What is neo-reaction?

Or perhaps I should rephrase that question: what would neo-reaction be if it were presented in a more coherent analytic framework?  (You’ll find other takes here; I like it better with the hyphen.)  Here is a list of propositions, noting that these are an intellectualized summary of a somewhat imagined collective doctrine, and certainly not a statement of my own views:

1. “Culturism” is in general correct, namely that some cultures are better than others.  You want to make sure you are ruled by one of the better cultures.  In any case, one is operating with a matrix of rule.

2. The historical ruling cultures for America and Western Europe — two very successful regions — have largely consisted of white men and have reflected the perspectives of white men.  This rule and influence continues to work, however, because it is not based on either whiteness or maleness per se.  There is a nominal openness to the current version of the system, which fosters competitive balance, yet at the end of the day it is still mostly about the perspectives of white men and one hopes this will continue.  By the way, groups which “become white” in their outlooks can be allowed into the ruling circle.

3. Today there is a growing coalition against the power and influence of (some) white men, designed in part to lower their status and also to redistribute their wealth.  This movement may not be directed against whiteness or maleness per se (in fact some of it can be interpreted as an internal coup d’etat within the world of white men), but still it is based on a kind of puking on what made the West successful.  And part and parcel of this process is an ongoing increase in immigration to further build up and cement in the new coalition.  Furthermore a cult of political correctness makes it very difficult to defend the nature of the old coalition without fear of being called racist; in today’s world the actual underlying principles of that coalition cannot be articulated too explicitly.  Most of all, if this war against the previous ruling coalition is not stopped, it will do us in.

4. It is necessary to deconstruct and break down the current dialogue on these issues, and to defeat the cult of political correctness, so that a) traditional rule can be restored, and/or b) a new and more successful form of that rule can be introduced and extended.  Along the way, we must realize that calls for egalitarianism, or for that matter democracy, are typically a power play of one potential ruling coalition against another.

5. Neo-reaction is not in love with Christianity in the abstract, and in fact it fears its radical, redistributive, and egalitarian elements.  Neo-reaction is often Darwinian at heart.  Nonetheless Christianity-as-we-find-it-in-the-world often has been an important part of traditional ruling coalitions, and thus the thinkers of neo-reaction are often suspicious of the move toward a more secular America, which they view as a kind of phony tolerance.

6. If you are analyzing political discourse, ask the simple question: is this person puking on the West, the history of the West, and those groups — productive white males — who did so much to make the West successful?  The answer to that question is very often more important than anything else which might be said about the contributions under consideration.

Already I can see (at least) four problems with this point of view.  First, white men in percentage terms have become a weaker influence in America over time, yet America still is becoming a better nation overall.  Second, some of America’s worst traits, such as the obsession with guns, the excess militarism, or the tendency toward drunkenness, not to mention rape and the history of slavery, seem to come largely from white men.  Third, it seems highly unlikely that “white men” is in fact the best way of disambiguating the dominant interest groups that have helped make the West so successful.  Fourth, America is global policeman and also the center of world innovation, so it cannot afford the luxury of a declining population, and thus we must find a way to make immigration work.

By the way, here is Ross Douthat on neo-reaction:

But while reactionary thought is prone to real wickedness, it also contains real insights. (As, for the record, does Slavoj Zizek — I think.) Reactionary assumptions about human nature — the intractability of tribe and culture, the fragility of order, the evils that come in with capital-P Progress, the inevitable return of hierarchy, the ease of intellectual and aesthetic decline, the poverty of modern substitutes for family and patria and religion — are not always vindicated. But sometimes? Yes, sometimes. Often? Maybe even often.


Anyway, let’s continue.

Who are the important neo-reaction thinkers?

Those who come immediately to mind are Aristotle, Hobbes, Montesquieu, Jonathan Swift, Benjamin Franklin, John Calhoun, James Fitzjames Stephens, Nietzsche, Carl Schmitt, Martin Heidegger, and Lee Kuan Yew.  For all of the fulminations against neo-reaction, the intellectual movement is not a flash in the pan.  Of course these thinkers were not operating in the cultural matrix laid out above, nonetheless they embody varying elements of elitism, non-egalitarianism, historical pessimism, and culturalism.  The most significant neo-reaction thinker today probably is Steve Sailer, who often comments on this blog in addition to writing his own.  By the way, both F.A. Hayek and Murray Rothbard were drawn to neo-reaction in their later years, and perhaps a separate post could be written on the complex connections between libertarianism and neo-reaction.

The miracle to my mind is that neo-reaction as an intellectual movement was relatively dormant for so long, not that it is coming back or will persist.

And maybe some of you are upset that I am even covering this topic, but neo-reaction, in varying forms, is a (the?) significant ideology in China, India, Russia, and Japan, and it is growing in popularity in Western Europe and of course America, where it has captured the presidential nomination of one of the two major parties.  It seems odd not to discuss it at all.

Is neo-reaction a racist movement?

I don’t “hang out” with neo-reaction, whatever that might mean, so I cannot speak from first-hand experience.  Still, I see overwhelming circumstantial evidence, including from the MR comments section, that the answer is yes, neo-reaction is very often racist.  (And by “racist” I mean not only a particular set of beliefs, but how they are held with a kind of obnoxious, self-pleased glee.)  If you read through the above propositions, it is easy enough to see why racists might find neo-reaction a congenial home.  And that is an important critique of neo-reaction, namely that the doctrine, when stated explicitly or understood clearly enough, encourages a very harmful racism and a variety of other forms of bad behavior.  Even if not every neo-reaction thinker is a racist himself or herself.

The early stages of the Trump campaign show clearly enough how publicly propagated neo-reaction disturbs the fabric and rhetoric of society.  And there is a cruelness to the humor one finds in neo-reaction which is all too revealing; more generally neo-reaction just does not seem so conducive to a deep generosity of spirit.

That all said, I think it is a category mistake to dismiss neo-reaction on the grounds of racism or prejudice.  There exists a coherent form of the doctrine perfectly consistent with the view that different races are intrinsically equal in both capabilities and moral worth, even if such a variant tends to get pushed out by the less salubrious elements.  Furthermore calling neo-reaction racist, as a primary response, seems to personalize the debate in a Trump-like way, ultimately playing into the strengths of neo-reaction and distracting the liberals, in the broad sense of that term, from building up the most appealing vision of their philosophy and doctrine.

Liberalism isn’t actually an automatic emotional default for most people on this planet, so being a scold is in the longer run a losing strategy.  I believe many current “democratic mainstream” thinkers genuinely do not understand how boring and unconvincing they are, as they live in bubbles filled with others of a similar bent.  And while neo-reaction does not get exactly right the nature of “the golden goose” in modern America, that is a question which modern progressivism rather aggressively avoids in its attempt to view the wealthy as an essentially inexhaustible ATM.

What about me?

As an undergraduate, I was deeply struck by my readings of the Spanish and Salamancan friars who protested against the New World enslavement of the Indians, as they were then called.  You can start with Bartolomé de las Casas.  Here was a doctrine that was anti-slavery, anti-oppression, pro-reason, pro-liberty, pro-individual rights, and analytically egalitarian, and on top of that based on actual real world experience with the subject matter.  On top of that, the overwhelming empirical fact is that people are far too willing to go tribal when it comes to politics.  We don’t need to encourage that any further, nor am I excited by the notion of setting tribe against tribe.

The world could be facing some fairly dicey times in the decades to come, mostly for geopolitical reasons.  I view the Spanish friars and their successors and offshoots — Montaigne, David Hume, Adam Smith, William Wilberforce, John Stuart Mill, Edmund Silberner, Martin Luther King  Jr., Gene Sharpe, Thomas Schelling, and some of the EU founders, among many others — as providing better and more useful guides to our world than neo-reaction.  Looking earlier, toss in Buddha and Jesus Christ and some of the Stoics as well.

Still, it would be a big mistake to simply dismiss neo-reaction, even though there are some rather easy and facile ways to do so.  It’s a wake-up call for the fragility of liberalism, a doctrine which sinks all too readily into its own dogmatic slumbers.


The description of the tenets of NRx is accurate and steelmanned. After that begins idiocy and balderdash. White rape of blacks is almost unheard of. Black rape of white women is common.

I'm goring to insert this here bc it's far smarter than talking about Bill Clinton.

Trumpism (where NRx rightly pledges fealty) is completely & perfectly summed up as: US as Country Club for 10% of Earthlings. Solving immediately for both the interests of NRx and Tyler here "Fourth, America is global policeman and also the center of world innovation, so it cannot afford the luxury of a declining population, and thus we must find a way to make immigration work."

1. Trump is a lifetime RE developer. It's literally all he knows and it's plenty. Build Country Club. Put up WALL. Increase membership.
2. Define this as the ability to PAY THE DUES (let's say earn $75K). Get along with members (let's say LOVE BEING AROUND BIKINIS). and NO your extended family can't use club.
3. Strategically, this can be best understood as BRAIN DRAINing the rest of the Earth. The effect of Google and FB hoovering up all the talent, not only make them faster and stronger, it makes the competitors slower and weaker. Who needs nukes? we are where all the nuclear scientists get to live.
4. Economically, this can be summed up as... US Natives get to have best low skill service jobs on Earth. See Caddyshack.
5. Politically, SEE CADDYSHACK (also Back to School). Trump is literally & figuratively Al Czervick https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai_imjgKPas a deeply loved and appreciated American archetype and pure modern day NRx: crass, right, fun, rich, domineering, disrepectufl to both Bushwood rich dweebs and snooty academics (Back to School)

There is nothing else to Trump. Nothing dangerous. Nothing unknown. Nothing deeper. Certainly nothing scary. He sees the US as America's favorite kind of white rich guy. He's only here bc he might buy the place and we're all going to get laid.

Once you see it, you cannot unsee it.

Next topic!

Bill Clinton is a member of Trump Golf Club Westchester.

Sailer is a racist. Sad. Because if he had a little but more on the ball. a little bit more dedication to Trumpism, he could escape the gravity of his poorly formed neural network.

But no matter.... The top 10% of Earthlings get to live here and at least Sailer's kids get to be their caddy. As citizens, that's exactly what we owe them.

Its closer to 4.5 % guys.

"Its closer to 4.5 % guys."

I think you missed: "Increase membership."

I think nouveau riche is the term you are looking for to describe the archetype of Czervick..

flo, I think you're missing the point.

TRUMPISM = US as Earth's Country Club subsumes NRx delivering the good stuff (cultural hegemony in US / US hegemony globally / optimal outcome for natives) with none of the bad (lack of immigration, Sailer racism, etc).

No, "Jew" is the term he's looking for to describe the archetype of Czervick. It's not like the movie tries to disguise it, or anything. The whole movie is a whiny revenge fantasy about those evil WASPS who excluded Jews from their country clubs in such an evil, genocidal manner. Did you really miss that?

My god, you didn't grow up at a Country Club did you?

You are conflating NRx with the Alt-Right, I know it's difficult not to lump the "big bad meanie racists" together in one memeplex, but do try harder please.

"The alt-right has become a fusion/ alliance of (post?)AnCap, NRx, identitarianism, Curt Doolittle's systems, the man-o-sphere, whatever is left of the paleo/ old-right movements (basic reactionaries), and a few other groups." - https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/3pt665/an_ancap_primer_on_nrx_and_the_altright_done_as/

No it hasn't, that's a facile analysis, NRx has always kept itself at a distance from the Alt-Right.

I see you still think your the official the spokesman for the figment of your imagination's version of the elite...

Morgan... every large culture has a full spectrum of political views...from lib to con.

Donald Trump only represents a small loony slice of righty elites... most elites hate his guts

Get yer head out of your dreams...open your eyes my boy...

Seems fairly out of left field & having little/nothing to do with the meat of Alex's post.

Re: Black rape of white women is common.

Nonsense (unless your have defined "common" down to mean "It has happened"). This is an old and evil canard that in the past was used to justify lynchings and outright pogroms. Restating it is as wicked as trotting out "The Learned Elders Of Zion" as proof of Jewish perfidy.

If you wanted to hate-fuck someone, would you choose someone of lower or higher status?

Elliot Rodgers targeted a campus full of hot sorority girls rather than a slum.

According to the USDoJ statistics for 2008, there were 19,293 Black on White rapes, and 0 White on Black rapes. This statistic has hardly changed since then for the better sadly.

Link please.

might white women be taken more seriously than poor black women.

People on the right like to pretend that arrest and conviction stats are the same as crime stats... so telling.


Name 10 cases of white man on black woman rape. You won't be able to.

Thomas Jefferson.

women of poverty forced into prostitution by their pimps and raped by their jhons...millions of rapes a year there....

Because its poverty that makes women vulnerable to this kind of rape, black women would be overrepresented in this group...

...and you just wanted ten

"White rape of blacks is almost unheard of. Black rape of white women is common"

As a rule of thumb say whites are about 85% of the population and blacks 10%. So if a rapist were to pick a victim purely at random, odds are most would be white.

There's another element, though, segregation. While legal segregation has not existed in the US for over half a century now, the US is still heavily segregated meaning blacks will live and socialize more with other blacks and vice versa. A curious fact about segregation is that the minority group in a segregated society will have to navigate both environments, often the majority group (or majority of the majority group) only need navigate the majority environment.

Consider the environment of, say, Driving Miss Daisy. The black characters live in black neighborhoods, have black friends and socialize almost exclusively with other blacks. If one wants to have a drink after work, he will go to a black bar. But they work in the white world, understand how it works and to be successful must navigate through it. The white characters, though, have little or no need to ever enter the black world unless it is youthful rebellion, experimentation or superficial whims.

So say in this environment you have a person who is going to be a thief. Who will he steal from? If he is black he might steal from either other blacks or whites. If he is white it will be from other whites. Why? Because to steal is a little bit like having a job in the sense you must understand the geography of the area enough to either fit in or at least avoid looking as if you are out of place and up to no good. A white person in a segregated culture would rarely attack blacks because that would require knowing the community well enough to pull off the crime.

What applied to robbers in Jim Crow would still apply mostly to rape in today's world. A rapist will choose a victim from the culture he lives in or one he knows well enough to navigate in and out off. Since most whites are not comfortable in black neighborhoods, it shouldn't be shocking that you hear about black on white or black on black crime but little white on black.

A complex apologist theory. What do the absolute rates say?


I found murder first and used that, but you can look up other crimes like rape to see if they follow a different pattern. Some fast calculator keystrokes gives me:

Black on White murder 7%
White on Black 3%
Black on Black 40%
White on White 44%

So that's pretty consistent with my theory. One thing that leaps out, though, is while my theory does predict you'd see more black on white crime than white on black, the stats seem to say that murders are actually shy about interracial crime.

In a purely color blind world where murders picked their victims purely at random black murderers should actually be killing whites *more* often than they really do....instead it seems just like informal segregation impacts who people live with, date, work with, drink with etc. it also means criminals will discriminate against different races when choosing victims.

Until you remember that FedGov counts AS WHITE the Hispanic criminals -- but Hispanic victims are counted as Hispanic (up until this year)! So your 'White" crime is actually White PLUS Hispanic crime....

Most crime occurs between people who are acquainted, if only because the opportunity is greater. In a semi-segregated society most people (and this includes criminals, and their victims) will be acquainted more commonly with members of their own race.

You really should read the fine print before making crazy extrapolations
Don't ever ignore the mighty *

*Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
a/Includes verbal threats of rape and threats of sexual assault.

Via Isegoria, http://www.colorofcrime.com/2016/03/the-color-of-crime-2016-revised-edition/

"This meant a black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa."

Black's per capita rape rate is 4-7 times the white rate, judging by arrests.

Right. Boonton very carefully comes to no actual conclusions. JonFraz above is assuming that blacks are immensely reluctant to, specifically, sexually attack whites.

Alternatively, we're seeing rectal extraction method or virtue signalling.

The original contention was white on black crime was 'almost unheard of' while black on white is common.

If this was the case then black killers should kill whites about 80% of the time. After all, if a black killer just picked a person randomly from the entire US odds are about 80% it would be a white person. In fact it's the opposite, only 7% of those killed are white. White on black crime isn't unheard of, it's about 1/2 of black on white. But black on white crime is actually 'too low' to begin with so white on black is even lower. There again a white killer who picks a victim at random should end up killing a black person about 13% of the time. 7% is too low as well.

This is totally consistent if you think about it any other context. Say instead of rape and murder you say 'drinking buddy'. While some blacks will strike up a conversation with a white guy at a bar and some whites will chat up a black, most of the time whites drink with white buddies and blacks with black. This follows as a consequence of informal segregation.

“This meant a black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa.”

Yes why would it be otherwise? As I pointed out a black person has to live in both the white world and black world while a white person usually will just live in the white world. So a white criminal is unlikely to go to the black world, which he is probably not very familiar and comfortable with, and target blacks. A black criminal, in contrast, is familiar with both worlds to some degree so can choose a victim from whatever context appears optimal to him at the moment.

The original contention was that white men don't rape black women.

Table 42 on Page 30.


As a rule of thumb say whites are about 85% of the population and blacks 10%. So if a rapist were to pick a victim purely at random, odds are most would be white.

Wrong, or at least an obvious half truth. If a rapist and his victim were selected at random, both would be white, on average. Interracial rapes would be exactly equal, since there would be more white rapists and more white victims. A cursory glance at the figures is enough to disprove this theory however. The black on white rape is far, far higher than the reverse.

I'm not seeing how the pattern for murder isn't also holding for rape. The most common type of rape is clearly intraracial. Black on white is more common than white on black, yet both a minority of rapes.

Again there are also 'too few' black on white rapes. If blacks are about 10% or 15% of the population then a white rape victim in a pure random world will have a black offender about 10-15% of the time. Yet the figure is 7.6%.

Of course you're not seeing it, because you're intentionally using sophistic backwards arguments to try to justify the disproportionate rates of black on white rape.

You are arguing that children of mixed heritage are products of either 1) Black rape of white women or 2) consensual sex between races. I would point out to you that the overwhelming majority (probably 90% plus) of mixed heritage Americans are the product of the rape of black female slaves by white slave-holding males. You are naive, ignorant and intellectually dishonest.

Is your point that, if the situation was reversed, there would have been less rape? And that white men are largely the source of rape in America today as Cowen claims? How do you think prison rape breaks down along racial lines?

"I suspect most White inflow into the Black American gene pool took place after 1960."

I would be very, very surprised if this were true. Genetically, African-Americans are just too white for this to be the case. Last I heard, African-Americans have on average something like 25% white ancestry. The rate of interracial marriage might be high enough to support this today, but a generation ago, the rate was less than 10%.

You're just making stuff up. As far as I know, there is no documented instance of a slaveowner raping a slave in this country, let alone a basis for saying that every white/black mating was non-consensual.

I don't see how there could be documented instances, unless you mean letters between wives complaining about it or something. I have a hard time believing it didn't happen. Weren't prices for young females quite higher than their economic value would suggest?

However, there were large numbers of free blacks, particularly in the North, for hundreds of years, right? I don't know how common interracial relationships were in the 1800's or what the rate would have to be to explain today's levels of admixture.

" Weren’t prices for young females quite higher than their economic value would suggest? "

Did you account for the economic value of being able to make more slaves?

If the owner of a human has sex with his property, there is no possibility for consent. It is always rape. Every. Single. Time. She cannot say no; she has no voice; she is property. He can do whatever he wants with her. Any instance of masters have sex with their slaves is rape. Consent is an impossibility. It is always rape. And we know masters had sex with their slaves. It probably happened more than we know.

The third wave has spoken. The leader of the free world raped Lewinsky.

LOL. If you say it over and over, it becomes true?

The fact that a master CAN do what he wants doesn't mean that he won't take no for an answer. And consent is possible, obviously, regardless of whether it is necessary from the perspective of the slaveowner. And, by the way, what's with the presumption that Black slaves who got pregnant by a White man were impregnated by their owner rather than someone else? These are all ideological presumptions..

By your modern notion of rape. Did Sally Hemmings think her children were products of rape? Does Prince Bandar think his father a rapist?

Could a female slave ever use her sexuality for gain, for better treatment of her and her children? Have you ever heard of the politics of the Ottoman Sultan's Haram?

"Already I can see (at least) four problems with this point of view. First, white men in percentage terms have become a weaker influence in America over time, yet America still is becoming a better nation overall."

Straw man if I've ever heard one. Generally speaking 'nations' will tend toward better outcomes (technological improvements, etc). The question should be - how does the nation compare to how it 'could have been'.

"Second, some of America’s worst traits, such as the obsession with guns, the excess militarism, or the tendency toward drunkenness, not to mention rape and the history of slavery, seem to come largely from white men."

Evidence? rape and gun violence have higher rates of occurrences in other populations within America (obviously), even when adjusting for income levels. Drunkeness.. So what? Unless you are suggesting that it means that white men are less productive (no) or committing crime at a higher rate (no). Suggesting that slavery was a 'white male' issue in this country is true, given the prevalence in the Africa / Middle East until a much later date.. Maybe not the best example of the West's problem.

"Third, it seems highly unlikely that “white men” is in fact the best way of disambiguating the dominant interest groups that have helped make the West so successful."

Ah, but it IS the best way to disambiguate those who are the problem in the West.

"Fourth, America is global policeman and also the center of world innovation, so it cannot afford the luxury of a declining population, and thus we must find a way to make immigration work."

This seems more like an agreement against being Team America: World Police, rather than a case for immigration..

And then of course, as all good trolls do in this day, Tyler follows up with "If you take an opposing view, are you racist? yes, yes you are." Way to engender rational debate.

>"the history of slavery, seem to come largely from white men.”

I wonder if Tyler knows that slavery first appeared in the early neolithic era, in Africa and the Near East, and was practiced continuously until the European empires started banning it in the 19th century. Ethiopia, which wasn't colonized, retained the practice of slavery until 1942, when the Brits and Americans pressured Emperor Haile Selassie to finally end the practice. Some of the gulf arab states still had legal slavery until the 1970s.

White men are hardly exceptional in the history slavery, as you noted.

What is peculiar about white men in that regard (Christian white men, in particular) is their collective effort to see that institution dissolved, notwithstanding eons of precedent (occurring at a time when the primary victims were non-white).

The founder of Singapore didn't think the races were equal in ability, I wonder how Tyler feels about that?

Does anyone really think that different races are equal in ability? Setting aside all the obvious differences that we are supposed to ignore for political reasons, we still have all sorts of differences in capability that aren't controversial -- like differences in the ability to produce vitamin D at high latitudes, differences in the ability to resist malaria, etc.

There is ample evidence that there are zero differences in intellect or intelligence between races. There are varying cultures that value different traits; there are environments that prefer the survival of some traits over others; there is disproportionate distribution of wealth and access to resources, which in our modern world correlate with access to education. None of these have to do with the innate intellectual capacities of different races.

"There is ample evidence that there are zero differences in intellect or intelligence between races. "

No. quite the opposite.

@Bob: I wholeheartedly disagree. We must prefer different evidence, then; what a world we live in.

My question then is: How do your preferred studies distinguish between races? What are the different groups? By what metrics are they compared? Show me your hand and I'll show you mine.

From what I understand about the evolution of our species, culture has dominated genes since humans left Africa. Culture is often fairly arbitrary, as groups develop new languages, aesthetic preferences, and other norms and social signifiers to differentiate themselves from other groups (and, importantly, exclude outsiders). Whichever culture accumulates more technologies (which build off of each other) tends to dominate its neighbors, assuming environmental conditions and resource access remains the same. That appears to be more of a function of time and cultural stability than any innate differences between peoples. That is to say, whatever differences we observe are a function of human history and chance rather than innate features of "races" or cultures, which are recent in evolutionary time and unlikely to have accumulated many differences in the last 60,000 or so years.

Simply false. American Blacks have on average15-20% lower IQ than Whites. African Blacks are even lower. Many attribute the difference to the large admixture of White genetics in American Black ancestry.
There is NO evidence otherwise. Simply a dogmatic assertion that "No, that can't be true."

