Ironies

There are a number of “inconvenient truths” inherent in matchism. While some might call these inconsistencies or even hypocrisies, it’s probably most accurate to call them”ironies”:

  1. The quickest way to get a new movement rolling is to have a charismatic leader, particularly one willing to use authoritarian techniques to create and maintain group harmony. But this kind of leader would have to be a SDAP, the kind of leader that matchism is specifically designed to eliminate or at least marginalize.
  2. Other accouterments that most movements acquire relatively early on, such as flags, slogans, anthems, etc. should also be rejected by matchists because they are examples of tribalism, a replism that matchist systems again are design to specifically constrain.
  3. Matchism will generally be perceived as an egalitarian movement (everyone shares power), yet the decisionmaking system is highly dependent upon “elites” who will develop the proposals, provide most of the pro/con analysis, and indeed cast the majority of the direct votes.
  4. The Managers will also be elites, and yet the construction impressive buildings/statues/monuments that are frequently associated with “leaders” should be highly discouraged because they obscure the essential fact that Managers are just employees of The People and nobody builds monuments to employees.
  5. A fundamental observation in matchism is that there is a need to include in the design ways to marginalize Authoritarians, a group that for tens of thousands of years has been the major instigator in the marginalization of other groups. Piled on top of that is the irony that the structure and implementation of matchism will be derived using science and reason, tools that authoritarians typically reject as being invalid in favor of religion, instinct, or other a priori sources of authority. Layer on top of that the fact that “Political Correctness”, that philosophical promotion of equality and tolerance of diversity, that the SDAPs have long railed against, cannot be called upon to save them from this fate now that they could really use it. Neurotypicals should not lose any sleep over this turnabout, as it is indeed fair play, and can rest assured that we will treat them far better than they have ever treated us. Although it may seem merely convenient to have a boogieman toward which to direct our anger, and many will dismiss this proposal as almost cliche (i.e., just as Hitler had his Jews and the communists their intellectuals and bourgeoisie, we’ve got our authoritarians), it’s different this time because we’ve actually scientifically identified the source of our problems.
  6. As protest songs like Lady Gaga’s Born This Way seek to instill self-confidence in individuals who are traditionally subject to prejudice, what about authoritarians, many of whom were simply born to be prejudiced? Does this sort of Political Correctness apply even for those with innate personality characteristics that the Political Correctness is intended to suppress? How is it fair that a man who likes to dress as a woman is to be allowed the freedom to do so without fear of disparagement, but if an authoritarian expresses instinctive and deeply felt discomfort with that kind of a display, it’s a hate crime? Part of the process of reconciling these contradictions will involve figuring out ways to allow expression of feelings that may simply be unpopular (and so cannot be prohibited by law) but are not directly harmful to The People as a whole. This sort of a “relief valve” may cause discomfort in others in some cases, but it would seem necessary to allow authoritarians, who are the traditional keepers of the moral codes in our societies, to feel comfortable that at least their positions are being taken into account. This will not only improve their morale, but will also work to prevent them from seeking a secretive and more harmful outlet for these feelings (e.g., joining the KKK or a neo-Nazi group). And of course these expressions of discomfort also serve an additional purpose: They serve to bind The People together because everyone has feelings that conflict with societal norms, and suppressing them not only doesn’t make them go away, but can cause them to fester and grow to the point that they eventually emerge in inappropriate or even dangerous behavior (see the Deprecated Replism regarding hiding one’s imperfections).
  7. Social Justice Warriors (SJWs), self-appointed champions of the oppressed, who will reliably attack these social conservatives, are typically highly authoritarian themselves, albeit left-authoritarian rather than the more common right-authoritarian. They exhibit exactly the same degree of prejudice and insistence on conformity as high RWA individuals, only the sign is changed: Their ingroup defines itself by their opposition to social conservatives. They present the same danger to The People that social conservatives do, but fortunately can be controlled by the same mechanisms (e.g., feedback from neurotypicals that their positions are not mainstream, and ensuring that their vote counts by their numbers, not their level of involvement).

Next: Talking Points