A “Holiness Spiral” in Evolutionary Biology

Eliezer Yudkowsky’s unnerving example of mouse biology:

There is a segregation-distorter on the male sex chromosome of some mice which causes only male children to be born, all carrying the segregation-distorter. Then these males impregnate females, who give birth to only male children, and so on. You might cry “This is cheating!” but that’s a human perspective; the reproductive fitness of this allele is extremely high, since it produces twice as many copies of itself in the succeeding generation as its nonmutant alternative. Even as females become rarer and rarer, males carrying this gene are no less likely to mate than any other male, and so the segregation-distorter remains twice as fit as its alternative allele. It’s speculated that real-world group selection [among reproductively isolated populations] may have played a role in keeping the frequency of this gene as low as it seems to be. In which case, if mice were to evolve the ability to fly and migrate for the winter, they would probably form a single reproductive population, and would evolve to extinction as the segregation-distorter evolved to fixation.

That is, this allele does very well reproductively until it destroys the entire population of which it’s a member because there are no females left. Obviously this example doesn’t involve politics, but it has similar dynamics: Something that does well for the individual (gene or person) in the short run, while eating away at the individual’s own foundations. In the case of the mice it’s a gene that eliminates females; in the case of our current holiness spiral it’s white people shouting that white people are evil and should be attacked. Saying things like that identifies one as safely leftist(*) in the haute reaches of western culture these days. But of course it destroys one’s safety in the long run.

A holiness spiral has the aspect of being in the ocean on a raft, and hacking away at the raft with an axe because it somehow helps you in the short run, even as it guarantees your death in the long run. E.g. there are a bunch of people on the raft, and somehow a convention has gotten established that they single out the person who’s hacking away at the raft with the least enthusiasm and attack him. Everybody wants to hack at the raft at least as enthusiastically as everyone else. If they think about it at all, they’re thinking, “Sure, this behavior will guarantee that we all die eventually, but if I stop hacking I’ll die right now.”

Yudkowsky also mentions the possibility of viruses greedily killing their host before they can propagate to another host. Basically there’s no reproductive benefit to an individual member of the virus from reproducing slowly to keep the host alive: The other viruses also reap the benefit of the “prudent” one’s restraint, and they reproduce faster than the prudent one. So, prudent virus genes are out-selected. Given that, the surprising observation is that any illnesses ever propagate before killing their host. Yudkowsky: “I don’t know if a disease has ever been caught in the act of evolving to extinction, but it’s probably happened any number of times.”

* Comparatively safe. Fortunately, as the holiness spiral becomes ever more insane, it becomes ever less safe even to be a leftist. This reduces the incentive to engage in leftist holiness signaling, so is one of the things which may rescue us as people choose up sides in the impending civil war.

Why is fertility lower among high-status women?

Why is fertility lower among high-status women than low-status women? It’s not just a weird unfortunate coincidence. It’s because they’re high status. Female hypergamy means that the number of men a high-status woman regards as worthy of her are smaller. It’s a terrible thing for a woman to be high status. It hurts her reproductive success. And so it hurts the reproductive success of the population of which she’s a member.

Men and women are different in terms of everything, including the effect of their social status on their reproductive success.

Look at human history with Darwinian eyes. (If you’re an evolution denier, look with Chesterton’s Fence eyes.) As far as can be told from history, women are by default lower status than men in all societies that existed up to around 1900. Why? Not because those horrid men forced them all into low-status roles. All? Seriously, all? In every society in the history of the world? Please. Nothing is “all” in the world of social phenomena. No, indubitably there were some societies just like ours in which deluded social innovators allowed and encouraged women to have high social status. Those societies are gone now.

Because those societies in which women had higher or even equal status by default were outbred. They’re not around any more. They didn’t even survive long enough to leave a noticeable presence in the historical record.

Let us pause to refute some feminist idiocy on this topic. God knows they make it easy.

The fuck-witted feminist account of all this is this: “In earlier eras, men were higher status than women because men— those brutes!— kept women down with overwhelming physical force. But now, in our modern society, this is not relevant any more.” Why not? Anyway, notice how stupid this is, if you just think about it instead of mindlessly repeating it: Men kept women down by physical force? Really? No they didn’t. What the hell? I love this notion that the average woman was thirsting to be a sailor on a whaling ship but the men used violence to prevent her from doing so. Or the average woman yearned to be a statistician in the actuarial department of an insurance company but those violent men beat her senseless until she stopped trying it. Fucking LOL. In fact, it is the opposite: In the modern world it takes a constant barrage of one-sided propaganda just to make some women think they want to do such things.

