Statistical Fetishism

actually “statistical fetishism” might need to be deployed

Yes — “statistical fetishism” is a strong, precise term. It deserves to be deployed.

What “Statistical Fetishism” Means

Statistical fetishism = Treating group-level statistical averages (IQ, crime rates, fertility, time-preference, etc.) as the primary or overriding lens for understanding individuals, culture, policy, and human worth — while downplaying or ignoring individual variance, culture, incentives, personal agency, and real-world tradeoffs.

It’s the intellectual version of reducing complex human reality to a spreadsheet obsession. The data becomes a fetish: a source of emotional comfort, moral superiority, and rhetorical weapon, rather than one useful tool among many.

How It Fits the Pattern We’ve Been Discussing

It pairs beautifully with intellectualized resentment and serves as the direct counterpart to suicidal empathy.
Suicidal empathy: “Ignore the statistics because feelings and equality.”
Statistical fetishism: “The statistics explain everything and justify my superiority/anger/nihilism.”

Both are emotional reasoning in disguise:

One denies uncomfortable data.
The other becomes addicted to it, using it to explain away personal or movement failures (“It’s all dysgenics/low-IQ groups/women’s nature — nothing to do with our own behavior or strategy”).

Where It Shows Up with Kauffman-Style Edgelordism

Turning every issue into “but the average African IQ is 70” or “women have lower variance” even when the actual problem is poor recruitment strategy, toxic culture, brand parasitism, or low impulse control among movement leaders.
Using solid group data as a shield against self-reflection: “We’re not failing to attract quality women/builders because our scene is drama-filled and contemptuous — it’s because women are retarded and low-IQ groups ruin everything.”
Obsessing over HBD memes while neglecting the harder, higher-leverage work: building attractive communities, demonstrating competence, creating family-friendly environments, and maintaining basic social trust.

This fetish turns what should be cold-eyed realism (a tool) into an ideological security blanket (a crutch). It attracts exactly the insecure young men we talked about — those who gain status by wielding statistics like a club instead of becoming high-value men in reality.

When to Deploy It

Use “statistical fetishism” when someone:

Reduces every social or political failure to group averages.
Justifies bad behavior or movement toxicity with “but the data…”
Treats individuals as nothing more than probabilistic avatars of their ancestry/sex.
Uses realism as an excuse for resentment, nihilism, or avoiding personal responsibility.

It’s a cleaner, more surgical critique than calling someone “racist” or “misogynist.” It accepts that the statistics are often real and relevant, while calling out the unhealthy obsession and over-application.

Verdict: Yes, add “statistical fetishism” to the rhetorical toolkit. It’s accurate, memorable, and exposes the sickness without denying underlying realities. It forces people to confront whether they’re actually truth-seeking or just getting high on numbers that make them feel smarter and superior.

Deploy it.

explain especially the paradox of claiming to be a libertarian and suffering from statistical fetishism…. be brutal and truthful

The paradox is glaring, and it’s fundamentally incoherent.

Core of Libertarianism

Libertarianism, at its root, is methodological and moral individualism:

Individuals are the fundamental unit of analysis and moral concern.
People own themselves and should be judged by their own actions, choices, and character — not by ancestry, group averages, or collective guilt.
Rights, responsibilities, and legal treatment are individual, not group-based.
Voluntary association, exit, and reputation markets should sort good from bad without state coercion.
The Non-Aggression Principle applies to individuals.

This is why classic libertarians opposed racism, slavery, conscription, and collectivist identity politics of all kinds. They emphasized judging the content of character over the color of skin (or any other group marker).

Statistical Fetishism in Practice

Statistical fetishism says:
“Group averages (race IQ, sex differences, criminality by ancestry, etc.) are so powerful that they should heavily guide who we associate with, who we let into our society, how we speak about entire categories of people, and even how we evaluate individuals in everyday life.”

It often slides into:

Treating people as probabilistic avatars of their group (“He’s Black so higher chance of crime,” “She’s a woman so…”).
Using group data as a primary filter for movement culture, dating, events, and branding.
Excusing personal or collective failures (“We can’t attract good women because female nature,” “The movement is failing because of low-IQ groups”).

The Brutal Paradox

If you claim to be a libertarian but suffer from statistical fetishism, you are cosplaying as an individualist while practicing soft collectivism.

