Is Richard Spencer controlled opposition?

Some conspiratorial accusations have been going around about Richard Spencer, founder of the national policy institute and Radix journal. The claim is that he is “controlled opposition.” The idea being that he is a government shill who is tricking people into exposing their real identity and/or trying to radicalize the “alt-right” to discredit the overall movement. Evidenced by giving “Nazi Salutes” and more seriously, allowing the mainstream media to attend his conference. These claims were voiced most loudly by Mike Cernovich, a journalist who made a name for himself during gamergate and the trump campaign. Paul Joseph Watson of Alex Jones’ Infowars comes in at a close second in spreading this.

Notably, infowars made a substantial pivot during the trump campaign to somewhat distance themselves from previous conspiratorial material to a greater sympathy with alt-right (alt-lite?). After the pivot, they seem to have in general as much credibility as the mainstream media. I never thought I would say that, but it has only a little to do with changes at infowars and a lot more to do with the suicidal “reporting” in the MSM. When almost everything the MSM says is a lie, it isn’t hard to make a name for yourself telling the truth, even selectively.

Vox Day and some other prominent figures also seemed at least sympathetic to this view. Vox seemingly made his journey to the right through gamergate and the rabid/sad puppies campaigns. In Vox’s case, support for conspiracies seems to be a result of naked financial interest. He is named as editor on Cernovich’s book and likely stands to lose money, perhaps a substantial amount, if the broader community turns on Cernovich. I like Vox’s writing, but this naked self-interest in turning on a fellow traveler doesn’t help his credibility. The only ones deserving of a harsher fate than leftists are traitors. And just to be clear, disagreements between like-minded individuals is entirely different from the treachery of siding with leftists against fellow travelers.

I have been a participant in the Dark Enlightenment and Neoreaction for a fairly long time now. Not as long as some of the veterans, but definitely longer than most of those who now call themselves alt-right. It is hard to remember exact dates, but I started reading Moldbug in late 2013 (see also), I took over the darkenlightenment subreddit shortly thereafter, and started this blog in late May of 2014. Now I know that that isn’t quite the same thing as the alt-right as currently configured, which really didn’t exist to any substantial degree at the time, but there was and is a lot of overlap and you get to know the various publications involved. NPI, Radix, and Spencer were all well known to us back then and their work was respected and well-liked. So much so that he was easily included in an old radish post called “The heroes of the Dark Enlightenment.” The page has been taken down due to copyright complaints based on the images used, but I helpfully saved a [PDF] copy. The image at the top of this post was taken from there. The heroes of the Dark Enlightenment post was made before Spencer or NPI had gotten all that much fame. In addition, his publications have been a part of my endorsed site system ever since I created it about a year and a half ago. Well before the rise of the alt-right to its current prominence.

This presence shows Spencer et al have been around for a very long time producing content with a very consistent and respectable tone. Spencer has, in my opinion, proven his sincerity and genuineness through this long and appreciated work. His group talks about real issues and never resort to unnecessary racial epithets when discussing the biological reality of race (and sometimes gender) issues. I have a series of rules on my sub which lays out that any race or gender issue can be discussed (yes, even about jews), but it should be discussed in a rational and respectable manner. Basically, you can talk about Jewish influence in campaign finance and media, but avoid saying “gas the kikes.” You can also talk about black violence, but “lynch the niggers” isn’t necessary and doesn’t help your argument with respect to fellow travelers and curious, potential enlistments. Never once has anything produced by Spencer, NPI, or Radix ever violated these very strictly enforced rules (ask my subscribers) and that includes the transcript of the NPI speech at the heart of this controversy. Moreover, even though Spencer did say “Hail Trump” mostly ironically and to be funny, that is quite obvious, he did not himself even do the salute. To quote Steve Sailer “Here we have giving a Roman salute a Vietnamese minor league Kardashian, Tila Tequilia, and an alienated half Jew. Is this a sizable demo?” These two who don’t fit the alt-right demographic undoubtedly did it for the lolz as well, anyway, but that is besides the point. In what sane world would Spencer be blamed for their actions? Why should we be upset when leftists are triggered? Also, have we already forgotten this is no different from what half of the internet has been doing for the last year?

