Schizophrenia Anecdote

Yesterday I published an article on dissidents. I meant to put this anecdote in there somewhere as a comparison, but forgot. Even if i had, though, I think it would be too much of a digression. Basically, at one point in the article I mention how dissidents can’t get along with each other that well. Derbyshire points this out as well:

At root this tendency is antisocial. Indeed, if you mix with dissidents much, you notice how fissiparous they are, how they can never agree among themselves about anything for very long. The dissident scene is full of petty animosities and slanders. I find dissidents to be individually admirable and attractive, but collectively hopeless. I’m glad to know they are there, though — that I’m not the only member of what my mother called “the awkward squad.”

What I didn’t mention so much is that it is true even when they mostly agree on the big picture. They are just generally disagreeable at all times, even about nonsense. At least some of them are. It is a spectrum, though, so your mileage may vary. This might be surprising, because you would think that if they mostly agreed they would get along. Personality can’t be turned off, however, and the minor crap is enough, sometimes, to push them apart. Though, to be fair, I have seen a lot of inter-personal drama between cliques of normies as well so I might be over-associating this tendency with dissidents compared to the general public. The difference is dissidents more often disagree about ideas whereas normies disagree about how improper it was to have sex with whom. Although, in the modern era, almost everyone has the latter problem.

Anyway, the fact that dissidents can’t get along despite agreeing with each other reminds me of a class on genetic causes of mental illness I took in college. (disclaimer: disagreeing with the consensus is not, in and of itself, a mental illness in any way) At one point we had to team up and choose a mental illness to investigate and do a report on it. Part of the research required meeting these people and talking to them. Being both curious and fearless, I thought meeting some real life schizophrenics might be interesting. A cultural experience if you will. When I suggested to the very petite Korean girl I was partnered with that we should do schizophrenia for our project, I was quite surprised she did not object. As I suspected, she was just ignorant (sheltered?) on how truly nutty (and potentially physically intimidating to a small girl) they would be. I made sure not to explain that beforehand. I really wanted to meet a schizophrenic after all and her safety wasn’t that much of a concern; mainly because I knew I could remove them if that became a problem. That and the fact I wouldn’t be legally blamed if I failed in ensuring her safety. As long as I gave it my utmost there would be no guilt on my part.

We went to a center filled with schizophrenics on the lower level, not even the hospitalized ones so they were more tame. I won’t go too deep into the details, but most people with mental illness are male. My book, Smart and SeXy, explains how the X chromosome is mostly responsible for that, but the mechanism isn’t too relevant for this post. The point is that a schizophrenia center is mostly guys who are so crazy they couldn’t get laid to save their lives even though like all guys they want to, and are so crazy they don’t respect social norms of conduct with women. She wasn’t physically touched as far as I am aware, but an unhealthy amount of interest in her was shown, plus a lot of weird ass gurgling and other weird sounds that only a nut would make.  If chaperones such as myself hadn’t been around to make sure nothing untoward happened who knows. 20 minutes of this was enough for her to cut involvement with interview part of the project and I had to finish it by myself. You don’t meet many highly motivated Koreans who won’t OCD complete their work, but I managed the right situation. To be fair, she pulled her weight quite reasonably on the other aspects of the project. But dealing directly with deranged, aggressive psychopaths is clearly the man’s job. That is just a fact of life and I have no complaints about it. A woman might be able to better sympathize or some other pyschobabble, but she better not go without two swole male orderlies to help her in the tight spots.

Anyway, during the interviews I noticed a lot of the schizophrenics did not get along with each other. Like at all. They easily put the dissidents to shame for anti-sociability. (Some of them made the most amazing artwork, however.) If you don’t really think about it, you might lazily conclude that putting all the crazy people together in the same place should be great for them. Lunatics are all lunatics, so their delusions should all fit in together comfortably. Not true. Crazy people are crazy for all sorts of different reasons. Things that makes one person crazy may be completely aggravating to another person who is crazy for completely different reasons.

After this experience I went and talked to the neuroscience professor about this. Given our knowledge of genius and insanity and the correlated heretability of both, it is no surprise (in hindsight) that this quite accomplished professor had a completely insane aunt that needed to be committed to an institution. In their family’s dealings with this aunt, they were initially surprised to learn she quite hated being locked up with a bunch of other insane people. (This shows that even the highly intelligent can be in error when their premises are faulty).  Her own insanity was not enough to stop her from noticing that the lunatics around her were also lunatics you didn’t want to deal with. When you think about it, it is quite apparently no surprise that no one wants to be around the insane, including the insane. But for some reason it was very easy, even for the highly intelligent and logical person like the professor, to figure they would just all get along. Similarity should make them get along. And that is the problem. From the outside, conflation of traits is easy. Especially if you don’t have the right terminology to distinguish the quite subtle differences of type, which we don’t. If you don’t take the time to understand that being a lunatic actually encompasses so many different types that there is radical differences in this sub-community, then it is easy to make the (in hindsight) quite easy logical error of classing them all together when in fact they are all drastically different. Or at least so problematic they can’t get along. The similarity we so easily and wrongly see is obviously an error, in retrospect. When you think about it.

Though I don’t think the dissident is insane,* I think we may be making the same sort of error we would easily and automatically make with the insane. The class of “dissident” may be such a diverse group that in fact they are not really a group at all. The dissidents themselves may be making this error themselves when they form an association. It seems to be an error the smart and logical are unaccountably susceptible to as much as anyone. Errors of the intelligent are always nice to know. I am contradicting what I said in the second paragraph of this essay here, just to make sure you notice. I am not saying this is more true than what I previously said, but I at least think it is a possibility. It may be that dissidents don’t get along for very fundamental reasons which have little or nothing to do with agreeableness. Mainly that each one is in fact unique. Their intrinsic uniqueness may make it so they are part of no group, even when they personally think they are. In which case the assumption of disagreeableness for the sake of disagreeableness may be in error. It might not be disagreeableness per se that is the problem, but an inherent uniqueness which prevents them from seeing eye to eye even with other unique individuals. Especially since there is no way to separate uniquenesses one from another without the proper language. It defies the definition of the word.

This seems plausible to me. If it can be true for the bottom end of the spectrum, why shouldn’t it be true for top end?

*I think most dissidents are autistic in some way. Specifically they had a lot of testosterone exposure in utero. I spend a lot of time in my book, “Smart and SeXy”, talking about this and how it comes about for biological reasons, but suffice it to say there is small difference between an engineer who invents the next greatest gadget and the autist who memorizes all the dialogue, complete scripts, from every cartoon since 1960. Yes, I know personally an autist who is that able at cartoon dialogue. He is certainly not sane by normal standards, but he knows way more than any of us in his domain. Autistic is definitely not schizophrenic, which is a completely different medical disorder; with completely different symptoms. However, autists can lead the “well socialized” to hold hostile a view of them through their, well, unsociability. Autism is a spectrum, and the best and brightest humans that have ever existed were on the high end of it. There are far more who didn’t reach those heights. But the contributions of the ones that reached the greatest heights are responsible for the relative pleasantness of our lives today, for good or ill.

Share Button

Who is the true enemy of Neoreaction: The Red Pill or Social Conservatism? Part 2

In part 1, I explored why social conservatism shouldn’t be considered an ally of neoreaction and discussed some preliminary thoughts on how a community that exemplifies traditional values might be crafted in an exceedingly hostile and unalterable culture.  In part 2, I propose how neoreaction should view itself in relation to the red pill community.

The first step is to understand the mindset of the Red Pill man to see what he believes about reality and whether or not that is consistent with or opposed to neoreactionary understanding.  From my experience, typical redpillers are usually in various stages of transition from liberal unreality to reality.  The seed of transition is always motivated by the overriding instinct to reproduce, an instinct that no amount of progressive reform through education will be able to subdue. The first item of progressive faith on the chopping block is egalitarianism because it is the  main point of indoctrination in education that prevents men from acting in ways that make them attractive to women.  The rejection of egalitarianism is also a core principle of the dark enlightenment, so there is no conflict there.

