• Home
  • Diversity + Proximity = War: The Reference List
  • Shit Cuckservatives Say
  • The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon
  • Alpha Assessment Submissions
  • Beta Of The Year Contest Submissions
  • Dating Market Value Test For Men
  • Dating Market Value Test For Women
  • About

Chateau Heartiste

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« Framing Flirting
Proof That Power Corrupts Absolutely »

The Psychology Of Liberals And Conservatives

May 4, 2012 by CH

In the spirit of deconstructing (heh) feminist and manboob psychology, here’s my stab at doing the same for the underlying psychologies of liberals and conservatives. I’m working under the premise that political ideology is at least partly genetic in origin, which evidence is beginning to suggest may be the case. Whether it’s one gene or thousands of genes that contribute is irrelevant to the larger picture.

Liberals are naive novelty seekers, and this manifests as, for instance, a (claimed) love of open borders and diversity, and a penchant for risk and undue optimism in the face of evidence to the contrary. Conservatives are commonsensical guardians, and that manifests as a wariness of untested outsiders and a respect for the tried and true. Neither ideology, if restrained from its worst excesses, is necessarily “bad”; logically, if liberalism or conservatism were really bad and fitness-reducing, they would have been selected out of the human gene pool by now. No, it’s probably fairer to say that in an environment of low level threats and approximate mental, emotional and psychological equality between men, (such as might be seen in an isolated, small hunter-gatherer tribe), liberalism (i.e., “foragerism”) is the more “fit” ideology; whereas in a threatening, unstable environment where human traits, both positive and negative, between people and races are unequally distributed, conservatism (i.e., “farmerism”) is the more “fit” ideology to hold.

Now… did you all notice my reframe in the above definitions? See how easy it really is to throw a snarky leftist back on his heels, in the defensive crouch? Open-minded? How about naive. Adventurous? Careless. Tolerant? Undiscerning. You can do the same with women by reframing their objections. That is a core concept of game.

A reader adds:

Liberals do indeed score a lot higher on the personality trait Openness to Experience. However, conservatives score significantly higher on the personality trait Conscientiousness. Which means conservatives tend to fuck things, including their own lives, up a lot less.

Anyway, if you haven’t you should read up on the work of Jonathan Haidt.  Very worthwhile.

I’m in a generous mood, so I’ll say this about that: a wholly conservative society will probably stagnate into dullness, albeit a dullness that pleasantly avoids total dystopia. A wholly liberal society, thrilling as it is, will probably go extinct from being overrun by barbarians, or will implode from a lack of attention to the time-tested details that scaffold civilization. Maybe both ideologies are found in humans because a mix of the two maximizes group fitness. /generosity

Liberalism is ascendent right now (spare me the hand waving about Republican electoral wins, who have been forced leftward for generations just to compete), and we can see from that the whole project beginning to unravel under their Open-minded and Novelty Seeking tutelage. Their power has grown beyond their control, and if it can’t be stopped at the voting booth, the boardroom, or the classroom, it WILL be stopped when the less enlightened hordes bring their pandemonium, whether quickly by arms or slowly by alms, crashing down upon the gated communities.

And, man, when that happens, will that be the most satisfying “I told you so” I ever contemptuously dripped like sun-warmed ice cream outta my mouth.

Share this:

  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Biomechanics is God, Culture | 128 Comments

128 Responses

  1. on May 4, 2012 at 1:59 pm Phil

    You need to write political commentary as much as you write about game. Just a suggestion. I would say contact Takimag or VDARE. Those site would at least pay.

    Think about it.

    Oh, and wake up, white man.

    LikeLike


    • on May 6, 2012 at 3:25 pm Firepower

      Nope.
      I bet The Greatest Blogger in History
      Gets Derbed in a nanosec.
      If ya ain’t derbed
      ya ain’t doin’
      it right

      LikeLike


  2. on May 4, 2012 at 2:04 pm ATrain

    Thomas Sowell describes it best. Liberals are concerned with fair outcomes, while conservatives are concerned with fair process. Liberals see humans as essentially good (blank slate) while conservatives see humans as inherently flawed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Conflict_of_Visions

    h/t GLP

    LikeLike


    • on May 4, 2012 at 2:20 pm The Man Who Was . . .

      Sowell has it partially right, but there seem to be three political tendencies, not two: left-liberals, right-liberals/libertarians, and conservatives/traditionalists. Libertarians are actually psychologically closer to left-liberals than they are to conservatives, and it is they, not conservatives, who are most concerned about procedural fairness.

      What confuses people in the Anglosphere is that the Republican party, like the British and Canadian Conservative parties, is a fusion of libertarianism and conservatism. At least the Australians call their “right wing” party the Liberals.

      LikeLike


    • on May 4, 2012 at 11:32 pm thesecond

      While I can agree with the fair outcomes and fair process, the idea that any group views all humans as essentially good or flawed seems unrealistic. People love and hate each other on class, race, and sex lines and your political beliefs will determine which group you must love and hate. There are probably far more exceptions than cases.

      For example, modern liberalism often believes that white people are inherently flawed while africans and mexicans aren’t. Guilt for whiteness is one of the main platforms of the democrat party.

      LikeLike


    • on May 6, 2012 at 8:16 am Classic Sparkle

      Six Principles of Conservatism

      Taken from The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk:

      1) Belief that a divine intent rules society as well as conscience, forging an eternal chain of right and duty which links great and obscure, living and dead. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems. A narrow rationality, what Coleridge calls the Understanding, cannot of itself satisfy human needs. “Every Tory is a realist,” says Keith Feiling: “he knows that there are great forces in heaven and earth that man’s philosophy cannot plumb or fathom. We do wrong to deny it, when we are told that we do not trust human reason: we do not and we may not. Human reason set up a cross on Calvary, human reason set up the cup of hemlock, human reason was canonised in Nortre Dame.” Politics is the art of apprehending and applying the Justice which is above human nature.

      2) Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of traditional life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and equalitarianism and utilitarian aims of most radical systems. This is why Quintin Hogg (Lord Hailsham) and R.J. White describe conservatism as “enjoyment.” It is this buoyant view of life which Walter Bagehot called “the proper source of an animated Conservatism.”

      3) Conviction that civilized society requires order and classes. The only true equality is moral equality; all other attempts at levelling lead to despair, if enforced by positive legislation. Society longs for leadership, and if a people destroy natural distinctions among men, presently Buonaparte fills the vacuum.

      4) Persuasion that property and freedom are inseparably connected, and that economic levelling is not economic progress. Separate property from private possession, and liberty is erased.

      5) Faith in prescription and distrust of “sophisters and calculators.” Man must a control upon his will and his appetite, for conservatives know man to be governed more by emotion than reason. Tradition and sound prejudice provide checks upon man’s anarchic impulse.

      6) Recognition that change and reform are not identical, and that innovation is a devouring conflagration more often than it is a torch of progress. Society must alter, for slow change is the means of its conservation, like the human body’s perpetual renewal; but Providence is the proper instrument for change, and the test of a statesman is his cognizance of the real tendency of Providential social forces.

      Four Principles of Radicalism

      Taken from The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk:

      1) The perfectibility of man and the illimitable progress of society: meliorism. Radicals believe that education, positive legislation, and alteration of environment can produce men like gods; they deny that humanity has a natural proclivity toward violence and sin.

      2) Contempt for tradition. Reason, impulse, and materialistic determinism are severally preferred as guides to social welfare, trustier than the wisdom of our ancestors. Formal religion is rejected and a variety of anti-Christian systems are offered as substitutes.

      3) Political levelling. Order and privilege are condemned; total democracy, as direct as practicable, is the professed radical idea. Allied with this spirit, generally, is a dislike of old parliamentary arrangements and an eagerness for centralization and consolidation.

      4)Economic levelling. The ancient rights of property, especially property in land, are suspect to almost all radicals; and collectivistic reformers hack at the institution of private property root and branch.

      LikeLike


      • on May 7, 2012 at 5:06 pm Thor

        Thanks. Good ol’ Kirk was a mainstay in National Review back in the sixties.

        Thor

        LikeLike


  3. on May 4, 2012 at 2:11 pm Stirner

    Ric Locke has blogged insightfully about the connections between liberalism and hunter-gatherer societies. It is very much in line with what you are saying, but he pushes the analysis in some different directions.

    Google “Seekrit Stash” to bring up his three blog posts on the topic.

    LikeLike


  4. on May 4, 2012 at 2:24 pm majorscarlet

    I have an identical twin brother that is a Marxist. I’m center right on most issues. I’m a middle child. He’s considered the youngest and had all of the pathological personalities attributes of it. Overly competitive, manipulative, promiscuous. He’s possibly borderline personality disorder. Regardless, I’m not saying genes can’t contribute to political stances. However, I think it’s a lot more complex than that.

    LikeLike


    • on May 6, 2012 at 11:21 am Firepower

      majorscarlet

      I have an identical twin brother that is a Marxist.

      Good, at least that means you know where he lives.

      LikeLike


  5. on May 4, 2012 at 3:48 pm Firepower

    I no longer care to waste time discovering nuances of liberals or liberalism. It simply must be toppled and destroyed .

    LikeLike


    • on May 6, 2012 at 8:19 am Classic Sparkle

      Some shit about fighting monsters and staring into the abyss seems apropos…

      LikeLike


      • on May 6, 2012 at 11:19 am Firepower

        Comments n’ shit
        Today, are what substitute
        for actual fighting and its subsequent achievement.
        And Monsters are fantasy.

        LikeLike


      • on May 6, 2012 at 1:22 pm Classic Sparkle

        This is true.

        We should take the battle to the HuffPo/NYT/LA Times etc.

        However, we should understand what we are destroying. This isn’t to assume that there is some kernel of rationality at the heart of the beast, or that everything is fathomable by the exercise of human reason, but that we must not become the incomprehensible while destroying it.

        LikeLike


      • on May 6, 2012 at 3:20 pm Firepower

        Don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched.
        There’s no destroying going on – none
        Just talk, more talk and writing³

        If you want a successful model to follow on how to unconscionably destroy – copy what liberals did to pre-1960 America.

        Not THAT is destruction. Guilt-free, no-regrets.
        Complete.
        The way Victory should feel.

        LikeLike


    • on May 9, 2012 at 4:25 pm (R)evoluzione

      “I no longer care to waste time discovering nuances of conservatism or liberalism. Factional infighting and false dichotomies simply must be toppled and destroyed.”

      There. Fixed. All better.

      LikeLike


      • on May 9, 2012 at 4:32 pm Firepower

        Mine’s more succinct,
        ergo, best.

        LikeLike


  6. on May 4, 2012 at 3:55 pm Sam Spade

    Beliefs suck.

    LikeLike


    • on May 4, 2012 at 4:14 pm nomennovum

      I believe you are right.

      LikeLike


    • on May 7, 2012 at 9:45 pm Obstinance Works

      I don’t believe you.

