My fear is that it will have the opposite effect; the smart, valuable members of the community will quickly tire of the social out-grouping and status games required to exclude or stigmatize entryists. They will leave and the second tier thinkers will in-fight and break along the fission lines.

This is all speculation, of course, but I think the discourse is important now, before things metastasize.

Most of the entryism that does real harm is innocent, and takes the form of increasingly vulgarized ‘support’. Keeping up a tone of creative tension is likely to reduce that. If certain segments of NRx want to build a cognitively-inert applause chorus (as obedient material to be used for ‘practical’ purposes), I think they need to be explicitly ring-fenced, so they don’t feed noise into discussions. Once NRx ceases to be an theoretical challenge, and subsides into a set of off-the-shelf beliefs, it’s over. (Maybe somebody could then use it as a dead tool to make a revolution with, but I seriously doubt it.)

If we get real entryists — moles or subversives — it will sharpen us up. Without intellectual ferment, NRx is nothing.

(I agree with Hurlock and fotrkd on this stuff.)

Frankly, I sympathize with many critiques of techno-utopians made by SHWAT (the singularity sounds terrifying to me, not to mention obviously derived from low church Protestantism : )), but it’s too easy to criticize a reactionary for not being sufficiently ideologically pure with respect to the long dead ideas. I see several big problems.

First, It’s not fair to the great reactionaries of yore to assume that their ideas would have remained static for four centuries, like Amish farming techniques. They were much smarter than that. The real genius is in figuring out how they would have improved had they been allowed to flourish or if they had been corrected sufficiently to flourish in actual competition – or better yet, both.

Second, we know how progressivism deals with ideological enemies – it brutally wipes them out. A non-capitalistic, Luddite reaction might be ideologically pure, but it has a zero percent survival rate in a progressive world against capitalism. Ask a Confederate, if you can find one.

Third, it’s just silly. Four hundred years ago was a long time. Perhaps things would be better if we were all Amish, but we’re not. Nor is there any non-horrible path from here to there.

Finally, it’s lazy. If The Victorians could essentially eradicate crime with their level of technology, to think that if they were given today’s technology they’d start whining about social isolation or whatever instead of doing something awesome sells them just as short as progressives sell them by pretending they didn’t exist (it’s really only a slightly better response than, “yeah, but they were racist”). Figuring out what they would have done may take some work, but that’s no reason not to try.

Critical though is operating on a much higher level when there are theoretical squabbles going on rather than when there is a communitarian circlejerk.
If anything, such squabbles will help us better define neoreaction as a whole and consequently make it tougher for entryists to get in.
Who is an entryist and who is not will be clearly demonstrated by their ability to adequately participate (or not) in these discussions.

I think a lot of people are overreacting about Tunney. Jeez guys, we are not THAT gullible. If she thinks she can succesfuly “use” NRx for w/e, she is in for an unpleasant surprise. She is obviously a sort of an attention whore, that much is for sure (that whole stunt with publicly calling for corporate governance was 1st class attention whoring). And ironically, it is Anissimov, who is most worried about her being an entryist, giving her the most attention. (so beta, lol)

“Ask not at whom the monkey throws feces; it is thrown by thee.” (Directed generally at the group.)