Gnon, the reversed acronym of Nature or Nature’s God, is the quasi-anthropomorphic reification of the natural law and teleology of our universe, whether supernatural or emergent. Gnon tends (“tends” being the important operative word in teleology) overall to favor forms most able to optimize for their own continued existence and spread, and of course to favor the universal tendency to entropy. Or rather, these things tend to happen for the usual reasons, and we name that tendency “Gnon”. The study of Gnon is to the highest level of abstraction (teleology) as the study of physics is to the lowest level of abstraction (mechanistic physical law).

The Lovecraftian Cosmic Perspective is the horrifying realization that the interests of a natural, emergent Gnon overall do not coincide with those of man, and that man is vastly outgunned. The correct response to this knowledge is a sanity-cracking fear, followed by a frantic and blasphemous search for a way to defy or capture Gnon. A useful model of Gnon thus becomes a prime research objective.

Within Gnon in the context of sociological happenings here on contemporary earth, we can identify a few semi-distinct subprocesses, each with their own characteristic tendencies. Their sum is Gnon, but their individual tendencies do not always run parallel. We have given the most prominent of them names from various mythologies, to help illustrate and remember:

Azathoth. Death. Evolution. The blind idiot alien god that shapes our biological nature and guides our genetic destiny according to who lives and who dies. Contrary to popular belief, the telos of evolution is not progress to more “advanced” forms; it will ruthlessly twist organisms for a few points of inclusive genetic fitness, and abandon “important” features of an organism (eg. our intelligence) as soon as they stop being critical to fertility.

Cthulhu. Pestilence. Hosted Evolution. Memetics. Epidemics. The tendency for popular forms to be those most able to propagate themselves by capturing transmission institutions and getting repeated. Contrary to popular opinion, the “marketplace of ideas” does not select for truth and good, but virulence. Truth/good selection only happens if the mass idea-propagation systems structurally favor truth and good, which they often do not. The current result being that “Cthulhu may swim slowly, but he only swims left.”

Mammon. Famine. Capitalism. Techno-Economical Optimization. Production. When a form succeeds by exploiting a technological resource-use opportunity, that is Mammon at work. Thus we have an efficient and recycling biological ecosystem, and human capitalism has driven the creation of great works of technology. But Mammon will ruthlessly recycle forms not contributing to the cutting edge of production, including us, if it comes to that.

Ares. War. Conquest. Empire. Agricultural Civilization won not because it was “better” in our sense, but because 100 malnourished toothless peasants with sticks beats one of even the healthiest and best trained tribal warriors. War is computation with weapons, and the truth thus revealed is simply which sociomilitary group is stronger.

And then there’s us. Man has his own telos, when he is allowed the security to act and the clarity to reason out the consequences of his actions. When unafflicted by coordination problems and unthreatened by superior forces, able to act as a gardener rather than just another subject of the law of the jungle, he tends to build and guide a wonderful world for himself. He tends to favor good things and avoid bad, to create secure civilizations with polished sidewalks, beautiful art, happy families, and glorious adventures. I will take it as a given that this telos is identical with “good” and “should”.

Thus we have our wildcard and the big question of futurism. Will the future be ruled by the usual four horsemen of Gnon for a future of meaningless gleaming techno-progress burning the cosmos or a future of dysgenic, insane, hungry, and bloody dark ages; or will the telos of man prevail for a future of meaningful art, science, spirituality, and greatness?

Shifts in power between competing components of Gnon are nothing new, and neither is the view that the triumph of man in this struggle is possible and desirable. The Enlightenment, which previously took this position, failed, but the lesson of the 20th century is not that the goal was bad, but that we were naive and that this is harder than we thought. The horsemen are more insidious and powerful than ever. Still, give man a clear understanding of this process it is fully plausible that this could go either way. And either way, Gnon overall will be satiated.

Each component of Gnon detailed above had and has a strong hand in creating us, our ideas, our wealth, and our dominance, and thus has been good in that respect, but we must remember that each can and will turn on us when circumstances change. Evolution becomes dysgenic, features of the memetic landscape promote ever crazier insanity, productivity turns to famine when we can no longer compete to afford our own existence, and order turns to chaos and bloodshed when we neglect martial strength or are overpowered from outside. These processes are not good or evil overall; they are neutral, in the horrorist Lovecraftian sense of the word.