      LikeLike


  7. on May 4, 2012 at 4:13 pm Stuki

    Using a very simple model; liberals being more “risk-taking”, and conservatives more “risk-averse”; the only stable “solution”, is making sure the extra upside made possible by liberals risk taking, being balanced by them also having to, themselves, cover the entirety of the corresponding downside.

    That is not happening today. Instead, we have a situation where even many “conservatives” don’t have the gumption to simply leave the liberals to deal with the full fallout of their own actions. Which, classic moral hazard, encourages liberals to take even more risk; until society is vastly riskier than evolutionary optimal. Leaving it easy pickings for less out of whack cultures.

    LikeLike


  8. on May 4, 2012 at 4:22 pm I am Anders Breivik

    And, man, when that happens, will that be the most satisfying “I told you so” I ever contemptuously dripped like sun-warmed ice cream outta my mouth.

    You’ll never get the chance to say it. Liberals never acknowledge the mayhem they’ve loosed, and libertarians are even worse…..

    Q: How does a libertarian solve a problem created by his ideology?
    A: “Problem? What problem?”

    LikeLike


  9. on May 4, 2012 at 5:26 pm Jason

    Agreed on pretty much your whole post, Heartiste. Very enlightening.

    One comment: Using your own excellent criteria, the liberal brain is probably better suited to the “low-level threats” of modern American society, which is uncommonly safe, when viewed against the day-to-day atrocities of most of human history.

    However, the conservative brain is much better suited for defending against those very atrocities, and if by chance they don’t exist, it tends to invent wars of all sizes to justify its own natural “wariness” and “guardian[ship]”, as you put it. Cheney would be exhibit A.

    Now, what about women? Do they skew liberal (conventional wisdom) or conservative (Reagan landslide)? Or doesn’t it matter — do they just vote for whichever candidate seems the most alpha?

    LikeLike


    • on May 4, 2012 at 6:56 pm The Man Who Was . . .

      Do they skew liberal (conventional wisdom) or conservative (Reagan landslide)?

      Haidt doesn’t bring this up, but women are both more religious and more liberal, which goes against the overall trend.

      I think how we reconcile this is to remember that there are two ways to become liberal: one is to have low settings on the moral foundations of loyalty, authority, and purity, the other is to have high settings on the care and fairness setting. Even (somewhat more religious) women tend to have higher settings at least on the care foundation.

      [heartiste: that’s interesting. there is a bit of tension between my diagnosis and the male-female ideology gap. if liberalism = naive novelty seeking, then you might expect men, who are the bigger risk takers than women thanks to testosterone, to be more liberal. but then you could argue that women are bigger attention whores than men, which is another way of describing novelty seeking.
      of course, the other part of the diagnosis — naivete — pretty much comports well with the gender ideology gap. men are, on the whole, less naive than women, because they have to be.]

      LikeLike


      • on May 4, 2012 at 8:33 pm The Man Who Was . . .

        It is interesting. Women do seem to have conflicting tendencies that could lead them towards either the left or right, but for whatever reason the left is winning their hearts right now, at least while they’re single.

        I’m too am not sure that women like novelty any less than men (they sure do like to travel), but they don’t seem as active in seeking it out.

        LikeLike


      • on May 6, 2012 at 8:23 am Classic Sparkle

        Yeah. Most of them are absolutely horrified when I tell them I have a firmly theistic viewpoint grounded in my extremely well thought out epistemology (at least relative to theirs), after which, they then proceed to read their horoscope or put on their stupid “charms” and talk all kinds of nonsense about ghosts and shit.

        Women are fundamentally illogical.

        LikeLike


  10. on May 4, 2012 at 7:19 pm lcs1h@comcast.net

    Givers, takers, helpers, hoarders. Take your pick.

    LikeLike


  11. on May 4, 2012 at 7:54 pm anon

    oh more on science science, neophilia, and alleged conservative anti-science bias. The #mca twitter feed is full of “fuck cancer”, well you know what? Fuck treating cancer with a vegan lifestyle and with meditation. Saliva cancer is, treated at an early stage, not fatal. Veganism is terrible for cancer because cancer feasts on the high carbohydrate heavy vegan diet (i.e., there’s not enough high protein vegan dishes). And actually, it turns out that real Buddhist Tibetans aren’t vegetarians, that’s right they eat meat. MCA just got sold a bill of goods that his lefty side couldn’t resist. So, who’s anti-science, the neophiliac who eschews western science for some hocus pocus. And that sucks because, well, the Beastie Boys promised another video in 25 years at the end of Make Some Noise.

    LikeLike


    • on May 6, 2012 at 8:25 am Classic Sparkle

      And actually, it turns out that real Buddhist Tibetans aren’t vegetarians

      Gandhi was riddled with the same kind of hypocrisy. I never stop enjoying to point this out to admirers.

      LikeLike


  12. on May 4, 2012 at 7:57 pm Billy Chav

    This sounds rIght on first hearing, but then I recall that all the fags and cowering mama’s boys I went to school with ended up left and lefter, and the rascals and miscreants mostly settled into distinctly unadventurous conservatism.

    What seemed to drive the lib/lefty identity formation was a whining need for justice/equality/fairness. They identified with the “oppressed” because they felt themselves to be weaker and in need of protection.

    On the other hand, around 1800 it would have been at least a little ballsy to be a leftist, e.g. Byron as opposed to some good little man of God. So maybe what we hate about leftists–their ceaseless whining “that’s not fair!”– isnt necessarily an intrinsic left/liberal quality.

    LikeLike


  13. on May 4, 2012 at 8:14 pm Koanic

    There’s no genetic dichotomy of farmers vs. foragers. It’s insular meat-eating HERDERS (who ferment their cheese in caves) vs. expansionist hyper-social plant-eating foragers.

    Farming hasn’t been around long enough to develop a genetic personality archetype, beyond wearied malnutrition.

    Moreover, there is no neat way to divide herder and forager into today’s liberal/conservative dichotomy. Each can adopt either side, but for different reasons.

    Put another way, the fundamental bifurcation in the white race is between the upper and lower IQ tranches. In both tranches individuals self-select as conservative or liberal depending on the times and personal psychological profile. But each tranche has its own set of rules governing the self-selection process.

    LikeLike


    • on May 9, 2012 at 4:22 pm (R)evoluzione

      “There’s no genetic dichotomy of farmers vs. foragers. It’s insular meat-eating HERDERS (who ferment their cheese in caves) vs. expansionist hyper-social plant-eating foragers.”

      This is a pretty strong claim to make. You may have a point, but I’d like to see some evidence. Stephen Guyenet makes a pretty strong case that the early European meat-eating foragers were supplanted by degree and in waves by the farming types wandering in from the middle east. See SG’s series on Otzi the Sardinian Ice Man: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/04/beyond-otzi-european-evolutionary.html

      “Farming hasn’t been around long enough to develop a genetic personality archetype, beyond wearied malnutrition.”

      This is certainly not the case, as genetic studies on native American Indians within a bioregion, coming from the same genetic roots, have significantly divergent genes, body morphology, as well as cultural iconography.

      Not only has evolution continued to advance since the advent of farming, it’s accelerated, especially on our celebrated Y chromosome.

      “Moreover, there is no neat way to divide herder and forager into today’s liberal/conservative dichotomy. Each can adopt either side, but for different reasons.

      Put another way, the fundamental bifurcation in the white race is between the upper and lower IQ tranches. In both tranches individuals self-select as conservative or liberal depending on the times and personal psychological profile. But each tranche has its own set of rules governing the self-selection process.”

      Yup. Nailed it here. This bifurcation seems to be also accelerating, and is producing a rather marked split between wealthy/smart/attractive/thin, and, well, it’s opposite of poor/dumb/ugly/fat. And, as you said, there are self-selecting liberal/conservative elements within both tranches.

      BTW, dig your blog, Koanic, the few times I’ve stopped in. It’s an adventure in inner space.

      LikeLike


      • on May 11, 2012 at 4:49 am Thor

        Evolution is a two-speed vehicle. Let’s make a though experiment:

        We let only men over 6′ breed, and women over 5 1/2′.

        Result: A much taller species, (you can do the reverse and
        produce a short species of course).

        But that is working by selecting in the existing gene pool.
        You could probably produce a race where the average height
        was six feet (for men), but the process slowly grinds to a halt,
        the same method is unlikely to produce a race that averages 8 feet,
        unless you work on it for many millennia . But you can get the
        six-footers in a generation or two.

        Thor

        LikeLike


      • on May 11, 2012 at 2:10 pm Firepower

        Of course, good looks does not mean intelligence.
        Nor does height.

        Look at Ron Artest and Dwight Howard.
        Or Junior Seauauauaueu
        RIP

        LikeLike


  14. on May 4, 2012 at 8:16 pm Anonymous

    you should look into the more complex versions of the iterated prisoner’s dilemma, as well as the ‘rock paper scissors’ lizards, which cycle between alpha beta and gamma on a five year period. i think you will appreciate those studies in game theory

    LikeLike


  15. on May 4, 2012 at 8:23 pm Nietzsche

    Some thoughts regarding personality traits and their relation to evolutionary fitness.

    The evolutionary genetics of personality is currently one of the hot topics du jour within evolutionary psychology. So far, there are a lot of intriguing hypotheses but a dearth of the right of kind of data to discriminate between competing proposals, since the current evidence on offer more or less underdetermines the possible explanations.

    Apposite to the overarching themes of this blog, and apropo to the topic of personality traits vis-a-vis fitness, however, is a recent paper published in the peer-reviewed science publication Journal of Theoretical Biology by evolutionary psychologist Marco Del Giudice.

    In a nutshell, Del Giudice presents a mathematical model with a number of empirical constraints in order to propose that the existence of heritable personality differences may be at least partly and perhaps significantly explicable for reasons of the mating and reproductive kind.

    More specifically, Del Giudice’s model suggests that intrinsically and predictably stochastic fluctuations in (roughly) the inter-generational adult sex ratio keep the various personality alleles fixed (more or less) at various frequencies at the population level; that is, within the gene pool.

    For evolutionary biology nerds, this is more commonly dubbed ‘balancing selection’, a mechanism which keeps polymorphisms present within the gene pool at various frequencies diachronically over time.

    One of the key upshots of this hypothesis is that personality suites more conducive to ‘provider’-esque mating strategies are especially adaptive under conditions where the male-to-female sex ratio is in men’s favor — that is, where there are more men than women, and where men can thereby more effectively compete with other men in the mating market as long-term suitors for the smaller pool of available female mates by being in possession of good ‘partner’ and ‘dad’ personality traits (i.e., kind, conscientious, agreeable), which would especially be valued by women under such conditions of relative male scarcity.

    This of course would not eliminate any good-genes cuckoldry that may still occur — particularly given that women possess facultative adaptation for it — but it would at least provide men in possession of good partner and dad traits to sire some offspring within the context of long-term pair bonds.

    Nor does this seem to augur well for beta males given the contemporary state of play of greatly amplified female hypergamy unleashed by women’s economic liberation in places like North America; under such conditions, even men with good partner and good dad attributes may fall short of women’s long-term mating standards should either their status, wealth, or genes be lacking — or a combination thereof.

