Greg Cochran, one of the authors of the book The 10,000 Year Explosion, has helped finish the rough draft of a paper analyzing gene flow in meritocracy. The basic gist of it is that within a few generations, the inequality between the people on top of society and the people on bottom won’t just be on the level of financial resources, but genetic potential, as the high-status with good genes will seek to mate with other high-status people of good genes. Basically, even in a pure meritocracy, it’s only a matter of time before a genetic elite arises.
Here at The Legionnaire, of course, we do not fear aristocracy, we embrace it. We even have a name for this genetic elite: The Natural Aristocracy, and we think they, and not democratically elected officials, should govern.
In the great traditional societies of old, the aristocracy was usually a distinct class of its own, officially recognized as such by societal norms. Nowadays, the norms are a bit fuzzier. Sure, we have our own caste system, complete with Brahmins, but the connection between modern Brahmins and a true (read: functional) aristocracy is a bit tenuous.
My personal observation is that a certain aristocracy arises among every caste, consisting of their best and brightest, as well as those that most exemplify the traits that each caste most praises. Case in point, Vaisyas, though not considered the “elite” class, certainly have their own aristocracy. Historically, this Aristocracy has been represented by figures exemplifying the archetype of the “Southern Gentleman”. Think of such noble individuals as Robert E. Lee. Nowadays, it is harder to find such exemplary figures, though those individuals who are moral, upstanding citizens who give back to their communities and are widely revered can be thought of as a certain Vaisya aristocracy.
The Brahmins have their aristocracy as well, though it’s not a very homogenous group. It’s a grab-bag of high-level politicians (even the Republicans, supposedly representative of Vaisya interest, consist almost entirely of Brahmins who are just a bit less left than their contemporaries), certain celebrities, and others with enough cult of personality to be revered out of proportion to accomplishment (think Neil DeGrasse Tyson, or Jennifer Lawrence). These are the Brahmin elite, the ones who are revered as an aristocracy of sorts by your typical Brahmin individual.
The modern Brahmin elite make for a pretty poor aristocracy though. There’s no sense of deep tradition to uphold, nor a sense of responsibility for the greater welfare the longevity and prosperity of society. Noblesse Oblige has been replaced by voting Democrat. Duty, Responsibility, Tradition? Nonsense, let’s have gay marriage! It’s enough to drive any Traditionalist to revolt against the modern world.
At this point, one might ask the question of whether Reaction has an aristocracy. Given how Reaction is a loosely-connected movement instead of a society, in a technical sense, we cannot have an aristocracy. Still, we clearly have individuals who are looked up to and viewed as figures of leadership. Often times, these individuals could be categorized as Neoreactionary in classification. Might we expand this to the neoreactionaries in general, the intellectual and abstract fonts of Reaction who often serve as figureheads when The Dark Enlightenment is represented in mainstream media?
I’m not so certain. Do I consider many neoreactionaries to be aristocratic? Absolutely. Yet I am unwilling to call the neoreactionaries the Aristocracy of the Reaction. There might be some correlation with aristocratic traits, but Reaction in general as not been around long enough to sort itself into different strata. Though different styles of Reaction are emerging, different social strata are not…
Here’s the thing, Neoreaction especially boils down to two demographics: Upper Vaisyas fighting to defend their history and culture (more than they may realize), and disgruntled Brahmins who realize the current system is a terrible mess, paralleling Rome before the fall. We’re not an Aristocracy in any real sense, and only a few of us are considered truly influential in regard to Reaction as a whole.
An Aristocracy can only truly exist in an established society. Until that happens (if it happens), all we’ve got are people who are more or less popular than each other. Given that the structure of the internet is more conducive to populist structures than hierarchical ones, no internet movement can truly be hierarchical, especially not in the fashion that we reactionaries so desire. So no, Reaction does not have an aristocracy.
This isn’t the important detail I really want to point out though. What I want to emphasize here is something a little more subtle, but far more important. Neoreaction is Vaisyas and Brahmins working together. This is an alliance of which the symptoms have been noted before, but this underlying fact has (to my knowledge) never been explicitly and bluntly stated as such.
Think about that. When was the last time that these two castes really came together? As Theden is so fond of pointing out, Brahmins and Vaisyas are almost always at odds, on opposite sides of any and all culture wars that take place in American society. On social, economic, and foreign policy issues, among others, they almost always find themselves on opposite sides of the aisle. For members of each class to find themselves working together means that something dramatic must be happening indeed.
This time of year gives us a lot to celebrate, even in this world that gives us much reason to despair. This Christmas, let’s also take a moment to celebrate the coming together of Brahmins and Vaisyas in reaction, the two American classes that have historically been in perpetual conflict. Peace on earth and good will to men indeed.
Merry Christmas, reactionaries of the world.
DONA NOBIS PACEM