Politics is a Chinese Finger Trap Around Your Nutsack

or why fighting bad ideas is a waste of time

To ideas, attention is energy. It is the life force that allows them to survive and grow and the substrate upon which they feed.

Ideas care not what motivates this attention nor where it comes from. Whether it’s positive attention because the idea created pleasure or negative because the idea created pain; whether it’s belief, skepticism, affection, contempt, support, nor critique. “Good” ideas, “bad” ideas, they’re all the same.

What is a “bad” idea anyway? Perhaps it is an idea that is “wrong”? But what is “wrong”? You might say this is obvious. “An idea which is not aligned with objective reality”. But how can you determine objective reality? If it were as easy as “just check what reality has to say”, we certainly wouldn’t struggle so much with it, no? So then how can you determine whether an idea is wrong or not? How can you test it? Sure, muh science. But science is extremely hard to do right. And more often than not, some error in your assumptions along the way actually results in you being more wrong than before you did the science.

What’s more “wrong”— saying “I don’t know” or saying “I know” and being wrong? Obviously the latter. The former leaves finding the correct answer open as a possibility. Or at least exerting caution around this unclear domain. The latter creates arrogance and hubris that will likely drive you off a cliff. Science, at least as most people see it, creates certainty. Yet it also is mostly wrong. Science is not an institution, nor a result, but a process. And actually a rather shitty one. It’s just that everything else is worse.

When you say “I trust science” what do you really mean? That you trust Scientists? I hope not. They are a bunch of morons like the rest of us. Hopefully it is at least that you trust the scientific method. But there is this weird misunderstanding with most that the scientific method is some new and novel discovery, like fire or the combustion engine, and all we simply need is to be aware that it exists to use it effectively. This is wrong. The scientific method is the natural human problem-solving modality. All we did with “The Scientific Method” was formalize it a bit.

1. Ask a question

2. Do background research

3. Come up with a hypothesis

4. Test with an experiment

5. Analyze the results

6. Draw a conclusion

7. Review and update hypothesis

8. Repeat

Is this not what we have being doing for all of human history? Is this not what you are unconsciously informally doing all day every day? Are not all “superstitions” and all the other derisive terms the I FucKiNg LoVe ScieNce midwits call things they don’t like just old science?

Literally how 99% of atheists explain religion

Even cave man science was just as much of “science” as modern science is.

Ask question: My friend got eaten by a bear. Why?

Do background research: The world is an unknown and terrible place. There are things I do not understand. I am human and conscious and sometimes I get mad and I kill things. Perhaps there are other consciousnesses that I cannot see or understand who were upset by our actions.

Construct hypothesis: We have angered the bear spirits.

Test with an experiment: Pray to bear spirits and leave meat around to pay homage to them.

Analyze results and draw conclusion: No one gets eaten anymore.

Review and update hypothesis: It must have been bear spirits. Now we will do this weird custom forever, so people don’t get eaten by bears.

He even had it “peer reviewed” by hundreds of people and battle hardened not just for years but for centuries. Has your “scientific consensus” lasted centuries? No? Get rekt by bear spirits.

Humans believed the world was flat for thousands of years. Most still believed it from hundreds of years after “all the evidence was in”. Some still do today!

The scientific process is old and mediocre and there has been no change in kind only of degree. We have just been using this shitty shovel for so long (a few hundreds thousand years) that we now have a decent castle set up.

Arrogant midwits think “her dur why didn’t cave men make castles? Why were there no castles during jesus times? Those morons must have been using a spoon! So glad we have this shovel now! I am glad we are so much better than those giga boomers!”  

Ironically, all these super genius science lovers are not only arrogant morons but also reject overwhelming bodies of scientific (in the formalized sense) data that pretty indisputably BTFOs their worldview such as the validity of IQ as a measure of something real, it’s predictive validity in life achievement, genetic differences between races and genders, and the like. Further, their perspective is not only wrong, made up and easily debunked but actually far more wrong, made up and easily debunked than most of the “superstitions” they criticize. They just can’t see this because they are aligned with power which to midwits is the same thing as the truth.

“Superstitions” are just what we call beliefs of other meta-narratives tribes that our meta-narrative tribe doesn’t like. You say God is a silly superstition. I say Humanism and progressivism are a silly “superstition”. Only one of these is overwhelmingly validated by Science.