"Culture is often fairly arbitrary, as groups develop new languages, aesthetic preferences, and other norms and social signifiers to differentiate themselves from other groups (and, importantly, exclude outsiders). Whichever culture accumulates more technologies (which build off of each other) tends to dominate its neighbors, assuming environmental conditions and resource access remains the same. That appears to be more of a function of time and cultural stability than any innate differences between peoples. "

You assume culture and genetics are not interrelated.

White tend to have medium intelligence and medium time preference.
Asians have high intelligence and high time preference.

These are shown in their reflective culture.


Outright untrue Hannah.

evolution doesn't stop above the neck.

In any case determining race is quite easy by simple forensic analysis or if you need a more detailed genetic profile can do it for $99 US

There is no such evidence. Of course, races evolving in different EEAs will be different!

By the way, it is a mathematical certainty that the races cannot be equal in intellect. It is absolutely impossible just as a matter of statistics.

Hmm, every group differs in statistically meaningful ways wherever we look. Whether we look at physical traits, physical abilities, onset of puberty, resistance to disease, you name it and there is variation outside of the error bars. So you assert that in one way only, the brain, we are exactly equal when populations are compared. I assume you are not trying to assert we are individually exactly alike mentally, right?

Well I'll just say that if that assertion of yours were proven true it would be incontrovertible proof for the existence of God because there ain't no way Evolution pulled that trick off.

Wrong, there's ample evidence of biological differences between races.

Then why do civil rights leaders seek to prohibit intelligence testing among large organizations. Intelligence testing is used to prohibit executions and to determined eligibility for social security but cannot be used by companies to determine competency? Why not simply allow the organization to use voluntary methods to determine mental capacity if they do desire?

"White rape of blacks is almost unheard of."
Might I introduce you to the rich history of slavery in the Americas, in which white rape of blacks was widespread?

Might I introduce you to the present, in which it almost never happens?

As for the past, you have no evidence that it ever happened. You're just applying an ugly ideology.

The arab slave trade was based upon rape and sexual exploitation you have it wtong. The white men when they had the power to do so didn't import black women as sexual slaves.

"White rape of blacks is almost unheard of."
This is false. White rape of blacks was essentially institutionalised during the period of US slavery. Perhaps context is important?

*Citation needed* Also, why must one always refer back to slavery, it's over, and White people were the only ones to ever even have the idea of ending it. The fact of the matter is White on Black rape today is simply non-existent, according to FBI statistics in any case. So why not talk about that instead? Oh right, cognitive dissonance.

Okay, I mean it was terrible what happened to the American Indians, but I know you don't think that the Americas would be as prosperous today without the European invaders. There's a difference between normative and positive statements as you well know.

Native Americans had no written language, no recorded history and tribes were in constant warfare with one another. I think we have made some progress since then

"Native Americans had no written language, no recorded history" - apart from the Maya, the decipherment of whose hieroglyphics during the past fifty years or so has provided scholars with a glimpse into a truly different world-view.

Systems of writing are found in many Mesoamerican cultures, not just the Maya. The Olmecs had a script which unfortunatley has not been deciphered. The use of writing though in Mesoamerica is very restricted compared to the use of writing in the Ancient Near East. Mesoamerican writing is largly confined to monumental inscriptions glorifying the ruling class and some epic and poetic texts. There are very few texts relating to everyday life. As a result the known texts do not shed anywhere as much light on these cultures as does writing from the Ancient Near East.

For the witing of the Ancient Near East we have a much broader body of texts - contracts, vouchers, deeds, wills, laws, records of legal proceedings, pharmacopeias, manuals on horse-training, private letters, diaries, a huge mass of diplomatic correspondence, and on and on. It is interesting that in the Ancient Near East writing began as a means of recording commercial transactions centuries before the first monumental inscriptions were written, whereas in Mesoamerica writing was nearly always an elite practice divorced from common everyday life.

The fact that writing in Mesoamerica was restricted to a small elite presumably explains why knowledge of it so quickly disappeared after the Spanish Conquest.

@Jim. Here is Wikipedia

The term North America maintains various definitions in accordance with location and context. In Canadian English, North America may be used to refer to the United States and Canada together.[9] Alternatively, usage sometimes includes Greenland[10][11][12] and Mexico (as in the North American Free Trade Agreement),[11][13][14][15][16] as well as offshore islands. The UN geoscheme for "North America" separates Mexico from the United States and Canada, placing it instead within its designated "Central America" region, while also treating the islands of the Caribbean separately from the US/Canada definition

The natives of what is now the US did not have any recorded history or written language and were most often at war with one another.

The Amerindian population of the territory wthin present US borders did not have any true per-Columbian writing. There are a lot of pictographs from the American Southwest though particularly at Chaco Canyon. The Chaco Canyon culture was a kind of embryonic civilization which probably would have developed true wrtiing if it had survived. One could probably evern call Chaco Canyon a true "civilization" given the vagueness of that term. It didn't last very long though.

Of course the present boundaries of the US are meaningless for understanding Mesoamerican cultures. The American Southwest was a (peipheral) part of the general Mesoamerican cultural complex and had extensive trade contacts with the Valley of Mexico

The's some evidence that Andean quipu was a sort of writing system, albeit a complex three dimensional one unlike anything else used to communicate. One of the best documented uses for quipu was in account keeping.

By the way, throughout the Bronze Age writing was limited to a small class of people in the Old World too, with the vast majority of people remaining illiterate.

Writing in the Ancient Near East certainly played a very substantial role in everyday life which seems not at all to have been the case for Mesoamerica. There is a huge mass of written texts concerning private business and affairs. For example grafitti has been found in an Egyptian structure written by a laborer which likens the workman's supervisor to a rat. So writing in the Ancient Near East was certainly not restricted to an elite. In fact the earliest appearance of writing in the Ancient Near East seems to have had no connection whatsoever to any power elite but was developed to record commerical transactions. Elite writing such as monumental inscriptions or poetic and epic texts came only centuries after the inital appearance of writing.

There were a large number of scribes to whom people could go to have messages composed or interpretated so the benefits of literacy were available even to people who did not personally have any literacy. Most merchants however probably had some degree of literacy although since they often were in correspondence with merchants speaking different languages they no doubt often needed the assistance of professional scribes. In large cities scribes could be found to compose or interpret messages in a wide variety of different languages.

In later times such as the Roman Empire we have of course at Pompei a very large amount of graffiti preserved which includes allusions to romantic affairs, personal insults, politcal slogans and expressions of support for various athletes. It certainly doesn't seem very elite. Also by then there was a very large amount of public proclamations inscribed all over the Roman Empire. There is nothing like this in Mesoamerica and no evidence that a profession of public scribe even existed.

To be sure most texts in the Ancient Near East and Classical Antiquity are found in cities at a time when probably 90% of the population was rural. But some degree of literacy among the urban part of the population seems pretty common. This is totally different from Mesoamerica where writing seems to have been almost totally an elite activity that common people had no knowledge of.

We're talking about North America here,

Mesoamerican civilizations were all located in North America.

@jim; Southern Mexico and central America. They were not where the MayFlower landed.

All of Mexico and Central America are part of North America.

Mesoamerica really is different, there is a big desert in between the mexico city and below civilization and North america proper. Blaming U.S. whites for what happened there is the worst sort of historic craziness. Smallpoc and the spanish did those civilizations in, not any U.S. white. Conflating us northwest europeans with the Spanish sins is just blood libel-but transferred from jews to whites.

What has become of Sequoyah's Cherokee syllabary? Still in use? Modified, refined? Vehicle for original works or translations?

Easter Island writing is another interesting example of a writing system invented by a non-literate culture after contact with a literate culture. This is the most probable explanation for it as no texts are known which can be securely dtaed to before European contact. Some Easter Islanders joined whaler crews and it may have been years before they returned to Easter Island during which time they could have gained some degree of knowledge of writing. The runic writing of Germanic speakers of northern Europe is another example.

There is a possibility that Easter Island writing existed somewhat before European contact in which case the invention of writing there would be quite remarkable but it seems a somewhat strange coincidence that writing would just happened to have developed there shortly before European contact.

The Maya had a massive literary tradition, but nearly all of their texts were burned -- BURNED in order to destroy their history and culture -- inside a Christian church by Spanish bishop Diego de Landa. Now talk to me about "progress."

The non-elite Maya had their lives vastly improved by the Spanish conquest. The native Mayan culture was absolute evil, and they were accounted as mere livestock by their ruling and priestly classes, with the full support of their demonic religion. For the vast majority of Maya, even slavery under the Spanish was freer, and more liberated than their lives under the Mayan ruling classes.

"And they were accounted as mere livestock by their ruling and priestly classes,.."

And its any different now?

"And its any different now?"

Let's sacrifice your whole family to our pagan blood gods for that stupid comment.

The human races are manifestly unequal in terms of average capacity: intellectually, athletically, work ethic, level of trust, etc etc. To ignore this allows you to be acceptable in PC society but makes you Wrong. Plucky 75 IQ Mestizo immigrants will not be WASP replacements in one or two generations or ever.

The average IQ of Mestizo immigrants to the US is well above 75. It is probably not terribly different from the world average of about 90, could even be somewhat higher.

Probably not much above 90.

This is a deeply untrue statement. Culture, environment and access to resources mean more than any innate capacities with regard to intelligence. The use of "race" to signify anything beyond the adaptation of a person's skin to different levels of sunlight is a falsehood.

Again you are wrong. Evolution did not stop at the neck.

Evolution did not stop at the neck, but cultural evolution pretty much has overwhelmed biological evolution for a good long while now.

The behavioral genetic twin studies consistenly show that genetics is the most important factor in human behavior. Next is "non-shared environment" whose nature is presently obscure. "Shared environment" which would include culture as well as factors such as family structure, SES, parenting style, type of education etc. has only a minor impact.

Culture though can interact with genetics, an example being inbreeding depression of IQ. Here a cultural custom of first cousin marriage can produce substantial reduction in the average IQ of a population. This inbreeding depression is a genetic phenomenon but is caused by a cultural custom.

If the Americas had continued to remain largly isolated from the Old World there is no way they would have yet developed modern levels of technology and wealth. Technological progress in the Americas was much slower than in the Old World. Diseases from the Old World did have a horrific impact on Amerindians though.

On the hand Europe and China would not be what they are today either. For one thing, without New World crops (corn, potatoes, sweet potatoes...) there's no way either could have supported the large increase in population that began in the 1700s (and another vital agriculture factor: the importation of huge amounts of South American guano as fertilizer) . And without American gold and silver their economies would most likely have sputtered on at a lower level unable to make the transition to capital-based (as opposed to land-based) systems.

What if aliens had invaded the Earth 100 years ago, killed most humans, and built a much wealthier society for themselves on our graves?

Personally I wouldn't view that world as preferable just because it's making more efficient use of the Earth's resources.

Not a very cosmopolitan viewpoint!

I am sure the AmerIndians do not celebrate the events, nor should they. America could have and should have done far better by them. But if you are trying to determine whether there are some cultures that "do better" than others it is an apt point. Maybe those aliens have a really rocking culture.

The whole world would be less prosperous (and populous) without the Columbian Exchange.

how can that come anywhere near proving what would have happened without european political involvement? the length of that historical hypothetical's tail is too long for anything meaningful to be said

Isn't neo-reaction the inverse of micro-aggression, i.e. the same thing but viewed from the opposite side of the mirror?

Paleo-reaction is an allergy to primal foods that cavemen would have consumed.
For example lone star tick bites cause a debilitating allergy to meat.

The other word for it is reality. That's what actual neoreaction is engaged in, a pursuit of the truth in terms of sovereignty and governance.

Tyler is mixing up neoreaction with some sort of amalgam of the entire alt-right. The alt-right is democratic, neoreaction is anti-democracy. The alt-right is populist, neoreaction is elitist. The alt-right is utopian, neoreaction is decidedly anti-utopian.

For an American, the big step towards neoreaction is to accept the principle that all men are not created equal, men are not even equal in spirit because some are cast into Hell and some go to Heaven. The left/progressives such as they exist today are communist in the sense of pursuing equality along gender, ethnic and racial lines. If there is no equality, the left's entire social justice program is as moral and likely of success as the Great Leap Forward and Soviet economic policies. They are also likely to, as the communists did, eventually decide the problem at heart is not only capitalism, but the capitalists themselves. White privilege is merely a restatement of communist theory, "privilege" is social capital. Neoreaction is a reaction to communism, not liberalism. Liberalism is dead, there are only those sleepwalking through history who think there is still a moderate position available.Liberalism becomes communism because it accepts the principle of equality. Reject equality and maybe you can save liberalism. Otherwise, liberalism is dead.

Critics such as Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn have challenged this core American principle in Liberty or Equality: The Challenge of Our Time.

Yeah this reads as a description of the alt right more than anything. Its forgivable, because I dont even know how I came to know the difference...

Re: men are not even equal in spirit because some are cast into Hell and some go to Heaven.

But unless you a very rigid Calvinist that is the result of their actions, not due to anything inborn in them. Most branches of Christianity from the very start have held than anyone can be saved. It was not some modern day SJW who wrote "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, Slave nor Free, Man nor Woman"

But no mention of the gender spectrum?!?!

@B: Its probably not worth defining really but I don't think the alt-right is pro-democracy as you claim. If anything its fascist, but, there's also the Milo variant of the alt-right which surely is not the true and proper and good alt-right. Of course I'm sure serious NRx types can point out many reasons why fascism is just another flavor of progressivism, and hence still cancerous, but that's neither here no there. It remains anti-democratic, whether in highbrow intellectual NRx form or lowbrow shitposting alt-right form.

As for the Trump fascination, its really beside the point.

the quasi-religious notion that racism is the ultimate evil needs to be dropped if you want to undestand NRx

'the quasi-religious notion that racism is the ultimate evil'

So, what is the ultimate evil? Would genocide be in the running?

Here I was thinking that Yazidis were slaughtered by Daesh due to religious differences.

Maybe Obama is a secret Muslim after all, right?

Probably not for most neoreactionaries. In Nick Land's horrorism, genocide is normal, going all the way back to bacteria. It's evolution. The ultimate good for Land is intelligence optimization, so his ultimate evil is probably stupidity.

If of the classics; pride is typically placed first (viewing oneself as better than one should; or, in some religious settings, having a view that puts one in the place of God as the evaluator, even of oneself, even when condemning oneself - so that's a pretty radical redefinition in a way).

Somewhere in liberal philosophy: viewing the other as impersonal (ich and du) and thus 'objectified' [which can be condemned more broadly when freed from the context of identity politics].

Or go with something more recent: defining your own desires by what others appear to desire (mimetic desire).

Note that the systematic disregard for people of other races can be viewed as flowing from pride, or a special case of objectification. It doesn't necessarily have a close connection to memesis, but gets wrapped up in the struggles for power, etc, that are viewed as flowing from mimesis.

Depends on who's on the receiving end.

The idea that racism is evil stems from the concept that "all men are created equal" which is a not just quasi- but straightforwardly religious concept.

Actually you could do one better than that and just note that "evil" is a religious concept.

And God is dead, but his shadow will still be shown in caves for millenia hence.

Nobody who had every interacted with any people has ever really believed that all men are created equal in abilities. Isaac Newton and the village idiot aren't equal in abilities, and probably nobody really ever thought they were.

The statement isn't a claim about facts, it's a claim about morality: "all men are created equal" means everyone has the same rights, everyone should be treated according to the same principles. Whites and blacks, nobles and commoners, Christians and Jews, everyone has the same rights and responsibilities, everyone is subject to the same laws, etc.

Lots of people who are opposed to racism (in the sense of statements about morality) have confused these two possible meanings of the "all men are created equal" idea. And this leaves an opening for overt racists to win some arguments, because all men are manifestly *not* equal. And this is obvious to anyone who's paying attention.

Yet there is an arbitrary line drawn at children and animals.

All men are morally equal. But a line exists demarcating "men". NRX just argues for a different line, or a sliding scale.

Yeah, deciding where to draw that line was a major source of political argument and debate for a couple hundred years. And there are still tricky parts around the edges (what's the age of consent/majority, when do you declare someone incompetent due to mental illness/senility/low IQ). One day we may have still more sticky debates surrounding around machine intelligence, or animals with some kind of augmentation.

But that's a *completely different* discussion than one where anyone tries to claim that everyone is equal in intelligence or strength or health or anything else.

'What is neo-reaction?'

A contradiction? An oxymoron?

'and certainly not a statement of my own views'

So coy, meaning this is merely a self-recommending exercise in framing what other people think?

'where it has captured the presidential nomination of one of the two major parties'

Trump as neo-reactionary? Trump has no ideology except doing whatever benefits Trump in Trump's eyes. And to think that other neo-reactionaries believe that Trump may benefit them again demonstrates a remarkable lack of realizing what Trump represents - nothing but himself and his self-interest.

Trump is the Obama of neo-reaction: a slate on which to project all their hopes. Because he takes so many positions on issues one can always imagine that when push comes to shove he'll go the right way.

My vague impression is that Trump, a New Yorker, sounds a lot like the mayors of New York City for 32 of the last 39 years:


The rest of us are not supposed to notice that New Yorkers keep electing guys like Bloomberg, Giuliani, and Koch.

But they do, and, you know, New Yorkers aren't all that stupid.

Maybe the rest of us should pay more attention to what New Yorkers do than what New Yorkers say.

So, true. The test high schools are a perfect example of NY'ers NOT being progressive. Eva Moskowitz, the probably next mayor, founded the Success Academies which are designed to undermine the teachers' union. Blue on Blue. NYC will be ruled by the Robin Hood Foundation.

How is Trump like Bloomberg, Koch or Giuliani? They can actually have an actual intellectual conversation about things, explain their worldview and the necessary consequences which leads to their policy decisions. When Trump starts talking it's like listening to improv politics. It sounds like random noise, I don't even know what to make of it, I don't know what he's deriving his decisions from.

NeoRx is anti-PC and he's the "anti-PC" candidate so I can see it, although he is not in fact NeoRx by any measure

Whether or not neo-reaction is anti-PC is up for debate. Consider this counterpoint: http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/03/27/being-against-political-correctness-is-a-fools-errand/

Then again this is neoreaction, not the neo-reaction Cowen is talking about.

I know Tyler has to tread carefully, but I would love more explanation of these:

"Second, some of America’s worst traits, such as the obsession with guns, the excess militarism, //or the tendency toward drunkenness, not to mention rape// and the history of slavery, seem to come largely from white men."

What does that mean? Are whites disproportionately drunkards or rapists or were they at any point in time?

I have heard that the New World had a somewhat uniquely bad form of slavery historically, but did white men not lead the drive to extinguish slavery globally? Was not the philosophy of liberalism itself primarily founded by white male thinkers? I'm having a little trouble figuring out what gets credited to "white men" and what doesn't. Shouldn't the focus be more on traditional Western institutions and philosophies per se rather than identity politics?

"Fourth, America is global policeman and also the center of world innovation, so it cannot afford the luxury of a declining population, and thus we must find a way to make immigration work."

Don't we have a replacement level TFR without even trying any pro-natality policy? Couldn't we easily take a large number of European and Asian immigrants from developed economies, much larger than the number of total immigrants we take now, without reaching what you have sketched out as the NeoRx concern?

great point--plenty of argentines, uruguayians, macedonians, etc. who will integrate easily. Not so many japanese want to come, but maybe qith that switch they would again.

'but did white men not lead the drive to extinguish slavery globally'

Well, except for those white men who decided that fighting for slavery was worth having the bloodiest war in American history in their desire to keep that institution alive.

well and except for the white men who were dead by the point of the anti-slavery drive or the white men who hadn't been born at that point, or the white men who were doing something else at that point. I'd like to engage with the arguments, but exactly how stupid is prior_test2?

"....but exactly how stupid is prior_test2"

Prior_approval is an unusual blend of a fairly intelligent individual who is so trapped in his own biases and obsessions that nearly everything he says comes out sounding much like an irrational rant.

The point is that you can't uniquely tie slavery to white men, because lots of white men fought against it.
The US was about equally divided between pro-slavery whites and anti-slavery whites. And of course, the anti-slavery whites WON.

"the US was about equally divided between pro-slavery whites and anti-slavery whites. "

No, it really wasn't equally divided. The population of the Confederacy was less than one third of the total US, and a significant chunk of that population wasn't pro-slavery.

Good point. The North and South were equally balanced in Congress, but only because 3/5ths of the slaves were counted towards the number of congressional representatives in the House. if the slaves weren't counted as part of the population, the South would have been outnumbered from the beginning and slavery would have ended much sooner. The South knew this, which is why the 3/5ths compromise was necessary to get them to join the Union in the first place.

Second, some of America’s worst traits, such as the obsession with guns, the excess militarism, or the tendency toward drunkenness, not to mention rape and the history of slavery, seem to come largely from white men.

The first two, maybe, but putting the other three there is precisely to "puke" on the West: universal human vices are depicted as something uniquely white. It's almost as if he's trolling the commentariat.

Also, nice shout-out to Sailer, although he will probably say he has no idea what neo-reaction is.

Like a good Brahmin, Tyler just hates the Kshatriyas. They threaten his identity and intimidate him personally, therefore the need to marginalize.

You can replace Brahmin with elite and Kshatriyas with Jacksonian, to give it an American flavor, if you prefer.

BTW this is a really stupid metaphor. Brahmanas never hated Kshatriyas nor vice-versa. Both were elite, neither were populist. Both were thinkers. Both were doers. Both reinforced each other's identities. Neither intimidated each other. Neither threatened each other's identities.

I don't see any connection to contemporary American tribal warfare at all.

Well, Sweetie, go ahead and read the second paragraph - last sentence then.

I wonder what the relationship is between our bad trait of militarism and our apparent obligation to be the world's policeman.

North American slavery might have had some unique features, but calling it uniquely bad (under the heading "racial slavery") is pretty dicey and mostly a half-assed attempt to counter increased awareness of slaving practice outside the United States driven, ironically, by lessened Anglocentrism in history studies.

The unique feature may be that NA's slaves lived for many years longer than SA's did. I do remember a post here not long ago saying how few slaves came here vs SA because here they lived longer and had children, In SA the slaves were worked to death and replaced in 6 years. Overall, if you had to be a slave, which most of our ancestors have been in the past 1-2000 years, where else would you rather be one?

The real difference is between island slavery and continental slavery. The islands offered no place to escape to, so slave owners could brutalize their slaves at will and not risk losing them. The US and Brazil (also Mexico,m where slavery existed there) offered the possibility of escape which meant that excessively brutal masters lost their slaves at high rates.

Are we seriously ranking different eras of slavery as better or worse than others? Slavery is the destruction of family, of culture, of humanity wherever it occurs. There is no better or worse, and wherever it occurred there was a wide range in treatment by masters -- who ultimately were people who bought and owned other human beings. There are records of U.S. slaveowners who tortured their slaves, experimented on them. There was an excess of rape and intentional destruction. To say U.S. slavery was "better" than other types of slavery is the ultimate revisionist history, written by people who cannot fathom the darkness and horror of slavery.

Would you rather be beaten five times a day or once a day?


Yes, we are ranking some slavery as better or worse than others. That's what sensible people with moral frameworks based on rationality and not knee-jerk reactions do.

Thank God the whites convinced black slaves freedom was better for them!

Are whites disproportionately drunkards or rapists or were they at any point in time?

No but men are and he did say "white men".

Could it be the Progressivism reduces fertility [i mean obviously it is] not wealth. The cost of multiculturalism is orders of magnitude more than the trillion on welfare add in the inflation and wage suppression and you lose the security both physical and financial and the dignity that whites require to form families.Feminism may be an even bigger problem, certainly without it we wouldnt have the latter.

In the modern world with its incredibly high population levels (Like nothing ever seen in all of human history), reduced fertility is not a bad thing. In fact, it's a very good thing given the alternative is a dying off on a scale that would make the Black Death look like a epidemic of the sniffles.

