Why NRx is Winning

Let’s look at the structure of NRx with respect to subcultural containment and entryism. When we started, the boundaries that separated us from other political thought were an outright rejection of democracy, affinity for authority, a subtle and intellectual racism, an analytic approach, and an analysis of progressivism as a heretical pseudo-religion. These boundaries insulated us from other rightist thought, which allowed us to scoop up a band of post-libertarians, Lesswrong rationalists, hipsters, Catholic trads, intelligent racists and nationalists unhappy with their mainstream brothers, patriarchists, and assorted other contrarian rightists. With that platform, and ideological compatibility with no other known group, we were able to develop a very unique approach and philosophy.

As we became cooler, so far no outside subcultures have been able to successfully enter. Some people proposed an anti-racist and anti-sexist Dark Enlightenment, which got laughed at and rejected pretty quickly. We are completely immune to SJW entryism of the usual variety, as we are utterly repellent to them and don’t take any of their usual accusations of sexism, racism, etc seriously. Our analysis of authority and values beyond the economic have protected us from dissolving into libertarianism. Our suspiciously Jewish founding analyst and general not-completely-antisemitic approach have so far turned off the more fanatically antisemitic right authoritarian racists. Our rejection of and contempt for democracy has kept us from dissolving into the neutered mainstream right. Even if some of our foundational assumptions have been wrong, their repellent nature has served to keep us intellectually sovereign, and for that they are valuable.

All the other rightist groups, republicans, anti-semitic reactionaries and nazis, and libertarians have been around forever and have accomplished, well, not much, besides making normal and reasonable people hate them. Dissolution into any of those groups would be death for NRx. By remaining separate from those groups, we have developed a fresh school of thought that is growing rapidly and actually appeals to hip young folks who would never be swayed by other stale rightists. I have all sorts of nonpolitical friends coming around to me asking me to explain this whole NRx thing, intrigued by it, and coming back from study further to the right and eager for more.

So with that in mind, let’s briefly look closer whether the cause of our political decline is solely the Jewish Frankfurt School, or mutation of mainstream Christian culture as enabled by structural issues in our civilization. I myself find the structural frame and explanation the most compelling no matter how much semitic subversion we find or do not find; it seems to me a much more robust and productive problem to focus on: if some particular organization or ethnicity are behind it, their opportunity is structural, if there is no such ethnic conspiracy, the failure is structural. Either way, the structural approach is best for NRx.

But the theory is beside the point here. Holding that “the Jews” aren’t behind everything bad has enabled us to actually look at the structural issues without writing off all alternative hypotheses as Jewish subversion and shilling. The fanatical antisemitism of the rest of the right is bundled with thought-stopping and repellent lunacy, that normal people have a hard time taking seriously, and our rejection of it has kept us sane and thinking. Further, holding the structural/ultraprotestantism position on the cause of progressivism has been a defence against dissolution into the broader useless right, because it’s so repellent to the people who would otherwise be entryists.

The thing is, the System, the ZOG Machine, the Cathedral, whatever you want to call it, can’t handle a serious right wing subculture that can refrain from raving about the Jews, Hieling Hitler, calling people “Niggers”, whining autistically about the Non Aggression Principle, or joining the mainstream controlled opposition. Our rejection of those things is a declaration of memetic sovereignty, and insurance of sanity. If the Cathedral were capable of noticing us without bursting into flames, they would want us to dissolve those boundaries and melt into those other subcultures, because then we become a known and adapted threat, and can be controlled. Because if we don’t do that, we’re a wild card, and reasonable people might get involved.

If we won’t dissolve into the other subcultures of the right, they would want us to fight with them over those boundaries, because that keeps us occupied and divided. While an occasional scuffle over boundaries is inevitable, NRx will continue to refuse to denounce our allies on the right. We laugh at our colleagues on the right, learn from their successes and mistakes, and criticize them, but they are not enemies.

The reason NRx is winning is that it has resisted dissolving into the usual cesspools that plague the right and repel interesting people. We will continue to declare intellectual sovereignty, continue to take the measured and analytic approach that appeals to serious intellectuals, continue to grow, and continue to affirm the findings that make us unique and compelling:

  • Patriarchy and families are the foundation of society.
  • The natural and unmolested course of selection and elimination must be allowed to occur in economics and society.
  • Hierarchy is the natural and right way for people to cooperate.
  • Different people are different. Equality is a lie.
  • Progressivism is an insane religion advanced by a hostile media/academic machine.
  • It’s not just “The Jews”.
  • Democracy isn’t going to fix these problems.
  • Merely denouncing those to the right creates a deadly signalling spiral, so no enemies to the right.