Also: Were the highest-status men in the last few millennia the ones who were biggest and toughest? Did you get to be Pope or Corporate CEO or College President by beating up other men? Or even credibly threatening to do so? Bitch, please.

Also notice that this whole moronic feminist argument contradicts the other, opposite feminist argument, that women should be in combat positions in the military because they’re just as good in a fight as a man. Well, which is it? Did men use their superiority in physical conflict to keep women down? Or are women just as good in a fight as men?

Feminists. Jesus. Stop trying to make arguments, sugar-tits. You’re just not very good at it. Now quit being such a skirt and get me a beer; I want something to drink while you’re blowing me.

So that “argument” makes no sense. No, the reason we see no historical societies in which women had higher or equal status compared to men, is that they didn’t breed enough to leave a noticeable presence in the historical record. And the reason for that, or a main reason for it, is that female hypergamy means that high female status is highly contra-reproduction. Lethally so.

The only antidote to the contra-natalist tendency of high female status, that has worked empirically, is a set of social conventions and traditions in which (1) husbands automatically have higher status than wives, and (2) fathers can marry off daughters even if the daughter thinks the prospective husband isn’t good enough for her. In that way the deadly poison of female hypergamy is rendered irrelevant. In a society with these two features, even a girl who is born a heir presumptive to the crowns of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Ireland can be induced to squeeze out baby after baby, enough for seven of them to survive to adulthood.

A Woman Fumbles with Female Sexuality

The authoress of the excerpted post wants you to believe that women would find this guy attractive because he seems like a stable Dad type.

This chick tries to figure out a certain aspect of female sexuality, the attracted-to-irresponsible-cads thing. I quote from her post (editing for brevity) and add a some comments. An interesting aspect of it is that she seems to be honestly trying to figure herself out, but she fails disastrously. It’s amazing how opaque evolution has made women to themselves.

Or maybe she’s just lying. As always on these topics, it’s hard to tell; the distinction between female deception of men, and female self-deception, is fuzzy.

Fuckers Vs. Raisers

One day in a stereotypical medieval town, a bard comes through.

This is a very sexy bard, violet-eyed, good with a lute, and experienced in the ways of women. During his short stay he sleeps with four of the village wenches, and then bounces off to a new village, to seduce more wenches. Years later, a new child with violet eyes is running around. Life goes on.

There are two sexual strategies for men – Fucking and Raising. Fuckers, like our friend the Bard, do the ol’ fuck-and-run. Move frequently, shoot seed everywhere, and hope that this results in violet-eyed toddlers getting raised by other men. Raisers, by contrast, shoot seed into comparatively few women and end up raising the children they produce.

My question then is why are women attracted to Fuckers? Is there any female advantage to this?

Your scenario itself answers this: If you have a caddish violet-eyed son by this man, that son will run around all over the world spraying his, and therefore your, genes around. It’s not a mystery.

Having a child by a Fucker is dangerous – if she doesn’t have a Raiser lined up, then she’s on her own, and historically this is Very Bad News. If she does have a Raiser and he finds out the child isn’t his, again – Very Bad News.

Sure, it has potential downsides, but it also has potential upsides.

So when the Bard fingers his lute, why do all the women around him sigh?

I think their sighs don’t have anything to do with the fact he’s a Fucker – I think it’s because his traits, if they were present in a Raiser, would be ideal. He’s presenting confidence, skill, and high social standing. If a Raiser like that moved into town, all of the women would be trying to wife themselves at him like crazy. The Bard also is a potential Raiser in the women’s eyes, and he probably has to emphasize that idea in order to get her to sleep with him.

Sorry, no. Common experience refutes this idea. Here’s a question for you ladies: What would be your reaction to each of the following statements by the bard? The context is that you’ve been talking to him one-on-one after his performance at the tavern, for about half an hour, and so far you think he’s sooooooo dreamy! Statement #1: “I’m basically looking for a wife. I’m a solid guy, and I want a family.” Statement #2: You ask him if he has a girlfriend, and he gives a knowing smirk and says, “I’m not really the boyfriend type.” The question for you ladies – no lying! – is, Which statement would get your pussy wet? WAIT, STOP! I didn’t ask, Which statement do you think SHOULD get you wet, but Which statement would actually, in reality, get you wet? Never mind; don’t bother answering; every man who studies women objectively already knows the answer.
I have more to say about this at the end of this post.