Instead of the destructive free reign of evolution and the sexual market, we would be better off with deliberate and conservative patriarchy and eugenics driven by the judgement of man within the constraints set by Gnon. Instead of a “marketplace of ideas” that more resembles a festering petri-dish breeding superbugs, a rational theocracy. Instead of unhinged techno-commercial exploitation or naive neglect of economics, a careful bottling of the productive economic dynamic and planning for a controlled techno-singularity. Instead of politics and chaos, a strong hierarchical order with martial sovereignty. These things are not to be construed as complete proposals; we don’t really know how to accomplish any of this. They are better understood as goals to be worked towards. This post concerns itself with the “what” and “why”, rather than the “how”.

Thus we arrive at Neoreaction and the Dark Enlightenment, wherein Enlightenment science and ambition combine with Reactionary knowledge and self-identity towards the project of civilization. The project of civilization being for man to graduate from the metaphorical savage, subject to the law of the jungle, to the civilized gardener who, while theoretically still subject to the law of the jungle, is so dominant as to limit the usefulness of that model.

This need not be done globally; we may only be able to carve out a small walled garden for ourselves, but make no mistake, even if only locally, the project of civilization is to capture Gnon.

Evil is when everyone else in the peaceful fairy forest is frolicking having happy time and and a big feast, and you are stealing and hoarding the food, stopping people from having fun and forcing them to do military training instead, trying to drive away or even kill the new fairies from the other forest, and so on. Now why in the world would you be evil like that?

Because winter is coming and the other fairies have forgotten that summer doesn’t last. Because things aren’t so peaceful outside the forest and the undead are being seen in disturbing numbers. Because the fairies from the other forest aren’t just like you, and are actually fleeing others like themselves.

We have recently gotten very rich and comfortable, and it’s gone to our heads. The big jump has made us too optimistic, but also taken the fight out of our hardworking ambition. We imagine that it will always be like this, so we can just iron out a few details and everything will be perfect. We’ve forgotten how mean reality is, and started overdrawing our accounts to maintain the illusion. We’ve taken to accusing anyone who dissents from this rosy picture of being evil.

One of the central fallacies of progressive thought is that you can naively avoid the ugly realities, like that some people’s lives are going to really suck, or that we have to do hard things in the short term to survive in the long term. If you don’t make sure fertility is eugenic, Gnon will destroy you. If you deconstruct all your social technology because it hurts some people, Gnon will destroy you. If you bend all your resources towards making sure no one has it significantly worse than anyone else, Gnon will destroy you. If you reason that we don’t have to take drastic steps to keep civilization running, that civilization grows on trees, Gnon will destroy you. If you decide that fighting, mining, blue collar work, and dirty industry is too ugly to be done, Gnon will destroy you. If you take necessities from your future to pay for luxuries in the present, Gnon will destroy you. While we may at some point through grit and hard work be as rich as we think we are, we are currently not. For now, reality is harsher than anyone is willing to admit.

We can either take the pain and sacrifice and become metal enough to face that head on, or eat the seed corn and get destroyed by Gnon. The former is evil, but the latter is naive.

Humans can only know so much, which puts a bound on the complexity of our social institutions, which puts a bound on their quality, unless we cooperate to remember more than we otherwise could. Thus breakdown in social order means moderns are structurally incapable of remembering complex reasons for beneficial traditions.

If you have 20-person social units, division of labor allows more cultural storage space because different people can know different parts or one person can specialize. If someone questions their current traditions, they can ask a local cultural authority for guidance and get a nuanced answer.

On the other hand, if you have 1-person social units, people don’t really have local cultural authorities to reliably shard culture, and thus can reliably hold onto only the traditions they are individually capable of regenerating.

Thus effective possible complexity of culture is reduced in an individualist social context.

Given a limit on cultural complexity, how does this effect quality?
With a high bound on complexity we might get the following competing memes, with the best argument winning:

• X because complex technical reasons A, B, and C.
• Y because I said so.
• Z because it seems fun.

Tradition X, with actual technical reasons, probably beats naively hedonistic Z, and soundly beats unjustified Y. What if we lower the bound? Then things have to be compressed:

• X because tradition.
• Y because I said so.
• Z because it seems fun, and no one has a better idea with serious justification.

Now X and Y are basically indistinguishable, and Z wins, but they are the same proposals as before. Therefor, lowering the complexity bound on culture has reduced quality.

Thus reduction in local social cohesion and trust necessarily reduces quality of social technology. We necessarily revert to more primitive social technology as we atomize, because we lose the ability to remember more advanced social tech.