    On the flip side, in conditions where the women outnumber the men, selection may seemingly favor certain personality suites — and therefore alleles — that predispose men toward exploitative ‘dark-triad’-like behavior (e.g., Machiavellianism, narcissism, lower agreeableness).

    That is, aloof, opportunistic philandering of the kind championed on this blog — a wide spreading of one’s proverbial seed. (If true, this would essentially mean that positive selection for Machiavellian intelligence may have been at least partly fueled by mating and reproductive outcomes.)

    Perhaps unsurprisingly, there is empirical evidence that men in possession of ‘dark-triad’ traits have more sex partners.

    Indeed, it’s worth mentioning that data within anthropology depicts a quite systematic relationship between the adult sex ratio and total female fertility of the small-scale hunter-gatherer peoples studied, on the one hand, and the overall stability of marriages within those populations, on the other.

    To take one concrete example of this within the literature, consider the Ache of Paraguay: Women outnumber men, and the total female fertility is such that it is more propitious to male fitness to have many partners, even independent of the negative fitness consequences that might accrue to the children those men already have with other mates.

    (Generally speaking, and to couch the matter in behavior ecology/’life-history’ terms, a man must trade off ‘mating effort’ from the energy, resources and time that would otherwise have been allocated to ‘parenting effort’.)

    Mind you, so far as I can tell, these above considerations are very much consistent with the general themes routinely expounded on at this blog.

    LikeLike


    • on May 7, 2012 at 5:23 pm gritartisan

      Problem: there is a normal sex ratio in the United States, but women are screening for the dark triad traits. There is no imbalance in overtly more women than men, so it contradicts your study. However, it is more proof that feminism (or more appropriately the Four Horsemen of the Sexual Revolution) is going against the grain of biology- with women not settling down and removing themselves from the market, its state/birth control subsidized inflation of available females, which would then validate the trend to dark triad traits.

      Since there are more men than women in China, it makes sense that they would screen for big bankrolls as sign of provider stability. Not sure how many dark triad traits are getting the lay there, but it is more validation for the study.

      LikeLike


      • on May 7, 2012 at 7:25 pm ATYD

        unless the norm throughout history was one of less men and more women due to war

        LikeLike


      • on May 7, 2012 at 7:57 pm Thor

        Historically, the great killer of men was wars, large an small, down to High Noon gun fights. The great killer of women was childbirth. Seriously. Bearing a child is dangerous even today, but much more so before the advent of a panoply of medical services, including (even if abused) the option of a
        c-sect (tautological, sorry) if needed.

        Another factor is the degree to which the greater society tolerates polygyny, official or unofficial. Even a statistical surplus of women means little to the male underclass if these women are scooped up as concubines.

        And yes, in terms of availability, as discussed for a long time in this blog, a fair number of women are in effect unavailable, for several reasons.

        Thor

        LikeLike


      • on May 8, 2012 at 8:57 pm Nietzsche

        Keep in mind that the sex ratio (as operationalized by Del Giudice) is hypothesized to fluctuate in various ways over time. As he modeled it, the fluctuations across time are regular but unpredictable, which would be consistent with the heritable personality variation that we see, since ex hypothesi the underlying alleles are postulated to be under balancing selection.

        Another thing: the current sex ratio of the US would not be so relevant per se, since the hypothesis is aiming to explain (at least part of) the heritable personality variation among humans in the first place. That is, why do we vary at all, rather than not.

        For instance, regarding sex ratios in modern societies, it remains an open question how our evolved, cognitively-mediated intuitions designed to track such a variable are operating in that context. We have a good idea of how it operates in a socioecological context that approximates the environment such mechanisms were designed to operate in, viz., in the extant hunter-gatherer peoples living in small groups for which there has been data gathered, analyzed, and modeled; but it’s less obvious how that underlying cognitive mechanism operates in a modern metropolis like, say, Kuala Lumpur or Stockholm, which are replete with a manifold of evolutionarily-novel factors for which our underlying cognitive architecture is not designed to optimally deal with — hence the oft-repeated notion of a ‘mis-match’ that evolutionary psychologists harp on.

        All of these consideration aside, though, a good combination of the right personality traits, higher than average IQ, physical good genes indicators, high Machiavellian intelligence, and a mastery of game is likely the most conducive to laying many chicks in modern societies characterized by high degrees of anonymity; such a man is well equipped to gain the requisite resources and status to satisfy even high-earning women’s long-term mating preferences, while simultaneously being able to exploit them and other women sexually without commitment if he sees fit. Hence the alpha cock carousel.

        Regarding heritable personality traits most conducive to game, it’s worth mentioning that the developmental psychologist and evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald has argued that if you take two of the most broad, superordinate personality traits, namely agreeableness and extraversion, and ‘rotate’ them, such that two of their component factors align in a specific way, it yields a dominance/sensation factor. This dominance/sensation factor would thus predict short-term mating, sexual promiscuity, dominance, risk-taking, and anti-social tendencies; the sensation component would lurk within the extraversion dimension, while the dominance component would inhere on one side of low agreeableness.

        LikeLike


    • on May 7, 2012 at 7:19 pm ATYD

      this is terribly written

      LikeLike


      • on May 9, 2012 at 4:17 pm uh

        Agreed. Much trouble making it through, leaving me a touch unsure of what, in fact, I had just read; and Nietzsche would have been mortified by such clumsy, pseudo-technical language.

        LikeLike


      • on May 9, 2012 at 5:46 pm Nietzsche

        Chose not to dumb myself down too much, as I figured a good portion of the readership here might be on the right-hand side of the IQ bell curve, plus reasonably educated on the relevant topics.

        Nietzsche would have praised those that cultivated the impulse to take initiative to broaden their intellectual horizons.

        My prose and technical knowledge is good enough to get into top peer-reviewed journals in my field. So no problem on my end regarding “clumsy, pseudo-technical language.”

        Haters gonna’ hate.

        LikeLike


  16. on May 4, 2012 at 8:48 pm The Man Who Was . . .

    a wholly conservative society will probably stagnate into dullness, albeit a dullness that pleasantly avoids total dystopia

    You’re kind of describing NE Asia, aren’t you.

    Fred Reed comments:
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/article/2007/sep/10/00017/

    LikeLike


    • on May 5, 2012 at 12:46 am anon

      Or rather, a wholly conservative society avoids the cancerous influence of the traitorous, decadent, hedonistic liberals while barbarians gathered outside the gates. The dullness is the females’ distaste of the beta patriarchy instead of hypergamous polyamory they prefer. Why should 80% of men get to procreate instead of a select 15%?

      LikeLike


      • on May 5, 2012 at 1:06 am anon

        more on crap studies that Jason can misread: http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/298913

        LikeLike


      • on May 5, 2012 at 10:53 pm Jason

        Cheap shots from anonymous cowards. Sign your name, like I do, and let’s talk. This alpha reads and writes for a living, and he LOVES a good debate.

        Also, try to link to something nonpartisan. You don’t see me directing people to Brookings Institution press releases, do you?

        LikeLike


      • on May 6, 2012 at 2:34 pm anon

        Der? Anonymous coward? It’s the internet. My name’s Georges St. Pierre, yeah, that’s the ticket. I don’t see a link in your profile to your by-line. Just saying…
        Let’s rehash, you, Jason, posted to some idiotic article on Salon which had a headline that was blown out of proportion to the findings and scope of the study. That being, the findings were more conclusive that liberal minded folks avoid recognizing danger instead of “close minded” or whatever.
        Since your reading and writing for a living doesn’t include reading the sciencey articles you post or that other people post in reply, here’ what my link read that this is a trend among the liberal set:

        Consider that one of the more famous studies was conducted by liberal researchers at University of California…Subjects were asked to spot the letters M or W on a screen for a fraction of a second. It turns out that self-described liberals did somewhat better on the test than the conservatives.
        What does that mean? Well, according to the researchers, it means: “Liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity, and novelty.” Liberals are also “more likely than are conservatives to respond to cues signaling the need to change habitual responses,” NYU says.
        ….
        The data might be correct, but as with Mooney, the conclusions are beyond absurd. …
        Huh? The test didn’t measure “informational complexity.” It measured informational simplicity.

        That is, liberal’s love of science is a love that exists as long as the science can be manipulated to their own feelings of smug, superiority, and close mindedness.
        The differences that I’ve observed about libs and cons is that cons are more open minded to being friendly to libs than vice versa, that conservatives don’t stand around circle jerking it to their mutual hatred of Obama as liberals did and still do with W bush, that most people I know with hard science majors are not liberals, and that their behavior comports with another study that liberal’s who checked off certain behavioral boxes like “eats vegetarian dishes from Whole Foods,” no longer felt the need to do anything else that’s virtuous like donate money to charity or to be honest in their dealings with others.
        Quite simply, the over arching liberal mindset I’ve observed is the the tendency to closed minded group think. I also find that talking to a lib is less an exchange of ideas than an exchange of shibboleths, that I can make a point, the point being considered and true, and the lib will nonetheless promptly ignore and forget said point as if the counterargument never happened.
        Now, that being said, the difference between you and me is that I am not a smug asshole about it.

        LikeLike


      • on May 6, 2012 at 2:41 pm anon

        Another thing, libs I know love to think that cons are solely the province of rural rednecks who worship snakes and Jayzus. They forget that the DNC’s biggest, strongest voting block are illiterate inner city thugs on welfare. That is, your groupthink’s population is not just a bunch of urban honkies with useless liberal arts degrees and advanced tastes in gourmet vegan foods, there’s a lot of blue collar union types (as Obama said in his book, guy’s whose career it was to push a button over and over to bend sheet metal) and a lot of inner city types in that mix as well. So while Kevin Smith can make a movie about the dangers of the Red State, the real world danger is what happened to Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, or the several Treyvon Martin revenge attacks on whites.

        LikeLike


      • on May 6, 2012 at 5:36 pm Jason

        Thanks for the fake name. All I meant was that it would be nice for you to post a handle, since so many people here post anonymously. It’s good to know who I’m talking to. (My real name is Jason, but yes, this is the Internet, so that’s as far as it goes.)

        I’ve never heard anybody generalize about liberals’ manipulation of science before. That sounds fairly insane. Especially since, as many have pointed out here, hard sciences are often dominated by conservatives.

        I’ve also never heard that liberals don’t like to donate money or be honest with others. I do both, to a fault. Your hedging with your name is hurting your case tremendously here.

        And since you generously replied to my provocation, I’ll toss you a bone: groupthink and shibboleth-exchange is found everywhere, in all people, and it’s boring as hell. But if you’ve studied party politics, you’ll know that the Repubs have done a masterful job of harnessing this unfortunate human tendency. The Dems value diversity and are therefore much less efficient in staying on message.

        Gotta disagree with you on “how “conservatives don’t stand around jerking it to their mutual hatred of Obama”. Maybe you don’t, but it’s well known that defeating Obama has become a rallying point for conservatives. In fact, the entire congressional Republican faction has quite openly dedicated itself to his failure. Sorry, but that’s the truth.

