.

    I enjoy a good debate with relatively like-minded fellow trads / rx; iron sharpens iron.

    But progs never argue in good faith, they always fight dirty, because they are dirty.

    Nothing they have to say is worth listening to, at all.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s