A Brief Defense Of The Hereditarian Caste System

Returning to the topic of Indo-European mythology, there are two distinct ways that Indo-European societies organize themselves. The first is by means of caste, which Georges Dumézil defines as an order built on the concept of function. He argues that the Proto-Indo-Europeans organized themselves into three groups, the famous trifunctional hypothesis of Priests, Warriors, and Laborers, and that this caste system evolved into the various manifestations we see from India to Ireland. While there were numerous permutations of this system, each changing in some way the specific character of the castes, the same foundational rules applied across the board, namely that society should be divided along the lines of the function men play in the maintenance of order.

The alternative method of organizing society, also indigenous to Indo-European societies, is the class system which dominated the post-Medieval world. The major distinction between class and caste is that class system organizes people by socio-economic status rather than social function.  What one does in society does not matter in a class system. What matters is the amount of wealth and status you can accrue from your function. Members of the upper class can be politicians, businessmen, or generals, but these roles are insignificant to the class system. It is certainly true that upper-caste members tend to be wealthier than lower-caste members in traditional economies, but the material differences are incidental to the caste system and central to a class system.

In Dumézil’s Mitra-Varuna and his two volume work on Ancient Roman religion, the author shows the conflict which emerged in the Roman Republic when the class system began to eclipse and replace the ancient religious caste system. Like most European religions, especially among the Germanic peoples, the priestly caste was largely absorbed into the warrior caste and retained only ritualistic significance, which Dumézil traces in the various priesthoods of the Monarchy and Republican period. What distinguished the Romans was the rise of a system where men were divided into socio-economic classes, such as the Senatores, Equites, Proletarii, and so forth.  While there were hereditary roots to these classes, after the Republican period they were primarily economic, as the poet Juvenal tells us:

Would you not like to fill up a whole note-book [of satirical writings] at the street crossings when you see a forger borne along upon the necks of six porters, and exposed to view on this side and on that in his almost naked litter, and reminding you of the lounging Maecenas: one who by help of a scrap of paper and a moistened seal has converted himself into a fine and wealthy gentleman? – Satire 1

Juvenal’s complaint should sound familiar to modern ears: unscrupulous foreigners who lacked any respect for the Roman virtues or laws usurped the positions of power, authority, and wealth from the native Roman population. The openness of the Roman system, which transitioned toward the class structure after the Servile Wars in order to permit qualified plebians to serve in high military office, allowed the complete disenfranchisement of the Romans themselves.

…when a guttersnipe of the Nile like Crispinus —-a slave-born denizen of Canopus —-hitches a Tyrian cloak on to his shoulder, whilst on his sweating finger he airs a summer ring of gold, unable to endure the weight of a heavier gem—-it is hard not to write satire. For who can be so tolerant of this monstrous city, who so iron of soul, as to contain himself when the brand-new litter of lawyer Matho comes along, filled with his huge self; after him one who has informed against his noble patron and will soon despoil our pillaged nobility of what remains to them—-one whom Massa dreads, whom Carus propitiates by a bribe, and to whom Thymele was made over by the terrified Latinus; when you are thrust on one side by men who earn legacies by nightly performances, and are raised to heaven by that now royal road to high preferment—-the favours of an aged and wealthy woman? – Satire 1

As hard as it is to tear ourselves away from the masterful writing of Juvenal, let us return to the point; the openness of a class system, which reduces all social order to that of wealth and popularity (to which Juvenal has more to say, but I’ll desist), creates the opportunity for the erosion of social values and cultural goods by removing one of the core limits on superbia, the overweening ambition of the opportunist.

The rise of the low-caste man to a position of absolute power is bad enough, as history has demonstrated, but the greater danger is that such a society is a magnet for every two-bit con man and grifter across the globe. People with no attachment to the land, culture, or society can use class systems to free-ride on the cultural and social capital of a well-ordered society until even the greatest community is brought down under the overwhelming weight of parasitism. Rome became that magnet, attracting the scum of every corner of the Mediterranean to pull down the greatest civilization before our own. When wealth alone determines social status, anyone willing to violate the norms and unspoken rules governing society can elevate themselves, because when their actions transform society into a cesspit of corruption and despair, they can simply pick up again and move on to the next target. The weight of social disapproval, which ensures a functional society’s consuetudines et usus, the unwritten customs, values, norms, and beliefs which undergird social order and protect against anti-social disruption, does not function on the alien.  Cicero declared the fundamental character of a community to be a common language, common “ius[1],” and common weal.  There is no common language, “ius,” or weal in the Rome Juvenal is portraying to us, and that is largely due to the Roman class system.

Thus, we return to the notion of caste, in which function and heredity primarily determine one’s social position. I am under no delusion that I am a “secret aristocrat,” as the liberal slur goes.  My heredity is pure redneck back over five hundred years. Under a strict hereditarian system, I would most likely be prohibited from receiving enough education to read Juvenal. Nevertheless, the reactionary in me says that my personal situation is irrelevant, and I ask of my reader to keep that in mind themselves as they read the following. If I must be a farmer in order that my people should be free and my children be assured a place, no matter how humble, in their own homeland, then that is a price I am willing to pay.

No functional society is possible without a hereditarian caste system. The arrogance and superbia of Man is such that there must be hard, unbreakable limits on personal ambition, along with strict disincentives to opportunistic parasitism. I am not saying that there cannot be any movement, or that every son of a farmer must be destined to farm forevermore. Even Plato did not suggest this.  Every system has some level of flexibility, both ethnic and caste. It is no coincidence that English populations on the borders of the Danegeld, Wales, and Scotland show DNA markers for Nordic and Celtic genotypes. Nor do I deny the various Ciceros and Charles Martels who rose from middling ranks to preserve and protect their homelands. However, the flexibility inherent in any caste system is a weakness in the armor of a nation, and every exception to the rule justifies the waiting masses of alien grifters, who undermine the whole of social order for the material benefit of himself and his tribe.