Now, there may be a genuine complaint about inviting the MSM. They are vile, lying cockroaches and their presence puts well-meaning attendees at risk of doxxing. A reporter from vice apparently had to be kicked out because he was trying to take pictures of attendees for this purpose. Unsurprisingly, they also lied about the content of Spencer’s speech saying that he was calling Jews soulless, when in reality he was referring to the media as a whole because of how much they lie. I don’t know which is more ironic, that they immediately proved his point by highlighting the very sentence he used to call them out or their implicit admission that Jews are heavily over-represented in the media and do the bulk of the soulless lying. It is so stupid that it almost seems like a divine influence intervened to cause the seemingly unforced error, at least for those with the eyes to see. The whole of the last year has seemed like that actually.

Now note that I say there MAY be a genuine complaint, not that there definitely is one. After the last year, I can’t deny how effective such crude terminology and iconography has been when used in the context of triggering brainwashed leftists. Every time something like this blows up, it inevitably gets proven that the media is full of shit and that many more people stop listening to them. Whatever differences Neoreaction and the Alt-right may have ( The highlights being distrust of crudeness, naive clinging to democracy by some on the alt-right, and abhorrence of mob populism), the end result in this particular case is equally lauded as good by both parties. Every time trust in the cathedral is lowered, we get that much closer to a true restoration. Spencer’s strategy of dealing with the media may work in this context and towards this aim (and this is in addition to getting more eyes reading about alternatives to progressivism). However, my opinion is that it is potentially a very dangerous gambit. The media has and will stir up a mob of proles who could physically attack and/or kill Spencer or his attendees. That is Spencer’s risk to take if he wants to personally, but I think it would be a good idea for him to avoid putting his supporters in such a risky position in the future. However, this is a mild concern and in no way warrants any sort of condemnation of Spencer.

This entire controversy was a lie manufactured by the media, and the likes of Cernovich, Vox Day, and Paul Watson, among others, jumped right on the band-wagon uncritically. They sided with lying leftists and attacked to the right. That is treachery, plain and simple. All of these people could be classified, more or less, as Johnny-come-latelys. We more commonly call this phenomenon “entryism” in neoreaction, and the only good reaction is expulsion. This is especially true of Cernovich and Watson. I had never heard of them until the trump campaign, and think it is more than a little likely that they just attached to the phenomenon of the reactionary right to further their own personal self interests. That is, increasing prominence to enhance sales of media and/or books (or bogus vitamin supplements in the case of infowars). They weren’t around when the reactionary right was much less famous and had much, much less glory. Richard Spencer was. He has seniority and has proven himself. If anyone needs to be disavowed and exiled, it is Spencer’s critics. The cause being treason.

I am going to be charitable though, because these folks, who have been misguided by the lugenpresse with respect to Spencer, have done some decent work exposing SJWs, the lying media, etc. I suspect this whole thing started as an impulsive and uncritical rant by Cernovich, who now is sticking to his guns despite his mistake being more than a little obvious. Why is he and others sticking to their guns? Ego. So many people feel the need to inject their own personality into the content and topics they discuss. They are their positions and vice versa. Cernovich, Watson, Vox, Milo, and a number of others at least partially generate a personality cult to help sell their brand and content. While I am quite sure that helps their bottom line, it doesn’t help ensure impartial appraisal of their own actions. And certainly won’t help them acknowledge a mistake like this. My suggestion is that Pride is a sin, and that egos should be swallowed, mistakes acknowledged, and we should all move on. The left is the real enemy.

Share Button

“Do you have any advice on writing a controversial, non-fiction book?”

I had a reader send me a message about book writing after he purchased and read my recently released book, Smart and Sexy: The Evolutionary Origins and Biological Underpinnings of Cognitive Differences Between the Sexes:

Dear Sir

Surely you get a lot of correspondence such as this, so hopefully you won’t mind if I begin by thanking you for your book (I wrote the first review on [trademarked website name]) and for the subreddit. It was good to find a place where the rationalism that breaks the taboos of Western society is not tainted by the emotional vitriol of simple hatred or conspiratorial explanations.

If you are willing to offer me some advice with regards to writing a non-fiction book it would be gratefully received. I am not an academic, so I could not hope to write something similar to your work. However I wonder if I might publish a shorter work perhaps of a similar length and style to ‘The Manipulated Man’.

Having looked into publishing non-fiction a year ago, the advice seemed to be consistent: Write a book proposal, find an agent interested, hope they find a publisher. Agents are looking for accredited academics, or public personas with a media presence, willing to endure media appearances to promote the book. None of these things applied or appealed to me. I certainly did not want to be the regressive left’s piñata.

