Heirs of the Blank Slate

“Yeah, well, not all women are like that. Men do it too and they’re even worse!”

“People are people. Everyone is different, you can’t predict human behavior because we all have freewill.”

“What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”

“Everyone is born equal.”

“If women are hypergamous, men must be too.”

“Double standards are so unfair.”

The legacy of the Blank Slate has been one of the most pivotal influences on understanding intersexual dynamics for over the last century. In the time I’ve been writing I’ve covered egalitarianism’s influence on Blue Pill conditioning on at least 5 occasions. In all of these essays I’ve made the case that what we consider the Blue Pill, and the perceptions it instills in us, is firmly rooted in a preconception that an egalitarian state between the sexes is not only possible, but eminently desirable. In fact, I would argue that the presumption that an egalitarian state between men and women is ideal is the foundational premise of a Blue Pill social order.

Since I began writing on these topics one thing I’ve experienced that underpins people’s understanding of intersexual dynamics is an established belief that men and women are functional equals – or ideally they ought to be – who exist in a state of disequilibrium. This equalism (my term) is akin to a religious belief, albeit one most people are unaware they believe in. I first encountered this belief when I was in college. Around the same time I discovered that among the most rational of my fellow students and professors in behavioral psychology, most clung to the soulmate myth, I also noticed that most of them held to the hope of an “equal partnership” with whomever their ‘soulmate‘ turned out to be. Here I had some very empirical minds who would write thesis papers on human nature according to what we knew about evo-psych, evo-bio, anthropology and sociology, yet they would revert to the Blank Slate hope that ‘people are people‘ and we’d evolved past our innate natures when it came to finding their ‘One‘.

The idea that humans have ‘evolved beyond’ our animal natures is the lynchpin in the modern belief of the Blank Slate.

What we know as the Blank Slate, as a concept, evolved from the Enlightenment era idea of Tabula Rasa. Originally it was Aristotle who came coined the term, then it passed through the Stoics, then other notable minds of antiquity, but the root of what it has become today began in the Enlightenment era with John Locke.

On paper it’s a very ennobling idea. All people are born with the same intellectual (and later spiritual) potential; we’re all the same except for what society, environment and circumstance writes on the slate that is our intellect and personality. The object of this essay isn’t to give you a history lesson, but if you’re really interested in the development of how we got to our default, equalist, concept of the Blank Slate I’ll refer you to Steven Pinker’s great book The Blank Slate.

From the time of the Enlightenment the concept of the Blank Slate has been embedded into our core cultural beliefs about human nature. It dovetails very nicely into the concept of freewill and it also satisfies the of hopefulness human beings need to combat the determinism that might lead to nihilism. It’s exactly this human need for hope that makes the Blank Slate so appealing. People who hold a belief in the Blank Slate take it for granted to the point it becomes an ego-investment, and internalized thoroughly, it becomes the subconscious point from which people begin when it comes to understanding human nature. So, challenging the validity of whether human’s have innate, evolved, aspects of their natures – and their influences having a bearing on our decisions – borders on attacking their religion or who they are as a person.

From a Red Pill perspective, proposing that men and women are different physically and mentally, and that we’re subject to evolved influences as a result of these differences, is also sacrilege. The Blank Slate ideal is what defines every aspect of what Blue Pill conditioning would have men and women believe about intersexual relations and gender ‘equality’. In fact, as James Damore found firsthand, the Village forbids even the discussion of questioning the Blank Slate. The religion of the Blank Slate is also the state-approved religion, and this has implications in social realms that go well beyond intersexual dynamics.

With the rise of feminism and a feminine-primary social order, social adherence to the Blank Slate ideal became vital to the survival of feminism’s power base. Once the modern research and understanding of human beings’ evolved nature became unignorable the social institutions founded on the Blank Slate were challenged. Today, Red Pill awareness in men is one of those challenges.

A Blue Pill, equalist, mindset doesn’t coexist well with empirical evidence that shows men and women are more different than alike on fundamental levels. Today’s Blank Slate is, as Dr. Pinker describes, a ‘modern denial of human nature‘. The Blank Slate belief set is codependent on Social Constructionism. The idea is that we are all just empty vessels that a nebulous ‘society’ builds through media, culture, school, religion, family, etc. And while all of these outside influences certainly mold us, by necessity the Blank Slate ignores the import of our mental ‘firmware‘ – the innate proclivities that come standard in males and females.