Hereditarianism is perhaps the most important safeguard to any society because social stability rests on consuetudines et usus, unwritten norms and ethics tied to particular ethnic and cultural groups. It is no coincidence that Ethnic and Ethics arise from the same Greek root. One does not routinely scam one’s neighbors because they are kith and kin; their essential connection to you is the bond and guarantee of equitable relationships. We mourn the day when “a man’s handshake was his bond,” but that handshake wasn’t the true bond. The bond, (in legal terminology, the collateral of a contract) is the reputation one has in the community, which is built upon common heredity. Honor matters because it is the mark of approval from the community that one abides by the unwritten rules which make society spin. The alien neither has honor, nor cares for honor, because he does not care for the community with which he shares no blood.

In any caste system, the alien is either the lowest caste or outside the system altogether. The merchant, who surrenders his identity for a cosmopolitan existence, is also low on the scale, even when he shares blood with the community. This is because a caste system is a fundamental barrier to dyscivic practices and free-rider scenarios, and these two groups have the most to gain from undermining the system and replacing caste with class. When wealth replaces blood, who becomes the highest members of society? It is no coincidence that the word “liberal” was nearly always preceded by “bourgeois” until the 20th century; they are the beneficiaries of the replacement of the medieval caste with the capitalist class system. Likewise, the replacement of caste with class is the only means wherein the alien will be permitted to rise in status over the native-born.

Caste and blood are the only protection that native-born labor have against oppression and loss of self-determination–hence the traditional support of the rural working class for reactionary politics.  The upper-castes, the priesthood and aristocracy, are limited in their oppression by those very customs which make society run, but the alien landlord or banker is not so constrained by the cultural limits on power and is free to grind the working classes into dust. When a reactionary says, “neither capitalist nor socialist,” it is a recognition that both are symptoms of the same social breakdown.

The destruction of social order epitomized by the English Whigs and the resultant socialist working-class backlash to an out-of-order bourgeoisie have their roots in the rejection of the role of blood and heredity in determining a social order. Bourgeois rebels against custom and order create socialist rebels by destroying the functional limits on power in society which rested in the hereditary aristocracy.

There is a price to be paid in personal liberty for a caste system, true. I would never be allowed to become a scholar in a society where heredity ruled. The other option, however, is this:

Then up comes a lordly dame who, when her husband wants a drink, mixes toad’s blood with his old Calenian, and improving upon Lucusta herself, teaches her artless neighbours to brave the talk of the town and carry forth to burial the blackened corpses of their husbands. If you want to be anybody nowadays, you must dare some crime that merits narrow Gyara or a gaol; honesty is praised and starves. It is to their crimes that men owe their pleasure-grounds and high commands, their fine tables and old silver goblets with goats standing out in relief. Who can get, sleep for thinking of a money-loving daughter-in-law seduced, of brides that have lost their virtue, or of adulterers not out of their teens? – Satire 1

[1] It can mean law, justice, or Right.  In this situation, it probably means all three.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All


  1. Awesome piece. I’ll add as a footnote by way of commentary that open social mobility is often an empty boast in any case. In Liberal society, it is true, anybody can take any position- from the set of positions that the system chooses to make available, that is. The person destined by Nature for certain caste functions often finds that those functions have been radically altered or abolished in the bourgeois order, and either forced into a mold that doesn’t quite fit or altogether out of luck. The born Brahmin ends up a second or third-tier academic when he should been a priest, and the born Kshatriya a member of an outlaw bike club and/or a jailbird when he should have been a warrior. The born artisan gets a job in a machine shop (until it’s offshored or automated, that is), and the born artist works for an ad agency (if he’s lucky, and pours coffee if not). Even the standard-model bourgeois aren’t allowed to just be themselves anymore; the born family man lives under the knife of no-fault divorce and abortion, and middle-class people of both sexes (but especially if female) constantly hectored that they can be much more than what they are, and somehow inadequate if they don’t. Finally, the working classes presently circle around the drain of outright indigence.


  2. This is a great piece, but let me offer a gentle critique.

    I believe you are right to point out that the current class system, which is based mostly on money (though there is the so-called “cultural elite” as well, but this is irrelevant to our point here) needs to go. As many of the people most likely to be successful under it tend to lack any sort of virtue i.e. used car salesmen.

    However, I think your suggestion veers a little too much towards a kind of classic Indian style caste system. Basically a system that is too rigid, where your destiny is basically set at birth. While this does ensure a kind of stability, it is ultimately too restrictive and ends up wasting a lot of human capital. (Perhaps one of the reasons why it was Europeans ad not the rulers of India who were spreading their civilization throughout the world in the 19th century through trade and conquest.)

    The Fallacy is in believing that one’s capabilities are predetermined fully by one’s father’s abilities. Tempting as though this idea seems to the dedicated genetic determinist, it just isn’t the case. I.E. just because your father was a great farmer, doesn’t mean that you will be. I mean, sometimes it might be he case, but just as frequently it isn’t.

    This was always the problem historically with hereditary monarchy, that just because one’s father was a good and virtuous ruler didn’t mean that he would be.

    To try to make a long argument short, it is better to try to fit square pegs into square holes than square pegs into round holes.

    Basically an element of meritocracy is needed. Now this doesn’t mean that just because one embraces some elements of meritocracy one has to also embrace the Liberal principle of “equality of opportunity”. Basically, that society should be organized in such a way that hereditary advantage is eliminated and every starts from the same “fair” starting point. This is a principle which is just as destructive and insane as trying to abolish private property.

    So in conclusion: one should not sacrifice societal dynamism in pursuit of stability or vice versa. You have to have both.


    1. Plato’s Myth of the Metals assigns caste based on a kind of standardized testing regime which we could compare to the Confucian civil service system. European systems did allow promotion in limited circumstances, mostly military. Given the current circumstances of the Western world, I am likely (over)reacting toward greater stability.

      What I’m arguing here, primarily, is that any increase in societal dynamism comes at a cost, and perhaps not even a foreseen cost. When the Romans shifted from a caste system to a class system in the first century of the Republic, it was an attempt to broaden the military base by bringing qualified officers and cavalrymen into the Warrior caste; those new members would become the Equites. It was a smart move, under the circumstances. There was no way they could have foreseen cosmopolitan, Imperial Rome centuries later.

