Factors reducing the quality and quantity of right-wing leaders

Since anyone reading this is more or less familiar with Edenism, it’s very easy to describe “rightism”. We need only define it as the politics of the extreme male brain.

The nature of leadership, across domains, is making decisions for groups of people, and enforcing those decisions with social dominance and popular support. The idea, generally, is to make better decisions for the crowd than crowd wisdom. It’s better to have no leadership than bad leadership, which may mean deficiencies in any of the requirements stated above.

The classic wisdom-of-the-crowds finding involves point estimation of a continuous quantity.


Therefore, what crowds are extremely good at is *valuations*. Also the following types of problems:

  1. Combinatorial problems such as minimum spanning trees and the traveling salesman problem.
  2. Ordering problems such as the order of the U.S. presidents or world cities by population.
  3. Multi-armed bandit problems, in which participants choose from a set of alternatives with fixed but unknown reward rates with the goal of maximizing return after a number of trials.


In further exploring the ways to improve the results, a new technique called the “surprisingly popular” was developed by scientists at MIT’s Sloan Neuroeconomics Lab in collaboration with Princeton University. For a given question, people are asked to give two responses: What they think the right answer is, and what they think popular opinion will be. The averaged difference between the two indicates the correct answer.

This is the best model for predicting presidential elections. It may also remind you of the tension between id and superego described by Freud. As things stand, you get better predictions from “what they think popular opinion will be”. That’s because this question reveals the id, i.e. revealed preferences. And as Adam Curtis informed us in The Century of the Self – Part 4: “Eight People Sipping Wine in Kettering”, modern people are very comfortable saying one thing in public and then voting for their self-interest in private.

In fact, Woodley recently noted a study where “prosocial” purchasing decisions (like buying “green” or “local” or whatever) were only driven by observer effects. For example, people would only choose things that would make them look good if they knew other people were watching them. So if you were to run one of those predictive Amazon engines (“you may also like…”) it would start preferentially showing people other “green” options if their purchasing history could be seen by others, but otherwise they would revert to buying SUVs, Wal-Mart brands, and other self-interested things. This is a good indication of where crowd wisdom fails.

The shortcomings of crowd wisdom are as follows:

1) Short-sighted, unable to navigate situations that require morality, group cooperation or anticipation of consequences

2) Materialistic, self-interested, and irreligious

3) Unable to evaluate character versus reputation (i.e. the masses are easily fooled by professional “confidence men”, aka “conmen”)

Arguably the latter is the most important reason for having leaders. Ordinary people are simply unable to value other people correctly. In aggregate they will always fall for conmen, elevate psychopaths, and isolate and kill genuine prophets. More to the point, “Americans love a winner.” Dark tetrad traits are individually selected, which is another way of saying “winner traits”. Crowd wisdom is therefore unable to make group-selected decisions. Unfortunate! But this is the reality. Americans have this reputation because we’ve always been democratic, but this is true of every nation that ever came down with a case of democracy.

So the thinking is that natural leaders will emerge that are increasingly defined by dark tetrad traits (with the subsequent opportunism winning out over any kind of long-term plnning for the public intereest) and rightist leaders will increasingly become grifters until either A) rightism becomes irrelevant in this country or B) the grift goes on until they become official members of the grift we call the political class


That’s the logic, yes. Or you could just say the observation, since it’s already well underway.

Dutton also mentioned something interesting recently: the leadership caste tends to have some high-functioning autistic traits like systemizing. He cited Thatcher and Enoch Powell as examples, noting the latter likely had full-on Asperger’s. The reason for this is that people with Asperger’s have a greater possible ceiling on their social skills, since they can observe in a disinterested way and thus develop a more precise, scientific understanding. This could be compared to the inability of natural pick-up artists to truly compete with those who apply themselves to learn pick-up as a skill. I believe this came up in the video “Why All Non-Autistics Are Liars”, but it was definitely one of the most recent 3.

