Neoreaction is Analytic Rightward Synthesis

Neoreaction (NRx) has been described as a trichotomy between Scientifically Aware Ethno-Nationalism, Techno-Commercialism, and Throne-and-Altar Traditionalism. While it’s true that many self-identified NRxys identify with one or the other of these branches, and NRx certainly contains elements of each, I would argue that NRx is not simply a mix of these.

NRx is the analytic rightward synthesis of the Ethno-nationalist, Techno-commercialist, and Traditionalist insight. It takes elements of each, and synthesizes them into something that actually ends up being to the right of each. Further, “analytic” means that NRx takes the sacredness structures of those components seriously, but studies and justifies them from the outside, rather than buying into them from the inside.

Each component has some major “red-pill” insight that deviates strongly from the mainstream consensus, and throws them far to the right of the Overton window. Let’s have a look and see what NRx says about each.

Ethno-Nationalists (Ethnats) know that humans evolved, and that evolution applies above the neck, so that different people are different; by natural selection, populations of people are smarter or dimmer, more aggressive or more docile, more or less clannish, more or less altruistic, more or less conscientious, as well as a million dimensions of compatibility with cultural structures. The core insight is that approximately all behaviours are heritable, and different races and possibly even subspecies of humans are meaningful abstractions.

On top of this, Ethnats often add a level of sacredness and in-group feeling with their own people, and ascribe an almost metaphysical importance to race and culture, and thus a strong opposition to the integrative multiculturalism that would erase that identity (as opposed to separative multiculturalism, which they like).

Ethnats don’t have a strong theory on other aspects of politics, and thus often default to the mainstream socialist and liberal -leaning tendencies in those areas. They also can sometimes value Identity so highly that they will advocate extremely disruptive measures like mass-deportation. See for example the political program of the Northwestern Front.

So we have the insight and the sacredness of ethnats; HBD, and Identity, and their blind spots; Economics and Social Structure. Neoreaction incorporates the HBD insights, analyzes Identity as an important social technology with strong effects on the quality of a polity, but realizes that uniform racial membership (or whatever) is neither necessary nor sufficient for a working polity, and pulls its economic and social policy from elsewhere. Many neoreactionaries, myself included, do feel a strong ethnic and cultural identity, but in our capacity as neoreactionaries as such, we put that aside in favour of the outside analytic view.

Techno-Commercialists (Techcoms) know that wealth is created and administration best delivered by unhindered capitalism, competition, culling of inefficiencies, value-free rational-scientific engineering, free exit, and free association within a relatively simple and unintrusive system of law, probably administrated itself by a profitable sovereign corporation. This has a tendency to leave obsolete people out in the cold, create massive social inequalities, and divide people by race and gender, so the mainstream really doesn’t like the fully unhinged version.

Techcoms often go beyond the mere instrumental value of these things and feel that the creation of science and technology, intelligence growth, competition, and an eventual technological singularity are valuable in their own right, not just instrumentally for the creation of wealth.

Pure Techcom, and especially its little brother Anarcho-Capitalism, can tend to lack an analysis of the importance of human biology, social identity, sacred social structures, and social norms and rules. Thus ancaps often end up defaulting to equalism and liberalism, as can be seen with modern open-borders-and-orgies libertarianism, and techcoms desiring a slightly more sophisticated, but still arguably nasty, nihilistic cyberpunk free-exit neocameralism.

Neoreaction incorporates the Neocameralist/Capitalist insight, and some of us even place intrinsic value on intelligence, knowledge, and technology, but again, NRx as such is interested in the instrumental value of techcom, and patches the biocultural and social gaps with insights from elsewhere, so that core NRx goes beyond just techcom.

Lastly, the Traditionalist Reactionaries know that modern social structures like democracy and equalist liberalism are broken and soulless, and often ineffective at organizing a society when compared with their traditional alternatives like Patriarchy, Monarchy, and Christianity. Depending on your theology, traditional social technology is either literally the product of divine revelation, or the product of a long process of cultural refinement and evolution that should not be second guessed so quickly as we have done. (Those alternatives are identical, from my own perspective).

Traditionalism as such is often all about the sacredness of traditional social technology; the value of kneeling before your God and king, the glory of serving him, the spiritual importance of living out a virtuous life in a rooted, patriarchal, religious community. That said, some trads approach it in a much more rationalistic manner.

Unfortunately, traditional social technologies have been disrupted by the massive social effects of our recent material wealth, and have not yet had a chance to adapt to the realities of capitalism or the post-malthusian selection environment. Traditionalists are often naive about economics, and sometimes neglectful of the importance of biology and identity. Further, by taking their sacredness structures so seriously, trads have a hard time reevaluating and redesigning them as necessary.

Neoreaction takes traditional social structures apart to see how they work, and digs through the dustbin of history to find forgotten good ideas, often explicitly analyzing the importance of sacredness while choosing and designing based on historical and theoretical effectiveness rather than convincingness within the mythology. NRx thus comes to similar conclusions as trad reaction while working within a completely different framework. It then further alloys those conclusions with techno-commercialist and HBD insight. Many of us have our sacredness structures around social technology, but in our capacity as neoreactionaries, it’s about the analysis, not the mythos.


If you left it at that I think you’d be 40% of the way to understanding NRx. At its core, it’s a comprehensive analysis incorporating the major insights from different branches of reactionary thought, rather than a simple mix of them. Thus it doesn’t really make sense to ask what branch of NRx one identifies with. It’s like asking a physicist whether they think quantum mechanics or general relativity is more true. The point is that the truth is a synthesis of the component theories, not a disjunction. (This is not to say that such a question is uninteresting, just that it doesn’t quite cut reality at the joints.)

The reason I say that the result is rightward of each component, is that in a simplistic view, there are multiple right-wing insights that Progressivism has tried to ignore, each branch of reactionary thought having recovered one or two, and with NRx attempting to have all of them.

The other 60% is plenty of fun as well, but less explicitly mapped.

Reaction and Authoritarian Fantasies

Some critics of neoreactionary thought (nearly all of them) accuse reactionaries of having fantasies of personally ruling over other people.

When children think about monarchy, that naturally tends to enter their minds. They envision themselves, or their father, as monarchs. What child hasn’t thought about it?

Serious reactionary thought, however, begins when people move beyond this and consider monarchy as a real option for government in the real world, not as an egoistic fantasy. So, ironically, it’s everyone else who only thinks of the organic state as a a self-indulgent fantasy, whereas reactionaries are among the few who take it seriously enough to know their personal power under such a system would be very limited. We’ve arrived at neoreactionary thought through the route of studying what makes for good governance.

The organic state is a natural extension of human nature. Hierarchies emerge naturally among children playing with blocks. The artificial application of ideas such as the democratic process is an unnatural addition; it conflicts with human nature in ways that the organic state does not. If you transported thousands of newborn babies to an unpopulated Eden and observed them grow and organize themselves, their society would be based on the organic state, not democracy. There is no need to postulate a “something extra,” like an obsession with authority, that makes a normal person advocate the organic state. Advocating it and understanding it is our natural condition. It takes a something extra, indoctrination, to make a person believe in a democratic republic. And still, the organic state is constantly bubbling up from beneath the surface.

Part of reactionary thought is accepting the reality of inequality. There are people smarter than you, more just than you, more attractive than you, more ambitious than you; simply better. Society works better when these people naturally rise to the top and preserve their status through family alliances. A democratic society that chooses its leaders through voting is controlled by those who control the media and their advisors in academia telling people how to vote. This fluctuates wildly, causing social and economic chaos.

Accepting the reality of inequality means we realize we are not the best, and probably not close to it. Democrats (in the sense of believers in democracy) like to lie to themselves that they are equal to everyone else. Everyone knows we are not equal, and this system causes problems where it conflicts with reality.

Among reactionaries, our fantasy is to live a normal life without politics. We see the government’s invitation for every citizen to participate in politics as a disaster. Governance, like fine painting, is best performed by experts raised for the role from birth, not by popular vote. Democracy is too many cooks in the kitchen. This elimination of participation in governance by the masses, what Evola called apoliteia, is our goal. In contrast to the Marxist/progressive doctrine, which seeks to politicize absolutely everything in daily life, we seek to depoliticize life and let natural human social reality take its course. Instead of fantasies of power, we have fantasies of only being responsible for local events and circumstances which directly relate to us and our communities.

The motivation for our “love of authoritarianism” (or, as it used to be called, normalcy) is based on our love for order and culture. Everyone knows that a company fails without real leadership. A CEO who is cycled out every four years cannot realistically pursue any long-term projects, and has no incentive to do so. For governments, it is the same. By recreating governments where a ruling family has a personal stake in and deep cultural connection to the people, we anticipate improvements in factors like crime rates, social cohesion, long-term projects, happiness of the people, health of the economy, and so on. We are not utopian—advocating for private government is not a Utopian plan, just a proposal for incremental improvement. To us, private government is common sense.

Of course, our critics will continue to misrepresent us with tactics that are tried and true since the French Revolution, but we must make our stance clear.

On the absence of war

Scott Alexander wrote, on the topic of military spending (emphasis mine):

In the absence of war – a condition which has mostly held for the past fifty years – all this does is sap money away from infrastructure, health, education, or economic growth.

Since Dr. Alexander is not known to be a blithering idiot, but rather the opposite, I cannot simply assume he is being dense. Charity forbids me to immediately assume the other explanation supplied by Hanlon’s razor, so I’ve definitely got a bit of a problem here. Perhaps Dr. Alexander is simply ignorant in this specific area. Ignorance, unlike stupidity, can be cured by education, so let’s try that!

The post where the quote comes from was published on the 30th of July, 2014 AD. Let’s see what’s been happening in terms of war since fifty years before that. (I’ve limited myself to conflicts involving army-sized forces and/or those having corps-sized casualty counts; else I should become a living offense to brevity, in the likes of Mencius Moldbug or Scott Alexander himself. I’ve also helpfully marked the conflicts occurring in the Middle East, since that’s one way of interpreting the ‘mostly’ qualifier.)

Internal conflict in Burma, 1948-present. One of the longest-running civil wars, started the moment Burma achieved independence from the UK. Left-wing and ethnic rebels are the primary troublemakers here.

First Sudanese Civil War, 1955-72. Ethno-religious conflict, due to the British placing both Sunni Arabs and Christian Africans together in one administrative district ruled by the former. The latter gained autonomy in the resulting peace.

Vietnam War, 1955-75. The proxy war in the Cold War. United States and friends back South Vietnam, while the Soviet Union and friends back North Vietnam. The North wins, and annexes the South.

Congo Crisis, 1960-65. Proxy war between the Allies and the Soviets. The result was the establishment of an independent Congo. (Notable due to casualties.)

Guatemalan Civil War, 1960-96. Long civil war between various leftist militias and the government, supported by the Soviets and the West, respectively. Ended in a truce.

Nicaraguan Revolution, 1960s-90. Rebels backed by the United States and company seek to overthrow the government, backed by the Soviet Union – successfully. (Troop counts not listed, but casualties huge.)

Middle EastFirst Iraqi-Kurdish War, 1961-70. Attempt by ethnic Kurds to become independent. Ended in a stalemate. (Casualties are notable, if not the forces.)

Middle EastNorth Yemen Civil War, 1962-70. Republicans supported by Egypt crush the monarchists supported by Saudi Arabia, Jordan and European mercenaries.

Portuguese Colonial War, 1961-74. Portuguese colonial possessions achieve independence, even though Portugal wins in military terms. Economic devastation is a bitch.

Colombian conflict, 1964-present. Ongoing civil war between the government of Colombia and partisans.

Indo-Pakistani War, 1965. White peace mandated by United Nations.

South African Border War, 1966-90. South Africa withdraws from Angola, Namibia achieves independence.

Middle EastSix-Day War, 1967. Israel demolishes and humiliates a coalition of thirteen Arab nations.

Cambodian Civil War, 1967-75. Communists achieve victory over the United States-supported republicans.

Nigerian Civil War, 1967-70. Biafran rebels supported by a mismatched coalition of meddlers are crushed by Nigeria (supported by a completely different mismatched coalition of meddlers).

Middle EastWar of Attrition, 1967-70. Israel schools Egypt and Jordan again.

Naxalite-Maoist insurgency, 1967-present. Ongoing communist uprising in India.

The Troubles, 1960s-98. Irish nationalist insurgency in Northern Ireland. Ended with a ceasefire, though low-level partisan warfare is still carried out by dissenters. (Wikipedia doesn’t list troop counts, but amount of people killed suggests large forces.)

Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia, 1968. Communist bloc enforces communism in Czechoslovakia.

Insurgency of the Communist Party of the Philippines, 1969-present. Ongoing communist uprising in the Philippines. (There are other conflicts there, but this is the big one.)

Sino-Soviet border conflict, 1969. White peace.

Papua conflict, 1969-present. Ongoing low-level war between the government and indigenous peoples. (Again, casualty counts suggest high amount of belligerents.)

Middle EastBlack September in Jordan, 1970-71. Palestinians try to achieve supremacy over the Jordanites, fail.

Bangladesh Liberation War, 1971. India helps the eastern half of Pakistan become independent as Bangladesh. Also counts as a proxy war between the Soviets and Americans, Soviets victorious.

Middle EastYom Kippur War, 1973. Military victory for Israel against the Arabs, but leads to political cessions in the peace treaty.

Ethiopian Civil War, 1974-91. Imperials fight democratic and communist rebel scum; democratic rebels end up on top. Eritrea uses the commotion to achieve independence.

Middle EastSecond Iraqi-Kurdish War, 1974-75. Iraqi government crushes separatists.

Western Sahara War, 1975-91. Morocco and Algeria both claim the region now known as West Sahara, formerly a Spanish colony. Ends in a ceasefire, both sides sitting on their conquests.

Middle EastLebanese Civil War, 1975-90. Free for all between ethnic and religious groups, with intervention by meddlers such as USA and Israel. Ended in a coexistence agreement.

Cambodian-Vietnamese War, 1975-89. Vietnam, backed by the Soviets, overthrows the Khmer Rouge and establishes a new communist government. Low-level clashes continue for quite some time.

Indonesian invasion of East Timor, 1975. Indonesia annexes East Timor.

Mozambican Civil War, 1977-92. Spat between two parts of the independence movement. Ends in a UN resolution and peacekeeping mission.

Ethio-Somali War, 1977-78. Somalia claims Ogaden. Soviets back Ethiopia, USA backs Somalia. Soviet-backed forces eject invaders.

Uganda-Tanzania War, 1978-79. Successful Tanzanian war to depose Idi Amin.

Middle EastTurkey-PKK conflict, 1978-present. Kurdish separatists make war on the Turkish government. Currently seems to be winding down, with both sides exhausted.

Sino-Vietnamese War, 1979. Chinese punitive expedition to Vietnam. Brief and largely inconclusive.

Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979-89. Afghani insurgents backed by China and the United States force Soviets to withdraw from the country.

Middle EastIran-Iraq War, 1980-88. Iraq, supported by both the Soviet Union and the United States, invades Iran. The war ends inconclusively, with both sides claiming victory.

Ugandan Bush War, 1981-86. Pretender rebels try to overthrow the Ugandan government, and succeed.

Middle East1982 Lebanon War, 1982-85. Failed Israeli invasion of Lebanon to remove Palestinian influences.

Sri Lankan Civil War, 1983-2009. Tamil rebels crushed by the Sri Lankan government.

Second Sudanese Civil War, 1983-2005. South Sudanese separatists achieve independence. (Notable due to casualty count.)

Civil war in Afghanistan, 1989-92. Spat between various independence factions. Mujahedins come out on top. This is a phase of the general state of perpetual warfare in Afghanistan since 1978.

First Liberian Civil War, 1989-97. Rebels overthrow government. (Notable due to casualties.)

Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir, 1989-present. Ongoing insurgency in north-western India. Seems to be subsiding at the moment.

Middle EastGulf War, 1990-91. A coalition of powers led by the United States intervenes in the Iraqi conquest of Kuwait, and forces them to withdraw.

Yugoslav Wars, 1991-99. The constituent republics of communist Yugoslavia declare independence from the federal government. This heading includes the Ten-Day War, the Croatian War of Independence, the Bosnian War, and the Kosovo War.

Algerian Civil War, 1991-2002. Islamic insurgency eventually crushed by government forces. Amnesty given to quell dissent.

Somali Civil War, 1991-present. Ongoing free-for-all between the many competing governments in Somalia.

Middle East1991 uprisings in Iraq, 1991. Government forces crush popular uprisings following the Gulf War.

War in Abkhazia, 1992-93. Separatists backed by Russia succeed in de facto independence against Georgia. This is part of the greater Georgian Civil War. (I lack figures, but the casualty count suggests large forces.)

Civil war in Tajikistan, 1992-97. Ethnic uprisings in Tajikistan, ended in an armistice.

Burundian Civil War, 1993-2005. Ethnic conflict between the Hutu and Tutsi tribes, ending in reconciliation. Sporadic fighting since then. (Notable due to casualties, strength figures incomplete.)

Middle EastIraqi Kurdish Civil War, 1994-97. Spat between rival Kurdish groups in Iraq. Ended in a ceasefire and establishment of two governments.

First Chechen War, 1994-96. Chechen separatists achieve crushing victory over Russian government forces, becoming de facto independent.

First Congo War, 1996-97. Disgruntled rebels overthrow the Zairan government.

Republic of the Congo Civil War, 1997-99. War between two presidential candidates. One of them won.

Eritrean-Ethiopian Civil War, 1998-2000. Ethiopia attempts reconquest of the regions lost in their recent civil war. They succeed militarily, but lose later in international court. Eritrea’s independence stands. (Strength figures lacking, casualty figures make it notable.)

Second Congo War, 1998-2003. Incredible, far-reaching clusterfuck of gigantic proportions. No clear victor, and I struggle to find reasons for this happening. (Those casualties, man, those casualties.)

Second Liberian Civil War, 1999-2003. Democratic rebels succeed in overthrowing the government of Liberia.

Ituri conflict, 1999-2007. Ethnic conflict in Congo, inconclusive. (Notable due to casualties.)

Second Chechen War, 1999-2009. Russia reconquers the rebel Chechen state, and fights insurgents for nine years thereafter.

War in Afghanistan, 2001-present. The ongoing conflict started with the American invasion of Afghanistan, on grounds of them supporting Al-Qaeda, who are responsible for terrorist activity in the United States. Taliban government falls, replaced by American satellite regime, but continues as an insurgency thereafter.

War in Darfur, 2003-present. Ethnic rebels rise up against the Sudanese government. Conflict ongoing.

Middle EastIraq War, 2003-present. USA invades Iraq on grounds that they’re harbouring weapons of mass destruction. Iraqi government replaced with American puppets, but insurgency continues ever since. This includes the current Caliphate-themed war in Iraq and Syria.

Middle EastBalochistan conflict, 2003-present. Nationalist rebels and others fight the Pakistani and Iranian governments over a range of issues. Ongoing conflict.

War in North-West Pakistan, 2004-present. Ongoing insurgency against the Pakistani government, which is supported by the United States.

Middle EastShia insurgency in Yemen, 2004-present. Ongoing. Shia rebels fight the Yemeni and Saudi Arabian governments.

Mexican Drug War, 2006-present. Ongoing criminal insurgency against the Mexican government.

Libyan Civil War, 2011. Rebellion, aided by America and its subject states, overthrow the Libyan government.

Middle EastSyrian Civil War, 2011-present. Ongoing civil war between the Alawite Syrian government, and several Sunni rebel groups. Has spilled over into neighbouring countries.

Sudan-SRF conflict, 2011-present. Ongoing insurgency by several rebel groups in southern Sudan and northern South Sudan.

Heglig Crisis, 2012. Brief territorial conflict between Sudan and South Sudan, won by Sudan.

Middle EastOperation Protective Edge, 2014. Israel launches a punitive expedition to the Gaza Strip, to combat Hamas. Both sides claim victory.

Here’s a map with the conflicts above are marked (locations of conflict marked, rather than participants):

World Peace

Tallying up the numbers from these listed conflicts, I estimate between 15 million and 32 million dead due to warfare – and that’s just these select few wars. It could be another helping of the same magnitude from the ones I’ve skipped (anyone want to crunch the numbers for all of them?). Plus about an order of magnitude more of those who are affected by war otherwise – wounded or displaced.

That’s it for the last 50 years’ of major wars. (This list may be incomplete. If I missed something big, please contact us via the regular channels.) Let’s round this out to a nice map which shows where current wars are happening, courtesy of Wikipedia:

Ongoing conflicts around the world

So why – and how – can an intelligent and educated individual, such as Dr. Alexander, come to believe that the times are substantially peaceful ones? Why, there’s an ongoing major civil war happening right on America’s doorstep! Not to mention the incredible crime levels that only recently began to decline.

Perhaps it has to do with the hegemony of the American empire. Wars are few and far between among the client countries of the United States of America (but not completely absent, see for instance the Falklands War between the UK and Argentina). Western Europe hasn’t quite fought a real war on its own territory since the Second World War, and so didn’t America or Canada, which definitely could explain the feeling of security and peace.

Another explanation could be the segregation of the Brahmin population from the non-ruling castes and from any possibility of violence. The results appear to be women who think they can win a physical confrontation with any man, people whose standards as to what constitutes violence have slipped a bit and people like Dr. Alexander – who possibly have the most reasonable take on the situation, simply considering the circumstances substantially utopic with some minor alterations that could be done to improve things a bit more.

In the absence of personal experience of violence, people grow soft. I just wonder whether it will be Alaric or Abd al-Mu’min who will strike the decisive blow to this complacency. I’m not sure I like either option.

Dealing With Intellectual Inferiority

The present system is quite meritocratic in the way it awards intelligence, even if you completely avoid any career paths that require active ideological conformity and status-whoring. Almost anyone smart (who doesn’t have some awful defect negating this advantage) will somehow find a way towards a decent level of social status and accomplishment.

-Vladimir, here

Intelligent people are a valuable resource. They run organizations, build machines and think up arguments. They impress and outmaneuver others, thereby influencing them and the world. They are a lush habitat, not just with better rewards but more room. Ideas would have good cause to mark them as prime targets for capture.

That conservatives are, on average, less intelligent that their opponents is pretty well established. I’m not bringing this up to mock how IQ tests suddenly become excellent measures of intelligence when they give lower scores among conservatives, but when it comes to the low IQ scores under-performing minorities or explanations for why some children are left behind suddenly intelligence is a mystical and unquantifiable.  No dear conservatives, I’m not going to be taking you seriously either if your first thought on this is how IQ doesn’t really measure intelligence. It is the single most robust result from psychometrics and it has strong predictive power for everything from income to health. Not only is it a good enough fit for intelligence, I without reservation claim it measures the ability to succeed at the only game in town.

So why not just go home and trust Harvard to do this questioning modernity thing for us? Who are we to talk about schools, marriages and parliament? I certainly don’t feel qualified. Our advantage over them in figuring out what is good or least bad socially can not possibly be cognitive or even access to particular information, but only raw sanity. How can that be? Either we are unusually sane or the alternative is unusually insane. The source of unusual sanity is overall questionable. There is some evidence in favor, prediction power on a certain class of questions. And there are several candidate theories I won’t explore in detail, that make the case. For example Jim thinks some kind of “temperamental atheism”, a kind of sacredness blindness, might help many of our thinkers be unusually right on things others think sacred to be wrong on.

Now what of the alternative of them being unusually insane? Most of the intellectual work of Neoreaction has been focused on why Harvard might not have good incentives for sanity on schools, marriages and parliament, so I won’t waste my breath here either. For now let us accept that ideas capture human intelligence, as I hinted earlier. There has been more intellectual capital, especially that of brilliant minds, expended on figuring out Roman Catholic theology than quantum mechanics or computer science. We are currently not in an age of Enlightened mastery of human intelligence over ideas, them being discarded and accepted according to their merits and use. If the 20th century has given any lesson, it is that ideas discard and accept people according to their use.

You can certainly call that a consequence.  Fundamental assymetry in the war of ideas, a corruption in the market of ideas that is supposed to reveal truth. Jim has argued that greater demands for declarations of pious insanity are locking away the intelligent from important positions. I am not as optimistic. Neoreaction will necessarily have fewer brains than the ideologies that currently get preferentially access to brains. Pretending or worse thinking we aren’t overpowered, by a factor of ten thousands to one, in sheer mind power dedicated to rationalization and belief propagation is folly.

What remains is dealing with it. Find pieces of reality where one requires little thought or computation to verify validity, even if the problem itself is a hard one. This applies to your selection of cognitive tools  as well. For epistemic sanity on questions where this isn’t the case, remember the differential at play. Ceteris paribus one set of ideas has had a lot more motivated cognition going into it than another. A big chunk of that motivated cognition was spent researching ways to subtly hack you. The hard and long term goal is discovering how to change the incentive structure of idea competition to favor either truth or your own values. Or possibly replace idea competition with a much better mechanism.

I’ll conclude for now by emphasizing the key modification of your naive tribal intuitions that flows from this: Don’t pursue tactics that focus on winning over most or even many intellectuals, no matter how good it feels to you as an intellectual. Don’t ever pander to the groups gang signs for their own sake. Focus only on acquiring specific intellectuals you need to fulfill particular needs of a strategy that recognizes the reality of the inherent and unbridgeable gap.

 

Part of Towards An Institution Building Institution

Next Post: “Antiversity as Hobby

Previous Post: “Conquest’s Second Law