        I’d also suggest that everybody in America refrain from using the word “smug” to describe ideological opposition. It doesn’t mean anything, and it reflects the unbearable feminine inclination to argue tone and body language. Let’s argue facts.

        We are living in the most polarized era since the Gilded Age. Thanks for the debate.

        LikeLike


      • on May 7, 2012 at 12:05 am Thor

        “Conservatives resist growth of the state, but that’s not the same thing as resisting change. After all, capitalism is among the most powerful agents of change in human history, and conservatives are the ones defending it. Meanwhile, liberals are downright reactionary about preserving the Great Society and New Deal.”

        Yup.

        Liberals are less risk-averse???

        That is laughable. Now, there is a Liberal élite that is not risk averse,
        but that is mainly because the risks (in their perception) fall on others:
        their re-engineered-to-their-taste society would (in their perception)
        be run by the élite (themselves), no matter what. If the non-élites
        (upper middle class through working class) suffer, that is a risk
        they are willing to take.

        LIberals worry about parts-per-trillion contaminants, global warming,
        etc. That is being risk averse?

        Of course, some of it more a distinction of WHAT to worry about. Most
        conservatives (and LIbertarians by definition) worry about the growth of the state/federal-government. Also, they worry about, union thugs, theft of elections, erosion of obedience to the Constitution etc.

        So, who is being risk averse is somewhat a matter of definition, specifically it is about the evaluaterors’ definition of which risks are rational etc.

        Thor

        LikeLike


      • on May 7, 2012 at 3:06 pm anon

        Hi Jason, thanks for replying! I see that your arguments are basically an actualization of what I was talking about, that you don’t know about things that are outside the wheelhouse of the “liberals are awesome” mindset. That is, from the study you cite, instead of a global result of blah blah blah cons are fearful, it was more evident that libs don’t focus on negative things, “While liberals’ gazes tended to fall upon the pleasant images, such as a beach ball or a bunny rabbit, conservatives clearly focused on the negative images—of an open wound, a crashed car or a dirty toilet, for example.”
        Quite simply, this all started off when you read that study to suggest

        “A liberal brain can hold two opposing ideas without demeaning or discarding either position. This is simply impossible for a conservative brain. Sorry, neocons. You literally have one-track minds.”

        This is a silly misreading of the study and from the second study I cited, it’s shown that conservatives understand liberals better than vice versa,

        “What Haidt found is that conservatives understand liberals’ moral values better than liberals understand where conservatives are coming from. Worse yet, liberals don’t know what they don’t know; they don’t understand how limited their knowledge of conservative values is. If anyone is close-minded here it’s not conservatives.”

        That is, hey, I can accept my own moral complexity and your moral complexity. Libs seem to only grasp, at best, their own moral complexity which is why you respond
        Next, “I’ve never heard anybody generalize about liberals’ manipulation of science before.” Of course not, that’s the problem. The conservative’s glib reply is that yeah, “the whole hiding the decline thing is so boring”. And, of course, I provided an example of these alleged sociological studies where fairly innocuous test results are manipulated and expounded upon as being proof of the liberal mind’s superiority. That is, a test that measured quick reaction time comprehension of shapes showed liberals did better on that test, to which the researchers expanded that result into “according to the researchers, it means: “Liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity, and novelty.” Liberals are also “more likely than are conservatives to respond to cues signaling the need to change habitual responses,” NYU says.” Um , no. It may be that libs are more artistic or whatever but not that.
        These sociological studies are attempts to argue personality over policy, as in “damn, we’re great being liberals, and those who don’t agree with us must be stupid…or evil.” Now, this is a manipulation of simple results, and who knows, maybe libs are intrinsically more artistic or some other worthwhile thing. But the manipulation of science goes from there to, I don’t know, debates on adult versus prenatal stem cells, when life begins, the value of nuclear energy, innate intelligence curves in a population, of course global warming, and on and on.
        Finally, you’ve “never heard that liberals don’t like to donate money or be honest with others.” There was one study in which

        “subjects who made simulated eco-friendly purchases ended up less likely to exhibit altruism in a laboratory game and more likely to cheat and steal.”

        Actually, that study was about eco-types, not libs per se, so there’s that difference. I didn’t remember that one correctly. But you can still combine that study with the study showing that cons give more than libs,

        “Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).”

        And so on, about lib versus con or red v. blue on charity, that there’s a difference and the difference is not as glowing as you would like.
        Finally, you write

        “but it’s well known that defeating Obama has become a rallying point for conservatives. In fact, the entire congressional Republican faction has quite openly dedicated itself to his failure. Sorry, but that’s the truth.”

        I’d say that this is a failure on your part to “hold two opposing ideas without demeaning or discarding either position.” That is, duh, people are opposed to Obama’s policies. But their behavior isn’t the circle jerk Bush hating that was a very boring personality trait of libs since 2000. But anyway, I guess it’s a thing that’s easier to observe than to self-assess.
        But, this all goes back to your post in the other thread, and who knows, maybe you got pissed all the libs r fagz points being made so you made a cheap shot too. If that’s not the case, don’t pat yourself on the back so much, us cons are people too with complex thought patterns and everything.

        LikeLike


      • on May 8, 2012 at 3:01 am Jason

        An avalanche of a response from “anon” (please put a real name in your handle). There’s actually too much to respond to.

        So how about this: Plenty of so-called liberal ideas are ludicrous (political correctness). Plenty of so-called conservative policies are ludicrous too (the anti-science crusade, the fetishization of weaponry).

        But the reason I identify with the left is economic. The right has transformed itself into a jaw-droppingly powerful machine for redistributing wealth from public accounts to the private hands of an elite few (whose political viewpoint is largely conservative but is irrelevant anyways). Anybody who makes less than $2 million a year should be voting Democrat, regardless of other issues, if you want to stop this inequality from worsening. It seems to me to be the story of the era, the one that affects everything else. But the Republicans have effectively tricked people into voting against their own best fiscal interest by pressing their neolithic social buttons regarding race and abortion and, most recently, women’s reproductive rights.

        ‘Kay?

        I’m standing by the Obama/Bush comment. Maybe you and your friends don’t hate on the prez, but millions of others do, to the point that he was forced to accept Secret Service protection months before any previous candidate had. The hatred is really there, it’s really racial, and it’s even on some of these comments on this website. Which is sad, considering that Bush started a useless war that Obama has wisely just ended.

        But Jesus H Christ, the fact that I’m READING THIS WEBSITE should clue you into the fact that I’m 1) interested in game 2) well-acquainted with conservative ideas and 3) am not part of the “libs are perfect” crowd. I have several cons in my circle of family and friends. In fact, the last words on my grandfather’s lips were “O’Reilly Factor”. No kidding. It’s a running family joke.

        BTW, cons probably do give more money to charity, for the simple reason that they go to church more often.

        Thanks for the reply. Again, this alpha loves a good fight.

        LikeLike


      • on May 8, 2012 at 3:07 am Thor

        The ulti-pulti-millionaires are relatively few. The great unwashed are very numerous. When Obama talks about those who are enemies of the middle class, he should look in a mirror. This is not to deny that to-big-to-fail and some other absurdities have benefited the super-rich, at the cost of everybody else.

        But I vote mostly Libertarian, I don’t like the middle class being sacrificed to the great unwashed, govt employees, union thugs – and the super-rich.

        Unions are legalized and legally protected bidding cartels. Prove me wrong!

        Thor

        LikeLike


      • on May 9, 2012 at 12:32 pm anon

        boring, I will let my previous comments speak for themselves.

        LikeLike


  17. on May 4, 2012 at 9:02 pm geo

    Many fiscal conservatives are social liberals. Where do they fit in?

    LikeLike


    • on May 4, 2012 at 9:04 pm The Man Who Was . . .

      Psychologically, they are identical to liberals except for lower empathy.

      LikeLike


    • on May 5, 2012 at 7:40 am sydney carton

      They are fucking idiots. I’m a social conservative not because I care for peoples souls but because I hate big government. A society that indulges it’s most base needs and has no morals is one full of junkies, homeless, bastards etc. all of which cost a fucking fortune, leading to big taxes, ruinous government programs and eventually outright tyranny. Spare me the “just let the bastards starve” nonsense. Anyone thats honest knows such principled stands are impossible under universal suffrage.

      These “fiscal conservative” bullshiters are usually blue state, nyt readers that aren’t outright marxists like the rest of their friends and so think themselves right wing reactionaries.

      LikeLike


      • on May 5, 2012 at 7:07 pm Joe Commenter

        Syd you have it all wrong. Socially liberal for a libertarian means that Government stays out of your personal life. No laws against abortion. No wasted money on worthless drug wars. Go fuck as many women as you want. Watch as much porn as you want. In other words, you can do whatever the hell you want, just don’t expect me to pay for it. This is the only economically sound way to have social liberalism.

        LikeLike


      • on May 6, 2012 at 8:00 am sydney carton

        Fair enough do whatever you want, I’m all for that, but this behavior inevitably leads to junkies, bastards etc. No problem for me, fuck’em. But you must see that as long as women and manginas can vote they will vote to “fix” these problems with my fucking money! Eagerly encourged by the Ted Kennedy type parasites at the top.

        Maybe I don’t get it, but this seems as obvious to me as 1+1=2. Socially liberal and fiscal conservative is an oxymoron. Only a civil war will enable repeal of the 19amd. Seems to me social conservatism, as in pre 60s shaming of sluts, is the only way.

        LikeLike


    • on May 5, 2012 at 8:25 pm The Man Who Was . . .

      Psychologically, they are just liberals with low empathy.

      LikeLike


    • on May 7, 2012 at 12:06 am Thor

      Typically, they are Libertarians (even if they don’t know it), but in politics, the fit is rarely exact.

      Thor

      LikeLike


  18. on May 4, 2012 at 9:03 pm Anonymous

    I see ideas like this offered frequently on alt-right blogs, attempts to blend evolutionary psychology with political ideology. Your argument is largely valid, but ignores the critical distinction between “cultural” and “economic” politics.

    When people here think of liberals, they think multiculturalism, support of feminism, rejection of traditional values, etc. And many self-identified liberals do feel that way. But many of those same so-called liberals couldn’t care less about unions, are agnostic on free trade & globalization, and support a strong, unrestrained Federal Reserve (genuine economic liberals such as Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich are highly skeptical of the Fed).**

    Many people on this site regard the 1950s as a positive period in American history, and they are right to feel that way. But the 1950s had more than just patriarchal family structures and healthy gender relations. The 1950s had strong private unions, heavy federal spending in infrastructure and a low inequality of income that was enforced by top marginal tax rates on the rich that often exceeded 90 percent. And many people in the 1950s who advocated Keynesian economics would largely be in agreement with most of the cultural arguments offered in the alt-right community.

    The distinction between cultural and economic issues must be recognized in order to fully appreciate modern political dynamics.

    Something to consider:
    -Some politicians are liberal on both social and economic issues.
    -Some politicians are conservative on both social and economic issues.
    -Some politicians are liberal on social issues while conservative on economic issues.
    -Why do we hardly see any politicians who are conservative on social issues but liberal on economic issues? Because those politicians would be largely sympathetic with working class, Beta males. And the elite will not tolerate that.

    **Liberal economics does not mean, as some believe, merely a propensity to spend money. George W. Bush jacked up the debt considerably, but he was not a fiscal liberal. A fiscal liberal is somebody who supports unions, relatively narrow income distrubtions and strong federal spending in investments, regardless of whether or not this results in a debt increase (the 1950s had all of these things with no significant increase in the federal deficit).

    LikeLike


    • on May 8, 2012 at 3:31 am Jason

      Great post. Sign your name, any name, so I can follow?

      LikeLike


  19. on May 4, 2012 at 9:52 pm chris

    http://neuropolitics.org/

    This is an awesome website on political neurobiology.

    For instance in the 2010 archives I found posts like these;

    Religiosity, Altruism, and Genetic Relatedness
    http://neuropolitics.org/defaultjul10.asp

    Genetic variation, group selection, and political behavior
    http://neuropolitics.org/defaultmar10.asp

    The War of Conservatism and Liberalism, 2009
    http://neuropolitics.org/defaultjan10.asp

    2009 Archives;

    Political-Religious Disposition and the Dopamine Reward System
    http://neuropolitics.org/defaultdec09.asp

    The Politics of the Right Prefontal Cortex
    http://neuropolitics.org/defaultmar09.asp

    Liberal Method Actors and Conservative Character Actors
    http://neuropolitics.org/defaultjan09v5.asp

    I suggest you check it out.

    LikeLike


    • on May 4, 2012 at 10:12 pm chris

      Mind you though, a lot of what they write about hasn’t gone through a peer-review process so should perhaps be taken with a grain of salt.

      LikeLike


      • on May 4, 2012 at 10:13 pm chris

        That should be I think, although am not sure, that a lot of what they write about hasn’t gone through a peer-review process.

        LikeLike


    • on May 7, 2012 at 12:07 am Thor

      Check out books by Leda Cosmides, such as “The Adaptive Mind.

      Thor

      LikeLike


  20. on May 4, 2012 at 10:29 pm Raphael

    Don’t forget envy, or the fear of being envied (for the limousine liberals) as the prime motive force of the liberal mind, with generous helpings of hypocrisy presenting as concern for the “underprivileged”. Haidt seems to have overlooked these so very important features of their thinking. Somebody needs to write a book about it.

    LikeLike


  21. on May 4, 2012 at 11:15 pm whiskeysplace

    I would not call NE Asia dull, by any means. They’ve a long history of slaughtering each other intensely. The Taipeng Rebellion killed, in the age of muzzle-loading muskets, somewhere on the order of 30 million people. With Civil War technology.

    The kind of violence however is quite different. [Stillwell describes btw an intense personal violence before WWII in China, in Tuchman’s biography.] Most of the time highly dutiful societies have low levels of violence, but when they emerge it is terrible, and mostly they themselves are the victims. Examples: Thirty Years War (33-45% of German speakers killed), English Civil War, US Civil War (40% of Southern men age 14-45 killed). The dutifulness enhances rather than detracts from the violence.

    Rwanda could have a spasm of horrific violence, mostly by rock and machete, equaling in 3 months the near-total toll of Auschwitz over nearly 4 years with the most modern killing technology. But then it ends because the killers are not dutiful. Tilly’s, Wallenstein’s, Gustavus Adolphus’s men fought on for years. In terrible conditions. A single hour on the Western Front 1915 would have broken the strongest African warrior.

    LikeLike


    • on May 5, 2012 at 1:58 am Laconophile

      Rwanda could have a spasm of horrific violence, mostly by rock and machete, equaling in 3 months the near-total toll of Auschwitz over nearly 4 years with the most modern killing technology.

      Geez, those Nazis really sucked at killing Jews. It’s like they weren’t even trying.

      LikeLike


    • on May 5, 2012 at 11:09 pm Jason

      Great comment. I was just reading about Adolphus today, who was motivated by possible loss of Protestant holdings in the Hapsburg lands. I do often try to imagine how people survived events like the rape of Nanking with their brains and souls intact, if they did at all.

      Your post also made me think of the Milgram Experiment. I wonder how many of those subjects who pushed the voltage past 300 — when the “victim” stopped responding — would’ve self-identified as either liberal or conservative.

      LikeLike


    • on May 6, 2012 at 8:29 am Classic Sparkle

      Rwanda could have a spasm of horrific violence, mostly by rock and machete, equaling in 3 months the near-total toll of Auschwitz over nearly 4 years with the most modern killing technology

      That’s because there was no “killing technology” employed at Auschwitz. It was typhus and starvation toward the end of the war caused by indiscriminate Allied bombing that did the Jews in.

      LikeLike


      • on May 6, 2012 at 1:13 pm Greg Eliot

        Good to see the bizarro-world allegations of what went on in the KZs are being challenged… well-done.

        LikeLike


    • on May 7, 2012 at 12:13 am Thor

      There might be a general principle here. Many efforts at avoiding disaster just concentrates them. The abstract model is a sand pile, with a new grain being dropped from a little above the top of the pile, once a second.
      There will be landslides, which distribute statistically, the larger once being
      increasingly rare. Now, if somebody runs around and manipulates the grains,
      minor slides can be averted. But the bigger slides become worse.

      This can be applied to real-world scenarios like recessions. Or to building levées to contain a river, just moving the problem downstream, and to many other human endeavors, some with laudable intentions.

      Thor

      LikeLike


  22. on May 5, 2012 at 1:51 am Laconophile

    I’m not entirely sure what’s wrong with liberals, I think they are more maternalistic and womanly. Low testosterone.

    LikeLike


  23. on May 5, 2012 at 2:55 am Anonymous

    “The Men in Julia’s Life” (as in the Julia in those new Democrat ads) on PJ Media… off-topic, but bear-with…
    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/05/04/the-men-in-julias-life/

    Her son, Zachary, ends up taking the Red Pill from all that.

    LikeLike


    • on May 8, 2012 at 12:32 pm Anonymous

      It’s been a major coup for Pajamas Media to espouse the manosphere. That Life of Julia thing by Obama might become a catalyst for more conservative writers leaning toward the manosphere for inspiration.

      On the left there’s only Bill Maher and a few other Hollywood liberal “misogynists” who play to the male crowd.

      Except for Jason above who is apparently going to use his writing skills to make the Democrat Party safe for alphas.

      LikeLike


  24. on May 5, 2012 at 3:31 am migsflecha

    “men in Julia’s Life”
    wow, that was the best education for not voting Democrat for president.
    Like they say give a fool enough air time and rope and he’ll hang hisself!
    thanks for the link!

    LikeLike


  25. on May 5, 2012 at 9:02 am observer

    Heartiste, you might want to look into the studies on the ‘rock paper scissors’ lizard, as well as the more complex versions of the iterated prisoner’s dilemma with noise, if you haven’t already. I think they would let you take your theory a bit further.

    The lizard cycles between alpha, beta, and gamma on a five year cycle.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_side-blotched_lizard#Mating_strategy

    Prisoner’s dilemma studies suggest a more complex cycle between degrees of ‘conservativism’ and ‘liberalism.’ Both can be winning strategies depending on the time and conditions in which they are implemented. None can permanently dominate.

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=952370

    LikeLike


  26. on May 5, 2012 at 12:32 pm Anonymous

    “…a wholly conservative society will probably stagnate into dullness, albeit a dullness that pleasantly avoids total dystopia.”

    This is too true. Think of all the cool/interesting cities in the USA that anyone (young) wants to visit or live in. They are all liberal cities.

    American Conservatism = Apple pie, church, Susie homemaker types, golf/country club, early marriage, lame music, etc…in short, “Mitt Romey America” is dull as fuck.

    Say what you want about liberalism, but the truth is that without liberalism we would all die of boredom.

    [heartiste: yeah, but… you know that old chinese proverb: “may you live in interesting times”. it’s not meant as a blessing.]

    LikeLike


    • on May 5, 2012 at 6:21 pm I am Anders Breivik

      You mean the cities that are barely habitable, like Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, etc.?

      You got me there – they’re all interesting, and all liberal…. interesting in a “lucky to escape with your life” sort of way.

      There all yours – you can have ’em!

      LikeLike


      • on May 5, 2012 at 6:29 pm Anonymous

        Typical Fox News viewer.

        Not all of Los Angeles or Chicago is crappy. Plenty of safe and hip neighborhoods. Detroit…well, you got me on that one, but whites abandoned Detroit years ago. Doesn’t really count.

        As for other livable cities, well just take a look at this poster:

        Sorry, but living in podunk Mississippi, where the most interesting thing to happen is the opening of the new Wal-Mart, does not suit most young people.

        Now, go back to watching Sean Hannity.

        LikeLike


    • on May 6, 2012 at 12:39 am Laconophile

      Liberal places are “interesting” if you’re a hipster retard.

      LikeLike


      • on May 6, 2012 at 1:14 am Jason

        Name calling is best left to five year olds, Lacanophile.

        Visit some new places — I’ve been to 47 of the 50 states — and you might find yourself more open to different ideas.

        Also, please try, for the sake of your readers, to lift up the level of your discourse just a smidge. I can recommend some good books of vocabulary, if you’d like.

        LikeLike


      • on May 6, 2012 at 8:33 am Classic Sparkle

        I’m not quite a hipster retard but I tend to hang around where they hang around. One thing I notice is the lack of diversity. SWPL shit it is, but it is still a White thing. My fascist talk goes over better and better as the crowd gets older.

        Generally, the aggressively hipster types are apolitical and start swinging wildly right after their children start to outnumber their dogs.

        LikeLike


      • on May 6, 2012 at 1:16 pm Greg Eliot

        Make that hipster doofus.

        LikeLike


    • on May 7, 2012 at 3:30 pm Tyrone

      There’s no such thing as a nice American City, not since busing and the resulting urban decay. American cities are bascially strip malls surrounding blighted down towns. Our best cities are crappy compared to a mediocre European city because no one but ghetto NAMs and and a few SWPLs live in them. That’s another thing lefties ruined in the US.

      LikeLike


      • on May 7, 2012 at 6:22 pm Thor

        I pondered for a long time about the odd situation that in the US, unlike Europe (exceptions exist), the inner city is a slum, at least residentially, and the suburbs (or most of them) are relatively nicer. San Jose is an interesting outlier in that it is a grand suburbia with high-tech jobs and hardly any “inner city”. You would expect the inner city to be the most highly valued real estate, as is indeed the case in Europe – the slums are in the banlieu, or in some of them. Or in Rinkeby.

        It turns out that there is at least one reason, going back to probably the period 1945-1960 or so. Mainly, at the time, employment was to be found mostly in the city cores. And the relatively wealthier settled in suburbs and commuted by car (except in NY). And the relatively poorer did not have cars and settled near to the place of work, by necessity.

