The Conservative as Essentially Female.

Short post.

inspirational post which you might find in a community college bathroom.

Around 2017, I began to experiment with the concept of a “deep right” and “deep left.” Sociologically, I began to see “leftism” as a fundamentally conservative project. It attracted women, who are psychologically conservative.

What I mean by “psychologically conservative” is that women are more fearful of violating established norms and fashions. Men are much more willing to engage in violence, or say ethnic slurs, or “troll” people. Women are more pro-social, which also means they are more agreeable and conformist.

Historically, for women, risky behavior has little to no payoff, while for men, risky behavior could potentially result in explosive profit.

Imagine a woman living in a hunter-gatherer society. If she goes out into the wilderness, and kills a mammoth, she could feed her tribe, and gain renown. She might, as a result, have a few more children than average — 8, let’s say, instead of the usual 4. But if she fails, she could get injured and die, reducing her number of children to 0.

On the other hand, if a man goes out and kills a big game animal, he might become a chief and gain access to multiple women in the tribe. Whereas before, he was not likely to reproduce, now he might acquire multiple women. Essentially, women are born with naturally high status, due to their inherent reproductive worth. Men, on the other hand, must go from “zero to hero,” as they are born with low inherent worth.

Sociologically, this less true in hunter-gather societies, and most true in nomadic, warrior-aristocratic, pastoralist societies, such as the Turks, Indo-Europeans, Mongols, Tibetans, Maasai, Berbers, and Davidic¹ culture. It is least true in agricultural, sedentary, risk-avoidant societies, such as ancient India and China.

We should expect that populations descended from pastoralists should show much greater selection for risk-taking behavior, while those descended from agriculturalists should see selection against risk-taking behavior. One possible confirmation of this hypothesis would be the overrepresentation of Scandinavians in extreme sports, like mountain climbing or crocodile wrangling.

All social revolutions, from Pythagoras to Plato, to the cult of Dionysus and Zoroaster, the Indo-European invasions, the rise of Christianity, nominalist philosophy, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the progressive movement, scientific racism, communism, anarchism, fascism and National Socialism, the sexual revolution of the 1960s, and even “wokism” can all be attributed, in their earliest and most foundational stages, to men.

When a social movement finally “breaks out” and becomes successful, it is adopted by women. Leftism, in its inchoate form, is necessarily masculine, and it only later gains a feminine character due to its integration into the establishment.

This became evident in 2020 with the BLM protests and social media campaigns, in which white women made themselves prominent participants. In my theory, the “deep left” is the element of human psychology which is revolutionary, while the “deep right” is the tendency to suppress free thought in favor of dogma. Women, by and large, are inherently “deep right,” while the “deep left” is a domain for a select few men.

To the extent that some men are obsessed with law and order, family values, and conservatism, I view them as being less sexy versions of women. To the extent that some men risk their lives and put it all on the line for utopian or idealistic visions, I view them as being even hotter than women.

With all of this said, there is an extent to which the worship of masculine rebellion against society can become pornographic. Spamming racial slurs in the comments section “appears” very transgressive and offensive, but whenever I see that sort of behavior, I see it as performative and narcissistic.

Anonymous trolls who post the edgiest jokes are motivated by a desire to seem masculine, but they aren’t thinking beyond their own narcissistic self-satisfaction. In comparison, people who wrangle crocodiles and climb mountains are some of the least narcissistic people — they do it to challenge themselves. They enjoy the thrill of the game outside of any desire to be perceived.

The most radical right-wing trolls, who spam Substack comments sections with slurs and death threats, are the most similar in psychology to transgender people. Both groups are obsessed with being seen and perceived. Both get off, sexually, to the idea of offending the opposite side. This isn’t the deep leftism I had in mind.

Instead, true rebellion requires a kind of distance from one’s own ego. It’s not about upsetting your parents or 3rd grade teacher. Rather, it’s about discovering the gerontocracy in its essence, dissecting it, and revolting against it at the deepest level, that of the spiritual and the intellectual. Writing a dissertation is more genuinely leftist than simply offending people.

On the other hand, many people writing dissertations are only doing so for the certificate of the PhD: they are signaling. And as we have been learning, signaling is pro-social and womanly, and not deep leftist at all. Therefore, the most deep left thing of all is to write one million words and never get a PhD.

There are limits to this kind of binary thinking, because society devoid of women and pro-social elements devolves into a Ragnar Redbeard fantasy. Pacifism is an important part of why leftists beat conservatives; war-like tribes and bands are unable to unite cohesively, and will lose against larger empires.

But I think once we identify the five elements where leftists win (pacifism, feminism, taxes, universalism, tolerance), this still leaves a lot of room for deep leftism. We can respect the role of “psychological conservatives” in keeping day-to-day society running, while also recognizing the need to direct them toward higher ends. Humanity gains beauty by aspiring for something beyond the bourgeois.

Deep leftism is an attempt to square the circle, by allowing the normie-lib to do their thang, while also plotting in the shadows to create human-animal hybrids. Deep rightism, by contrast, is the mobilization of narcissistic trolls to sabotage technological progress.

To the extent that I respect conservatives, it is when they are promoting pro-social things, like being a good parent, following the law, or working hard. Dissident right types might be more psychologically similar to me (rebellious), but they are more politically problematic.

On the other side of things, I think most liberals are essentially conservative in their disposition. They enjoy things to be “by the book,” they like regulations, they like to categorize and make sex “safe.” This is the lamest part of the left and I don’t have much in common with Lesbian Karens. But I recognize that you can’t have a society without these people.

What about “dissident left” types, like Marxists? Unfortunately, these people are the worst of all: they take 3rd grade morals about equality and fairness and amplify them with cartoonish vandalism and violence, mixing the aesthetics of self-mutilation and obesity.

Back in the 1960s, the job of the CIA (Deep State) was to infiltrate the left-wing and turn it away from Marxism toward feminism and gay rights. I think they did a great job, and I want to continue this work. This is also what I mean by Deep Left: an attempt to supplant and crowd out the Marxists by focusing on things like free trade and immigration.

What really strikes me about the Founding Fathers is how they combined a culture of risk-taking together with universalism and tolerance. George Washington is peak Deep Leftism. As generally happens, institutions degrade over time, and America today is nowhere near as open or dynamic as it was in 1776. Still, I honor the American Empire as having the purest Deep Left origins. Certainly I don’t look toward China or Russia as being a better alternative.

America or bust. We fight for a better world, or die trying.

Thanks for reading.

If you enjoyed this, remember that paid subscribers get access to over 80 hours of paywalled interviews, as well as paywalled posts in the bonus section every month. You can help spread this article by liking, commenting, or restacking. Thank you!

1. I use “Davidic” to refer to the Levantine pastoralists who contributed to the foundations of Judaism, but who are clearly distinct from the theocratic or mercantile urbanism which arose later on.