This is maybe where the trope of “guy tells girl he loves her in order to sleep with her” comes from. [That is in fact the exact opposite of what works in seducing a woman.] Women don’t want to fuck Fuckers [This statement is an outrageous falsehood], but they will fuck Fuckers disguised as Raisers.

Okay I am done writing now but I don’t know how to do a closing paragraph. I don’t really want to learn.

LOL, I like her last two sentences.

Anyway, on Fuckers vs. Raisers, where she says that what a woman really wants is a raiser, and that fuckers only get sex by presenting themselves as raisers: This is blatantly false. I was in five or six bands in high school and college. Yes, this is great for your sex life. But while it’s good for getting laid in any situation, where it works like a nuclear dynamite LSD supernova is when you’re never going to be in that town again, and the girl knows it. It’s a whole ’nother fucking dimension when you’re playing a one-night-only gig. You have to beat the pussy off with a bat in those circumstances.

No girl in those situations was ever under any delusions that I was going to stick around later than the next morning at latest. But they threw themselves at me.

If you haven’t taken the red pill yet, grok that women are sexual creatures. Whenever they act like they’re “offended” that “women are sexualized,” etc., They. Are. Lying. Their. Asses. Off. They are lying. They’re lyyyyyyyyyyyyyyying.

Women in reality are much closer to women in porn than is commonly admitted by women, or understood by men.

As is so frequently the case, this post is a fantastic lesson in female delusionality about themselves. “I don’t want a fucker,” she tells herself. “I want a raiser!” Sure, if she’s had a couple of kids by a thug who jetted and now needs a sucker to help support them. But that’s not what she wants sexually. There’s a reason she had a couple of kids by the fly-by-night thug, and NO it wasn’t that she was deceived into thinking he was a raiser. If that were true she would have had the kids by an actual raiser. Funny how most of the time in those situations, the father is a fucker. So she was deceived, was she? Fuckers are better at presenting themselves as raisers than actual raisers are? LOL, no.

Why Women Should Love Game

What makes this photo hot? You already know, of course, but I’ll say it at the end of this post anyway.

Game constitutes the advent of a New Era. You have to spell New Era with capitals because it is a fundamental change in the nature of society. It is the return after a long hiatus of the age when men understood women just as well as women understood men.

Women have always known that men want young, beautiful pussy.

Now men know that women don’t want nice; they want alpha.

It is natural that women feel threatened by this development. It was an enormous advantage to women when they understood men but men did not understand them. By spreading the lie that women preferred beta behaviors (they expressed it more politely than that), women were able to accomplish two very valuable things for themselves:

(1) They were able to trick the betas into revealing themselves, so the women could avoid them and only have sex with alphas.

(2) They were able to get many things from supplicating betas: Free drinks, free car rides, free help moving furniture, the appalling emotional tampon aspect of their relationships with their beta male “friends,” etc.

So it is understandable that as women see this era slipping away, they will experience the anger and denial that often accompany loss. It is also natural that women will try to fight a holding action by engaging in intellectual counterwarfare to try to confuse the issue: “That only works on a small fraction of women with low self-esteem,” “That only works when women are young; it doesn’t work after college,” etc.

Yes, these reactions are natural, but actually women should be glad for the advent of game.


Because game constitutes the return of the Great Game.

The Great Game was the game of flirting and coyness, subtlety and indirection, pursuing and fleeing, and yes, some deception and lying, that was commonly understood in centuries past.

From now on, ladies, you’ll have worthy opponents in this game.

Finally! Think of it! As the new knowledge spreads, more and more men will actually be adept at the Great Dance. It’s possible that someday soon, the majority of men will know how to play the game! Think of the excitement! Think of the thrill of the chase and the counter-chase! Think of…


For ladies, there will be drama. The worst soap opera won’t hold a candle to your romance and sex life when much of the male sex has absorbed the lessons of game. What happens when most men, or even just a quarter of them, act like aloof, indifferent assholes? Oh my, the drama! Oh my, the heightened heart rate! Oh my, the damp panties! (Heh. Weren’t expecting me to say that last one, were you? You should have expected it: men who know Game know you.)

Remember how it was 15 or even 10 years ago? Men would do crazy things like offering to buy you drinks. Apparently some chicks could actually prompt a man by saying, “Want to buy me a drink?” and some would say, “Sure! What will you have?” (WTF?) If you’ve ever done this, ladies, that wasn’t really the answer you were hoping for, even if you told yourself it was. If men supplicate to you in ways like this (many men still do, even today), really you feel draining boredom and contempt for them.

