The Soypill Manifesto

Intellectual Restructuring / The Soypill Manifesto / The Z of History / Why Jail is Programmed for All Rightoids
Comments Thread

Although I am often classified as part of the “Dissident Right”, Neo-Reaction (NRx), or even the Alt Right (AR), the reality is that to the extent I have ever affixed partisan ideological labels to myself from the mid-2010s to 2022 in the Western context it was as a “Radical Centrist” or “Alt Left” (e.g. see here, “The Alt Left considers itself a subset of the wider Alt Right but with less thot hate and more rocket ships and radical life extension“, or here, “I’m Alt Left relative to the Far Right. By normie standards I’d be Alt Center but it just doesn’t have that ring.“).

The most exhaustive mapping of the NRx ecosystem from 2015 labeled me as a “Techno-Commercialist/Futurist” which I consider to be sufficiently accurate, and for that matter I am perfectly happy to have been clustered together with Robin Hanson, Randall Parker, Steve Hsu, and Nick Land.

Map of Neo-Reaction from Habitable Worlds, 2014.

However, so as far as I consistently defined myself, it was as an ideologically neutral Russian nationalist and a transhumanist. This is a slant that was extremely evident not just in my Russian language podcasts and commentary, but in my English language writing as well. For instance, this is what I wrote in my /r/russia AMA in May 2017 on a question about the contradictions between nationalism and transhumanism that ironically presages my eventual mutation into GloboHomo’s strongest soldier:

Good question.

Very legitimate one, of course. I am sure that once we get to computer superintelligence or CRISPR ourselves up to 175 average IQs, the world will become thoroughly cosmopolitan (support for tolerance, open borders, free trade, etc. tends to increase with IQ).

Problem #1 – developing those technologies takes brains. Elite brains. “Smart fractions,” as they’re known in the psychometric literature. As well as the appropriate technological growth-friendly institutions, which again need a certain level of average national IQ to maintain.

Problem #2 – the evidence suggests that mass immigration from the Third World has negative effects on average national IQ. There is also good recent economic research that suggests that immigrants tend to carry over their home country cultural attitudes, with negative impacts on the quality of institutions in the host countries. See Garett Jones.

Can you envision the US or Japan (average IQ ~100) launching a singularity? It doesn’t seem entirely implausible.

Can you envision Brazil or Indonesia (average IQ ~85) launching a singularity? Sub-Saharan Africa (average IQ ~70)? Seems rather less likely.

As the neoreactionaries say, you can’t cultivate gardens without walls. We don’t know what kind of smart fraction ingenuity would be necessary for the biosphere to complete its transition into a disembodied noosphere. As such, it makes sense to play it safe.

Incidentally, I recommend reading that interview in full, as it portrays quite a well-rounded of my view of the world – and of my skepticism towards Putinism! – at that time.

Or here is what I wrote in 2021, at a time when I had developed a much better view of Putin and was under the impression he he had embraced the Russian nationalist agenda, in an article tellingly titled Nationalism is Implicitly Transhumanist:

Now certainly tradcons can play a useful role in society, helping leverage national competitiveness. “Breeder” groups, most famously the Haredim in Israel, but also including more exotic examples such as the Laestadians in Finland, can elevate fertility rates above the “default” level and make sure that their country continues to be replenished with new bodies and human capital until they can be upgraded. They are also a pillar of patriotism and nationalism that insulates against state dissolution.

However, any country that allows the retrogressive and obscurantist worldviews that predominate amongst such insular traditional communities to unduly influence state policy is simply going to be left behind and will fade out of the pages of history. They are free to mutter about how transhumanism is transgenderism and how QR codes represent the number of the Beast to their heart’s content, but this should likewise disqualify them from any input on state technological or scientific policy. Their ideas are a recipe for long-term national helotization and precisely no nationalist would presumably want that that for his or her country. I would even say that nationalism is implicitly transhumanist.

There are nationalists who don’t care for transhumanism. That is fine. But then there are nationalists who strongly signal against transhumanism. These “nationalists” simply prioritize the welfare of their particular ideology (tradconism) over that of their nation, much like “liberal nationalism” usually de facto implies superior loyalty to the Democratic Internationale, “Communist” nationalism usually implies the prioritization of the global proletariat over national interests, and Neo-Nazism implies loyalty to global White Supremacy (or narrow German nationalism, if you’re talking of old-school NSDAPists). While alliances of convenience can in principle be built with these factions, one should always approach “nationalists” who privilege any particular ideological memeplex over the interests of their own people (whether it be Liberalism, Marxism, or nebulous Conservatism) with care.

The second part of this essay exhaustively addresses why I subsequently abandoned Putinism and even Russian nationalism as a lost cause. However, Spisarevski’s comment to the above article already provides a good hint; at the end of the day, due to the anti-intellectual nature of right-wing ideology, the notion that transhumanism is “transgenderism” and the “goal of Satanists and Gnostics” and related Duginist drivel was, in retrospect, always going to win out within nationalism’s internal marketplace of ideas. And I was deluded and autistic for ever thinking I could reconcile the two, that they were reconcilable in principle, and indeed wasting several years of my life on that doomed enterprise as opposed to engaging much more energetically with the various communities – LessWrong, rationalists, EA, longevity and cryonics, crypto, etc. – which were at the forefront of developing and discussing these ideas.

Now that I have sketched out my actual views and beliefs, I will now address those right-wing ideologies that have at times been ascribed to me.


50 Shades of Right

The story of the American Dissident Right and its various factions and ideological currents from Gamergate to Z is an interesting one, and deserving its own longread. So far as my relationship with any particular right-wing faction went, they were generally dominated by three elements – openness to HBD/IQ realism, Woke skepticism, and opposition to Western imperialism – and the degree to which they translated into concomitants such as geopolitical Russophilia and anti-immigrationism. These considerations are now now almost entirely moot, and I will explain why later. But outside Russian nationalism, with which I openly identified with and on whose behalf I engaged in activism, these were the primary factors motivating my sentiments and passive associations with the international right-wing ecosystem.

(1) The Red Tribe: Republicanism, Conservatism, and Hobbit Nationalisms

This is the tribe of the Republican Party, FOX News, capitalism (sort of), and social conservatism. This is the tribe of Breitbart and Bannon, of Ben Shapiro and Rush Limbaugh, of Qanon and AGW denial, of Hillary Clinton’s death squads and “Biden stole the elections”. It is the tribe whose most animated obsessions last time I checked are Obama’s gay escapades and Hunter Biden’s cock. Their smartest champions rant about Judeo-Christian values before trying to scam you into the next Middle East war to defend freedom and/or Israel.

Although I do find some aspects of American conservative culture like big guns and Tucker Carlson’s trolling somewhat amusing or appealing, I am obviously not a conservative in any reasonable definition of the term. The verifiable history of my US electoral preferences underlines that point: Obama in 2008 and in 2012; Trump in 2016 and in 2020 (unenthusiastically, as I would have preferred Andrew Yang); and Biden in 2024. I was and remain an extreme bioliberal, so conservative obsessions from abortion to stem cell research bans were always repulsive to me, made more so by the fact that these same people are also militantly anti-eugenics – e.g., oppose the abortion of Down’s babies – and reject IQ on blank slate grounds much like their Woke counterparts. I was never religious, though aspects of comparative religion and theology interest me at a philosophical and historical level. Overt religiosity in governance I always found repulsive, though as a Russian nationalist, I identified as “culturally Orthodox” on the grounds that it is part of implicit Russian identity (the Golda Meir approach: “I believe in the Jewish people, and the Jewish people believe in God.”). However, now that I no longer subscribe to Russian nationalism, I will freely proclaim my atheism and openly acknowledge the deleterious impact of Christian Orthodoxy on human capital formation (e.g. see Heiner Rindermann’s Cognitive Capitalism).

Likewise, contra RationalWiki allegations to the contrary, I have also never taken much interest in right-winger obsessions with political conspiracy theories. Having very accurately predicted the results of the 2020 US Presidential elections – Biden 51.1%; Trump 47.1%, vs. results: Biden 51.3%; Trump 46.8% – I then also very explicitly argued that they were were fair and accurate to overwhelming rightoid rage (despite having endorsed Trump in 2020). Although I did “endorse” the Great Replacement theory, I make no apologies for being familiar with the actual demographic data and projections, and not shying away from their logical implications. (However, I now consider it a good thing and unironically endorse Far Right conspiracy theories about the Kalergi Plan as a positive model for the entire world). I never engaged in AGW denial, and consistently argued otherwise. I did argue that the effects of AGW might be positive if kept within a non-extreme range, and still hold that view – at least to the extent that holding any view on the impacts of global warming remains worthwhile in the era of short AI timelines – but that is a legitimate if non-mainstream scientific opinion (e.g. Curt Stager’s Deep Future).