      I think we’re left with Machiavelli’s basic question: Rome or Venice? What is more important, a brief burst of glory or a regime that lasts the ages?


  3. Arthur, you write very well and present the problem as excellently as it is possible to present in binary terms. There are good insights. That kind of article could be in a scientific journal of history. The article is very organized, and the language is good and clear, and easy and pleasant to read.

    I digress a little bit from my main point, if I say that caste system cannot withstand increasingly complex division of labor, and all of its complex preconditions and outcomes. You wrote that article via a computer, and if you accept the existence and help of that computer, your choices, preferences and goals tell us implicitly and explicitly that you dont in practice support caste society. In pre-revolutionary France king and along with him the caste system tried to compete with rising bourgeous society by selling titles, offices and priviledges to bourgeous men. The goal was to get money and attach the rising bourgeous men to be part of the caste system. There were then so many vain titles, that they didnt mean anything, and anyway these bought titles were undergirded only by money, not by philosophy, loyalties, honor, responsibilities, religion, etc., so they were meaningless from the start. There were so many bought offices that there were too many and all kinds of local mini-Stalins, who misused their power for their own and their allies favor, free-riding on the backs of the people. Bought priviledges were just a way to reduce responsibilities and costs for oneself and ones allies, and charge them on others. In the end kingship and caste system was rotten, so it was just question when and how it would collapse, and what would come afterwards.

    My main point is, have you noticed how similar Social Matter writers are regarding their style, language and logical organization of information? The fact that they write about different topics and then present different insights tends to hide the underlying similarity. There is also of course much ideological similarity, which increases the overall similarity of writing.

    Liberal system has long arms, and when we try to fluff ourselves off the liberal system, we often end up unwittingly in molds that are designed by the system. Liberals repeat all the time words like racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, nazi, Hitler, echoes from the thirties, etc., and liberals are in many other ways obnoxious and entitled crybullies. No wonder then that there are alt-right people, who e.g. use ironic and humorous nazi memes to avenge liberals, to trigger them, to tantalize them, to make them do the compulsive movements and say the compulsive words like robots, to make them run in circles in vain, to stoke their useless mob rage, etc., and then enjoy almost sadistically to see this show, at the same time feeling this shows their freedom from liberal oppression, shows their freedom in general too. Yes, liberals become more or less mentally exhausted about this, but at the same time they get from alt-right people the caricature, easy to smear image they want, and the circle closes.

    Liberals cause all kinds of disorders, unstabilities, problems, complications and uncertainties, so many neoreactionaries react to this by trying develop rigid and uniform -systems, which cover and organize the whole society. They counteract the liberal problems, creating in society stability, predictability, order, smooth harmonious functions and cooperations, etc. Invisible hands of liberal system in a way forces these thoughts on us.

    Because liberals smear us so much with false images of stupidity, zealotry, ignorance, backwardness, etc. we may accent how organized, clear, eloquent, logical, smooth, not needlessly insulting, etc our writing and speech are, although we speak freely about all issues.

    Thus liberals tend to create to a certain degree their opponents, and mold them to some extent to extremes of clownish “nazis”, and highly controlled and perhaps fairly self-conscious persons.

    We can cut these shackless, we dont need their umbilical cord which feeds our thoughts with wrong soup, we can break out of the liberal mental prison.

    We can learn, copy and imitate many things from the past, philosophy; wisdom; social organization principles of communities (they are mostly timeless); lessons from history’s successes and failures; lives of great men; religious wisdom; etc. We mostly cant copy their technology, because it cannot compete and function in modern society, and we cannot copy their society wide systems, because they dont withstand the pressures of modernity. There is no class vs. caste competition in real life, although we can learn much from their comparison and juxtaposition. Whatever competes with class society consists of thousands of little things and solutions, from which emerges the whole competitive system. Before we devolop, try and apply those thousands of things, we likely dont know accurately what the alternative system will be. Creating a functioning alternative system is a complex and messy task, which involves a lot of trial and error, trial and success -evolutive learning and selection. It requires intelligent creative people and creative geniuses, who create the necessary breakthroughs. We keep our feets solidly on tradition (it is our secure foundation), but our heads must fly like rocket in creative and artistic clouds. We dont win out liberal system by imposing some rigid system on top of it. We compete with it by noticing that liberal system is a stiff and fossilized system, and by accelarating our own creativeness and change so much, that we leave it to bite the dust far behind us. This kind of creativeness and change is only possible, if our traditional wisdom and social group foundation is relatively unchanging, predictable and secure.

    The Social Matter -kind of writing is necessary and good, but we need to balance it with creative and experimental writing.

    Explode like fireworks on the screen when you write. Be messy. Let your writing grow like unpredictable fractals, fly off on strange or unrelated tangents, make odd combinations, use trials, make mistakes, pick up the successes, defy normal ways of using language, dont give a f.ck about your image, be complex and quite hard to understand, and be a little bit “schizophrenic” when you write. Lets become at the same time more similar and tightly grouped on the traditional side, and more different on the creative side.

    One day our own traditional planet forms, accelerates and reaches the necessary escape velocity from the liberal system.

    Like my favorite economist Anna Puu (Anna Wood) says, “We Will Soon Be Free” (Me ollaan kohta vapaita):


    1. Asian Reactionary December 16, 2016 at 9:06 pm

      Its an interesting consideration – to “outprogressive” the progressives, but rather than rigidly imposing the past upon the present, I believe that NRX is aimed at focusing at where the past has done things better, and using what it can.


    2. I’ve already admitted that I don’t practice anything like a caste society, primarily because we don’t live in one. I’m just about pure-blooded redneck, and yet I teach in a university, for one. The “practice what you preach” line makes me suspicious because that’s the Left’s favorite attempt to make the Right unilaterally disarm. I will not resign my appointment, nor give up my technology, because doing so will not advance my aims in any way. However, in the circumstances where doing so would benefit my children and their children, I will gladly return to the soil.