The Human System

I use the term “evolved mental firmware” a lot in my writing. I look at it like this; we have the hardware that is our biological reality, a firmware that is our in-born, evolved proclivities (and the psychological aspects of how men and women’s hardware affects it) and the software that accounts for the social programming we learn from our environments and circumstances. From the perspective of my theory on perceptive processes (Instinct, Emotion & Reason) our firmware influences all three of these processes.

Blank Slate equalism would condition us to believe that our biology (hardware) is insignificant, our firmware is non-existent or inconsequential, and our programming (social learning) is the only thing that makes us what we are. If this sounds like progressivist boilerplate you’re not too far off. Modern concepts of social justice use exactly this social constructionism to justify their positions on a great many issues – and especially gender issues.

However, it’s a mistake to think the Blank Slate is a religion only for leftists and feminists. Equalism is the starting point for the beliefs of many well-meaning Blue Pill conservatives too. Feminism depends on egalitarian ideals setting the intersexual ‘Frame‘ for selling its ideology.

“If only men would cooperate and help smash the Patriarchy we could live in an ideal state of egalitarian equalism.”

The cover story of a ‘push for equality’ all depends on the Blank Slate notion that men and women are functional equals and all this inequality is the result of social doctrines (and plenty of evil men). If it’s all about social constructionism then all that’s needed is to change everyones’ programming and thus an idealized gender neutral world ought to be possible.

Male feminists, Mens Rights Activists and Masculinity Apologist organizations all have this in common – they buy into the Blank Slate and the feminist lie that gender equality is an achievable goal based on it. Most of them don’t realize they’re carrying feminist water in their egalitarian beliefs. They just believe in the hope of an “equal partnership” in their marriages and ignore or demonize the influence our evolved firmware exerts in themselves and their wives. So even when they accept intersexual differences and the influence of our firmware, the next defense of the Blank Slate is moralism.

Moralism for Rationalists

The Blank Slate is a lie, but it’s a lie that’s pregnant with hope. Men and women are different; and our differences are too significant to ignore. But even when the Blank Slate is effectively challenged and our evolved natures are acknowledged, the next rationale is that, if we’re only moral enough, intelligent enough, or “evolved” enough, we ought to ideally be able to effect the ideals of the Blank Slate above our base natures. The appeal to rising or evolving above the influences of our evolved natures is always the path of the moralist and the intellectual. Shouldn’t we strive for Equality? Would an equal state between the sexes not be a good thing? If we were good enough, and exercising our powerful freewill, men and women should be able to be more equitable, right?

The question isn’t whether we can overcome our evolved natures – we do this all the time actually – but whether we should strive for the egalitarian ideal. In the most egalitarian societies on the planet human being still opt for “traditional” (conventional) gender roles. Given the freedom to believe in a Blank Slate ideal and choose their roles in an egalitarian social order (or its best approximation) men and women still prefer the roles we’re supposed to believe are so constraining for us. The roles we’re supposed to believe are foisted on us by social constructionism.

I would argue that much of the gender conflicts we experience today are the result of force-fitting men and women into an egalitarian ideal with the expectation that our evolved (or designed) proclivities are ‘unnatural’ creations of a nebulous society. We’re told that gender is not binary and it’s really a social construct, yet we still need hormone therapy to alter the biochemistry of children to help them ‘transition’ to another binary gender.

I find it kind of ironic that a mindset, a social force and a belief system that would otherwise call for a natural balanced harmony in life is the most disharmonious with respect to a natural evolved order among men and women. The conclusion I come to then is that promulgating the Blank Slate social religion is more about power dynamics than a real push for an equalist harmony.

In 2019, after decades of advancements in the cognitive sciences, neurological study, anthropology, sociology, etc. we can lay the Blank Slate to rest, but so much of our social and intersexual understanding of human nature (or even the denial of it) is dependent on it being an ideal to strive for.

When I make an unflattering observation of women’s nature the first response from conditioned men and women is to firing back with some equal-but opposite-reaction. Our natural, human inclination is to look for symmetry and balance in things. The default belief is to think that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, or to distract from the observation by making value judgements.