Progressivism, in this view, is the inevitable systematic replacement of traditional X with justifiable Z after a major reduction in the cultural complexity bound. The major reduction coming from the well documented decline of extended families, churchgoing, geographical roots, etc.

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.

Experimental Physics characterizes the interesting phenomena of physical reality to high accuracy, collecting data that must be explained.

Theoretical Physics sits in an armchair and explains the data it has access to, providing a better framework in which to reason and collect further data.

Not all fields have this fact-theory synergy structure explicitly, usually to their detriment, but conceptually it is an important distinction.

Smart intellectuals seem to theorize by default, but theorizing quality is largely a function of the amount of solid relevant data known or quickly accessible to the theorist. Despite this, people do not seem to automatically go out of their way to find and curate data, much preferring to theorize on what they already know. I would explain many intellectual trends in these terms:

• Useful science happened exactly when the collection and cataloging of large amounts of data became high status.
• Kepler formulated his planetary laws in response to Brahe’s comprehensive data.
• Physics did well because physics needed the least data, and it was easiest to get solid data.
• Fundamental physics has largely stagnated because good data on edge cases has become very expensive.
• NRx happened when the Internet and Google books made possible fast and easy access to large amounts of relatively unfiltered information.
• The problem with social science is its tendency to draw conclusions based on small amounts of data collected by single researchers.
• The flaws in this post are almost entirely due to incorrect and missing information.

I therefor posit the following:

If a school of thought seeks to improve its ideas or spread ideas it believes to be true or subvert enemy ideas it believes to be false, the highest-leverage action is the production and curation of high-quality data sets.

Phalanx, alternatively rendered as >>>, is a reactionary fraternity for the cultivation of masculine virtue and the development of social and moral capital. If degeneracy is the cancer that’s killing the West, Phalanx is regeneracy.

Phalanx is not about collective action or activism in the perverse leftist sense. It is about physical, social, and spiritual self-cultivation, becoming better men, and supporting ourselves, each other, and our communities. The plan is not to directly engage, but to become strong and worthy.

We won’t try to do everything at once, but we envision a group of men meeting regularly to do things like the following:

• Go to church.
• Shoot guns, go hunting.
• Train martial arts.
• Get stronger.
• Wing each other and support Patriarchy in our relationships.
• Go camping.
• Study practical skills like coding, fixing stuff.
• Study history and old books.

That’s not all we want to do, and we’ll start with less, but it gives the idea. Whatever we end up doing will be configured to not take up too much time; enough to forge solid relationships and deliver the value, but not so much that you can’t have a job and other hobbies. Less than 10 hours a week, but hopefully at least a few.

Phalanx membership will be selective, so that we get men who are serious and useful. We are looking for men with some level of physical, intellectual, and social talent, a willingness to grow, and a commitment to reactionary virtue and saving Western Civilization.

This is in the early experimental phase, but if you’re interested, contact us on twitter @phalanx_nrx or by email at phalanx.nrx@gmx.com. We’re especially interested in men around Vancouver, NYC, San Francisco, and Washington DC.

Where does one push on the world if one wants to make a large positive impact? This entire mission is dangerously dubious, but we’ll assume it’s a good idea for now. The “positive” part is hard, and a matter of case-specific judgement, but we can briefly comment on “large”:

Generally, to make a large impact, one wants to work on things that are “upstream”. That is, things that influence and affect other things. Things that have their effects multiplied. The “elites” are upstream of a lot of things in society. These are the people who build things, run things, maneuver into positions of power, lead, and determine the direction of a society.

Because of their position, if they are sane, well educated, fertile, cohesive, and organized, as in the early british empire, the proles and other assets of society will be well-managed and well-utilized, and you will get empires, science, great art, law, and general flourishing. On the other hand if the Elites are decadent, disorganized, barren, or insane, as in the late roman empire, and disturbingly in our own empire, you tend to get bad results; they have large capacity for destructive behavior. Things have not fully hit us yet, but the signs are there that our elite is crazy, and the precedent is disturbing.

So if one wishes to build and maintain empires, it is probably necessary to build and maintain a competent elite class. The rest will manage itself (or rather, will be managed by the elites). If one wishes for certain ideas to be utilized in the administration of society, it is probably necessary to teach those ideas to a powerful elite. If one is able or needing to route around the “elites”, this is a bad sign.

It is true that a competent elite will not be able to accomplish much without a strong economic base, geopolitical opportunity, a virtuous and capable prole class, a sane worldview, and a good political system, but one does not simply conjure such things out of thin air without a competent elite. Only an elite class is in any position to construct such things, and even they will not always find it possible.