Game is teaching men not to act like this. As the knowledge spreads, if you act like you expect a man to e.g., buy you a drink, more and more of them will snort and say “As if!” Think of the fun! Worthy opponents. All. Over. The. Place.

There are of course men who can’t or won’t see the truth of all this, for whatever reasons. But they out-select themselves from relevance in the sexual marketplace.

Now I know what you’re thinking: “But I liked the world in which most men could be manipulated with ease.” Yes, you did in a way, but it was your laziness that liked it. Admit it: the feelings of bored contempt you had for most men were not enjoyable. From now on, you’ll be tested, stretched. Too many men will be playing at too high a level for you to be a relationship couch potato. You will have to stretch your abilities and your knowledge of the opposite sex to the utmost in this new world. You think you don’t want such a world—your laziness resists—but really you yearn for it.

Everything we know about you, ladies, makes it obvious that you yearn for it. The general effectiveness of Game… the grouchiness and pissiness of women dealing with betas… their animated happiness when they’re interacting with alphas… the way a girl’s eyes sparkle sometimes when a man negs her.

Once you’re pulled off the couch and forced to test yourself, to get some exercise…

…you’ll realize you’ve never felt more alive.

In the photo: It’s the way their hands are.

Notes for Inexperienced Men on Making a Move on a Girl

Some thoughts prompted by Aidan Maclear’s Game test
His answer key is here:

The first question:

1) Imagine that you’re a very young man, still first year of college or the summer after highschool, and you’re not exactly bad with women, not an incel, not a virgin, but you know nothing of the dark arts, have swallowed the blue pill, so your true potential is held back. An attractive female friend who you had considered out-of-your-league invites you over to her house at night to hang out. You’re thinking “damn, she was into me after all, I’m getting some tonight”. But when you get there, she’s treating you like an asexual platonic friend, seemingly oblivious to the fact that the two of you are all alone in her house. You don’t feel any sexual tension from her end, i.e. she hasn’t shit tested you at all, and there’s no flirting going on, but nonetheless you push the thought of her tight curvy little ass out of your mind and have a fun time hanging out, drinking a little liquor, and watching movies. Later, you realize that the night is winding down without any progress, and if you want to fuck her, you need to do something soon. She’s sitting on the couch next to you, close enough that you smell her intoxicating scent, but not touching you. What do you do?

Some of Maclear’s commenters have misapprehensions about this situation, essentially seeing it as an almost-lost cause that requires some sort of desperate long shot. No, no, no!

One commenter said the correct answer to this (multiple-choice) question is
(d), since she’s out of your league.
Answer d is basically Just go for it, which is the correct answer, but this commenter’s reason for it is all wrong: However much sense a girl being “out of your league” might make in some contexts (a complicated topic), it doesn’t make sense when she has invited you over (at night, no less) with just the two of you there.

Another commenter:
1d) Direct action seems the only chance.
The situation is not at all so dire as to be melodramatically talking about “the only chance.”

Another commenter:
1: c, reality is you blew it but it’s worth a try.
No, no, no, no, no! This is very wrong! Pathologically wrong! Forgive me, if you chance to read this, but this view of things suggests you’re not very experienced with women.

The reality, based on experience:

1. When a girl deliberately maneuvers herself into being alone with you, she wants you to make a move.

2. Whatever you did earlier to make her attracted to you was the important part. Her wanting to fool around with you has little or nothing to do with how you make the move. She decided she wanted to screw you in the preceding hours, or weeks, or whatever.

3. Due to point 2, you have way more leeway than you might think in how you make the move, by which I mean the first overt physical move. (When I was single it was almost always going for the first kiss, though maybe single men these days just start by grabbing the girl’s clit, for all I know.) Your timing can be bad, your pass can be clunky, you can even screw up by talking about making a pass at her before you actually do it, and she’ll still enthusiastically go along with your move.

I’ve made all of these mistakes when I was young, and it only sort of mattered once. It was the talking one, where I asked a girl I liked (I was 14) “Can I kiss you?” She said “No.” That was that, but only for the moment: years later I had my cock in her mouth, so it wasn’t a lethal mistake in the long run. When I was in college I made similar mistakes on two separate occasions, and both times I got laid anyway. In both cases the girl had invited herself to my dorm room late at night. One of those times I actually said something like “Did you come here so we could fool around?” Now this is bad, for two reasons: One, it’s clunky and socially graceless; why not just make a move instead of talking about it? Two, being this explicit runs the risk of activating her anti-slut defense. She shrugged off my lack of smoothness and fucked me anyway.

