On Tinkering With Only One Side of the Equation, Why Social Conservatives Cannot Win

One of the greatest errors of thought (usually associated with the Left) is the belief that you can tinker endlessly with one side of an equation without wreaking havoc on the other side.  This is exemplified by this quote from the most arch of snarky Liberal New York Jews:

“In real life, I assure you, there is no such thing as algebra.” ~~Fran Liebowitz

If you want to know how poorly someone understands the nature of reality just ask them how they feel about Algebra.

This of course is the problem with centralized economies–the inability to understand that even the most well-meaning attempt to set a price, a wage, a production quota would have a ripple effect of unintended consequences that effect the entire economy.  Everyone who has an interest in economics understands these market distortions and their consequences, but a similar phenomenon takes place in human CULTURE when a distortion is caused by an attempt to regulate human interactions by fiat without regard to all sides of the equation.

A prime example from the Left was when Feminism discovered that girls were being “shortchanged” in schools while boys were doing great.  Their solution? Redirect all aspects of education and its resources towards girls without giving boys a second thought.  Of course, boys “inexplicably” began to suffer immediately–no one could understand why.  Certainly the people who wanted to “help” girls hadn’t intended to simultaneously harm boys, why did it end up that way?

Humans appear to have a bias that convinces them that what ever is at the moment is how it always has been and always will be and is simply just “the way things are”.  So, when we see the equation “Boys thrive + Girls Suffer=Schools as is” we think if we multiply “schools as is” by some random X factor in order to specifically effect ONLY girls we can do that–why? Because we hate algebra.  We THOUGHT if we did (Boys thrive + Girls suffer)(X)=(Schools as is)(X) we’d get “Boys stay same + Girls thrive too=Better Schools for ALL”

But we got a new equation:

Boys thrive(policy good only for girls)+Girls suffer(policy good only for girls)=Boys that PREVIOUSLY THROVE suffer + Girls Thrive=Schools utterly destroyed, massive male disengagement and drop out rate, violence, school as sex and fashion show.  Oops!

Just as in economics, the “knowledge problem” renders it impossible for even the smartest brain trust to really know what the result of all of this tinkering will be.  If you can’t even properly identify the causes of civilization, how can you tinker with them without inevitably destroying it?

Now, I didn’t bring all this up to bash the Left for a change, but to explain how Social Conservatism is faulty reaction to this tinkering with the social equation , trying to preserve the factors that have been inevitably destroyed by the tinkering of the Other in the face of the changes wrought by their bad Calculus.

Social Conservatives are attempting to preserve a set of human behaviors that arose in RESPONSE to the harshness of a reality that no longer exists, that response is called “Civilization”.  “Family Values” aren’t an immutable fact of Nature–they WERE the “Safety Net”  before the advent of statism.  That was it–no Welfare, no Social Security, no Unemployment, no Down Payment assistance, no family to help you out in a jam?  You better hope your religion stressed charity or you were quite simply screwed.

What Social Conservative fail to realize is that Progressive policies have so successfully altered the “harsh death” consequences of Man’s behavior that as long as ONE ASPECT of the Welfare State exists, no return to the salad days of tradition can come about.

Similarly sexual mores weren’t handed down on high, but arose organically in response to the harsh consequences of reality.  How did a pregnant woman with a 3-year-old child in tow survive alone?  How many such women and children died horrible lonely deaths on the veld and the steppes before traditional values of sexual continence, female monogamy and male investment arose?  What we see as immutable tradition is merely the tips of evolution–like forebrains and opposable thumbs on humans, the LAST developments, not the first.

So, a series of human behaviors arise to protect us from the consequences of reality–thrift, future time orientation, sexual continence, monogamy, etc and THESE “tinkerings” have a ripple effect on the equations of life.  monogamy, for example, by guaranteeing almost all but the most defective male at least SOME woman did away with the lifelong competition for women that would have made it impossible for males to cooperate for long on a grand scale.  Intramale trust + lessening of violence + ability of males of differing talents to survive and ply skills = civilization,  a fortuitous oops!

When the Progressives and Rousseauvian Romantics began to play their word games and then sought to put their fantasies into action by legislation, no one had any idea what would happen.  The Conservatives, of course, thought their Family Values were handed down by God etched in stone, they didn’t appreciate the evolutionary, survival of the fittest nature of their mores.  While they were able to see the advent of the Welfare State eroding their cherished Civis, they failed to correctly identify WHY this was–Algebra, again.

Traditional sexual mores + Thrift/work ethic as protection from harsh death = Civilization.  This was the equation of Life.

By removing the “harsh death” consequences to ones actions with the Welfare State AND the “harsh death and starvation” consequences of loose sexual morals with birth control and abortion–Progressive Statist thereby unexpectedly removed the NEED FOR CIVILIZATION.  But of course, again, bad calculus–the Welfare State can ONLY arise when Civilization hits a certain level of effectiveness and prosperity, so it’s an ouroboros, a snake eating its tail.  Under Tradition mores males are freed from incessant competition for mates to calm down and cooperate and build a civilization that protects and feeds and serves women to such an extent that the women become empowered by their own misunderstood prosperity, begin chopping at the roots of it immediately which leads to inevitable decline and darkness and “harsh death” and on and on and on…this is the true cycle of decadence.

How to break this cycle before crisis point is reached?  Here is where the Social Conservatives are most wrong and where it becomes apparent that they are also engaging in a Cargo Cult of values from a preindustrial age–they try to tinker with the wrong side of the equation.  If the Family Values arose as a response to the harshness of reality, and a WEAKENING of that harshness erodes those values–then how does merely ASSERTING the merit of those values in the ABSENCE OF THE FACTORS THAT LED TO THEM solve anything?  Obviously the solution to the problem is to bring back the harshness of reality.

This is why Minarchy is the Social Conservatives best friend and why they must let go of THEIR Cargo Cult values and focus on the root cause of the decadence they so abhor–the Welfare State that insulates individuals from the consequences of their actions on every level.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to On Tinkering With Only One Side of the Equation, Why Social Conservatives Cannot Win

  1. Brit says:

    ‘Under Tradition mores males are freed from incessant competition for mates to calm down and cooperate and build a civilization that protects and feeds and serves women to such an extent that the women become empowered by their own misunderstood prosperity, begin chopping at the roots of it immediately which leads to inevitable decline and darkness and “harsh death” and on and on and on…this is the true cycle of decadence.’

    -thank you for that, it’s the absolute truth.

  2. OneSTDV says:

    Utterly fantastic post. I too am conservative/right-wing without being blindly traditionalist.

    Please start commenting on HBD/Roissysphere blog because your site looks incredibly interesting and extremely well-written so far.

  3. dana says:

    Onesdtv

    thanks SO much! i am insecure and scared to death lol i needed the encouragement!

    i have read your blog every da since you started it

  4. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: White is Right Edition (NSFW)

  5. mike says:

    Great post. You’re talking specifically about the reactionary sentiments of the people called “Conservatives”, though.

  6. K(yle) says:

    I agree that we are basically disencentivizing civilazation, but I don’t think it is all the ‘welfare State’. I mean, we don’t even properly have one. Most people that are reasonably poverty stricken and suffer from all the associated social pathologies of it aren’t even elegible for welfare.

    It’s really that even the very poor are well off by ancient, evolutionary standards, and the moderately poor can still expect quite a lot of financial help in hard times from generous friends and family. I know a lot of people getting the occasional check from their Granny, who was a little kid during the Great Depression and is sitting on excess retirement money. It’s not the kind of community network of support that you are talking about though. The individuals in question are still basically atomized and disinvested from society.

    I agree that the most damaging safety net is the one propping up single mothers, but I don’t think that if you suddenly took it away that would be enough to rectify the situation entirely. You have the famous relative success of the British post WWII Commonwealth, and Scandinavian socialistic countries, et cetera. I think America is irrevocably damaged because there is no National community, or identity. There is no such thing as an ‘American’, in the same way that there is such a thing as a Swede.

    Our whole Proposition Nation, Melting Pot experiment erradicated the folkways of dozens of people. I think that the social policies of Sweden will be bad for Swedes, but realistically in a heterogenous population like theirs, it will take hundreds of years to reach what America did in a fraction of the time. They don’t have just friends and family to trust in times of need, culturally speaking. Swedes generally trust in the benevolance of eachother, and so did the English, et cetera, before the word ‘Nation’ was etymologically neutered.

    Ultimately, even with a North American minarchy, I think you’d still have most of the social pathologies still in place. Even if you created tightknit families and communities here and there, the majority of Americans in cities and suburban areas are never going to trust each other in order to create any kind of civilization there. Not when you have 200+ languages (not including dialects) spoken by residents of a single US city. That has to change as well, and that is something SoCons also will not do. They will expend no end of treasure and effort to bring as many souls onto the lifeboat as they can.

  7. Dave says:

    Highly impressive. I agree 99.9% with everything you’ve said. I was pleasantly surprised when you cut the Gordian knot in the last 3rd of this piece. Most people come so close to the correct conclusion but it slips away from them before they reach the necessary outcome of this line of logic. Probably because the result is horrible to contemplate,in their minds.

    If the savage crucible of Nature is once again made the balance that a person is weighed in,nearly everyone will come up short. The only people who will survive are those already living close to the earth,farmers and people from the 3rd world, and people mercenary enough to steal for survival.

    The social engineering programs will be the first things to go. On a sinking ship,nobody is “equal”,only the fittest are relatively equal to each other.

    Civilization, as has been proved time and time again, is temporary. It never endures eternally. Eventually the gravy train will run out of steam. At that time, it would be wise to be on the right side of the issue.

  8. R.Sole says:

    I would simply add that one should not go to the other extreme and confuse race with culture, as one of the commenters did. The UK for example, which he cited, contradicts this – it has Scots, Irish, Welsh, English. It had waves of immigration (and some invasion) from France, Scandinavia, Italy and other places. NONE of this damaged the inherent nature of UK society and culture, if anything it benefited it (e.g. the British Army, which is still probably per man the best-trained in the world, encouraged and thrived off the division between educated upper-class officers handling strategy and planning, and more belligerent rough & ready working class front-line soldiers doing the heavy lifting. Wellington’s troops he joked were “scum of the earth” and “frightened the life” out of him).

    Remember, the Irish, Italians etc were until recently considered a separate race, mediterraneans were not considered ‘white’ 100 years ago. London has “no blacks, no dogs, no Irish” signs up in pubs and hotels in the 50s and 60s even. Even the most right-wing social conservative doesn’t think that now.

    What matters is not race, but culture. Parts of the Caribbean, and even Africa, are more socially conservative than middle class America or Europe. Of course, the more violent ghettos are the opposite. But you would be surprised at the conservative law & order tendencies of many non-American/non-EU black people, completely at odds with how some stereotype them. Thus, it is not immigration or the “melting pot” that is the problem, it is the culture that people have. A multi-racial society is fine and in fact on evolutionary terms *superior* (bio-diversity improves evolutionary/genetic fitness) to a mono-racial one. It is the multi-cultural society that has problems.

    Certain cultural values need to be enforced – liberty, rules, fair play, robustness (martial, cultural, intellectual), high standards, at least a base line of opportunity for anyone willing to work for it etc. Why would any genuine American object to a Mexican like Carlos Slim moving to the USA and applying for citizenship in 10 years, for example? It would be worth exiling 10 career felons in exchange for productive people like him, so long as they accept core western values.

    Too often, the culture and sociobiology debate is muddied and tarred by people ignorantly and unwittingly confusing race with culture. Give him a hard-working law-abiding libertarian Hispanic or African or Arab over a collectivist criminal welfare sponging Caucasian anyday.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s