Wrong, because all the wrong people have reduced fertility, i.e. the places with the highest average IQs: Singapore, Japan, etc. have the lowest fertility rate and the places with the lowest like SS Africa have the highest TFR. This global dysgenic will prove fatal if not radically changed within the next two generations.

Who cares about these aesthetics of "wrong people" and "right people" when the alternative is something as ghastly as a die-off (perhaps with extreme violence and long-term damage to the planet) of something like 90% of the entire species. It's like worrying about the color and style of the doilies when there's F5 tornado on the horizon.

The only people who give a damn about the population rate are the ones depopulating. Do you think many of the billion Africans about to be born care about reducing their carbon footprint? Actually you might, because you're that naive.

Overall a very good piece from TC, but this bit requires more justification:

Second, some of America’s worst traits, such as the obsession with guns, the excess militarism, or the tendency toward drunkenness, not to mention rape and the history of slavery, seem to come largely from white men.

We can deplore those all traits and note that some of the people who had them where white men. But men from all cultures faught, drank, raped and elsaved.

Now on drinking alone, TC might have some justification. Men drink more than women, and European culture seems more alchohol friendly than most others. But can white men be fairly singled out on any of the other things?

Why put drunkenness next to all those other faults? It seems to me that there is a big difference between self medicating yourself, and harming others. To take one example, Winston Churchill was a drunkard but achieved many great things. Are we to say he was a bad man because he drank?

You could find people who did any of the above and yet also "achieved many great things". This doesn't prove that they are not faults, only that flawed people can do good things.

Many lives are ended early, and many more wasted, due to drunkenness. Whatever your opinion of drinking in general, it is certainly very harmful for some people.

Note: The Donald does not drink.

Europeans drink alcohol because they can [having an active form of the aldehyde dehydrogenase enzyme]

Asians generally don't [having an inactive form of the above]


Sorry, TC, its 'Guns, Germs & Steel' on this one.

btw, a 'tendency toward drunkeness' has lengthened [& made more amenable] many more lives in EUR & North America than it has destroyed: a rookie error

I used to be a lot more opposed to alcohok/drunkenness until I visited the Middle East and North Africa and saw what a mess the people had made of the place with hardly a drop of alcohol in sight.

You must not be aware of the social importance of drinking in Japan and China/ Especially in business.

I'm not really familiar with Chinese practices, but the Japanese clearly have an affinity for hard liquor.

Yes, but in only very controlled settings.

Yes, it seems odd to single out white men for drug + alcohol abuse, rape, and slavery.

So, while I'm personally proud to have never touched a gun, gun rights do make some sense in the context of decentralized power, which is a key ideology behind the US.

"that different races are intrinsically equal in both capabilities and moral worth"
I don't know if neo-reaction can go that far. Equal means identical, and reactionaries (and me) don't believe we're identical (it's a priori improbable that we'd just turn out that way, given all the ways we can differ and individuals do differ). One can take a position of agnosticism in saying that we just don't have full knowledge about what factors into capabilities (moral worth seems acceptable to reactionaries not hostile to universalist systems of philosophy old enough to be counted as traditional), but to say a priori that we're equal would seem to be going too far. Unless you mean that overlapping distributions is the norm.

The bit about intra-white competition is certainly true and emphasized by Sailer (and in a more obscurantist manner by Moldbug). This is going to be particularly emphasized by anti-semites, although they have to include lots of gentiles as fellow-travelers (would "judeophile" be the term used?), with an end-result something like Moldbug's view.

American Castes, or Castes of the United States: http://www.moreright.net/books/Mencius%20Moldbug/American%20Castes.pdf

TC: "I believe many current “democratic mainstream” thinkers genuinely do not understand how boring and unconvincing they are, as they live in bubbles filled with others of a similar bent."

I think this is mostly because most of the “democratic mainstream” is actually just as racist as the neo-reactionaries but they are PC and don't speak in this way.

Oh man this is so wrong. Steve Sailer is not neoreactionary. Alt-right-ish perhaps. Neoreactionary? lul. This is a weird attempt to redefine neoreaction, not an actual honest attempt to understand. And i like TC

As I said earlier in the year:

Reaction is less of a political philosophy than an art form, one conducive to creating the best satire. ...

Personally, I’m a realist reformer in the tradition of Benjamin Franklin. But Franklin, while amusing, wasn’t as enduringly comic as, say, the reactionary Swift.


How about this?

Conservatism is a strain of liberalism.

Reaction is that part of conservatism that is *not* a strain of liberalism.

That's an interesting question: whether the right has much self-awareness except in response to the left?

Burke, for example, was mostly a little left of center Whig (e.g., wanted to reconcile with the Americans and less exploit the Hindus) until challenged by the French Revolution to define his position as a conservative.

Similarly, Conservative Judaism was a quite late innovation of the 19th Century.

The postmodernist argument that Hinduism didn't exist as a self-aware entity until confronted by, say, Buddhism or Islam or Christianity is glib, but still interesting.

The 'right' is just a bunch of people going about their lives who find they have to define themselves and organize into a power structure to oppose those whose goal is to dismantle and take.

There is a reality that other nations find out about to their chagrin. The US generally doesn't care, but if you make it care they will do things you really don't enjoy. The same with conservatives. If you make them care, they will do things in a way that are not pleasant at all, in fact will hurt. The response to the rise in criminality is an example; it isn't that anyone hates blacks or wants to maintain prisons or have vigorous policing; just leave me alone. If you don't want to self regulate, then you will be severely regulated.

Some have said that the Left as a movement has no natural limits. The right is finding out that it has to set those limits firmly; the end result of Left is Detroit. Or Venezuela. One could leave Detroit, and almost everyone did. But the right is finally figuring out that they can't leave the US, so they have to make a stand.

And by the way, the things that were needed in Detroit would have been called racist. That is why they weren't done and people left. And that is why racist as an epithet has lost all meaning and power, and will more so in the future.

Frankly anyone who called opposition to Obamacare 'racist' should have their knees broken. I prefer a world where that word has meaning, and those fools have actively removed meaning from the word. We will see evil as a result.

I'm a bit confused, some of these are new terms for me. Reactionary implies there's a reaction - reaction to what? I used to be a Republican in high school, trusting Bush knew what he was doing with his wars. Those wars ended my trust in Republicans, but not my trust in small/local-government and individual liberty, so the Democrats did not appeal to me I was willing to vote for Obama (as an anti-establishment character), but then he stumped for the bailouts, and the media did not call him out on it. That started eroding my trust in the media, as well as other examples. I used to call myself a libertarian, until I met other libertarians. I used to call myself a feminist, until I started reading and listening to what they wrote and said. Where do I belong? Am I reactionary? alt-right? moderate/centrist? liberal? Those labels, even the ones I understood a year ago, no longer have any meaning to me.

I've grown tired of being in groups or "movements" and getting labelled, and tired of those who relish it. I know TC had a couple of disclaimers about his post being speculation of a mode-of-thought, but it is a racist mode-of-thought for how often it cares and talks about 'white' 'men'. Care instead about virtue: justice, mercy, love, honesty, industry. Care instead about about systems: capitalism vs communism, republics vs monarchy, legal and electoral models. Whatever - but caring about race and gender is something I'd hoped we'd progressed beyond. I would say some of the posters here are latent racists, but I'm also sure they would all deny it. Am I thought racist/sexist, for being against the SJW movement? (Jan: is there some other term you would like, if not SJW?)

And again, Reaction to what?

Reaction to modern liberalism, defined in the 18th century version of the word. Republicans are not reactionaries, they are liberals. The last great reactionary was Metterneich.

Nor are American conservatism reactionaries. A core tenet of neoreactionism is a support of monarchism and a rejection of constitutional government, personal freedoms, and scientific progress.

To equate those with the American conservatism (which Tyler seems to be eluding to) is astonishingly anti-factual. What is happening to Tyler Cowen? His posts have been becoming increasingly less thoughtful and more mood affiliated.

"A core tenet of neoreactionism is a support of monarchism and a rejection of constitutional government, personal freedoms, and scientific progress."

Utterly wrong, we Neoreactionaries have a whole part of what we call "trike" or trichotomy called techno-commercialism, i.e. the wing concerned with scientific/technical progress and dark economics. This is an absolutely crucial part of Neoreaction, because otherwise there would be hardly anything "Neo" about us. You are confounding Reaction with Neoreaction.

I'm going with the commonly available definitions.



Have you thought carefully about what the word racist means, Im probably thirty years older than you and have watched that word change meaning and also realized it was never clear purposefully ambiguous. Its two main themes are irrational hate and Its a kind of pseudo sciency word that implies HBD is not true. More on those in a moment.
When I was young it was used interchangeably with words like bigotry and prejudice. The Meme at the time was one should believe in stereotypes because that could lead to injustice against individuals. It didnt mean stereotypes didnt exist that would have been absurd, it meant give people a chance to surprise you.Society was a lot more civilized then and the risk of giving these chances was low enough most complied.Liberals think the risk is low now because they exist in preselected environments where the minorities they come in contact with have passed through many many selection processes.In the bad old days despite "segregation" we were less segregated had less police etc .I mention this because the racism meme gets a lot of support from people that understand it to mean entirely different things.for instance the author obviously thinks its ok to hate white men to a certain degree because they are kind of bad violent racist rapists just dont hate them too much.
But heres the rub groups of humans are in fact genetically biologically different in thousands of ways because of evolution because of sexual isolation for tens of thousands of years from each other, because they may have differed before they separated, because they evolved in different physical environments, because they hybridized with entirely different hominids they met on these journeys and because they developed different cultures that further shaped them biologically.Because this and more AVERAGE group differences can be seen even at the level of 300 miles meaning cornish welsh pictish lowland v highland scott are macro. and continental AVERAGE racial difference is mega. Some individuals are not as inbred as others ans traits are distributed over a curve so there will be outliers and overlap at least on the surface say IQs might lap but how IQs are increased in one group v another may one day prove to be a different genetic approach when we learn more. This is even more true regarding gender sexual dimorphism is like a biological reality females evolved for different purposes and this is reflected biologically. If you deny the above your essentially a creationist. and dont understand or believe in evolution.
Now does believing make you a hater or supremacist? well yes if youre a commie prog hell bent on one world order because this might undermine your whole theory.But a rational person understands it neednt be the end of the world it might even be a good thing, if the differences were enough to account for the disparate outcomes currently ascribed to hate it might mean there was a lot less hate than supposed. It might mean that some of these disparate outcomes might be mitigated finally because if we admit innate difference then we could then try work arounds tailored specifically to certain groups. Because we would also realize its not about supremacy but fitness for a given environment and currently we are forcing everyone to compete in one groups culture by that groups rules and then redistributing outcomes after the fact.Now its true that the conclusion might end up being we are better off letting groups autonomously find ways to compete rather than forcing multiculturalism. and it might turn out by our standards [white guys] they dont compete as well. But ever think they might be happier that they dont hold your standards maybe dont want democracy like having several wives or whatever- you know actual multiculturalism as opposed to monoculturalism of newspeak. If these differences are admitted does hate need to follow or is hate more likely the product liberalism causing resentment and friction among peoples ill suited to live under one system except in some smaller scales of outliers. .


No, I didn't think that it's sexist to think that boys and girls are different. I don't think it's racist to think that Africans and Chinese are different either - I mean, they clearly are. I read "The Blank Slate" and "Guns, Germs, & Steel" as well, but I think the biological determinists are way overstating the case. Blacks are more prone to sickle-cell anemia, less so to malaria, big whoop. I know some dogs with more sense than some people. Genetics matter, but not that much (in my opinion)--not compared to individual free will. The neoreactionaries would be the ones that put more emphasis on genetics, then?

Give 'em all equal rights, have some guiding principles behind your nation, and then leave people alone. Where does that put me?

"Give ’em all equal rights, have some guiding principles behind your nation, and then leave people alone. Where does that put me?"

In America today, that leaves you on the right. The modern Left (and this increasingly includes the Democratic party, though still not entirely), mildly rejects guiding national principles, completely rejects leaving people alone and often defines equal rights in a way that isn't equal.

You can espouse all 3 and be on the Right (and maybe be in the middle), but you wouldn't be defined as Left wing.

Aw, how sweet of you to speak of "free will." White men, and rich white men especially, are the only ones with free will in the U.S., if free will exists at all. The rest of us have assigned roles to play and fewer options. How many times have my attempts to reach my goals, to define my identity, to be more than what others assumed been denied because I am a woman? Free will is best experienced from the top. So of course those at the top want to stay there.


Are you being satirical? If you choose not to believe in free will, you still have made a choice... and free will doesn't mean you're God and can magic whatever you like into reality. It means *you* choose how *you* react to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

How many times have I been discriminated against because I'm a man, covered in sweat and grime after a day carrying masonry blocks and concrete in the peak of the Missouri heat and humidity? Because my clothes are tattered from the very physical nature of my job? I don't know, maybe never. It's pretty sweet carrying my platinum-encrusted Patriarchy Card. I'm too busy working to improve my own life to really care.

It seems to me that many people feel the need to define to define a new group on non-liberals, because the idea that the underlying beliefs, needs, and thought that gives us Trump might be the mainstream (with a corollary that the established conservative platform is non-mainstream) is terrifying. Tyler suggested that as much in an earlier post that 'history might not be as progressive as we think.'

I'm not sure the people and the thought being labelled neo-reaction is neo- anything.

Steve Sailer is part of the "dark enlightenment" according to HBD Chick, who given her namesake ought to know, so I'd go easy on TC:


This is really really weak. Scott Alexander has a much better (more informed) critique of NRx here.

I say this as someone who is not formally in NRx and finds quite a lot of weaknesses and blind sides with many of their arguments (their libertarian inclinations, infatuation with monarchy, anti-scientific AGW denialism, etc).

First, white men in percentage terms have become a weaker influence in America over time, yet America still is becoming a better nation overall.

This isn't a very good argument. In fact its very hard to find a country which has not gotten better in most quantifiable aspects over a substantially long enough period or longer.

Second, some of America’s worst traits, such as the obsession with guns, the excess militarism, or the tendency toward drunkenness, not to mention rape and the history of slavery, seem to come largely from white men.

Why is the "obsession" with guns bad? Speaking for myself, as a European in the US, I appreciate the greater gun freedoms. The US has far less drunkenness than most of Europe. On rape, the FBI seems to disagree on the preponderance of white men relative to their share of the population. Slavery? Come on man, it is after all the Current Year (i.e. 150+ years after its abolition)

Fourth, America is global policeman and also the center of world innovation, so it cannot afford the luxury of a declining population, and thus we must find a way to make immigration work.

Who says it has to be a global policeman? And what is the precise economic (demographic? social?) law that says you can't be powerful or innovative below some arbitrary level of annual population growth?

Those who come immediately to mind are Aristotle, Hobbes, Montesquieu, Jonathan Swift, Benjamin Franklin, John Calhoun, James Fitzjames Stephens, Nietzsche, Carl Schmitt, Martin Heidegger, and Lee Kuan Yew.

Probably the biggest figure of them all is missing: Carlyle. Also Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Also how can you write a piece on NRx without mentioning Thiel? ;)

The most significant neo-reaction thinker today probably is Steve Sailer, who often comments on this blog in addition to writing his own.

Wrong wrong wrong. Steve Sailer is barely ever quoted as a neoreactionary thinker and so far as I know he has never described himself as such. The two most prominent modern NRxers are Mencius Moldbug (Curtis Yarvin) and Nick Land.

And maybe some of you are upset that I am even covering this topic, but neo-reaction, in varying forms, is a (the?) significant ideology in China, India, Russia, and Japan, and it is growing in popularity in Western Europe and of course America, where it has captured the presidential nomination of one of the two major parties.

I think its more accurate to say that the political systems of those countries are not quite the exact inverse to neoreactionary principles as is currently the case with most Western polities. Trump has very little to do with NRx, even if most people who identify as NRx are partial to him. His biggest fans are the Alt Right, who are a highly distinct ideological grouping, and absolutely cannot be conflated with NRx.

Liberalism isn’t actually an automatic emotional default for most people on this planet, so being a scold is in the longer run a losing strategy.

Incidentally, I wonder what OP makes of Singapore. It is probably the polity that is closest to the NRx ideal. As a voluble ethnic nationalist you will quickly find yourself in deep trouble there, but it also has far more freedom of association than the US (e.g. job listings are allowed to have explicit ethnic restrictions) and Lee Kuan Yew had a lot of highly "problematic" things to say on race and IQ.

"Come on man, it is after all the Current Year (i.e. 150+ years after its abolition)".
By the same token, it would not matter which role white men had in the West's rise (specially if is a historical law that countries get "better in most quantifiable aspects over a substantially long enough period or longer"-- whatever "substantially long enough" and "longer" than that may mean). After all, Roman Empire, the Victorians and President Eisenhower are all in the past, too. They are all from before my time. You can disregard whatever you want if you adopt a substantially short enough period or shorter.

I'm not particularly inclined toward political philosophy, but I did outline citizenism a decade ago:


"It’s important to note that citizenism applies to present citizens, “to ourselves and our Posterity” as the Preamble to the Constitution says. In this, the demands of citizenism are analogous to the fiduciary duty of corporate managers.

When I was getting an MBA many years ago, I was the favorite of an acerbic old finance professor because he could count on me to blurt out all the stupid misconceptions to which overconfident students are prone. One day he asked the class: “If you were running a publicly traded company, would it be acceptable for you to create new stock and sell it for less than it was worth?”

"“Sure,” I smugly announced. “Our legal duty is to maximize our stockholders’ wealth. While selling the stock for less than it’s worth would harm our present shareholders, it would benefit our new shareholders who buy the underpriced stock, so it all comes out in the wash. Right?”

"“Wrong!” He thundered. “Your obligation is to your current shareholders, not to somebody who might buy the stock in the future.”

"That same logic applies to the valuable right to live in America. Just as the managers of a public company have a responsibility to the existing stockholders not to diminish the value of their shares by selling new ones too cheaply to outsiders, our politicians have a moral obligation to the current citizens and their descendants to preserve the scarcity value of their right to live in America.

"The American people’s traditional patrimony of relatively high wages and low land prices, the legacy of a lightly populated landscape, has made this a blessedly middle-class country. Uncontrolled immigration, however, by driving up the supply of labor and the demand for housing is importing Latin American levels of inequality into immigrant-inundated states such as California."

To pursue your MBA theme and some blurting: Consider existing shareholders and citizens in the context of capital assets, and apply a type of human capital asset pricing model (H-CAPM). Or, if you prefer, look at how existing versus future shareholders and citizens look at human capital arbitrage pricing (H-APT).

"Slavery? Come on man, it is after all the Current Year (i.e. 150+ years after its abolition)."
By the same token, it doesn't matter which role White men had in the rise of the West (specially, if it is a History law that countries get better anyway in most quantifiable aspects over a substantially long enough period or longer-- whatever "substantially long enough period" and "longer" than that may mean. After all, the Roman Empire, the Victorians and President Eisenhower were gone before my birth: you can disregard any troubling facts you want if you adopt a substantially short enough period ... or shorter.

This is an excellent reply. How can NRx be discussed without Moldbug? Possibly I failed to read closely ( I skimmed the 2nd half), but criticism of democracy is central to NRx - at least my reading of it, and TC doesn't cover it. My reading has mostly been restricted to Moldbug, Land, and Hoppe, though.

isn't what you call cowen's 'not very good argument' essentially a tl;dr of SSC NRx refutation?

This is a confusion of neoreaction and the alt-right. Which is understandable, but very wrong.

Anissimov has a new piece on the distinction between Alt Right and Neo-Reaction.


Putting it mildly, Anissimov has not been a reliable source on neoreaction since his public meltdown and More Right's breakup.

The early stages of the Trump campaign show clearly enough how publicly propagated neo-reaction disturbs the fabric and rhetoric of society

Causality is flipped here. Trump, and neoreactionaries, are reacting to the disturbed fabric of our society. What we have is inorganic, a Frankensteinian creation, the white blood cells are responding to a foreign entity and trying to restore society to a stable foundation.

Congrats Tyler Cowen on one of the most racist posts this year.

Two points I would like to add:
- a central point of neo reactionaries is how other tribes and those political groups who represent those tribes (e.g. The US democratic party) are fundamentally anti - white racists
- as "white neo reactionaries" also surfaced in Europe, it is also essential to describe European neo reacrionarism. I am also how Tyler will compare former European excesses (guns, colonialism, slavery, rape) to those (guns, colonialism, slavery, rape) of the migrant groups, namely Arab /turks (hint:it's equally bad, but Tyler can still talk about drunk whities)

So overall, pretty weak post by Tyler. I fear he is becoming very boring himself by trying to appeal to the Liberal intellectual elite.

Cut TC some slack. How's he gonna earn a living if he's marginalized within the Cathedral as an heretic? The cool kids won't like him any more.

He has tenure, a high salary, high savings rate, and a high earning spouse. Not many people are more free to say anything they want than TC.

Do you know how social isolation works?

Neo-Reaction subreddits have blown up on reddit especially in the past year. Many of those subreddits have been taken down.The biggest neo-reaction subreddit /r/The_Donald is already being censored and I expect will be shut down soon.

I would bet you my next paycheck that 99.9% of /r/The_Donald posters have never heard of neo-reaction. Your claim is absurd.

Native Americans drink more than white men


52% of rapists are white, less than their percentage of the population


Slavery has existed since Babylonian times, Muslims practiced it before white American men and still practice it today . Only 5% of slaves in the transatlantic slave trade ended up in the US.

Excess militarism: col Jessep ( from "a few good men") Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Not perfect but It seems to be working, The world overall is becoming more peaceful


Guarding one's own walls and adventuring abroad in search of evils to slay are rather different things. Few people have a problem with protecting our own shores. When American militarism is criticized it generally is about our overseas aggressiveness.

Guarding one's wall is a metaphor. It's the free world vs the barbarians. That's why the US is in the DMZ

All humans are barbarians.

Why even take this trash seriously, Tyler?

"neo-reaction, in varying forms, is a (the?) significant ideology in China, India, Russia, and Japan, and it is growing in popularity in Western Europe and of course America"

"Why even take this trash seriously, Tyler?"

Because reality usually reasserts itself eventually, and Tyler doesn't want to be caught off guard?

You can avoid the fat ugly baby pooping in the corner for only so long.

Sadly, we kind of have to, given the whole Trump thing.

If we're going to have choices better than Trump vs. Hillary in the future.

Maybe the Tories will find a Clark scion with all the mental agility of the original. Justin Trudeau needs a worth opponent!

You forgot the one of the most definitive attributes of neo-reaction: the claim that any belief to the contrary must necessarily derive from either political correctness or the desire to make accommodations with political correctness.

Neo-reactionaries are an exception to the rule that those on the right tend to be better at passing ideological Turing tests than those on the left. In my observation, the median conservative tends to view the median progressive as well-meaning, but naive, while the median progressive tends to view the median conservative as being motivated primarily by malevolence.

The neoreactionary crowd, however, cannot help but to try to portray anyone who sticks up for classical liberal values as some kind of ... well, we know the terms that they use. I am sure that they will make an appearance on this thread to demonstrate my point.

The neoreactionary crowd, however, cannot help but to try to portray anyone who sticks up for classical liberal values as some kind of

The problem here becomes one of assessing the face validity of the ideological Turing Test. is it supposed to reflect how the liberal sees himself or reflect the outcome of the liberal's policies on society? If the former, what is the case in favor of fostering someone's delusion. I know very well that liberals believe that they're being altruistic and they mean well for society while simultaneously oppressing me and destroying society. What interest should I have in catering to a liberal's flawed self-perception?

Classical liberal values need to be validated against the reality that they're producing rather than judged in isolation, within a bubble of ideology.

Maybe the inability to pass Caplan's test means that your side is winning?

"First, white men in percentage terms have become a weaker influence in America over time, yet America still is becoming a better nation overall."

In order to present this as a counterargument, you must define your terms. 'Better' according to what measures and hierarchy of values? Along what timeframe? Is it getting 'better' at a rate which exceeds that of other countries?