That said, in order to meet the requirement for enforcing one’s political platform via social dominance and broad popularity, a person also has to be dark triad. There thus appears to be a need for leaders with both qualities of judgment, discernment for deeper insight, and discrimination to predict crowd opinion. More broadly, a leader would need both the autistic traits which support political effectiveness and the dark triad traits which support political effectiveness.

Example of good autistic trait for this purpose: Disinterested observation of humans.

Example of bad autistic trait for this purpose: Otherworldliness.

Example of good dark triad trait for this purpose: Unapologetic.

Example of bad dark triad trait for this purpose: Impulsiveness.

Now then, actually getting around to some of the factors that have been impeding the production of such people…Broadly:

  • Genetics
  • Ideology (Christianity -> leftism, i.e. de facto materialism combined with social insularity leading to exploitation of Christian memes as moral justification for individualist hypocrisy over socially responsible behavior)
  • Comfort and convenience
  • Oversocialization (ref. Ted Kaczynski)

Genetically, there are three subfactors:

1) Degeneration of prosocial temperaments, proliferation of spiteful mutants.

2) Genetic splitting of the political right and left, so that autistic traits and dark triad (i.e. “neurotypical”/homo sapiens) traits are found together even more rarely than before.

3) Simple loss of IQ, which is necessary to support the confluence of rare traits in a complementary way. This is similar to the need for high intelligence in order for conscientiousness or associative horizon to be useful and complementary traits.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Factors reducing the quality and quantity of right-wing leaders

  1. MM says:

    Very interesting post

    >Arguably the latter is the most important reason for having leaders.

    ironically also why most leaders suck (this was all but spelled out but I just HAD to explicitly say it because gay aids)

    >modern people are very comfortable saying one thing in public and then voting for their self-interest in private.

    The most important form of “voting” is with your actions (“vote with your feet, vote with your dollars, etc.). Revealed preferences show conservatives will only ever do this if their identity is threatened to the point that to not do so would no longer allow them the illusion of their self conception (see boycott of Gillette, NOT Amazon; etc, etc…). Action as a whole is incredibly tilted towards “anti leftist”, not “pro conservative” (see, any conservative alternative to anything ever and how little support it got).

    Paraphrasing what I said in “On Conservative Cowardice” (good idea, poorly written post):

    The crux of the ‘leadership’ problem, in reality, is that the modern conservative cares more about their comforts than they ever will about their family, America, or “the white race”. Soldier-tier liberals are stupid enough to buy their own bullshit (and even sacrifice themselves), whilst the common conservative has internalized the modern world and the death of transcendent meaning (I would love to believe otherwise, but I am going by the revealed preference…)

    “come home white man, itz over”

    “I’ll be poolside”

    *almost every episode of murdoch murdoch*

    Liberals and conservatives are both sanctifiers of death.

    The christian, almost explicitly, only puts up enough resistance to (feel as if they!) satisfy God.

    past MM: Everyone is playing the same game. “How little risk can I be subject to for the greatest possible rewards? I am willing to do anything”

    Things MIGHT change when the id’s calculus changes. IE- people are getting killed.

    A right wing leader’s job right now is to have the infrastructure in place when the calculus changes, do thinking n shieet, and form an IRL group of “the boys” out of at least trying to ensure small-group survival (and thus PERSONAL survival; the tree stump is only a grave) into the future.

    (“Example of good dark triad trait for this purpose: Impulsiveness.” Is this an error?)

    • MM says:

      >Liberals and conservatives are both sanctifiers of death.

      Conservatives in having no “yes” for life.

      Liberals in literally trying to create transcendent meaning through death; anti-natalism, gaia cult/global warming, the elevation of spiteful and destructive narratives and identities as SUPERIOR to ones that are objectively more functional for the average person.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >(“Example of good dark triad trait for this purpose: Impulsiveness.” Is this an error?)

      Oops, yeah that was a copypasta mistake.

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 )

Connecting to %s