Discover more from Joseph Bronski
HBD research is very important, but we need more Exousiology
There is such a thing as too much of a good thing
The intellectual wing of the “dissident right” has for decades been too focused on race science, or HBD. While the work done in HBD is certainly commendable and impressive, and continues to be, I wager that dissident intellectuals are, as marginalists would say, not in utility-maximizing equilibrium when it comes to the allocation of intellectual resources.
The HBD scene is like a vast apple orchard that only harvests honeycrisps. Honeycrisp apples are an amazing feat of eugenics, but after one or two apples a day, most people reach taste-saturation. They want bananas. Vegetables. Meat. They need these things or they will face malnourishment and disease.
The solution is to chop down some apple trees to make way for cattle and broccoli. For every price unit of apple that is replaced with cow or broccoli, health increases. This process of replacement iterates until getting rid of $1000 of apple trees to make way for $1000 of cows or broccoli would decrease health (or profits if our imagined farm isn’t the DR community farm but rather is a business). When that point is reached, the farm’s output is in equilibrium.
If HBD is the attempt to build an actually scientific account of race differences, and to a lesser extent sex differences, in a world where the mainstream is poisoned by egalitarian dogma, using quantitative psychology and genetics, then exousiology is likewise the attempt to build an actually scientific account of society and politics in a world poisoned by egalitarian dogma, using quantitative psychology and genetics, as well as other methods (such as game theory and quantitative economics).
It is my contention that the heretical intellectual scene is relatively saturated with accounts of race differences, and could benefit by allocating some more intellect on the production of accounts of society and politics. I say this here, because soon I will be beginning my investigation into the origins of “Civil Rights” in the United States. This topic is at the juncture of a scientific account of society and politics, and a scientific account of race differences, because it is the politics of race differences. In large part, HBD seems motivated by a reaction to the propaganda that was used in the process of creating “Civil Rights”, which is the taxation of whites for the purposes of subsidizing non-whites.
HBD has thoroughly debunked this propaganda. The Newtonian phase of HBD, in other words, is complete. What remains gives diminishing returns. This pattern is found all throughout nature and scientific pursuits. HBD research is still important, but in the current historical context, it is like studying quantum mechanics without a periodic table or a theory of evolution. Society in such a scenario would benefit if some quantum physicists re-allocated their efforts to understanding chemistry (beyond the physics of sub-atomic particles) and biology.
Likewise, for dissidents, there are diminishing social returns on the next piece of evidence that BTFOs black people or women. They are already BTFO. Their subsidies are parasitism and their propaganda are lies.
It is important to keep studying HBD for the sake of knowledge, and the discovery of unknown unknowns, but we know next to nothing about how society operates. Just a little bit more of that knowledge would be a huge improvement. Going from 1000 to 1001 is a 0.1% gain; going from 0 to 1 is an infinite gain, numerically speaking.
A little bit more exousiology could tell us where Civil Rights and other policies actually came from. Jewish immigration? The multiplication of spiteful mutants due to decreased infant mortality and the fact that mutation impedes good character? Employer incentives due to technology-driven economic massification (e.g. assembly lines). The death of the most masculine men during the world wars?
It can tell us under what conditions can Civil Rights go away? Does anti-semitism strike at the root? Eugenics, for example should we start embryo selection companies? What traits must be select against? Selfishness? Low IQ? Masculinity? A metric of mutational load? Should we attempt to create technologies which shift the techno-epoch towards something more accommodating to moral and intellectual elites? How do we most efficiently use our power to accomplish our goals? This is an allocation problem in itself. It is the one that exousiology answers. If you have $10,000,000, do you fund … dissident youtubers? Should they talk about black people, Jews, or altruism? What names should they call out? Larry Fink? The Rockefellers? Or should they call out Harvard as an institution? Or should you fund embryo selection startups? Or is the money not enough? Should you just focus on getting more? How much is needed?
You have no idea. If you had $10,000,000 right now, and you want to end Civil Rights with it, you might waste it on funding pundits to talk about the Cathedral. You might waste it on funding an embryo selection company that selects for intelligence but not altruism, creating more Harvard-Smart phenotypes. Things like this are happening right now. And you might waste it on another race differences study when you would probably be better off spending it on exousiology until exousiology tells you how to efficiently allocate your money. Not that any of these would be a total waste; but resources are limited and we need equilibrium, where efficiency is maximized.
Joseph Bronski is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.