Entryism as Exploited Containment Failure Between Subcultures

The previous post was something of a standalone theory prerequisite for a discussion of how subcultures need walls, and what form those walls take.

First off, I’m using “subculture” to mean a group of people who come together to share their thoughts and culture and time in the context of some shared interest. A group composed of multiple individuals that share memes and that thus becomes something of a Thing itself. The shared interest isn’t really necessary except as a barrier against dissolution into the ambient cultural soup though. Let’s look at how those shared interests can or cannot protect the subculture from dissolution:

If a subculture accepts people from outside who have other affiliations, those people can systematically distort and pwn the dynamic, deliberately in a planned way or just because that’s what happens. Especially if there are a lot of people interested in joining from a similar direction.

Imagine a group of people who are interested in X, Y, and Z. Their first boundary is obscurity. While they are relatively unknown, they can explore what can be done with X, Y, and Z, and pick up the occasional fresh mind who is also interested in that. As they begin to develop their theories and start creating interesting ideas and cultural content, and start to become cool, they start to lose their obscurity boundary.

Once they are cool, they have to start worrying about people coming in because they are cool, or because they are something that is happening that can be captured and redirected for other purposes. For example, you might have another group of people who are interested in A, B, and C, which cash out to taking over things and making them about A, B, and C as well as their original topics. You would expect such a predator subculture to be successful if there were a lot of prey subcultures vulnerable to that kind of entry.

If XYZ, and ABC conflict, then counterintuitively, predatory entryism is less of a concern, because the conflict prevents the ABC entryists from being drawn to the XYZ subculture. They are in fact repelled by it. But if XYZ and ABC are orthogonal, then the ABC people will be interested in bringing ABC to XYZ to create XYZ+, and they will be able, because XYZ wont know to react against it.

So it is important for any growing subculture that values its own existence to get serious about defending against entryists by erecting new memetic barriers that repel most plausible entryists. Lets look at some real world examples:

#Gamergate is a great example. We have the gaming community, which came together of mostly young mostly men interested in playing video games. As they grew in popularity, cultural richness, and coolness, they became something of a target for SJW entryism. After all, the SJWs are interested in fixing toxic cultures by making them more inclusive to women and minorities, and gamers are notorious for calling each other faggots, and using triggering language like “rape” to describe victories. Since such things are not necessarily integral to gaming, the SJW subculture licked its lips and approached its prey, deploying Anita Sarkeesian and a band of sympathetic journalists to close the deal.

Unfortunately, the toxic gaming community had just enough overlap and good relations with the even more toxic *chan community and other anti-SJW subcultures to offer some resistance. Tensions and animosity rose until 5guys happened, when the gamers rage boiled over and escalated to harassment and non-memetic hostility, which was quickly matched from the SJW/Journalist side. At that point it was on, and escalated out of the realm of merely memetic scuffling. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I worry that #GG has gone too soft pretending to be about journalistic ethics or whatever rather than defending its native subculture from entryism by the enemy. I would like to see them harden up and escalate to /baphomet/ and /pol/’s level and beyond before /baphomet/ decides that #GG themselves are soft lolcows, but things might be more delicate than that.

Another good example of personal significance of a less fortunate victim of SJW entryism is Lesswrong. Originally a very interesting community around the art of human rationality, i.e. how to think real good, it left its political back door open to increasing levels of SJW entryism: polyamory, cuddle piles, anti-racism, anti-sexism, identity politics, feminism, socialism, open borders, sex work, etc. As far as I can tell, for a large number of LWers, the community is more or less standard Bay Area Social Justice with some wonky drapery about something called “rationality”. This happened because Lesswrong’s nominal subject does not directly contradict Social Justice. If Lesswrong had instead been repellent to SJWs, instead of attractive, I think this may not have happened.

There are of course hundreds of other examples of communities transformed by entryism. It would be great if someone were to catalog them, but I won’t do that tonight. What I’m getting at here is the general structure of entryism between subcultures.

Notes on Boundaries

If you introduce a chemical (eg penicillin) that attacks the ability of bacteria to form cell walls, they lose their cell walls. This kills the bacteria. Why?

Any productive entropy resistant dynamic has an internal economy of connected mechanisms that need to make certain assumptions. The assumptions are often of the form that things deliberately excluded will stay gone, and that things produced will stay available for your use. That is, that investments are protected from destruction by the outside environment. This is accomplished by setting up barriers that insulate some part of the world from leakage or interference. Here are some examples:

  • A clean room has a barrier that prevents circulation of air except through controlled processes, this allows you to invest in the creation of specially conditioned and dust-free air and be sure that your industrial processes will take place in that clean and controlled air.
  • Legal property rights allow economic actors to make investments in things they will need in the future without much having to worry about losing them to theft.
  • Process and interface boundaries in computer science allow you to invest in carefully constructed and fragile data structures that you can be sure will not be damaged by wayward programmers or segfaults in other processes.
  • A living cell creates certain chemicals and proteins with it’s internal mechanisms that it expects to be able to use in the future. It also excludes certain chemicals so that its processes can assume they won’t mess with them. The cell wall contains and protects these investments.

If you dissolve the cell wall, the cell dies because it is no longer able to capture the gains of its own labor and profit from its own investments. Barriers and investment protection of some kind are necessary for life or any other form of productivity. Lack of barriers is death.

A nation-state or community is itself a living thing: investing in good people, getting rid of bad people, and organizing them into social structures. Barriers to entry, exit, and interference allow these investments to be made and guaranteed, which allows super-individual social structures like civilization to live. The first civilizations were farming communities that built walls and armies against raiders.

A proposal to dissolve all controls on entry and exit from communities and nations is similar to the proposal to dump Penicillin in a bacterial colony. Soup composed of homogenized life-bits is not alive, despite being constitutionally indistinguishable from life (for a while). Mind you in the case of civilizations, removing one set of walls does not kill it, because civilizations are quite robust, and will find other ways to discriminate, but it does make it harder to live. For example, if we require companies to hire representative samples of the population by race and gender, and they will do things like put all the people they would not have hired in one of the less critical departments, to keep the effect of segregation in the critical departments, but they still have to pay for it, and it is less stable.

Things without boundaries rapidly become unthings.

Frankfurt School Not Cause Of Progressivism

Related to: Infographic of the Cathedral, Frankfurt School Caused Progressivism

This is meant as a short reply to two recent posts by Michael, especially the latter. I want to discourage misuse of terminology and correct some simplifications which I suspect might be harmful to readers unfamiliar with other relevant writing on the topics of history, theory of politics, and sociology.

In this blogosphere Progressivism is used as the preferred term for a wide array of left-wing ideologies and worldviews, as well as the dominant belief system of the modern Western world. It also includes the beliefs of most self-described conservatives. Currently these worldviews are thought to be direct descendants of the egalitarian strains of Anglo Christianity and some Enlightenment philosophy, that participated heavily in various undesirable European social and political upheavals from the 17th to the 19th century. Claiming to be the product of pure reason and universal human values, we believe it is currently best understood as a strange cult religion sharing a particular morality heavily contingent on the history of predecessor cults. Smaller cousin cults sharing the same roots and features had spawned on a smaller scale and flamed out earlier. Like American Free Love Christian Communists.

Another clear sign of this is that it retains and relies on essentially religious and unjustified assumptions. An example would be Moral Progress the belief that the “moral arc” of history bends towards “justice”, having developed from Providence, the assumption of God’s intervention to shape history. We also see several clearly recorded transitional stages of development from the old worldview to the new one, such as recognizable UN aspirations being in 1942 described and seen as Super-Protestant.

Starting first with the British Empire and later in the 20th century with the rise of American power and associated nominally international institutions, it can be understood as having effectively conquered the world. The result is harmful social reform and bad governance that is hard to observe because there are so few alternatives that are allowed to exist, and historical perspective is distorted to blacken the ones that existed in the past. For example crimes caused by those aligned with the cult are minimized, consider how heavily the crimes of the Spanish Inquisition are weighed relative to the much more bloody reign of terror during the French Revolution.

This is an important distinct use of Progressive, since outside the blogosphere it is synonymous to Liberal or Left-wing, or to refer to a narrow example of this ideology that historically carried and introduced its name in the 1900s.

Leftism sometimes also has a special wider use. Jim speculated that much like Progressivism is a recognizable outgrowth of Anglo Christianity that has resulted in destructive outcomes, the Gallician traditions might have given rise to the particular flavor of the French Revolution. That ideological lineage is said to be mostly extinct and has been replaced in modern France by Anglo descended leftism. I similarly speculated on another extinct lineage of leftism outside the Western world among the Mazdakists.

An established church is a system of social institutions that generates and disseminates the normative belief system of a society and with it certain behaviors and values. It is either indistinguishable from the state or has its support in formal and informal privileges.

The term Cathedral was coined by Mencius Moldbug to refer to the 20th-century version of the established church still existing today in the West. Sometimes it is used in a narrower sense, specifically a life-cycle that is posited to exist in Democracies where the media and educational institutions create certain beliefs and disperse them among the population. Then via the state these translate into power and legitimacy for the institutions. This power and legitimacy can then be used to more effectively ingrain the next batch of ideas. When it comes to the truth value of the beliefs, the cycle has no good tether to reality, instead over time collapsing them into the set of ideas that can most effectively grant power to opinion generating institutions.

I have few objections to the Infographic beyond its title. It is an acceptable ideological mapping, that in large parts fits quite well with my understanding of some of the social phenomena, ideas and institutions included. It include some parts of the Cathedral and some components that are not part of it, so its fault there lies in not making the insanity generating cycle which I described previously clear. A much more damning criticism is that if falsely implies that real democracy if only tried, might solve most of the negative consequences it bemoans.

This is incorrect. This is especially true on the example of mass immigration that it explicitly uses in this way, since there is a direct and inbuilt incentive in a Democracy for anyone who wants to grab power to extend the franchise as much as possible. Because of natural human tribalism, importing large amounts of new voters creates instant new voting blocks that can easily be harvested for electoral victories and other kinds of political influence.

It could be understood to imply that only the Frankfurt School was feeding into rising insanity during the 20th century or that various leftist ideologies were not problematic before then. This isn’t directly contradicted by Michael in the second post.

This seemed notable, because online there are relatively large and loud ideological groups firmly holding the belief that things only went bad in the 1960s and put the entire problem at the feet of the Frankfurt school. They don’t in practice seem very interested in the kind of exploration of truth that I want to engage in, rather being motivated for immediate action, through the means of changing mass opinion, political struggle and various kinds of activism. This kind of opinion warfare is gambling in terms of pay off. Like all gambling games the house wins, and the house is Communist. I don’t know yet how I would go about changing society for the better, but this doesn’t seem the correct approach. The notion commonly held on these political sites, that the Frankfurt school is solely responsible for social decay in recent decades is just wrong.

The Frankfurt school was first a social science research institution and then a school of Neo-marxist social theory, it was an organized group of essentially Communist intellectuals who set out to systematically alter society by using social science both as a tool and also as a political weapon to attack and change social structures they understood as necessary for the existence of capitalism. They both studied society with the hope of finding ways to do this and attempted to produce research and work that would cause social reform that would actualize it. Note this doesn’t require the work to be an accurate description of reality. A corruption of epistemology and goals occurs. The formal purpose of a captured relevant social science was the unbiased study of reality, the actual purpose to carry out revolution. The bottom line is written before the “impartial” investigation that follows.

Books produced like The Authoritarian Personality (1950) by Theodor Adorno that are part model, part propaganda, written with the aim of arguing that the only way to avoid totalitarianism is to demolish exactly those structures they had previously identified as supporting capitalism. Conveniently focused and packaged as anti-Fascism. In the early years following WW2 the halls of power were quite open to various suggestions on the best approach to the denazification of Germany. And once this was done, well why not be extra safe and apply it at home?

As a side effect of implementation in policy, they became considered foundational texts in many areas of study. Combined with organized entry and purging of ideologically disaligned individuals, we do see a capture of academia, which conveniently is also an educational institution. Whatever change that takes place, absent disruptions, is self-replicating.

There is a reason they had so little difficulty with the task though, many working in those institutions were already sympathetic to similar ideals.
Looking at the economics, anthropology and psychology of the 1930s-1950s is sufficient for one to realizes there is in fact no bright shining line dividing fallen and unfallen social science in 1960. There is indeed an introduction of some new ideological tools, but not the approach itself. Unrelated leftist groups and ideologies had captured parts of academia for similar purposes before. Some in the19th century or even earlier as can be observed in 18th century philosophy.

Many of these like the Utilitarian push for women’s suffrage were comparably successful in reshaping society. The particular ideology everyone calls Progressive, the one from the 1900s, had proposed societal reforms that were in themselves already perfectly sufficient to destroy it in the long run. Even them promoting the in itself good idea of eugenics, ended badly.

The symptoms of social decay many bemoan in the 1960s of course far predate it, together with enabling beliefs, they waxed and waned and sometimes lead directly to the later stage, likely even without a helping hand. A visceral example relating to the sexual revolution and gender relations can be found in this paragraph by James A. Donald:

The eighteenth century view of women was that they were the uncontrollably lustful sex, that given half a chance they would crawl nine miles over broken glass to have group sex with their demon lover.   In the Victorian era, this was replaced by the doctrine that women were naturally pure and chaste, except that evil lecherous men forced their vile lusts upon them.   This resulted in the abrupt removal of controls on female misbehavior.  Women, such as the protagonist of “Pride and Prejudice” were allowed to be “out” while fertile age and single, giving them every opportunity for twentieth century style misbehavior.  The evidence produced in the case of the divorce of Queen Caroline suggests that they did in fact misbehave, but, lacking cameras everywhere, it was possible to get away with denying this fact.   Queen Caroline attended a ball naked from the waist up, and returned to her hotel with someone she met at the ball, but the official truth remained that she was a chaste woman cruelly mistreated by her lecherous and philandering husband.   In view of what Queen Caroline got up to and got away with, and in view of the lack of controls on the protagonist of “Pride and Prejudice”, we may suppose a covert sexual revolution in Victorian times, going public in 1910, in part because cameras were getting usable.

By now I hope managed to understandably present some of the reasons why I think think the theories recently written about are an insufficient and misleading explanation for leftist drift. As such they bad guides to potential action. I know this post also isn’t sufficient for the full argument. That would probably take up several books, but it should be enough to help people find some important missing parts.

The Frankfurt School did not cause Progressivism. But it did help make it worse.

Frankfurt School Caused Progressivism

The infograph I posted from last week got some good circulation, including objections from various SJWs who said it was a conspiracy theory.

Is it? As far as I can tell, it is completely accurate except for the point about the KGB funding the Frankfurt School, which I haven’t seen any direct evidence for.

Let’s zoom in:


I will number the points to make it easy.

1. Under the Weimar Republic, various “intellectuals” thrived. Some of them created the Frankfurt School. This is a known fact.

2. The Frankfurt School and its descendants are extremely influential in social science faculties across the West, especially in America. Adorno and Marcuse are well known names in social science academia.

3. Social science from the 60s onwards had a completely different flavor and ideological basis than social science prior to the 60s. This change is from Critical Theory, which is from Adorno and the Frankfurt School.

Is there any disagreement on the above points? If modern social science isn’t heavily influenced by or directly descended from Critical Theory, then why is the social science curriculum so saturated in it? Why were all the 60s radicals so inspired by it? Why do present-day radicals parrot Frankfurt School points word for word?

Wikipedia calls this the “Frankfurt School conspiracy theory,” but where is the evidence against it? A refutation of the theory certainly can’t be found on Wikipedia.

A journalist wrote:

The whole story is transparently barmy. If humanities faculties are really geared to brainwashing students into accepting the postulates of far-left ideology, the composition of western parliaments and presidencies and the roaring success of corporate capitalism suggests they’re doing an astoundingly bad job. Anyone who takes a cool look at the last three decades of politics will think it bizarre that anyone could interpret what’s happened as the triumph of an all-powerful left.

If we look at other metrics, such as fertility rates, popular beliefs, government transfer payments, and popular culture, they’ve done a rather good job. If Leftism doesn’t come from the Frankfurt School, where does it come from? Ideas rarely emerge de novo—they have intellectual descendants. The dominant strain of Critical Theory taught in universities derives from the Frankfurt School.

Read Marcuse’s “Repressive Tolerance”. Are his words not reflected directly in the attitudes, behaviors, and words of allegedly “centrist” leftists who read sites like Salon and Vox and dominate forums like Reddit?

Marcuse wrote:

Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: … it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word.

Marcuse wrote this at a time when laws against “offensive” speech weren’t seriously considered in the West. Today, however, 51% of Democrats favor regulation of “hate speech”.

Did Marcuse get the future he wanted?