• I’m disappointed in the neoreactionaries

    Following the kerfuffle of my Anti-Racialist Q & A, I was waiting for a fierce response.  After all, these guys dig through vast amounts of arcane literature, write long essays and pride themselves on being afraid of nothing.  So, I confess I was a bit nervous and was waiting for a big, serious argument: deep criticism, hard arguments about points, the stink of cordite in the air…  Something to really cut my teeth on.

    Instead, well, see for yourself:

    Geez.  It’s like almost like talking to PZ Myers.

    Seriously, that’s it?  That’s the full extent of your arsenal?

    To be fair, there seem to be some neoreactionaries, ones that incline to more of the transhumanist/monarchist axis who seem to have the stones for a serious argument & some of them seem to be preparing such (I am thinking of More Right and Outside In at the moment; I suspect John Derbyshire, who is a talented writer, could probably give a bit more ginger).

    But for the rest of these chaps, it seems like neoreactionary racialists think they’re like this:




    Whereas they’re really a bit more like this:



    I mean, seriously.  Guys, I have read Julius Evola, you know.  When he describes how a scared law is imposed by a Mannerbund onto the formless chaos of human relations (examples being the Spartans, the Knights Teutonic who founded Prussia etc.), when he writes:

    [Nations] establishment occurred through conquests and aggregative and formative processes that presuppose the continuity of a power, of a principle of sovereignty and of authority, as well as the bond of a group of men sharing the same idea and loyalty, pursuing the same goal, and obeying the same inner law reflected in a specific political and social ideal. Such is the generating principle and the basis of every great nation.

    How does that not apply to the ANC or the CNDP?

    Hello?  Anyone?

    That said, while I am disappointed in the neoreactionaries, my contempt for the liberal mainstream has been deepened immeasurably.  Seriously, you guys are being cut up and humiliated by this?

    I do have a bit of compassion for the racialists though.  After all, we live in society where all sorts of racialist bilge is fine as long as it’s on the left, where a filmmaker can defend fascist murders of all stripes and promulgate wild financial conspiracy theories, and be embraced and praised up and down the Western world, where an academic shilling for the Khmer Rouge and Slobodan Milosevic is feted with every honour, and where a spokeswoman for the President of the United States can praise the greatest mass murder of the twentieth century

    Well, with all of that, it’s not unreasonable for them to conclude, why not go in for a defence of slavery, an attack on democracy, a little light Hitler apologia?  Why is it that this particular strain of murderous nonsense doesn’t get a pass when all the others do?

    And they’re right about that.  That’s something the mainstream  cannot answer.

    Unfortunately for them, they weren’t just dealing with the mainstream.  They ran into me.


    Category: Life and ReasonRace and racism

    Article by: The Prussian

    4 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

    • Steve Johnson

      You didn’t get a rebuttal from NR because you didn’t put up a minimally interesting or persuasive case.

      Literally everything you wrote has been argued before – and found obviously wanting.

    • Steve Johnson


      “There is a sound genetic basis for a Caucasian race, certainly, but if we look at the definition of the five main races, the five branches of our species we find the following:

      – Caucasians are people of western Eurasia – Europeans, Middle Easterners, North Africans and those of the Indian subcontinent

      What did I just say about there being no genetic basic for ‘white’ as a classification? ”

      Is just pathetic.

      If you break up humans into 5 branches and one of those branches entirely contains whites in addition to containing Middle Easterners, North Africans and subcontinental Indians that doesn’t mean that whites aren’t a distinct population. Same reasoning:

      “If you break the visible spectrum into 3 colors you get:


      Therefore all that talk about “violet” is just nonsense.”

      Don’t break the visible spectrum into 3 colors unless you have a good reason to. Don’t use a breakdown of the human race done for one purpose and declare it the Platonic essence of human classification.

      If you want to meaningfully discuss world history, you have to break whites out from the larger group – and genetic relatedness shows that the whites furthest from one another are still much closer than whites are to non-white Caucasians.

