Neoreaction and libertarianism

The great flaw in libertarianism is egalitarianism. People are unequal, groups are unequal, reproductive roles are unequal.

Superior people need to rule inferior people or else inferior people will cause problems for each other and for their betters. Superior people need to be more free. Inferior people cannot handle freedom, need supervision, discipline, and control. Inferior people need to be substantially less free.

Equality worked by consuming the social capital created by inequality. Now, however, with tax consumers (single mums, government employees, quasi government employees such as human resources, and people on welfare) outnumbering and outvoting tax producers, we have finally run out of social capital. Increasingly, young white males do not, cannot, aspire to have wives and children, because doing so will likely result in the state taking his children away, nor to save for retirement, for the grasshoppers will devour what the ants put aside. For people to have a reason to save and invest, those who save and invest must have superior political power to those who do not. Children need fathers. For children to have fathers, fathers must have authority over their families. For the economy to function, property must be secure. For property to be secure, those who have property must have political power over those that do not.

30 Responses to “Neoreaction and libertarianism”

  1. chauffeur perth

    Neoreaction and libertarianism « Jim?s Blog

  2. Seeing yourr home is your health often in addition to really being aloof makes your partner interested in regards to what is definitely being carried out.

  3. VXXC says:

    Buck up Gentlemen.

    It’s not time to Surrender. I know you’ve got your bags packed for it, but War has a way of constantly surprising you [it’s a war].

  4. M says:

    This is a very fine summation of the case against libertarianism. I went through a libertarian phase years ago and lost interest when I realized it does not take into account racial and gender differences that matter. Your summary is right though.

    What do we do? Well I think the straightforward answer is that white men are going to have to up their game. Jews were persecuted for centuries in Europe and one of the results was that jews upped their game. They became very good at understanding money and power and at running things from behind the scenes. I think it behooves white men to individually learn how to gain more money and power in our personal and ccareer lives without making ourselves vulnerable to the government, parasitic “diverse” races, or grasping women.

    The greatest thing that white men have going is that we are the ones who created Western civilization and without us it simply crumbles. Can you imagine mestizos, blacks, and white women trying to maintain what white men built? So we need to find ways individually to remove our financial support for this abomination of a system while at the same time growing our wealth. We’re the new “jews” of this evolving system – a despised and envied minority who are blamed for all of the problems in society.

    At a certain point we will have a critical mass of white men on our side. It will evolve in that direction in ways we can’t forsee yet. And then we awakened white men will take our society back. And it really is OUR society – not non-whites’ and not womens’.

    • VXXC says:

      The problem with that plan is 1) What you suggest aren’t our strong suits. War and general ass kicking, building things or breaking them professionally IS.

      2) So what you are suggesting is we finish things for our enemies and stop being white – we can start being JOOISH. I don’t think we’ll succeed at out-Jewing Jews and what’s the point? BTW whatever their game is it far pre-dates Europe, the mode you refer to was adopted under the Romans at the latest. Really Babylon. Oh – and they actually don’t run things. They can’t [and I’m not a hater]. Here they have been allowed to try their hands and mean well or ill DISASTER!!

      3) we’re not actually a minority. 70% is not a minority. Stop trying to surrender in such a hurry – are you sure you’re not a Leftist? Euro?

  5. Anonymous says:

    “Those with property must have political power over those who do not”

    Indeed they do. The reactionary utopia you envision is already here, sorry you don’t have enough property to qualify. Everybody thinks come the reaction they’ll be an aristocrat. Well it already happened, and you aren’t. You’re a peasant.

    • Faust says:

      “Well it already happened”

      When was this?

      • nydwracu says:

        Two words: money primary.

        Aristocrat/plebe, or even aristocrat/suit/merchant/kulak/peasant (a more accurate description of what we have now, as far as I can tell), sucks compared to citizen/metic. The aristocrats have to keep the suits from eating their business and keep the three lower classes buying as much as possible; the suits and merchants want to use the peasants to genocide the kulaks; the merchants have to keep the suits from blowing up civilization or the aristocrats from milking it dry, but the suits and merchants are precisely who pays their bills; the kulaks have to try to survive when the aristocrats want them zombified and everyone else wants them wiped out; and the peasants are shipped in by the truckload on the aristocrats’ orders to work for the merchants for a pittance, undermining merchant and kulak culture and being incentivized by the suits to do so.

        Citizen/metic is probably impossible, but with aristocrat/citizen/metic, the citizens are at least numerous enough and solidaritified enough to fight the aristocrats, and the metics all want to be there and know the aristocrats or citizens can boot them out if they start stirring shit up.

        • nydwracu says:

          To elaborate a bit more:

          Aristocrat = Business head, political leader, etc. High-status Optimate occupations. Most anyone running for office. Romney, the Bushes, and so on are perfect examples. Obama was a Suit who became an Aristocrat.

          Suit = Professor, bureaucrat, diversity counselor, etc. Cathedral or Polygon employee. High-status Brahmin occupations for gender studies majors.

          Merchant = Middle-class proletarian. Could probably be divided further according to income or caste lines.

          Kulak = Middle-class non-proletarian. Small business owners, high-skilled tradesmen, and so on.

          Peasant = Illegal immigrant, prisoner, outsourced sweatshop worker, etc. Could be divided further: the American underclass, both black and white (i.e. inner-city Dalit and Antyaja), functions as peasants for the purposes of smashing the merchants and kulaks (although whites are rarely used against whites) despite by definition doing no legal work.

          • Red says:

            Kulak’s are not in high demand unless you have a lot of warfare going on with sophisticated weapon’s systems. Pax America has made war pointless and thus the elimination of the Kulak’s continues unabated.

