Social Conservatism’s denial of human nature

I have a serious distaste for Social Conservatives.
I always have. Historically, I lump several groups into this category. Religious, military, paramilitary, pest exterminators, the whole slew of them. They seem to derive pleasure from being confined within the suffocating walls of our illusive society and the rules and mores molded over centuries of complacent conformity. Each generation propels this mindset of right and wrong and shapes the present world with these indefinable (but very definable) social constructs which are treated as deified decrees.
Even Social Conservatives who lack religious fervor seem deeply buried in dogmatic masturbation. They entertain a narrow-minded focus which is ultimately ethnocentric, “Homocentric,” and “eracentric. The Social Conservative, so smugly set in his ways and joyously reveling in his idealogical fetishes. I suspect it’s their intellectual smugness that has always grated on my nerves.

Surfreading around much of the HBD/PUA/mansphere (it all chillingly overlaps), I usually experience a subdued distaste for many of the opinions and personalities without really bothering to examine why I experience such a reaction. It wasn’t until recently that discussions began floating around in the wake of the release of Sex At Dawn that many of the commenters in this section of the blogosphere felt incited to espouse their Social Conservatism. It was during one such reading period that I was struck by the realization of why I find these folks annoying: many of them are essentially Social Conservatives, albeit with a horrifyingly scientific or sexual bent.

Evolutionary concepts which draw oodles of righteous ire are egalitarianism, polyamory and jealousy.

The polarized schools of thought are signified. on one side, by those who believe egalitarianism and polyamory are natural, evolutionary-endowed states of biological and cultural existence. The opposing school argues that evolutionary evidence demonstrates humans are inherently hierarchical and “selfish.” Obviously, the latter is the mindset lusted over by the Social Conservative crowd. In a fashion resoundingly typical of the Social Conservative, modern (Agricultural) motifs and civilized behaviors are retroactively drawn over the raw nature of humanity and are thus declared gospel. Citizen Renegade enunciates this eracentric contrivance of instinctual human behavior that seeks to affirm itself by imprinting modern human behavior on the entirety of the human animal’s history, a creature, which incidentally, presents a genetic legacy molded over a prehistory that overshadows modernity as much as a hundredfold.

How, in a polyamorous society, are you going to arrange things so that women dispense their pussy equitably among high and low status men? As noted by the commenter, this would require some major group selection modulated behavior to be workable; a woman would fuck for the survival of the tribe, instead of the survival of her offspring. That would be awfully magnanimous of her! It’s like arranging a society where men are happy to boff fat, old and ugly chicks with equal attention to romantic detail that they give the hot young babes.

If anything, a culturally endorsed polyamorous dating market that virtually guaranteed a steady provider payout for disloyal, promiscuous women and their bastard spawn would help resolve the female tension for male commitment and good male genes in favor of the latter. Betas would be sexually shunned even more than they are now. LJBFing and undignified platonic beta orbiting would reach epic proportions. This blog would be classified as treason against the state and an incitement to rebellion and be shut down.

A happy hippie free love egalitarian commune it would not be. Widespread polyamorous practice where childrearing is done by the village and all men, uncertain of paternity, contribute resources to the well-being of the single moms and their unholy bastard squirtage, will not convince women to equally distribute their sexual favors among the men. Just the opposite; it would liberate women to single-mindedly pursue the few alphas in their purview, knowing full well that a beta blood-latticed safety net exists to protect them from destitution. In other words, socially-sanctioned and state-supported polyamory lets women have their cake and eat it, too. The only trade-off is that they will have to share scarce high value lovers with other women. Yet as any tour of a college campus will demonstrate, most women in their prime would prefer to share an alpha stud than extract commitment from a beta schlub. Until the wall looms, that is. Heh.

Now some of the things he brings up are inarguable, within the context of modern society.

Citizen Renegade is guilty of that special brand of closed-minded Socially Conservative talking points that I find espoused in these parts.

Witness the value-driven concepts and words in this excerpt. Concepts which are righteous within the 21st century context, but which, when templated over prehistoric man, simply wear the disingenuous and self-congratulatory charade of the typical repressed Social Conservative:

“high and low status men”: This is a tremendously value-driven concept of modernity. “Status” implies a standardized and memorialized social structure which simply is not likely to exist in a nomadic society which chases abundance of food and tolerance of environment. The concept of status is a fixed element existent only in an immutable and grounded society. When humans stick around long enough, their social nature adjusts, and just as a tree releases seeds to neighboring soil, so do humans imbue their environment with the seeds of their fixed nature. Status insinuates some sort of codified social construct; I suspect prehistoric man was quite a bit less constrained by his Priest or Emily Postian social niceties. Status was not necessary since social glue had nothing to adhere to.

“a woman would fuck for the survival of the tribe, instead of the survival of her offspring. That would be awfully magnanimous of her!” Another dose of bumbling trickery which the modern Social Conservative is fond of. The embellishment of rudimentary instincts with descriptors best suited for modern behavior. Magnanimous? Once again, I believe the 21st Century fixation (especially as exemplified by the presence of the PUA community) with sex, and all manners of attaining it, was simply not a predominant fixture of the prehistoric mentality. Social niceties, which I abhor, are flowery adornments we cloak our primal instincts with in order to mold them around our modern social drive to co-exist peaceably. In a permanent state of localized existence, peaceful cooperation (egalitarianism!!!!) is a prized invention. Nomadic hunter-gatherers would have had “bigger things to worry about” than hoisting sexual union as a declaration of egotistical supremacy. They weren’t big on “Field Reports!”

“If anything, a culturally endorsed polyamorous dating market that virtually guaranteed a steady provider payout for disloyal, promiscuous women and their bastard spawn would help resolve the female tension for male commitment and good male genes in favor of the latter. Betas would be sexually shunned even more than they are now.” Ha, say what? This is one of the more egregious examples of overlaying today’s dystopian mores over prehistoric social culture. An assertion of one school of thought is that prehistoric human society was “polyamorous.” This is merely a perspective of ancient history as it functioned then. Shaped, limited and freed by the nature of nomadic society, polyamory functions well and is the ideal vehicle by which evolution can express itself (with the ostensible aim to procreate). Only in the modern agricultural world which requires immutable relations and confined pairings in order to function optimally (and give Social Conservatives something to fixate on), is polyamory suddenly cast as a disruptive and unnatural state of affairs. And thus, the Social Conservative cites it as contrary to human nature.

An interesting note to this passage is the concept of “Alpha” and “Beta” males, a couple of terms which are ubiquitous in discussions batted about in the PUA/HBD communities.
I’m convinced that the Alpha and Beta designations, as they tend to be over-intellectualized in this arena, are unrealistic and inaccurate labels pinned on primitive behavior and which, for all intents and purposes, did not exist as we comprehend them now in prehistoric society. Alpha as defined today is largely behavioral; an intrinsic trait of the psyche. But the true nature of Alpha is physical. It is violence and might and strength. I don’t believe Alpha men competed with Beta men for prehistoric females to the degree glamorized in today’s appraisal. If the Alpha-Beta battle for females were factual, it would infer that prehistoric man was emotionally attached to prehistoric woman. Women of breeding age, considering the fact prehistoric man was not confined by social and legal restraints, were likely bountiful. Hardly a scarce resource. There was no reason for male Alpha expression in order to mate. Darwinism is not a tool of improvement or progress; it is a tool of adaptation. I highly doubt that within this “adaptation model,” humans were inherently designed to breed “high.” This is merely a value description. Perhaps natural instinct is to solely breed; perhaps, breeding “better” is not a hard-wired drive. As such, Alpha would be meaningless in the context of breeding. The nomadic nature of hunter-gatherers brought drove them regions where resources were plentiful. When insects and other distasteful (to our palates) are included, it’s most likely prehistoric man rarely found himself in situations where food or women were scarce. Scarcity is the motivator for a delineation of the Alpha/Beta polarity.

“Widespread polyamorous practice where childrearing is done by the village and all men, uncertain of paternity, contribute resources to the well-being of the single moms and their unholy bastard squirtage, will not convince women to equally distribute their sexual favors among the men.” If ever there was a term which so perfectly encapsulated Biblically acculturated designations of worth and non-worth, it is “bastard.” The notion of fixed and inflexible parental involvement strikes me as a gratuitous absorption with a society’s sense of inflated Christian mission. Look at this clearly. In a fixed, post-agricultural society where property is clearly demarcated and owned, possessions reign supreme. Possessions transcend all levels of existence. Land, food, tools…children. With such religious and institutionally-motivated society, the welfare of children is structured around layers of familial bonds and contracts. Did prehistoric man even have a concept of aunt or father-in-law? I highly doubt it. In such a fluid and transient existence, the drive to care for children existed, but it was not blueprinted within the artificial template of primary genetic relations. Why is it so difficult to swallow the fact that communal organization in such an “unstructured” environment was the optimal method of conducting society?

Doesn’t the phrase “single mom” necessarily denote an “institution?” In this case, marriage? Marriage, the most sanctimonious of civilized institutions and hence, the most artificial, designed to reinforce the hierarchical needs of unlayered man?

The social conservatives cite the incongruous and refined habits of the modern human as the ideal state of existence in order to glamorize his uncharacteristically confined prison that is our modern world. In order for man to deny his primitive nature (a very real need if he wishes to partake in this world), he needs to erect impermeable boundaries with which to contain himself.