Fuck your pet ideal

In the aftermath of my last essay on this blog dealing with adaptability and Law 31, I received some criticism, in the wider sphere I create content on, this essay addresses those criticisms. The central theme of the previous essay was the dichotomy between politics and realpolitik, with the added variable of success of the best adapted. “The success of the best adapted” is somewhat of a hijacking on my end of the central principle in Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, of which my interpretation is that as we are living in a Universe which is in a state of constant change as we perceive it, the “most fit” organism is that which can best adapt to these changing circumstances, quickly.

To summarize that in a manner that is generally understood, if species do not adapt to changing environments, they die. The criticism leveled against the concept of being adaptable to your present circumstance was that this makes you all sorts of nasty things, a traitor, a collaborator, a quisling, not for being successful but for not perishing with your fellow men who are unwilling to adapt. They are incapable of adapting not because their family line ran for a few hundred thousand years of men who adapted from being hunters, to being farmers, to being industrial workers, military men, leaders and countless, but because this particular generation has decided to sit on their ass and go “WAAAH”. They identified a pet ideal or a pet cause, and they’re sticking with it even if it means they die broke, alone, fat and unsuccessful as long as they can bitch on twitter.

I do realize that this is somewhat of a Patton style speech to the rogue’s gallery of dialing autism to 11, so let me break it down. A cornerstone of being a “red pilled” man, has always been letting go of your blue pill ideals, usually these are limited to “the soul mate myth”, “the story of The One”, “the white picket fence” and so on. However, it goes much farther than that. If one breaks the soul mate myth or The One down, those things are stories that act as carrots in order to make you act against your own best interest.

That’s not isolated as a concept in intersexual dynamics, it goes much beyond that. Trads are conforming to a blue pill idealism, so are the guys championing Evola, Vegans, Carnivores, Religious people, Nationalists, Globalists, Right-wingers, left-wingers, centrists, all these things are blue pill ideals, with their own dedicated narratives, hero’s journey, set of rules, morality and much more, designed to make you work for the best interests of someone else other than your own.

I would argue that every time a group forms, that group lays the foundation of their leviathan, that will grow with the group as they recruit more members to their way of thinking. The Leviathan transcends the group and becomes something beyond the mere practical and pragmatic. It becomes a thing in itself, that develops it’s own goals, ideals, wants and needs, then one starts doing things without knowing why one is doing those things. His name was Robert Paulson.

This does not mean that groups cannot be respected, I have respect for people who are vegans, carnivores, money twitter, PUA guys, religious men, regardless of our principled disagreements so long as they offer useful tools without requiring you adopt their blue pill ideas along with said tools.

Mental Point of Origin is a central Red Pill Concept, and I would argue it transcends the red pill, it got that name here, but the concept goes far back in our history, it means being the protagonist in your own life. This doesn’t mean that you can never cooperate with anyone, reasonable, limited cooperation on select issues with aligned individual incentives is what drives our species forward.

Closing thoughts and summary

Realpolitik was a term invented by a German writer named Ludwig von Rochau and it advocates politics and diplomacy based on given factors and circumstances rather than ideological notions or ethics. It’s the introduction of pragmatism and the practical as replacements for the ideological or ethical. Most of the blue pill ideals I see men cling the most to, aren’t related to women, they are related to “am I a good man”. They’ve been told “Good men do X”, “Good men think like ABC” their whole life, they’ve absorbed it, and they have acted it throughout most of their life. They are Boxer of Animal farm, steadfast, loyal, believe any problem can be fixed if they just work harder, but as they end up working for other people and causes than their own best interest, their end is being sold up the river for a pint of whiskey. However, in death they are elevated as the ideal by those who in life used them in order to inspire the next generation.

These men often think they are the protagonists in their own life, but in reality they are extras in the life of others, if they are lucky they may occasionally get to be a supporting character. However, going against this type-casting, they batter against their ego defenses, instead of doing what they deep down know they must do to get the part, they find something larger than themselves and attach themselves to it, hoping that this will finally solve their problem.

They would rather attend 1000 rallies than clean their room.

As a finishing though, I don’t really care about your blue pill ideals, in fact fuck ’em. I care about helping you get the practical tools you need in order to establish the pragmatic life you want. There are no knuckle-pushups, no compulsory Evola courses, no slogans, no t-shirts, no mugs, no Truck nuts, just a rejection of ideology and ethics as the Star of Bethlehem of your life.

If you’re going to ditch 1 blue pill ideal, you may as well throw the others out with it.

The Conundrum with Change

For those who follow my twitter feed, the fact that I’m quite far from a conservative should be quite obvious by now. Part of this is driven by the fact that if one looks to history, I think one would face a monumental challenge to argue that a majority of changes have had negative human consequences. Of course, once can cite issues such as the breakdown of the nuclear family, the fact that most of us are at best tacitly tied to our communities, and quite a few others, however from my view the cost of these issues is dwarfed by:

  • Penicillin and modern medicine in general
  • Lifting people out of poverty in the third world at an accelerating rate
  • The democratization of information in the form of the internet

And many others, the fact that people can throw off dictators through the use of social media is quite astounding quite frankly. However, I do understand the concern, while change has always been a central part of the human condition, rapid change has been less so. I consider myself an adaptist, I view humanity’s greatest competitive advantage as being able to adapt better and faster than most. We have the capacity to adapt the environment to ourselves, which gives us a great edge vs. other organisms in that they adapt through generations, we adapt through neural plasticity.

When our species moved from hunter/gatherer to agricultural this took tens of thousands of years. When we moved from agricultural to industrial, it was faster but it still took 200ish years from the dawn of the industrial revolution to what I’d consider as it’s peak around 1970. The information revolution started in the 70s and now a mere 50 years later, virtually everything about our lives have changed, and we are struggling with adapting to this new area.

I notice a great difference in the generations, from a handful of “boomers” who have adopted technology on the surface level, to Gen X who are doing decently depending on early or late Gen X, to millennial generation who span the space from those born in the early 80s who are doing quite well but struggling with the social landscape changes more than the tech, and late millennials who are our first generation of “digital natives“. The key here is that people have the capacity to adopt to the current environment, and by doing so they can adapt that environment to them.

Both Gendernomics and Gendernomics: Building Value are books based on the fundamental axiom “Men can change”, which leads to the premise that “Men can change their sexual market value”, if men cannot change, then men cannot change our sexual market value, which means that your reproductive success is 100% based on your luck in the birth lottery.

What I’ve come to realize is that while all men can change, many men (and women) do not want to change. They want to adapt their environment to them, so that they do not have to do the uncomfortable thing and alter themselves. In order to accomplish this, they seek allies who have similar views, and push for their desired end-state. Of course, this isn’t a purely “left or right” issue, it’s a human issue and we see the same tendency on both sides. It’s all a fight to adapt the environment rather than the individual. The downside of this is that even if they realize their goal about their desired end-state the law of unexpected consequences tends to screw it up for them.

If we take the idealized structure of the 1950s in the United States, you need 2 things that the “We have to go back” people never account for:

  1. You have the bomb the shit out the manufacturing infrastructure of every other industrialized nation.
  2. You need to kill enough of your men to create a meaningful lack of men.

Even if you did that, #2 would still be dependent on the various social structures that existed around marriage, contraception, pre-marital sex, and various other things that meant that the only way to have a kid was to be married. If we did 1 + 2 in the modern United states, odds are we’d land on more polygamous relationships, or more likely a modern social democratic welfare state, where everyone works to take care of Chad’s kids. There is simple no way to push the toothpaste into the tube.

So, why do people want to go back?

Ultimately, I think much of this comes down certain inborn traits in us that we all tend to value. Most of us have a preference in risk vs. reward, stability vs. volatility, new experiences vs. stable experiences and so on. Many of these things factor into our preference the old social order is comforting because everything is broken down into a set of rules, that are supposed to never meaningfully change. Sure a few new things are introduced but in isolation they do not change things by a lot.

The washing machine, the water heater, the gas/electric stove, the dishwasher didn’t change the families that got them much, but they did free women from housework to be able to think about other things they would like to do, which in part, if not completely drove much of the “female liberation” movement in the 60s and 70s that continues to this day. One could in fact argue human history as periods of great and rather rapid change, followed by a calm period of quiet and incremental change.

Certain groups of men are born to be the forces of order, some are born to be the forces of chaos, and they are born in varying proportions all the time. When the forces of chaos outdo the forces of order we get large changes, when the forces of order outdo the forces of chaos we get incremental change.

Final thoughts

I’ve joked that in order to change anything meaningfully in medicine, a generation of doctors have to die. This isn’t because doctors are stupid, do not take in new knowledge or are extremely resistant to change, it’s simply because of our tendency to become ego-invested in things. It takes a average man to build a career in any field, it takes a great man to move his field forward through investing in it over a lifetime, it takes a rare man to admit that he’s spent his life on the wrong path.

I’m sorry to say it, but in order for the world to change, conservatives have to die. By that I don’t mean that we should hit the streets with pitchforks to promote change. What I mean is that just like in a negotiation, humans have anchor points in their life. Most people start off as liberals, then become conservative as they invest into things they want to conserve.

As an example, a conservative born in 1950, wants to preserve that imprint of the world, that is his anchor point. In the same way a liberal born in that same year, wants to build on and move on from that imprint, but not too far. This is where those old labels like “Radical” and “Reactionary” used to serve a purpose, in that they denoted either a liberal who wanted to … radically progress the structure, or a conservative that wanted a time machine. There are degrees to change and degrees to which we are comfortable to move away from those anchor-points.

The reason why conservatives never really conserve anything, is simply that when the conservative born in 1950 had his kid in 1970, his kid imprinted on the values in the 70s, so that becomes his anchor point. When the conservative born in the 70s has his first kid in say 1995, that kid imprints on 1995, and so it goes.

So, knowing all this, what is the best and most pragmatic approach? Adapt to your environment, you can attempt to influence it as well, but you’ll never be able to adapt your environment sufficiently to realize a competitive advantage. Once that environment is adapted to your liking, you have to start competing with other people within it, and we start the adaptation cycle again.

We have to go back!

I was going to do this as a twitter thread, but about halfway in I realized it would do better as long-form content. Now, I’m not going to share tweets in here, because I’m for the most part against giving people who cry for attention what they crave.

To summarize how I’d define “Trad Twitter” the best summation is “Appeal to tradition”*, this is an informal fallacy that usually takes the form of “This is right because we’ve always done it this way”. We could go into depth about the presumptions of this fallacy, and why they create a problem, however I find it much more interesting to make an analogy.

One of my more pleasurable pastimes when I’m not participating in this community or working, is playing old games from my childhood. Within the community for such games, there is always “that guy“, the guy who got dominated at the game when he was young, so now he’s come back to get his vengeance and the status he deserves, 5 – 15 years later, with perfect information, on how to dominate. The problem with this player is that he assumes that the context around the game has been static and he’s the only dynamic variable. What I mean by this is that if he travelled back in time with his current knowledge, he would most likely dominate, but in the years that have since passed, all variables around the game have been dynamic.

  • The way people play it has changed
  • The type of people the players are have changed
  • New strategies for meta-gaming have been created
  • New game-modes have been introduced such as speed running

Upon discovery of this the player type in question engages in complaints of “how the game isn’t played the same way“, “People are ruining the game” and so on, despite the fact that most players are simply doing what he was planning to do, and he’s still coming up short. The fundamental truth being that, what this player was after was an edge so he could dominate at the game. Once he goes back, fails again this usually results in emotional “fuck you guys, fuck the devs, fuck this game, I’m leaving” posts that litter various game forums all over the web.

I went through that rather long anecdote, because I think it illustrates the “trad-mindset” very well, generally they are men who struggle with adapting to many of the “changes to the game” that have been introduced in the past 70 years or so:

  • No longer having economic power over women
  • Working your whole career for one company not being the modern way
  • Being able to get a job at the factory right out of high school, then have a house, 2.5 kids and a wife for life

However, instead of accepting that the world has changed, this person advocates that we should revert to how to game used to be played, back when he understood and knew the game and where he thinks he has an information edge.

I can understand the impulse, with nostalgic glasses on, it’s easy to imagine a “perfect” time in history where you think you were perfectly adapted, a time where they’d appreciate a faithful, loyal, hard-working, dad, who puts God, Country and Family first. I’d personally love if all the unhealthy foods I like had the nutrient profile of eggs or broccoli, but this is the game we are stuck playing.

Even if we could revert back to the values of old, perhaps just to the 1950s, they still wouldn’t be the 50s, because European and Asian manufacturing hasn’t been bombed flat, we have smartphones, the internet, and many other technologies and ideas that we can’t just put back into the tube of toothpaste. Even if we by magic found ourselves with social values and ideas set back 70 years, your future “good wife” would have a smartphone, how long until she started taking ankle pics for her Instagram?

Summary and Final thoughts

I’ve often entertained myself with thought experiments of how I’d react if I was transported back to a given time in history. The appeal of it is that if you could keep all the knowledge you currently have, which is far beyond people who lived a mere 200 years ago in terms of technical fields, you could easily set yourself up in a high status and very wealthy position.

Heck, if you could go back to 2016 you could buy bitcoin at $380, hold that until Dec 19th 2017, short the crap out of bitcoin on the same day, close out your short Dec 18th 2018, then ride it back until now where bitcoin is $18K per coin. The people I know in finance usually laugh at such theoretical moves, because they are just that, theoretical. Can you luck out like that once in your life? Sure, are you more likely to mistime the market in your attempt to catch a falling or flying knife? For sure.

The converse to the trads are the people who appeal to novelty, I like new things, but not all new things are good and the implementation of new ideas should be done in a reasonably controlled manner. However, we cannot fight progress, the world will develop whether or not you accept it, so the best thing to do is adaption, as our world favors those who are most able to adapt to changing contexts.

The funniest thing about the whole situation to me, is that all sides, including the status quo group, are all fighting to bring about a world where they have an innate edge that they didn’t really have to earn. Instead of learning how to play the game, they work very hard to change the game.

  • If you suck at playing the mating game, you probably want arranged marriages or a state mandated girlfriend so that someone else solves your problem for you.
  • If you suck at playing the money game, you are more likely to support communism or UBI, since that means someone else solves your money problems for you.
  • If you suck at playing the lifting game, you can always go on TRT at 18 and use fake weights for your instagram profile.

The jock wants to play football, the nerd wants to play chess, the cheerleader wants to create spirit, and the badboy… well the badboy gets laid regardless so whatever.

The most important point is that these are all strategies to try and outsource the things you are responsible for, but not competent at, so instead of stepping your game up, putting in work and effort, you try to outsource it under a “noble narrative“. The argument boils down to “It would be better for EVERYONE, if ALL OF YOU support my ENTITLEMENT COMPLEX“.