I was aware that there would be no money in writing the book, and given the controversial flavor the truth has these days I saw no personal benefit alongside a fair degree of personal risk. Knowing the West cannot be saved as the values it defines itself by are what has caused its downfall, I thought there was little point attempting to publish a book that no one would read, that would change nothing, and many might hate me for writing.

Circumstances have changed for me in the last year, and having read your book I would like to contribute a work that might be of use for people and civilizations that come after me.

It is always nice to be appreciated.

He has given me some more specific details in later messages and we have been having an on-going conversation. That isn’t so relevant in general. However, I think that sharing my experience in a general way might be helpful for others considering whether or not to commit to a big project like writing a book. Here is my generalized response with respect to my experience with writing a non-fiction book:

As far as my own experience, I don’t think it was typical. I will elaborate a bit, but your mileage may vary. You might also look through my interview with since I talked about my experience and motivation there too.

I am not, nor have I ever intended to be, a professional writer. Life is funny sometimes. I intentionally took the bare minimum of English or writing classes needed for my degree, which if memory serves is a total of 2. Freshman and sophomore English. This has a strong bearing on how valuable or necessary these sorts of classes are. Probably not very. Obviously, there is an innate IQ threshold that comes first, but given that practice makes perfect. In my experience, getting better at writing is mostly about practice with reading and writing. Commenting on reddit was where I got most of my practice with writing. Reading requires finding and reading good writers. If you are smart, you will know them when you see them. (At the risk of sounding cliched, I actually really love the style of writing in books, fiction and non-fiction, from the 1800s and early 1900s. There is a quality of style in there that is absent today).

The book was a work of passion that I felt needed to be made and I was doubtful anyone else would take the time to do it. In the beginning it was nothing more than a slowly increasing collection of notes and citations used to argue with people on the internet. It wasn’t until it really started to grow that I seriously considered turning it into a book. Once I decided this, I more consciously started collecting data and citations.

Early versions of the “book” were nothing more than (1) comments I had written, mostly on reddit, that were related to the topic, (2) Study information (titles, authors, journals) that I wanted to read that I thought might be relevant and (3) bullet point notes from studies I had read completely and listed what I thought was important. As I went through (2) to generate more (3), I usually got anywhere from 5-15 more studies at stage (2) for each one study I took notes on and got to stage (3). Every study was like going down the rabbit hole in Alice in wonderland. Each one was a real chore in and of itself, and it was very daunting to think about how many more needed to be read both with certainty and in potentiality based on previous expansion rates.  I persevered, however, and after years of effort finally got all the studies at stage (3) because over time I eventually got every useful one listed.

I won’t lie, this was a very, very time consuming process and I don’t believe I ever want to do it again. Thinking back, I am still a little amazed I was able to stick it out. It takes a lot of dedication to go through. Fortunately, what most people wish to write probably won’t require anywhere near this level of research (300 or so peer reviewed science papers) so I wouldn’t get too hung up about that. This was probably very particular to this and only this book.

At this point, I launched wholeheartedly into (4) the “conversion” phase as I like to call it. Basically, in order to be a book, all the randomly organized data, commentary, thoughts, what have you, has to be written as a flowing narrative from beginning to end. Narrative isn’t exactly the right word since that has more to do with fiction, but it conveys my meaning here suitably well. Going from A to B to C had to make sense and feel natural. Comments and posts had to be rewritten or adjusted to fit in with the structure, bullet point data had to be pulled together based on topic, bullet point data then had to be written in sentence/paragraph/section form, transitions from one topic to another had to be smoothed over, and even the order of different topics had to be considered strategically. Several whole sections were moved around as this process went forward and I realized better organization structures.

Keep in mind that (1), (2), (3) and (4) were all happening pretty much at every point except in the very beginning and the very end. The relative focus on each one adjusted over time from almost 100% (2) and (3) to 100% (4) with (1) just happening randomly here and there based on my mood and morons to argue with. Morons are very, very helpful for providing motivation to work. They are the secret sauce that pushes you forward. If you want to write something, I highly suggest finding a topic that people are commonly wrong about and willing to engage you on. It is a helpful trick to convert the resulting conversations and research into a book. They also might inspire you (because you want to prove them wrong so bad) to go down a research avenue you wouldn’t have considered otherwise.