      If you want to meaningfully discuss European history then the differences between Germans and Englishmen and Italians and Frenchmen become important.

      • ThePrussian

        What’s pathetic here – “differences between Germans […] and Frenchmen” Except the French are ancestrally German – the Franks.

        Sure, you can subdivide, and that gets you exactly nowhere because the “non-white” Caucasians were far more advanced than the whites at the dawn. The classification I use is based on the big divides that have separated peoples for long enough for there to be some serious evolution – the tens of thousands of years the racialists keep talking about.

    • anew

      The Right Stuff has posted a response.

      If you think that your essay was some grand definitive new word on the science of racial intelligence differences, you’re mistaken. The science section read the same way as do all “serious” critiques of racialism—plausible deniability buttressed by ad hoc alternative explanations. That makes your critique better than most, but hardly original, and definitely not a knock-out blow to hereditarianism.

      If you want to argue against white nationalism, I suggest you stick to a subjective values argument, stressing the relative merits of Libertarianism and Western culture. It may not seem as satisfying as “proving” your point, but the science just doesn’t line-up for you, and that’s where the action is anyways. For me, as it is for most other white nationalists, the psychological racial differences are just gravy; genetic perpetuation, the state as an extended family is the main motivation.

      By the way, if you’re trying to demonstrate that blacks are not more violent and less intelligent than whites, low corruption in Botswana and Africans in Britain “doing well,” is not going to accomplish this. What are the i.q.s and violent crime rates of those peoples? Yes, there is a correlation between intelligence and corruption, but there is also a correlation between height and intelligence, and yet we don’t think that African-Americans are smarter than the Chinese because they are taller.

      • ThePrussian

        Yes, I’ve noticed TRS response – I’ll be dealing with that shortly, and rest assured, I’ll deal with that last paragraph of yours first off.

        Nice of you to admit that it’s not about the science for you. :-) I know that – the science really doesn’t support your politics. But I haven’t heard even a squeak of response to the political arguments I made. If my case is so flawed – why do your NRx types find it so difficult to respond?

        • anew

          “I know you are, but what am I?” the Prussian explains.

          • ThePrussian

            “For me, as it is for most other white nationalists, the psychological racial differences are just gravy; genetic perpetuation, the state as an extended family is the main motivation.” – You

            • anew

              In my first post I say that the science does not line-up for you—thus you argue backwards with a string of ad hocs; you respond by saying that the science doesn’t support my politics. That’s what I was referencing in my second post. “The science,” of course, strictly speaking, doesn’t support anyone’s politics, but we can leave that to the side (if your linking to Sam Harris is sign of your approval of his work, this will probably go over your head).

              Your politics section seems to presuppose the desiriability of Libertarianism. What am I supposed to do with that? Well, I counter by arguing the desiriability of ethnonationalism. That the state should not simply be a referee in the personal affairs of its citizens, but should be the political expression of the citizen writ large, and the means through which he perpetuates himself in the form of a community.

              How do you respond to this? Like a sleazy political spin-master. ‘Aha! So your program is not just based on blacks being dumb. You are admitting that your position is not scientific!” Of course, the gravy of psychological racial differences is not nothing. Genetic similarity is enough, but the psychological similarity, and thus, all else being equal, the similarity of values among the ethny, is a nice bonus that the ethnonationalist state has going for it.

              On blacks being (relatively) dumb though, the scientific results are in: IQ in Africa-in the 70s; in Britain-the high 80s, low 90s; and in US where it has been studied to death-the mid 80s. And their real world performance never contradicts these findings. I know this is hard for a lot of liberals to swallow, but don’t worry about them; they’ll be fine. They’ve got other things going for them, some of which are in part the result of their relatively low group intelligence, music being the most obvious, but also perhaps literature. And they seem to be perpetuating themselves just fine.

    • Pingback: A few final words on racialism | The Prussian()

    • Pingback: Reason over radish | The Prussian()

    • Pingback: Leaving the circle | The Prussian()

    • Pingback: Doug Saunders is telling porkies • The Prussian()