      Nevertheless, the problem with your capitalist critique of the Ancient Regime is that it fundamentally misunderstands the character of the old order of France. Social orders function properly when the order is fundamentally linked and related to its purpose. I’ll use the Common Law as an example, since I know it better. In the 12th Century, a man who was summoned to arms by the King and for some reason did not possess arms would be reduced to serfdom. Likewise, cowardice in battle could lead to reduction to serfdom, under the law. The aristocratic social order was designed in such a way to provide a military force to the King which could anchor the mass-levy and serve as an elite force. So long as the purpose remained central to the practical reality of the social system of feudalism, the system was both dynamic and stable.

      And no, let us not buy into Hollywood depictions of feudalism. The English system was multifaceted and complex. Any person who didn’t fit in to their allotted role in life had the option of fleeing to the boroughs. If he found a job and remained in it for a year and a day, the prior identity of the man (even if he is rusticus, or land-bound serf) was dead and he became a new civis of the borough. Once a burgher, however, the man could never leave and rejoin the county community. He was limited to the life he had chosen.

      The situation in France occurred because the legal barriers confining the bourgeoisie to the boroughs had fallen and because the disconnection of aristocracy from military service led to the corruption of those positions. The rise of scutage, for example, under the Angevin rulers in the 12th Century permitted the shirking of military duty by the aristocracy and the monetization of the personal oaths of fealty. It was not an inevitable consequence of feudalism; let us throw out those Whig histories altogether. It was probably not even the inevitable consequence of technology, since the debate over small, professional (bourgeois) armies and large, levied forces would continue into the 19th Century. It was an issue of plain, old fashioned decadence and an overabundance of wealth. The pattern of decay in the Roman Republic is little different in character; their military class system degraded because of the corruption of commerce and decadent aristocrats.

      Yes, I agree that we can’t copy past systems because we would be falling into the same error as the bourgeoisie liberals, namely disconnecting status from purpose and function. NRx discusses the purpose of Formalism in stable social orders. This should be taken as a continuation of the formalist literature.

      Finally, we do begin with rigid formal systems; creativity can only occur after a period of stability. How did the original Indo-European caste system arise? A conquering people (the Upper-castes) imposed strict rules on the conquered (the Lower-castes). Only afterwards did the system flower into the modern complex arrangement of Indian castes. Likewise, where did feudalism come from? The Germanic tribes conquered the Romans and imposed a rigid social system. The Normans conquered the Anglo-Saxons. Over time, the system grew complex, true. The root of all societies, however, is Conqueror over Conquered. A very simple order.


      1. Gordian, you’re a good guy, so I am just trying to give you better options in some matters. I am sure you are trying to do that to me too.

        “Capitalist system” is not two words or an ideology, it is an extremely complex and sensitive living economic system, to which countless of people have spent and are spending their whole work life. Even a measly graphite pencil is connected to impressive network, and one person can only know small fraction of the necessary knowledge to produce it in modern efficient and complex way. Forest machines produce the wood, mining machines produce the ingredients in graphite and paint, trucks and cargoships transport the wood, ingredients and pencils, chemical factories make the paint and graphite, pencil factory makes the pencils, all kinds of computers and microprocessors have been sprinkled all over this ecosystem and its machines, steel factories make the necessary steel in the machines, machine part factories forge and chisel the necessary parts in machines, wholesale and distribution centers take care of distribution, basic marketing and selling, and on and on … This production is distributed to Finland (e.g. Ponsse forest machines and wood), to Germany and Britain (trucks), to United States (microprocessors), to Canada (mining and mining machines), to China (computer assembly) and on and on … That country which imposes rigid and unfitting system on this living economic system largely kills it in his own country, and the consequences are drastically negative. Our high tech environment and capabilities are wholly dependent on the smooth functioning of this system. When this system causes us problems, we must invent such methods that will not disturb the system or disturb it only little, but at the same time remove the problems.

        Conquerors impose rules? United States has almost 60 times more people than Finland, over 29 times more area, and many times larger military than Finland. NRx troops could test their strength first with Finnish military. I put in the end a video, so you see a small part of the things you are up against. It not an official video, some ordinary Finn just gathered the material together. Let me know if you succeed in conquering us. 😉 If you succeed, you can then perhaps move on to conquer the United States.

        On a more serious note, tradition gives us proper guidance vis-a-vis intelligence, namely Jewish wisdom in the Old Testament. The story of Josef tells us that Josefs intelligence and trust in God transcended primogeniture; envy, anger and vengefulness of his brothers; family hierarchies; selling to slavery; intrigues and schemes; imprisonment; power hierarchy of Farao; natural disasters and famine; complex analysing and inventive tasks, etc., i.e. intelligence in general has this tendency. Because intelligence is such a great power, Jews integrated intelligence with many methods to be useful and central ethnocentric part of their communities. They didnt try to restrict intelligence, when they noticed it causes many problems, they harnessed it in friendly way. Hierarchy in Jewish communities is directly related to intelligence and Jewish learning. In Jewish communities, no matter how high a Jew’s intelligence is, it is used maximally in Talmud learning and Jewish businesses. There are always new refreshing intellectual challenges and tasks to Jewish intellectuals and rabbis. In Jewish communities barriers are not put on intelligence way. The most honor, the most money and the largest families go to the most intelligent Jews. The intellectual tasks rabbis and other Jewish intellectuals do always help directly or indirectly all the Jews in their community and community network. Jewish rabbis and intellectuals, by doing Jewish intellectual tasks, learn at the same time love, caring, loyalty, charity, responsibilities, cooperation, reciprocity and healthy pride towards and for their Jewish community. Etc. It is important for us to learn from this, and integrate intelligence in fairly similar ways to our communities.


        1. Please, go and tell the Sami in your country that social systems are not a product of conquest, I’m sure they’ll be interested to hear your theories as to why their country is full of Finns and why it is oriented toward the West instead of the East. You seem to be unclear about what NRx is, so perhaps you should do some work on the purpose of Social Matter (ie. not supervillainy) and the doctrine of passivism. NRx doesn’t conquer nations, but Gnon does.