"...rape and the history of slavery seem to come largely from white men"

This strikes me as particularly naive. If we are to separate the group we are calling 'white men' along national lines, Brazil and by extension the Portuguese have a longer, more extensive, and more horrific history of slavery. As recently as the 1950's Saudi Arabia's population was estimated to be 20% slaves. Pretty well every country of a certain size and prominence has used slavery because it got results; the United States just suffers from worse PR relative to others with regard to it.

"Third, it seems highly unlikely that “white men” is in fact the best way of disambiguating the dominant interest groups that have helped make the West so successful"

Agreed, it's just being used as shorthand subsuming
cultural values, ideals, political and intellectual behaviors, etc., and as mentioned by yourself has nothing to do with 'whiteness' (or genetics) per se. This does not constitute an argument against the above or a problem with it, it merely notes that the term lacks appropriate specificity.

"Fourth, America is global policeman and also the center of world innovation, so it cannot afford the luxury of a declining population, and thus we must find a way to make immigration work."

I think any non-racist neo-reactionary would have no problem whatsoever with immigration provided the immigrants are well-integrated into society. This more or less requires intellectual and linguistic standards. Also, incentives for having children could certainly help, although most approaches taken historically have been of limited effectiveness for a number of reasons.

Portuguese people are white.

--- "I think any non-racist neo-reactionary would have no problem whatsoever with immigration provided the immigrants are well-integrated into society."

You can't support immigration that changes a country's racial demographics and be non-racist. Such immigration is profoundly racist.

Wow, there is a lot on this post and comments I didn't know about, and still don't. I'll just pull on one Pikkety-esque thread regarding redistribution. Posit that "white men" rules, that is, the Western ethos and institutions that have been so conducive to wealth creation, are great. Then what's the harm of redistribution? The former is growth, the latter is only lump sum. Somewhere in the "white men" playbook has to be a page that reads "every once in a while it's ok to lose your tail to make good your escape; it will grow back bigger and better than ever!" And don't give me slippery-slope/camel-nose-under-tent weak sauce; if there were to be a really-truly-no-backsies redistribution away from concentration, wouldn't the "white men" be at an even higher summit in just a generation or two? So what's the problem? Certainly history has seen its share of redistribution towards concentration (e.g. 1492, slavery, and other examples already mentioned). You're not telling me that the "white men" special recipe is the number to a catering company, are you?

What if "white men" aren't actually any better at regrowing their tails than anyone else?

because your hypothetical makes no sense. the idea of holding everything ceterus paribus but one big wealth redistribution doesn't hold together

What's the harm of redistribution?

Taxing the creation of order and subsidizing the creation of disorder leads to -- you guessed it -- increasing disorder and ultimately the extinction of human life.

Alexandria and Singapore, liberal and illiberal trade hubs, yet to be modeled

[waits for the morning / daytime crowd to balance out the defensive, ad-hominem and almost cultish comments above]

don't hold your breath, pal. this post was red meat thrown to slavering wolverines. expect three hundred comments excoriating tyler for 'not getting nrx', 'being a shill for the leftist establishment', 'hating white men', etc etc etc by lunchtime. i'm calling clickbait.

This article conflates Neoreaction and the Alternative Right. Neoreaction is the political school of thought associated with the thinking of Mencius Moldbug. Its core is democracy criticism and rather than culturalism.


Trump dis-endorsement

Yes, this, though I assume Cowen is using "neo-reaction" to mean newer reactionary political movements, which would be fine, except that the term usually refers to the followers of Mencius Moldbug.

Incidentally, the alt right has a lot of different strains in it. The Moldbug people are there. The white nationalists. The manosphere. Traditionalist Christians. Neo-pagans.

Steve Sailer is definitely the most prominent person on the alt right. Moldbug is really just another technocrat, while the real energies on the alt right are with questions of race, religion etc.

If you ask a Neo-Reactionary whether he is racist, he is likely to respond:


1) "Racism" is a recently made up word (1930s), which was made up by the enemy side (Frankfurt school), and which almost "begs the question" (ie has an embedded assumption).

2) "Racism" as a word is a mind-killer which shuts down debate. For instance, try debating whether non-whites can be racists (ie Dalai Lama). It inevitaly devolves to feelz.

3) The side which enforces arbitrary moral taboos around matters of science is automatically the suspect one. Because, this leads to a society which wants to enforce truth by diktat. Anti-anti-racism is thus a moral matter, because the denial of race is the core tenet of the Cathedral.

4) It is not so much important to harp on race-differences in and of themselves (the market can find use for many different types of human) - but the denial of it represents a big fat discourse-level error which must be stamped out. We should not oppress other races, but we should not oppress our own minds either.


5) Race is supported by modern science (haplogroups) and experience and research indicates that eg IQ (and temperament) varies by race. Nobel prize winners like Watson and Shockley had it right.

6) Intuition. Border Collies and Chihuahas are obviously not of the same temperament, and neither are Norwegians and Khoisan. This is in plain view. To deny this is to enforce a null hypothesis which is at odds with intuitions.

7) Man is undeniably tribal (even if white northwestern European Man is least so in the world) and to deny this is to deny family as well. Either deny all supra-individual bonds, or allow all of them.

8) The fact that not all humans even have Neanderthal DNA makes the whole issue even more ludicrous. If science says that Europeans and Asians are slightly of a what is considered a different *species*, then how is it any wonder that temperaments differ?

In short:

Neo-reactionaries are not so much racists, as they are anti-anti-racists and people who enjoy forbidden science.

"We should not oppress other races, but we should not oppress our own minds either."

Well said.

The conventional wisdom appears to be that that's impossible -- either we must whip our minds or whip our slaves -- but I'm deeply skeptical of that assumption. I think it's quite possible to work out a win-win solution via Burkean prudence.

Obviously, however, the first step when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. Granted, the conventional wisdom is to dig harder, but that just seems kind of hysterical.

I don't know if we HAVE to "whip our slaves". But I guess some sub-sections of humanity - white AND non-white - are quite incompetent at acting in a civilized manner and so either have to be:

a) left alone (Exit)
b) "whipped" (forced to behave, colonialism)
c) gradually replaced by positive eugenics (there is also negative eugenics but too costly to the soul)
d) phased out by technology (see: CRISPR)

Eugenics is politically unfeasible, as is "whipping". So that leaves Exit and gene-tech.

Also, IF it is the case that certain groups must be "whipped", then whipping our own minds and letting the "slaves" have free reign, will only lead to needing to whip them even harder later.

I suppose this is why the NRX can seem brutal when they endorse eg the British Empire. From their perspective, it's simply the lesser evil. The current regime, where the higher castes negate their own minds and where the lower castes run wild and go feral, can only lead to a much harder reality.

"will only lead to needing to whip them even harder later."

The "slaves, as you call them, are constrained to inner city DC and inner city Baltimore. Nothing to fear. They will never come to Fairfax. They can't afford it :)

See, these anti-neo-reactionaries have it all figured out. Just price them out! Who cares if they kill each other in inner city Baltimore and Chicago?

See, the Left and their upper-class adherents are not as dumb as they look. They are quite smart. Brilliant, if I may say so. They have strong mechanisms to separate out the trash and keep them localized, while at the same time propagandizing for them to engage in the most basest of human behavior, which will of course guarantee that they will remain there.

I'd congratulate them on their brilliance, if they didn't pretend to be above all of this.

This. The only slave whipping that I have seen in recent times is when a leftist strays from the orthodoxy. Or black conservatives.

Racist is as racist does. If conservatives were smart, and they aren't, they would use Black Lives Matter vigorously to break down the Democrat political strongholds that seem to produce the most black bodies.

I wish, but when your anti-neo's want to import millions of pakistanis and somalis, and then section 8 them into your neighborhood, then your whole localization things breaks down.

The picture of the white kid being chased down by Somali criminals- thats the future of my kids under the current elites.

Btw, Sailer, are you aware of the "Edenism" movement?

It's a subculture that makes a list of claims, ranging from plausible to insane. The main ones being that Neanderthal DNA is a very underrated variable, that Asperger's is basically a Neanderthal phenotype, and that phrenology is a useful science. It also builds on the other red-pill memes such as race and IQ, r/K (AnonCon), the Cathedral, etc.

"Btw, Sailer, are you aware of the “Edenism” movement?"

Not under that name.

"That Neanderthal DNA is a very underrated variable, that Asperger’s is basically a Neanderthal phenotype ..."

A very interesting reader in Hawaii began suggesting that about a decade ago.

Those seem like the kind of claims that increasingly can be tested via genomic analysis. I'm exceptionally averse to being proven wrong, so I'm cautious about making assertions in this regard.

My impression is that the growth of a culture of individuals on the Aspergers / autism / nerdism spectrum is one of the most unexpected and significant of my lifetime, but the cause, whether nature, nurture, or merely perception, remains uncertain:


The Neanderthal DNA point is worth exploring.
The current science indicates that Neanderthals were somewhat smarter than other humans but less good with language. This is consistent with Asperger's/autism traits.
Neanderthals also tended to live in smaller more nuclear families in less dense settlements - also a difference between Northern European countries and Africa/Asia.

"The current science indicates that Neanderthals were somewhat smarter than other humans but less good with language. "

Do you have a cite for that? I thought that was actually the "old" picture and most of the more modern science hasn't supported it.

Well, here's an article that says that they were at least as smart as us:

Only two years old. So that's pretty "current" when it comes to anthropology in my book.

I think if you read the articles it become clear that in some ways they were smarter - for instance they had better tools. But I think researchers are reluctant to say they were "smarter" given their lower language capacity, and because intelligence is not a single axis variable. But the pattern of being good at tool-making but shitty at communicating is pretty consistent with the archetypal Aspergers/nerd type.

That PLOS paper is thin gruel, indeed, Hazel.

And everything else you posit is purely imaginary.

"And everything else you posit is purely imaginary."

I don't know if HM is completely correct, but her comments are far more substantial than you make them out to be.

First, she actually presented a cite and secondly, Neanderthal tool use and the intelligence it indicates is not merely a product of HM's imagination.

If you don't have actual substantial objections your just an internet troll.

Racism is fine, and highly cited. See http://economics.mit.edu/files/4123

Racism is fine when people decide to live in suburban Maryland or Virginia in order to avoid DC. That's just to get access to "better schools".

You just have to present it in such a way so that people do not risk their reputation among people who also think exactly the same way.

It's pretty funny. People signal one thing and purchase another. The lack of neurosis at such cognitive dissonance is almost admirable. Would that I could have access to such doublethink, and channel it toward my goals :)

See, you neo-reactionaries, alt-right racist folks...are just kinda dumb.

I have to say...you're just kinda dumb.

You don't realize that these people are actually your best allies. What you call the "leftist elite", or any "elite" for that matter, agrees with you on this issue. They're just smarter then you and realize that you don't go into it like a bull in a China shop. You do it in such a way so as not to offend people, and even have them think you're their friend and helping them out.

They've been at this for 150 years, BTW. So they know what they're doing. You alt-right folks are just dumb hicks. Then again, they did have you dumb hicks dying for them back in the 1860s too. So learn from them, I'd say.

Yes, we probably are quite Clueless, in the sense that we don't understand elite Powertalk very well. It's a work in progress.

Why are Americans so OBSESSED with calling each other racist? Jesus Christ. It's ALL YOU DO. Doesn't it ever get tiresome? What a country. It's no use asking an American why they spend so much time denouncing each other as racists, they'll just use the question as an opportunity to denounce more Americans. "We do it because the racists are everywhere! Their number is always growing!" On and on and on ad infinitum.....

I used to admire your country until I sussed out the creepy mental atmosphere.

Man is undeniably tribal (even if white northwestern European Man is least so in the world)

I disagree. Northwestern Europeans are aggressively tribal. Why do you think football hooliganism is such a big deal in England or parts of Germany? And certainly as recently as 1945 they expressed their tribalism in far more violent ways. Northwestern Europeans have simply developed complex systems over time that channel the tribal instinct into areas like sports or music or motorcycle gangs, allowing the larger society to function fairly friction free. The problems arise when newcomers enter that system who have not been assimiliated.

The Wold Cup is better than war.

"Northwestern Europeans are aggressively tribal."

I would say they are moderately tribal when left to their own devices. Cf Christmas truce of WW1 - Hutus and Tutsis would not do that. White NW Euros do have the highest capacity for being mobilized on a mass scale by a dictator and being ruthlessly efficient, which makes even a moderate tribal instinct ultra-lethal.

Football hooliganism is not such a big deal in England / Germany. You've been watching too many movies, mate.

Compared to the weak tea of American sports loyalties, European football fans are far more tribal. Yes "hooliganism" is kind of a dated term, but it is easy shorthand for Americans who don't understand "ultras" are.

TBH, I don't think race-and-IQ is THAT important anymore. The economy is more and more going to have the high-IQ elite as its input, anyway, with the rest being given handouts in some form or another. Guaranteed Basic Income is going to be a necessity. Doesn't matter if the proles are 80 or a 100 IQ if no one is working anyway.

Race-and-temperament, however, is the huge thing lurking in the waters. True, low intelligence and ill-temper tend to go together, but not always.

Some examples:

- Having a strong limbic-territorial drive
- Having a very high libido
- Not understanding consequences
- Not being able to resist urges
- High aggression with no limits
- Not understanding private property

Granted, most of these things are at least partially a function of intelligence, but you could theoretically have a race of peaceful yoloniks who just live for the moment but don't harm others.

Ie importing loads of people with small heads and high testosterone is not a great idea.

There is no connection between virtue and intelligence (this is a very old insight, nothing modern-PC about it.) There are evil geniuses and simple-minded saints. History is full of both, although to be sure most people fall ins the vast middle somewhere.

"There is no connection between virtue and intelligence"

I think you're wrong, but I can't really prove it.

One problem may be talking about poetic things like "virtue" instead of "impulse control", "consequence analysis", "understanding of private property", things like that. Forebrain things.

Surely, there is then also a "virtue center" (my guess: the amygdala) which comes into effect.

Sure, you may have a Lawful Evil Darth Vader character or a peaceful yolonik, but in general I would say intelligence does promote virtue.

It also depends on how we frame "virtue". Is it merely an instinctual recognition of the Good? If so, intelligence should not matter, and high intelligence might actually hamper one's virtue (see: clever sillies).

I basically see 3 options for virtue:

a) Instinctual recognition of the Good (so, at the level of the amygdala for instance).
b) A philosophical things (see: most of Western philosophy).
c) Something that emerges out of the mind after we take away the bad stuff (see: Buddhism).

Then again, it might also be fruitful to talk in neuroscience concepts like "impulse control" or "theory of mind". A lot of stuff gets lost in translation between poetry and science.

So much the "reactionary" concept. You'd think an old, traditional concept like "virtue" would have some appeal to a true reactionary.

Great summary. Your point that "the denial of race is the core tenet of the Cathedral" is particularly important. Critics of the neo-reactionary/alt-right/dissident-right axis of evil are always complaining about their preoccupation with race. But when the conventional wisdom is entirely based on the dogma of zero group differences, and when this dogma drives vast swathes of foolish & destructive public policy, what choice is there for an honest man but to fight back, tooth & claw?

Yes. Cathedralists presume exclusive-or (XOR) thinking. Either you are racist or anti-racist.

But what I'm against is precisely that kind of rigid, not-open-to-debate thinking. Where you either feel like you are an evil heretic, or accepting things that make no sense. The stuff of mental double-binds.

In short: I want AND thinking.

Re: Race is supported by modern science (haplogroups)

BS on stilts. Nothing remotely like the old 19th century racialist theories are supported by modern population genetics-- whose main insight has been just how complex the history of human migration and interbreeding is. For example, the 19th century racialists classed Africans and Papuans as part of the same race-- we know now these two populations are the most genetically distant of all human groups.

LOL. Race doesn't exist but genetic distance between groups does. Good one!

Let's just focus on the thing we agree on - genetic distance between groups is real. There is also a thing called "race" which happens when we look at a person and sort them into a rough category in our mind. This genetic-distance thing seems to have a lot of overlap with "race" but it's a lot more fine-grained and contains more information.

Better semantics are needed, I guess...

Genetic distance however is a matter of averages, not absolutes.

There's actually much more genetic difference between the sexes than there are between the most distant populations.

Also true of women and female chimps, which should tell you how irrelevant your post was to your point

So, you're saying that different human groups exist and can be identified genetically. Isn't that what the naughty neo-reactionaries say? I'm confused.

we know now these two populations are the most genetically distant of all human groups.

Well that ain't true.

"“Second, some of America’s worst traits, such as the obsession with guns, the excess militarism, //or the tendency toward drunkenness, not to mention rape// and the history of slavery, seem to come largely from white men.”


Apparently Tyler Cowen has strangely...never heard of African history.

Despite him being an expert in Somalian "cousin", he seems to not have a clue about the rape, slavery, obsession with guns, militarism and drunkedness that goes on over in his favorite continent.

Tyler...stick to reviewing restaurants.

This is the problem with people like Tyler. They're too smart to realize how stupid they sound when they try to pander.

Look at it from Myers-Briggs perspective. Take ENTP for instance.

NRX is neophilic (Ne) and has lots of potential for interesting framework thinking (Ti) but person senses that it's just too extreme for group harmony (Fe) and so message is tempered by acting as slightly-critical observer.

Oh what a world we live in. White men invented the concept of rape being a bad thing, whereas in non-white places rape is just a form of cuddling. We invented the concept of slavery being a bad thing, whereas in non-white cultures slavery was (and remains in many) a way of life. We invented the concept that women are humans too, whereas in non-white cultures they were less valuable then goats.

And here we have to sit in 2016, arguing about rapey white men.

This is what living in suburban DC, visiting Afghan restaurants and thinking you understand jack s**t about their culture...does to people.

"The world could be facing some fairly dicey times in the decades to come, mostly for geopolitical reasons. I view the Spanish friars and their successors and offshoots — Montaigne, David Hume, Adam Smith, William Wilburforce, John Stuart Mill, Edmund Silberner, Martin Luther King Jr., Gene Sharpe, Thomas Schelling, and some of the EU founders, among many others — as providing better and more useful guides to our world than neo-reaction. Looking earlier, toss in Buddha and Jesus Christ and some of the Stoics as well."

That's a lot of white men, Tyler. Just one black guy (wasn't he a bit of a rapey guy too?), and one sort of Asian type dude. All men, I notice.

You're sure you're not a racist, Tyler? And a mysoginist? (and where's the transgendered people? Transphobia much?)

This has got to be one of your most absurd diatribes, against the phantom of Steve Sailer, no less.

PS: How exactly do you figure the Prime Minister of Singapore is a racist white supremacist? Must be because he's not a fan of Afghan "cuisine".

PPS: In your value signaling list of random names of random people you can think of who sound totally rad, you forgot the Dalai Lama and Gandhi, and Mandela. Not white dudes, I know, and at least 1 is a terrorist killer and at least 1 is a damn fine racist...but no list intended to signal your value to the internet can be complete without these three. Otherwise, you're just clearly signaling your racism.

I mean, every 16 year old's girl list of "totally cool awesome history dudes" includes a picture of Mandela and Gandhi. Big, big mis-step Tyler. Just, outright racism, if I may say so.

BTW, one of the most influential and cited papers in economics in this side of the century..."The colonial origins of comparative development"...by Daron Acemoglu...is about the most racist "neo-reaction" thesis there is.

I mean, what he's saying, in essence, is that the only way anyone else outside of Europe can develop, is if Europeans migrate there or if they transplant their systems into that country. Short of that, it's the way of Zim for you.

I suppose...Acemoglu doesn't read Marginal Revolution very much. The poor guy has probably never had a banana in a Somali restaurant before, either. SAD!

That's a remarkably superficial and tendentious understanding of Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson.

> nott the world policeman (that’s Russia)

1) Try being policed by Russia for a few decades before writing such horseshit. Better still, go drive around Omsk oblast on Google street view.

2) Stop commenting on this blog, dummy.

Going only by username, I suspect he accurately believes that a world where Russia is hegemonic in the same way the US is now would be quite bad.

Remember how great life in the former soviet block was? I would have thought NRx thought would view US triumph in the cold war as a great good thing.

Whether the USSR is part of "the West" as implied by your comment is historically contentious. I think the consensus position is that most nations that were part of the Soviet sphere of influence are not really part of "the West" for most relevant purposes (with some exceptions, e.g. East Germany). I think that basic idea holds true today.

If you compare countries on GDP per capita, economy structure, etc. Russia looks a lot more like Saudi Arabia than Germany or the US. Russia is still essentially a resource extraction economy that is relatively poor.

All of that is to say "One dominant variety of left-wing thought in the West was replaced by another" fails on several levels.

The second part I am aware is a popular sentiment on certain parts of the internet. If you only focus on Syria, Iran is a candidate for World Policeman as is Saudi Arabia. That ought to make you question the premise.

It boggles my mind how strong a belief certain people seem to have in Putin's competence, let alone an apparently commonly co-occurring belief that Russia is dominating the world with an aging military infrastructure and an economy that is less than 1/8 the size of the US.

By "great job" do you include the loss of a civilian airliner?

No need to be defensive about "drunkeness", alcohol has long been a central part of European culture to an extent that is certainly not true of other parts of the globe. Look at how many innovations and refinements we've made- whisky, rum, gin, vodka, hundreds of types of beer, hundreds of varietals of wine, liqueurs, schnapps, digestifs, and then mixing them in cocktails. There can be no question of the central role alcohol has played in Western culture. Only East Asia comes close. And maybe it is no accident that the two most innovative and expansive cultures on the planet over the last 2000 years self-medicated with alcohol, a drug that inspires delusions of grandeur and aggressiveness. Perhaps more importantly, alcohol acts as a social lubricant permitting socially awkward, introverted people to interact on a constructive basis with other people and build social ties. It is hard to imagine aspergery cultures like Japan, Scandinavia or England developing as well as they did without alcohol.

"It is hard to imagine aspergery cultures like Japan, Scandinavia or England developing as well as they did without alcohol."


Alcohol is a big part of Japanese culture but it's use is very different than the west. In Japan drunkenness is controlled. Society allows it, but only in very specific circumstances. Alcoholism is lower in Japan as well compared with the US and UK.

Sure, Japanese drunkenness is more explicitly about male bonding and team formation than in the West. On the positive side, Japanese drunks are less violent and less sexual aggressive, on the negative side Japanese men tend to drink to get really, really drunk. In terms of its impact on public spaces Japanese drunkenness is worse than the US. On a given Friday night I find sharing the subway or sidewalks with cheerfully inebriated 20-somethings in Boston or even New York far more pleasant than dealing with crowds of red-faced, stumbling, vomiting businessmen.

My Japanese and Japanophile friends maintain that there is a digestive enzyme difference that allows mass alcohol consumption with less hangover impact for salarymen bonding and entertaining routinely. It would be interesting to find out about any science behind that, analogous to the Native American digestive system that seems to exacerbate alcoholism tendency.

"In a given Friday night I find sharing the subway or sidewalks with cheerfully inebriated 20-somethings in Boston or even New York far more pleasant than dealing with crowds of red-faced, stumbling, vomiting businessmen."

I'd say you're in the distinct minority. Both groups are equally likely to puke, and only one of them is prone to violence. In fact, its pretty rare for drunk Japanese businessmen to bother anybody.

Being less violent and less sexually aggressive are big huge pluses in most everybody's book. That's the point I think Tyler is getting at about drunkenness being a negative.

It's a fact that for centuries most soldiers on their way into battle have been drunk. A heroic vet friend of mine said that he never drew a sober breath during the entire span of WWII.

How could they possibly carry enough alcohol to manage that? It's literally unbelievable

I'm not sure it's unbelievable, but I didn't believe it. There is a major logistical problem, as you pointed out.

How is this not slander? It's one thing to get it wrong. It's another to make up stuff and call people evil drunken brutes.

For starters, he wrote it

No mention of formalism, exit over voice, holiness spirals, human bio-diversity (not just cultural diversity), vesting power in the hands of individuals (with real equity/skin in the game) rather than abstract processes, military technologies guiding political processes, high/low tag teams against the middle - not a very good review of what I understand from neo-reaction.

