Two Houses, both alike in dignity…

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

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Two Houses, both alike in dignity…

  1. mindweapon 12/25/2013 / 11:42 AM

    I was meant to be a professor, a Brahmin, but have had to become a Vaisya because that’s where the fight is. A lot of WN’s were meant to be profs but could not get in there, and end up disappointed. I try to tell them to humble themselves and become Vaisyas because that is how they wage war, but most do not like my bitter advice at their younger age. It took me through my 30’s to reconcile myself to money grubbing. But money grubbing is the right thing to do at this time in history; it is how we must wage war, before we can advance to higher levels of conflict. It is the necessary humiliation and drudge we must endure, in order to get to a higher level in the game.

  2. Alan J. Perrick 12/27/2013 / 1:23 PM

    It seems that there is a “Vaisya vs. Brahmin” dynamic in the traditionalist movement, as well as in the establishment. That is to say, each group – the traditionalists as well as the establishment – has its own “Vaisyas” and “Brahmins”.

    For traditionalists, the 2nd amendment enthusiasts (materialists) are the “Vaisyas” and the pro-whites (intellectualists and spiritualists) are the “Brahmins”.

    Yes, there are conflicts between materialist and spiritualist priorities, but the larger scale conflict based on the difference between traditionalism and establishment is so pronounced that they should be considered as different realms altogether.

    Throne and altar. Military and Church, the 2nd and 1st estates. That’s what it is about… And, it’s not to say that pro-whitism is the only thing that is required for spiritual soundness, obviously Christianity is the practice that builds spirtual strength and character… But, anti-white Christianity is illegitimate Christianity, ie. Christians are not supposed to be sociopaths who do not care if an entire people is wiped out, so pro-whitism is the requirement at the minimum.

    A.J.P.

  3. Bar 12/28/2013 / 1:03 PM

    Natural aristocrat traits, seem to me, to be mostly nurture based. Except for intelligence, is there any evidence the other traits are significantly heritable?

    • Alan J. Perrick 12/28/2013 / 6:26 PM

      “Bar”

      That point you are making has especial merit, due to the fact that “natural aristocratic traits” are hardly cultivated anymore. If a small effort was made that person is likely already head-and-shoulders above those who would not cultivate at all, though perhaps they would naturally have been more inclined to said trait.

      But, why did you use “natural” in “natural aristocrat traits” when you are saying that they are nurture-based? That is a bit clumsy seeing how nature is the opposite of nurture in the “nature vs. nurture” argument… Can’t all be perfect all the time though, can we?

      Best regards,

      A.J.P.

      • Legionnaire 12/28/2013 / 8:16 PM

        I’ll hop on that grammatical quibble by pointing out that “natural” was modifying “aristocrat”, not traits. The meaning of that phrase was “Traits of a Natural Aristocrat”.
        https://iamlegionnaire.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/an-examination-of-the-natural-aristocracy/

        Bar,
        The First Law of Genetics is that all traits are heritable:
        http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/all-human-behavioral-traits-are-heritable/
        Greg Cochran points out the the heritability of IQ is roughly 50%:
        http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/the-breeders-equation/

        If we assume all other traits are equally as heritable as IQ, we have a tentative assumption that all traits are 50% heritable. I’d personally like to see more relevant data on the matter but I’m willing to work with this presumption in lieu of more sufficient knowledge of the matter.

        The most important thing, of course, is cultivating the potential one does have. That alone will get you farther than most.

        • Bar 12/29/2013 / 10:05 AM


          If we assume all other traits are equally as heritable as IQ, we have a tentative assumption that all traits are 50% heritable.

          There’s some studies on the subject mentioned in the first link of your reply. They do seem to support the notion that say, big five personality traits are quite heritable (~50%).

          The qualities of natural aristocracy – are those heritable? For example, ambition or industriousness? I’d say those are crucial components of said category.

          There are examples in history of people born to say, self-made men or such who didn’t do that well for themselves in life. Some of that might be due to such men marrying pretty but not very sharp women.

        • Legionnaire 12/29/2013 / 5:39 PM

          I believe that most (if not all) human traits are roughly 50% heritable, and that this applies to those traits I consider indicative of the Natural Aristocracy.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s