        This did not happen in the same way in Europe, for one thing car ownership lagged a generation behind the US, and also the European populations were less stratified (read: more ethnically homogeneous, note ethnically, not racially. The French regard anybody who speaks good French and knows the finer points of French culture as being an insider, even if black as tire/tyre.)

        To editor: Can you fill us in on the “disneyfication of NYC”. I have no idea what this is about. I really don’t, not a sarcasm or something.

        Thor

        LikeLike


      • on May 8, 2012 at 3:12 am Jason

        Nice response Thor.

        Suburbia — I wrote a HUGE paper on this in college — was the result of people who wanted access to the benefits of both the city (jobs, arts, shopping) and country (backyard, trees, etc). It depended on transportation: first boats, then trains, now cars.

        But now we’ve designed farflung suburbia to be utterly dependent on cheap petroleum. As soon as gas prices hit seven bucks a gallon, you’ll see people running back to denser towns and cities. Those McMansions will turn to slums. An ironic inversion. The Atlantic Monthly did a nice piece on this a few years ago.

        The “Disneyfication of NYC” refers to Times Square transforming from a seedy porno-theater district to a clean, corporate, tourist destination.

        LikeLike


      • on May 8, 2012 at 3:25 am Thor

        I don’t think the McMansions (I currently live in a mini-McMansion, rented) will become slums, at least not for the reason you give. If gas gets to cost 10 bucks a gallon, there will be switch to MUCH smaller cars, that will offset most of the cost.

        But the key is jobs, any jobs that are even remotely commutable. I have a friend in Dayton OH who lives in a very nice house (not a McMansion, built ca 1930) easily 1500 sqft. Nicely kept. A small but cozy back yard. Market value USD 20 000. Reason: No jobs in Dayton, five GM plants shut down, the area has become a druggie slum. This has nothing to do with the price of gasoline.

        Two bright spot for my friend:

        1) Work that is mostly location independent, over the internet.
        2) Concealed carry permit, “shall issue”. Mess with her and you will get 24 (yes) holes in your body. Gun nut? No, a realistic assessment (but they are small caliber to facilitate concealed carry).

        Thor

        LikeLike


      • on May 8, 2012 at 10:56 am Tyrone

        Or you will see people driving low sulfur diesel cars that get the mileage of much smaller cars.

        LikeLike


      • on May 8, 2012 at 3:26 am Jason

        Sigh. Again, Tyrone?

        There are many reasons for the decline of the cities. One of those reasons was that freeways were plowed right through the middle of the cities, which allowed the car owners (middle and upper classes) to leave and forced the carless residents (lower classes) to stay. All of these freeways were built as a result of the Interstate Highway Act, which was an Eisenhower — read: conservative — policy.

        General Motors added fuel to this fire by destroying America’s public transportation network. If you want to read about that, here’s a great link:

        http://www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm

        As for Europe, during the last fifty years, it was the LEFTIES in power who did the opposite. They committed billions of dollars to clean, fast, public transportation, mostly trains. This was a decision that kept their cities livable and walkable. See the AVE high-speed network in Spain for example.

        Any more bright ideas?

        LikeLike


      • on May 8, 2012 at 8:13 am Anonymous

        I think once again, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You blame cars, I blame bad policy and the ascendance of the black political class seeking to displace whitey. Canadian cities are just as car friendly as ours, but are clean and nice to visit because people with money and a modicum of civilization still live there as the majority. Our cities became unfriendly to anyone with a family. Without families, you don’t have store fronts, cafes, bars, and restaurants. Our cities are not family friendly and until they are, they will be blighted.

        Were you there, or did you get your ideas from a book? I was there. I remember why people moved out of Detroit, or LA or DC or Chicago. No one mentioned cars at the time; everyone talked about misguided predatory government and having to send their kids to schools dominated by NAMs. The big race riots in the 60s also played a role in white flight. I remember when two or three blocks past the capitol was Indian country, now its been gentrified, but in the 70s, you were asking to be killed to go in there. Those neighborhoods were thriving middle class areas until the race riots of the 60s, then no one returned and they remained run down for 20 or more years.

        No one left because of poor public transportation because cities used to have good public transportation using buses and street cars, even cities like Mobile, Alabama. We haven’t even gotten to the panhandlers that blight every major American city as well. You can’t enjoy a public park without them. In Germany, the cops beat these guys up and send them on their merry way. Paris and Amsterdam do this too.

        High speed rail had little to do with it. High speed rail as it is used in Europe only connects major cities. You still need the subway, street car, or bus to get around. Most people still prefer a car. Car ownership lagged the US by a generation and most European cities had to be retrofitted to accomodate cars. The European rail system has been in place since the mid 19th century and was really a prestige item for the 19th century monarchies as much as a tool of their policy and public service. Planes are still much cheaper and more people use them. I can fly from Stuttgart to Paris round trip for about 100 Euros and the TGV trip costs 300 euros. Even counting cab fare, it works out cheaper to fly by about 35%.

        So you’re claiming what was a pre-existing state of affairs was somehow created by the left in Europe, when its seen as a basic public service instead and always has been, due to lagging car ownership after the war. Moreover, most European cities weren’t even designed, they evolved haphazardly and were centered on horse cart transportation rather than cars. Adding roads that cars can use, would force buildings to be torn down, many of them historic. So public transportation makes more sense in Europe as well. Not to mention, the population density allows for it.

        In fact, good public transportation has ruined at least two malls in the DC area I can think of – Crystal City Nall, near the Pentagon and Springfield Mall. Both are easily accesible to ghetto NAMs and they have driven away the more upscale and civilized clientele in both malls. Atlanta can’t expand its subway system further west for this very reason – fear of invasion from ghetto NAMs. Fulton and Douglas county both oppose it. Public transportation isn’t the problem, avoiding uncivilzed NAMs is.

        You could put good public transportation in every city in the US and it would have little impact on bringing back families and life on the street and shops in the store fronts. You still need an affluent class of people to patronize these stores and restaurants. Hair weaves and magic stores aren’t enough to attract them. Nothing but bad policy and vested interests prevents us from implementing a system of private van taxis that follow a designated route, as is common in Russia or Ukraine, for instance. They work very well and wouldn’t cost the state a dime. Good quality education would go further to solving this problem than high speed rail, which even in Europe, requires major state subsidies. I’m not opposed at all to public transportation projects and generally welcome them, if well thought out, but that is seldom the case and few of them can compete with cars or other forms of transportation.

        LikeLike


      • on May 8, 2012 at 10:52 am Tyrone

        Sigh, again Jason?

        Unfortunately, you’re glossing over why they left because its an inconvenient truth and certainly couldn’t be included in a college paper these days. Much better to blame GM, who abandoned Detroit after the riots there, for instance. DC suffered a similar fate. That happened to huge number of cities in the US and greatlya ccelerated suburbanization. As Thor said, it comes down to jobs and I also include education in that equation. Business moved out of the cities for these reasons- bad government, the aftermath of riots, and forced busing.

        Public transportation has little, if anything, to do with it. Although suburbs have their attractions, so do nice city centers. The trend started in the 50s but didn’t really accelerate until the 70s, when we started busing and after riots in several major cities. Those events made suburban life much more attractive. Your argument also ignores places like Melbourne or Sydney and Canadian cities that are built around cars every bit as much as US cities are but remain attractive places to live for families.

        LikeLike


      • on May 8, 2012 at 1:18 pm Jason

        I did include those things — such as the riots and white flight — in my college paper. It sounds like you’re extremely distrustful of higher ed, which doesn’t surprise me at all, given your reactionary views.

        Let’s use Detroit, since you brought it up. It’s my hometown. I was born there, educated in the city, visited my grandparents in the city, but slept in the suburbs. From your comments, I imagine you love the movie Gran Torino. Eastwood was basically my grandpa. My mother still volunteers for the Red Cross doing midnight emergencies in the ghetto.

        Detroit collapsed because the auto industry collapsed. That was 90% of it. Not sure how you equate that with leftists. If anything, the success of that industry in the 50s and 60s was at least partly due to Democrats such as McNamara at Ford as well as strong government protection. Then the protections ended and we were flooded with cheap foreign cars. Then the Big 3 unwisely focused on performance instead of gas efficiency, which caused OPEC to hurt sales further. By the eighties, Detroit cars were pathetic. The city was doomed because that was the only game in town.

        All of this caused white people to leave (as well as the riots), and it was facilitated by the new freeways (conservative Eisenhower initiative). They didn’t have to see, speak, touch, or acknowledge the black or Middle Eastern communities, which isn’t the case on trains or streetcars.

        Final note: Upstanding middle-class black people have fled Detroit too. (Yes, they exist, Tyrone! I’ve known hundreds! Went to school with them! Shocker!) Nobody of any color wants to live there.

        LikeLike


      • on May 8, 2012 at 2:04 pm Tyrone

        Universities are the source of all of our pretty lies. I had several college roommates from Detroit. All of them blamed my reasons, not yours- specifically Coleman Young. As far as education is concerned, I have three master’s degrees, am a CPA, CIA, and a CMA. I’m also a Lean Six Sigma Blackbelt. I passed each of these exams on the first attempt, which puts me in the top 5% of all who attempt them. My IQ is upwards of 140. I went to the very best public administration school in the country where I earned a master’s degree as well. How many do you have? You’re in pretty distinguished company here, whether you realize it or not. I’m not sure you measure up.

        I can trade credentials with the very best of them. I prefer working men to intellectuals any day of the week. I’m distrustful of higher education professionals because they tend to be ideologically hide bound fools and dreamers. I simply don’t respect anyone who can’t work with their hands and apply practical knowledge. I include you in that category as well.

        LikeLike


    • on May 7, 2012 at 8:14 pm askjoe

      Say what you want about liberalism, but the truth is that without liberalism we would all die of boredom.

      What’s all this boredom talk? Living in the city? There’s an old post on this site showing a typical club/bar scene with a 100-1 dude girl ratio. The point was, if you’re not one of the 5% of men with game in a big impersonal city, you’re going to have a bad time. But what do I know, where’s a big city that isn’t run by the DNC party machine apparatus or full of SWPL’s?

      LikeLike


  27. on May 5, 2012 at 2:56 pm SFG

    Nazi Germany was quite conservative and led by a real alpha male. Picked fights it couldn’t win and the country got split in half and couldn’t wave its flag in public for 60 years.

    You can have too much of a good thing.

    LikeLike


    • on May 5, 2012 at 3:17 pm anon

      Yeah, the country run by the National Socialist German Workers’ Party was *sarcasm* conservative. If this were true, that a socialist country like nazi germany was *conservative*, then at least it would end the line of thought on this thread that conservatives are boring because Berlin had a rocking nightlife if the movies are to be believed. Srsly tho, fascists were just another flavor of socialist fucks. I don’t know if this misinformation is a result of propaganda or just bad public education. But whatever, since we’re psychoanalyzing libs and conservs here, then this allegation that nazi was a con construct is merely liberals ignoring the sad sad and believing the happy happy lies.
      Also, “I’ve SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It’s a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing “I’m an Oscar Meyer Wiener”” in a liberal utopia…so shove that “exciting” liberal society thread up your pie hole.

      LikeLike


      • on May 6, 2012 at 12:26 am Laconophile

        I don’t know which of you is dumber. Hitler was neither a conservative nor a leftist.

        LikeLike


      • on May 6, 2012 at 1:29 am anon

        explain your work, then, eh? He was a totalitarian, liberals are totalitarians, etc. etc. etc., oh and he was a member/founder (inasmuch as I am not an Adolphaphile) of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. If you mean that modern American political squibbles aren’t applicable to post Weimar German reconstructive politics and Robert Conquest’s reporting of the same, fine, thanks for the political lesson.

        LikeLike


      • on May 6, 2012 at 8:42 am Classic Sparkle

        Yes he claimed to be a socialist but all the economic benefits that accrued to the German people were there well before the vocal socialist minority of the Party got there way and rammed thru truly socialist legislation. Much of the benefit came from simply throwing off the lecherous, usurious financial overclass and allowing the capitalist industrialists a freer hand which enabled a social safety net to flourish.

        Capitalism worked in the 1950s and 60s. It could be made to work again. What Hitler called “socialism” could just as well be called populist capitalism, or participatory capitalism, or national (as opposed to international) capitalism, or productive (as opposed to financial) capitalism. Since “capitalism” was a dirty word in Germany in those days, he called his system “socialism,” but that is a misnomer. Hitler’s “socialism” was really the opposite of predatory finance capitalism.

        NSDAP Germany was above the typical left/right dichotomy.

        LikeLike


      • on May 6, 2012 at 8:46 am Classic Sparkle

        the vocal socialist minority of the Party got there way

        Sigh…. got their way

        LikeLike


      • on May 7, 2012 at 3:45 pm anon

        Jeez, how can you argue with this, he called himself a socialist but he was like totally conservative. I think most modern issues facing America are inapplicable to 1930’s italy or germany, but Mussolini was developing the next wave of commie thinking.
        In researching my point, I found this fascinating series of statements:

        n a history of socialism, fascism deserves a place not only as the opponent which, for a time, threatened to obliterate the socialist movement. Fascism is connected with socialism by many crosscurrents, and the two movements have some roots in common, especially the dissatisfaction with the capitalist economy of the pre-1918 type. But another relationship is still more significant. Although fascism was ready to use forms of economic organization first suggested by the socialists – and very likely that use of socialistic forms would have increased if fascism had not all but destroyed itself in causing the Second World War – the Fascists have always repudiated the fundamental humanitarianism on which the socialist movement was based. Thus fascism permits some conclusions as to the consequences which will result from socialist economic policies applied without the ethical motivation of socialism.(European Socialism: A History of Ideas and Movements)
        Hitler’s economic policies extensively increased the regulation of foreign trade and agriculture, imposed widespread price controls, initiated large public works programs, and copied the Soviets’ predilection for N-year Plans. As David Schoenbaum pointedly remarks in his Hitler’s Social Revolution, “A generation of Marxist and neo-Marxist mythology notwithstanding, probably never in peacetime has an ostensibly capitalist economy been directed as non- and even anti-capitalistically as the Germany economy between 1933 and 1939.” Summing up the situation of business under the Nazis, Schoenbaum observes: “Wages, prices, working conditions, allocation of materials: none of these were left to managerial decision, let alone to the market… Investment was controlled, occupational freedom was dead, prices were fixed, every major sector of the economy was, at worst, a victim, at best, an accomplice of the regime. As a general rule, business, particularly big business, declined or flourished in direct proportion to its willingness to collaborate.”

        Look, armchair historians are all like this or that, but make no mistake, there is no comparison to conservative thought (free markets, localized-limited power) and either of these monstrous ideologies.

        LikeLike


      • on May 7, 2012 at 6:43 pm Thor

        Yes, Nazis were socialists at heart. A converted Communist will make a good Nazi, whereas a converted Social Democrat never will, dixit Schicklgruber.

        Another thing is that civilian life in Germany was pretty good 1933-1942,
        (if you were not a member of any out-group, or actually at the front, or was a dissident.) Or, another exception, if you were in a nursing home or in a hospital for something not trivial, you had “unlebenswertiges Leben”, and were dealt with accordingly. Think of all the money saved.

        Then, there was massive income to the state by confiscating the property – and indeed the very bodies – of those in outgroups, and then turning the occupied territories into slave labor camps, and suppliers of all other materials. This works until you run out of other people’s money (or resources), according to Maggie or until the looters run out of victims, according to Ayn Rand.

        So in Germany proper, for most people, things were OK – until their world fell apart.

        Thor

        LikeLike


  28. on May 6, 2012 at 7:00 pm The Psychology Of Liberals And Conservatives « Chateau Heartiste « About Psychology

    […] more: The Psychology Of Liberals And Conservatives « Chateau Heartiste May 4th, 2012 | Tags: premise, Spirit, stab, stab-at-doing, the-premise, the-spirit, […]

    LikeLike


  29. on May 6, 2012 at 11:27 pm Nat Filosopher

    I see the whole thing differently. Liberalism is an evolved behavior that gains fitness by using the state extractive-ly to benefit its members. They tax and give to cronies and siphon off money to perpetuate the system, and keep poor people from being educated so they might figure out they are being hosed. Individual liberals don’t necessarily believe this consciously, but as Triver’s famous experiments indicate, conscious belief is itself mostly what your genes want you to believe so you will do the right thing for them, not because it is actual reality.

    Conservatism is mostly about the belief that the government shouldn’t be used extractively, although since there is so much practical incentive for the elites to gain some extractive benefit when they are running the government, and because you have to raise campaign funds and such to survive in the political ecosystem, conservatism in practice is much corrupted by attempts to use the state to benefit a different set of members.

    LikeLike


  30. on May 7, 2012 at 1:40 am Thor

    I have been off line for a few days, and here are a few collected
    comments:

    @Editor
    “Liberals are naive novelty seekers, and this manifests as, for instance, a (claimed) love of open borders and diversity, and a penchant for risk and undue optimism in the face of evidence to the contrary. ”

    See my comment in a reply above. Their penchant for risk is mainly
    a penchant for risks borne by others.

    @The man Who Was
    “Libertarians are actually psychologically closer to left-liberals than they are to conservatives, and it is they, not conservatives, who are most concerned about procedural fairness”

    The “most concerned” is probably true. I speak as one who just
    participated in the Libertarian National Convention.

    “Psychologically closer”, tough one. True if you consider willingness to be part of major upheaval, but almost irrelevant now as we WILL get major upheaval soon enough, even if nobody wants it.

    @Stuki

    “Using a very simple model; liberals being more “risk-taking”, and conservatives more “risk-averse”; the only stable “solution”, is making sure the extra upside made possible by liberals risk taking, being balanced by them also having to, themselves, cover the entirety of the corresponding downside.”

    Exactly. Except there is no way to make that happen. See above.

    @Jason
    Now, what about women? Do they skew liberal (conventional wisdom) or conservative (Reagan landslide)? Or doesn’t it matter — do they just vote for whichever candidate seems the most alpha?”

    They skew liberal because it forces men to support them whether they like it or not. For the most part.

    @Classic Sparkle

    “Gandhi was riddled with the same kind of hypocrisy. I never stop enjoying to point this out to admirers”

    Gandhi was portrayed as a saint in the movie. But he was no saint. And India would have gained independence anyway, as did all the other colonies,
    (Hong Kong is a special case, and got MORE dependence, but on China).
    There are minor examples of places with funny status, but essentially
    independent, in the Caribbean…. and then there is the Falklands, pop
    3000, and Sough Georgia, pop 2 last time I heard.

    Thor

    LikeLike


  31. on May 7, 2012 at 4:17 pm Seraph

    “You mean the cities that are barely habitable, like Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, etc.?

    You got me there – they’re all interesting, and all liberal…. interesting in a “lucky to escape with your life” sort of way.”

    This idea that liberal like “excitement” reminded me of an interesting dynamic circa the Giuliani years.

    When Giuliani took over as mayor, love him or hate him, there were a couple of things one could not argue.

    One, Times Square and the surrounding area went from a sleazy, eyesore snake-pit to a family friendly major tourist draw.

    Two, crime, major crime like murder, went down SIGNIFICANTLY.

    Liberals, unable to argue these facts, were literally bemoaning the “Disney-ifcation” of the city, and the loss of it’s “gritty” feel.

    That this loss of “grit” spelled FAR less murders, rapes and robberies of people seemed to be inconsequential to them, or at best, a poor trade for having to, OMG, deal with a Disney Store and ESPN zone in their elite city.

    Now, I am not sure whether this attitude was a general liberal one preferring more violence and victims over boring civility and law and order. It may have simply been a by-product of Giuiliani hatred, who despite being pretty moderate in many ways was still a DREADED Rethuglican, and thus had to be opposed, period.

    Whatever the rationale, the coldly dismissive reality of what human misery and pain had been curtailed was plainly evident.

    [heartiste: elite white liberals’ claimed hatred for the disneyfication of nyc is belied by its jacked up rental market, a price inflation caused by liberals clamoring to get back into the disneyfied city.]

    LikeLike


    • on May 7, 2012 at 6:51 pm Thor

      “Whatever the rationale, the coldly dismissive reality of what human misery and pain had been curtailed was plainly evident.”

      Liberals are OK with crime etc., as long as they get to live in gated communities and have private schools – or public schools sufficiently stratified by segregation based on residence.

      The Liberals are generally – even if unintentionally or even unknowingly – the biggest enemy of the middle class, except they tolerate the élite around NYC and Washington, who are in effect an upper class – because they are it.

      BHO talks about the enemies of the middle class. Somebody give him a mirror.

      Thor

      LikeLike


      • on May 7, 2012 at 7:45 pm askjoe

        Libs are ok with crime because their, and by their, I mean the academic commie useful idiot variant (not the duped judeo humanitarian), sees the inevitable (it’s a form of science don’t you know) prole revolution as the motive force of the next phase of their political gibberish. And crime, to them, is just the poor rising up. That’s why they were all like it’s society to blame lolz back in the 80’s.
        Also, as we see with Trayvon, I think the DNC is just pandering to the community to keep them hoping, changing, and stuffing ballot boxes this year. So, ignore that TM was a burglar and blame whitey.

        LikeLike


      • on May 8, 2012 at 1:33 pm Jason

        Thor, I don’t know why you think Prez O is the enemy of the middle class.

        The surest way into the middle class is thru education, and making education more affordable for the average person is one of Obama’s top priorities. This week he’s pitching the idea of low-cost student loans.

        Both parties agree with this.

        (BTW, I also don’t know why anybody would hate NY because it’s cleaner and crime has dropped. Makes no sense. If you don’t like Disney stores, don’t go to Times Square.)

        LikeLike


      • on May 8, 2012 at 5:36 pm Thor

        Obama is (one of) the enemies of the middle class, mainly in the sense that he wants to break the middle class and make them – much like a large part of the liberal élite and the underclass – into dependents of the state (here meaning primarily the federal government). Student loans (which are quickly absorbed by colleges who raise tuition to suck it up), Obamacare etc are are by default or design tools to make the middle class into yet another and essentially final dependency class. (There is a small real upper class and VERY upper middle class that is left alone).

        Thor

        LikeLike


      • on May 8, 2012 at 6:10 pm Jason

        Dependency on the state doesn’t correlate with loss of middle-class. Visit Denmark for an example. That’s the most middle-class nation in the world, and they’re much more socialized than the U.S.

        So I have to disagree. You want to complain about loss of middle-class … look at shrinking or stagnant wages and salaries. That’s bigger trend than any president(s), and there’s a multitude of reasons for it.

        LikeLike


      • on May 8, 2012 at 6:35 pm Thor

        “multitude of reasons” I agree. And I believe politicians (of both major parties) carry a large share of the blame. For the rest, we operate with somewhat different definitions of “middle class”.

        Nils

        LikeLike


      • on May 8, 2012 at 7:07 pm askjoe

        I don’t know, I see this a lot. The average lefty loves themself some Denmark, as if Denmark is a socialist paradise, or if the average Dane has a great standard of living as a result of most glorious welfare state entitlement for new soviet man.

        First, there’s the idea of a better Danish middle class, however Cato points out that “Taxes are confiscatory, punishing people who work, save, and invest. High levels of government spending, meanwhile, reduce economic growth by diverting resources from the productive sector of the economy and funneling them into the stifling welfare state.” I think what J is doing is mistaking a lack of rich people as a sign of a big middle class (and also a lack of um a dedicated underclass on crack which pushes the statistical bottom up while the lack of rich people is an illusion that pushed the top down to create the “most middle-class nation in the world,” whatever that means). That is, what the host said earlier rings true, a small (5million) heterogeneous society is more apt at using welfare versus a diversity 300 million plus nation. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/are-living-standards-higher-in-denmark-or-the-united-states/
        My first point being, most middle class, huh? But whatever “most middle class” means, we see that the Purchase Power Parity for Denmark is an astounding 162, which means that it’s fucking expensive to live there. To put it in perspective, Japan is 156. I don’t know, I got bored, what standard are we going by? GDP, purchasing power?

        Second, with the idea of the Danish socialist top down directed command economy, Heritage lists Denmark’s economy as just behind mean old, shitty redneck USA, 11 to our sister fucking tenth ranking. http://www.heritage.org/index/country/denmark
        The point being, there’s not much difference there (of course, there are differences but a conservative think tank ranks them fairly close out of everyone else).

        Wow, in doing light research, I found this gem “There is no official minimum wage (Danish: minimumsløn) set by the government; the minimum of wages (Danish: mindsteløn) is determined by negotiations between the organisations of employers and employees.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Denmark
        Quite the commie libs, suck it America…
        oh wait. As a heartless capitalist, like that.

        Anyway, the shrinking middle class, yadda yadda that J ends with is sort of a reflection of what I found on instapundit the other day, and something the host reflects on, even the GOP is going leftward, onset of demosclerosis (after all, the good old stars and stripes only ranks 10th on Heritage’s economic freedom chart), whereby each successive recessive has a longer and longer recovery period because of every increasing regulatory burdens, taxes, etc. http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/142240/
        I think what people mean when they say “look at shrinking or stagnant wages and salaries” is shit the unions chased all the good jobs overseas, but what do I know?

        LikeLike


  32. on May 7, 2012 at 9:48 pm Obstinance Works

    Some “great blogger” now writes for The Atlantic, so yeah, money long lives the lie or chokes the truth either way.

    LikeLike


  33. on May 8, 2012 at 5:50 pm askjoe

    How could Obama be against the middle class, what with his giving all the middle class people who lost jobs welfare for life and creating a tax and regulatory environment in which their evil bosses are punished? That just don’t make no sense. Welfare statism is the key to prosperity and freedom for the middle class, don’t you know?

    LikeLike


  34. on May 8, 2012 at 6:53 pm Seraph

    “The surest way into the middle class is thru education, and making education more affordable for the average person is one of Obama’s top priorities. This week he’s pitching the idea of low-cost student loans.”

    Colleges and universities are charging a fortune for degrees which are worthless for many graduates. They are able to do so in large part because the government subsidizes it with student loans. It is a huge money pit turning out millions of young people who have no real capacity to do anything worthwhile in the modern world. It is a huge scam.

    The loans are far from “low-cost”. They cost plenty, but that cost is spread around via taxation that funds them. In the end, much of it is effectively being burned.

    LikeLike


    • on May 9, 2012 at 3:16 am Jason

      Yeah, I agree with some of this. We are in a “bubble” re: higher education. It’s massively overpriced. The only reason I could afford college back in the nineties was because I was given a full-tuition scholarship. We still had to scrape together room and board.

      Lately, I’ve gotten a bit more pessimistic about the surest way to the middle class through education thing. It’s not a lie — yet — but certainly saying the opposite is unthinkable. Our politicians would rather take a bullet to the gut than say that there’s NO route to the middle class anymore. Maybe that’s a few years away.

      LikeLike


  35. on May 8, 2012 at 7:02 pm Seraph

    I should have wrote “In the end, much of the money is effectively being burned”.

    LikeLike


  36. on May 9, 2012 at 9:30 am Anonymous

    For shame. Someone has not been reading Vox.

    How the Liberal’s psychology evolved:

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/05/mailvox-evolutionary-ideology.html?showComment=1336467183512#c6944491220712732299

    Talk about changing the frame…..

    LikeLike


  37. on May 9, 2012 at 4:28 pm uh

    Detroit collapsed because the auto industry collapsed. That was 90% of it. Not sure how you equate that with leftists.

    I’d love to throw you from a tall building. You could shout your pro-kaffir / anti-white beatitudes all the way down …

    LikeLike


    • on May 10, 2012 at 3:06 am Anonymous

      So much hate, so misplaced. You must be miserable.

      I actually had to look up “kaffir” — never heard that one before. Despite your name, you’ve expanded my vocabulary. Are you South African?

      Hard for me to be anti-white, though, cuz then I’d be anti-me.

      If you have time, check out some of these reasons for the collapse of Detroit.

      http://www.urbanophile.com/2012/02/21/the-reasons-behind-detroits-decline-by-pete-saunders/

      None of them have anything to do with race. One addresses the lack of social capital in the city, which can be argued was a result of the automobile industry culture. The ’68 race riots came near the END of this process, as a RESULT of breakdown that was already well underway since the 20s. So it’s better to not put the cart before this horse.

      LikeLike


      • on May 10, 2012 at 5:48 am Thor

        There were probably many reasons for Detroit’s downfall.
        (my late wife grew up in Grosse Pointe, a suburb).

        Obviously, the loss of jobs was major, and started way before the crash in 2007 and onwards. Mainly, the labor unions kept wages high (not necessarily a great long-term move, but the debacle may well have happened anyway, although less brutally). However, while this kept wages per hour up, it did not help against the ongoing reduction of the number of jobs (and in fact was a big part of the cause). So fewer and fewer workers got those nice wages, the jobs being either automated or outsourced – some of them within the US.

        Meanwhile a string of ultraliberal mayors of Detroit kept driving out the middle class, whoever their employer was, GM or non-GM. This is a very rational short term policy for a mayor. If you drive out enough people who disagree with your policies, you will get re-elected. If the city itself goes down the toilet, that is a small price to pay for a career as mayor.

        Thor

        LikeLike


  38. on May 9, 2012 at 8:54 pm Anonymous

    My belief that humans have ” a proclivity for violence and sin” is the reason why I gravitate towards some liberal ideas. Take abortion for example, I am pro choice. I am not pro choice because of women’s rights, but because women will have abortions legally or not. Another example is drugs, people will abuse drugs no matter what the law states. I don’t think anyone would state the war on drugs has been a success. Hunter S Thompson was pretty liberal in his day and yet he believed in the corrupt, violent, dark side of humanity. He made a career documenting it.

    LikeLike


  39. on May 14, 2012 at 1:54 pm Walenty Lisek (@aLifeOfTheMind)

    Conservatives using Game lingo now?

    LikeLike



Comments are closed.

  • Copyright © 2018. Chateau Heartiste. All rights reserved. Comments are a lunchroom food fight and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Chateau Heartiste proprietors or contributors.
  • Visit the Goodbye, America photojournal website.

    Then cleanse your visual palate with a visit to the Welcome Back, America photojournal website.

  • Pages

    • About
    • Alpha Assessment Submissions
    • Beta Of The Year Contest Submissions
    • Dating Market Value Test For Men
    • Dating Market Value Test For Women
    • Diversity + Proximity = War: The Reference List
    • Shit Cuckservatives Say
    • The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon
  • Twitter Updates

    Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

  • Recent Comments

    Thor on Sweden Vs Norway
    roberthagedorn1 on Caravan Of Foreign Invaders Od…
    Thor on Caravan Of Foreign Invaders Od…
    CMC on Don’t Help The Leftoid M…
    PontiusG on NPC Culture, In One Meme
    stg58animalmother on Caravan Of Foreign Invaders Od…
    Peter Jackson on NPC Culture, In One Meme
    chris on Sweden Vs Norway
    jOHN MOSBY on Don’t Help The Leftoid M…
    ‘Reality’ Doug on Sweden Vs Norway
  • Top Posts

    • Battlebrows As Portent Of Sociopath America
    • Women's Sports Will Be Killed Off By Invasive Trannies
    • Betrayal Is A Woman's Heart
    • The Three Abrahamic Religions, Abbreviated
    • Red Tsunami?
    • Oy, There It Is
    • NPC Culture, In One Meme
    • Globohomo's Next Target: "Sexual Racism"
    • Shitlib Logic Trap!
    • Don't Help The Leftoid Media Sway Elections
  • Categories

  • Game

    • 60 Years of Challenge
    • Alpha Game
    • Cajun
    • Krauser PUA
    • Rational Male
    • Roosh V
    • Tenmagnet
    • Treatise of Love
  • MAGA MEN

    • Alternative Right
    • AmRen
    • Anonymous Conservative
    • Audacious Epigone
    • Dusk in Autumn
    • Education Realist
    • Evo and Proud
    • Gene Expression
    • Hail To You
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • Lion of the Blogosphere
    • My Posting Career
    • OneSTDV
    • PA World and Times
    • Page For Men
    • Parapundit
    • Rogue Health and Fitness
    • Steve Sailer
    • The Anti-Gnostic
    • The Kakistocracy
    • The Red Pill Review
    • The Spearhead
    • Unqualified Reservations
    • Vox Popoli
    • West Hunter
    • Whiskey's Place
  • Syllogism and Synthesis

    • Alias Clio
    • Arts & Letters Daily
    • Deconstructing Leftism
    • Elysium Revisited
    • Feminine Beauty
    • hbd chick
    • Human Biological Diversity
    • Library of Hate
    • Overcoming Bias
    • Stuff White People Like

WPThemes.


loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
%d bloggers like this: