In his latest post Nick Land seems to be arguing that industrialization and economic growth need to always be accompanied by women entering the workforce and being given equal status as men, which necessarily leads to a decline in fertility. Therefore if modern industrial (and post-industrial) states want rapid economic growth (short-term), they will always have to suffer a serious collapse in fertility concluding his post with: “Modernity crushes fertility because it sees ahead better than you do — you just don’t like what it’s seeing.”

 I believe this to be utterly wrong.

Keep reading

Mike Anissimov has recently posted a rather misleading post over at MoreRight, titled: “Frankfurt School Caused Progressivism”. The problem with it should be immediately obvious already. In the post itself, Anissimov goes on to explain how the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory of the 40’s-60’s is the origin of modern progressivism as we know it today. If you have ever visited /pol/, you should already be having a déjà vu.

It needs to be clarified, that had this post been titled “The Frankfurt School has been a serious influence on contemporary Progressivism”, I wouldn’t have much of an issue with it. But the title, plus some points in the post itself seem to be directing the reader to the conclusion that the Frankfurt School is more or less the exclusive source of the intellectual gonorrhea that is contemporary academic and media leftism. This however, is a gross oversimplification and indeed could possibly seriously misdirect and confuse a lot of readers who are not that well acquainted with the topic.

Keep reading

Jim has discussed the collapse of Japanese fertility plenty of times and has repeatedly made the argument that it was caused by the shift in the status of women in the 50’s from strict patriarchy to gender equality. The remarkable collapse in fertility that ensued afterwards and has been a stable trend to the present day provides solid support for Jim’s theory that if you want above-replacement level fertility, you need to make women the property of men. Meaning that you need classical patriarchy in which women are treated as a lower class with daughters being the property of their fathers and wives being the property of their husbands.

Besides Japan there is another case which seems to support Jim’s point to the letter, and it has the benefit of being one of a European nation – Spain (which to my knowledge hasn’t been discussed extensively in neoreactionary circles). We all know that nowadays, besides being an economic basket case, it also has one of the lowest fertility rates in Europe – 1.47. But it wasn’t always that way.

Keep reading

(Definitions:)

Property (right): Property (right) is a ‘reasonable expectation of control’ over a certain object (or subject, but here it gets more complicated so from now on we will always be talking about property over ‘objects’). This is Alrenous’ definition and I think it is the best one I’ve seen. It is nothing revolutionary, it is indeed pretty basic, but that’s where its beauty lies. It is very simple, while being very precise, which is all you really want from a definition.

The term ‘property’ (rights) is a purely social construct (ah, so this term does have a useful usage after all). It is a ‘construct’ in the sense that it is a ‘concept’, a human ‘idea’, not an object in the physical world and it is ‘social’ in the sense that its purpose is to facilitate interaction between individual human agents. To illustrate this, consider the case of Robinson Crusoe on an uninhabited island. If there are no other rational agents (read: homo sapiens) on the island, Crusoe has no use for the concept of property, as inter-personal disputes over ownership are impossible when there is no other human being there to challenge Crusoe’s ownership of whatever he might have acquired. Crusoe might claim ownership over the whole island as his property and this would be irrelevant insofar as there are no other human beings around.

Keep reading

(This weirdly coincides with Chris B’s recent post)

(preliminary apologies to E. Anthony Gray that I will be reopening this topic)

This is why we can’t have nice things:

https://twitter.com/vicmandrake/status/496525936050061313

So marrying an asian, and certainly anyone from a different race makes you a (race? nrx? rx? nazi?) traitor.

I have always had a problem with white nationalists but I never expected something as disgusting as this.
There is a difference between being wrong on economic and political subjects or whatever, and being a piece of shit.
I can cope with the first no matter how frustrated I may get, but the second I can’t stand.

Don’t get me wrong, this is not about maintaining an image, appearing as not being racist, or whatever other PR shit you can think of.
No.
This is not about post-libertarian neoreactionaries vs. nationalist neoreactionaries.
This is about being civilized. This is about having respect for each other. This is about not acting like a piece of trash.

(And if you are acting like a piece of trash, actual neoreactionaries will lose all respect for you)

Now let me get something straight. Because a lot of people don’t seem to understand this. Neoreaction is not some white nationalist circlejerk twitter movement. A person from a different race can easily be a neoreactionary and there is no contradiction in that.
A person can marry someone from a different race and still be a neoreactionary. No contradiction in that. No. Problem.
And yes, this is the #OfficialNeoreactionaryPosition

Deal with it.

If you think neoreaction is some exclusive white nationalist skinhead club you have it wrong and you are a 120% entryist. And you should be called out for being an entryist. And if you act like trash you should also be called out for acting like trash.

Not to mention that I don’t really get the argument against breeding with asians. Your kids certainly won’t end up dumber on average, but I guess a slightly whiter skin complexion is all that counts.
If dysgenics is what you are worried about, then asians are certainly not a problem for you. (John Derbyshire specifically is famous for his views on this topic)

(It is obvious however, that it is not dysgenics that these guys are worried about)

Thankfully it seems that not all white nationalists are like this.

However those who are should get the fuck out of Neoreaction.



EDIT: Comment thread closed to prevent a high influx of butthurt

ADDED: E. Anthony Gray on Race Nationalism

Michael Anissimov has a new post up at More Right, dealing with the topic of  “Reaction and the Poor”. I agree with the general motivation behind the post, to show that reactionaries and neoreactionaries alike are not people who do not care for the poor, or hate them or whatever other nonsense we are being accused of. A lot of the media coverage of neoreaction has painted a portrait of reactionaries as people who hate the lower classes. This is of course to be expected of leftie media, but it’s not a bad idea to respond to such accusations and point out how ridiculous they truly are.

Anissimov’s piece however, despite starting out quite promisingly, very soon descends into completely false theories. Specifically there are two claims that this piece makes, which are entirely wrong and I am actually surprised that no one else has pointed them out yet (especially the first one).

Keep reading

Some of our very observant neoreactionary friends (mostly trads) have discovered that leftist thought tends to be concentrated in very complex urbanized areas (megacities). Thus some of them extrapolate that very high degrees of urbanization and the formation of complex megacities somehow causes the development of leftist tendencies.

Now, the mere fact that hyper-progressivism is concentrated in urban areas proves nothing by itself, because historically cities have always been technological and cultural centres. Indeed as the commenter Nyk pointed out recently on Nick Land’s blog, the very root of the word “civilization” is in the latin word for “city”. Through history big cities have always been cultural, technological, commercial, intellectual and even military centers. It is not surprising at all if along with all of that it also happens that leftist thought develops and concentrates mostly in such areas. This is not surprising because virtually all, or at least the majority of intellectual activity is concentrated in such areas.

Keep reading