I found the division into stages of completion to be very useful to actually getting things done. It was psychologically very helpful to know and feel that I had “completed” something, even if only a small part of one stage. It also helped me focus more easily because I would zoom into and only focus on the very particular task at hand and know I would get that neurochemical reward after each “completion.” Otherwise the quantity of things needing doing at early stages would have simply been too overwhelming. I believe any writer could adopt a similar strategy to help them get through the massive project. Take that basic structure and tailor it to your own needs and project.

Like the reader said, a lot of non-fiction writing goes as such: Writer has an idea for a book; he sends proposals to publishers/agents; if interested the parties negotiate a contract often including an advance for the writer; the writer is given a deadline for completion and submits it when ready. Deadlines are both good and bad. On the one hand, you have a timetable keeping you on track and working. On the other, it could possibly limit how much you can include because at the end you just have to have it done and don’t have time to waste looking through things that may not end up being useful.

My book had an unorthodox beginning, so this wasn’t even a considered possibility way back then. Even after I took the possibility of publishing more seriously, I wanted to take my time and research at my leisure when I had time outside of the rest of life to do so. You can just write the book completely at your own pace and then try to get it published, which is what did. In the past that would have been risky because it would really suck to do all that work then never get it published. However, this is starting to change a bit thanks to online self publishing. Now anyone can publish their book without paying any costs up front and without worrying about rejection through this service. Well, except you want to get a review copy to make sure everything looks right which is like 7 bucks, and if you suck at art like me you will need to hire a designer to make the cover. I recommend upwork for stuff like this. [This trademarked website] also has pretty much the best royalty arrangements you can get anywhere including with traditional publishing so if you end up successful you will get paid way more. Best of all, if your content is especially controversial you don’t have to worry about pleasing anyone before making it available to the public.

The catch is that if you go this route you will have to do all the marketing and advertising yourself. That isn’t easy, and it requires a different set of skills than just writing. If you self-publish, be prepared to research and do a lot of work in this area. You will probably want to set aside an advertising budget.

If you go with a publisher, which is what I decided to do, they will work to promote your book for you. They obviously have lots of experience with this, or they wouldn’t be in business. Typically, they also already have a readership base they can make aware of your book. Even if you have a blog like me, I am quite sure that my readership base and Arktos’ only has so much overlap so it is helpful to have access to that community in addition to my own. If you are writing from the standpoint of reaction, then you already have a list of potential publishers who shouldn’t mind the content being controversial in that direction. Arktos, who I went through, Castallia house publishes Sci Fi mostly, but also has 2 non-fiction titles, and manticore press are three possibilities. There could be more, but I leave that to you to research.

At the end of the day, you have to make a decision to self publish or go with a publisher. Both have pros and cons. At the very least, though, it should be a relief to know that even if rejected by every publisher you can still make your work available.

Share Button

The Daily Moldbug post

I just set up a new system that should result in a post being made to /r/darkenlightenment each day that contains one or more links to Moldbug’s unqualified reservations. I made a second sub, /r/TheDailyMoldbug, which will only have these posts for more easy reference. Posts will start being made starting on August first. Below is the announcement I have made at /r/darkenlightenment outlining my reasons for setting this up:


Tl;dr There will be a post linking to Unqualified Reservations each day starting on August 1st. The main goals of The Daily Moldbug post:

* familiarize new people with Moldbug’s work
* provide an easy, structured schedule for both newbs and veterans to go through moldbug’s entire work, which is the length of multiple books.
* remind everyone that even though groups, such as hestia, may claim official leadership of neoreaction, it is ultimately a result of moldbug’s work and not hestia’s. Neoreaction/Dark enlightenment is a philosophy, not a movement. Unilaterally declaring leadership or official status has dubious support.
* now that concerns of users have been addressed, I am going to be stricter in moderating concern trolling when I see it and will start banning people.

Hello /r/darkenlightenment,

I can’t remember exactly when, but about six months ago there was a self post which was all concern trolling, but I decided on leniency in that particular case and didn’t remove it. Its main point was that there had been a change in topic focus in submissions to the sub. IIRC the complaint was that there were too many HBD posts compared to other posts. Personally I thought the he was exaggerating the issue, and anyway HBD posts are always welcome because that issue is and always has been part of the dark enlightenment. I am not going to remove relevant posts to come to some subjective “proper” balance of topics.