          • jim says:

            Aristocrats and optimates are the best, or at least make a somewhat plausible claim of being the best. Romney plausibly claimed to be one of the best. Jon Corzine does not much look like an aristocrat. He is not even pretending to be the best, but is fairly openly a criminal. Angelo Mozillo is more the thug shaking down wetbacks in the Home Depot parking lot.

            Suit: Everyone wears a suit. Everyone can afford a nice, custom tailored suit if their business requires it. (Do not buy an off the rack suit if you are going to meet someone who matters, important people can tell the difference. That goes double if you are black. A black guy with a tailored suit is whiter than a white guy with an off the rack suit.)

            Peasants are classically small propertarians, therefore reliably supported the old established order, which is why the communists murdered them in such extraordinary numbers. Peasants are “rednecks”, the hated natural enemy of progressives, always have been, always will be.

    • jim says:

      Consider Jon Corzine. Obviously his wealth comes from political power over other people’s assets. His political power does not come from his own assets.

      • Anonymous says:

        I’m not sure what that has to do with my point. Corzine’s political power was essentially given to him by capital, who knew he would do their bidding. The country is in practice run by a extremely wealthy people, the “cathedral” doesn’t exist to please Matthew Yglesias neopuritan heart, it exists because people use it to make serious fucking money for themselves — by stealing it from us.

        A relatively small group of very wealthy people are ruling anti-democratically, essentially by decree (albeit transmitted and implemented in very inefficient way), out of their own self interest, to enrich themselves and they are passing down their privileged position to their kids, ie, hereditary aristocracy. They even claim divine right, although they don’t phrase it that way, in practice they believe they are doing their version of gods work. That sounds pretty much like what neoreactionaries say they want, except we envision ourselves at the top.

        • spandrell says:

          I think the point Jim is making is that the plutocrats aren’t the problem. They could steal all they want, but the world would still go on as long as men were allowed to rule on their wives, and inferior people were stripped of political rights until made productive.

          We always had some amount of corruption by the aristocrats. It didn’t cause societal collapse by itself.

          • anonymous says:

            Hello? Why have –SOME– men been stripped of their rights? Because of Womyn’s studies? No. The “societal collapse” is happening because capital wants it to happen, because it’s extremely profitable for them.

            • jim says:

              If capital was in power, we would not have extraordinary taxes on capital, and we would not have large Human Resources departments.

        • asdf says:

          Jim wanks to Ayn Rand every morning, even though she took welfare in the end and her disciple practically invented the federal reserve bailout.

          Power wants more power. Jim has some crazy idea that power doesn’t corrupt some people (libertarians, might as well just call em angels).

      • jim says:

        I’m not sure what that has to do with my point. Corzine’s political power was essentially given to him by capital, who knew he would do their bidding

        How so? He achieved power through being part of the regulatory apparatus, being part of the Democratic Party.

        A relatively small group of very wealthy people are ruling anti-democratically.

        Yes, but they rule first, and become wealthy second. Jon Corzine did not become rich, and therefore powerful. He became powerful, and therefore rich. First he regulated bankers, then bankers made him rich.

        His entire career, from first entering regulation, has been a series of shakedowns. Most recently he stole a billion or so from rich people. Therefore, he has power, and they don’t.

        • asdf says:

          Almost everyone I ever met in investment banking was from a wealthy family. Upper middle class was practically the floor, most where far richer. These people come from wealth and use it to get more wealth.

          • jim says:


            The most infamous banker of them all is Angelo Mozillo, son of a butcher. Rose through affirmative action and democratic party politics. Swiped more money that all of your investment bankers put together.

            The most infamous investment banker of them all is Jon Corzine, born and raised on a small farm in the middle of nowhere, again, rose through Democratic party politics. Madoff’s father was a plumber turned stockbroker. Madoff rose on Jewish connections and Democratic party politics.

    • Kudzu Bob says:

      You confuse an aristocracy with a ruling class.

      • anonymous says:

        “It’s not a real aristocracy!! If it was I’d be in it!”

        • Kudzu Bob says:

          At least in theory, an aristocracy acts on behalf of society, whereas a ruling class doesn’t do that even in theory. You should know that but don’t. Now quit embarrassing yourself.

    • jim says:

      The reactionary utopia you envision is already here, sorry you don’t have enough property to qualify

      Jon Corzine stole a pile of money from a bunch of very rich people, and laughed in their faces. Evidently they do not qualify either.

  6. Faust says:

    A man has no authority in his home if he shares it with a woman. Not in the US. Any authority is at her behest. She dominates him completely through her proxy of the police and the anti-male legislation which can remove him from the home without evidence of a crime, remove his children, and confiscate his income and possessions. At her whim which changes as the wind blows. All marriages are matriarchal at this point even if the man ends up making the decisions.

  7. rightsaidfred says:

    So the battle continues against looters and parasites. Sigh.

    On the other hand, we have to watch the feedback, and have caution about too much power in one party’s hands, lest parents sell their kids to the gay marriage tribe, or the propertied class import new renters.

    • jim says:

      What is more likely? That bureaucrats or parents will give children to gay couples?

      • rightsaidfred says:

        Bureaucrats, of course. But on the chance that one parent might make such a mistake, we must have bureaucrats. Bwahahaha!

  8. FWM says:

    EVERYTHING you wrote is true. Now what? Obviously inferior people have no intention of relinquishing their power. Push or wait for collapse of this unsustainable reality?

    • jim says:

      Pushing will be easier when Uncle Sam’s no limit credit card hits its limit. Of course by then, the damage will be considerably worse.

Leave a Reply