But science is dumb and gay anyway.

Science Is Dumb and Gay

Science is nothing new. The scientific method is not special. The only thing that changed is the context for our “background research” and an ability to formalize and institutionalize it a little better. I am historically retarded so if some history sperg can help me flesh this out that’d be appreciated but from my understanding:

The only arguable shift in kind was from pre-modern thinking of a more symbolic, circular, and ritualistic frame during the middle ages to the modern thinking of a more literal, linear, and adaptive frame beginning with the Renaissance.

And the only reason this happened is because the latter frame began to out compete the former frame. Though the “new” virus (or at least its component parts) likely existed for thousands of years, It did not begin to outcompete the “old” virus until very recently. The Middle Ages lasted a thousand years. And 99% of human history’s frame was much more like it than the modern one. But then something happened, a change in the environment, that shifted the dominance from applying this reasoning process to the “spiritual and symbolic” to applying it more to the “materialistic and linear”.

Of all the major mind virus shifts post-enlightenment (A time period of which I am more familiar), the primary driving factor of the environmental overhaul which changed the substrate in which mind viruses competed was some big new technological breakthrough. The microscope. The steam engine. The railroad.  The pill. The satellite. The transistor. The internet. Every one of these, and many more, played an identifiable and significant role in modifying our base assumptions about the world as well as how the world itself functioned, ultimately changing which mind viruses were better competitors.

I’m no expert on the causes of The Renaissance and figuring it out right now is kind of besides the point (and easily accessible sources are probably wrong anyway because most academics still functionally act like they don’t believe in evolution) but just from my brain and a few quick google searches:

The Arab agricultural revolution (big improvement in farming abilities); The Silk Road (massive trade network that put positive selective pressure on higher openness to outgroup and also greatly extended the “peer review” of many ideas); The Crusades (similar impact as Silk Road); the invention of the Gutenberg Press (democratized access to religious texts which was a huge blow to centralized and cohesive meta-narratives); and perhaps most importantly, The Black Death, which killed over half of Europe, doing philosophically for the Middle Ages what WWI and WWII did for modernism (ie made everyone question and then reject the zeitgeist) and probably also likely had a huge eugenic effect toward higher IQ, individualistic, materialistic, rationalism (Those who were less religious, less social, smarter, etc likely disproportionately survived the black death).

(Note: Thinking about this more, it’s probably true that in pre-modernity, human-driven environment changes like technological innovation played much less of a role because there just weren’t very many, making big natural environment changes like famines and plagues the dominant factor).

All this to say “good” ideas are simply ideas that survive. “Bad” ideas are simply those which die.

The longer the idea survives, the better it is. And also the better it becomes. Ideas are open-source. Natural selection is constantly messing with the code and forking it into new chains—Adding this piece here, removing that piece there, swapping these pieces over here—to try and “find” selective advantage. Often times forks coexist in tandem for centuries, or even millennia. For example, the ancient Semitic religions of 3000 BCE forked off Judaism around 2000 BCE which itself forked off Christianity in the 4th century (which itself forked off a dozen times since then including into progressivism) and also Islam in the 7th century. Many of these forks still have mass adoption today. Technically, just like with life itself, if you really trace it all the way back to their origins, all ideas are forked from one core code base. Very cool. Besides the point.

The thing that actually determines the truth value of an idea is the test. But not in the cute science way where you run a virtual scenario in your head or in a microcosm of a lab. Truth is determined by iterating through death. The original “science” was just that if your idea sucks, you (and often everyone you love) just die. Believe some stupid shit like hemlock is good for your complexion? That bears will give you super powers if you put your head in their mouth? That breaking all your limbs will turn you into a super smart octopus? You just die and your stupid idea dies with you. Go ask all the homeless crazy people about their ideas. Crazy people were engineered into the human meta organism because having one percent of your population be insane is the best way to exploit novel changes in the environment to increase the tribes fitness. Ask most entrepreneurs and they will tell you “I was either going to become a crazy drug addict or a big CEO”. What has happened for most of human history is that the crazy bad ideas, and their hosts, just die. Now they shoot up heroin on the streets of big cities.

But eventually, after iterating through enough death, nature figured out this neato trick called consciousness. And a major, if not the major, reason humans run this shit compared to other animals is because consciousness aka intelligence reduces the rate at which selection had to be iterated on through death by instantiating a virtual environment where test scenarios can be played out at no harm to the user.

I don’t have to do the action to see what will happen. I can construct a model in my head, inputting the variables that mimic the real world and play it out.

Animals are a multichoice test, Humans are a computer; animals are the 1995 Newspaper Blockchain, humans are Ethereum.

But that doesn’t mean that the virtual environment of consciousness is perfect. Or even that the meta-virtual environment of human groups is. While several orders of magnitude less than a million years ago, we still iterate through death. And not just on the micro level.

We did it with the Black Death and broke Catholicism.

We did it with the World Wars and broke Modernism.

And now we may have done it with COVID and broke Progressivism.

It’s just that the death iteration is far less prominent in our day to day lives and thus is much harder to spot.

Compared to all of history on earth, our ability to discern truth today is operating in the 99.99th percentile. But compared to what’s possible to discern in the whole universe or beyond it, we are probably not even in the 1st percentile.

If your reference point is bugs, then we are pretty genius. If your reference point is the probably millions of other conscious species in our galaxy alone, we are the bugs.

One “problem” is that we’ve already picked most of the evolutionary low hanging fruit on ideas. The asymptotic curve of what is knowable as effective is starting to level off. Inversely, the other asymptotic curve of what can be achieved, now that we’ve figured out the basics and started compounding, is on its way to going vertical.

The problems we are having today—whether it be around gender roles, income inequality, spirituality, liberals vs conservatives, addiction to dumb bullshit, immigration, and whatever other macro problem it is you are worried about—are nothing new. Some may have a new flavor, but it is all just the same old boring evolutionary process. The “good” ideas will always win in the end because that is literally the definition of good ideas.

Fighting Bad Ideas Is A Waste Of Time

So anyway, what is my point with all this? Well I saw this post and thought it was based and hilarious and it reminded me that:

1.     Most people think they are fighting bad ideas when they are actually just fighting new ideas.

This is where Progressives are right about Conservatives. Conservatives just hate new things. It’s literally in their temperament. Conservatives are temperamentally low in openness (the dimension that seeks novelty, art, and abstraction), and high in conscientiousness (the dimension that seeks structure, stability, and hard work).

We don’t have political parties, we have temperamental parties (which are mostly genetic parties or at least epigenetic parties that are immutable by the time people are five so they might as well be genetic parties. but that is for another poast).

But this is also where the Conservatives are right. Most new ideas are bad.

Most of San Francisco’s “brilliant entrepreneurs” are not in high rise offices running billion-dollar tech companies. They are living in tents shitting on the sidewalk.

Of the thousands of cryptocurrencies forked from Bitcoin, somewhere between ten and zero are actually better than it.

Less than 10% of new businesses succeed, despite pre selecting for people insane enough to take the steps to go start one.

Only 25% of VC backed business succeed. And these have been pre-selected by a bunch of smart rich dudes whose primary goal is to make more money, have thousands of hours of experience evaluating ideas, and still think the idea is awesome enough to warrant thousands or millions of dollars of investment. Some of the best idea evaluators in the world are wrong three quarters of the time.

Tangent: The reason the forefront of progressivism is insane is because you must be insane to commit to new ideas. Further, the reason Silicon Valley is progressive is because it’s literally the same mindset. No regard to “how things have always been”, the “tried and true”, nor the existing hierarchy. Couple that with being risk taking enough to just go for it and ignore all the pushback from the “conservatives” and you either become a tech billionaire or a suicide statistic. The difference between the serial entrepreneur and the transkorean biqueer LGBTQIA++ activist is one of degree, not kind.

If we reduce the friction all the way down to just having the idea, whose only impediment is one’s ability to communicate it, the number of new ideas that are better than the tried and true is easily less than 1%, if not fractions of one percent.

And probably at least half the time, your new idea is not only not better than the existing one, but way worse. There is a reason that the overwhelming majority of humans are terrified of risk and novelty and that’s because it has been genetically engineered into us over millennia. For most of human history, taking a risk was just going to get you, and your genetic lineage, killed.

This is also why men are more prone to risk taking. Men are, intrinsic to their biological sexual strategy, disposable. One man can impregnate a dozen women, and the women can pair up to take care of the children (also why monogamy is most often found in expanding societies, and polygamy in receding societies, and why “all women are bisexual”). And thus nature takes its risks through men. Which is why most geniuses and as well as most morons are men; the female bell curve is much denser than the male distribution because the median is safe and reliable while the tails are extremely risky but potentially extremely rewarding. The disparity in the distribution on the right tail is what the feminists are complaining about (most everyone in the top 1% are men), but it’s because they are too smooth brained and solipsistic to know or even care about the left tail of all the men who kill themselves, die in war, or are in jail because they are disposable morons.

Anyway, to conclude Point #1:

It’s a load balanced system. Everyone to one side doesn’t work. Trying to make everyone just like you is how you kill us all (or, more accurately given that the system is antifragile, you are just wasting your priceless few decades doing jack shit and you’d do more for the world if you just killed yourself and freed up the resources).

You need both conservatives and liberals (and men and women, and the alt right and communist, and the narcissists and empaths, and all the rest). You need the glue that holds the existing structure together (conservatives) and you need experimental attempts to blow it up (progressives) so that it can be fortified or, if needed, replaced.

Conservatives are the immune system. Progressives (and their ilk, including most of the alt right, libertarians, reactionaries, etc) are acute stressors that attack the immune system to make it stronger.

Tangent: Something I just realized. Big C Conservatives believe the economics should be free to the forces of natural selection, but that the culture should be controlled and protected; while big P Progressives believe the culture should be free to the forces of natural selection, but that the economics should be controlled and protected. Interesting. Maybe I’ll write something about this later.

If you live in a bubble of comfort, the slightest adversity will destroy you. Both psychologically and physically. This is why the not-retarded doctors and psychologists as well as the reactionary manosphere are all so adamant about putting yourself voluntarily through adversity (whether it be physical things like hot and cold exposure, exercise, strength training, and fasting or psychological things like cold approaching women, standing up straight with your shoulders back, being disagreeable, etc).

Humans are an anti-fragile system. Self-critique and acute attempts to destroy ourselves are—whether applied to an individual, a tribe, a civilization, or our entire species—the means by which we have gotten as far as we have.

To summarize this, let’s make a point #2 of:

2.     It is good and healthy for the system to stress itself.

3.     Mother nature will sort out which ideas are good and bad irrelevant to you or your existence.

You can’t verify that an idea is bad until it gets put through the ringer of natural selection.

You don’t know whether transgenderism or homosexuality or whatever the new biggest coolest progressive fad is, is actually good or bad. Because “good” and “bad” are relative to selective advantage over time in an ever-evolving environment, rather than some Platonic root categorical distinction.

You do know that it was a bad idea for a long time and, even if you don’t know why we put up the fence, if you’re part of the immune system (temperamentally conservative) the fact the fence is there means there was certainly good reason. So as far as you’re concerned, the fence is good and you will fight to keep it up.

But, in reality, the environment has obviously changed. The question is simply how much and in what direction and how does that impact the value or harm of this specific fence. Determining what fences are still helpful to keep predators out vs what fences should be torn down to expand our horizons so we don’t starve to death is harder than you can even conceive of. And this is exactly why we have conservatives and liberals and all the rest. No individual nor group can figure this shit out. So we just throw out a bunch of morons (myself included) temperamentally programmed to always hate fences (progressives) or to always love fences (conservatives) or think that all the old fences we tore down should get put back up (reactionaries) or fixate on some specific subset of fences (environmentalists, animal rights-ists, what have you) and just have them duke it out.

Maybe homo's are cool now. Maybe we no longer have to comment out this code for our program to run well. And why is it even in the code anyway? Unfortunately, no one is allowed to ask let alone study this. Childhood sexual trauma is probably a factor but is it all of it? Is there an evolutionary utility of having a small subset of the male population be homosexual? Good arguments can be made. I made some here. There are probably better ones.

If you are right that transgenderism is a “bad idea” and will lead to transracialism and then trans speciesism then who-knows-what then selection will select against them and you will win. And thus fighting them is complete a waste of time. On the contrary, if you are wrong that transgenderism is a bad idea, then fighting them makes you not only a loser wasting all your time but also wrong and a moron. Either way, fighting bad ideas is dumb and gay.

Tangent: also, you may be smart enough to see the issue with transgenderism, but are you smart enough to see that transgenderism was an unavoidable and inevitable next domino once homosexuality was accepted? And sure, maybe you are smart enough to see that, but are you smart enough to see that homosexuality was an unavoidable and inevitable next domino after feminism? And okay, maybe you’re even smart enough to see that but how about being smart enough to see that feminism was an unavoidable and inevitable domino after the inventing of the pill and labor-saving devices? And you’re probably smart enough to see why the pill and labor-saving device were unavoidable and inevitable so you should now be able to see why transgenderism and whatever comes next were inevitable incremental moves along a spectrum and that the distinction in kind you have in your head—this deluded fixed “golden age” you desperately wish to RETVRN to—is fake and gay. Cope. Dilate. Get rekt scrub.

4.     If your meta narrative has terminal cancer, you can prolong life with chemo, but you’re only delaying the inevitable.  

One might reasonably reply that “sure, acute stress is good but that is different than tearing down the whole system because of a few imperfections; ‘rubbing some dirt in it’ and ‘rubbing some nuclear waste in it’ are not the same thing”.

And you would be right. But again, the system is anti-fragile. It’s been iterated on for at least a hundred thousand years. If it can be destroyed by a few blue haired retards in pussy hats projecting their unprocessed childhood sexual abuse onto the entire society then your society is a house of cards and that deserves to collapse.

The Blue haired retards are not the problem. The academics are not the problem. The media are not the problem. The jews are not the problem.

Just like how the cold granny got while she was deep into her chemo treatment that ultimately killed her wasn’t the problem. The cancer was the problem.

Our meta-narrative is old and fucked and has terminal cancer. Modernity is not salvageable. If you are fighting to “save the west”, I can only assume you do not understand this. Spend like one hour on WWI and WWII (okay maybe like a hundred but still) and it becomes obvious that Progressivism and evil Postmodernism and everything else you fight against are not the cause of the problem they are a response to it. They are not tearing anything down, they are trying to assess the damage and build from the ashes. Of course they are retarded and shitty. So is everything. If you weren’t so busy LARPing in your fantasy world of cherry picked facts that makes some historical period look like utopia you’d realize that on net, its never been a better time to be a human being.

Just a little Spengler or Dalio will quickly help you understand that the US (and modernity at large) is just an old boomer lady on her death bed and it’s time to stop pumping her with drugs and wasting your life at her bedside yelling at the doctors to “do more”and just let her go, man.

Sure, someone needs to fight. We are all financially dependent on grandma and we will all starve to death if she just flatlines (which is exactly why so many are fighting so hard to keep her alive). But that’s what all your grug brain NPC normiecon bros are for. That’s not your job. Your job, as a contemptible autismo think boi, is to be ahead of the curve; to accept that granny is already dead, mourn her, and then figure out how to go get a real job so we won’t all get fucked after she kicks the bucket.

Tangent: The reactionary right constantly criticizes conservatives for “conserving nothing”. Bro their job is to be molasses not to be a competitor. They don’t have any original ideas. They aren’t capable of complex thought. Cultures also aren’t, never can be, nor ever should be static and immutable. The world is ever changing. The structure of fences must change with it. The progressives come up with all the new ideas and the conservatives hold everything together long enough for only the somewhat viable progressive ideas to get through. They are just laggard liberals. If you think the somewhat viable progressive ideas are not in fact somewhat viable that’s fine and maybe correct, but expecting conservatives, the QA department of social change, to lead the charge in pivoting the whole company to an entirely different industry you are dumber than you look.  

If you don’t care about actually winning or “the truth” and you just need to fight so you can feel something that’s totally reasonable. Like I always say, trying to matter is the root human motivation we are all trying to satisfy in late modernity. Me telling you to not try to matter is as foolish and dumb as me trying to tell you not to coom or eat or breathe. Matter away my friend. Just don’t delude yourself that you’re any different than the run-of-the-mill NPC normie con or the libs and their “causiness”.  Also, allow me to try and convince you that when you only care about the fight you not only waste your time to feel something you aren’t even enjoying, you actually make the problem worse.

5.     When you fight bad ideas, you only make them stronger.

Amusingly, this was literally the second paragraph of this post when I started it. Welcome to my brain. To recap from the start: Ideas are fueled by attention and they don’t care whether that attention is positive or negative.  

To “fight evil”, you must first give evil attention. Given that attention is energy and energy is power: the more you fight evil, the more powerful evil gets.

(We literally figured this out two thousand years ago and somehow your dumb ass manages to find it a revelation. Maybe you’re not as smart as you think you are.)

As someone who has spent at least a year in every position on the political compass but one.

(Started a lib center democrat, then became a lib left progressive, then a lib center libertarian, then a lib right ancap, then a center right conservative, then an auth center alt right, then an authright monarchist, now some kind of 4-dimensional postmodern grill master centrist. And reading Marx rn so hopefully I can unlock completionist achievement soon. I can tell you with certainty that literally every group functions in the exact same way.)

Giving abstract principles on this sounds laborious and i’ll have to give examples anyway so let’s just do examples directly: Libs vs Cons.

Some person or group vaguely-auxiliary-to-conservatives perform a big liberal no-no (like be a white person who kills a black person). Then because it’s a big no-no, all the libs hyper fixate on it and turbo amplify it. Media everywhere, all the libs chimping out. Then, because they are stupid humans, they make up some stupid cause of the problem that fits within their worldview (“This is because conservatives blah blah gun laws blah blah racism blah blah”) and get their whole little tribe furious at conservatives for “being white supremacists who kill black people”. Then a bunch of the libs spend all their energy trying to destroy conservatives for something that really had little if anything to do with them.

Now the conservatives see “all these libs” trying to persecute and destroy them. Themselves just as prone to taking one tiny outlier (such as the freak who is vaguely lib who says “Kill all white men!” or the trans person who is arrested for pedophilia) and universalizing it to denounce all libs as “the real racists!” and “evil child raping demons!” and then double down even harder to protect ‘Murican freedom!

The libs obviously take this as a counter attack, and then hyper fixate on the one retard who says “we need to kill the libs before they suck all the blood from our children!”, and on and on, the gyre widens and widens, and, before you know it, we are here and everyone hates each other and thinks everyone in the out group is dumb and evil.

The is literally what politics is. I could give you a thousand examples of every possible political group doing this exactly thing. I’ve not only seen this happen from every side but been out there with a pitchfork myself for more than one of them.

And this issue is far larger than just intra-US Politics. Take America as a whole vs the middle east.  

Kebabs do 9/11. Hamburger Americans thinks they dindu’ nuffin (they in fact, did do somethin’, just most were unaware of it and/or too uninterested in geopolitical history to notice the trend) so they think they are “getting even” by bombing the shit out of the Middle East (and are so primed for maximum chimp-out that they don’t even care we are bombing Iraq despite all the hijackers being Saudi. “They’re all sand people just get em! Murica!”). Most kebabs, like most Americans, had nothing to do with it and were just minding their own business trying to survive in the shithole desert and then an American drone kills his whole family. He sees on TV that the American’s were stoked about it and hate him and think him and his family are evil and deserved it so he decides that him and the boys are going to show those stupid infidel hamburgers and their degenerate women a thing or two. So he start ISIS, blows some shit up, and of course the Hamburgers still think they didn’t do nuffin, so they bomb a bunch of other families minding their own business, and blah blah blah round and round and now we are here today.

(edit: Did you know 92% of Afghani’s didn’t even know 9/11 happened a decade after it happened? Bet you didn’t!)

This conflict cycle is as old as time, and is the root of all war. The same cycle of happens between countries or companies or even individuals.

Conflict follows the same natural selection process as everything else .

1. There is some kind of misunderstanding. Most of the time, resolution is found and the conflict is resolved (most conflict dies off just like most ideas or species).

2. Sometimes it is not. You, completely by accident or unintentionally or unknowingly slight them.

3. Now they think you’re an asshole and they intentionally start some shit.

4. Now you think they’re an asshole, cause you dindu’ nuffin’, so you counterattack to “get even”.

5. Now they think you’re even more of an asshole because they were just getting even and now you gone and unevened it.

6. It escalates until it comes to blows, you guys have a hard conversation, or you just part ways.

When it comes to meta-human organisms the size of countries having a “hard conversation” is infinitely harder, especially since in the last few hundred years we have run out of space to “part ways” (likely an underappreciated factor in the causes of WWI), and so coming to violence happens a lot more often that would be ideal.

And that’s just one of the problems for why whenever you fight you only make it worse.

Another huge problem is that all new ideas have a life cycle and if you try to impede them you only empower them. Because they are powered by attention not truth.

When your wife (I know bro. you’re an incel. Just try to imagine from like TV or something.) tells you her feelings and you try to tell her “Well that’s illogical my dear. You obviously just need to do x y z and that will fix your problem right up” Does she ever go “wow thanks honey. You are so smart!” No. It just makes her bitchy and pouty and argue with you for like four hours. Because it’s not about the truth or the problem it’s about feeling validated and accepted. Men have this too, It’s just around pride and respect and is applied less toward interpersonal relationships (micro) and more toward business, competition, sports, and politics (macro).

When someone is having a feeling, if you tell them that they or their feeling is dumb and gay, they just feel attacked and want to attack you back.

Everyone has to have their “anger phase” to become whole and integrated—whether it’s hating women when you first discover the red pill, or hating the liberal order when you first discover it’s a lie, or hating the conservative order because they told you you would go to hell for being gay, or hating your parents when you finally realize they were shitty and fucked you up. The process of “healing” is always the same of:

1.     Acknowledge harm was done to you

2.     Get angry about it

3.     Get irrational and dumb and lash out stupidly for a while

4.     Now that you’re done having your feeling, accept and integrate it and move on

If you try to do step four before you’ve done steps one-through-three that’s called repression and it will ruin you and everything around you like a vengeful acid that eats everything good and decent from the inside-out.

What does this have to do with politics? All of politics is just one giant dysfunctional group therapy session.

The main if not only reason you are deeply invested in solving any given political problem is because you feel you have been harmed. You want justice to be served. You don’t care about marginalized groups or the white race or poor people or whatever it is you keep going on and on about. Those are all just a proxies for you and what happened to you.

“The system” has harmed you, and now you’ve decided you’re going to control it so it never harms you again, or, if it really fucked you up, get back at those bastards who did it to you.

And whenever you fight “the system” and it fights back, you just get more and more pissed and vengeful.

Every time an outlier on the right says “you’ll never be a real woman! Dilate or rope!” to some trans dude who is just struggling with his own shit he now becomes radicalized. And whenever some outlier on the left says “all white men are evil oppressors and your whole race should be destroyed!”to some little aspergers white boy raised by a single mom who has no friends and no money he now becomes radicalized. And now that radicalized person projects that outlier experience onto the entire outgroup and seeks to destroy it.

And thus, progressives end up feeling oppressed exactly to the degree that conservatives fight them, while conservatives feel oppressed exactly to the degree that progressives fight them. It’s just a big dumb Chinese finger trap wrapped around the nutsack of everyone involved.

And since every battle only makes everyone angrier and more committed to “fighting evil”, if you want the game to ever actually end, you need to, as we’ve chosen for all of human history, kill them all (or have them kill you).

I don’t know about you, but both of these options sound pretty gay to me. Which is why my vote is that what you should do is get out of the sandbox and stop LARPing with the 8 year olds projecting all their dysfunction and childhood trauma onto society and go sort yourself out so you can stop making the problem worse.

You’re an addict. Addicted to stories and power and “us vs them” and “justice” and “righteousness”. The first step to recovery is accepting this. The second step is to get off the dope. Not switching from whiskey to beer or cocaine to weed but switching from getting high to getting clean.

Getting clean is hard. It does have the benefit of reducing your risk of being a collaborator whose hands become drenched in blood or one the dissident who the blood belongs to. But it also has the huge downside that no one has ever been clean before and thus you have to venture off into the unknown to find some new and never before discovered way to still like being alive despite being sober.

You no longer get to band wagon into whatever power believes and call it the truth. Nor do you get to band wagon into whatever its inversion (the counter culture) believes and call that the truth. Meaning will no longer be handed to you on a silver platter. Or at least not without a fine print that would impress Satan himself.

The overwhelming majority of people will happily choose to matter as dissidents or collaborators and just obfuscate and ignore the downstream effects of such a choice. And that is good and right. This is not a job for everyone. If everyone did it, we’d never have built anything at all. Heck, if even 5% did it, we would probably never have built anything at all.

But if we didn’t have at least a small fraction, perhaps a half of a percent, who did it, everything we have ever built would have crumbled by now.

Thankfully for the sapiens: it isn’t really a choice for some of us. we always hated being addicts anyway.

All we needed was one other person who hated it too.

I share your contempt fren. Let’s build something new.