However, that doesn’t mean that steps can’t be taken to add more variety and/or remind new people of the basics. Immediately after reviewing the above-mentioned post I started working on a project which I thought could improve the sub and address these concerns. That project is The Daily Moldbug post. The idea is that on a daily basis automoderator will make a self-post submission that will include at least one link to Unqualified Reservations. UR is the blog of Curtis Yarvin who wrote under the name of Mencius Moldbug.  He coined the term neoreaction, and was the initial inspiration for many or most of the blog writers currently in the endorsed categories on this sub. This includes yours truly, and that counts for both my blog and for starting up this sub. It was my initial reading of “A gentle introduction to unqualified reservations” that motivated me to take over here and start building this place. In other words, neoreaction/ the dark enlightenment is strongly tied into this original material and new-comers should be and remain familiar with it. I also thought it would be helpful for people who want to go through these posts, but are daunted by the sheer volume. A daily post sets up a clear and structured schedule at a manageable pace.

To get this project working, I had to compile a list of all the UR link addresses and decide which ones to post and in what order. What I ended up deciding was that every single UR post will be linked to, in chronological order, but not every post will get its own separate submission. I didn’t want to omit a post based solely on my subjective opinion and I also created a reasonable work around for really short posts. Short posts, meta announcements, and poems will get included with the immediately preceding long-form post. For example, on some days it will just be one long-form UR link, on others it will be one long-form UR link followed by one or more links to short posts (usually poems) that came immediately after it chronologically. There was no hard rule on what counts as a short post, I just used my best judgment based on the length and content. With the above in mind, I ended up with 240 individual daily moldbug posts. They will start getting posted daily starting on August 1st 2016 and the last post will be on March 28th 2017. The cycle will automatically repeat with the first post being repeated again on March 29th 2017 and on until the end of the world. Of course, this is assuming I coded everything right. I have checked and rechecked but it is possible there are mistakes in there somewhere that I will need to fix. If so there may be some slight alterations of the schedule, but even so I am committed to getting this up and running. If you ever notice an issue with one or more of these posts, please message the mods. If you are following along and reading the daily post each day, and fall behind for whatever reason, you can go to the new sister sub /r/thedailymoldbug to catch up. This tracks the submissions in the main sub and won’t have anything else, so you can quickly go back to where you left off.

Even though I started working on this quite some time ago, I only worked on it sporadically and in a very leisurely way at first (there was a lot of tedious stuff to do). I decided to start really getting things moving after my falling out with Hestia society because that incident strongly suggested a need for a purist revival. Like I mentioned earlier, neoreaction and the dark enlightenment exists to a large extent only because of moldbug’s persuasive and creative writing on history and politics. Hestia wouldn’t deny that, I don’t think, but they also don’t mention it a whole lot either. The original content from UR makes it clear that neoreaction/the dark enlightenment was always meant to be a philosophy and not a movement. Basically it is an intellectual and/or philosophical branch of thinking that movements, such as the alt-right, can use in whatever battles with leftists they find themselves in. Movements understandably have leaders and structure. Philosophies can have leaders as well, but it is harder to define and much harder to defend the title. At this point, the only one who really has any standing to claim leadership or official status is Moldbug himself. Myself and many others don’t believe any other entity, regardless of claims to the contrary, has any standing to claim leadership or official status of neoreaction or the dark enlightenment. Even if someone did have such standing, it is arguably heresy to purist neoreactionary philosophy. Anyone can go through the original moldbug posts and start writing on the same topics without much or any reference to writers that came afterward. With the daily moldbug post, it will hopefully be easier to encourage more smart people to do exactly that.

Lastly, we circle back to the original reason I started this project: Concern trolling. I have spent a great amount of effort getting this daily post going in order to address concerns some of you have. Getting all those links compiled in the right order, categorizing long vs. short, and coding around each submission was an incredibly tedious process. I have done far more to address these concerns than 99% of the other mods on reddit would have bothered with, for free, and despite concern trolling being officially against the rules.  I even had to ask reddit to make an exception on number of allowed scheduled posts, which they kindly provided (I was pleasantly surprised). As such, I consider these concerns thoroughly addressed and will be taking a harder stance against concern trolling in the future. When the sub first started people complained it had too much influence from the red pill, later other people though it was too much about HBD. In the last week I have had a number of comments claiming it is too alt-right, or too white nationalist, or not true enough to the original work. Whaa, whaa, whaa. Somebody is always going to be unhappy no matter what is done. Typically such concerned comments come with a very distinct lack of details, examples, or suggestions for how to improve.