Redpillers generally acknowledge the negative consequences of current sex culture, but they accept that as individual men they have almost no power to do anything about it and simply attempt to maximize their benefit given the social structure created by sex-positive feminism.  I see this as both accurate and realistic, if fatalistic.  In both these points, I can’t tell any appreciable difference between the redpillers and the neoreactionaries.  The idea that a reactionary  movement (social conservatism) will never succeed in reversing leftism is one that neoreactionaries developed and fully accept. There is no expectation that these problems can be fixed in a democratic system that appeals to the masses, and thus lowest common denominator.  So again, neoreaction and the red pill are largely consistent.

In one of the most striking examples of overlap between the red pill and neoreaction, Roosh V penned the article “Cultural collapse theory“. This is pure neoreaction from one of the most prominent personalities in the PUA community and there is every indication that he isn’t happy about the situation. The cads are under no illusion that they are good for society.

Overall, when I look at the top tier people in the red pill community, I see there have been a lot of contributions and insights into human nature and the modern system. Many neoreactionary ideas owe at least some debt to primarily red pill bloggers and commentators such as chateau heartiste, dalrock, and girl writes what, among others. Some of the ideas that are part of neoreaction are completely original creations of the red pill community that were later adopted. In other words, the top tier of TRP provides invaluable contributions to neoreactionary thought.

From the above it can be discerned that the red pill is not a movement, it is an intellectual framework for analyzing and understanding reality. TRP is a tool set for sex relations as much as neoreaction is a tool set for analyzing culture and politics. What is done with that tool set is another matter entirely. If someone uses a hammer to go on a murder spree, that doesn’t make hammers bad. Being an accurate description of reality, the intellectual framework of TRP is, in fact, a subset of the intellectual framework of neoreaction by definition. You might consider neoreaction to be a RP framework expanded to more than sexual strategy or maybe the two parts evolved somewhat independently at first, but upon meeting are found to be compatible since reality can’t be mutually exclusive with itself.

However, there can be no doubt that the PUA movement, which is primarily responsible for developing the red pill framework, uses it to pursue actions with anti-civilizational effects. This can never be compatible with the stated morality of neoreaction.  However, I don’t think it is appropriate to blame these men for their actions.  Most positive masculine role models have been gutted from society and education. If they “man up” they will be subjected to a whole host of misandric laws. The women to who they are told to commit themselves to have not been raised to become suitable wives and once that potential is lost, it can’t be restored.  Those women are simply lost.  No man should ever marry a woman who isn’t suitable wife material and in our culture that means many men really don’t have even a single good option for marriage.

PUAs attempting to maximize their benefit in a social structure (sex-positive feminism) that they are dropped into and have no power over is healthy for these men personally and the product of a completely rational decision made upon careful consideration of the current incentives.  Given the lack of respect men receive in our society, no one should be surprised that they shrug their traditional responsibilities.  Neoreactionaries need to accept that men have to walk their own paths, and learn lessons first hand because we are unable to spare most of these guys from this path of education. The education system is designed to indoctrinate leftism and so most people will be leftist in some sense until they get smacked by the real world. For that reason, TRP phenomenon is to be welcomed gladly as the first step towards neoreactionary thought. Inevitably many of them will end up realizing that cadding isn’t quite what it was cracked up to be. In fact there are examples of older PUAs who have done just that. After the PUAs pass through the long, dark tunnel that is the experience of post-modern culture, it seems that most emerge with a set of beliefs that are consistent with neoreaction and can accept that traditional culture maximizes the benefit for everyone.

We are in the middle of the great relearning and PUAs are no exception. Neoreactionaries should take heart at the fact that the things which are learned hardest are learned best.  There is only one way to convert the masses from their hedonism and that is the complete slash and burn caused by PUAs. Every broken heart, disillusioned soul, impoverished single mother, crime victim and even PUA is a proto-neoreactionary. The more the hedonists damage, the more people will want a different kind of society, and the faster things will either be righted or else everything will be completely destroyed.   Being a neoreactionary means accepting that there will be unavoidable losses and preparing a tolerable route of transition for the former to avoid the later.

