PLEASE DON’T GIVE THEM IDEAS. THE DREADED JIM HAS ALREADY SUGGESTED THIS. (also is there really a “slate star reich” subreddit? Because that’s horrible and doesn’t de-associate the word “realm” with NS-jargon at all.) Uuuuugggghhhh @existential-saint it’s like, where is the remission of sins???? (Yeah, I’m a different kind of “purity-obsessed reactionary”, and may yet one day be a refugee from unapologetic hedonism. But I would never curse hope like that, or speak of Mrs. Grande in such words.Seriously, they hate Islam so fucking much, but Wahhabi/Salafist Islam is basically exactly what they want - absolute gender conformity, total subordination of the individual to family and community, and eradication of everything “degenerate” or “impure”. Literally the only thing wrong from their perspective is that it’s the wrong skin color. And I guess depending on the flavor of reactionary, they might want women completely uncovered except for their eyes, instead of vice versa.today in /r/SlateStarReich
I always hear [Western culture should be promoted] and I’m left wondering: what “culture” does the West have left? The audience for an Ariana Grande concert is mostly pre-teens and tweens, and her songs for that audience include stuff about how she gets fucked so hard she can’t walk the next morning. That’s the “Western culture” we must rally to defend.
…Maybe once all the life-hating, purity- and control-obsessed reactionaries - much of the ethnonationalist right, and a handful notionally on the left as well - finally convert to Salafism already, then we could enjoy an awesome and, yeah, unapologetically hedonistic global culture without having to specify after every word that using it for oppression is detestable.
(also, thankfully someone in replies who’s more familiar with ~Western Culture~ points out how Ariana Grande has nothing on Catullus)
The promotion of cousin marriage and maybe occasionalist metaphysics (cf “inshallah, bukra, massalam”) are probably the biggest problems.
yfw I am them
You’re confusing essential and accidental characteristics of the desired state, at least for a big chunk of the reactosphere.
For example, the ortho-reactionaries want a traditionalist Christian state, which, sure, that does share a lot of characteristics with Salafism in contrast with modernity. But saying “just go Muslim” is missing the point in the biggest possible way.
The more Moldbuggian reactionaries want something like a “responsible and minimally invasive state”, within which feminism and general degeneracy are discouraged because they corrode the long-term capability of the state. Again, the goal is not anti-feminism for its own sake, but anti-feminism because feminism conflicts with their other goals.
OK, how the fuck is a “minimally invasive state” going to discourage feminism and general degeneracy? Women actually like living their lives without always asking permission from their husbands and fathers and brothers and assorted other dudes, and people in general go in for some really kinky shit sometimes, and stopping both of those things on a large scale requires lots and lots of power being applied from somewhere.
The state per se is not going to do it. Rather, we observe that patriarchy is a known long-term stable strategy, while feminism is mostly driven by various corrupt incentive structures which motivate burning social technology for short-term gain. Break up the feedback loops which encourage this, and feminism basically dies of its own unpopularity and dysgenics.
Counterpoint: literally nothing you have said pertains to reality.
Edit: ah, you’re the Lebensraum denialist who thought WW2 is about whether “Anglos” or “Slavs” get to “rule Europe”. By nothing, I mean nothing ever.