Therefore the primary mandate for a strategically-self-aware empire is to maintain good behavior in the elite class. If it is necessary to manage the behaviour of the proles, it is ten times as necessary to manage the virtue and competence of the elites. It is also easy to get wrong.

Therefore a major strategic focus for any ambitious school of thought is to engage with, influence, and assist the elite class.

One of the most common mistakes I see intellectuals making is getting caught in a short-sighted bubble, and thus tending to overconfidence in their worldview, and disregard for heritage and future. The symptoms are familiar:

• Belief that one and one’s ingroup (and possibly some enlightened outsiders) are the only people to have figured out the answer to some important question(s).
• Learning from and collaborating with only local, contemporary intellectuals, who are often mostly of the same ingroup. Generally getting one’s opinions from only a small set of sources.
• Disagreement with >90% of people who have ever lived.
• Rationalizations against taking outside thought seriously; “We are so far ahead of them, they have nothing to teach us”. “Ignorant backwards pre-enlightenment thought”. “Everyone else is insane”. “They didn’t have <proprietary cognitive tool X>”. Etcetera.

Despite being near-universal among intellectuals, and often justifiable (for scientists especially but not at all universally), this pattern of isolating oneself within the “one true school of thought” is usually pathological. Seeing as the pattern is likely still present in myself and my readers, this will need some argument:

By default, the set of facts and insights encountered and raised to importance by the investigations of an intellectual acting alone or with similar-thinking contemporaries will have small overlap with the set of important facts and insights overall. This is by inherent limitations of investigation, as well as quirks of human reasoning.

Most serious intellectual work does discover important facts and produce valuable insight. Influence is generally a good proxy for importance, though far from perfect.

Most intellectual work will have some added arational insanity and bad insights besides its important insights. This comes from circumstance, path dependence, entryism, tribal signalling, human irrationalities, and so on.

The errors in unconnected non-contemporary intellectual works are in a large part uncorrelated. Convergent or eternal patterns of failure, and relatively repeatable human biases will remain as sources of error, but the set of reliable sources of error is small compared to all possible sources of error. Sampling from work from a wider range of circumstances reduces the set of reliable errors.

Generally, when provided with only one view of something, it is very difficult to tell that it is insane, or to even notice that one believes it. However, when presented with multiple uncorrelated views, it is much easier to notice the question and the insanity of some of the possible answers. This means we can separate the bad insights from the good by comparison between schools of thought that do not make the same mistakes.

Existing thinking is a much cheaper source of raw insight than trying to reason things out from scratch. One has to be very substantially more rational than average for this to not be true.

Therefor, sampling from as wide a range of influential works as possible for raw facts and insight, and using critical contrasting to select mostly the good stuff, is a much better idea than the default of isolating oneself and failing to explore. This is obvious once stated. The hard part is noticing and caring that you’ve isolated yourself in a bubble of contemporary thought.

This is simply a more self-contained and explicit argument for the doctrine of Slow History:

1. Read old books, primary sources, and distant outsiders.
2. Take them seriously.
3. ???
4. Achieve wisdom.

The second step is to remind us that we tend to read outsiders “framed” in a patronizing or deconstructing way, by which we avoid challenging ourselves and learning what they have to say. This is to be avoided.

The ideal result of this is seeing the world sub specie aeternitatis, “from the perspective of eternity”. Most of us have unfortunately not achieved anything like the eternal perspective, but it seems wise to try. Unbound from temporal concerns, fashion, and particular mistakes, what would the world look like and what would seem important?

I. Truth vs Myth

I’ve recently been thinking on the social, personal, and spiritual benefits of religion, and have been struggling to reconcile the apparently godless and material nature of our host universe with the metaphysical claims of Christianity. In this exercise I have been developing my thinking towards something that could underpin a sane religion, if Christianity could not be salvaged. I’d like to here give a brief snapshot of my current theological framework in the hopes that it will be useful.

A few axioms to begin with. These form the bedrock of my current worldview. If they are wrong, I should like to hear about it, but I’ll refrain from arguing them here:

1. Materialism. The universe is well modelled by an unknown but computable mathematical object akin in some ways to a mathematical series, a cellular automaton, a fractal, etc. An object of vast complexity that grows from a relatively simple defining Law. We find ourselves manifested as patterns within this construction.
2. Sanctity of Truth. It is critical that the accurate perception of reality not be subordinate to other values. We shall not adopt beliefs about the material world for their projected effects, palatability, or political correctness.
3. Post-Nihilism. Nihilism is the observation that material universes do not contain anything of spiritual value or moral authority, and thus that accurate perceptions of reality do not contain beliefs about spiritual narrative. But it is also the case that wholesale nihilism is a non-solution, and that humans must live within a believable spiritual narrative or mythos.

The third axiom, in commanding the existence of a believable mythos in contradiction to the nonexistence of true myths implied by the first two axioms, gives us our problem.

The immediate and obvious solution is that we must believe in a mythology that is not true. Not necessarily false, mind you; our spiritual myths may be nonsense from a truth perspective. For example, we might claim to believe that “It is the destiny of mankind to conquer the stars”. This can’t really be true or false in a positivist sense because constructions involving “destiny” and “mankind” are not really meaningful empirically. How does the statement constrain your expectations? It does not; it is purely mythological.

You may have noticed the relationship of this problem to Hume’s impenetrable Is-Ought barrier. I propose a similarly impenetrable but transparent Truth-Myth barrier to replace it. On one side we have the beliefs one adopts as part of an unsubordinated quest to understand the world, the beliefs that an idealized engineer might have, the Truth. On the other side we have those beliefs that provide meaning and spiritual context, and motivate us, the Myth. I call the barrier transparent because the Myth tends to be constructed in terms of the Truth. For example where on the truth side we notice fleshy ape-things that are related in a certain way to most of what we have to deal with, on the Myth side we call them “people”, give them individual names, and speculate about their destiny. On the Truth side of the barrier, I think Logical Positivism is the correct approach; we construct our beliefs about Truth to constrain our expectations and direct our purposeful actions, and we cut out the non-contributing parts. On the Myth side, I don’t really know how or even whether we ought to constrain our techniques of reasoning. I will be relatively permissive here and take the position that you adopt whatever mythology speaks to your soul, with the only restriction being that don’t let this pollute our understanding of Truth.

I’d like to briefly develop some of my beliefs on each side of the Truth-Myth framework. This may diverge from other’s judgements of reality and value, but it should at least be illustrative of how I mean this framework to be applied. Hopefully it also serves as a useful set of insights on practical spirituality for others who may be in the position I have been for the past while.

II. Gnon

From one of Yudkowsky’s Best:

A human being, looking at the natural world, sees a thousand times purpose.  A rabbit’s legs, built and articulated for running; a fox’s jaws, built and articulated for tearing.  But what you see is not exactly what is there…

In the days before Darwin, [God did it] seemed like a much more reasonable hypothesis.  Find a watch in the desert, said William Paley, and you can infer the existence of a watchmaker.

But when you look at all the apparent purposefulness in Nature, rather than picking and choosing your examples, you start to notice things that don’t fit the Judeo-Christian concept of one benevolent God. Foxes seem well-designed to catch rabbits.  Rabbits seem well-designed to evade foxes.

Indeed, we find a watch, and infer a watchmaker. But what a watch it is, and what a watchmaker it implies; clearly designed, but not for any apparent external purpose besides perhaps existence itself, with many internal “contradictions” in apparent goals. As we know now, the theory of evolution reveals the mechanism of design, and thus locally resolves the mystery as far as Truth is concerned, but Myth is unsatisfied, having lost the Truthful basis for its great source of moral lawgiving, and perhaps there are a few other loose ends:

On looking around further, we notice Capitalism, Natural Law, Military Conquest, Memetics, Intelligence, and the nigh-teleological progress from lesser to more powerful creative processes itself, operating under a similar regime of semi-Darwinistic optimization by iterated generation vs culling. Details vary, but the outlines of the idea, and, were I a mathematician I would be able to say, many theorems, are shared across all particular instances of this general creative and lawgiving process.

Looking further afield still, as Stephen Wolfram did with his Cellular Automata experiments in NKS, at the set of all possible material universes, we find a small subset at the thin and uncertain boundary between trivial computation and pseudorandom chaos where this creative process might be able to manifest itself to create the kind of ordered complexity we find ourselves a part of. And thus by the anthropic principle and selection over a field of existing mathematical constructs we find that this general creative process would almost seem to explain the finely tuned nature of Creation itself.

Noticing even a subset of these things, the creative process in question becomes a Thing of significant interest, deserving to be named. Remaining agnostic as to its metaphysical nature, and seeking only to comment on its direct consequences, we call it Nature or Nature’s God. But once named, and especially once shortened to the pseudo-acryonym “Gnon”, the mythologizing begins to fill in the aesthetic flourishes:

Gnon gives life to those forms It deems worthy, and Gnon indifferently wipes out those forms that violate Its Law. Gnon seems to have a plan of increasingly powerful and intricate forms engaging in a campaign of conquest across the universe, and if Man can organize himself to stay on the good side of the Law, it may be us riding that teleological wave, rather than our unleashed machine shoggoths or some distant challenger of the Great Filter. One should not worship Gnon, whose cosmic schemes look decidedly unfriendly, but nor can one get away with ignorance or rebellion.

As a myth and cognitive tool for thinking about the nature of the universe and our position therein, the omnipresent, creative, and authoritative, but morally grey and utterly indifferent Gnon seems superior to the others I have heard of. It has the right mix of truth, Lovecraftian horror, and moral authority to force us out of the doomed complacency of naive cuddle piles or smug Cassandraism, and offer us real guidance.

III. Small Gods and Spiritual Crises

In terms of positivist Truth, there is no meaning to concepts such as consciousness, souls, identity, rights, dignity, well-being, or any of that, and yet, when relating to the other meat-things around ourselves, we often reason using or implicitly relying on these concepts. In terms of our Truth-Myth framework developed above, these concepts are myths that guide our understanding of how to relate to the world. A friend of mine summarizes it thus:

People anthropomorphize people too much.

There is nothing wrong with this, it is a fact about our psychology that we relate to the world through non-factual stories and mythology in this way. Recognizing it, deconstructing it, and then reconstructing it in the present framework leads in some interesting directions with respect to anthropomorphizing and mythologizing in general:

In the world around us, there are many important processes besides individual people that we must relate to. Many of the old gods, those of natural processes like weather, fertility, home, war, the land, and so on, can be understood as myths around these processes that allowed our ancestors to relate to them in a natural spiritual way. We no longer live or think the same way as them, and their particular gods don’t speak to us, but we can’t pretend to have cast off all gods: Civilization, Progress, Democracy, Social Justice, Santa Claus.

Many of us react against some of the predominant gods of the day, as our enemies reacted against the gods of their days, calling them false, calling their worship harmful and antisocial, and so on. It is important to have a nuanced view of the theological nature of such conflicts. It is not that we claim these gods do not exist – anyone who wants to claim that Democracy et al are not profoundly real and powerful sociopsychological entities with significant basis in reality, has an awful lot of work to do – what we claim is that their cultists base their worship on mistakes of reasoning on the Truth side about the nature of their gods. For example they believe that the worship rituals and patterns of spiritual relation around Democracy will bring peace, order, and good government, when in fact those rituals may only bring slow ruin.

It’s clear looking at history that our mythologies change as we change our lifestyles and our understanding of the world. Gods and myths go in and out of relevance, fashion, and good regard. This is nothing to be alarmed at on it’s own once we drop belief in a universalistic One True Faith. Sometimes these changes are simply natural adjustment to changing realities, sometimes well engineered interventions against pathology, and sometimes evil or misguided attempts to exterminate a healthy culture.

In many ways it has become clear that ethnic Europeans are facing a spiritual crisis that threatens to tear our civilization apart. For whatever reason, be it the poisonous influence of traitors and outsiders, broad cultural war between our factions, the slow metastasization of centuries old geopolitical mistakes, or the natural cycle of empires, our current dominant spirituality, in the forms of social justice activism, ungrounded consumeristic greed, telescopic altruism, libertine hedonism, and so on, seems to have little to do with a healthy and balanced domestic and civic lifestyle, and quite a bit to do with ritual self-destruction.

The shape of our spiritual crisis is not that we do or don’t worship gods, or that we worship false gods, but that we worship terrible demon gods that demand the sacrifice of our people, culture, and civilization. A healthy mythos would instead be a quiet but lively human-allied tradition offering us positive guidance, spiritual context, and purpose in our lives. Such things have existed in our past, and perhaps we can weather this and move towards spiritual health again in our future.

I will name some of what I think are the healthiest and most moving mythologies currently living, out of which a spiritual restoration could be made. As with all good things, these are all under attack by the enemy:

• Science Fiction is a big obvious mythology, offering glorious visions of mankind growing up, conquering the stars, and dealing with various questions of existential importance. It is quite influential among the most productive members of our society (eg Elon Musk).
• The mythology around masculinity has seen a bit of a restoration in certain corners of the Internet, which has been quite good overall. The masculinity literature certainly has its bad parts where it focuses too much on hedonism at the expense of other values, but it is overall vastly better than the degenerate vision of masculinity pushed by the limp-wristed twinks and barren harpies of the mainstream.
• Explicit ethnic pride is decidedly out of fashion among europeans, but has been growing recently. Ethnic pride is as utterly necessary to the preservation of a people and culture against dissolution as the cell membrane is to the preservation of our microscopic cousins; a people that fails to positively mythologize its own existence doesn’t last very long.
• Our living domestic and civic traditions like our solstice, christmas, halloween, thanksgiving, etc festivals; marriage and family traditions; local food and sustainable lifestyles; the western literary and musical canon; various forms of dance and other community activity; etc. strike me as quite healthy and in need of defence and emphasis.

I will hopefully be developing and commenting further on these and other mythologies in the future.

You’ll notice that this mode of theological reasoning is quite alien to the situation in semitic monotheism and Atheism, where mythologies are argued for and against by their truth value rather than by their compatibility with healthy life or appeal to one’s soul. I regard that pattern of reasoning to be in error; truth and myth are of a different kind and ought not to be confused. It is interesting and surprising to me that I have come to regard a sort of animistic polytheism (that described here) as fully compatible with sanity and rationality.

IV. Ancestors and Traditions

In my adventures, I have made many stupid mistakes. Most of the deliberately made ones, it turns out, were in the form of neglecting tradition. I have not had any big wins by breaking with tradition.

I am reluctant to discuss the embarrassing details, but the general pattern that occurred more than once is that some fashionable young progressives would come with persuasive arguments for a radically anti-traditional lifestyle choice. I typically had misgivings about the choice, but peer pressure and buzzwords like “rationality” and “effectiveness” would win me over. Of course they were all terrible mistakes and I lost plenty of time, money, friends, and psychological well being. Oops.

In every case, I could have avoided the mistake by placing more mythological significance in what was traditional and what my ancestors would think. These are not things I wish I’d thought of, they are things I did think of, but discarded as irrelevant. It is not a far-fetched inference that such a mythology would have done me well. Socialization into a traditionalist mythology would have acted as a sort of memetic immune system, preventing infection by various virulent insanities.

It turns out there is a great deal of wisdom in a tradition, it having worked for most people over a broad enough period of time to be considered well proven. People try all kinds of silly things, and the ones that work get repeated and ingrained in the culture, and the ones that don’t get forgotten or become mythically bad ideas. By this process of slow cultural accretion by trial and error (ie divine revelation from Gnon), we can come to know complex things in the form of traditions that cannot always be immediately or even ever explained.

There was a time when I did not regard “It’s a tradition!” as a serious argument for a piece of social technology or personal conduct, but I now pause and take that argument quite seriously when something I’m doing can be interpreted as breaking with tradition.

I find that a good heuristic for traditional-ness is asking yourself whether your ancestors would approve. Would you tell your dad? Your grandfather? When you arrive in the hall of your ancestors after death, and they say “son, we saw everything”, do you say “oh, fuck”?

Purely rational arguments about tradition may not motivate anyone who is likely to have problems on this point, but a sort of mythological traditionalism and reverence for one’s ancestors may be more accessible and transmissible to those who need it. I certainly find the more mythological formulation of this argument much more practically compelling to myself than the rational arguments which back it up.

I think this concept of social technology being held together by mythology is an important one. When we describe the benefits and workings of a piece of social technology, that can certainly help to design, understand, and select it, but the actual substance of its implementation seems to be the mythology. I now make an effort to mythologize to myself the social technologies of my ancestors and those I encounter in my own study.

V. Paganism

In doing these experiments in post-rationalist religion, I poked around looking for sources of insight in existing religious work. One thing I found surprising was the extent to which my intuitions matched Germanic Paganism (Asatru) as described by the right-wing pagans on 8chan. I won’t pretend to be a pagan scholar, or to be in any position to really criticize their beliefs, but I thought I ought to give some brief speculation on the relationship between that view and this.

The view that a certain shape of myths and practices subtly persist despite centuries of attempted christianity, that these myths and practices form a pagan religion baked so deeply into the northwest european soul that it goes beyond what we merely believe and do, to what we are, is very appealing to me. That particular myth, seeming historically accurate enough for our purposes, I gladly incorporate into my mythology.

To the extent that germanic paganism currently exists as a living tradition, it seems, from what I know, fully compatible with what I’ve laid out here. Indeed, I have deliberately emphasized the parts of this formulation that seem the most pagan in form or origin. They even have some suspiciously Gnon-like notions.

My major concern with the sort of paleopaganism (or neopaganism and other traditionalisms for that matter) of the sort that people reflexively grope for on considering these matters, is that it seems to be attempting mythological necromancy. I don’t think you actually can study an ancient tradition without a living community and then resurrect anything but a cheap imitation. I do think you can peer into the soul of your people, draw significant insight (but not power) from wide, including dead, sources, and gather lingering influences and bits of living tradition together with some new construction to build something living and strong. This is what I’ve attempted here.

We also live in a civilized post-industrial society, and the mythology and gods of old-style paganism as I understand it were optimized for a more uncivilized agrarian society. We could do with more of our ancestral stories in the cultural canon, and I think we ought to be more in tune with the land and more often self sufficient in traditional ways than we are, but we should expect a version of our inherent religion optimized for the kind of spiritually enlightened civilization in which we wish to live to be quite a bit different from what our ancestors had before the christians came and civilized us.

So I view my experiments here as an attempt toward a modern sort of paganism that carries on the spirit of our ancestral traditions while being relevant to our current technological position and able to carry us up and to the right into the future. It’s nowhere near complete, but I hope it’s a good start.

The Median Voter Theorem is an interesting result in the theory of democracy that ought to form a prominent piece in the bedrock of any discussion of electoral politics. The result, in short, is that in certain conditions, two political parties will each take all voters on each side of the median voter, and they will both serve the desires of the median voter. The theorem could use some strengthening; its assumptions are rather ambitious, but it is likely that a slightly weaker version is true in many more circumstances. Let’s look at some of the obvious implications of the theorem:

The Left party and Right party will always be approximately equally matched. If the population moves left, and the Right party stays the same, it loses voters, but it can move left and force the other party to the left to steal swing votes. This way you can’t really get a situation where the Right party never wins again because the population has moved left; it can always play catch-up.

Capturing and moving the Right party rightwards is completely futile. All it does is lose votes and cause the left to win that cycle. (Capturing and moving the Right party left of the Left party breaks the model. I’ll need to use a more advanced model to explore this…)

Because the policies of the parties are dictated by the median voter, the only serious way to influence the policies of the government is to capture and move the population. Dissolving the government and installing another is downstream of dissolving the people and installing another.

It is helpful to separate “Electoral Parties”, the goal of which is self-preservation and winning elections, from serious “Political Parties”, the goal of which is to capture and influence the government. They are not the same thing. Electoral parties craft a platform to appeal to their half of the median voter. Political parties (in their democratic activities) take actions to influence the median position of the population. Electoral politics is downstream of serious political activity; getting into electoral politics is usually a waste of time unless your electoral party is also a serious political organization.

Actions taken to change the affiliation of the population (changing or polishing the image of the electoral party, etc) are limited and futile, and cannot influence the overall direction of the political zeitgeist. This kind of action can only retard or advance the zeitgeist by a constant amount, and waste funds.

Methods of influencing the median voter, in other words, serious democratic political activism, include:

• Immigration of foreign populations to sympathetic to the target policies, and emigration of local unsympathetic populations, to move the index of the median voter.
• Capturing and influencing the propaganda and educational institutions that dictate what the population thinks, to move the position of the median voter.
• Increasing the reach of propaganda institutions favourable to your preferred policies. For example, compulsory public school.
• Expanding or retracting the franchise among different groups of the population.
• Fostering dependence on your target policies, or policies likely to be associated with your target policies. For example, contemporary American leftists can get more populations on various forms of welfare, or involved in deviant lifestyles, and rightists can get more people in contact with business laws, starting nuclear families, involved in traditional religious activities, owning guns.
• If playing the longer game, encouraging fertility among sympathetic populations, discouraging fertility among unsympathetic populations.
• Building institutions and spaces that are likely to move people’s opinions in a particular direction. More comments on this complex topic later.
• Pass laws that make your preferred policies the status quo

Note that only a few of the above actually require the government in the loop. The rest are helped by government power, but could be done by any powerful group, even one that nominally has nothing to do with electoral politics.

In the modern United States, we see the effective strategies being mostly used by the left, with the right playing electoral catch-up. If the democratic right were serious, they would focus less on direct electoral politics, and more on actions from the above list.

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.

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.

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.