By the way, liberalism doesn't go away even after NRx sweeps the world. It is expected to mutate into techno-commercialism where privately run cities are welcoming to people and ideologies of all stripes as long as everyone pays their rent on time. The trouble makers are generally expected to be forced to leave, forfeiting their visa deposit amounts.

Tomislav Sunic has some interesting things to say on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/Homo-americanus-Child-Postmodern-Age/dp/1419659847

If one has to raise one's status by invoking race,

Something you didn't "earn", a pigment assigned to you

And something you may have benefited from already

You are one sorry A...hole.

I know that's not politically correct.

You are so weak. You are pathetic.

Spoken in the words of someone you understand:

You have such low energy.

Irrelevant response. Any more babble. How about Auschwitz or Abu Graib?

Isn't that how most Americans raise their status - by invoking race? Did they earn their impeccable brains, free from the virus of racism?

So Bill hates non-whites. Didn't expect that to come out in this thread

I'd rather be an asshole than a smarmy idiot like yourself.

"By the way, both F.A. Hayek and Murray Rothbard were drawn to neo-reaction in their later years, and perhaps a separate post could be written on the complex connections between libertarianism and neo-reaction."

Corey Robin has addressed this point in the past. I would like to see Cowen take on some of Robin's writings on the subject of libertarian thinkers and their reactionary tendencies. Rand, Rothbard, Hayek, and von Mises all had at the very least an affinity for reactionary thought and Hans-Hermann Hoppe has gone full-blown reactionary.

I would like to see Cowen take on some of Robin’s writings on the subject of libertarian thinkers and their reactionary tendencies.


No need. Robin has been bagged and stuffed by Mark Lilla.

I read both Robin's book and Lilla's review and didn't find the Lilla review all that devastating or insightful.

Well, you're the mark Corey's writing for.

Wow. That is an amazingly tendentious list of strawmen ...

I think that TC is still recovering from the shock to the worldview that was reflected in his "Trump will shrivel before Super-Tuesday" prediction. TC is now in the "bargaining" stage.

TC will eventually calm down, and then reread Ross Douthat who actually understands what is going on.

Yeah, this is one of the weakest things Tyler has written recently. Tyler's thinking tends to be "broad but shallow", and that applies well here.

I agree with many of the criticisms thus far voiced in the comments, especially with Prakash. There is more theoretical complexity to neo-reaction than Tyler seems to recognize; what he is describing is essentially a popular fusion of neo-reaction and the alt-right as these movements present themselves "in the world" and "on the ground" in the daily to-and-fro of online commentary and debate. This is a perfectly sensible way to describe an intellectual system; Moldbug himself actually tends to prefer these practical descriptions (what do people who identify with these systems and who exist in such-and-such milieu believe? what do they say? how do they act?) to high-powered textual exegesis, which often verges into idealism ("why do so many atheists believe in religion?").

Like the other commenters, I find Tyler's criticisms (the four-pronged rebuttal) of Northwestern European men's contributions lacking, to say the least. White men, with some resistance among their own, largely wiped chattel slavery, an abominable institution, off the globe; they also, again with some resistance among their own, criminalized and stigmatized rape more than most other groups ever have. With respect to drunkenness, prohibition was tried. The cure was found to be worse than the disease. "White men" is of course too broad, and the best versions of neo-reaction obviously allow fruitful disambiguation into European "types". Race and culture are like the colors of the rainbow: broadly fractal and divisible.

Does America need more immigration? I don't think so, at least not at the moment, and I'd prefer a total pause for a decade or two to allow the millions we've taken since 1965 to "assimilate" (which is very difficult). Regardless, the question is not "whether" immigration, but "how much" and "what kind". Even Charles Murray, whom I think Tyler respects, says that current demographic trends are not compatible with anything Tyler or Murray would regard as "limited government" in the Anglo-American tradition [http://imgur.com/KL4POQO].

Is America getting better? It depends. Neo-reaction is quite friendly to Whiggish theories of technological progress. So am I. However, the "goodness of our governance" is lacking and, I think, is getting worse. The unaccountable administrative state -- bureaucrats, DOJ minions, OCR fanatics, etc. -- is the very definition of tyranny. The edicts just pour out of the executive branch: bathrooms, housing, Title IX, school lunches, FDA, medical mandates, commercial activity of all kinds, employment, education, disparate impact, school discipline, immigration, etc., etc. Every aspect of our lives and all of our institutions are being micro-managed to death (and in some cases literally to death) in the name of identity politics and "equality".

Is there any reason to think, also, that the unregulated implosion of Latin American immigration with improve American governance? Soon almost one-third of American voters will be Hispanic. Our demographics will resemble that of Brazil. We may well end up saddled with a massive unassimilable, statist, dependent, passive, poorly educated working and underclass. America already has one of those, so I do not see why it should need another. And wait until the progressive overclass (whom Tyler says has "sunk to dogmatic slumbers") gangs up with these new voters to do basically, well, whatever they like. Doesn't sound that much "better" to me.

Tyler must be kind of a prig. Who looks at White European American culture and immediately identifies "tendency towards drunkenness" as a major problem?

Granted, the fact that Tyler spends a lot of time on a college campus means that he is probably confronted by stupid acts and the consequences of drunkenness far more than the average American, so maybe I should cut him a little slack.

The priggishness you note is residue puritan religiosity in the form of Cathedral theology.

'Granted, the fact that Tyler spends a lot of time on a college campus means that he is probably confronted by stupid acts and the consequences of drunkenness far more than the average American, so maybe I should cut him a little slack.'

You have seemingly little idea what GMU, and especially its Arlington campus, is like.

I don't, actually. I just know it is a third-tier American university.

It's a research institution, so almost by definition not 3d tier. A 3d tier institution would be a common and garden private college or state college. A 4th tier institution would be a private college with scant selectivity or one of those state colleges where it's sorely atypical to graduate on time. Private colleges with cachet, the general run of state universities, and private universities without cachet might be 2d tier. 1st tier would be private universities with cachet or 'public ivies'.

Cowen omits the one word that captures it: patriarchy. The foundation for republicanism is the family, led by the patriarch, from Ancient Greece and Rome all the way through the American experiment. Confused about the seeming conflict between Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence and Thomas Jefferson the owner of slaves? Read Most Blessed of the Patriarchs: Thomas Jefferson and the Empire of the Imagination, by Annette Gordon-Reed and Peter S. Onuf. Devolution doesn't stop at the states or the municipality, it stops with the patriarch. George Mason, the famous patriot and namesake for Cowen's university, opposed the constitution not only because it recognized the need for a national government but guaranteed that we would have one, a national government that would challenge not only the power of the states and municipalities, but the patriarchy on which power and dominion was actually exercised. Indeed, the most important (and controversial) legislation in the early days of the republic were those revising (abrogating) primogeniture and entail, perhaps the most significant egalitarian development before the adoption of the progressive income tax.

The income tax is not egalitarian; it is a tax on becoming rich.

The modern income tax is fairly egalitarian. The original income tax (a tax only on the highest incomes) was not.

As I reread this, I cannot believe that TC wrote something so shallow, fiskable, and full of self-praise . Hobbes does not belong on the list of reactionaries. Sailer a major contemporary thinker? The people TC is trashing have far more "generosity of spirit" than the establishment that they are opposing ... "Democratic mainstream" thinkers did fine in the 20th century, but now they have embraced corruption, double standards, and identity politics ...

Overall this piece reflects a total lack of empathy or understanding for "working people" and an immense self-regard and lack of self-awareness.

well, the comments here will certainly reinforce your observation concerning neo-reaction and gleeful-yet-defensive racism.

As a lark I searched your handle to see if you would fit your enemies' preconceptions of you.

Sure enough, red diaper baby, nearing 30 without children and increasingly desperate


with a history of missing the point about how the right talks about culture


That might not be you, of course, (you could even be a dog) but that's not the point. It's too easy to be dismissive. Our prejudices are confirmed too often, but letting prejudice be our entire response to others is contrary to the real generosity of spirit Tyler calls for above.

Fourth, America is global policeman and also the center of world innovation, so it cannot afford the luxury of a declining population, and thus we must find a way to make immigration work.

Invade the World, Invite the World, indeed. And this is politely backflipping around the obscene financial leveraging by the government and its central bank that requires the unchecked "growth" Americans are voting with their feet and their wombs against.

Multicultural empires are simply not sustainable.

While it is always the height of comedy to watch Tyler try to summarize the views of others -- it's like an ant, deep underground, trying to imagine what the Himalayan yaks might be thinking -- the real takeaway here is that he believes rape, slavery and drunkenness and somehow "American traits."

You've outdone yourself, little man.

So, you can't imagine that persons who view others as property, inferior to themselves, would ever act on those beliefs.

What was the name of Strom Thurmond's child.

So it's slavery or a belief that the lack of black female mathematicians proves the math establishment racist and misogynistic? Bill, your view is crushed in a single sentence.

Your premise is that there are no place female mathematicians. (I don't know what lack of means; if you mean that blacks have been given the same educational opportunities as whites, then we'll go from there. By the way, can you tell me which southern public universities admitted blacks before 1964 (bonus point).

First, prove your claim with evidence. Here's mine: a link to famous black female mathematicians.: http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/wohist.html You will note the change in numbers beginning after Civil Rights statutes and the desegregation of public education.

It's great that you picked this topic because if you deny people access to public colleges in predominantly black states prior to the Civil Rights acts you have some good evidence of the effects of discrimination by looking at the before and after effects.

Thank you.

Bill, by 'lack of', i meant 'less than their proportion of the population. IQ, awarded math PhDs, and LSAT scores all point in the same direction. I dont think a black person or white female has ever scored a 180 on the LSAT while several white men do so each year. Yes, there is racism, vestiges of slavery, and discrimination, but all the empirical evidence points to white men having high IQ.

To be clear, the idea that the only differences between people of different races are aesthetic is scientifically wrong and indicative of a religious thought process.

Thomas, there is more than IQ in self-selecting in being a mathematician, especially a female mathematician (black or white).

It's called social norms and expectations of the time as to what a certain occupation a sex should be in..

How many white male nurses do you know. How many white male kindergarten teachers.

Here’s mine: a link to famous black female mathematicians.: http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/wohist.html

That's pretty funny. It's a list of zero famous black female mathematicians. There's literally one who has anything mentioned about her other than the fact that they got a degree.

Thomas, why didn't you go for the bonus point for the name of Strom's child. Also, you sloppily frame it as slavery that today limits others, and not the more real, and current, terms such as the effect of past segregation and denial of public services, or discrimination.

But, of course, your comments, do not reveal that you would discriminate against anyone, so it may be hard for you to imagine that people have or do.

From the neck down! People are only different from the neck down! You say. "The shrill whine of the purtian. Speaking power to truth. Recognizable in any era." --Mencius Moldbug

I think you are misunderstanding Thomas. He isn't saying that such past discrimination may not have an impact - rather that that doesn't account for the differences in current standardized test scores. And I know what you're thinking... Must be because "stereotype threat" Unfortunately, (and this is from MR blog) that seems to be severely overestimated.


When the original civil rights act was passed it wasn't supposed to contain racial quotas. Then they demanded racial quotas. Then they demanded lowered standards so they can be viewed as equals. If you can't pass a test then pick up a book and throw it at your political opponents because the test is racist in a regularly reoccurring feature of college. It would be unspeakable cruel and racist for us to not allow black and Latinos to threaten white students especially white men on college campuses.

Is this not a non-sequitor? How is rape, slavery or drunkenness a unique American trait?

They aren't. But, I think the point is that slavery was American (don't deny it, it really happened); that when you view people as property there is no such thing as consensual sex when it comes to the use of your property; and that racial attitudes and lassitude continued towards servant girls (Strom Thurmond) well after 1860, as did non-judicial lynchings.

I don;t know where he gets drunkenness.

Again, nobody has suggested that slavery didn't occur, that there haven't been white male rapists, drunkards, criminals, etc.. Rather, TC's article attempts to make the comparative observation that these negative features are somehow more prevalent in Western civilizations.. Or that that white men perpetrate such crimes at a higher rate (or have historically), also simply not true.

There are already a zillion comments but I just want to throw in my two cents.

While I'm not myself in the neo-reactionary or alt-right camp,* I think our culture has lost the ability to talk about certain issues, especially race and gender, in anything other than a totally hysterical way. Step outside of the pre-scripted boundaries and you're toast. So at some level I appreciate the little acts of rebellion even if I think their conclusions are extreme.


"If you once tell a lie, the truth is ever after your enemy." The inability to talk straight about a lot of reality (gender differences, racial differences, etc) means that the mainstream, respectable voices in our society are often talking obvious nonsense. And that provides the opening for various alt-right types to get people to listen to them.

Read a mainstream discussion of education or crime policy in the US, and one of the things that's really striking is that there are facts which are either ignored or downplayed or never sought out, even though they're obviously really critical for understanding what's going on, because to bring up those facts would open the participants up to charges of racism. The result is very much like what would have happened during the AIDS epidemic, if no respectable voice in the society had been permitted to mention homosexuality, drug use, or condoms in public.

Standard American opinion is that even the brown people of the world can one day be good i.e white, and to imply otherwise is racist.

Is reaction justifiable when things have gone too far? It seems to be that enough leftists have crossed the line to being anti-white male in some ways and refuse to look at the facts before judging white males and so some reaction is justified.

What's too far Flocinna?

Not being able to use the N word in the presence of others who might be offended by it.

Or, maybe it's anti-white male in your mind to laugh at a candidate who points out to a crowd of white folks, asking, "Where is my African American? Oh, he's over there."

Or, maybe its popular culture that is laughing at you in TV late night comedies.

Sure, you can listen to whatever you want, read whatever you want, talk to whomever you want,
but you'd better understand we are laughing at that element of the right which is intolerant, racist, sexist, and piggish.

Good fodder for late night comedy.

Bad for government.

You're a f*cking white male! Bill would get along with AIDS Skrillex.

You can always point to the very least-offensive things done by your side and claim that is what your opponents object to. It's called strawmanning

The structure of all of these liberal arguments is basically "Inequality cannot exist because Hitler will hapen." This is identical to saying "the sun cannot exis because then sun burns will happen. "

Given the results of pretending inequality doesn't exist, it's no wonder Hitler's stock has been going up lately.

"There are but two sorts of government: one where men show their teeth at each other, and one where men show their tongues and lick the feet of the strongest." - George Eliot, Romola

Very sad that Tyler's imagination is unable to advance beyond stale oppressor-oppressed narratives, but at least he is playing both sides. He probably plays chess with himself too.

You should read good history books mate. You sound ignorant.

" a cult of political correctness makes it very difficult to defend the nature of the old coalition without fear of being called racist; in today’s world the actual underlying principles of that coalition cannot be articulated too explicitly. - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/06/what-is-neo-reaction.html#comments"

The old coalition was racist.

Reality is racist -- IQ scores for different race groups are not equal. To expect equal results for groups with unequal IQs, or unequal SAT scores, is a denial of reality. PC bullies deny reality and bully other people into silence.

The rise of Trump is party a defensive response to the PC bullies who wrongly claim that race group results should be equal -- those people who see the truth but are afraid to speak the truth because of the PC bullies.

"On top of that, the overwhelming empirical fact is that people are far too willing to go tribal when it comes to politics. We don’t need to encourage that any further, nor am I excited by the notion of setting tribe against tribe."

This sounds good. But I see lots of elite Reps/Libertarians/Independents willing to criticize Trump and Reps for becoming tribal -- BUT when Dems bring up racism, sexism, genderism, in a "our (good) tribe vs the other tribe", I see little criticism of such tribe supporting actions.

White Christian men haven't always been saints, nor even knights, but in terms of being knaves or fools, they have been less so in the last 200 years than most other men, including high IQ Jews who pretty stupidly supported socialism. If every other tribe has been allowed to and encouraged to be tribal and to complain about whites, Christians, and men, it's anti-survival stupid to expect the tribe that is falsely accused of being especially ignoble, to continue acting in the noble fashion they had generally hitherto been acting.

Electing any Dem now for President will make this tribe vs tribe problem worse in America.

Electing anyone for President will make this tribe vs tribe problem worse in America. Democracy is the cause.

I suspect getting rid of tribalism among humans is impossible. There are self-selected groups (aka, the guys who show up at the campus libertarian meeting) who aren't terribly subject to tribalism, but most humans are strongly affected by it. That's why you can get people to identify so strongly with college and professional sports teams, even to the point that the star players can get away with serious crimes, the college football coach gets paid the highest salary at the university, and the mayor of a big city is better off closing hospitals and schools than letting the local football team leave for want of a taxpayer-provided stadium.

What I think is interesting is that some above frame this as a "reaction" -- that so and so went too far, and this is a "reaction".

Nothing could be further than the truth.

These are old prejudices, old ways of thinking, that are being resurrected, having lost out in the past.

You don't have to take my word for it that this is not new, that this is not a reaction. You can discover this for yourself.

Be an amateur historian. Go to a library and look up old magazines from the 1930's, just as Hitler was consolidating power. Start by reading a magazine called the Literary Digest, sort of like the Economist/Time magazine of its day. I started reading old copies when my wife's parents died and left them to us.

I got news for you folks. You're not a "reaction". You are old news.

In the magazine you get the stories of European nationalism, racial superiority, eugenics, ethnic superiority, Hitler's appointment and cooperation with and appointment of a religious leader for the Reich, economists stories about how getting off the gold standard was going to debase the currency and lead to high inflation and why you should own gold, how Roosevelt was going to bankrupt the country and why we need to balance the budget so our grandchildren will not be burdened with the debt..

I think we've learned something since then.

But, some never learn, or quickly forget.

You're a white male, so could you shut up? Good allies lead by example.

I'm a disgrace to my race. But, by framing it as race, what you are implicitly doing is trying to recruit others who share only race with you.

It's just superficial signaling.

Like saying: "Oh, you own an IPad, you're cool, just like me."

And, I really like your Nikes.

Racial branding.

I think you missed the point. I was speaking as a millenial, feminist, Obama voter.

'White male' and 'ally' in a racial/identity politics context are feminist/grievance terms. White males shutting up is a feminist/grievance goal. You don't seem illogical or full of hatred so it may be hard for you to imagine that some of your political allies are.

Well, if they talk that way, then one should point out to them that creating camps for tribes -- even though they are aggrieved -- is not conducive to rational discussion and good communities.

I do not like creating tribes by attributes that one cannot change -- sex or pigment -- or national origin -- and then judging oneself or others on the basis of it.

All the people I don't like are Hitler!

The right is defined by its nominal opposition to the left. Neoreaction is defined by actually being opposed to the left (as opposed to controlled opposition.). So a bunch of people with nothing in common get lumped in as "neoreactionaries."

some of America’s worst traits, such as the obsession with guns

Damn, does it leave a mark when you clutch your pearls that hard?

Extremist obsessives don't understand that the state is supposed to be obsessed with guns, not them.

I, for one, prefer to interpret this post as a Cunningham's Law gambit. ("the best way to get the right answer on the Internet is not to ask a question, it's to post the wrong answer.")

+1, I don't know if you are right, but this is a shockingly bad post from Tyler and one of several in the last few month. So, at least it's a theory. (My leading theory is that Tyler is suffering from Trump shock.)

It's not clear why we should not dismiss neo-reactionism. Is it because it might be true or because a lot of people believe it?

1. This is simply a fact. For any given set of values, assign numerixal values in accordance with a cultures divergence from the optimal; the probability of all cultures being equal is 0.

If there is an optimal culture or at least philosophy, it should come as no surprise that the demographic with the highest IQ has come closest to it. The fact that western philosophy came from white men doesn't make it "white" any more than olympic records make running black. The modal recreational runner is white and western philosophy is for anyone.

In opposition, there are people who don't believe in values (nihilists) and therefore don't believe western philosophy is objectively better, people who are too dumb to know better (most feminists), people who ignore the question (grievance studies), and people who have too kuch empathy.

The fact that Einstein discovered SR doesn't make it white. NASCAR is white. SR, like western philosophy, like hedge funds are connected to white individuals, but that is simply the result of IQ.

When leftists say that there is a white, male patriarchy, I say, it is correct that the people in charge are white males, but it is incorrect that 'white males' are in charge.

Okay, so let's say NRx is the political incarnation of TS Eliot's poetry. I find this somewhat plausible, although I confess to being largely uneducated on NRx in general and find the actual incarnation of NRx to be closer (unflatteringly) to the alt-right than most of the NRx commenters above seem to want to admit.

Anyone have a suggestion for the political movement I should look for if I want something reflecting the thoughts of Eliot's modernist poetry contemporaries who were more concerned with present life (William Carlos Williams) or moving forward in the world described in The Wasteland (Wallace Stevens) than Eliot, who I (simplistically and unjustly) describe as mainly complaining a lot about the loss of past glories or thinking about how to temporarily preserve them?

When I started reading this post as using the term "neoreaction" as a generic, instead of a specific reference to the movement popularized by Mencius Moldbug, it all made sense.

Neoreaction is Reaction after Leftism has already won.

And in that sense, I think it has one core -- and this is as much Nietzsche and Plato as anything else -- that egalitarianism is a dangerous illusion that leads to the death of civilizations.

'that egalitarianism is a dangerous illusion that leads to the death of civilizations.'

So, which vision of Germany do you prefer?

The Imperial one, with the Kaiser at its head?

The one that restored Germany to greatness after the Kaiser's proved unworthy?

The one that made its egalitarianism explicit, using one of the world's most thoroughgoing internal security apparatus to make sure it remained true to that vision?

Or the one that currently exists, the inheritor of the previous versions, where egalitarianism is just considered good sense, in light of the previous three examples

I had occasion to speak with some real Germans recently. They did seem concerned about the potential for the eventual destruction of German people and culture "from inside"

I doubt you are going to wade this deep in the comments but,

Excellent post. Thank you.

To summarize Tyler:

Good things due to white men happen by accident, not because they are white men. Bad things due to white men are definitely because they are white men.

Good things due to minorities don't happen because white men have already done them. Bad things due to minorities happen because white men have already done all the good things, so there is nothing else but bad things for minorities to do.

Gather Ye Cherries While Ye May.

Brief critique of your critique:

1. "First, white men in percentage terms have become a weaker influence in America over time, yet America still is becoming a better nation overall." Remains to be seen, somewhat, but I still think it's significant how people are voting with their feet. The fact is that people of many different ethnicities are risking life and limb to get to countries with (for now) white majorities. Is that true of any other ethnic group? Maybe Singapore? This fact alone is suggestive, is it not? At the very least, do we not get credit for being polite/welcoming/non-xenophobic enough that crossing the southwestern deserts on foot or the Mediterranean in a rubber raft seems like a good gamble?

2. "Second, some of America’s worst traits, such as the obsession with guns, the excess militarism, or the tendency toward drunkenness, not to mention rape and the history of slavery, seem to come largely from white men." Even taking the charitable view that while your specific examples aren't great, in general you have a point that western culture still has a lot of problems and a lot of skeletons in it's closet, I don't think a lot of reactionaries would disagree with that critique. I'd imagine that their reply would be twofold: a) the problems you describe (alcoholism, rape, gun-obsessions) are mostly lower class phenomenons and, as such, merely reinforce the reactionary argument about the need for hierarchy and a culture that is curated and policed by its best and it's brightest, in contrast to the degenerate "no judgments" attitude displayed by our current elite and b) again, watch how people vote with their feet. Asian and Hispanic immigrants to this country, of which there are/were many both today and a century ago (before the Chinese Exclusion Act), do not seem to be deterred by their risk of rape at the hands of drunken, gun-toting white guys, either then or now, so maybe a bit of perspective is in order here.

3. "Fourth, America is global policeman and also the center of world innovation, so it cannot afford the luxury of a declining population, and thus we must find a way to make immigration work." What is the "it" in that sentence? Wouldn't America be fine if it withdrew from it's role as world policeman? What's the ROI on the Pentagon's foreign commitments? Not all that high, I would say, at least in the post Cold War Era. Honestly, I read this sentence as "the world can't afford America to have a declining population because the role it fills as an innovator and security guarantor" and you're really making a White Man's Burden argument without even realizing it. Kipling 1 Cowen 0

Yes, I thought the same thing on the "world's policeman," and "innovator," bits. Also, that there seems to be some tension between decrying our excess militarism while stating the necessity of our remaining the world's policeman. If we were less militaristic, might we also be less involved in policing the globe? Sure seems like it.

Yep, good point. It makes little sense to say the world needs American militarism to ensure peace, while two sentences earlier claim to be disgusted by how militaristic Americans are. You can't have it both ways. If you want to be able to eat at a nice steakhouse, you can't shut down the slaughterhouse.

And if you want to really dissect Tyler's point of view, consider that the negative effects of America's gun culture (ie, liberal gun laws) are mostly borne by minorities in highly-segregated urban neighborhoods, so blaming white people for America's gun violence problems seems a little like blaming Sig Sauer for why you shot yourself in the foot cleaning one of their handguns.

Furthermore, is it necessary, in Tylery's view, to re-write gun policy so as to alleviate these effects? I'm actually open to that argument, but would it not then validate the neoreactionary critique of mutliculturalism, namely in that one set of laws is not going to be optimal for people with radically different attitudes and behaviors, and that a lowest common denominator effect necessarily results in a net loss of freedom for Americans, generally?

"the problems you describe (alcoholism, rape, gun-obsessions) are mostly lower class phenomenons"

That's way off base. Alcoholism and rape are roughly equally present in lower-class and upper-class whites.

Extremely doubtful.

Utter nonsense, actually.

Alcohol and guns are goods that cost money, so the wealthy can consume them more (which does not really reflect intrinsic interest, though). Rape really isn't like that (though its definition is proving increasingly flexible, so different classes may change in the distribution, as the term is redefined).

"First, white men in percentage terms have become a weaker influence in America over time, yet America still is becoming a better nation overall."

To say America is getting better is retarded. Some aspects of life in America are getting better (eg technology), while others are getting worse (eg government, the area with which neoreaction is concerned).

"Second, some of America’s worst traits, such as the obsession with guns, the excess militarism, or the tendency toward drunkenness, not to mention rape and the history of slavery, seem to come largely from white men."

Other things that come largely from white men are: gun control, anti-war movements, temperance, and abolitionism.

Previous eras had different morals. As you point out, by the standards of today's morals, previous era's morals don't look good (shocking!). You can't really find a western moral system (which is the one you use), that isn't largely derived from white people. The one you seem to favor is overwhelmingly white in origin and in current practice.

"Third, it seems highly unlikely that “white men” is in fact the best way of disambiguating the dominant interest groups that have helped make the West so successful."

It'd be better in some ways to differentiate by intelligence, but such a process would be highly correlated to race. There are additional costs to multiculturalism though.

"Fourth, America is global policeman and also the center of world innovation, so it cannot afford the luxury of a declining population, and thus we must find a way to make immigration work.""

People are not interchangeable units. Importing people that aren't innovative won't keep our innovation at current levels - it's more likely to slow it down as society deteriorates in other ways. America's dirt is not magical.

Fascinating, excellent post.

Trying to put a current political figure into this framework seems designed as a means of discrediting rather than understanding.

Plenty of Trump's support is coming from a populist/leveler type. That is, in some ways, a super-liberal: they believe very strongly in egalitarianism, and they are pissed not only about the current incarnation of Elites running society, but about the very existence of an Elite generally.

Liberalism has many strains. Some take egalitarianism more seriously than others. I think most thoughtful liberals/libertarians eventually hit upon the problem that all people are not actually created equal in their abilities. People are not Blank Slates. They are not capable of achieving the same things. Their ability to govern themselves varies. Some people will respond the removal of external restraints by developing into outstanding individuals. Others will go wild, and possibly kill potentially-outstanding individuals, or otherwise cause such chaos that no development is possible.

I would add that Tyler's apparent strain of liberalism is itself elitist and anti-democratic (and even anti-republican). He sees no problem with an accumulation of wealth by a small portion of society. This gives them both out-sized influence over culture, and an out-sized influence over politics.

I have many competing views that have yet to be reconciled. I have tended to believe in the desirability of a liberal regime, and still largely agree with the thrust of J.S. Mill. But I believe at most in a weak form of egalitarianism. People are not born with the same capabilities, and if we try to structure a society around the assumption that they are, it will collapse. I also believe in the importance of culture and tribe - that we are both born to place importance on them, and that in a meaningless and absurd world, they serve as a comforting (though obviously illusory) source of permanence. I also have populist feelings and impulses.

So I guess what I am driving at is that the "Neo-Reaction" as Tyler has described it, and the "liberal," are not necessarily antagonistic, and that there is in fact space for what I suppose you'd call a neo-reactionary liberal. I would be tempted to describe myself as such, but-for my populism. I thus remain a "who knows?"

To the extent there is a good example of a neo-reactionary liberal, I'd suggest H.L. Mencken.

As I read this the TV news is going over the Trump and Mexican/Muslim judge thing again.

Bad fit, really?

Yes, because it only serves to prejudice the discussion.

Populist movements can be opposed to perceived outsiders. They can imagine a world where all insiders are equal, and all outsiders remain outside. They don't even need to make judgments about inferiority or superiority, just difference.

Very sadly, people here and on Twitter do not know where to draw the line.

Tyler very generously laid out a non-racisal form of neo-reaction above. If opposing comments (supporting neo-reaction) had taken that up, and the idea that anyone conforming enough to be a judge IS part of the dominant culture, they would have risen above.

Instead the theme is to double down, in the downward direction, toward racial difference as the difference that matters.

Very sad, not the America that I want to see.

Even if sad, it should further illustrate how deeply tribe and culture matter. These are largely people that, even if you strongly disagree with them, are probably more intelligent, better educated, and more thoughtful than their typical fellow-citizen. Yet even their most high-minded ascent into political philosophy can't help but be shaped by an insider-outsider frame.

If this feature of humanity is lamentable in the abstract, it is a feature nonetheless, and one we need to account for. Structuring society as if it is populated by tribeless interchangeable parts seems doomed. Trying to manufacture a humanity that is free of this feature seems destined to produce misery, and likely failure.

The parents at little league cover ~4 races by popular conception. Not all are rocket scientists. All are good people.

As they say accurately on opening day, this is what America is about.

And they are likely part of the same tribe and culture. I'm not trying to argue that the lines have to be racial or ethnic, though I do think that non-racial/ethnic tribes/cultures are more fragile.

People definitely have the ability to extend their moral circle, and to include people who look and act a lot different from them. But I think the ability varies, and that it rarely, if ever, can be genuinely extended to include all of humanity. Christianity and Humanism try, but I don't think they succeed on the whole.

Dude, you are breaking the connections. The little league kid, whose dad is a judge, is reading that he is not whole heartedly included.

Not sure how I am breaking any connections.

Well, anon, then comes the final question. Does the truth matter?

The truth is that race is a social construct, culture is very malleable,

and anyone who does not endorse the good old little league values of sportsmanship, team effort, individual excellence, respect, fair play, and commitment is messing up the American dream.

If you are spending your energies telling kids they can't have a future, rather than making that future possible, you are breaking that dream.

Good point. That judge is a member of La Raza.

Das Volk! German American Lawyer Association for the promotion of German American and Das Volk! Not repugnant at all, right libs?

Well, I don't know, but here is one judge's experience concerning his ethnic heritage - 'Scalia’s Italian heritage was also probably what got him through a smooth confirmation back in 1986, according to Biskupic, a judicial affairs reporter for Reuters.

Then as now, Supreme Court appointments could be very controversial. Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts was planning to give the conservative Scalia a hard time, recalls Biskupic, until he was reminded how many Italian Americans lived in his state.

“In fact, during the confirmation hearing just about every senator ... vetting the nominee, had to claim some Italian connection," Biskupic says. "I remember [one senator] saying something to the effect of ‘I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that I had an aunt who once had a babysitter who was related to someone who was Italian.' Everybody was claiming that ethnicity.”

His appointment meant a huge amount to the Italian-American community, which in the 1980s still heard slurs about possible ties to organized crime.

As part of her research for her book on Scalia, Biskupic reviewed Ronald Reagan's presidential papers. She found that “just about every Italian American group in the country sent in an endorsement.”

Scalia went to Italy after he was confirmed. He told Biskupic about the welcome he got in a small town:

"There was a parade, and he rode down the street," she says. "He was standing up on a balcony and all these people were cheering ... He said, 'I think they thought that I even was Ronald Reagan.

"They were cheering so much,' he quipped, 'that I felt like Mussolini.'”' http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-02-15/scalias-appointment-resonated-all-way-italy

Sometimes, you don't have to make up anything at all to illustrate whatever point it is you think you are making.

Here's another.

WASHINGTON — In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”

In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.



Judge Sotomayor has given several speeches about the importance of diversity. But her 2001 remarks at Berkeley, which were published by the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, went further, asserting that judges’ identities will affect legal outcomes.

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

Her remarks came in the context of reflecting her own life experiences as a Hispanic female judge and on how the increasing diversity on the federal bench “will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.”


Still, Judge Sotomayor questioned whether achieving impartiality “is possible in all, or even, in most, cases.” She added, “And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”

She also approvingly quoted several law professors who said that “to judge is an exercise of power” and that “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives.”

“Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see,” she said.

It is a bit weird sleeping in, finding a long good post on neo-reaction by Tyler, and ~180 comments in place. You know they are going to be bad, and they mostly are. (Some sisyphus commenters try to roll the rock of reason back uphill.)

Good post Tyler, but I would say the dogged _defense_ of neo-reaction as racism shows how much it really is.

You just can't stop yourself from being used. The best possible sock puppet to prove what is wrong, but tragically not a puppet, a sad real living man.

Racism is a scientific fact. It is only repugnant to people with more empathy than logic. There are visual, medical, and it wouls seem behavioral and intellectual differences in the distributions of various races. I really hate posts like yours, which I find to be vapid virtue signalling. It's like reading an articke by a feminist complaining that there aren't enough female firefighters.

Harsh truth, if I were down on everyone with lower IQ, I'd be down on 98% of the US population.

You want me distinguish between people who are far lower, and people you believe are far lower.

Same to me.

Am an after my own heart. A far as I am concerned, the whole human race is a pack fools. However my misanthropy is checked by the fact that they are the only fools I have. Cats, despite several endearing traits, only suffice in limited ways for companionship. So I am stuck with "the damned human race" as Mark Twain called it, and make the best of it.

My god what a fucking loser you are.

What I never hear folks like you say is... what exactly does this "scientific fact" mean in terms of public policy?

* Segregated schools are just fine?

* Don't give welfare to minorities?

* Discourage minorities from voting?

* Ignore all protests by black people?

* Police brutality should be allowed?

* It's okay if a few dozen black people are wrongfully executed?

I understand the arguments against immigration from certain countries, but what about US citizens?

I am simply responding to a illogical argument massively used by the left. The fact that different races have different IQ distributions doesn't mean anything you suggested, only that disparate outcomes do not necessarily prove or even indicate racism or misogyny. I would also argue that the fact doesn't even suggest bans on immigration from certain countries, given that some portion of every country is bright.

Advise students to identify with Asian culture to obtain top marks and advise women to identify as men to get LSAT scores for HYS.

And your article is basically some scientists saying that race isn't meaningful qhile mentioning that otgers who have said differently have had tgeir careers sestroyed. I don't trust people that I know to lie and they still can't refute twin studies.

Thomas, if you really understood twin studies, and that paper, you would see no contradiction between the two.

Sometimes it seems like in Tyler's view an action only matters if white people are the actors. His brute hypothesis is entirely directed at white people while completely ignoring the much higher levels of brutishness of minorities here. Same in this post about guns and rape.

because the whole scots-irish folkways are...black?

i'm thinking of stuff like this http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/July-2012/American-Violence-and-Southern-Culture/

or least i assume. this isn't what i'm thinking of specifically but a brief skim suggests basically same thesis

So West Virginia must have a super high homicide rate, right?

Nope, right in the middle

West Virginia has three cities which have a total population of about 175,000. The state's population is over 90% exurban, rural, and small-town. For a state with that settlement pattern, West Virginia's homicide rates are elevated. If the cities of W Va. were like metropolitan settlements in Upstate New York and the countryside was like the Upstate countryside, West Virginia would have a homicide rate 1/3 of what it is today.

So is it urbanity or poverty, or both? Which is it? If this was true, rural blacks would also commit crimes at a lower rate.

didn't really say they weren't. rather i was sketching a plausible reading of cowen's point.

"such as the obsession with guns, the excess militarism" seems plausibly related to the long tail influences of the anglo-scottish border culture transplanted to the US by immigrants. a lot of people are put off by the "jacksonian" aspects of america/american self image.

I actually don't think guns simply means homicide, people usually attach more cultural things to this when they talk about guns. some degree of this can be transported into homicide data but its wider and messier. i also liked that chicago article for

I think things are a bit more complex than that. I certainly don't support the cult of white male dominance.
However, I think that the anti-Western, so-called "anti-Imperialist", "social justice" movement is usually a cover for attacks on capitalism by leftist thinkers. Resistance to racism and sexism are certainly very legitimate causes, but the social justice movement often attempts to tie "white male" dominance to Western individualism and free markets as a whole, and to claim that all attempts to defend the philosophy of individual liberty are really just covert attempts to assert white male dominance. The social justice advocates often argue that there's something inherently "white" and "male" and "Western" about individualist philosophy, which makes it bad and wrong, and that only some sort of socialist framework can ever actually be fair to women and non-whites.

Of course, the neo-reactionary white guys in the libertarian movement aren't helping defeat that perception at all. But that doesn't mean I want to throw my lot in with a movement that I really believe covertly seeks to undermine the principles of this very successful society I am apart from. Because there really is nothing inherently "white" or "male" about the concept that individuals should be allowed to own property and execute contracts freely without government interference.

There are very few if any significant thinkers today who question the basic idea of property rights or the right to contract. Bernie Sanders may call himself a socialist but he has said repeatedly he accepts the role of markets and free enterprise in American society. And in situations such as labor contracts where one side has corporate lawyers advising them on what to put in the contract while the other side not only has no legal representation but may simply be desperate to avoid going on food stamps, there can be room for rules regarding what clauses may or may not be enforceable in court. For instance, the trend toward requiring low-wage employees of retail and fast-food chains to sign non-compete clauses strikes me as risible.

Well there is a whole lot of territory between total prohibition of all property and contracting right, and complete freedom in property and contracting rights. I think there are few thinkers on either absolute extreme, but likely many who are pretty far out in either direction.
(kind of interesting question - can you contract for anything in the complete absence of any property right in anything? Haven't thought through it)

The notion advanced by Obama and Elizabeth Warren that individuals aren't responsible for their own success, and hence, don't have a right to own anything they own, is widely espoused by progressives. That's effectively the same thing as a denial of property rights whether they say so openly or not.

No one is 100% responsible for their own success. To begin with they owe a lot to the parents-- without that selfless care in infancy they would have promptly died. And beyond that to the vast web of social systems that support them. Dropped off into a parallel Earth where humans never evolved even the most capable billionaire would be lucky to survive a few years let alone flourish as he does here where he can depend on the rest of us.

Therefore we should pay the government whatever percentage of our income they ask for, no questions asked!!!

Besides the fact that all sorts of people on the progressive left are just fine with denying freedom of contract if it involves Uber or AirBnb. Or unlicensed electricians. Or gay wedding cake.

Nearly every sane person supports some rules regarding what can or can't be bought or contracted -- we just disagree on the details or where to draw the line. I suspect you don't want the local 7-11 selling crystal meth (if you are a really hard-core libertarian, add "to minors" to that statement) or you don't want it to be legal for people to buy Stinger missiles on Ebay. I don't think it is helpful to describe those who draw the line differently from you as engaging in "attacks on capitalism."

There is a distinct difference between things that are obviously harmful, "buying crystal meth" & "selling Stinger missiles" and those that are essentially benign such as using Uber or selling wedding cake.

I think people should be allowed to sell crystal meth at 7-11 or stinger missiles on Ebay, so long as they assume liability for the risks those activities impose on third parties. Not exactly sure what risks selling meth at 7-11 imposes on a THIRD party, though it might be bad business if you want to attract kids to your store and not just junkies.

I also think people driving for Uber should carry accident insurance that covers their commercial driving activies.

The doctrine of disparate impact assumes that the business owner is a criminal whose only reason for existing is to oppress women and minorities. Thus we have people like Jesse Jackson criticizing silicon valley not because he has any specific startup to peddle but merely because it is white. A large portion of the black underclass has no respect for private property, private profit or private social conditions. It is not as simple as saying that women and minorities were denied a position on the other hand someone has to offer it, and during that time private property, liberty of contract and freedom of association were I Phelps to be sacrosanct prinicpals. Being equal before the law doesn't guarantee anyone any particular rate of pay, social status or compensation. That was something people had to earn based upon the legal ideas of consent and consideration. The civil rights leaders are more fearful of intelligence testing than anything else. I didn't even know my ancestors were native american until I was told by my mom. I like the world the British built. The government's programs are so ideal they have had to hold interest rates at zero percent for how many years now?

"Social justice" thrives in free market, "neoliberal" environments, so it's a bit ironic that social justice warriors try to bite the hand that feeds them. Big-company CEOs are enthusiastic boosters of identity politics. "Diverse and conquer," as Sailer put it recently.

This is caused by the fact that the "social justice" movement is not really primarily concerned with social equality, it is basically (as I stated) a anti-capitalist leftist political movement that is using race/gender issues as a front. That's why they always try to link "white male" dominance with libertarian individualist philosophy, as if there is an inherent connection between the two. They try to hook people into the movement by talking about race and gender equality, and then once they get people involved feed them a bunch of propaganda about how it's all really about how evil capitalism and it's flawed "individualist" theory is suppressing the brown people and women.

If western philosophy had been constructed by black women, it would still be superior. If special relativity had been discovered by a native american transgendered man, it would still be correct. There are two groups of people who hate others based on their race and sex, the white racists who are reviled and the liberal racists who are celebrated. The reason, it seems to me, that neo-reactionism is so concerned with race, is the recent advancement of the social justice movement which at once purport that equality of outcome is a virtue because all people are equal, and that white men are innately evil.

Well, they think that capitalism is a giant conspiracy by white men. And don't even try to discuss "Western" philosophy with them. That would be neo-imperialist oppression.


Resolve this contradiction: You consider Aristotle to be a neo-reactionary and the Spanish Roman Catholic scholastics (who were students of Aristotle and thought ridiculously high of him) to be the opposite.

Does not compute.

Aristotle thought some peoples should rightly be enslaved due to biological characteristics that made them inherently inferior to the Greek aristocracy. The Catholic thinkers Tyler is referring to would have thought very highly of Aristotle's views on biology in general as well as his virtue ethics and prime mover argument but I don't know that they endorsed Aristotle's argument for biological inequality among humans. For Christians, that is always going to be in tension with the biblical view that all humans are created in God's image.

What is the Straussian reading of a post on neo-reaction that leaves out Moldbug?

My assumption was he didn't want to draw attention to either Moldbug or Land for obvious reasons.

Fairly good summary, but even I'll admit that the condemnation is fairly weak tea. The best argument against NRx is how it got swamped and taken over by the racialist alt-right, a movement that prides itself on its "scientific knowledge" like the people who click IFLS on Facebook. Racialists like substitute in race for the hard questions of culture & civilization. NRx has some correct instincts (I would rather live in the Anglosphere & not, say, in Russia) insofar as it shares them with the broader Right. It asks some interesting questions but often doesn't stick the landing to an actual program beyond whining about the Stuarts or the Romanovs.

It's not surprising that it doesn't stick the landing if its "high art" incarnation is Eliot. The Wasteland offers such a compelling perspective on the state of the world that one cannot help but internalize it and its brilliance, but ultimately we are not left with much except the Fisher King, bereft of hope for full renewal, stacking up some remnants of the past to stem the tide as he waits for whatever is new. (Verrry ironically from an NRx perspective, the Thunder's speeches, which seem to offer the best hope at forward movement, are explicitly non-Western!) The poem itself makes clear that backward movement is not enough.

My suggestions for future reading are Dickinson, Whitman, Stevens and Williams (also don't forget that Eliot's perspective was decidedly expatriate rather than American, so it's not clear that his diagnosis or solutions will apply to America).

I'm sorry but hearing anyone say "I'd prefer Russia to Britain" is like seeing a hipster trying to convince people he *really does* like PBR. No, no you don't.

Per capita GDP:
-Russia: 14k

Homicide rate:
-Russia: 11.2 per 100k
-UK: 1 per 100k

Life expectancy
-Russia: 70
-UK: 81

Less Corruption:
-UK Score: 87 (10th least corrupt country)
-Russian Score: 29 (119th least corrupt country)

Give me an actual break, ffs.

I have enough trouble explaining you.

But, it actually fairly simple: easily identifiable features make it easy to form a tribe.

Unfortunately, the world has grown up; you have to interact with more people; the world and your city is multi-racial; and your prejudices will make you unable to work with others and survive. No one will want to work with you. No one will want to talk to you. And you will become an isolate.

Living in a shack, down by the river.

Or, maybe in the mountains someplace in Idaho.

This was in response to a post by E. Harding above asking me to explain black albinos and some other features that supported his view of racial superiority beyond pigment.

For some reason, it did not post under his comment. Maybe it was afraid to get too close to it. I don't know.

Actually, my wife has a black foster brother who was stupid enough to join the military to defend you.

"Actually, my wife has a black foster brother who was stupid enough to join the military to defend you. "

How many times have you called him stupid? To his face?

Your cities consist of elites of all races and an underclass of minorities. Who are you or any urban elite to talk when you self-segregate away from low IQ, religion, the poor, and rural people. The 'flyover states'? Really, thats what you think about millions of people? You can't even recognize your own tribe and it's exclusive, derogatory nature. Sad.

You do a disservice to fly over states by your characterization of them, and I do not believe that even populations in flyover states do not find and make fun of a racists, for example, in the evening comedy show.

You're going to have to learn how to live with people who are not like yourself, or live alone, in the shack down by the river or in some shack in the Atlantic or Western mountains (thereby avoiding the flyover states).

People like Mr Harding cannot imagine a world in which Israel and the US are different countries who face separate challenges vis a vis immigration.

The 'separate challenge' would be that aspirant immigrants to Israel loathe the majority population there and wish to dispossess and kill them. Aspirant immigrants to America are merely not invested in the national story and can serve as useful tools for elites to abuse the non-exotic working class. It's a threat, but not an existential threat.


When cornered,

You change the subject.

Flashy object -- chase it quick -- now, where was I.

"You’re going to have to learn how to live with people who are not like yourself, or live alone"

Or segregate and live with people like yourself. But that obvious solution is evidently outside the intellectual capabilities of bill the cucked moron.

You'll never be in a management position or be called upon to lead people with that attitude. People will avoid you or laugh at you. I hope you grow out of this.

Bill will decide who you live with. He will live among his own carefully selected and segregated group, naturally. Presumably whites and asians, whatever those loopy social constructs mean. (They mean whites and asians.)

The shitlib posts stuff like this right before he's about to be put into a work camp.

If you agree with TC that white male culture isn't so important, than you have to think that Zimbabwe is better off having killed all those white farmers, and South Africa will be better off once it has completed its ongoing white genocide. Who wants to take that side of the bet?

Also, is it really a coincidence that TC is sympathetic to every group in the world except the South Africans whites? He is happy to see them raped and slaughtered. TC just shares that white elimination views of the people in his social circle.

'TC just shares that white elimination views of the people in his social circle.'

Yep, the Mercatus Center and the GMU econ dept are some of the leading sources of white eliminationist views in America today - in someone's hilariously made up universe.

This post is so ignorant and so poorly reasoned that I almost wonder what Tyler is really playing at.

Re: NRx and the Alt Right (conflated in the OP, which also throws Trumpian populism and Chinese state capitalism into the stew), one important and often overlooked difference lies in their view of elitism. NRx accepts the idea of an elite with a contemptuous-verging-on-hostile attitude toward the common people, whose lives and lifeways have little inherent value. The Alt Right, on the other hand, sees the elite as existing to serve the folk, who embody the spirit of the nation and who must be led to prosperity and to moral and spiritual uplift. It's an attitude that is impossible to separate from their emphasis on ethnic and racial kinship: the common people can be awfully hard to take, and it's tough to feel generous toward them unless you see them as your own. German "romantic nationalism" from the late 18th century (Herder, Goethe) is in this respect an important influence on the Alt Right.

The dichotomy of elitisms here is...well, let's just say it's not entirely unrelated to the "nerd lib" aspect of Neoraction. Curtis Yarvin reads (and looks) like he got stuffed into one too many lockers in middle school. Neoreactionaries are actually a little like SWPL liberals, whose resentment of the Ungifted with whom they had to ride the bus likewise distorts their politics and their values. Both groups have singularly failed to get past the mistrust of the poorly educated bequeathed by their Boomer parents.

Its novel take on elitism is probably the main reason the Alt Right feels like such a breath of fresh air, and seems energetic and hopeful where NRx and mainstream progressivism are equally dismal in their different ways.

Cowan's scurrilous attempt to hang America's shortcomings, half of which he made up, around the necks of white men has been well taken care of in these comments. Again, you wonder what he's playing at.

If TC is playing at something, it could be trying to point out that for practical purposes, NRx has been co-opted by Trumpian populism and the alt-right, both of which he views as bad, and further suggesting that its kinship to and corruption by (even if NRx itself is not corrupted, its contribution to mainstream discourse is) such movements represents a fatal flaw.

“First, white men in percentage terms have become a weaker influence in America over time, yet America still is becoming a better nation overall.”

No 'stagnation' tag? A vector is both direction and magnitude.

This is like reading the description of an elephant by one of the four blind men. Not just any blind man one that is deaf and has no sense of smell as well.

The debt and entitlement Ponzi scheme needs immigration.

Hardly: if we had fewer immigrants wages anmd therefore taxes (notably the payroll tax) would rise accordingly

Not true. Automation is becoming cheaper at a rate that devalues human labor faster than ever before. Look at any of the "how its made" shows and compare a modern factory to an older one.

And despite Libertarian beliefs, prices on goods and services cannot drop to a point at least with any existing technology that ultra-low wages are a viable customer base. There is a certain measure of global demand and are material and energy limits . We don't have replicators ala Star Trek (which is BtW a Communist society with no real jobs)

Functionally the US needs decades of negative immigration and likely mandated inefficiency (lower work week, automation taxes) to create wage growth .

Of course that means a smaller customer base too and cannot be kept up indefinitely since population aging and perpetual shrinkage .

Basically its a technological bottleneck and no Neo-Liberal economic policy can fix it .Not even Singapore has managed.

Now to the question at hand, my granted somewhat idiosyncratic definitions

Neo-Reaction is anti universalism (all people are not interchangeable or the same) Economic Nationalism and Social Conservatism

by comparison Modern Conservatism is universalism, Neo Liberalism and Social Moderation

Paleconservatism is universalism, Economic Nationalism and Social Conservatism

Liberalism is universalism, Wealth Redistribution and Social Liberalism

and Libertarianism is also universalism , Neo Liberalism and Social Liberalism

Of these really only NrX is reality based though Paleoconseravtism has the potential to become such.

I hate to reply to myself but do note that NrX and the .Alt Right are not monolithic and have different views.

Neo Reaction (NrX) is highly atomized and intellectual and closer to Libertarian in many ways and the .Alt Right is more community focused and closer to Paleo-Conservatism

In any case they are both a reaction to a suicidal political ideology of Open borders, Cultural Marxism and Globalist Wage Arbitrage.

There are also subgroups within both of them, some more concerned with race and groups like pick up artists that float around the edges as well but these complicate things too much.

Start with Steve Sailer (I-Steve) for the taster http://www.unz.com/isteve/ and than Outside In for NrX http://www.xenosystems.net/ and Vox Populi https://voxday.blogspot.com for .Alt Right and branch out from there

if you can't get past I-Steve you aren't big enough for Neo-Reaction in any case, better stick with Ludwig Mises and Ayn Rand till you get hard and get gud

I remain skeptical on the automation stuff. Does automation eliminate specific jobs? Yes, and it has ever since the Sumerians first put the wheel to use (fewer bearers and porters needed to move stuff around). But does automation eliminate jobs overall? I have not seen anything solid evidence of that. And on the other side of the ledger tech improvements also create jobs: nearly all the jobs I have held post-college (class of 92) did not exist when my parents were young (the 1940s).
One thing that may be true is that our technology is changing the sorts of jobs on offer: leaving a huge number of manual, low-skill jobs one hand, and creating a lot of higher skill on the other while hollowing out the mid-skill range between them, bifurcating the labor market in ways that are unhealthy for a society.


Over 90 million adult Americans are not in the workforce and nearly 50 million are on food stamps. Some of the later of course are working.if you fillow shadowstats the U6 (unemployment and unemployment ) rate is around 25% . 40% of all jobs are basically insecure temp jobs (Forbes) http://www.forbes.com/sites/elainepofeldt/2015/05/25/shocker-40-of-workers-now-have-contingent-jobs-says-u-s-government/#79cb752e2532

35-40% of all spending is government and I doubt most of that is essential spending, Its transfer payments and its bunk jobs along with a few essential things.


The whiggish assumption that the magic market faeries will make new jobs to replace old jobs is simply bunk and as automation increases, it will get worse, self driving cars , better robotics, automated crop harvesting. Human labor is still needed somewhat but it won't be for long and its not just a bad for society problem, its a "creates socialism and a bigger state" problem

Do these stats seems like a healthy economy with plentiful jobs to you?

This post is excellent! It is insightful and useful.

If we can't afford the "luxury of a declining population", I'd like to hear Tyler Cowen's take on environmental concerns with a rapidly expanding global population. I've seen leading environmental scientists, who are extremely politically liberal, who stress that we don't have remotely have global capacity to support today's population at western lifestyle levels and that basic population explosion is the single largest environmental threat that we face.

Next, maybe we should encourage whites who feel badly about their demographic group shrinkage to have more children. I realize this is contrary to concerns about global population problems. But, maybe some of the groups engaging in very rapid population growth who require global aid to survive should be pressured to scale back their birth rates. If we preach equality of living standards, how about equality of birth rates?

Prof. Cowen fails to realize that his beloved Spanish friars and Salamancan scholastics were both the heirs of the Spanish Inquisitors and the progenitors of the real fathers of neoreaction, the Catholic Counter-Enlightenment thinkers like de Maistre, Chateaubriand, Bonald, von Haller, Donoso Cortes, etc. Each group represents the mainstream of Catholic thought dealing at different times with different sets of facts on the ground--the Iberian Reconquista and expulsion of the Jews, the discovery of the New World and the Atlantic slave trade, the French Revolution.

This blog post is proof that reading too much is bad for your brain.

Regarding certain views held with a "obnoxious, self-pleased glee", this is a side effect of those same views being very aggressively censored and suppressed. If these views became more legitimate points of view in public discourse, the obnoxious glee would vanish.

Martin Luther King Jr. is in some ways sacrosanct, where criticism is not allowed. But realistically, he was a man who championed for group rights for his very own ethnic tribal group. It seems more significant for people who championed rights for completely foreign or even rival groups than people who championed for their very own group. Secondly, beyond being an icon and a totem for certain political issues, did MLK Jr have his own philosophy?

But realistically, he was a man who championed for group rights for his very own ethnic tribal group.

Formally, he did not. That's the direction it took after 1965 and especially after 1970. The trouble is, you have to scrounge for anyone in his circle who was a critic of the direction it did take. Bayard Rustin is the only one who comes to mind, and Bayard Rustin was not an influential figure after 1964. It's a reasonable inference that King would have endorsed the decay.

And, of course, libertarian critics of both segregation mandates and anti-discrimination law were nowhere to be found after 1970 bar a scatter of intellectuals like Gottfried Dietze and a few old politicians like Sam Ervin.

Well, well. Seldom has a strawman been build this explicitly.

Thank you for this generous insight into how libertarians experience and construct their world.

Additionally it is the greatest entertainment to watch from afar how everyone in America is going complete bollocks over Trump.

Pieces like this make me wonder if, in the end, the anti Trump forces actually do believe their own fear-mongering themselves.

So the unanswered question is: Why are you (Prof. T Cowen) so terrified of these people? To the extent where you ignored them for months despite their rising power, then in this post, when you finally address them, repeatedly apologize for even acknowledging the fact that they exist?

Aristotle and Benjamin Franklin were reactionaries? Huh?

Was he doing so from beyond the grave? The Khmer Rouge took over Cambodia in 1974, six years after King's death.

Interesting introduction but Tyler's also wilting and is clearly terrified of being lumped in with the "racists."

To further the point, saying all men and races are created equal is head-in-the-sand stupid. Tyler is not stupid; he is, however, disingenuous. He's scared of being perceived as many people perceive Steve Sailer, even though he cites Sailer favorably.

The villain in my mind is identity politics that perpetuate skin-color tribalism. High-ability blacks suffer greatly for this, and low-ability whites benefit unjustly. Pushing "black" interests is the cruelest trick of the left, but if you resist this push, you get tossed out with all the other horrible racists.

I will limit myself to one minor point:
A country cannot long remain the world's policeman without believing it is special. Why else would people volunteer to join the military these days?

Lack of opportunity?

Tribal affiliation is becoming stronger. There are lots of benefits of being part of a victim group, not the least is a sense of moral righteousness. Sailer is very good at documenting this, because he's beyond the pale already, so has nothing to lose. When he does point it out, he's called a racist or xenophobe, but at this point such allegations are losing their sting. For example, if you point out BLM is being illogical on some issue and reference facts like crime or IQ data that may be relevant to, say, prison rates, it's considered racist.

As an American of predominantly African ancestry, I think it's good to see the neo-reaction getting more and more attention, because the mainstream has traditionally ignored anyone outside of the liberal/neo-con/globalist mainstream. But you fail to mention the new reaction to the neo-reaction that's popping up on the Internet.

In the HBD-sphere, there's a lot of people of people who accept human differences without necessarily believing in tribalism/neo-reaction: Jayman, Misdreavus, some others. And then there's the socialist HBDers like Robert Lindsay. I call these people the "Reaction to the neo-Reaction"

Oh also the commenter Robert Mugabe/Jorge Videla/Henrik Vorwoerd/Chartreus is amazing!

Is there anything inherently political in the empirical finding that ethnic Japanese people can, on average, rotate 3D objects in their head better than the Kimbundu of Angola?

I can never tell which scientific findings are RACISTSEXISTBIGOTEDNAZINATIVISTSUPREMACIST and which ones are just meh.

It is the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty to claim to be able to define a philosophy/party/group when you are opposed to it. Worse, it is morally wrong. Should Democrats define what is required for someone to be a registered Republican? TC's reading is prolific, quite impressive - I wish his thinking was.

Seeing a lot of criticism here on the distinction between Alt Right and NeoRx. Let's not be too pedantic, folks. There's a significant walk-the-walk element going into why TC and others would conflate the two. Carl Schmitt himself provided the framework for this: both groups overwhelmingly share the same enemies, making them essentially peas in a pod. How they opt to self-describe is less important.

I mean, NRxers despise alt-righters as fascist white nationalists and--far worse--populist losers. The alt-right thinks of "(((Moldberg)))" as an uppity nerd who needs to be shoved back in his locker.
They share the same enemies, but only in the same way as every group the left is currently targeting for extermination. Neither has much in common with, say, fraternity members, but your framework group them in together.

But what the NRxers don't get is that they aren't accomplishing anything except providing an intellectual backdrop for these alt-righters. You might distinguish yourself from alt-righters, but I'm not sure it matters for practical purposes, which hopefully eventually matter.

I never said which one I was, or if I'm actually either.
But yes, I agree with you that practical matters need to be addressed before it's too late.

We don't take our intellectual backdrop from nerdy Jews like Moldbug.

"calls for egalitarianism, or for that matter democracy, are typically a power play of one potential ruling coalition against another" is probably the central insight, so props to Tyler for including it in what was otherwise a mess of a post.

Professor Bainbridge's earlier Trump piece offers a fine rejoinder and insightful analysis at: http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2016/02/donald-trump-is-the-beta-test-of-a-cure-for-the-revolt-of-the-elites.html

"Watching the primary season has called to mind one of the best books on American politics and culture I've ever read: The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy. If you want to understand what's going on in our politics and the rise of Trump (and, to some extent, Bernie Sanders), it is a book you need to read.

Lasch powerfully and persuasively contends that that the values and attitudes of professional and managerial elites and those of the working classes have dramatically diverged. Although the claim is controverted, many of us on the right (especially social conservatives) agree with the quasi-populist/communitarian notion that democracy works best when all members of society can participate in a world of upward mobility and of achievable status. In such a world, members of society will perceive themselves as belonging to the same team and care about ensuring that that team succeeds. But how can society achieve this sort of mutual interdependence if its members are not part of a community of shared values?

The core problem is thus the revolt of the elites against the values of the wider community: "[T]he new elites, the professional classes in particular, regard the masses with mingled scorn and apprehension." For too many of these elites, the values of "Middle America" - a/k/a "fly-over country" - are mindless patriotism, religious fundamentalism, racism, homophobia, and retrograde views of women. "Middle Americans, as they appear to the makers of educated opinion, are hopelessly shabby, unfashionable, and provincial, ill informed about changes in taste or intellectual trends, addicted to trashy novels of romance and adventure, and stupefied by prolonged exposure to television. They are at once absurd and vaguely menacing."

Sounds like a a more high falutin' version of Ben Stein's 70s book "The View From Sunset Boulevard"

It was a brief treatment of political life and somewhat truncated. Lasch only finished the manuscript in February 1994, just 10 days before his death.

Usually it's a choice between stupidity and deliberate mendacity, but in Cowen's case, all we know is that it is not the former.

So... "Neoreaction is just reaction or just old-timey whiggery, which is just clear thought. Ergo Aristotle is a neoreactionary. And I'M NOT RAYCISS!!" Which dilutes neoreaction down to homeopathic levels. Neoreaction is just 12 molecules in this bottle of water. Sure. Explains a lot.

It's feeding time at the troll zoo. Thanks for the spectacle, Tyler.

Tyler does a ok job here, let's start with that. We could be here all day picking this post apart, and there's a lot to pick at (down to a fundamental level).

There are several ways to go after that, most of which aren't comments section length possible. Those are very important, but you can go read authors on them that have the time to cover it. I'll focus on the big practical matter in the room.

The main problem is immigration (yes, its downstream of culture, but its the immediate the irreversible problem that needs addressing). There has been a debate over whether its genetics or deep culture that has made assimilation of non-whites impossible. Some say it doesn't matter because we haven't found a way to solve for deep culture, so it acts like genetics anyway. Personally, I focus on genetics, since that is where the evidence has taken me. Genetics also clarifies, there are people who if you tell them there is a 0.001% chance its culture and it can be changed are ready to destroy the West in a giant experiment. I remember that when I thought it was culture I was pro-immigration as well.

There are other non-immigration reasons for liking the genetic explanation as well. If we eliminated immigration, there would still be important implications to HBD. See Charles Murray's work that focuses solely on whites. Even if everyone was white, you would still need to understand genetics to understand the world and make sound decisions. As a simple example, trying to get non-college level IQ people to do college level academic work, and going into massive debt to do so, would start to be seen as misguided. I'm beginning to digress though. We've maintained a roughly successful society without addressing the genetics question in the pre-NAM immigration era, so I assume we could continue to do so absent the radical demographic change being foisted on us. There is a lot of ruin in a nation and all that.

Tyler's quote at the bottom sums up his view. It essentially boils down to, "immigrants always good, even if it hurts my countrymen, I'm pretty sure it satisfies 'global utility function', which is a good moral framework for life, Jesus would like global utility function."

Neo-Reaction (alt-right, whatever) takes the view that immigrants aren't an asset. That they are basically a cost. The EU globalist even put a price on that cost recently, they said refugees from the middle east had a *negative* -250,000 pounds (-$360,000) value. In economics we call that a revealed preference. There are no trillion dollar bills lying around.


Genetics is a pre-requisite to destiny, on a long enough timeline. You can screw up with good genes, like the Chinese did with Mao or the Germans did with Hitler, but eventually genes win out. They are both doing fine now.

If America comes to have South American demographics it will have South American sociopolitical outcomes. Do you like what is happening in Puerto Rico, Venezuela, and Brazil? Get ready for it.

If Europe becomes Arab/African it will have Arab/African sociopolitical outcomes. Do you want this? www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSPvnFDDQHk

Tyler ups the ante on this, and basically says the the barrio-ification of the West is a moral good in and of itself. People should want to live in shacks, have intermittent access to water and power, be subject to violence and crime, and have inadequate medical care and sanitation.


In his final chapter, "A New Social Contract?," Cowen writes, "We will move from a society based on the pretense that everyone is given an okay standard of living to a society in which people are expected to fend for themselves much more than they do now."

The strange thing about this is that Tyler can't understand that the people he shares a society with don't like this new social contract and are rebelling against it. Lacking great tools to do so they turn to the few they have, Trump in America or the "far-right" parties in Europe. The response on the part of Tyler is to try and import new voters faster then white people turn against this vision of poverty for their children.

What will these new voters mean for America? My guess is the same they've meant back in their home countries, with the same likely outcomes. Leftist in a sense, but mostly just incompetent, corrupt, and kleptocratic (whichever group of left/right interest groups happen to be backing them).

Those outcomes aren't particularly cheery for Tyler's values, though there is a kind of strange hope that maybe these divisions will keep the proles in constant conflict thus preventing them from implementing a progressive income tax or something like that (call this the Bryan Caplan view). Most of South America seems to collect taxes at close to America rate anyway today (and many big names like Brazil and Argentina collect more, with the people getting less back in return for their money), but that's not particularly important. I don't think it matters that I find their views impractical (remember, their *best case* is a chaotic third world barrio future for America, likely outcomes only go down from there).

Fundamentally, what their talking about is the repugnant conclusion. The mere increase of life until the value of that life is basically zero. Billions barely subsisting in barrios is better then a middle class society composed of fewer people. Tyler has even written about the repugnant conclusion before. Of course, to most people the repugnant conclusion is...repugnant. It's suppose to be a reducto ad absurdum of the utilitarian argument that shows the flaws with turning 'global utility function' into a kind of religion. For the high priests of the current fundamentalists order though its a challenge to justify what seems to be a failure of the doctrine.

And that's where things stand. Proving HBD, or proving that HBD implies immigration is going to be very bad, isn't very useful to convincing these people. They have a religious principle. They start with a desired end state (open borders is a human right) and then solve backwards from there. Even "global utility function" is a kind of rationalization, the principal would be supported even if you could disprove it created more total utility in the long run. If someone is solving backwards, offering evidence and following logic isn't very useful. Practical concerns and competing values aren't important. They are only seeking out that which confirms the pre-determined conclusion. Some are more honest about this (they say they would support open borders even if it meant human extinction). Some half ass it (barrios and beans ain't so bad...). Most flat out lie, or at least if they discuss it honestly they make sure not to do so in the broad mainstream where it might influence policy. If we could just get Bryan Caplan's open borders debate broadcast on prime time news with all of America watching I think anti-immigration policy would be passed the next day.

Why do they have this religious principle? That is a matter of some debate, it probably needs to be solved in the long run but its too much to write about here. In the short run cutting off immigration at least stops the bleeding, you can outlast the surge of this demented cult as long as you don't have population replacement.

In his post Tyler notes "significant ideology in China, India, Russia, and Japan". This has a ton of issues, but let's try to focus like a laser on a few specifics. Also, I'll be speaking mainly of East Asia here, I don't know as much about India and Russia.

1) These countries have no concept of "global utility function" as a guiding moral principle.

2) While they have many of the same basic human desires toward liberty, there are basically zero libertarians in East Asia and they find the whole concept very strange. The goal is to build a successful harmonious society, not follow some strange weird religion that seems to result in disharmony and suicide.

3) Asia is racist. At the individual level. At the government level. They have no equivalent of "white guilt" or the "white man's burden". They would find Tyler's perspective below absurd.

4) Immigration is seen as bringing disharmony. This is true even of other high IQ races like whites. You will hear whites who try to live in Asia a long time talk about this. Everyones nice to you, you can make money, the women might even be interested if you have status, but you will never quite fit it. You are always "apart" in some way. The integration remains polite but superficial. These societies aren't built for a generic "cosmopolitan", but for the people of the country. They rent cosmopolitans to the extent they are useful, but they don't believe in cosmopolitanism at a deep level. With NAMs they consider our importing them a form of mental illness.

East Asia has over a billion high IQ citizens, and it hasn't allowed any NAM immigration. As such, they will eventually surpass us (I imagine it will be very bumpy along the way, China has a lot of baggage and we have a lot of natural advantages). By contrast, given enough time, and the West will be a fractured third world country.

One day it will be just them, and I don't think Tyler's ideology will be allowed. His values have never been their values, and the fall of the West will be like the fall of the Soviet Union. Empirical proof of the failure of the ideology. Sadly, we're all going down with it. Enjoy the cheap ethnic food.

"So where will a cosmopolitan perspective take us today?

One enormous issue is international migration. A distressingly large portion of the debate in many countries analyzes the effects of higher immigration on domestic citizens alone and seeks to restrict immigration to protect a national culture or existing economic interests. The obvious but too-often-underemphasized reality is that immigration is a significant gain for most people who move to a new country.

Michael Clemens, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development in Washington, quantified these gains in a 2011 paper, “Economics and Emigration: Trillion-Dollar Bills on the Sidewalk?” He found that unrestricted immigration could create tens of trillions of dollars in economic value, as captured by the migrants themselves in the form of higher wages in their new countries and by those who hire the migrants or consume the products of their labor. For a profession concerned with precision, it is remarkable how infrequently we economists talk about those rather large numbers.

Truly open borders might prove unworkable, especially in countries with welfare states, and kill the goose laying the proverbial golden eggs; in this regard Mr. Clemens’s analysis may require some modification. Still, we should be obsessing over how many of those trillions can actually be realized.

IN any case, there is an overriding moral issue. Imagine that it is your professional duty to report a cost-benefit analysis of liberalizing immigration policy. You wouldn’t dream of producing a study that counted “men only” or “whites only,” at least not without specific, clearly stated reasons for dividing the data.

So why report cost-benefit results only for United States citizens or residents, as is sometimes done in analyses of both international trade and migration? The nation-state is a good practical institution, but it does not provide the final moral delineation of which people count and which do not. So commentators on trade and immigration should stress the cosmopolitan perspective, knowing that the practical imperatives of the nation-state will not be underrepresented in the ensuing debate."

You will hear whites who try to live in Asia a long time talk about this. Everyones nice to you, you can make money, the women might even be interested if you have status, but you will never quite fit it. You are always “apart” in some way. The integration remains polite but superficial

I think the best response to this bold observation is... DUH!

The same was true of first-generation Germans, Italians and Irish in the US. It's their offspring that benefited the most.

See also: the parents of Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Barack Obama.

See also: the parents of Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Barack Obama.

What of their parents? Stanley Ann Dunham and Eleanor Darragh were both born in the United States. RB Cruz never had any integration problems. He was a working engineer married to an Anglo within a dozen years of arriving in this country.

What the author calls "neo-reaction" appears to be the same movement that calls itself the "alt-Right" these days, in the US at least.

This is where he loses me:
> First, white men in percentage terms have become a weaker influence in America over time, yet America still is becoming a better nation overall.

We're rapidly losing our dominance around the world both economically and militarily, while at home, the 20th century, and the 21st so far, have been a time of steady "progress" in the New Deal sense, in which the welfare state, nanny-statist laws, and the overregulation of business even to levels seen only in banana republics have been and still are increasingly the order of the day. We're overdue for revolution but none is even close to possible. How can anyone in his right mind possibly believe that America is becoming a better nation?

"Is neo-reaction a racist movement?"

I'm the only true race-ist. Ism means belief, so race-ism means belief in races and racial differences. It also means the need for racial consciousness.

Why should race-ism necessarily mean racial hatred, racial supremacism, Nazism, Holocaust, and all that crap?

Ism just means belief or creed.

You see, by coining a term like 'racist' to mean 'racial imperialism and racial terror', the dirty Left has smeared ALL rational thoughts on race.

Stuff like Nazism should be called RADICAL RACISM, not racism. One can be a rational racist or race-ist. A rational racist or race-ist looks at the all the facts and evidence. He or she concludes from those evidence and from his/her own racial interest. Suppose there is a Purple Race that is twice as bigger and stronger than the white race. A race-ist would look at the evidence that shows this to be true. And then, he or she would enact racial policies that ensure his or her own racial self-interests. Since the purple race is bigger and stronger, it would be stupid for the white race to integrate with it and get beaten up.

Japanese are not a big people. They are small and scrawny. Would it make sense for Japanese to take in 10 million big strong Nigerians? Blacks will kick Japanese men's butts and sexually conquer Japanese women and use yellow wombs to produce black babies. Why would Japanese men want to be humiliated thus?
Whites are somewhat bigger than Asians but physically no match to the stronger blacks. US has a huge problem with race because of all these strong blacks acting like thugs. That should be rational and factual evidence enough for non-black nations to NOT take in black immigrants/migrants. It would be like a community of beagles taking in lots of pitbulls. Beagles will be mauled. Look at Australia as a result of taking in blacks. Not only are blacks whupping whites but Chinese there as well. And yet, libertarian anti-racist lowlifes keep saying 'race is just a social construct'. Funny. 50 genders are not real, but race is a social construct. And don't tell me I'm racially paranoid, you dirty shits, because I grew up in a racially integrated neighborhood as a child and saw lots of racial violence, 90% of which was black on white and others. Even for children, it was well-understood that blacks kick everyone's butts.


Race-ism, because it is rooted in the fact of biology, explains so much of the world.

Why are Jews so rich and powerful and good with verbal logic and stuff? They have generally higher IQs---at least among the Ashkenazim.
This means that Jews achieve great things. But it also means that bad Jews use their smarts to exploit humanity. Like Jordan Belfort and other Jewish sleazeballs on Wall Street. And that lowlife George Soros who is out to destroy Europe.

Why are blacks so successful in sports like football and running. Because they have more fast-twitch muscles that gives them more explosive power. It could also be black brains are better wired for funky movement, rhythm, and hand-eye coordination. So, even though blacks are 14% of US population, they totally dominate many sports. And why do Nigerian immigrants succeed more in sports than immigrants from Asia? Genetics.


If blacks are better at sports, it means they got better fighting skills and more thug power. So, that explains why so much racial violence is black on white, black on Hispanic, black on Asian, black on Arab, and etc.
It could also be that blacks are naturally more aggressive, like men are generally more aggressive than women and certain breeds of dogs are more aggressive than others. It is also said that blacks got bigger whankers, and that accounts for the cuckold fetish crazy about white liberal men who invite black men to do their own women. So much for racial equality.

Now, the stuff I said... is it race-ist? Hell yeah! Races exist and races are different.

So, race + ism = belief in race and racial differences. And by acknowledging those differences, we can better understand why the world is why it is the way it is.

Jews with higher IQ will make more money and use their power to defame and hurt whites.
Blacks with bigger muscles will beat up white males who will be emasculated and lose their womenfolk to stronger blacks. We see this happening all over, and many Jews seem giddy with joy that white boys are getting beaten up and white girls are using white wombs to have black babies.

Now, I know the usual Libby dibby response: "oooooohh, that is sooooo wacist. ooooooh, that is so hateful. ooooooh, that is divisive, odious, noxious, blah blah blah."

All those nasty adjectives don't change reality.

The fact is, in terms of what Jews and white LIbs really DO as opposed to what they SAY, their actions and behavior only confirm everything I've said. They are do-racists even if they say-anti-racists.

Politicians and cucks grovel to Jews because smarter Jews got the money and the control. There is no real commitment to equality among Liberals. If Hillary is really for the underprivileged, why does she favor rich powerful Zionists over Palestinians still living under Occupation?

And look how NY Liberals support use of stop-and-frisk to control the stronger and meaner Negroes. Look how Liberals use gentrification or gentric cleansing to drive out blacks to make cities whiter, more Jewish, and more homo(who are favored over blacks now in the Libby pantheon). It is Jim Crow or Jim Crowitz by real estate. NY Jews know all the legal and economic tricks to send more blacks out of the city.

Also, Libs like immigration cuz they can use yellows and browns as buffers between themselves and blacks. And Jews like immigration cuz they can use people of color against white power and interests. Divide and rule over the diverse goy. Diversity is a Jewish Strength.
If US were 90% Jewish, no way Jews would encourage massive immigration so thatJews will become a minority in the US.

In the end, it's not about ideas. Those who fixate on ideas lose.
ideas are mere tools. Real power remains with those who stick to identity.
Ideas are important but they must serve identity, not the other way around.
Why did Jews survive for 3500 yrs? They adopted different ideologies over the many centuries, but they still stuck to their identity.

In the end, communist Jews became Jews first.
In the end, capitalist Jews became Jews first.
Deep down inside, Jews are fascists. Jews attack fascism because they know it is the source of real power. Jews practice fascism for themselves but denounce and discourage it among others.

Israel is a fascist-democracy. It is a democracy but founded on principles of blood and soil and history and identity and culture. Fascist democracy is a National Democracy. Leaders are elected by the people to serve the people of the nation. Jews love this arrangement for themselves.

Some Liberal Jews bitch that Israel was founded as a liberal democracy but has been lurching to the 'right' under Netanyahu. This is utter BS. Israel was founded as a fascist democracy that emphasized blood and soil from day one. The founders were not liberal socialists but national socialists.

But Jews don't want fascist or national democracies in gentile Europe. They don't want European leaders to identify with and represent their own people.
They want European nations to be 'liberal democracies' where all notions of blood-and-soil are reviled, where a Nigerian can be a 'German', 'Frenchman', or 'Englishman'. Or where white British ignore their girls getting raped by Pakistani men in Rotherham because they are sooooooo afraid of be called racist-wacist.

In a liberal democracy, you don't have national leaders who listen to and represent the people of the nation. Instead, you have bloodless technocratic elites who favor globalism over their own people. (Since Jews control globalism, they are all cuck puppets of Jewish Globalism.)
So, that horrible harridan Angela Merkel ignores her own people and plays Mother Compassion to win plaudits from the likes of Soros and NYT.

Now, you Libby-dibby shits will say 'blood and soil' is bad cuz it led to Nazism.

No, you turd-brain morons!!! The problem of Nazism was it violated the rights of blood-and-soil of OTHER nations. If Germans wanted blood-and-soil politics in Germany, fine. No problem.
But Germans violated the blood-and-soil rights of Poles and Russians. That is why Nazism ended up committing great horrors and killing millions.

Today, that Merkel is acting like bad Germans of Nazi era again. Not only has she violated the right of blood and soil in Germany, her own country, but she is demanding that OTHER nations follow the German path of self-destruction. It's not enough to destroy her own nation. She orders other European nations to join in the white suicide. The crazy bitch is worse than Jim Jones. I mean if Jim Jones wanted to kill himself, that's one thing. But why did he have to force others to join him?
This Merkel bitch isn't content to destroy her own nation. She is telling Hungary and Poland to take in these 'refugees' too(most of whom are just migrants looking for free stuff and white women).

What also kills me is that no one mentions why those Arab/Muslim peoples have been displaced in the first place. It is because Jews control the foreign policy of the US, and US has been waging Wars for Israel. It destroyed Iraq, Libya, and sent arms to terrorists in Syria. Jews see Shia power as a threat, so they even work with Sunni extremists to turn the MIddle East into one big hellhole.

Jews need to face the moral responsibility of what they've done in the Middle East and North Africa. But they've shifted the moral burden to Europeans and even Japanese by saying, "Why don't you have a heart and do something about the refugee problem?"

This explains why so-called 'antisemitism' was so rife among gentiles. Jews act rotten. They ruin entire nations and feel zero conscience.
Worse, they accuse OTHER nations(that had nothing to do with the mess in the Middle East) to take care of the problems. Hungary and Japan didn't mess up the Middle East. Jewish-dominated foreign policy did. But instead of admitting what they've done and atoning, Jews act like they're the greatest humanitarians and denounce Hungary for not taking in all these Muslims and Africans.

What a loathsome people.

Yeah, I'm the only true fascist too cuz I'm honest.

Whites are somewhat bigger than Asians but physically no match to the stronger blacks.

Exactly, this is why small numbers of blacks were able to physically enslave larger numbers of whites for centuries. Uh, wait a second...

Most offensive linemen in football - the position that requires the most brute physical strength, as opposed to speed and dexterity, are white.

The current heavyweight boxing champion of the world is white, as are 3 of the next top 10 (and one of the "non-whites" is Mexican).

If you are going to stereotype, at least use sterotypes that have a faint ring of plausiblity.

Oh, so slavery is brought about by the relative physical strength of slaveholder versus slave?

You also completely fail on the football analysis. Offensive line isn't a "brute force" situation (set aside your fantastically wrong comment about dexterity). Where do you imagine the guys with the highest average Wonderlics are positioned on the field?


The highest score by position on that

The highest score by position on that list is offensive tackle.

That's the point.

Are you a Wahoo, Mr Galt?

What point? Yes, strong white people also have higher IQs. How is that surprising? If you think offensive lineman are the most dexterous players on the field you have never played football at a high school or college level. As a rule coaches put strong slow white kids on the line, and the faster black kids get put in the offensive or defensive backfield. A top NFL offensive lineman has more dexterity and speed than you, because he is an amazing well-conditioned athlete, but he generally won't have the coordination and speed of a top defensive lineman.

Plantation slavery began in an era where at least the appearance of physical strength was often needed to control and intimidate slaves. Obviously whips, clubs, guns and dogs help, but white slavers often used brute force to keep Africans in line. And to wield a club or whip effectively requires some strength. There is just no evidence for Letania's claim that "whites are physically no match for stronger blacks."

I think Christianity and reason are sufficient to guide society in securing individual rights, freedom and rule of law. I guess this is faith-ism.

Look. In. The. Mirror.

Says his biggest fan as measured by hours spent on his website.

Tyler you might want to actually research before you pontificate, African slavery existed among the Arabs for seven centuries before the Europeans got involved, and it was the Europeans who later actually chose to destroy the institution that existed virtually everywhere on Earth since the Neolithic, not any other culture, to the point of using the most powerful maritime force in the world, the British Royal Navy to eradicate it. If it wasn't for Europeans, slavery would likely still be widespread, so your statement is pretty much the opposite of reality. There were also plenty of African states or proto-states who built their entire economies around it, such as the Ashanti or the Dahomey.Contrary to pop culture, ravenous European slave traders did not set foot on African soil and capture African lambs in paradise for slave ships, they were captured by fellow Africans and sold to Arab slavers or later European ones.

Arabs also raided European towns for slaves for centuries, capturing between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans, some even as far away as the British Isles and Iceland. You also apparently don't realize that 80 percent black South Africa has the highest rate of rape in the world, and that South African women are more likely to be raped than complete secondary education. I'm guessing that isn't true of white women in South Africa, so who would you imagine makes up the vast majority of those committing the crimes and the victims of said crimes? Additionally the most dangerous countries in the world for women to visit ( for fear of rape or murder ) are not in Western Europe, North America north of the Rio Grande or the Commonwealth Antipodes, they are generally Middle Eastern, Latin American and African. So your assertion that slavery and rape are somehow uniquely European male oriented is pretty ridiculous, where would a woman be safer: New Zealand or Nigeria? Switzerland or South Africa? Austin or Detroit? Trying sticking to actual facts, Tyler, not some Hollywood distortion of reality.

Roman slavery, whatever its evils, was not racially based. With sufficient bad luck pretty much anyone could end up a slave in Rome.

+1 He's just towing the standard prog line that "evil white patriarchs" are the cause of the world's woes and especially Amerikkkas.

I think the liberals' last, best shot is Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (2011).

If science says the world is getting better, then science is just liberal and can't be trusted.

Taleb destroyed Pinker recently.

Weak. And Ross Douthat? Really?

Wow, Tyler, way to take a serious hit to your personal credibility:

"Second, some of America’s worst traits, such as the obsession with guns, the excess militarism, or the tendency toward drunkenness, not to mention rape and the history of slavery, seem to come largely from white men."

"obsession with guns"? You mean the Left's obsessive desire to disarm the American people, and turn us all into serfs dependent upon the gov't, rather than free individuals capable of protecting ourselves?

"excess militarism"? You mean that whole "world policeman" thing that you praise further on? You mean being the nation that stopped the Nazis, stopped the Communists, and imposed a stable world order that did not turn all other countries into our dependents (compare NATO to the Warsaw Pact)?

"rape"? Shall we go to the criminal reports and compare the % chance of a "white male" committing rape in the US, compared to the % chance of a "black male" or "hispanic male"? See, for example, here: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/43tabledatadecoverviewpdf
Also Table 40 of http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus0702.pdf Blacks definitely have a higher rape rate than whites.

"the history of slavery"? Are you an ignoramus, or a liar? Every single "racial" group in the world has had slavery. Contra "Roots", the way white slavers got slaves from Africa is that the local blacks enslaved their neighbors and then sold them to the whites.
The only significant action of "white males" WRT slavery is that they're the ones who led the fight to rid the world of it. See Wilberforce.

"First, white men in percentage terms have become a weaker influence in America over time, yet America still is becoming a better nation overall."

"Better nation"? Income inequality, student loans, the destruction of "liberal" education and its replacement with the totalitarian Universities we have now, the complete destruction of the rule of law (see: IRS v. Tea Parties, and the flagrant destruction of gov't records by IRS agents, Hillary Clinton's FOIA beating private email server, and the aid and comfort she gave to America's enemies and their espionage v. the US, see Obama Admin and ObamaCare, Obama Admin and immigration, Obama Justice Department lawyers lying to the court, ...), America's weakness and irrelevance in the world (oh wait, that's right, like President Obama you also object to the US being powerful).

Then there's the massive Federal Gov't and State Gov't imposed racism (I believe they call it "Affirmative Action"), and the utterly corrupt, dishonest, and one sided MSM "press", 90%+ of whom are merely Democrat Party operatives with bylines, not actual reporters.

"Third, it seems highly unlikely that “white men” is in fact the best way of disambiguating the dominant interest groups that have helped make the West so successful."

Tell that to the Stanford Students who reject making "Western Civilization" the core of their education, because "it's all about white males."

"Fourth, America is global policeman and also the center of world innovation, so it cannot afford the luxury of a declining population, and thus we must find a way to make immigration work"

Ask the Germans and French how well importing a bunch of people who don't share your culture, and don't assimilate to your culture, works for extending and increasing your nation's power.

Besides, you can either whine about "excess militarism", or you can rejoice in being "global policeman", but you can't have both.

Tyler's post must be read through the Straussian lens. For an easier exercise in this kind of reading, see Scott Adams' recent blog post:


Mr. Cohen, you clearly failed to conduct thorough research as to what is neoreactionary thought. Check out Mark Citadel and jim's blog, for starters. Then read up on Moldberg, followed up by the authors at Social Matters. Read their diatribes. Notice patterns and trends. After three months of intensive studying, one can accurately denote what is and what is not neoreactionary thought.

Over 400 comments, very impressive clickbait. My click was baited.

Obligatory, yet somewhat regrettable tl:dr comment to follow:

Jump. The. Shark.

His description of "Neo-Reaction" I cannot speak to, because "Neo-Reaction" is not a thing, outside a few blogs. The "Alt-Right" and the Populist, Anti-Establishment Right Movement are things to some extent, though. Big cultural things. So, with this in mind, why speak to "Neo-Reaction"?

I feel this is a desire of his to put "The Brutes" into an ideological corner that can ossify a coalition against them. But unfortunately for that, "Neo-Reaction" is still not actually a thing, and still less the thing.

(Although, taking seriously his discussion of "Neo Reaction" with more merit than it deserves, with the few "Neo-Reaction" blogs that do exist, ask yourself whether they consider what you would call "puking" to be actually tarnishing the West, since they often glorify the things you hate. They're proud of their form of hierarchies.

Another, consider also whether these Neo-Reactionaries seek there to glorify their ancestors, or as a corrective to the glorification of "Al Andulus". By which I mean, by "Al Andalus" in shorthand, not so much the place as the concept, the narrative, of an alternative and ahistorical ideal and tradition of modern civilization that didn't never need no stinkin' White men, and one that smooths over the profound and deep anti-modernity in culture outside the West. A nice little mythology for those committed to modernity, yet troubled that their ancestors had very little stake in it, and championed ideals of civilization directly opposite to it.)

No, the Populist movement that is coming, and which is distinctly not "Neo-Reaction", is not a movement for hierarchy, and kings, and patriarchs. That's not what it is. Yes, they are against a specific hierarchy in which it happens women, and foreigners, have become more powerful than they ever have previously in the West (or world). That does not make the Populists a movement to institute a patriarchy. The Populist movement has not the slightest interest in instituting a patriarchy.

Moving on to his indictment of the supposed cultural legacies of White males - rape, guns and drinking. Well, what to say other than it's pretty much out of the stock racist caricature of the White patriarch, long promulgated by those various Liberal Arts types who continually insist him to be the originator of these behaviours, blind to their pan-human historical extent. They're pan-human trends, not products of the West, and to the extent they are more frequent for Americans (and for rape, that's very questionable), they arise from a stew of unnecessary drug prohibitionism, the rights to bear arms, and an unusually large criminal underclass for a First World nation (and there's a reason America has that which just ain't White men).

(Aside, is the alcoholism reference there to pander to Moslems? Or the East Asians who still drink a lot, but less with as much liver cirrhosis as Europeans as they don't metabolise well?).

His condemnation of militarism with one side of the mouth, and of talking up the "global policeman" against isolationism with the other, bizarre.

Furthermore, he seems to believe in some kind of Core-Periphery World Systems economic distinction, in which America is the "Core" and engine of world growth. Very strange and Marxist again. The world needs not a core, an apex of economic innovation to thrive.

Further, as stated, there is nothing contradictory in the concept that a culture can be declining from what it could be, while getting richer. To take an example he may understand, economic growth has happened, therefore further reform is unnecessary and new trends in law away from extant concepts are never concerning. WTF Cowan?

Tyler, you have struggled mightily tell an intellectually respectful story consistent with the roots of Trumpism and its kin. I do not think you have succeeded. Regardless, even if you had succeeded, your story would only have paralleled the story of current right-wing populism. It is driven by racism, and it's a moral and intellectual crime to soften that characterization.

It's a moral and intellectual crime to say that populism is wrong.

It's not clear that that would be wrong, but I didn't address populism. What animates Trump and his core supporters is clearly racism. That may or may not be necessary to populism. Regardless, there are many strains of populism that bear little resemblance to what Trump, the Le Pens, and UKIP spew.

Actually, the opposition to Trump is largely a racist phenomenon. The policies that generate support for Trump are all anti-racist in nature; they all propose to stop racial aggression. Obviously, if "racist" is to have a pejorative meaning, then self-defense can't be racist, and racial aggression must be.

What animates us is being accused of racism for existing. Is it ok to pick up a book on a college campus if you can't understand it and throw it at your political opponent? Is there any possible way for me to prove that I am not racist? The civil rights leaders are more opposed to intelligence testing than they are against racism. I didn't know that I had native american blood in me until recently. If the only thing employees were interested in was race they would test your blood not your iq.

So, John, how do you describe "Affirmative Action"? Is it "racism"?

What do you think of people who define "diversity" based on skin color, rather than based on differences of opinion, or background (Christian v Muslim v Atheist)?

In short, how do you define the word "racism"?

If you're asking if I'm one of those people who believes blacks can't be racist against whites, or example, I am not. I stand on affirmative action approximately where Stuart Taylor does. What drives Trump, Le Pen, UKIP etc. is not something subtle. It's a pretty direct, brutal hatred/resentment of people who don't look like you or have the same surface cultural traditions you do (such as dress, modes of speech, etc. -- that is to say, behaviors that differ in morally irrelevant ways). It's rather mid-boggling when Trump or his supporters refer to someone as a "hater". As far as that term has any meaning -- though it is poorly-defined at best -- I take it to mean irrationally prejudiced. So it's like hearing Bull Connor complain that demonstrators hate him; they might, but they are not the aggressors.

I favor fairness, which may or may not result in diversity of either kind. Both definitions are correct, but of moral relevance only on rare occasions.

"I stand on affirmative action approximately where Stuart Taylor does."

What does that mean?

"What drives Trump, Le Pen, UKIP etc. is not something subtle. It’s a pretty direct, brutal hatred/resentment of people who don’t look like you or have the same surface cultural traditions you do"

So, you're saying they're Leftists who don't hate whites and don't hate Western Civilization. Right?

Article about the attack on the San Jose Trump rally: http://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/03/angry-leftist-mob-physically-attack-trump-supporters-outside-california-rally/ See if you can find the "hate" there.

Have you read http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ ? because if you seriously think the "blue tribe", be it the US, French, or UK versions, doesn't hate the local "red tribe" you're just not paying attention.

Hint: you don't violently attack people for attending a rally unless you're full of hate. You don't excuse those violent attacks, or look away and pretend they didn't happen, unless you're full of hate.

And if you're an honest and decent human being, you don't bag on Trump for saying "that judge ruled against me because he's Hispanic" unless you also bag on Sotomayor for saying "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." Which is to say, you're clearly aware that Trump's "racism" is simply run of the mill Democrat party ideology, aimed at different targets.

So if Trump is wrong, and his views are evil (and I think both those things are true), the exact same thing can and should be said about the Democrat Party in the US, and the Left everywhere in the world.

Threatening people on college campuses is ok if the protestor thinks the speaker is racist. If you can't do college level work pick up the book and throw it at your political opponents. Keep the definition of racism purposefully vague so that no one can possibly prove they are not racist. Dumb down the curriculum in the academy to accomodate nonpaying customers. Reward dysgenic fertility. Use the banking system to assault savers.

The illegitimacy rate in the African American community is 70 percent. 80 percent of the criminals in this country come from single parent households. Personal safety is very important. I have been threatened so many times by blacks and Latinos remember if you can't pass a standardized test then throw it at your political opponent.

It's always funny when Liberals pull the old "we'll use these people as our guide!" then pull out an extensive list of past thinkers, knowing full well the majority would in fact condemn Liberalism as it stands today. Ever Martin Luther King would have found trannies disgusting. Basically, Liberalism engages in a kind of partial retroactive piracy to inform its ever-changing ideology, rather than coming up with something solid that has an intellectual foundation. So, Liberals appealed to Christ 100 years ago, but appealed to Him in a completely different way 50 years later. One thing that can certainly be said about the bankrupt ideologies that pervade the left, they are far from consistent in anything.

I can appeal to Christ authentically, because the values I espouse do not deviate significantly from those who followed Him directly after His Resurrection, nor do they deviate from centuries of Church doctrinal position on His essence and teaching. The problem that Libtards face today is that because of their zealous holiness signalling, people are becoming less afraid to espouse extremist ideas.Trump has only opened the lid of pandora's box wider. You call anyone racist who says that blacks don't deserve affirmative action, so if we say that we cannot coexist with them, what are you going to come back with? DOUBLE RACIST!

Are we a majority? No. Not even close, but as history shows, you don't need to be.

Comments for this post are closed