The fraction of society that is neoreactionary has far too little power to force any positive change onto the overall system that could provide incentives for men not to attempt a cadding lifestyle. Therefore, rather than wailing about the immorality of sex positive culture and being angry at fundamentally pragmatic men, neoreaction should continue to provide objective and empirical reasons why traditional values and patriarchy are better than other systems. The empirical evidence and first hand experience provided by the hook-up culture will probably be indispensable to these demonstrations. Analyzing this state of affairs will make the most insights on truth available for some hypothetical point in the future where there actually is the possibility for re-structuring society. That is far more persuasive than denouncing a generation or two of men who lost the cultural lottery, or trying to protect women who we don’t have the power to protect.

Some enterprising group might even attempt a virtual exist and through mastery of the red pill framework create a neoreactionary community that is appealing to men as described in part 1.  If so, they will act as beacons of virtue who can also be pointed at to say “Look at how much better this community is! Would you rather be part of the degenerate culture or part of a thriving, civilization building community? Don’t you want security in your life and relationships and for your children?”  Given a viable option, I suspect many or maybe most PUAs would sacrifice participation in the hook-up culture to work towards building civilization and their own families.  What is needed is reasonable certainty that the women they married would make good wives, and absolute certainty that in the rare cases where that failed, the ex-wife would have no ability to deprive him of his wealth and children.

Share Button

Who is the true enemy of Neoreaction: The Red Pill or Social Conservatism? Part 1

There has recently been a push by the elements within neoreaction who most closely identify with mainstream religious social conservatism to force a schism in the interest of ideological and religious purity. Trannygate was the most recent, and highly embarrassing, development in this trend.  Ironically, I think many people would never have even heard of Justine Tunney if Anissimov didn’t freak out about it. If your goal was to minimize exposure of this person to neoreaction, the proper thing would have been to ignore him (her?) entirely. Instead, as a result of Anissimov’s antics, many more people know about Tunney and his efforts can only be described as counter-productive to his goals. The only thing I will say about this episode is that I don’t feel that transsexuals are really worth much discussion, either by myself or in neoreaction more generally. I acknowledge the reality of evolution and natural selection and thus see transsexuals and homosexuals as flawed outcomes of natural genetic variation. In order for natural selection to work, there has to be genetic variation, and it is inevitable that some (actually the vast majority of) combinations of genes formed in meiosis will result in individuals poorly adapted to the environment or for successful reproduction; improper development of neurological gender is just one of many ways things can go wrong. Homosexuals and transsexuals are “losers” of the genetic lottery and I will never be able to see their mere existence as avoidable given the mechanisms of biology and there is no risk of increase in their numbers since they do not reproduce. The problem is self-correcting. Therefore I don’t view them as especially important to societal engineering questions.

A related issue often brought up by social conservatives as part of this trend and that is more relevant, by far, is how neoreaction should relate to the red pill community of cads and PUAs. The traditionalists are correct in asserting that stable, biologically intact family formation (patriarchy) is the foundation of civilization because that is the social technology that maximizes the largest amount of productive output by the largest number of men. Stable families (IE, marriage 1.0) require sexual restraint by the majority of members of society. Fidelity within marriage is undermined by people who demonstrate a lack of sexual restraint and who reduce the sexual restraint of others through seduction. A society full of freely acting rakes is ultimately doomed and will suffer a lot of heartache along the path to destruction. These facts lead me, and I would argue any true neoreactionary, to whole-heatedly endorse traditional family values, traditional gender roles, and traditional restrictions on sexuality when considering how to design a society optimized for advancing civilization.

However, the intellectual acknowledgement that traditional values are indispensable to putting a culture on a trajectory for the greatest heights of civilization doesn’t tell us anything about how individual men should conduct their lives given the actual, non-ideal culture that they live in and as of now have little power to influence. In case anyone has forgotten, neoreactionaries are in no position to actively engineer society and it doesn’t appear like they will be getting that ability anytime soon, if ever.