These observations likewise apply to most conservative-nationalist politics outside the US. I have always been contemptuous towards the small, parochial nationalisms represented by the late PiS in Poland or Meloni in Italy – Luke Croft calls them “hobbit hovel” nationalisms – which glorify religious obscurantism, technophobia, and sundry loserdom, while offering no coherent civilizational vision or even template for long-term sustainability in a world where the rules are made by American elites and you need economies of scale to resist GAE encroachment.

Incidentally, this is the main reason why I saw phenomena such as Ukrainian nationalism (svidomism) – let alone even more absurdist constructs, such as the Grand Duchy of Lithuania larp that is Belarusian nationalism (zmagarism) – to be without prospects, insofar as they were loaded against a nationalism that I did think was viable while being programmed to lose in the long-term on account of their host countries’ demographic and economic insignificance. (I expounded on this at length at both my blog and on various podcasts such as the one with Patrick Casey in March 2022).

I note that some of the smarter and more worldly Ukrainian nationalists such as Oleksiy Arestovych are gradually coming round to this same realization, recently writing that the net effect of the Euromaidan was to “chain us to a half-dead body in its terminal stages” in response to a poll showing that two thirds of young Americans consider Whites to be oppressors. But guess what, bucko? You should have been thinking about that in 2021, as I was, not at the end of 2023. And gone “all in” on Z then!! But I suppose you shouldn’t feel so bad because this game was never either yours as a Ukrainian nationalist, nor mine as a Russian one, to win. Our common programmed destiny as nationalists from Eastern Europe is to end up jailed, dead, or in London. In this sense, my major realization since February 2022 is that Putinism at the end of the day is also a “hobbit hovel” nationalism, and that the attempt to build the Atomic Space Empire was doomed from the start. But that is the topic of the latter half of this essay.

Finally, if there is one common denominator of the Rightoid International from the Nazi frogs to Latin American populists, it is COVID denial and anti-vaxxerism. Their defining trait is boorish aggressiveness. Obviously, I am not an anti-vaxxer; to the contrary, I was one of the first 500 Sputnik V guinea pigs. As someone both “early to” and accurate on COVID – proclaiming that it was probably a Chinese lab leak and that millions would die on January 2020 – I ended up getting more death threats from this group – both Westerners and the “Inquisition”, a Russian groyper franchise – in one year than I did from “triggering” Wokes and svidomy Ukrainians over a decade of blogging.

Rightoids also think I am very bad at predictions.

Since the defining aspect of conservatism/right-wing ideology is its incredible stupidity, so let’s move on to the two partial exceptions, Neo-Reaction and the early Alt Right.

(2) Neo-Reaction

Neo-Reaction (NRx) is the most “intellectual” part of the right-wing ideology, but for all that, I was never very impressed by its leading luminaries.

I acknowledge that Moldbug’s (Curtis Yarvin) recap of HBD theory to his Silicon Valley audience was very culturally significant, and played an important role in the appearance of what Richard Hanania christened the Tech Right. But on trying to actually read it I found Moldbug’s foundational work Unqualified Reservations to be “an eclectic mix of insight and gibberish.” The analysis of the American Revolution was interesting to me, in the sense that the pro-British historiographic perspective was new to me. Conversely, the denialist section on global warming was just awful, and cringeworthy to anyone with a sufficiently good understanding of the science. I liked Nick Land’s much more concise Xenosystems blog with its edgier accelerationist accent, although let’s be honest, The Dark Enlightenment – the main NRx manifesto – was barely readable. He now seems to have the views of a normal boomer Republican who doesn’t like Wokeness. Michael Anissimov used to be a big name in the movement before he retreated into White Nationalist obscurity. However, although I found some of his blog posts to be occasionally incisive, I was unimpressed by his main work A Critique of Democracy. It was replete with the logical leaps and strong ahistoricity of the sort that is pervasive in today’s tradlarp, which extols the low taxes and ample leisure time that supposedly benevolent monarchs bequeathed upon the peasantry in the preindustrial world. It’s as if these people have never heard of state capacity and GDP surpluses.

The blogger spandrell was a vastly better historian, and came up with at least two important concepts. The first idea was that of cities as IQ shredders, which is an excellent if not too profound visualization of dysgenics. The second idea was Bioleninism, which is the theory that leftist ideologies gain power by creating coalitions of freaks and degenerates as a means of gaining power before the new elites start repressing them again to consolidate their rule. (This has some intersection with my ideas about the Soviet Freezer). However, although Bioleninism is not without its nuggets of truth, what it struggles with is how to explain the empirical observation that the most stupid and lumpenprole elements of society tend to vote rightoid all around the world.

That said, credit must be given to Neo-Reaction as the only intellectual right-wing movement that attempted any serious analysis (even if its most single most impressive “accomplishment” was its own exhaustive refutation by Scott Alexander). Apart from “redpilling” the tech bros, it also generated some genuinely novel ideas, with Nick Land’s “patchwork” possibly being the most significant. This constituted an early vision of Network States, and the ideological template for Moldbug’s Urbit project – a platform for radically decentralized computing offering persistent pseudonymous identity. This presaged the appearance of Web3, and will be sure to leave its mark in the future history of global decentralized governance.

(3) The Alt Right

The Alt Right could be viewed as the populist evolution of NRx and its elopement with White Nationalism. I will not deny that I was at one point rather sympathetic to it, even though I was never enamored of its more “traditionalist” aspects; hence, my aforementioned preference for “Alt Centrism”, “Alt Leftism“, or “Radical Centrism”. However, despite rejecting any formal affiliation, it is true enough that around 2016 I agreed with “70% of their positions”.

However, this happened in the context of an Alt Right was both somewhat smart and ideologically unorthodox in its dual embrace of HBD realism and anti-foreign interventionism. Recall that during that period even as prominent neocons were deserting to the Democrats and the idea of no fly zones in Syria was not a fringe one, SJWs had exploded from Tumblr into the real world, and campus “cancelations” were almost entirely monopolized by the Left.

Every week saw some new bizarre Woke scandal, and I even got to observe it myself in my last months at UCB while ticking off a Breadth requirement:

The professor showed the class the following clip from The Neanderthal Man, a bad 1953 scifi movie in which a mad scientist injects himself with a serum that regresses animals to their “primitive” states, which for humans is the Neanderthal. Or rather, the black, hirsute apeman that 1950s folks apparently imagined Neanderthals to be. This Neanderthal man proceeded to terrorize picnicking couples, bashing in the mens’ heads and taking away the women to the accompaniment of campy music. …

However, at least one member of the class did take very strong exception to it.

“Excuse me, professor,” piped up a dark-haired girl in Ben Folds glasses. “Showing rape scenes can be deeply traumatic to survivors of rape and sexual assault. This class is supposed to be a space safe, and you should have either refrained from showing this clip, or at least accompanied it with a trigger warning.”

Moreover, Wokeness was beginning to infringe on what I had previously considered to be my safe spaces. For instance, in one futurist meetup group I was a member of, previously free-ranging discussions about topics such as Neo-Reaction and group differences slowly and imperceptibly became tabooed during 2015-16.

As such, some degree of sympathy to Alt Right positions seemed reasonable, and was based on three main observations.

First, it was anti-Woke, at a time when conservatives either didn’t realize it was even happening, or didn’t know how to respond even when they did. Not that I was interested in associating with the discredited dregs of Dubya World anyway. I much preferred the humor and trolling of the Twitter Frogs like Bronze Age Pervert, Hakan, menaquinone4 and the other now semi-mythical giants of that long-gone age. And their aesthetic power and contributions to meme culture cannot be exaggerated. They entered the wider political lexicon, and despite a predilection for unscientific fads, the movement has almost certainly had a net positive effect on the health and fitness of its acolytes.

Second, I agreed with Steve Sailer’s encapsulation of elite American positions as “Invade the World, Invite the World”, and was happy to oppose it on not just HBD grounds, but more general notions of justice and fairness.