          Secondly, Capitalism is nothing if not a ideological system. Your entire response is an ideological fantasy passing as social science, completely oblivious to your own embedded normative assumptions about society and the nature of Being. Like most neo-Liberals, you begin with a reification of the system itself, your “complex and living economic system.” You mistake a categorical label, “the Economy,” for an object like your pencil, thus building your argument on a basic error of kind. “The Economy” and “Capitalist systems” don’t exist. Millions of individual actions and transactions exist, but categorizing them as “economic” or “noneconomic” doesn’t transform “economic” actions into a thing bearing unique properties like self-correction or autonomous order generation.

          Furthermore, like most good Neo-liberals, you ignore the interaction between normative and descriptive economic models. Capitalism functions by first setting norms, namely the elevation of materialistic ends and the rejection of non-quantitative goods. Then, the capitalist economist switches tracks and uses his descriptive science to write “economic laws” which silently include those norms. Then they turn around and use the descriptive results to justify the normative results. Let me use an example. The Non-Aggression Principle is assumed by most Neo-Liberal thinkers in some form or another. Then, we write economic “laws” regarding things like outsourcing and mobility of capital which assume the NAP. Then when people get angry at their jobs being outsourced and violate the NAP by political action or labor strikes. Finally, our Neo-Liberal economist tells us that economic output is down because of the violation of the NAP, and he can demonstrate this with statistics. Thus, we have to double-down on the assumed Neo-Liberal norms of the NAP.

          Of course, anyone with any philosophical depth understands that the NAP is absurd at best, utopian idiocy. A Philosopher could tell you that building an economic ideology on the NAP is doomed to failure, but the economists refuse to listen to that information because it is non-quantitative. My preference for a country for my people is non-quantitative. My preference for less wealth but more social solidarity is non-quantitative. Capitalism is riddled with these kind of “ideological realities” which use circular reasoning to justify a system that enriches the managerial classes at the expense of the majority. Like my Southern Reactionary predecessors, I say, “Neither Capitalist nor Socialist,” because all ideologies expressed through economics are fantasies.


          1. Gordian,

            ok, I understand your point of views.

          2. Marcus Montisursinensis December 18, 2016 at 2:48 pm

            Excellent example with the NAP!
            Not with the goal of critiquing Valkea, I would refer to “increasingly complex division of labor” and its consequences that are presented to us as inevitable. This alleged inevitability is purely metaphysical. The conservative-liberal narrative states that inclusion of women (in the role of an employee) into the labor market was a spontaneous set of millions of independent decisions, each in order to increase the income of a single household. Thus, the process was a result of the Invisible Hand. In comparison with the 1950s, the income of the household (a healthy household consisting of a husband, a wife and their children) does not seem to have doubled or even significantly increased. Likewise, “increasingly complex division of labor” requires more and more education, more and more loans (basically in the USA) or more and more European parents making additional afternoon homeschooling hours with their children (who attend state schools in the morning) in order to achieve better results in tests. The latter is of course, a zero-sum game once the system return from a very short temporary imbalance into an equilibrium (an analogy: the introduction of levée en masse gave a short impetus in the number of soldiers to the French from 1972 to 1812, but they were crushed at Leipzig in the autumn of 1813, being heavily outnumbered, despite Napoleon’s impeccable score during the summer). Again, each family allegedly makes an independent decision considering the schooling of the children. Again, the Invisible Hand works.
            From another perspective, this alleged work by the Invisible Hand, a metaphysical being created by irresponsible merchants and usurers to hide their nakedness and unworthiness.
            Decades of the allegedly successful work of the Invisible Hand are actually decades of successful status signalling, making all of us play their game, the game where the rules are imposed by the House. The House always wins.

          3. Marcus, there is an excellent essay on why specialization of labor is not inevitable but a product of short-sighted choices. Andrew Lytle’s essay The Hind Tit shows how a farmer making the choice to, say, buy new instead of mending old leads him into a cycle of debt and eventual loss of his land. Lytle, Allen Tate, and others, (especially Herbert Agar’s edited essays, “Who Owns America?”) are a good beginning to paleolibertarians who have begun to doubt the universal beneficence of Free Trade and Laissez-Faire.

          4. Marcus Montisursinensis December 19, 2016 at 3:23 pm

            I found Lytle’s essay. I am on holiday between Christmas and New Year, so there will be plenty of time to read it. Thanks!

          5. Michael Rothblatt December 22, 2016 at 1:39 pm

            Your society and culture are free to elevate whatever they want above the material wealth, but when hi-tech soldiers fight warriors wielding pointy sticks, soldiers are going to win. Every. Single. Time. Unless reactionary country adopts capitalism to its own ends, it is always going to loose to a libertarian country. Why do you think that it’s Brits and not Ottomans that came to dominate the globe, and later USA, and not, say, Islamic Republic of Iran? IOW the only way to actually protect some future reactionary social order is by becoming richer and more technologically advanced than liberal countries, and not by LARPing about a return to subsistence farming.

          6. Sorry, Michael, but you’ve failed to learn the lessons of the Punic and Anglo-Dutch wars. Capitalism cannot fight wars because it cannot field men. Your mercenaries cannot be trusted to fight when the odds are against them. All powerful nations have a hinterland full of workers and farmers in traditional communities who fill out the military. Your SWPL techno-geeks won’t pick up a rifle to defend their wives and girlfriends, much less their country. Weapons can be bought and sold, and oil, coal, timber, iron, and grain are always good currency. Military age men who love their patria are priceless.

          7. Michael Rothblatt December 23, 2016 at 5:07 am

            I’ve learned my lessons from Spanish-American war. And I never implied mercenaries did I? The USA came to dominate the world exactly because it was most capitalistic, but that didn’t prevent it from fomenting nationalism when that suited it. As we know Power can strongly influence culture. To ensure widespread enthusiasm for its wars, it is nothing for the liberal state to create and maintain a nationalistic fervor among its population. Now that times have changed, they no longer create enthusiasm for their wars via nationalist ideologies, rather they do it via “liberationist” ideologies, but they still have people go and die for them just the same. That it is no longer “hate the Kraut”, but “bring democracy to the brown people” is of no consequence, the fact is that the Cathedral could easily crush the backwater Bhutan if it wanted to. But the reason why they tolerate Bhutan (and the Amish) is precisely because they are backward, and thus represent no threat to the liberal order (because when the time comes they won’t be able to offer any resistance to the liberal order). On the other hand, German Empire and the Hapsburg Monarchy could not be tolerated because they represented a clear threat to the liberal order.