Well, men do it too, only worse.

Deal with the plank in your own eye before you pluck the mote from mine.

If it’s true for one, there’s an opposite truth for another.

The reflexive need for a symmetrical balance – even when there is none – is a human default. ‘Men and women are different’ is a radical statement in this era, not the least of which because it contradicts the Blank Slate religion that persists in spite of itself. When people ask me whether I believe men and women are equals and I answer ‘no’, they look as if I pulled the wings from a butterfly. I believe men and women are complements to each other and we’re better together than apart, but we are not equals. We are different, with differing motives and strategies that are part of who we are. We could achieve a far more harmonious social state by accepting and embracing these differences.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

123 comments on “Heirs of the Blank Slate

    1. @Dr No. Interesting. I just recently had a friend in work (male) complaining about the gender pay gap and how the UK Men’s National Football team get payed more than the women’s team. Thanks for the link. Just Skypeing it now 🙂 I love serving humble pie.

      Anyway we all know from the Scandanavian, egalitarian model that the gender gap maximises and does not minimise. But never mind all that very accurate scientific data, it’s just not fair on women that they are so victimised.

  1. And here we have this: https://phys.org/news/2019-07-science-lot-men-women.html

    Women don’t ask questions at science panels and conferences nearly as often as men. So, here we have a behavioral manifestation of what you could claim is natural, normal female psychology…but because it doesn’t match men’s, suddenly that’s unequal and “problematic” and needs to be rectified!

    Hey, only women can have children! That’s unequal! That’s misandry! How DARE you oppress men with your monopoly on childbearing ability! I demand equal representation in pregnancy, it’s the current year, no longer should we stand for such bigotry!

  2. @Blaximus

    Happy Birthday!

    hope you have lots of well wishes… and cards with birthday $$$… got pay for that rain tax, yo!…lol

    good luck!

  3. @ Anonymous Reader, you can’t understand being black because you are not black, like Blaximus. You are on the other side of the equation your whole life, which means that you are not on the black side of the equation. I mean, the guy has been observing and decoding reality since the day of his birth. After all, being black is the hardest thing a person can do or be. So, pay attention, even though, you will never be able to understand it. I’m sure if Blaximus had ever been a diversity hire or survived a RIF because of diversity, I’m sure they would have told him and he would have admitted it. So, obviously it never happened. Many commenters here have noted that they have seen preference given to women and minorities in the workplace. Well, Blaximus says not so and even if it was so, well it’s only fair because of stuff that happened in the past. Since he has his life experience and that trumps everyone else’s life experience. That settles that.

    Having said that, and while it contradicts Blaximus’ life experience and therefore invalid, I can share that my multiple year survival struggle under the diversity hire black messiah division head came to an end. It is ironic and funny in the way it happened. The messiah told me that my position would not be needed in the future, even though a process change only eliminated about 10% of my job role. So, his plan was to cram an entire new job role, pushing my capacity to 190%–the old Kobayashi Maru. Anyway, before he could enact this change, he was advised that his job role was no longer required. On the day of his departure, as one of two surviving white male managers, I wished him good luck. He told me I was in for a difficult job challenge—a bastard to the end. While not a victory, not being zeroed out is better than the alternative.

    Happy Birthday Blaximus!

  4. If..

    Thank you.

    Not to get into a big, drawn out, useless conversation😁 , but I take your point and would are that nobody in the current economic/job environment is entitled to shit. Positions get decimated all the time and it’s become the norm.

    This is why I travel 80 miles round trip daily to my job. Gotta go where the jobs are and posses current skills.

    I’ve been with my current company for going on 25 years. I’m pretty sure I might’ve been some kind of ” diversity hire ” because in 90+ years ( at that time ), the company only had 1 ” black ” employee out of 300. I made.number 2.

    An aspect that you don’t understand, is the awareness of being judged as a ” diversity hire ” rather than being judged on your skillets and abilities. You just perform and ignore. But I’m sure you’d know all about what that’s like.