Third, it was as a movement also far friendlier to Russia and Russians in a period when mainstream liberal rhetoric on Russia and ethnic Russians was rapidly worsening, and which would have been regarded as racist if applied to any other race. This phenomenon of Democratic Russophobia reached a frankly racialist fever pitch during the Russiagate era, and remains an apt illustration that liberals are hardly immune to bigoted thinking. This also happened at a time when the Kremlin narrative portraying Russia as a besieged fortress whose sovereignty and development prospects were being maliciously undermined by Westerners was, though not uncontroversial, also not entirely incredible.

But the fourth and most important factor was that all of this happened in the context of an Alt Right that was itself very different from what it would subsequently devolve to, and which is summarized in this meme.

Consequently, my Alt Right sympathies occurred at a time when the Alt Right’s relative Russophilia contrasted positively with the often unabashed ethnocentric hatred of the Russiagate grifters who made their hay under the Trump administration. And if I was and remain a Neo-Nazi for thinking that human evolution didn’t come to a sudden stop above the neck 50,000 years ago, and that this has practical impacts from development prospects in Africa to the feasibility of liberal democracy in Syria or Iraq, then it is what it is.

Despite all the above, the fact remains that I never self-identified as Alt Right, and my tangible associations with the movement were fleeting. I never wrote for their publications, and I never got money from them myself. Consequently, it’s highly dubious bordering on slander to classify me within that cluster. The main arguments cited to that effect largely revolve around rumored associations between me and Richard Spencer, plus a highly superficial comparative narrative to how we have both cynically attempted to whitewash our “former” White Nationalist beliefs (the Woke take) or “cucked out” and went from “based” to “cringe” (the rightoid take). So I will cover my views on and history with Spencer in a bit more detail.

My RationalWiki biographer Oliver D. Smith tried to create the impression that I was some kind of close Richard Spencer confidante and attended multiple “Neo-Nazi conferences” with him, which was reprinted by an Irish student newspaper in a hit piece against another person and cited by extremism researcher/grifter John P. Jackson. However, the banal reality is that I only ever met Spencer once when he came to organize a “Safe Space in Berkeley” and subsequently accepted his invitation to an Alt Right meetup in San Francisco immediately afterwards.

Incidentally, this part was… interesting to read again:

There was a lot of discussion about Trump and whether he was really on their side. I suspect that if Trump becomes President, the Alt Right will adopt a Russian-style mnogokhodovka/khitry plan vs. zrada discourse. (Russian nationalists are hilariously, eternally split on whether Putin has a “clever plan” or is plotting to betray them on Ukraine, immigration, and other questions of great importance).

Otherwise, my intersections with Spencer were meager even in 2016-2018, even aside from the minor fact that I repatriated to Russia in 2016.

First, there was a major alignment problem – although there were some commonalities on HBD/IQ and anti-Wokeness, I was not very invested into the Alt Right’s identitarian preoccupations, though I was not particularly triggered or repelled by them either. Conversely, nor were the Alt Righters interested in my transhumanist proposals on how technologies such as IQ augmentation, automation, and radical life extension could advance White interests by helping them remain retain majorities in Europe. (Yes, I do in retrospect realize the profound autism of evangelizing this amongst the fashy-haircut people). I was also not thrilled with the Duginist undercurrents in Richard Spencer’s milieu. Dugin was an anti-HBD blank slatist on top of his other issues, which was rather cardinally incompatible with my own worldview – and I would think Spencer’s too? – and my concurrent attempts to mainstream HBD/IQ insights amongst Russian nationalists and uplift their discourse beyond Galkovskian crypto-colonies and antiquarian raciology (but more on that later). This led to Twitter spats with Spencer’s wife and Dugin translator Nina Kouprianova. As for Spencer himself, I steadily realized that despite some talent for public speaking, PR, and aesthetics, he had no very original or interesting ideas of his own. (What is he even best known for? Homosexuality as the last implicit stand of White identity?).

Second, there were rumors of extreme dysfunction within the Alt Right. This included allegations that Spencer was misusing William Regnery II’s money to fund his chronic drunkenness, cheating on his wife, and sleeping with the girlfriends of his orbiters and writers while not even paying them for their articles. For what it is worth, I was told that these allegations were accurate in text by the Alt Right writer known as Rolo in May 2018, who had previously written as Vincent Law for and The Russia Insider. Quite amusing in light of cuckoldry memes being a hallmark of that community. Some of these rumors were later validated in MSM exposés concerning Kouprianova’s divorce from Spencer, which came with serious allegations of domestic abuse. In fairness, this was of little surprise in the context of a movement that seems to attract all sorts of weirdos and psychopaths, and where references like the “Night of the Wrong Wives”, the “Homosexual Groomer”, and the “Case of the Missing Wife” all refer to recognizable thought leaders within the “community”.

After divorcing his Duginist wife, Richard Spencer performed a 180, going from “Hail Our People” and the famous mental breakdown to supporting Biden and calling for state repressions and harassment against the “Traitor’s Coalition” i.e. his former comrades. He has also gone from ascribing the Holodomor to “drought” – something that, for the record, I never engaged in myself, because I like facts – to outspoken support not just for Ukraine, which is reasonable, but for the most maximalist Ukrainian war aims, including the reclamation of genuinely pro-Russian Crimea and the Donbass. However, I suspect even Ukrainian nationalists would be be wise to be wary of celebrating this Damascene conversion in light of Spencer’s vision essentially reducing to “utilizing” both them and Russians as disposable biomass to fulfill his dreams of a “transition to a united empire.” Judging by the NATO-wave aesthetics merging Euro-Atlantic themes with Nazi imagery around him and his new orbiters such as @EuropaAdAstra and @EuropeanPan, the identitarian component of this “empire” is not hard to guess. White Nationalism in new wrappings.

Otherwise, the Alt Right as a broad coalition was put out of its misery post-Charlottesville, and their main characters have moved on. Some went into Establishment conservatism, helping create a kind of Alt Right-MAGA synthesis. Some have truly gone their own way in a manner that defies easy categorization, most notably Richard Hoste’s mutation into Richard Hanania (though Hoste was last active there well before the halcyon days of the Alt Right, I never ran across him there, and his “unmasking” was news to me). Some have gone into vaguely lefty White Nationalism (Erik Striker/National Justice Party and the Traditional Workers’ Party comes to mind). Still others degenerated further into groyperdom and related sects.

(4) White Nationalism/Neo-Nazism

I deny ever being a White Nationalist, let alone a Neo-Nazi or a White Supremacist. Although in the mid- to late 2010s I agreed that there was a war on White identity in the US and much of Western Europe, I couldn’t care less about a White ethnostate; I was a Russian nationalist, not a White Nationalist, and those two worldviews were never very well aligned to put it mildly. Such allegations are refuted not by my own mixed background (25% Dagestani, 3% Jewish), but also by essentially the entire body of my online commentary at that time (e.g. my Sinophilia and advocacy of strong economic and diplomatic relations between Russia and China – positions that I am now significantly less enthusiastic about). Nor did I ever actively associate with their leading ideologues or movements. It is telling that despite his exhaustive parsing of not just my blog postings, but my Twitter and Reddit accounts, my biographer Oliver D. Smith doesn’t appear to have found a single example of me advocating core White Nationalist tenets to cherry-pick.

That said, I will acknowledge that at that time I was not hostile to Western White Nationalists, since in my view (1) White Nationalists tended not to hate Russia as much as Western neoliberals – if only because they seemed to view Russia as some kind of Based PutlerReich; and (2) Western neoliberals were themselves perfectly cool with Nazis in Russia/the Ukraine, jihadists in Syria, etc., so long as they remained useful geopolitical patsies.

I would argue that this remains true to the present day! Despite an apparent lessening of taboos against advocating identitarian White interests – a development that I suspect is mostly driven by Elon Musk as well as public tiredness with Woke overreach – you will still generally run into problems promoting or endorsing, say, Jared Taylor – an intellectual and soft-spoken advocate of White interests who has yet to be reinstated on X (even as vicious anti-Semites like Kanye West get chance after new chance). Conversely, you would experience no such issues endorsing the openly Neo-Nazi – no, seriously, he failed this most basic of tests by refusing to condemn Hitler in an interview with Russian libertarian Mikhail Svetov – Denis Nikitin (“White Rex”), the leader of the far-right Russian Volunteer Corps that is fighting for Ukraine. A connected development is the… whitewashing of Neo-Nazi/White Nationalist involvement in the Ukrainian Armed Forces, which were extensively covered in the pre-war era in the Western MSM, but have now been memory holed. And note that I am not even necessarily condemning this, since Ukraine is a victim of military aggression, and it is surely better to “utilize” Far Right thugs than mobilized Ukrainians to the extent that Khorne demands that the blood flows. But nonetheless.

Consequently, my rather cynical position on weaponizing White Nationalism in service of state interests – but no more cynical than that of the Western mainstream – was that what is good for the Russian goose is good for the Western gander. It was not a moral position, and as an ethical universalist and a superglobalist, I now reject it. All exclusionary identitarianisms from patriotism and up are bad, and slippery slopes to worse things.

(5) Groypers

Groypers are the devolved “chuds” of the old Alt Right with the frog or anime girl avatars who have “transitioned” from race realism and dubious but at least not entirely stupid exegeses on the “Jewish Question” (at the end of the day Kevin MacDonald is a cited academic who got engagement from other academics like Nathan Cofnas) to their current degenerated state of unabashed race hatred, unhinged COVID denialism, harassment brigades, and tradlarp in reality which mostly boils down to extreme misogyny that is most often born of personal frustrations.

Their geopolitical views differ. One wing, probably the more numerous one as it includes their two leading luminaries, Andrew Anglin and Nick Fuentes, are “what is falling must be pushed” maximalists who openly proclaim their allegiance to all of America’s geopolitical foes from Russia and China down to the Taliban and the Houthis. The other wing is strongly pro-Azov, genocidally Sinophobic, and champions other pro-American positions in psychotically maximalist ways. I view this cluster as a successor to the anti-Soviet Far Right tradition that also encompasses Operation Gladio and the Final Phase memesphere, and I am reasonably sure that it is extensively infiltrated and manipulated by Western intelligence services. These are the people too contrarian and psychopathic to integrate into the MAGA-Alt Right synthesis.

I believe that the programmed destiny of these sects in the event of a China-US war is to be rounded up and jailed or to be “utilized” on its battlefields, respectively.

(6) The Intellectual Dark Web (IDW)

I have never concealed my very dim views on the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW), I had nothing to do with them before, and want nothing to do with them now.

Although the IDW’s mockery of cherry-picked SJW lolcows is occasionally amusing, it is a primitive, peanut gallery style of punditry that no genuinely smart or open-minded person can remain interested in for very long. Furthermore, the most amusing thing about it is that they are themselves the mirror image of the SJWs who are the targets of their affected rage. Many of these status maximizing grifters seem more concerned with policing the ranks of permissible speech on the Right and actively perpetuating cancel culture while sanctimoniously signaling against it (Antifa are at least honest about their opinions on “freeze peach”). Note that their core members demanded the removal of Glenn Greenwald as a co-signer of the 2020 Harper’s “free speech” open letter, and are now agitating for regulatory and even legal restrictions against peaceful pro-Palestinian speech. This is in stark contrast to the actually principled Dissident Left, which has consistently championed freedom of speech then and now, but without even making it their core identity.

Soviet dissident Sergey Dovlatov once said, “After Communists most of all I hate anti-Communists”, and this would also be a fair summary of my attitudes towards Wokes and professional anti-Wokes.

(7) Masculinity+: PUAs, Anti-Feminism, MRAs

My acquaintance with this space was always tangential and my involvement, zero. Now to be sure I benefited from reading the game “literature” and I think that many young men who rolled a low Charisma stat on the character creation screen would benefit from acquainting themselves with Neil Strauss (Style), Mystery, Ross Jeffries, and all the NLP/persuasion stuff.

However, even in this space, I notice a steady degradation in intellectualism – from the original PUAs like Style, who were smart, funny, introspective, and not even all that political; through Roissy/Chateau Heartiste and Roosh V, who mixed up some genuinely useful advice coupled with political brain worms and the misogyny that often comes from sleeping with many women; to the “culture” in which Zero HP Lovecraft is regarded as a prominent intellectual and its public face is glorified pimp, scammer, and Elon Musk Spaces regular Andrew Tate, who was charged with running a prostitution ring and openly boasted of exploiting his own orbiters/paypigs.

I am not sure which community has the lowest IQs: The Neo-Nazis, the Fuentes fans, or the Tate simps. However, the latter are certainly the biggest losers. It’s hard to imagine anything more pathetic than simping for someone who gets owned by Greta Thunberg.


Repentant rightoid kneels before Baruch Spinoza, a forerunner of Elite Human Capital, in rainbow flag-festooned Amsterdam.

The Soypill Manifesto: My Proud March from Russian Ultra-Nationalism to The Big Gay

Now that I have covered my relations to major right-wing factions, I will now move on to discuss my past outlook on their topical issues, and why I now unapologetically champion:

  1. Philo-Semitism (but not Zionism)
  2. Feminism
  3. LGBTQ+ Maximalism
  4. Anti-Racism without denying HBD/IQ realities
  5. Open Borders
  6. Liberal Democracy Promotion and Open Societies


(1) The Jewish Question (JQ)

My views on Jews as defined by the ADL were marginally anti-Semitic as of 2018, though (I think) more or less grounded in realism (e.g., “Jews have too much power in the business world” – well OK, look at the Forbes 400). Granted, these views were not extreme by international standards, nor by the standards of the Dissident Right milieu. I was always skeptical towards the Culture of Critique arguments – as Nathan Cofnas notes, there is no evidence for Jews being relatively underrepresented in right-wing movements that were not themselves inherently anti-Semitic – and I even pushed back on Kevin McDonald’s claim that the Russian opposition was a “nearly all” Jewish movement. More importantly, any anti-Semitism was necessarily modulated by my IQ realism – all else equal, one would expect Jews to be more successful/influential/etc., if average IQ was to have predictive validity, as it does. (I recently wrote a short thread on this).

However, I did support Israel, not because I cared about Israeli Jews or Palestinians – I was always sufficiently honest to admit that no, I did not care for the squabbles of tribes that were not my own – but because I, like many nationalists from Eastern Europe, saw Israel as a good template to copy for its perceived national cohesion, brutal decisiveness, and mobilization capacity. And was seething and enraged that Israel could be a “Jewish State” whereas “Russia for Russians” was considered to be hateful and extremist by not just Russian liberals and Westerners – who could at least be said to be consistent – but by many Jews who were otherwise themselves unapologetic Zionist maximalists. One example would be Julia Ioffe, who was an AIPAC nationalist at university who loved Israel’s wall but opposed Trump’s wall, and identified as “je suis refugee” in Europe while hurling hyperbolic accusations of anti-Semitism against Putin. However, I am happy to see now that she is an outspoken advocate for Palestinian rights, which underlines the fact that we can all grow beyond our youthful tribalisms.

On that note, since I now reject nationalism in favor of Open Borders universalism, I consider all identitarianisms to be ghoulish and psychopathic, and disavow all championing of such views I did in the past. I now entirely unironically endorse the viewpoint of the Jewish Museum and Center of Tolerance in Moscow that the only path to prosperity is through tolerance.

That implies rejection of all cannibalistic tribal and identitarian visions, including but not limited to the Russian nationalist vision of the “Russian National State” (RNG), America First/MAGA, Brexit, White Nationalism, Islamism, and the various European identitarianisms. For analogous reasons, I also strongly reject Zionism and its demented rhetoric (Greater Israel, destroy Amalek, etc.).

Israel needs to decide whether it wants to remain a Jewish State strictly within its 1967 borders, and remove its illegal settlers from the West Bank; or a pluralistic and post-sectarian Greater Israel in which all indigenous Palestinians have citizenship and equal rights. (I view this as a generous allowance, but an admissible one, in light of the near unparalleled evil of the Holocaust and Israel’s status – its treatment of non-citizen Palestinians aside – as a liberal democratic and relatively progressive oasis within the context of the Middle East). My current positions are close to those of Masha Gessen, whose consistency and moral clarity in opposing Putinism and Trump, and now championing Palestinian rights – for which she has been deplatformed in a Germany that most certainly overcorrected – I must now recognize and kneel before.

As regards Jews themselves, as someone no longer beset by identitarian obsessions, my positions are now entirely philo-Semitic. Amusingly, this is entirely independent of JQ considerations! That is, even if Kevin MacDonald is correct that Jews played a central and irreplaceable role in dissolving conservative and traditionalist Western values, it would only be a greater credit to the Jews who have constituted the vanguard of Elite Human Capital (EHC) throughout history from Baruch Spinoza to Eliezer Yudkowsky.

(2) The Womyn Question

Since my earliest days in blogging, I identified as pro-equity feminism and anti-gender feminism (as per Christina Hoff Sommers). I rejected gender feminism not even so much because I thought it was bad for men, but because I thought it is bad for women in much the same way that MRA ideology is bad for men. Gender feminism is more about victimization and “owning” men – in practice, mostly low status and powerless men at that – than self-improvement or any productive, testable ideas about reorganizing society to be better and more equitable. Ironically, women in countries where there is more gender feminism – as opposed to the equity feminism that was strongly championed under the socialist regimes as one of their few positive legacies – tend to underperform relative to men, which is unsurprising since like all identitarianisms it is an ideology of loserdom, envy, and special pleading. That said, I no longer view it as a very relevant or important issue, and with my collapse in interest for the culture war, I am no longer even interested in countersignaling gender feminists who, despite their epistemic limitations, ultimately constitute a progressive historical force.

Regarding the more “out there” political positions, I should emphasize that I never entertained the neo-reactionary obsession with the all-male Männerbund as the ideal organizing principle of political life. (Incidentally, it’s amusing that it is precisely the “power institutions” section of the Russian government, the all-male siloviki, that have been proven by the war to also be its single most dysfunctional one). And very obviously I was never involved in the febrile fantasies about “thot patrols” and “women in cages” memed by Andrew Anglin and the groyper crowd. Incidentally, these views have found a remarkable degree of traction amongst some very large right-wing accounts, where the victory of the Taliban in Afghanistan was met with reactions ranging from amusement to enthusiastic glee. For the record, I was always been anti-Taliban and labeled them an “unambiguously vile entity.”

I support Nordic family policies, and have done so for a long time, and will in all likelihood continue doing so for as long as the state remains the prime organizer of human relations. I always supported abortion rights and always adhered to bioliberal maximalism/voluntary eugenics, indeed having mooted the idea of artificial wombs early on in my blogging in 2008. Although I supported natalism primarily for reasons that I now consider illegitimate – nationalism, and increasing national power, on the principle that population equals power – I only ever did so on the basis of incentives and voluntarism. Indeed, I repeatedly pointed out the practical superiority of the Nordic model based on equitable and heavily subsidized child-rearing over conservative demands to demonize single motherhood or keep women out of education/the workforce. My current outlook is that natalism no longer makes sense, at least at the individual level, in the age of short AI timelines and imminent access to embryo selection for IQ.

Obviously I am not expecting any prizes for maintaining sane, normal views on women in a milieu in which rather extreme misogyny is rampant. Ideas about doing away with female emancipation, employment and education rights, and even banning contraception are far from marginal within the Alt Right, major subsegments of which view the Taliban or Caesar’s Legion from Fallout: New Vegas as legitimate models of social organization. (Pro tip to libs: You don’t have to go on about The Handmaid’s Tale. Those are the two main actual inspirations – remember, these people don’t actually read all much). It is also a space where defending women from anonymous online harassment is derogatively called “white knighting” in a parody of the original meaning of the term.

This extreme misogyny must surely go someway to explaining why women tend to be allergic to Far Right movements. These people have very low empathy and theory of mind, and find it hard to fathom why women who they do not consider to be even fully human are repulsed by them. (Much like radical anti-Semites wonder why Jews aren’t flocking to them). And observing this progressively more deranged psychopathy since the late 2010s played a significant independent factor in my disillusionment with the right-wing ideology, and I say that as someone who understands sex differences and the psychology of women rather well.

(3) LGBTQ+ Folx

Although I was pro-LGBT, which included supporting gay marriage in the late 2000s when it was still a slightly thorny issue even in the progressive countries, I became less well-disposed to it from the mid-2010s. My issue with didn’t have much to do with preserving “traditional values” – there isn’t much traditional about eugenics or cryonics – but my perception of it as a geopolitical vector of American imperialism, with the sudden and strangely militant American pivot from Dubya era “family values” rhetoric to the late Obama era insistence that “gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights” complete with the rainbow flag becoming something like the secondary American flag at its embassies abroad giving off very weird vibes.

In any case, it seemed weird to get very upset about a law that banned the propagandization of homosexuality to children (a copy of a 1980s British law, which is relatively recent in historical terms, so who were they to get so flustered about it? and wasn’t it entirely criminalized in most of the Muslim world anyway?). It was anti-free speech, sure, but then again, it wasn’t as if Russia was ever a free speech paragon. Moreover, not only was it becoming tightly coupled to something that could be viewed as American cultural imperialism, but from the mid-2010s it also came as a “package deal” along with a host of other non-desirable cultural imports such as BLM and Wokeness. And besides, weren’t the Western countries canceling people for citing FBI crime stats and arresting people for misgendering? Wasn’t that the alternative? Don’t the SJWs require authoritarian pushback to prevent them from inundating civilization with runaway Wokeness?

Yes, bad things were happening in the West. However, an important caveat that I overlooked is that the Anglosphere has strong political and cultural institutions, such as rule of law and the principle of fair play, that prevent those processes from assuming runaway dynamics. Meanwhile, late Putinism’s LGBT obsession has gone into overdrive, assuming increasingly absurd and grotesque forms even as any vestigial institutional checks and balances fade away to nothing. Hence we now have the spectacle of Putin smirking and parlaying juvenile jokes about Parent One and Parent Two on Russian state TV to cynically distract the biomass from his failures at war. This has now escalated into the criminalization of “LGBT” as an “extremist organization” despite the fact that it has no coherent institutional or judicial existence. Right or wrong as the idea about the Rainbow Flag as a vector of American soft power penetration was, the obvious reality now is that regardless of the answer to that question, it would have still been far superior to the current outcome in which Putin has essentially made the schoolyard’s “u r gay” into a criminal offense with all its attendant connotations of legal nihilism.

Happily, I suspect Russian homophobia is a mostly elite-created and hence “shallow” phenomenon that Russian elites themselves neither believe in nor particularly care about, and that the post-Putin democratic transition will be rapidly followed by mass “sissification”. Nonetheless, in light of my earlier cynical support for Russia’s 2013 gay propaganda law and consequent complicity in enabling Russia’s current rapid descent intoIran with Snow” territory, I recognize that much like Germany with respect to Jews, I owe a special obligation to the Russian LGBTQ+ community to support their struggle to regain their rights and human dignity.

I will admit that I view, and still do, both G and T with some degree of personal revulsion. This is psychologically standard – I just have the honesty to admit it. However, such considerations have never determined whether my attitudes towards anything since appeal to disgust is a logical fallacy. Consequently, in the absence of religious or (now) political considerations, I now strongly support support LGBTQ+ maximalism, including gay marriage. Psychometric studies suggest that homosexuals are considerably smarter and more accomplished than normie heterosexuals, whereas outspoken homophobes are much duller than both. Furthermore, LGBTQ+ folx constitute incredible magnets for Elite Human Capital, and countries that center their rights send a strong signal affirming their commitment to rationalism and genuine viewpoint diversity.

More speculatively, public acceptance of LGBTQ+ rights accelerates the Biosingularity insofar as it suppresses natural disgust reflexes that might otherwise slow it down and harm net global welfare. This is important, because the Biosingularity is innately much safer than developing silicon-based superintelligence, but it also has a “yuck” factor that sterile silicon does not. Therefore, there might even be an existential risks case for pushing LGBTQ+ maximalism insofar as it inures normies to body horror. The biosingularitarian future will in any case have more interesting ethical conundrums such as sexual relations between radically rejuvenated humans or between humans and consenting uplifted animals.


Liberal Race Realism and Open Borders under Rawlsianism

I make no apologies for citing FBI crime stats, national IQ databases, or keeping up with the evopsych literature. Not for thinking that human evolution didn’t come to a sudden stop above the neck 50,000 years ago. I have always been interested in data, the more numerical the better, and drawing correlations with the real world. Nothing more to discuss. The tone might have very occasionally been ill-advised or inappropriate over the 100,000s of words I have written on this and related topics – though more often even the handful of “questionable quotes” turn out to be reasonable in context – but again, I am not obligated to answer for what everything that a former Neo-Nazi managed to dig up over the course of many months of minutely trawling my comments archives.

However, what I do take responsibility for is that I was not below “weaponizing” HBD/IQ research in service of political aims, such as anti-immigration or signaling against BLM, that I now recognize to have been evil and regressive. Although I never explicitly advocated White Nationalist goals or talking points myself, it’s undeniable that so far as politics is concerned, there is a great deal of overlap between the two.

As I ironically predicted would be the case in my 2012 article Race Denial vs. Racism – A False Dichotomy:

But my purpose isn’t to get attention as such. On these matters [of race and IQ], it tends to come from unwelcome quarters, either from the PC police (who regard any discussion of race other than to deny it as crimethink), or from the reactionary White nationalist crowd, who think they’ve stumbled on ideological soul-brethren (thanks but no thanks, or to quote Robert Lindsay, “We’re never getting a boarding pass. Never!”). I suspect being a liberal race realist is somewhat akin to being a Jew before anti-Semitism went out of fashion. You get fired on from all sides. Not fun.

Incidentally, I was reliably informed that the late James Flynn read it and reacted positively to it, albeit with a strong Pinkerian moral injunction:

I have seen it before and agree with most of it – with the proviso that justice demands helping the less fortunate even if they are responsible for their ills.

Now it would be very bad if the Biosingularity was to become associated with scientific racism, so I am tempted to do away with it entirely on the basis that it’s politically controversial, and divisive of the broad coalition that’s required to actualize nooceleration. In this context, I will mention Scott Alexander – a paladin of Elite Human Capital if there ever was one, and an HBD realist himself (it is common knowledge in the community and the “proofs” are there, but were made publicly available through unethical means, so I will not specify or link to them) – name-censored “HBD” on his old blog, presumably on account of his dictum that all comments had to be either true and kind, kind and necessary, or true and necessary. HBD is often true, but rarely necessary, and never (?) kind. This is why it is associated with the red pill in Internet culture. Taking the red pill isn’t supposed to be pleasant! It drives many mad. It is an infohazard, and mayhap, paternalism would dictate that you, the cynical Grand Inquisitor, or the atheist priest in San Manuel Bueno, Mártir, are duty-bound to conceal from the peasants.

However, there are two reasons that I will refrain from going down this route.

First, at the end of the day, such a decision would be epistemically weak, cowardly, and the equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Many of the results in HBD, especially in intelligence research, are the most replicated ones in the psychological sciences. Intelligence is a universal human construct, and has vast predictive validity in terms of individual and especially group social and economic outcomes. It would also be a disservice to the ideologically and racially diverse HBD/IQ community at large, which broadly leans liberal and progressive, contra the stereotypes and malicious slanders that have resulted in their extensive harassment and persecution. Finally, appeal to authority though this is, HBD realism isn’t the exclusive provenance of dissident eccentrics and smart oddballs who have driven innovation historically, but is something that many elite intellectuals accept privately, including left or liberal ones such as the aforementioned Scott Alexander, Steven Pinker, Nick Bostrom, probably Matt Yglesias, and many others I could name if I was into doxxing. Consequently, blacklisting it would not just constitute a surrender to normie conformists, but in so far as support for free speech maximalism is something that seems to monotonously rise with IQ (as per a consistent HBDsphere finding), it would be nothing less than a betrayal of Elite Human Capital itself.

Second, the genomics of intelligence obviously loads on intelligence research as such, and solving it is central to nooceleration. You will not get far with it by claiming IQ is a “social construct” when searching for alleles that increase intelligence. There’s also some chance that psychometric tools can play an important role in AI alignment – see the emerging subfield of universal psychometrics or the extension of g factor analyses from humans and animals to AIs. From another angle, controversial though it is, dysgenic trends in IQ aren’t going away anytime soon, and remain deeply relevant to the sustainability of technological progress should the Singularity is averted.

Finally, there is the delightfully ironic observation that the very problems identified by HBD are themselves solved by “solving HBD”. One of the logical consequences and indeed goals of a Biosingularity could be the dissolution of all currently extant races into a transhumanist Raza Cósmica uplifted to the upper limits of possible human intelligence.

However, in recognition of its attendant infohazards, I will voluntarily commit to some guidelines on any future HBD-adjacent posts both here and at Nooceleration:

(1) No weaponization of HBD-derived talking points in service of socially regressive or illiberal political agendas. Most obviously, this concerns arguments against immigration, which I engaged in several years ago, and which I now disavow. That only made sense in so far as HBD was married to nationalism. However, considering human welfare at the global level, it is entirely congruent and conductive to Open Borders and UBI, on the Rawlsian principle that no living human should be doomed to a drastically inferior quality of life relative to what is possible even at the world’s current technological level if she or he lost out on both the genetic and birthright lottery, and subsequently belong to the least privileged members of our eight billion strong species. (Yes, I am aware that Rawls himself was against Open Borders. That is irrelevant. Even the EHC giants of yesteryear on whose shoulders we stand could not see past every moral myopia of their day, and we owe it to them to actively extend their universalizing legacy). This also applies to groups such as Antifa, BLM, radical feminists, and the Palestinian rights movement. Although their epistemics leave much to be desired, I now understand that it is regressive to counter-signal movements that are for the most part earnestly committed to liberation and social justice, at least insofar as they themselves do not make common cause with reactionary forces such as Black Nationalists, anti-Semites, or Islamists.

(2) Calling out instances of political weaponization of HBD research where appropriate. For instance, it is highly amusing that many respectable, “Dems are the real racists” conservatives, having spent years calling out IQists on the basis that we are all equal before God and similar drivel, have oh so serendipitously discovered the problems of cousin marriage amongst Palestinians. There is also the tendency amongst some people familiar with HBD to apply the theory in overly simplistic and politicized ways, which all else aside, often results in failed predictions. For instance, they have been trying to convince us for 30 years and running that South Africa is going to collapse any day now. This hasn’t panned out to date. Indeed, in terms of things like stock market capitalization or Nature Index score, South Africa performs at about the level of a country of ~5M White people. This is pretty much in line with what you might expect from “smart fractions” theory! Moreover, if a 90% Black population failed to destroy its innovation-generating institutions to date, then the onus is on White Nationalists and immigration restrictionists to explain how drastically smaller percentages of lower human capital immigrants under any feasible Open Borders scenario is supposed to “destroy” the developed countries.

Incidentally, this points to another problem with tabooing HBD research, which is that to truly demolish the arguments that weaponize HBD for regressive ends – as I have started doing here, and intend to continue – you do need to seriously engage with the material. Failing to do so, while maligning and canceling the actual researchers, hasn’t stopped the most degenerated and politicized versions from leaking out in the form of /pol/ science, and eventually society at large.

For a long time, I opposed mass immigration from the Third World. My primary justification for this was their lower average IQs and the deleterious effects on institutions (ironically Garett Jones has moved in the opposite direction since writing Hive Mind). Even practical considerations of cognitive elitism aside, I also allowed that individual nations have a right to preserve their national phenotype on the basis that “racial particularism” – the desire to have your countryfolk look like you and behave like you – is not an illegitimate position. I do not consider this to be a White Nationalist position, because even to the extent I entertained, it was always under the assumption that it would be applied universally. Indeed, one of my major arguments against migration was it would result in grievous levels of brain drain in precisely those countries that could least afford it!

However, of late I have come to the conclusion that nation-states are not a viable or desirable construct, that identitarian collectives deserve no moral authority or agency, and that Open Borders are the logical and necessary catalyst for the eventual dissolution of coercive, monopolistic nation-states and their replacement with network states. I believe that these decentralized and geographically distributed network states will be much better than the current nation-states model at promoting human flourishing and associational freedoms, while being much more effective at mitigating existential risks such as nuclear war and AI.

That said, I do not apologize for my prior opposition to mass immigration. Although in hindsight it was an unethical and anti-freedom position to advocate, it was hardly an “out there” or an extremist one by the standards of the contemporary age even in the most progressive countries today (heck, Wilders just recently won in the Dutch elections, and Open Borders remains a fringe position outside libertarianism). Obviously, I allow that the impact of immigration might conceivably be negative as pertains to small individual countries or regions that get a particularly bad roll of the dice in the immigrants they get. However, I maintain that the massively increased mobility of labor and rates of knowhow/”best practice” transfer that Open Borders would imply – a process which will logically also include opening up the developing world and their housing markets to foreigners – is clearly a massive net boon at the global level. It is essentially a process in which the United States does not so much “invite the world” but that the entire world becomes the United States.

Consequently, global GDP will rise while people who are otherwise indifferent if not mutually hateful to each will no longer be forced to live within the same states. Those who want to congregate on the basis of ideology, values, interests, heritage, or phenotype (to the extent that genetic engineering doesn’t dissolve it) will be able to do so. But this is a digression and I will write in more detail on why I see Open Borders and network states as a superior future to the present world of nation-states at my Nooceleration blog.


The Multipolarity Grift vs. EHC Superglobalism

The root of my animus against American/Western hegemony never consisted of either the usual Leftist critiques centering around “colonialism” (indeed the US played a relatively progressive role in that respect, despite the Monroe doctrine and all the coups) or loosely related late Soviet tropes such as the “Golden Billion” (some populations are smarter and got to mass literacy earlier, and that’s mostly all there is to it), nor was I much entertained by or interested in rightoid rants to the effect that the West was a super-spreader of “degeneracy” (my apologetics for Putinism were never based on the reactionary traditionalism that has fostered a new wave of foreign grifters from Jackson Hinkle to “Coach Redpill” but in the delusion that Putinism had found some Golden Mean in avoiding both that and Wokeness).

Instead, it mostly centered around the following three reasons:

(1) Western Supremacism as a concept – the aesthetics and rhetoric of its champions, the neocons and conservatives who blabber about Judeo-Christian values and American exceptionalism are all pretty revolting to non-Westerners in general, and as I never considered myself to be one, despite holding citizenships on “both sides of the divide” so to speak and spending the vast majority of my life in the West. It is worth noting that, living in the UK and then the US at that time, my first conscious perceptions of politics came from 9/11, the War on Terror, the PATRIOT Act, Freedom Fries, WMDs in Iraq, the abortion and stem cell debates, evangelical preachers with their regular homosexual escapades, Satanist panics, “they hate us for our freedom”, and all those other amusing aspects of Dubya World that discredited religious conservatism for me as they did to many other millennials. However, more broadly, the history of US interventions, double standards, extraordinary renditions, and pretensions to judicial extra-territoriality while simultaneously denying non-Americans and especially non-Westerners any of the actual rights of American citizens is a form of imperial feudalism that I was never and am not interested in supporting, regardless of whether it comes in the form of a Republican iron fist or covered by a Democratic velvet glove.

(2) The vulnerability of peripheral countries to novel and deconstructive ideas originating in the core. This idea was energetically championed by Eurasianist philosopher Nikolay Trubetzkoy a century ago, back when Eurasianism was a genuine intellectual movement instead of the pseudo-traditionalist death cult it is today. In Trubetzkoy’s day, this “novel but deconstructive” idea was Marxism-Leninism. What started as an intellectual exercise in Western Europe imposed unprecedented suffering and ruin when transposed to the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere in the Third World, where its ideologues forced it on “their” people in service of breakneck “modernization” taken to the level of religion. Without the stabilizing effects of the much vaster and more diverse civil societies and economic complexity that had developed over centuries in the West, this “forced modernization” came at a horrendous cost. It was also ultimately much less effective or sustainable than the Russian Empire would have performed if left to develop under normal capitalist conditions. Adding insult to injury, the whole thing collapsed when its own elites decided they preferred jeans to Zhigulis.

Moreover, it was a pattern that kept repeating, over and over again. In the 1990s, the new wrecking ball was market fundamentalism. What created mere economic hardships for the American rustbelt and coal miners in Thatcher’s UK ushered in the full-scale economic and social collapse that eventually led to Putinism. At the time, I viewed Wokeness as the new threat that was going to be more or less successfully “digested” in the West – a prediction that seems increasingly vindicated – while resulting in much more radical and “funnier” outcomes elsewhere. Consequently, I considered this to be a legitimate argument for sovereignty-seeking nations to partition themselves away from the Western ideological noosphere.

(3) This ties in to my final rationale which rested on the idea of “noospheric partitioning” between the world’s major civilization-states, with crypto and decentralized tech serving as the cyberpunk “gray zones”, DeFi bridges, and data tunnels between them. There is this idea in ecology that monocultures consisting of a single species are far more vulnerable to shocks such as blights or forest fires, while complex and diverse late stage seral stages are much more resilient. By the same token, I thought that even the individual merits or demerits of Putinism (the CPC, etc.) aside, the world would benefit from having multiple memetic alternatives to Western Globalism in the event that it succumbs to a memetic mind virus.

Again to cite the About Me page from 2021:

In particular, I identify as a Russian nationalist, and make no apologies for doing so. For most of the 20th century, an alien ideology brutally imposed on Russia by foreign bayonets that exploited Russians as “inexhaustible material for their social experiments”, as a result of which Russia’s demographic-economic potential was reduced several times over relative to what it “should have been” under a non-Soviet timeline. For once, I think that Russia should prioritize the welfare of Russians and the slow healing of the Russian World, as opposed to expending its decimated human capital in service of the “global proletariat” as back then, or the “international community” to whom pro-Western liberals owe their fealty now. This does not imply ill will to any other nation, and it is a libel to claim otherwise.

However, even in more general terms, both Russian nationalism specifically and civilizational sovereignty more broadly is perfectly congruent with Effective Altruism, insofar as the coalescence of a memetic monoculture is an existential risk that we really out to try to avoid. A planet of multiple ideologically competing world-empires, its peace secured by the Power of Atom, ensures that any terminal failure node – hedonic trap, runaway Wokeness, totalitarian stasis – does not come to encompass all of Mankind, as would be the case under a singleton such as Western Globalism.

So what has changed in the past two years?

Most obviously, the primary alternate challenges to Pax Americana, GAE, Western Globalism, the Island Empire, call it whatever you want, have all face-planted in the most epic fashion in what Richard Hanania labeled the Year of Fukuyama. I will expound on why that basic thesis is correct in future essays, but in short, the idea that there is any intellectually viable socio-political model that is somewhat distinct from liberal democracy has collapsed. Reactionary Islamism was never a contender. Putinism hoisted itself on its own petard in 2022 and took Russian nationalism with it. The cultural draw of China, always modest, has collapsed (from falling numbers of Mandarin learners in US universities to Italy pulling out of OBOR). Though China remains a viable challenger in hard national power terms light of its formidable population and human capital advantages, its rise is looking increasingly shaky – GDP growth is slowing down well shy of convergence, it is losing the AI and space race to the US, and only its grim hard power continues to gain against the US and its alliance system.

Moreover, the very concept of multipolarity has largely invalidated itself. BRICS, itself the invention of a Goldman Sachs analyst, has been expanded into meaninglessness; any grouping that contains China and India, let alone Saudi Arabia and Iran, just isn’t that credible as a geopolitical bloc. Furthermore, for all the bromides against US hegemony and Global South solidarity and the like, the reality is that during the Ukraine War, it was the US that leveraged “multipolarity” in the classic sense of the word to supply Ukraine with munitions from Pakistan to South Korea while barely even touching its own gargantuan Cold War stockpiles. Meanwhile, China’s main contribution to its strategic partner’s desultory war effort has been to take advantage of its lack of options to gouge it on oil and gas prices. Sad as this is for those who dreamed of a genuinely multipolar world that successfully coordinated against American hegemony, it is perhaps ultimately not surprising in light of multipolarity’s rotten epistemic foundations, if one accepts @devarbol‘s interpretation of multipolarity as the degenerated final stage of Soviet anti-imperialism but now shorn of any intellectual component beyond kneejerk defenses of “sovereignty” that as often as not is just code word for the “sovereign rights” of developing world grifter elites to rationalize “patriotic corruption” and protect influential lobbies, while paying lip service to “tradition” that is almost inevitably some colonial European artifact or modern American conservative import as opposed to being actually autochthonous (the amusing final stage of this being Orthodox cross toting frog avatars from Serbia and Latin America calling me a Satanist cuck and hailing Based Putler for moving to ban abortion in Russia).

Does this mean I have “sold out” and am now an American nationalist, neocon, Western supremacist? Certainly many of my former rightoid and multipolar fans seem to believe exactly that and make unedifying comparisons with other notable “apostates” from the Dissident Right. I disagree with these assessments since I view them as a caricature created by people who are unimaginative, inattentive to what I actually write, and reside in a tribal binary where you either for the United States or against it, and all the things it is essentialized as – globalism, liberalism, the “LGBT agenda”, etc. – by association.

However, the supreme irony is that the values and positions I hold today are objectively far more radical than they were two years ago; whereas a “Pax Americana” could well coexist with the “Russian World”, neither has a future in an Open Borders world of network states. And I would argue it is crisply distinct from Richard Hanania’s normiecon championing of the American imperial project with Zionism as its junior adjunct, let alone former Duginist Richard Spencer’s visions of utilizing Russia as a Nietzschean foil to foster and coalesce a White Nationalist empire.

However, this does not mean I was ever anti-American, nor that I am anti-American today. To the extent that I have opinions on the United States per se, I have always been a consistent admirer of its GDP-maxxing institutions, deep capital markets, and technological dynamism. In my Russian nationalist days, I wanted to copy many aspects of its society and culture, from the First Amendment and gun rights to HBD discourse (but minus the Wokeness of course) – incidentally, isn’t it interesting that the only worthwhile ideas even in “right-wing” discourse came from the United States? – and indeed even initially interpreted the Ukraine War as a Russian attempt to “become an America” in population/economies of scale terms.

Nor am I even resentful about the US checking Russia’s nationalist ambitions, and not just because I now reject nationalism per se, but because a political system incompetent and dysfunctional enough to lose to a corrupt and dysfunctional state with just a fifth of its population and 7% of its GDP never deserved to win in the first place. Especially in light of the fact that American aid to Ukraine was actually rather small – a minor percentage of its gargantuan Cold War era stocks – and delayed until summer 2022. That is because the US itself expected Russia to win quickly – or why else did it move its Embassy from Kiev to Lviv in February 2022? In any case, this is indicative of a regime that is pathologically dysfunctional, and one that should be dismantled for the benefit not just of Ukrainians but of Russians themselves.

Finally, to the extent that my vision of an Open Borders world of network states will tend to converge to American institutional and cultural best practices, that is about as high a tribute as I one pay to any extant nation-state whose ultimate demise one is otherwise working and campaigning towards.

Nonetheless, my rejection of American imperialism/Western supremacism does not imply neutrality in the geopolitical realm, be it principled/”Bolshevik” (“fuck all nation-states”) or cynical/individualist (“ubi panis ibi patria“) in nature. (Though I appreciate those outlooks to a far greater degree now, and the latter position is how I myself intend to interact with all state institutions going forward). Apart from the observation that liberal democracies are not just “nicer”, but also more functional, there is also the reality that the visions of Open Borders and decentralized world government that I now propose as solutions to both geopolitics and broader existential risks isn’t something that can be just imposed on skeptical populations. It will be something that will need to pass through a process of discourse, debate, consensus, and implementation. And the problem is that authoritarian states will put a veto on any “dissolution” proposals that undermine their “sovereignty” (read: The interests of the ruling elites), even if it would otherwise benefit their constituent population; nor, by definition, would they even permit a free and fair debate on the topic.

At the end of the day, problematic as US imperialism and judicial extraterritoriality might be, the defining discursive symbol of America is the First Amendment whereas that of China is the Great Firewall. While American natsec people discuss banning TikTok, China already blocks all the major Western MSM outlets and social media. The US haplessly tries to impose OFAC controls on Ethereum blocks and even extradites and prosecutes foreign developers such as Alexey Pertsev for the crime of building privacy tools, but China has criminalized the very act of cryptocurrency transactions and all the top DeFi and Web3 protocols are blocked. Xi Jinping has de facto declared war on the as yet inchoate trustless global digital state.

Furthermore, so long as powerful authoritarian states continue to present a credible military threat to liberal democracy – and they do so by the very fact of their existence – any wide-ranging experiments in radically decentralized governance will remain out of reach because the populations of the democratic states will naturally be loth to run risky experiments in decentralization that potentially compromise their ability to militarily resist aggression from the authoritarian states. Consequently, in so far as authoritarian regimes stymie and delay the transition to the Open Borders world order built around network states that I define as superglobalism, their very existence implies elevated existential risks insofar as the current world order of competing nation-states is less well equipped to deal with them. Therefore, undermining and hastening the dismantling of the authoritarian regimes may be considered to be a moral imperative beyond even the welfare gains in the form of human rights and governance (if not short-term growth) that democratic transitions tend to unleash. For the United States itself can only be dismantled once the world is made safe for superglobalism.

Consequently, in geopolitical confrontations between liberal democratic and rightoid authoritarian polities – in the absence of any strongly mitigating circumstances – I will now commit to always privilege the former in proportion to its degree of alignment with Elite Human Capital teleology. I define this as the idea that if there is some big gap between our current world and a future ethically improved world that is sufficiently obvious to smart present observers – for instance, a world with much smarter people, or one without factory farming – then it would be most ethical to devote one’s moral efforts to accelerating the closure of this gap. As a rule, this involves privileging states, religions, and networks that load on liberalism, tolerance, openness, viewpoint diversity, and intellectualism – e.g. Blue America, Sweden, Taiwan, Effective Altruism, immortalism, the network states like Zuzalu, Próspera, and Praxis – and rejecting those that champion conservatism, reaction, close-mindedness, identitarianism, and fanaticism – e.g. the CPC and the kremlins, Islamism, and the Rightoid International.

However, as a condition of EHC alignment, the obligation that progressive countries and networks take up is to orient their foreign policies not towards narrow goals like increasing their relative national power, engaging in collective punishment or vengeance, or even cost-inefficient attempts at democratic nation-building per se (idealistic as US intentions in Afghanistan may have been, the $1 trillion bill even had it not ended in disaster was hard to justify). Instead, they must optimally use their economic and cultural preponderance to tilt ever more of the world’s population and economic product towards EHC alignment within the globalist system. These will carry a mostly economic and soft power character – the color revolutions with which the US is already well experienced (loading on democratic peace theory), and a resilient commitment to globalization (Golden Arches theory). I would also add that in retrospect the vigorous US commitment to proselytizing LGBT rights under the Obama administration – sudden and cynical as it might have appeared at the time – was in retrospect completely validated, in the sense that the Rainbow represents an even purer distillation of allegiance to the globalist liberal order than free elections or a fast food chain. (On a side note, have any two countries that permit LGBT pride parades ever gone to war with each other? Can I patent Rainbow Peace Theory?).

Another low-hanging fruit is repurposing immigration policy to brain drain and undermine authoritarianism. Apart from this being the default outcome under Open Borders, it is also the one obvious, non-violent, risk-free, and economically beneficial (win-win) way to undermine the ruling regimes in countries such as Russia, Iran, and China. In those countries, many of the smartest youngsters chafe under the rule of senile reactionary boomers. They would jump at the chance to emigrate if travel and work restrictions were to be removed, though ideally it would also be something that is actively incentivized. Certainly this strikes me as a far more rational course of action than putting up barriers and inconveniences to Russian emigrants – and mostly just to humor spiteful East European Russophobes at that. (Russophobia is also a regressive identitarianism, and incompatible with EHC). This is what “draining the swamp” would actually look like. The numbers of undocumented Chinese immigrants to the US appears to have soared in the past few years. The Economist recently wrote about how of these Chinese have to make a dangerous trek through the Darién Gap to get to the US. It should instead be begging these enterprising individuals who are smart enough to see that China is going nowhere good under Xi Jinping to come to America and invite in many more.

The final thing I want to underline is my near unqualified support for the major international and multilateral institutions such as the UN, World Bank, OECD, IMF, WEF, WHO, ILO, WTO, and many (not all) of the regional cooperation and integration blocs. And I would like to take a moment to recognize their mostly hard-working bureaucrats, who do what they can to build out a template for the World Government to come and provision us with global comparative data even as they are forced to weather attacks from parochial nativists, populist firebrands, conspiracist trolls, and sundry rightoids. I believe many of these institutions will have an important role to play as bridges in the transition from nation-states to network states, and that it would be wise to co-opt them as icebreakers to superglobalism.


Anatoly Karlin is a transhumanist interested in psychometrics, life extension, UBI, crypto/network states, X risks, and ushering in the Biosingularity.


Inventor of Idiot’s Limbo, the Katechon Hypothesis, and Elite Human Capital.


Apart from writing booksreviewstravel writing, and sundry blogging, I Tweet at @powerfultakes and run a Substack newsletter.