There are two central issues when looking at race and crime. First, whether or not there is a real difference in the rates at which the races commit crime. And secondly, if there is, why?
With regards to the first question the most important single publication on it is “The Color of Crime” [1]. Of course, everyone knows that Hispanics and Blacks are arrested far more, and are in prison far more, than white and Asians. Many times more, in fact. (Less well known is the fact that Asians commit less crime than whites.) However, liberals will often say that this reflects racial prejudice in the criminal justice system rather than an actual difference in crime rates. However, as the color of crime demonstrated, one can compare FBI numbers on conviction rates with massive survey data from crime victims and verify that blacks and Hispanics really do commit far more violent crime (and other sorts of crimes) than Asians and whites.
In this post I will present my own take on the current social classification model advanced by Moldbug, Nydwracu, Graaaaaagh, and others.
I will begin with my personal framing of these castes.
First off, I see the leadership of a stable society as being divided between the Brahmin and Optimates.
The Brahmin exist as the priestly elite, the storytellers. There is a reason Moldbug coined “Cathedral” for the modern secular role of media and post-public relations.
In comparison, I see the Optimates as the worldly elite, the generals, governors, and managers. They do not exist to invent, but to apply and refine.
The Brahmin are esoteric: disconnected from the people while ultimately having tremendous impact upon them. The Optimates are pragmatic: deeply connected with the people, dedicated to ordering society through tangible, direct means.
Together, both castes serve the pivotal role in the ordering of a civilization (notice I write “serve.”). In an ordered society, these two castes would combine their abilities to form a dialectic: the abstract ideals of the Brahmin would be negated, worked into a tangible reality through the Optimates to form a social concrete.
Moving on to the common castes:
Vaisya are the universal, middle, the center. In an ordered society, given ideal by the Brahmin and direction by the Optimate, they work to maintain stability. They do so by forming social bulwarks against Untouchables and outside invaders (as well as shit-tests for the Helots). They also serve to provide fertile ground for the emergence of new members for the higher castes, as well as sloughing the degenerate from their ranks.
Helots are conquered people, whether they are aware of this or not. Their purpose is to provide a contained Nietzschean conflict within the society. Historically, the Spartans would ritually declare martial war upon their Helots; our domestic economy and competition for employment would work as a modern analog of this. The Helots ultimately are to be assimilated, blended into the tapestry, to help replenish/grow the size of the Vaisya caste.
Finally we come to the Untouchable castes: Dalit and Antyaja. The former generally come from degraded Helot stock, the latter from Vaisya. Their values are inversions and perversions of the society; the Dalit bastardize both their past culture as well as the culture which houses them, and the Antyaja revel in mutations of cultural norms.
The difference between Helot and Dalit is the difference between Ella Fitzgerald and Nicki Minaj; the difference between Vaisya and Antyaja is the difference between a properly-bred American girl and Honey Boo Boo.
(Side note: It’s painful to me as a racial realist to listen to and appreciate the work of Fitzgerald, Vaughan and others. We sure slacked-off on our burden.)
Understanding the social role of these castes is pivotal in determining placement of figures in our present age. For instance, musicians and actors may be SEEN as Brahmin, but this is not the case (most are typically Vaisya and below). The actual Brahmin in this relationship are the lead advertisers who green-light making these mouthpieces heard in the first place; the promoters/managers are the Optimates.
For another example: medical directors and chief medical officers are the Brahmin/Optimates: the doctors and subservient staff below are responsible, respected, high-paid Vaisya, but Vaisya nonetheless. Such middle management and figureheads serve the elite by being perceived as being the elite; sometimes what is not seen is even more important than what is.
Do not reduce this model to material: degrees and wealth are not the ultimate determinant of one’s caste placement. Ultimately, the power of the elites are measured in human capital.
Now to apply these concepts to form an explanation for our present age.
I disagree with the idea that things today can be boiled down to a simple caste conflict; I would argue that such would be the desirable outcome of a better-run society.
No, I say the problem is deeper and many-fold more significant: a disconnect of the castes both within and without. Atomization, slowly moving towards obliteration of the social fabric.
The reason for our society’s disconnect and entropy is simple: the current Brahmin narrative/religion (Liberalism) has failed; the Optimates simply can not work Liberalism’s conclusions to anything resembling a concrete ideal. From anti-imperialism, to universal suffrage, to decolonization, affirmative action, welfare, none of it leads to a more stable society. From the discovery of this ideological dead-end somewhere in the mid-1900s came stagnation, diversion, and ultimately, inevitably: regress.
While the initial and most easily-noted impact of Liberalism has been the empowerment of the Untouchable castes, another more insidious effect has been the emergence of what I call the shadow castes, inversions of the social strata.
Instead of Brahmin you now have Dhokeba (deceivers), self-serving cult leaders, men apathetic towards the past, present and future. Dhokeba exist only to spread discord amongst people they do not care about.
Dhokeba
Instead of Optimates you have the Pessimates (worst man), leaders more interested in self-gain than in social stability. The Pessimates are leaders without ideal, which results in tyrants and parasitic manipulators of both system and man. Typical politician.
Pessimate
Instead of Vaisya you have Vinasa (destruction), a common people more interested in basement-dwelling or predatory consumption than in the world around them. Neckbeards and PUAs, free love and diabetes.
Vinasa
Instead of the Helots you have the Harpaxi (predators), invaders from a land that doesn’t want them. Think: La Raza.
In a society that has degraded into being run by Shadow, the Untouchables are allowed to “integrate” into the society, seen as easy marks and/or barter chips for social gain. The results of such arrangements are all around us.
…And it will continue to get worse and worse until the material can no longer sate the population and cannibalism inevitably follows.
Regression to the mean.
So how can this be fixed?
Ultimately, it can only work from top-down. There cannot be a true paradigm shift until the Brahmin have been reprogrammed, replaced. Bottom-up is not possible here: revolution is meaningless if your revolt is ultimately contained within the framework of the enemy (see: conservatives, libertarians, and socialists).
The primary goal should therefore be to create fertile intellectual ground, suitable for the creation of new Brahmin. While we may differ on some of the particulars, I hope my fellow travelers will come to agree with this point.
Here at The Right Stuff, we shall continue to do our part to help cultivate this ground.
Equality is the watchword and the catchword of our day. The egalitarian idea dominates the postmodern spirit. The masses approve of it. It expresses the thoughts and feelings of all; it has set its seal upon our time. When history comes to tell our story it will write above the chapter “The Epoch of Equality.”
As yet, it is true, Egalitarianism has not created a society which can be said to represent its ideal. But for more than a generation the policies of civilized nations have been directed towards nothing less than a realization of an equal society. In recent years the movement has grown noticeably in vigor and tenacity.
We are told by the intellectual establishment in the Western nations today that the best way to achieve this desired equality is to recognize and break down entrenched systems of privilege. In this context privilege is defined as:
“…a set of perceived advantages (or lack of disadvantages) enjoyed by a majority group, who are usually unaware of the privilege they possess.”
“…any right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person or group beyond the advantages
of most.”
The set of circumstances in which some people and groups enjoy advantages and benefits that others don’t is a serious obstacle to social equality. It must be addressed and remedied if we are to achieve a fair and just society. Of course the question of why such an egalitarian society is desirable in the first place is never asked or answered. Equality is simply one of the divine mysteries of postmodern liberalism and thus needs no explanation and will tolerate no questioning.
Yes, yes, everyone recognizes this is a blatant, brutishly-insulting argument against libertarianism. Hell, even *I* show you silver-hoarding freakos more respect than this article.
…But doesn’t that strike you as being a little strange?
Michael Lind is both a pedigreed author and well-connected member of the Cathedral; guest lecturer for Harvard Law, the works. I am a twenty-something statist writing under the pseudonym of a Japanese video game monster… Yet Lind’s the one blatantly trolling the Paultards. Something doesn’t add up. This article is a sub-par effort by even Salon’s Vaisya standards… Salon may not be The New York Times or The Atlantic, but neither is it Cracked.com.
What I’m getting at is that in a culture driven by subliminal messaging and viral social marketing, when something is *this* obvious it shouldn’t anger you, it should alarm you.
So, if this article isn’t meant to be a valid intellectual debunking of libertarianism (and it’s NOT), then what is the purpose?
While my fellow travelers are doing some amazing work both online and in meatspace, there are those of us at TRS that feel more could and should be done to seize the decline of the West. Why should we content ourselves with simply riding the tiger; why not work to aim the beast in a direction of our choosing?
From numerous discussions upon the subject was born Anti-Prometheism (Anti-Pro or Apro for short), a new and exciting intellectual frontier for my brothers to conquer.
The ultimate goal of this project is to weaken Western Civilization through the support and advancement of Liberal “progress” beyond the society’s tolerances, particularly within the United States. Push the idiotic narrative to such extremes, push the general population so far that for them reaction becomes blunt necessity, and not merely intellectual convenience.
Perhaps this project will strike many of my readers as being too radical (hare-brained) a means for achieving our desired reactionary ends. Why in the world should someone seek to create more of what they wish to destroy? How does one hope to kill Liberalism by making it stronger?
There is a festering cesspit growing like a post modernist cancer on the fringes of our crumbling society. This smoldering disease is the concentrated essence of all that is weak, detestable, impotent, and irrational about the human species concentrated into one viral organism of nihilistic decay. I speak to you of the Gender Nihilists.
The Gender Nihilists, through an accident of inferior genetic stock, liberal petite bourgeoisie upbringing, and entirely too much exposure to radical feminist literature have literally managed to sodomize themselves with a gender neutral “phallus” of pure slave morality. To the Gender Nihilist’s delicate and sensitive constitution, the mere existence of generalized “norms” regarding human preferences and interests based on their sexual orientation is Oppression. The scientific FACT that human beings don’t conform to their insanely naive concept of tabula rasa drives them into a pique of righteous indignation. Just the merest glimmer of possibility that their non-mainstream sexual orientations and preferences might be seen as a “deviation from the norm” or an “eccentricity” instantly offends, hurts, and marginalizes these defective little untermenschen. Why the very unmitigated GALL of the universe to put them in a position where they might feel inferior to someone!