    I took my current job because I had a family and responsibilities and a plan. At that time, I W was overqualified for the position, but I saw potential as the company was hopelessly behind the technological curve and I understood they’d have to change going forward. For me, that get paid off, even though it cost me a 10 thousand dollar pay cut and crazy traffic filled daily commute.

    My previous employer, a giant pharmaceutical company, decided to have their datacenter go ” lights out ” ( automated without a full staff ), and this my friend, was back in the 90’s. My very first job in the field got eliminated through a buyout, and this was in the mid 80’s.

    I was.pissed, but the bottom line was that I didn’t feel ” entitled ” magically to any job. I still don’t. My ” experience ” ( diversity aside ) tells me that as long as my name isn’t plastered on the building, I’m not guaranteed or entitled to anything.

    So yeah, I’ve already been zeroed out a couple of times career wise, and ” diversity ” never saved me from the market forces and changing environment. This isn’t ” new ” and it won’t change any time soon, and it’s not as driven by diversity, which is a convenient smokescreen, as much as it is by shifting, profit driven motivation. I currently work for a.private multinational and I understand all to sell that if the company ever goes public, there will be a lot of employee bloodshed. Pensions have already been eliminated for new hires ( regardless of race or sex ), and healthcare coverage has been reduced to the bare minimum.

    For many, this is all new and frustrating, and that’s my larger point. 25 years ago I was almost driven into bankruptcy by medical bills, even though I had ” healthcare ” provided by my employer, who’d decided to go with a shitty alternative plan that paid for nothing while collecting high premiums. Been there, done that.

    The problem is that economic pain has been spreading and some folks are angry about issued that have been building and gaining steam for decades and decades. They just weren’t affected. Somehow it’s ” diversity ” in their minds, rather than a job landscape that seems to provide as little pay as possible ( profits yo!!!) And practically no benefits compared to the past. The job pool of good paying jobs is shrinking and nobody has a stranglehold on the few remaining decent positions.

    It’s called competition. I know, I know, some don’t want to compete and some want a guarantee of ” fairness “….. Now.


    The past holds no answers, right? Nobody has ever been treated unfairly and had to fight their way around it. Better to just complain and be angry and blame people instead of policy.

    End rant/

  5. Rollo, please address Aziz Ansari’s recent comments on his media scandal:

    “I haven’t said much about that whole thing, but I’ve talked about it on this tour, because you’re here and it means a lot to me. And I’m sure some of you are curious how I feel about that whole situation. And it’s a tricky thing for me to answer ’cause I felt so many things in the last year or so,” he explained. “There’s times I felt scared. There’s times I felt humiliated. There’s times I felt embarrassed. And ultimately, I just felt terrible that this person felt this way. And after a year or so, I just hope it was a step forward.”

    “It moved things forward for me and made me think about a lot. I hope I’ve become a better person. And I always think about a conversation I had with one of my friends where he was like, ‘You know what, man? That whole thing made me think about every date I’ve ever been on.’ And I thought, ‘Wow. Well, that’s pretty incredible. It’s made not just me, but other people be more thoughtful, and that’s a good thing.’ And that’s how I feel about it.”

    The now 36-year-old got cheers and applause for his thoughtful response. He looked relieved to have the hard part of his special done and out of the way.


  6. please address Aziz Ansari’s recent comments on his media scandal:

    Aziz Ansari: “People of Earth… I am a fag.”


  7. I’m quite ignorant on economics, it’s probably the single weakest topic in my repertoire. I did do some light scraping across the surface of the subject, though, and immediate impressions were “Austrian economics sounds exactly like how you should do things to figure out reality” and “Keynesian economics sounds like a bunch of contradictory bullshit defined into existence from ideology.” I still don’t actually KNOW if that’s all true, but the more I look into economics the more I start to despise most the modern economists in the USA.

  8. @Youngmaster

    I’m quite ignorant on economics, it’s probably the single weakest topic in my repertoire. I did do some light scraping across the surface of the subject, though, and immediate impressions were “Austrian economics sounds exactly like how you should do things to figure out reality” and “Keynesian economics sounds like a bunch of contradictory bullshit defined into existence from ideology.” I still don’t actually KNOW if that’s all true, but the more I look into economics the more I start to despise most the modern economists in the USA.

    that’s pretty much it…lol…

    just remember… all those ‘economists’ went to the SAME schools and learned the SAME bs theories as if they were gospel truth…lol… and 99+% of those guys have never had an original thought about the topic… or much less anything else…lol…

    and the way it (econ or other) works, is that there is a spectrum of ‘analysis’ out there… and the people who need a ‘theory’ to provide ‘cover’ to do what they want to do anyway – good or bad/will work in reality or not (mostly not…lol) – will pick the ‘theory’ that lets them do what they want and lay the blame on the theory… and then they are ‘surprised’ when bad results happen…lol

    good luck!

  9. “just remember… all those ‘economists’ went to the SAME schools and learned the SAME bs theories as if they were gospel truth…lol… and 99+% of those guys have never had an original thought about the topic… or much less anything else…lol…

    and the way it (econ or other) works, is that there is a spectrum of ‘analysis’ out there… and the people who need a ‘theory’ to provide ‘cover’ to do what they want to do anyway – good or bad/will work in reality or not (mostly not…lol) – will pick the ‘theory’ that lets them do what they want and lay the blame on the theory… and then they are ‘surprised’ when bad results happen…lol”

    Soooooo ,uch truth here.

    I’ve never read an entire book on ” economics “, but I’ve only ever tried to understand the basics of what I can actually See happening right in front of me, and not so much the theory which has already failed spectacularly multiple times.

    Frinstance, The ” Fed ” has held interest rates down in the basement for an extremely long period of time now. Cutting interest rates is a ” tool ” for bolster a faltering or weak economy.

    But I recall the banking window at the fed offering 0% interest after the subprime explosion ( which turned into the auto loan subprime disaster….that hasn’t fully exploded yet ), and the rate effectively stayed there for the better part of a decade. Free Money Yo!!!!! ( umm… that was mostly used to buy back stocks and invest in more financial gimmicks like the CDO and CDS fuckery ).

    And let’s not even talk about Quantitative easing that defies economists own theories regarding inflation….that magically just doesn’t really exist according to the Fed over the past 18+ years.




    So, if cutting interest rates are a tool used in shitty times, what’s the effect of eternally ( relatively ) low interest rates? Economist say the result is inflation which is remedied by raising rates.

    But economic indicators mostly say that we have no inflation, and the economy is buzzing along ( using the stock market as a leading indicator, and ” averages ” ).

    Low interest rates are driving the overheated fantasy market. So why cut rates now?

    More importantly, when the next 2008 styled bubble pops, what ” tool ” will be used?

    But not to worry, economists say shit like –


    Yet, these are folks well versed ( prolly with degrees from highly regarded institutions and all that ), so there’s nothing to worry about.

    I’ve not read economic theory, so I’m ignorant admittedly.


    I saw the bullshit real estate and attending bank and investment house failure coming a mile off.

    Didn’t even wait for the movie.

  10. [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A25EUhZGBws&w=854&h=480%5D


    I have a friend that works for a Wall Street Giant. After the SHTF in 2008, she made a record 5.5 million dollars as part of a ” services ” team ( selling cdo’s and cds’s ). A majority of that money came from the bailout of AIG, as they still had to take the ” losses “.

    One man’s loss, another’s gain I guess.

    Never heard too many ” economist ” chime in and ring the alarm bell about this stuff.

  11. Blax

    This is what Nobel laurates get up to when they roll up their sleeves…

    “Long-Term Capital Management L.P. (LTCM) was a hedge fund management firm[1] based in Greenwich, Connecticut that used absolute-return trading strategies combined with high financial leverage. LTCM was founded in 1994 by John W. Meriwether, the former vice-chairman and head of bond trading at Salomon Brothers. Members of LTCM’s board of directors included Myron S. Scholes and Robert C. Merton, who shared the 1997 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for a “new method to determine the value of derivatives”.[2]”


  12. The one mistake you make is to attribute egalitarianism to Enlightenment values. The Enlightenment identified the power of reason and free will, including the ability to over-ride our evolved proclivities (which you also acknowledge). The Enlightenment confirmed that if we made the right decisions and took the right actions, we can make ourselves better in measurable ways. Egalitarianism by contrast is a relatively modern attack on that idea – suggesting we are all the same, all equal; regardless of our choices.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: