Some people are genetically pre-disposed to respect authority. I’ve linked to some studies of this many times, so you’ll have to either dig for them or google “genetic basis for moral traits” to learn more. I’ve been trying to bring these genetic moral predispositions to general awareness, but there seems to be an unstoppable mental antipathy towards the idea that ideas have genetic foundations.
Some men have the authority loving gene, and some don’t. I vaguely remember that it’s roughly 40% of men who have it.
Following and obeying is a beta trait. Social conservatives are born beta.
Conservatives also are more likely to have the purity gene, which is an enhanced sense of disgust, which broadens out into a disgust of “impure” sexuality. If that’s the way you are born, those feelings are not going to change. Those mental constructs are not memes that brains became infected with – they are innate predispositions. I believe that the purity gene is counter productive to satisfying dating in today’s sexual marketplace, and those cursed with it feel an intense dissatisfaction for social mores which allow for fucking around.
I believe that humans are not just a bunch of folks with different ideas. We are a bunch of castes, born to have in-alterable predispositions. That used to work, when society was structured differently. The purity lovers ganged together into socialist unions and attempted to enforce a one-woman per man lifetime monogamy, ensuring that unionized members got at least some poon. Nowadays the purity and authority loving men are fucked. Their union has been busted, and due to changing technologies such as the pill, anonymous urban living and the service economy that gives women freedom from economic need and freedom from gossip and freedom from pregnancy, so-cons genetic sexual strategy now has no more ability to work. It’s impossible to motivate men and women with shame only. The so-con motivators of tight social cohesion and economic rewards for mothers from one man have been mortally weakened. And this causes cognitive dissonance and an inability to face reality and adjust to it. How can you adjust to something that disgusts you?
I believe that a person can adjust to reality, love women as they are. Not love just “good” unicorn women, but love actual woman who all have the innate nature of being cunning and conniving self interested gold diggery amoral hypergamous devilish whores who will cheat on your or divorce you and steal your wealth or bitch at you for no reason or just generally be troublesome and difficult to manage like an irrational spoiled child at the terrible two stage. I believe people can both see clearly the ugly side of female nature, and love and get along with women. Women can be successfully managed.
I also believe that social conservatives don’t do this well. They use rose colored glasses and moral codes to navigate an ugly world. And in today’s world, this navigation process fails.
Social conservatives have relied on society to do their work of seducing, dominating, and leading women for them. But those social buttresses are forever gone.
And so men must learn the masculine arts of leading the minds of women. Leading without the aid of churchy social conventional support, without the aid of financial incentive for mating, and without the aid of sex producing lifetime bonds. Or even of children producing lifetime bonds. Can so-cons learn to adapt and to love leading women without social support?
I think not. I think their sexual strategy is now largely maladaptive, and causes them cognitive dissonance that they will find no remedy for. Other than bouts of blissful ignorance and long stretches of empty hope.
Update: Johnny Milfquest made my day by posting a youtube reading of this post with commentary. The inflection in his reading voice is great – and seems to add to the comprehension. I now wish my internal reading voice weren’t so flat and bland. Although occasionally when drunk on lack of sleep, the reading voice will alternate between Simpsons characters. He also provided an interesting related link: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/behavior.shtml
Pingback: Xsplat on SoCons and purity genes | Koanic Soul
As I said before your social theories are very fascinating.
Can you define “Social conservatives”? Who are they?
Can you predict the future of the world? In this era states are “collapsing”. Socialism is going to be the next stage. You should describe the great picture. I think political and economic thinking are strictly correlated to sexual behaviour and moral traits.
Keep going.
My ideas about conservatives have been informed by the research of Bob Altmeyer explained his free online book available here http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
As for states and socialism collapsing, I don’t have predictions. It seems to me that people alternate between periods of group oriented and individual oriented phases. Sometimes the economic activity is more socialist while the the social activity is more individual, and the opposite, and sometimes all trends lead one way or the other. Both the desire to help the group and the desire for a more individual mindset are common to the human condition, so I don’t see any era swinging in one direction on a permanent basis.
Technology makes it easier for big brother to keep an eye on you, and I foresee humanity moving towards more of a borg existence, incorporating more sophisticated wireless and bio-electronic technologies, so perhaps our trend is going to be more communal. But who can tell.
As for states collapsing, I have a hard time imagining a big picture of economic activity. The top 400 richest people control a huge chunk of money, meaning that the labors of the a big chunk humanity filter to the use of those 400. But I can’t imagine what that looks like. There are only so many yachts and country homes a person can own. I’d guess that even the property owned by the rich is in reality more community owned, if you look at the functions of who get the benefit of labor and resources. If a man owns owns a corporation, for example, the labor of all those that buy from that corporation feeds mostly into the economic system, recirculating among people. Rather than following the money, I try to follow the labor and resources. And I have difficulty seeing the big picture. Apparently if wealth were equally distributed and if this distribution did not break the economic system, everyone in the US would be living a middle or upper middle class lifestyle. Our decades of increasing productivity has not increased the wealth of most workers, but has concentrated in the hands of a few. I can’t imagine what that really means or looks like.
Ok, so that’s handwaving at wealth concentration. About economic decline, my guess is that in the biggest picture, corrections regarding investments don’t create or destroy property or the ability of men to continue to employ labor. My guess is that in the biggest picture economic fluctuations are going to be tied to oil and other energy availability. This is because all economic activity that builds stuff amplifies human labor through the use of energy, so our bottleneck is now the energy available to do that work (plus of course our engineering prowess to build tools and design new stuff, but that is a small portion of the labor leverage expense). I don’t know if this view that economic periods are based mostly on energy availability is accurate, and would be interested to hear more educated views.
But about predicting the future, I predict resource wars. Look to China to try to annex the Philippines within 50 years.
Another: Russia moving on the CIS and Ukraine if they won’t play ball.
Pingback: Disgust « Johnny Milfquest's Horn of Plenty
That’s social conservatism in a nutshell.
Not quite sure what you mean. Meaning conservatives are more likely to be open about class striations, while liberals try to gain status by pretending there is no such thing as status and class?
“cunning and conniving self interested gold diggery amoral hypergamous devilish whores”. haha
Great article.
Pingback: No, I Don’t Care About Your Feelings
Next-level analysis, taking it one level beyond Roissy.
Pingback: No, I Don’t Care About Your Feelings | Amerika