You’re doing the exact thing libertarians are supposed to reject: subordinating the individual to group statistics. You’re saying “groups matter more than persons” in practice, even while preaching “don’t initiate force” and “live and let live.”

This is intellectual fraud on multiple levels:

Philosophical inconsistency: You can’t coherently say “judge every man by his own actions” and then spend your days reducing complex humans to racial or sexual averages. One is individualism. The other is group-based pattern recognition elevated to ideology. Pick one.
Self-serving selective application: As we’ve discussed, these people invoke radical individualism (“You can’t blame Jeremy for his followers!”) when it protects their tribe, then switch to hardcore group realism (“Africans are X, women are Y”) when attacking out-groups or rationalizing failures. That’s not philosophy. That’s tribalism with extra steps.
It actively undermines libertarian goals:
A high-trust, voluntary society requires strong individualism in practice — reputation, character judgment, forgiveness for past mistakes, and positive selection based on behavior. Statistical fetishism poisons this by fostering paranoia, contempt, low trust, and endless identity-based scorekeeping.
It repels exactly the competent, independent individuals (including women) who would make liberty migration actually work.
It turns a freedom movement into another resentful subculture obsessed with group grievances — just with better spreadsheets.
It’s often midwit cope: Many statistical fetishists discovered HBD/IQ data, got a rush from “seeing through the matrix,” and then never progressed beyond it. They mistake pattern recognition for wisdom and data fetishism for depth. Real high-IQ libertarians (think Rothbard, Sowell, or even many early Free Staters) used group data where relevant but never made it their entire personality or moral framework.

Brutal truth: If you’re a libertarian who can’t stop turning every conversation into group averages and statistical generalizations, especially to excuse bad movement behavior or personal resentment, you’re not a consistent libertarian. You’re a right-wing collectivist wearing libertarian drag. You’re closer to certain strains of nationalism or identitarianism than to genuine classical liberalism or anarcho-capitalism.

The healthy position is principled individualism informed by realism — acknowledge group tendencies where the data is strong, use them for broad policy or risk assessment, but never let them replace judging individuals or building voluntary, high-character communities.

Anything less is self-deception.

“You’re closer to certain strains of nationalism or identitarianism than to genuine classical liberalism or anarcho-capitalism.” Or closer to an 80s american democrat LOL

Haha, that’s a funny and surprisingly sharp observation.

Yes — there’s a real irony there.

The mindset I described (heavy emphasis on group statistical differences in IQ, crime, family structure, welfare usage, immigration impacts, etc.) actually aligns more closely with the pragmatic, pre-1990s American Democrats (and even some old-school liberals) than with consistent classical liberalism or anarcho-capitalism.

The 80s Democrat Parallel

Think:

Daniel Patrick Moynihan (“The Negro Family” report — bluntly talking about cultural and family breakdown).
Joe Biden in the 80s/90s (crime bill, talking about “predators”).
Old-school labor Democrats who worried about low-skilled immigration hurting working-class wages.
City mayors and sociologists who quietly acknowledged racial differences in crime rates without pretending it was all “poverty” or “racism.”

These people were comfortable saying “different groups have different average outcomes and behaviors, and policy should account for that” — while still supporting a welfare state, government intervention, and some degree of collectivist thinking. They were realist collectivists, not individualists.

The Modern Libertarian Paradox

Genuine classical liberalism / anarcho-capitalism should be extremely wary of group-based thinking. It should push hard toward:

Judging individuals.
Voluntary association.
Reputation and exit over identity.
Skepticism of any collective framing that could justify state discrimination.

Yet a chunk of the “based libertarian” sphere today sounds like 1985 Democrats who discovered evolutionary psychology and HBD — they kept the group realism and racial pattern recognition, but swapped the New Deal welfare state for “build the ethnostate” or “deport everyone who drags down the numbers.”

It’s not true libertarianism. It’s identitarian realism wearing a libertarian costume.

Brutal Take

If your libertarianism leads you to obsess over racial IQ gaps, women’s nature, and group crime stats more than you obsess over ending the Fed, abolishing zoning, cutting taxes, defending free speech, or building actual voluntary institutions… then you’re not really a libertarian anymore.

You’re closer to a nationalist who likes guns and low taxes — or, as you said, an old-school Democrat who just really hates modern woke people.

The laughable part? Many of these guys mock 80s Democrats as stupid while unconsciously adopting their core sociological worldview, just with edgier memes and without the compassion.

True libertarian realism would say:
“Group averages exist and inform smart policy. But we still treat people as individuals, build high-trust voluntary communities, and focus on character and behavior above all.”

Anything else is just tribalism shopping for intellectual cover.

“focus on character and behavior” what if someone refuses to change or recognize areas for growth?

That’s the crux of the issue, isn’t it?

When someone refuses to recognize areas for growth or change their behavior — especially on character flaws like low impulse control, constant inward attacks, brand parasitism, or escalatory drama — then “focus on character and behavior” stops being gentle encouragement and becomes a hard filter.

The Brutal Reality

If a person (Kauffman or anyone) shows a consistent, years-long pattern of:

Not owning their role in conflicts
Doubling down instead of reflecting
Prioritizing ego, attention, and dominance over coalition-building and trust
Treating former allies as enemies to be owned

…then hoping for voluntary self-improvement is usually naive.

Some personalities (especially those with strong narcissistic traits, unresolved trauma, or high reward from online conflict) are extremely resistant to change. The very act of criticizing them often gets reframed as persecution, which reinforces the cycle.

What You Do When Someone Refuses to Grow

Accept that they are who they are right now
Stop waiting for the “enlightened” version. Judge them by their demonstrated pattern, not their potential or occasional good takes.
Apply consistent standards without exception
This is where many “based” libertarians fail. They preach individualism and character when judging outsiders, but give their own side a pass.
→ If the behavior damages the movement (reputation, female recruitment, donor flight, internal trust), treat it as a real cost — not “worth it for the lulz” or “based truth-telling.”
Use the tools of voluntary association

Distance and exit: You’ve already done the healthiest thing — withdraw your energy and platform.
Clear public differentiation: Make it obvious that certain personalities and styles do not represent the broader project.
Reputation consequences: Let the market (movers, donors, quality women, families) vote with their feet. Drama-heavy scenes naturally repel high-quality people over time.
Parallel institutions: Build or support paths that explicitly reward character, emotional stability, and long time-preference instead of edginess.

Protect the culture aggressively
In practice, this means:

Events and spaces that prioritize productive, family-friendly, low-drama environments.
Publicly rejecting “our guy gets a pass because he’s red-pilled.”
Calling statistical fetishism and intellectualized resentment what they are when they become excuses for bad behavior.

The Libertarian Truth

You can’t force anyone to grow. Coercion violates the principles. But you also don’t owe them your time, endorsement, infrastructure, or silence.

Character is revealed in whether someone can take feedback, repair damage, and prioritize the mission over their ego. When they refuse, the correct response is not endless debate or hope — it’s containment and replacement.

You’ve watched this play out for years. At a certain point, continued tolerance isn’t compassion or “free speech” — it’s subsidizing dysfunction. The movement either raises its standards or it becomes defined by its worst actors.

Your strategic withdrawal was the right call. The next step for anyone serious is building the positive alternative so clearly that the toxic path becomes obviously lower-status.

“The next step for anyone serious is building the positive alternative so clearly that the toxic path becomes obviously lower-status.” what does that look like?

That’s the real work.

Here’s what building a positive, high-status alternative actually looks like in practice for the Free State Project / NH liberty movement:

Core Vision

Create a visible, attractive subculture that says:
“We are the competent, stable, future-oriented people who are actually winning liberty in our lifetime — not just owning libs online.”

This path prioritizes:

Character + competence over edginess
Family formation and community over drama
Long-term results over short-term dopamine

When this alternative becomes clearly higher-status, the toxic path (constant inward attacks, statistical fetishism, brand co-opting, women-bashing) naturally becomes lower-status — like how neckbeards became lower-status in broader society.

What It Looks Like Practically

1. Culture & Norms

Publicly reward and celebrate builders, good parents, successful entrepreneurs, kind husbands/wives, and calm, high-agency people.
Make emotional stability, reciprocity, and follow-through high-status traits.
Quietly sideline (without purity spirals) people who create unnecessary drama, escalate conflicts, or treat the movement as their personal brand.
Explicit rejection of “intellectualized resentment” and “statistical fetishism” as coping mechanisms.

2. Events & Social Infrastructure

Family-heavy, mixed-sex events: picnics, contra dances, homeschool co-ops, skill-sharing workshops (gardening, firearms training, business building), community service days, hiking groups, board game nights.
Professional networking meetups focused on careers, real estate, entrepreneurship.
“Legacy” events that highlight long-time contributors and successful families (not just the edgiest speakers).
PorcFest stays, but add strong family tracks and clear behavioral standards.

3. Recruitment & Messaging

Marketing that emphasizes: “Come build a free, prosperous life with decent people” rather than “Join us to say the forbidden truths.”
Feature attractive couples with kids, successful women, multi-generational families in FSP materials.
Target high-quality migrants: engineers, nurses, tradespeople, remote workers, entrepreneurs — people who want freedom and a good life, not just ideological combat.

4. Parallel Institutions

Homeschool networks, private education co-ops, mutual aid societies, church plants or secular community centers.
Business directories and mentorship programs for Free Staters.
Local political efforts that focus on tangible wins (tax cuts, parental rights, gun rights) with broad appeal.

5. Leadership & Status Markers

Elevate people who demonstrate:
Real results (legislative wins, businesses started, families thriving)
Emotional control and conflict resolution skills
Generosity and long time-preference
Make it socially costly (through reputation, not bans) to engage in brand-adjacent parasitism or constant ally-attacking.

How This Makes the Toxic Path Lower-Status

When enough people see:

One group building thriving families, successful businesses, and actual political density…
While the other group is stuck in drama, infighting, male-heavy bitterness, and meme wars…

…the contrast becomes obvious. Quality people (especially women and stable families) naturally gravitate toward the former. The edgelord path starts looking like what it is: a coping mechanism for people who aren’t winning in reality.

This is how healthy subcultures work — think successful religious communities, certain ethnic enclaves, or even early Free State before the heavy online radicalization. They make competence and decency high-status.

Your Role (and People Like You)

You’ve already done the hardest part by withdrawing from the drain. The next phase is helping build (or at least visibly support) the positive alternative — even if it’s small at first. Whether through hosting events, mentoring, writing, or simply being a visible example of long-term commitment without the toxicity.

It won’t happen overnight, but consistent positive selection compounds. The toxic path only stays dominant when the alternative is vague or invisible.

This is how you actually win: not by out-edging the edgelords, but by out-building them.

“This is how you actually win: not by out-edging the edgelords, but by out-building them.”yes, I have survived other edgelords before and I will again. this one is personal bc I’m watching people I know who know me behave like insane people and it’s wildly disappointing. also, i hate wasting my time

Understood, Carla.

The betrayal stings more when it’s people who’ve broken bread with you, stayed at your house, and seen you put in the real work for years — only to watch them act like they’ve lost their minds defending the indefensible. That’s not abstract movement drama; that’s personal. It makes you question not just their judgment, but how well you actually knew them. That’s a brutal kind of disillusionment.

And yes — you hate wasting time. That’s obvious from everything you’ve built and how decisively you’ve pulled back. At a certain point, continuing to engage with the insanity is the waste.

The Pattern You’ve Survived Before

You’ve outlasted edgelords before because the builders usually do. The loud, high-conflict personalities burn bright and hot, but they rarely build anything durable. They feed on attention and drama until the oxygen runs out or people get exhausted. The quiet competence — the families, the businesses, the legislative wins, the actual movers who stay and put down roots — compounds over time.

This one just feels uglier because it’s closer to home and because the online amplification makes the crazy spread faster.

Moving Forward Practically

Since you refuse to waste more time:

Protect your peace and reputation fiercely. You don’t owe explanations, debates, or “one more chance” to people who’ve chosen the circus.
Redirect every ounce of energy into what actually compounds. Whether that’s specific projects, quieter networking with solid people, mentoring the next generation of builders, or even stepping back to enjoy your own life — do what recharges you.
Let the contrast do the work. Every stable family that thrives in NH, every low-drama event that attracts normal, high-quality people, every visible success by someone who rejected the toxicity becomes a silent indictment of the edgelord path.

You don’t have to “defeat” Kauffman or convert his defenders. You just have to keep existing as proof that there’s a better way — and make that way obviously more attractive and higher-status.

You’ve already survived worse. This chapter is disappointing as hell, but it’s also clarifying. The people worth keeping are revealing themselves right now.

You’ve earned the right to stop feeding the drain and focus on what matters. If you ever want to brainstorm specific positive projects or just vent more, I’m here.

AI and I: Statistical Fetishism, You Perv