  4. Asian Reactionary,

    Lets hope so.

    If I condense the issue, Social Matter -writers want to be and show themselves to be respectable, mentally well organized and responsible operators, to show themselves to be in way prestigious “presidential material”, capable to govern. This is shown to potential recruits, people in general, and yes, to liberals who have created distorted contrary pressures, claims and images. This last one is likely to be higher in motivation hierarchy than Social Matter -writers would like to acknowledge or even consciously know. These are mostly good things. What is governing, if not bringing order among chaos; harmonious function among jarring dysfunction; peaceful work and varying ways of cooperation among quarrel, idleness, free-riding, criminality and civil war; justice among injustice; etc. I among many others were attracted by this to participate in these discussions. E.g. also the comment section here contains mostly reasonable, logical and useful comments, complementing the articles. The comment sections here mostly dont descend into mob shouting orchestras, like so often in Radix Journal. Etc.

    These kinds of things are the good sides, but when we have real good sides, we tend to not notice or ignore the bad sides or what is lacking.

    Trying to prove the contrary what liberals try to paint us is likely to make ourselves push us over the edge, and fall into too cramped and restricted limits. We need high creativity at least as much, if not more as respectability and high self-control. These are to some extent contradictory, and if we are not careful and smart, mutually exclusive, i.e. high responsibility tends to push out and exclude high creativity.

    We must use high creativity to succeed and to reach our goals.


  5. ” … if not more *than* respectability and high self-control.”


  6. “Explode like fireworks on the screen when you write. Be messy. Let your writing grow like unpredictable fractals, fly off on strange or unrelated tangents, make odd combinations, use trials, make mistakes, pick up the successes, defy normal ways of using language, dont give a f.ck about your image, be complex and quite hard to understand, and be a little bit “schizophrenic” when you write.”

    Speaking from experience, this approach is powerful to generate new ideas but very poor when it comes to communicating those ideas to other people. You end up with a bunch of nuggets ensconced in a sprawling, illegible, and unpresentable mess, which moreover can’t be completed because there are more tangents than can be tied together, and/or because it’s just become too long (because of all the tangents and digressions). Then you have to start over from scratch, extracting the good stuff from the original and repackaging it in a “normal” format readily accessible to other people, and so the experimental/creative aspect never sees the public light of day anyhow.


  7. Dissenting Sociologist,

    you are too pessimistic, it is not that hard. 😉


  8. I sympathize with this, but I would like to second P. T. Carlo’s concern and expand on it.

    The case of hereditarianism in Rome is a complex one. I am uncertain of which legends to treat as fact, which as long-entrenched propaganda. Were Romulus and Remus really secret sons of a king, or were they marginal brigands who found a way to power and were given fitting origins after the fact? Was the growth of Rome initially founded on providing a haven to criminals, exiles, and freed slaves? To what extent were the gens actually hereditary, given that some accounts suggest adoption was never uncommon in these ‘extended families’? Wasn’t the Republic all but founded by Servius Tullius, named so for his servile origins? Should we discount Cicero for being the first of his family to hold a consulship? Wasn’t governance throughout the Pax Romana maintained better by adoptive inheritance than by hereditary inheritance?

    I can’t say for sure, but based on legends and histories, I have the impression that Rome balanced aristocracy based on heredity and merit through centuries of conquest and glory, before the outrages Juvenal satirizes and after.

    Titles bought and sold and forged are infamies, but I wonder if undermining hereditary principle was in the essence of the degeneration or an accident: whether it might be that the system Romans had used to robustly and healthily join hereditarianism with aristocratic assimilation had been twisted to evil by other, deeper changes: for instance, vastly changed demographic, economic, and moral balances between the patricians and the plebians that constitutional reform via coordination of insecure powers could not keep up with, necessitating growing chaos until reform by Caesarist one-man responsibility (already visibly necessary under Gaius Marius and Sulla before the formal fall of the Republic).

    There is no doubt that the Indo-European hereditarianism was an effective social principle in its day, but there should also be no doubt that northwest-of-Hajnal outbreeding was more effective over the last millenium. I worry, when we talk about hereditarianism being the ‘armor’ of a society, that we may be misunderstanding the needs of our society. Mankind’s lack of an exoskeleton does not make him a degenerate form of ant, and the purposes of higher civilizations might require higher flexibility in their social armor just like higher organisms are better served by their flexible skins than by plates of rigid chitin.

    Well-written piece. If I did not find myself tempted by it I would not comment.


    1. Marcus Montisursinensis December 18, 2016 at 4:24 pm

      The question is twofold:
      1.) how to make the elites responsible again; our Western elites are managers and officials with the ethics of usurers, used car dealers and highwaymen; not to mention academics and journalists, who are rotten to the core.
      2.) how to deal effectively with the less intelligent half (or least intelligent third) of the population. They suffer mostly the atomization of the society (the reification of Rousseau’s poisonous musings) and the lack of natural authority (among themselves, as a direct result of atomization as well as from above) who deals with them as a fatherly figure, wishing them well on long terms. They must be given jobs they are capable of doing.
      An old-school liberal (i.e. not saintly progressive) university professor of History in my country attributed Trumps victory to disillusioned blue collars from the Rust Belt, who blamed the elites for stealing their jobs and moving them to China. The worthy professor stated next that the jobs were not stolen, but that those people simply could not accommodate to the economic demands of the moment, primarily the need of “life-long education”. Life long education for people with the IQ of 85 or 90? For people over 45 years of age? And this comes through the mouth of a person who will never do any life-long education apart from useless show-off workshops and sabbaticals.
      Implementing a rigid hereditary caste system may not be the exact solution. But every member of society must be given a place.
      In the abovementioned description of the elites, apart from the rotten Brahmins, I can find only managers and officials with the characteristics of Vaishya, not of Kshatriya. How many Roman Senators died in the Battle of Cannae? How did the deaths of Richard I and Richard III of England occur? Where did Saint Louis die, so that only his bones (with his flesh removed) could be taken back to France? What about his brother and nephew, Robert I and II of Artois? What about Thomas of Clarence, the brother of Henry V?
      How to revive masculinity: restore the virtues of the Kshatriya caste and eradicate the harem manners of eunuchs, concubines and careerist mandarins.


    2. First, I use a quasi-Voegelinian method for analyzing mythology, so I reject the question over what “really” happened as inconsequential compared to the mythopoetic experience which inspired the story and the impact the story would have upon generations receiving the tale. Mythology needs to be understood from the scholar’s perspective as a means to carry meaning and experience inter-generationally through a non-literal, epistemologically distinct form of narrative.

      I certainly agree that the movement from proto-Italic to recognizably Latin social structures involved the expansion of the military caste to include the Equites, an explicitly economic class, due to a shortage of Senatores in times of war. Perhaps it was necessary in its time, and Rome would have been swallowed up by the Samnites, Greek settlers, or Cisalpine Gauls without it. I don’t dispute that. My argument, however, is that abandoning caste for class was one of the necessary steps on the path to Juvenal’s Rome.

      Please don’t interpret this as a “one-size-fits-all” cure of hereditarianism for the problems of the West. This is just one piece of the puzzle that needs to be explored and digested in a much greater project of Restoration.


      1. Thank you for your reply. I see I overestimated the strictness of the hereditarianism you advocated in my reading. Lines like ‘society’s armor’ and ‘if I must be a farmer’ struck me as closer to your meaning than the caveats about Cicero and such, but I should have taken those more seriously.

        I remain unsure that the point about interpretation of mythology properly addresses my concern. If even in the heyday of the Patrician gens, the Roman aristocracy had features of class as well as caste, and if even the founders and second founder of Rome both appear to have exemplified “the rise of the low-caste man to a position of absolute power,” then was even the mythical content of the Roman hereditarianism focused on strictly hereditarian caste or something else?

        Also, I think the facts are relevant to our practical interests in caste. If this past hereditarian system was secretly patched up with too many “oh, he was a slave, but now that he’s performed this great feat we’re sure he had noble or divine blood from the beginning,” it will not translate well to our lives without also translating that flexible faith in the good origins of good deeds–which I’m all for granting; we could use more Sons of Mars and Jove.

        However, all of that may be irrelevant if I was initially responding to a misreading. All I intend to say: in my eyes strictly inherited caste seems to be a degeneration from the better-developed hereditarianism of early Rome and feudal Europe. In particular it seems to be an unbalanced part of a larger whole that is lost, a whole that also included better patterns for recognizing and rewarding personal merit based on more substantial virtue and privilege in addition to narrow temporal power and tradegoods.

        However, if I’m off the mark again I hope you’ll tell me. Good to have you working on the puzzle with us.


        1. I suppose this is an appropriate audience for such a confession, but I tend to lean toward the idea that there are certain truths appropriate only for the Prince and others appropriate for the masses. Mythos belongs to the latter, so I don’t particularly have a problem with your concept of a “patched up” story of Romulus or Numa. The purpose of the story is primarily civic education, so the myth should represent what we desire in our youth, rather than objective historical truth, and our youth should display a respect and reverence for rank and order. I would far more object to a story about a man rising from peasant to ruler than the historical fact of it, since the story inspires dyscivic practices, where a historical fact can be conveniently mythologized after the fact.

          History shows us that somewhere, far enough back, the beginning of every great line of rulers started with a ruffian and his band of robbers. I don’t deny that reality. Nor do I deny that sometimes men like Charles Martel arise and their grandsons displace Merovingians who trace their ancestry back to the east of the Rhine. Society will have to find a way to integrate these kinds of events because, as the Romans knew well, Necessity and Fortuna must be satisfied, like any other goddesses (and she is a woman, for as Machiavelli said, sometimes the great ruler must simply grab the bitch and ravage her).

          Exceptions, however, make bad rules and rigidity in society hierarchy is a safeguard against the kind of evils that plagued Imperial Rome and modernity. I believe that early feudalism worked with both hereditary caste and avenues of promotion because those avenues were either military or ecclesiastical, thus channeled narrowly to the benefit of the social order, and in the case of the Church, didn’t lead to a batch of 2nd-generation social climbers and graspers.

          The problem with class systems is that the means of advancement are socio-economic, thus create perverse incentives. When becoming an Equites meant you had to serve in the cavalry, it was a manageable reform, perhaps even somewhat eugenic and eucivic. When it became a purely economic class with a wealth requirement, it was dyscivic. What I’m objecting to, then, in truth is the transition from a system based on function to one based on wealth. Safeguarding such a system requires suppressing two major groups: the metics and the merchant class, both of whom benefit from abolishing barriers to promotion at the expense of the rest of society.

          Heredity is one of the best safeguards, putting permanent limits on how high either group can rise, as the merchants corrupt society through wealth and the metics by free-riding on the social goods of the native-born. Perhaps exceptions can be made for the merchant’s son who disinherits himself and serves in the military for 40 years. Perhaps there are a few, rare foreigners who deserve to be admitted into the community. Or perhaps the risk of corruption is too great. Fundamentally, however, this is a decision which will be made by the future Prince, and the best I can do is give examples, advice, and interpretations. I am under no illusion that I will be the one to make these decisions, nor that I have the final answer.

          In short, I am not presuming to create a whole and complete rationalistic system of thought, but throwing out concepts and thoughts for discussion and analysis. Please don’t take this as the Once and For All Theory of Hereditarian Castes.


          1. Of couse. I never did mistake it for the Once and for All Theory and I hope I haven’t seemed to. Sounds like it’s a matter of different rhetoric and audience choices, in the end.

            I agree with all you’ve said above, with the exception that I’d prefer to say that the myths based on gods needn’t be deceptions, rather, I’d say that they’re truths foreign to our way of speaking. Imagine that particularly advantageous de novo mutation is always what “divine origins” meant, and then recognizing merit via imputations of divine ancestry is a perfectly natural, honest part of a hereditarian system. (Which is not to say I believe that the people must know the truths the Prince does in every case, just that in this case it seems simple enough.) However, you’re absolutely right that making exceptions too frequently and flexibly, basing them on shallow virtue rather than deep, can quickly lead to disaster.

          2. “I’d say that they’re truths foreign to our way of speaking.”

            Absolutely – the great poverty of modern thought fundamentally stems from our reductionist ontologies and epistemologies, wherein we tend to have difficulties understanding things which are true from a distinct perspective. Our narrow understanding of “true” which stems from positivist habits we pick up in public education is the central barrier to my work of educating young scholars. There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio…

        2. Briefly, let me also add: I do not, in theory, object to the Myth of the Metals and the kind of quasi-Confucian testing regime of Plato’s Republic. I would just ask that we remember that 1. Plato’s Republic was a completely, absolutely closed system, impossible in the real world. 2. Plato’s Republic seems often figurative in meaning, and I am not sure if his educational system is meant to be understood literally or as a metaphor for the soul of the Philosopher, in the same way that his triple caste system serves as a macro-level image of the well-tended soul.


  9. Great piece!

    I know this is meant to be a brief defense but from your point of view is there not sufficient difference between caste system and European estate system that you refer to both as caste system?

    Also it seems to me that higher strata of European aristocracy and royal families were often cosmopolitan (esp. in post-medieval era). They ruled over foreign nations. Are the higher stratas of the caste system prone to be “supranational” in general or is this an exception?


    1. For the purposes of this essay, I’m riding on Dumézil’s assumption that feudalism is an outgrowth of the Germanic Jarl-Karl-Thrall caste system, which seems to have predominated during the early Middle Ages. Certainly, the system evolved and changed over hundreds of years.

      Walter Ullmann tended to argue that true feudalism died around the time of Henry II of England, and that the use of scutage to avoid military service perverted the system into the monetized, contractarian system often called “bastard feudalism,” leading to the things we tend to associate with the aristocratic culture of the later Middle Ages. Anything after the 12th Century, therefore, should be analyzed separately from before. I’m not 100% confident about that, and I tend to see vestiges of classical feudal relationships (ie. personal, military relationships) in the Anglo-Scottish Borderlands far later than Ullmann claims, but I will agree that Edward III’s culture of chivalry and the Three Estates of France are not the same thing as the Jarl-Karl-Thrall society of Germania.

      As for cosmopolitanism, I think that doesn’t arise until much later. Nobody saw Canute as an English king; he was a foreigner. Henry I went to great length to associate himself as the union of Anglo-Saxon and Norman, and Henry II even more-so was portrayed as a salvific figure who would finally unite the two peoples. Henry of Huntington’s history is a good example of this, but Aelred of Rievaulx went so far as to (with apologies to our believing friends) invent prophesies foretelling the coming of Henry II as the chosen son to fulfill the Petrine Covenant with England. Aelred describes how St. Peter himself blessed the monarchy from Alfred the Great through St. Edward the Confessor and finally choosing Henry II and the successor to this line.


  10. Thanks for detailed reply.

    I think you are right about cosmopolitanism, it’s later development. All the examples I can think of happened since 14th century onwards. I am still not sure if it is a natural development or a degeneration. I don’t see it as entirely negative, though. Perhaps such (partly) international aristocracy is important for an Empire.


  11. This analysis would only apply if Indo-Aryan class-based societies intrinsically permitted free-riders. The evidence shows that one crucial genetic variable is necessary in order to expose such class-based societies to free riders. Lacking this variable, class-based societies have not proven themselves vulnerable.

    Moreover, it was caste-based societies that first allowed themselves to be infiltrated. Upper castes in every Indo-Aryan society (except the Celts and Germanics who resisted Charlemagne) proved themselves willing to introduce Semitic elements into their inner circles. Without that betrayal, we might never have known what class-based systems were.

    (I’ll note here again my shock that people who claim to be interested in genetics and “HBD” would write essays like this which wholly neglect the biological basis for social change.)


  12. I would not have agreed that caste was so rigid in Europe as the author suggests. I’m glad I read the comments and learned that the author clearly knows a lot more about this than me so I didn’t make an ass of myself!

    Still, social mobility seems like it was more of a possibility than the author suggests, particularly after the advent of Christianity. Germanic and Viking raiding and conquest or colonization seems like it was an avenue to social advancements. Maybe thralls couldn’t advance out of bondage, but certainly prestige in addition to wealth motivated germanic exploration and conquest.

    In Frankish society there is the example of Merovingian kings being replaced by majors-domo before the dynasty officially ended.

    Above all this there was the church. It seems like there are numerous examples of talented commoners rising, particularly as intellectuals, even while prelates typically remained sons of the nobility. This seems like a useful system in many ways, not only providing an opportunity for gifted minds in the lower classes to be put to good use, but also providing a way for the ruling classes in church and state to occasionally hear a prophetic voice.

    And even after education was made more generally available in the early modern period, this by itself wouldn’t have been enough to overturn a strong caste system already in place. I read part of a monograph about an executioner in Nürnberg in the 1600s and was surprised to learn that executioners typically held that trade because of some dishonorable deed committed by them or an ancestor. As a result they became part of a class of untouchables that could only work as executioners, tanners, and other trades that were essentially “unclean.” In the last years of his life the man wrote letters to the town council or maybe other nobles asking for this status to be lifted on the basis of his otherwise honorable life, which indicates that this status as an “untouchable” was formally recognized, not simply an unspoken custom nor a criminal penalty. All this was after public education had begun or was beginning in Germany. And even now, with academic advancement open to everyone with the intellect and work ethic, I’d venture that most professors, particularly at prestigious schools, come from Moldbug’s Brahmin class.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *