Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

One of the first insights that struck me when I came across your work was your insight about the 3 different instinctive group strategies, where individuals tend to fall into one of the 3, what you call the tripartite division of cognitive labor – in other words, there are 3 types of people politically, 3 groups with different political instincts, and each of these 3 groups has a different time horizon that they place priority on. (Female-Left-short time horizon-consume, Young Male – Libertarian – medium time horizon – produce, Mature Male – long time horizon – conserve civilizational assets.) Can you talk to us about that?

Well there are three means of coercion. (Female-left-Gossip, Young Male – libertarian – Incentives, Mature Male – conservative – Force) We have elites that specialize in one or more of them We have institutions led by elites that specialize in one or more of them We demonstrate by voting that we ourselves favor one of those strategies, means of coercion, and elites over the other – although except for liberals, we tend to be Neapolitan ice cream – meaning a little of all three, just prioritizing them differently. If you look at moral biases you see that we favor pretty much expected clustering in a priority stack of those differences. If you look at personality traits, say using the big five or six or seven model if you include intelligence – then you find that despite having this number of traits, (a) each trait can be subdivided and when we do that we see gender differences in each of those traits. (b) that sets of traits cluster around three personality types, and that those types are the same clustering as moral biases, and three coercive strategies. And it’s quite obvious that those three strategies are the reproductive strategies of females (socialism), ascendent males(libertarianism), and established males(conservatism). And so you have clustering of short term female consumption, medium term ascendant male returns, and long term conservative male preservation, and we literally perceive and value events according to these genetic biases that evolved out of necessity. And so instead of pushing the very false narrative of equality I push compatibilism where we are, just like other species with specialized body types, dividing the time frame of cognition as well as the reproductive and productive labors. And how do you solve differences in perception, value, labor and advocacy? Through trade. In other words, voluntary exchange is the way we calculate just like a computer, just like evolution does, the cumulative knowledge of our people into a set of demands that produce a nash equilibrium under which nothing is optimum for anyone but optimum for everyone. While at the same time we produce a pareto distribution or a power distribution of utility to one another, meaning that people at tthe top are tremendously influential and at the bottom not, but that everyone benefits. So while we all have divergent optimum via-positiva demands, we have the same via-negativa demands: reciprocity within the limits of proportionality – and proportionality is important because it is the limit beyond which reciprocity is still insufficient to reaming cooperating in the same polity. And it is this condition that has put us in our current state: we are sufficiently irreciprocal and disproportional and as such we are no longer suitable for coexistence in the same polity. It is in there interests of the top and the bottom to have their own polity which is the standard of all of history, while it is in the interests of whites, who CAN produce a middle class high trust high commons polity to separate and produce what we desire. Now I want to clarify that I’m not a christian or libertarian pacifist. And neither are my brothers on the right. And that while we offer peaceful coexistence throughs separation, any resistance to that peaceful coexistence through separation means that we have moral license to return to our historical business of domesticating the animal man for fun and profit, and that if we wish to do so nothing can stop us. So I’m offering a solution that is possible, but it doesn’t mean it’s preferable. One to three percent of us will easily drag western civilization into a condition where the unfit cannot survive, our enemies seize world power, and we rebuild as we want from the ashes after the bloodiest civil war in human history. So I’m saying ‘this constitution and this change – or else’ I’m not begging. I’m offering a peaceful settlement of a war that is already in process, a war created on purpose by the left, and one engineered to repeat the jewish christian and muslim destruction of the ancient world.