I got laid the other time too, because that’s why each of those chicks had invited herself to my dorm room late at night in the freakin’ first place.

4. One time a girl invited me to her apartment for the weekend. That evening after dinner, before there had been any fooling around, we were lying/sitting on her bed talking when I just randomly, with no particular context, went for the kiss. We started making out. Later, after blowing me, she told me that my timing had surprised her. But that made no difference. Why do you think she’d invited me to her pad in the first place?

5. Some inexperienced men worry about the details of making that first move. People, this is the least important part of it. It’s actually the easiest and most fun part of the Great Dance. It’s almost trivial, really. Generating attraction, before that, is when all the important questions about you are answered in her mind.

Actually, let me qualify the statement “making that first move is actually the easiest and most fun part of the Great Dance.” I remember that it could be somewhat adrenalin-y when I was really young, like 12 or 14, and not very experienced. A young man has to just decide to go for it, just make yourself do it. It’s part of being a man (as opposed to merely a male human).

By the time I was in my twenties, I had a saying that the only thing that made my pulse rate rise from 71 beats per minute to 72 was making a move when I wasn’t sure how the girl would respond. It’s pure fun, once you’re experienced.

Making an overt move also is good even if she’s not actually into you, since games girls play that revolve around their being coy little flirts who aren’t really interested in you can be destroyed by simply going for the first kiss: A girl who’s not attracted to you won’t go let you jam your tongue down her throat. Then you can move on, avoiding a further waste of time.

One more thing: What about if you really thought she was attracted you, and you’re attracted to her, but your move is rejected? IMPORTANT TRUTH: This is not remotely as bad as you think it will be, if it has never happened to you before. Say you go in for the first kiss, she leans back and says, “What are you doing?” or “I just think of you as a friend” or whatever. It’s nothing. You’ll just handle it. You’ll just be like, “Oh, OK. Well, I’m gonna go hang out with my buddies at the bar.” Or whatever.

One of the most liberating things that ever happened to me was the first time I had a move shot down. I was disappointed, but not flustered. I was like, “THAT’s what I was thinking would be a big deal all that time? That’s nothing!” That’s when I started making more passes, and fooling around with more girls, because I realized that having a pass rejected is no big deal at all.

Also: When you look back on it later, you’ll regret the passes you might have made but didn’t, not the passes you made that got shot down.

Though now there’s the Title IX/Affirmative Consent stuff, which makes it harder for men. If you’re a college man in an “affirmative consent” state like California or New York, it may be more complicated for you. Or not. My advice would simply be to vet the girl before you make a move. Remember, the vast majority of women are not psychotic feminists; they’re not looking for an excuse to cry “Rape!” Weed out the crazies before it ever gets to the “making a move” stage.


Having a move rejected is not a big deal. You’ll just handle it. Don’t let that possibility stop you.

In making a move, most of the stuff that matters is in whatever generates attraction before you’re ever in a position (alone with her) to make a move. How you make a move is much less important. Women who want to have sex with you are incredibly forgiving if your pass isn’t perfect.

The U.S. is not a “proposition nation.”


The U.S. is not a “proposition nation.” If it were,

(1) its advocates would actually say what the proposition is,
(2) you’d have to swear adherence to that proposition to be a U.S. citizen.

The first of these is rarely true, and the second one is not true at all.

For example, if the proposition is that “the Constitution is good,” then why are people who call it “a worthless scrap of paper,” etc., allowed to remain American citizens?

These days, the phrase “proposition nation” is a propaganda phrase used by our enemies to deceive us. That may or may not have been true in the past, but I am talking about the situation now. Thus the actual content of the phrase “proposition nation” is, “You can be an American citizen whether or not you agree with the proposition.” This is, literally, the opposite of what “proposition nation” actually means (if it means anything).

Some people may try to get cute and argue that the proposition is the meta-proposition that people should be allowed to believe any proposition they want. But the modern left is explicitly against this idea, and is imposing ever-increasing restrictions on the advocacy of propositions the left disagrees with. Yet, none of the people who yap about “proposition nation” advocate stripping leftists who stifle others’ speech of their citizenship.

In summary: Not only is the notion of a “proposition nation” nonsensical, but apparently none of those who push that phrase are sincere about it.

Miscellany 16: Miscellany All Night, Every Night, Baby

(1) This news story has a bad immigrant AND a good gun. Double the political incorrectness!

Police in West Virginia say a man was trying to abduct a child at a mall when the mother stopped him by pulling out a gun.

News outlets report 54-year-old Mohamed Fathy Hussein Zayan of Alexandria, Egypt, was arraigned Monday night in Cabell County Magistrate Court on a felony charge of attempted abduction.

(2) From “Dirk Manly” in the comments at http://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/09/creepy-joe-is-done.html#comment-form

Perhaps you have seen or heard of a book from some years back: People of the Lie… Some people will gladly lap up any lie rather than the truth.
The “there’s at least 57 genders…maybe even millions!” crowd is a perfect example.

They know it’s a lie. They know that you know it’s a lie. But they’re going to continue spouting until it their last dying breath, because nothing warms their miserable hearts more than making you angry by dint of having to listen to their lies. Doubly so if you are coerced into silence and can’t voice an objection.

And if they can coerce you into repeating the lie….or ANY OTHER of the implausibly stupid lies coming from their camp, for that matter, then that makes their cold, blacker-than-coal hearts grow 3 sizes larger… for among other things, they are also emotional vampires…. what really picks them up is seeing someone who is feeling helpless, especially if they are the cause (in any way, large or small), for that person to feel helpless. What energizes them is running you down.

TL;DR: They GET OFF on creating misery.

(3) Flashback to July 2018: Victor Davis Hanson starts to notice the concept of a holiness spiral.

Hanson notes what the left wants these days—open borders, etc. —and notes that it’s not a winnable political program.

…progressives fear that their base will not allow them to move to the center to capture the old blue-collar white working class, or the Perot, Tea-Party and Blue Dog voter. Nor can they afford to move much further leftward, given they are increasingly dependent on Obama-like identity politics candidates without an Obama-like charismatic candidate.

Democrats privately acknowledge that Obama wrecked the Democratic Party—losing Congress, the presidency, state and local offices, and now the Supreme Court. But they must praise the forces of that wreckage and seek to trump them by becoming the party of hyper-identity politics. In other words, the Democrats know what sort of agenda might bring them back into power as it did in 1992. But they feel that Clintonesque cure is worse than the disease of being in the purer political wilderness without power.

So, for now, they rant, they rave, and they stew, accepting that they cannot do what might save them and therefore they only do more of what is destroying them.

They really are stuck in a holiness spiral.

The Dems contesting for the party nomination know that, e.g., taxpayer-funded health care for illegal immigrants is lethal political poison in Middle America. But they also know that they’ll never get to the general election if they don’t win the primary battle, and to win the primary battle they have to cater to the Democratic base. And the Democratic base is now vertiginously insane.

(4) What Knuckling Under to the Left’s Rhetoric Gets You:

Ivanka Trump on Twitter, August 4, 2019:

“White supremacy, like all other forms of terrorism, is an evil that must be destroyed.”

Hard-core leftist Reza Aslan in response:

Ivanka adopted leftist rhetoric (“white supremacy”), and that’s the result.



(5) The ideology doesn’t choose the person. The person chooses the ideology.

I used to think that ideas are determinative: An idea goes airborne in the intellectual environment. It latches on to someone and forces him to believe in it, unless he has a good enough critical faculty. Memetic infection, in other words. And that does happen sometimes.

But the reality is at least as much the opposite: Bad people seek out or create ideas that justify their badness. Some people are born parasites who want to grab your stuff. Thus they embrace Marxism or any other ideology whose last line is, “…therefore, you have the right to grab their stuff.” Relatively few people start with no desire to grab your stuff and are really convinced by Marxism to want to do so.

Thus refuting bullshit is a necessary condition for saving the world, since it can convince the convinceable, but not a sufficient one, because most of the enemy are not convinceable.

(6) On Civil War 2.0:

“A Theory of Power Wars,” by Herrera, Morelli, and Nunnari

Abstract: This paper provides a theory of how war onset and war duration depend on the initial distribution of power when conflict triggers a reallocation of power but the loser is not eliminated. In the model, players take into account not only the expected consequences of war on the current distribution of resources, but also its expected consequences on the future distribution of military and political power. We highlight three main results: the key driver of war, in both the static and the dynamic game, is the mismatch between military and political power; dynamic incentives usually amplify static incentives, leading forward-looking players to be more aggressive; and a war is more likely to last for longer if political power is initially more unbalanced than military power and the politically under-represented player is militarily advantaged.