When you advocate that men should marry and take on their traditional role at any cost (misandromasochism), you out yourself as not being a neoreactionary capable of critical and pragmatic thinking, but an unthinking and dogmatic social conservative, and given the history of profound failure of the conservative movement, that isn’t something to be proud of. Moldbug found quite a good quote by R.L. Dabney in the previous link which I think is worth repeating here:

It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always when about to enter a protest very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance. The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy, from having nothing to whip. No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to donkeys. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.

Now, as then, social conservatism is synonymous with failure and if there is to be any hope that neoreaction could restore traditional values, it needs to do everything it can to separate itself from that tradition. Keep the baby, but ditch the bathwater. To that point, Neoreaction should never become guilty of its own version of the folly of martyrdom by advocating that men should sacrifice themselves in a doomed unilateral attempt to protect a system of values that can’t survive without proper legal and cultural support. Fatherhood is precious and fragile and protecting it must start with properly structuring institutions, and not from shaming men into irrationally ignoring the profound misandry they face in divorce. When men martyr themselves, they enable these poorly designed institutions to continue unchanged and thus delay any possible neoreactionary re-boot. The only thing this sort of delay can accomplish is an increase in the severity of the post-progressive hangover.

To quote “The misandry bubble“, a classic in red pill writing, on the failings of social conservatives:

Everyone from women to sadistic social conservatives to a young man’s own parents will pressure and shame him into marriage for reasons they cannot even articulate, and condemn his request for a pre-nup, without having any interest in even learning about the horrendously unequal and carefully concealed laws he would be subjected to in the event that his wife divorces him through no reasons he can discern. But some men with an eye on self-preservation are figuring this out, and are avoiding marriage….

…the religious ‘social conservatives’ who continue their empty sermonizing about the ‘sanctity of marriage’ while doing absolutely nothing about the divorce-incentivizing turn that the laws have taken, have been exposed for their pseudo-moral posturing and willful blindness. What they claim to be of utmost importance to them has been destroyed right under their noses, and they still are too dimwitted to comprehend why. No other interest group in America has been such a total failure at their own stated mission. To be duped into believing that a side-issue like ‘gay marriage’ is a mortal threat to traditional marriage, yet miss the legal changes that correlate to a rise in divorce rates by creating incentives for divorce (divorce being what destroys marriage, rather than a tiny number of gays), is about as egregious an oversight as an astronomer failing to be aware of the existence of the Moon. Aren’t conservatives the people who are supposed to grasp that incentives drive behavior? An article worthy of being written by The Onion could conceivably be titled ‘Social conservatives carefully seek to maintain perfect 100% record of failure in advancing their agenda’.

Knowing that neoreaction should adopt completely separate strategies from social conservatism in an effort succeed where it fails doesn’t tell us how neoreaction should approach the red pill. After all, the traditionalists aren’t wrong about cads being bad for society. What is needed is a uniquely neoreactionary attitude towards cads and PUAs that does not deny the harsh realities in the field or the need of civilization for traditional values. Let’s begin with how a community in which traditional values have force might credibly be formed regardless of what is present in the wider culture, and tackle the PUA community specifically in part 2.

First, the story of Isaiah offers a valuable lesson for neoreaction on community formation by demonstrating who exactly is worth appealing to. Where social conservatives try to appeal to the masses and thus save them, neoreaction will only attempt to reach the remnant and will allow the masses to follow the path toward perdition without interference. Ex-social conservatives will have to give up wailing about the moral failings of wider culture and focus on the morals of their newly exclusive local community. The nascent neoreactionary community will have to go to great lengths to separate its members from outside progressive culture. Once enough degrees of separation are established between the neoreactionary community and broader culture by the exit strategy, new pro-family and pro-civilization cultural norms can be enforced.

The steps social conservatives have taken to “protect” marriage and family have all tolerated the loss of essential cultural norms and this loss has subsequently been codified in the legal system. The original design of the legal institution of marriage ensured the longevity of a large majority of unions by strongly disincentivizing couples, and women especially, from breaking their vows. A divorce rate of 50% unambiguously demonstrates that the legal institution of marriage is already dead and isn’t worth the paper it is written on. Therefore, the primary point of this social technology is to revive something similar to the original institution of marriage and to do that it must be able to identify which women make good wives and to preserve that characteristic in them throughout their lives, both before and after marriage. Once these women were identified and their chastity protected, neoreactionaries could then in good conscience advocate for neoreactionary men to marry from and create families with this carefully selected group. However, to accomplish this the social technology must place restrictions on women that result in making them appealing and durable wives:

In India, for example, it is normal even today for either the bride’s father to pay for the wedding, or for the bride’s family to give custody of all wedding jewelry to the groom’s family. The reason for this was so that the groom’s family effectively had a ‘security bond’ against irresponsible behavior on the part of the bride, such as her leaving the man at the (Indian equivalent of the) altar, or fleeing the marital home at the first sign of distress (also a common female psychological response). For those wondering why Indian culture has such restrictions on women and not men, restrictions on men were tried in some communities, and those communities quickly vanished and were forgotten. There is no avoiding the reality that marriage has to be made attractive to men for the surrounding civilization to survive. Abuse and blackmail of women certainly occurred in some instances, but on balance, these customs existed through centuries of observing the realities of human behavior.

Unfortunately, Neoreactionaries will have to consider what alternatives are possible to prevent modern women from destroying their families without current or medium term recourse to formal law. This will require the development of social technologies that reduce separation of couples independent of, and often despite, the legal system and the wider culture. The destabilizing incentives of legal marriage should be actively and aggressively avoided by forbidding community members from entering state recognized marriages.  Once Marriage 2.0 was abolished, it could be replaced with a community specific and socially enforced alternative that resembles marriage 1.0. Should a woman exit the community and attempt to use the outer culture to confiscate her ex-husband’s property and children, community solidarity and resistance could be an option.

Being extra-legal, ensuring female adherence to the neoreactionary norms will necessarily require the social technology to utilize an exceptionally accurate understanding of female psychology. The three most important points follow:

  1. Women with multiple sexual partners are much more likely to cheat and/or divorce.
  2. Women are herd animals and will mimic the actions of other women in the herd.
  3. Being herd animals, women innately possess a profound fear of being cast out of the of their communities.

From this, there are two corollaries:

  1. The risk of a couple divorcing increases greatly when a woman’s close friends or relatives divorce.
  2. The risk of being sexually promiscuous is greatly increased when a woman’s peers are promiscuous

A woman with a history of promiscuity, cheating, or divorce simply can’t be admitted under any circumstances and should not be interacted with by members of the community. Empirically, a man’s risk of divorce is not increased by his sexual history so past sexual restraint for men who might join is more optional, assuming he is willing to reform himself (Edit: This claim is not as strong as originally thought). Should a member of the community separate from or cheat on their partner, or become promiscuous outside of marriage, they would have to be expelled, shunned, and never interacted with by members of the community again. Not only will this ensure separation from the outer culture is maintained, but it will also capitalize on the primordial fear women have of being excluded from the herd. If the women of the community see that the consequence of dalliance and the destruction of family is complete expulsion from the entire social community, they will dread doing those things and avoid them at all costs.

The most likely way to begin establishing this sort of community is through the church. However, even most churches now support frivolous divorce so Christian neoreactionaries will have to form entirely new churches from scratch to begin enforcing the separation from progressive culture. Only once a neoreactionary social institution that socially enforces strict rules with regard to marriage and sexuality, and by necessity strong separation from the outer culture, will it be responsible for the neoreactionary to advocate marriage to men.  An entire community can succeed where individual men can not, and this is an atavision worth working towards.

The superficial similarity of having the same goals conceals the chief difference between social conservatism and neoreaction. The conservative impulse to appeal to the irrational masses to persuade them to willingly adopt the values that are good for them is the source of their constant failure and ultimately why social conservatism (though not ex-social conservatives) is the enemy of neoreaction. Neoreactionaries prefer to only receive and accept into their communities those who already possess consistent values. Those with inconsistent values are simply excluded or expelled and are allowed join a community in the patchwork model they are better suited for.

Discussion of the red pill will continue in part 2.

Share Button