Most of the discussions in the reactosphere are very abstract. Knowledge of HBD and a certain command of history does that to you. What is human nature? How does it translate to politics? If there are many human natures, how do they translate into politics? While the mainstream goes on 2300 years after Aristotle, still discussing particular constitutions, laws or policies, we go beyond all that and see what is moving the general patterns that create the constitutions, laws and policies.
This gives us greater understanding of the big picture, but little influence in the actual political process. After all, all politics are local, and all change is incremental. We might be right that democracy per se is a dysfunctional system, but you can't just go around saying that we must scrap democracy, as it doesn't work because of the inbreeding or the Dunbar number.
Hereditarianism does explain a lot, and is the single most predictive theory on human (or simply biological) matters, but the fact remains that it doesn't explain everything. The upper bound of IQ heritability is 0.8, people of the same genetic stock do behave quite differently depending on the culture they were raised on. Macro speaking, Taiwan and China, North and South Korea. Micro, you have siblings who develop quite different personalities. Today we are starting to understand that whatever is left after accounting for heredity, is less a function of parenting or schooling than peer pressure and milieu conditioning (the Dunbar group they happen to belong with). All in all, people are not as malleable as blank slatists in the Cathedral would like them to be, but there is still some large margin for them to argue that their intervention can raise outcomes.
As long as there is any window for Cathedral busybodies to ascertain the need for their intervention, hereditarianism isn't going to change much. So what is IQ inheritability is 0.8. We still have 0.2 left to justify huge government programs! We can still close the Gap.
Many dissenters, famously the late Lawrence Auster, argued that opposition to Progressivist must be total, absolute and unforgiving. No concessions must be made to the enemy's ideology. Progressivism is false because its premises are false, and the consequences of its theology are twisted and evil. I admit that as a man I liked very much his approach. Massive frontal assault, take no prisoners, fight to the end. All very appealing to my teenage boy heart. But it's hard to fight against a coherent, steady block of zealots if your faith isn't at list as strong. And ours isn't, as I said before we still lack data to be able to prove all our points. Everything we have is much more truthful and consistent than what the Cathedral has, and even half truths are better than the obvious lies that the Cathedral holds as their dear faith. But you can't raise an army with nuance and common sense.
A common conclusion to this realization has been to stop giving a shit. Moldbug famously said that activism is inherently progressive, so reactionaries must be passive in politics. A might example of making virtue out of necessity. He might be fooling himself but he isn't fooling most of us. He did more for anti-leftist activism than anybody else in decades. But of course he couldn't go further because he doesn't know what else to do. We can talk and read and argue but we know we can't fight Progressivism in the real world. We don't even agree with each other on what we want to do.
So given that we can't go all in into the political process, yet we do have things to contribute, what happened to incrementalism? Of all the points of the reactosphere, not all of them are radioactive, illegal hate facts. Anything that smells of HBD of course will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and will get you into trouble. But some ideas are eminently reasonable, and normal people who don't directly work for the Cathedral will find it hard to disagree with them. I have been trying some of these in my real life interaction and the results are encouraging.
A comment in my last post was a good example of non-aggressive incremental policy proposal:
William WilberfangJuly 19, 2013 at 20:40(Edit)
Someone should push a pro-family/fertilty tax cut: a 5-10% cut for each child that one has. This way the non-taxpayers don’t get a subsidy and those with higher incomes get a greater discount in absolute terms. Of course it doesn’t take a genius to figure out the real purpose of such a policy, but at least it seems more palatable. It doesn’t discriminate by race per se and it’s doesn’t mention the heritability of intelligence. Maybe something like that could slip by the PC-radar, probably not though. It’s soft eugenics.
Anybody who pays taxes and cares about natality will agree with this. Given that cash payments per baby are on force on most of the developing world and the results are quite meager, this sort of proposal could get some attention.
Another idea I have been pushing around is disenfranchising public sector workers. This is a much more radical policy, the backslash from the bureaucracy of course would be massive; but most people today have a good understanding of what interest groups are, and the idea that public sector workers have different incentives from the rest of the voters is easy to explain. When you think about it, the most important idea on the reactosphere is that democracy has to go. Restricting the franchise on racial or gender grounds is of course supreme sacrilege. But a more moderate libertarian-ish argument is more palatable for most people.
I'd rather not scare away my real world acquaintances with maximalist HBD arguments, but I find it increasingly harder to shut up when people parrots Cathedral nonsense. Small, incremental, self-evident arguments are a good way of standing your ground without having to face the Inquisition and potential ostracism. Any other good ideas? The same way that PUAs have a list of pick up lines and share the results their get, perhaps we could have a list of tiny, smart ideas to poke in the Cathedral's eye and open small fractures in their coalition. As the Japanese, say, when dust piles up it becomes mountains.