It may, MAY, be true that there have been more posts focused on race recently. But then we have had how many attacks by brown people on whites in the last month? How many riots by brown people against whites have we had in the last two years? If more posts are on race relations, it is because the regular writers are addressing it more because of current events. This is not an issue with the sub so much as an issue with the reality of the world in 2016. EDIT: Speak of the devil. Yet another terrorist attack happens while I am writing up this announcement.

With the advent of the daily moldbug post, concern trolling comments of this sort are going to now be removed without mercy. First strike will result in a warning and a temporary ban of up to a week, depending on how severe it is. Second strike will result in a permanent ban. I reserve the right to perma-ban on a first strike if a post is particularly egregious. From this point on, you only have two points of recourse for your concerns about the sub.

1) You can privately message the mods with your concerns and suggestions for improvement. That last part is important, directionless whining is useless.

2) If you feel there should be more of a certain kind of content, then it is your job to find and post that kind of content. Don’t whine or complain, submit the content you think the sub needs more of and keep concern trolling out of my comment sections. I have made a list of competent writers which you can use to help in this task.

Those of you who have been concern trolling recently, you know who you are. There will be no retroactive response to comments already made, but from now on you need to follow the above in addressing your concerns.

As always, thank you for being here and please enjoy this new feature of the sub.

Share Button

Smart and SeXy

Smart and SeXy: The Evolutionary origins and biological underpinnings of cognitive differences between the sexes

The soft cover edition is available here. If you are on a budget you can also download the E-book. You can read the review here and the counter-currents review here.

This is probably the most heretical work I have ever or will ever put to writing personally, and probably one of the most heretical things from the perspective of progressives, feminists and any other member of the cathedral available anywhere. If you want a no-nonsense (i.e., no feminism) description of sex differences, then you will probably enjoy the information contained within. If you have questions about what exactly the gender differences in intelligence are, by what fairly exact biological mechanisms they come about, and what potential evolutionary narratives explain what we observe, then this is the book for you. After reading this book you will not only know the current patterns of sex differences in intelligence as shown by psychometric tests, but why and how the underlying biology explains the patterns we observe. At the heart of the differences is both genetic and hormonal elements which work in concert to generate what we see on an every day basis. It has taken years of work (since 2011) and hundreds of hours invested in reading hundreds of dry academic papers to compile the more than 300 sources included, but I did so you can have the evidence all in one place and explained in lay terms. And perhaps most importantly, to have the evidence for gender differences in intelligence without muddying the waters with the foul taint of feminism.

At the heart of The Red Pill and the Dark Enlightenment, when thinking about women, is a kernal which grows to support everything else; all the theory on game, marriage, etc. All higher level knowledge is dependent on it. The fundamental concept, or more accurately the anti-concept, is the rejection of Equality. Egalitarianism just isn’t so. Men and women aren’t equal and they aren’t the same. Knowing they are not equal allows correct understanding of the world and relationships from successful one night stands to successful marriages. The entirety of the manosphere and red pill are dependent on this insight. The Dark Enlightenment is also dependent on this insight, but they expand it to include not only sex differences but ethnic differences as well.

Having that level of dependence on that initial small kernal can present a problem when it isn’t sufficiently supported by evidence. Though there is this and that study which suggests in a minor way that gender equality is false, it is my view that such information as bolsters the rejection of egalitarianism when it comes to men and women is lacking sufficient centralization within the manosphere and neoreactionary community. There may be thousands of individual blog posts on the topic, but mostly each one only addresses a small part of the big picture and getting the entirety of the picture from these diffused writings can be more difficult than it needs to be. The known facts are sufficiently dispersed, unorganized, and lacking in coherence that it makes the kernal a source of vulnerability to criticism from the outside. It is, as it were, a chink in our armor that needs to be addressed.

You might think “there is plenty of evidence.” Sure, there is. But, in all honesty, do we (the community more than geneticists) REALLY understand the mechanism? How exactly, at the molecular level, does inequality between men and women come about? It is an important question, and until it is answered so rigorously and thoroughly that it can’t be denied this will always be a vulnerability in our position. This is why I wrote this book. It is meant to be the titanium plate to cover our chink in the armor. This book coheres the currently available data into a single place and a single narrative that is relatively easy to access and difficult to refute. Moreover, and unlike most feminist theories, it presents a testable hypothesis. The genetic explanation for sex differences in intelligence I propose is something that biologists and geneticists can design experiments to test in order to prove or disprove. By making this hypothesis known to the mainstream it forces scientists to directly test the hypothesis. At least that is my hope. Prior evidence suggests what the result of such testing will be.

Another point of this book is to attempt to put to rest once and for all the idea that disparities in achievement between men and women have a chiefly cultural origin; they don’t. The differences between men and women are almost exclusively due to biology. Once society accepts that women aren’t going to ever achieve at the same rate as men, we can stop wasting time and resources promoting women, via affirmative action, into positions and occupations they are not suited for; thus saving a lot of effort and wealth that is currently getting wasted. We might also be able to get the birthrate back up to a more stable level and thus avoid demographic problems.

Lastly, to a certain extent it is meant to be a handbook for those who might be faced with deliberation on the topic and who need to quickly reference one type of study or another to demonstrate biological reality. I have made herculean efforts to make this as readable as possible and I believe I have done a good job with this, but I have placed greater emphasis on including as much relevant information with proper citations to credible journals as possible. I wanted to give people knowledge of which studies they need to cite for their particular argument or discussion in one convenient and accessible place.

Who to thank?

I owe some twisted gratitude to progressive academics who through their push to shun and silence me in the name of political correctness gave me the motivation I needed to write this book contrary to their culturally Marxist fantasies. On multiple occasions I have been personally screwed over by people holding that ideology because I was so audacious as to merely mention I had read The Bell Curve and found the points within to be worth consideration. I didn’t even claim to agree with it, just that it is a hypothesis which needs to be taken seriously. That is, I was trying to be an objective biologist which is what scientists are supposed to do. What we are trained to do in fact. There were also several situations (probably more actually) where similar points, but about gender instead of race, met with pretty much the same result. Though it didn’t end up mattering very much, I was rejected from one graduate school because the chairman of the department found out I had a conversation with another professor about the bell curve (that professor actually brought the topic up!). That chairman then projected onto me an argument he had with his daughter’s teacher where apparently the teacher said or believed something sexist. The bell curve only briefly talks about gender differences (a couple pages out of 849)…  What the teacher actually did was never very clearly explained. This guy was mad, and it had absolutely nothing to do with anything I said to him, and I got a nice rejection because of it. So ya, I got really pissed, and not for the first or last time. A string of situations just like this created a great resentment within me, which I am sure is quite true of many other people given the swelling of the red pill, the dark enlightenment and other internet phenomena. These prig prog “scientists” were being complete a**%^$!s about hypotheses which cover perfectly valid scientific questions, and which as I show in the book have a great deal of empirical support. If it hadn’t been for my naive faith in actual objectivity in science, and the subsequent confrontation with the progressive faith that actually exists in science that resulted, I almost certainly never would have cared enough to do any of this work. I may never have cared enough to find neoreaction. Yet those things did happen, and now neoreaction, the alt-right and the red pill have something available that they can use against left-wing creationists, should they desire to use it.

Confrontations like these have made me, and many others, heavily motivated to discredit feminism because their beliefs don’t match the facts and they witch hunt anyone and everyone who points that out. The best way to do that is with hard data and if I didn’t do it, I feared nothing else so comprehensive would have come out for years. Or if it did, it would be hidden in esoteric academic texts in obscure journals and even then it would be dressed in evasive and overly-qualified language. In fact, I would argue that there has been more than enough data available to discredit feminism for a very long time but paywalls for publicly funded research (don’t get me started on that) and a wide dispersion of everything relevant with substantial credibility has made it difficult to pull everything together. There are many, many papers which touch on the subject but none that I have been able to locate that brings it all together. And they definitely don’t come close to calling out progressives. Most try to appease the leftist mobs. To do this right takes an outsider, and it takes someone with an audience. I have a marginal audience, but the biggest help with spreading the information lies with my ties to the other neoreactionaries who have a much larger following. Likely, it will spread to the manosphere blogs due to the porous nature of the divide between neoreaction and that community. Or not, only time will tell.

Blog vs. book

There are a number of bloggers who write for years then decide after the fact to convert their posts into a book. In my case, I actually went the other direction. I had already had this book in progress for several years prior to starting this blog in 2014. A number of posts on this blog (not all) were either direct offshoots from work on this project or were indirectly inspired by my work on the book and later integrated as they were highly relevant to points I was making. Some changed little, while others changed significantly in the move. For the most part, my posts are shortened versions of what appears in the book and have less evidence, citations, and topics as a result of needing to make them stand alone away from the rest of the text. However, the most important part of the book, in my mind, is the large numbers of studies collected together from a wide variety of fields and which constitute the evidence for the biological origins of sexual dimorphism in intelligence. This includes both IQ test studies and the impact of the genetics and hormones on the brain and intelligence. This evidence is exclusive to the book. If you would like a taste of the content of the book before deciding whether or not you want it, I recommend you take a look at the following posts:

Career women are dysgenic

How standardized testing undervalues men

stereotype threat and pseudo-scientists.

Share Button

John Derbyshire’s “Dissidents and Doom”

Recently there has been some hand-wringing in neoreaction about the tendency for non-mainstream thinkers (i.e. neoreactionaries, among others) to be contrarian and anti-social. Well, that is true. It kind of goes along with the territory. Going against a well-established and popular consensus (right or wrong) by yourself in the face of possible harm (financial and/or physical) takes a very special type of personality.

First, Warg Franklin penned a piece on the parable of the raft. Then, Nick B Steves had a follow up piece which was also pretty good. In summary, both articles at once acknowledged both the virtues and the flaws of the dissident personality. It has both, of course. Not to mention that neoreaction wouldn’t exist without it. We are nothing if not dissidents from a well established and alarmingly overbearing Cathedral.

The obvious problem with the dissident personality is that they tend to be very hard to get alone with. And then if they do form groups, many or most of the people in the group have the tendency not to get along with each other because they don’t get along with anyone; least of all other people who are hard to get along with. The moment the group starts doing something they don’t like, they wont hesitate to go it alone so they can have their way completely. Clearly that isn’t a very good trait for a society that requires social cohesion. Though the enabling of the cathedral from mass acquiescence of a generally conforming populace is really bad, having a population full of people with the dissident personality that could short-circuit the cathedral would probably be just as bad, but for different reasons. (Well, maybe not AS bad, but it would have problems). Fortunately, we don’t need that many. A firm unshakable belief in 10% of the population is enough to change a consensus.

There is always the possibility that the dissident is completely wrong and the consensus is right. In which case their contrarian determination can only cause trouble. Still, there are definitely times where the dissident is right and everyone else is wrong; in which case they suddenly become quite valuable if they can convince everyone else.

Of course, given Steves’ and Warg’s purposes of herding the cats of neoreaction it is no wonder that this problem is often on their mind. They deal with it a lot. I have to admit that I myself am guilty of giving in a little too much to my own dissident temperament…

Given that, though, I think they came down a little hard on the dissident personality type because of their experience. I don’t blame them, but I think a defense of the dissident personality and why it is so important is needed so that perspective isn’t lost. Fortunately one already exists. It was written years ago by John Derbyshire and to this day it is still one of my favorite articles produced by the alternative-right (before the modern incarnation changed the meaning of that term a bit). In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if Steves’ use of the word “dissident” in this context and connotation didn’t originate in Derbyshire’s article/speech. (If you don’t remember the exact title, it can be hard to locate.)

The article was actually a speech given to the providence college republicans titled “Dissidents and Doom” and is related to his book “We are doomed: reclaiming conservative pessimism.”

Personally, I prefer the written transcript. In it he outlines why dissidents are important and the critical role they serve when a culture goes completely off the rails. I recommend the whole thing, but I will provide a few choice quotes. I don’t think I can top what he has already done, and I don’t want to reinvent the wheel anyway, so I will let him explain. First, what is the dissident personality?

The dissident temperament has been present in all times and places, though only ever among a small minority of citizens. Its characteristic, speaking broadly, is a cast of mind that, presented with a proposition about the world, has little interest in where that proposition originated, or how popular it is, or how many powerful and credentialed persons have assented to it, or what might be lost in the way of property, status, or even life, in denying it. To the dissident, the only thing worth pondering about the proposition is, is it true? If it is, then no king’s command can falsify it; and if it is not, then not even the assent of a hundred million will make it true.

I see in these dissidents a lot of the personality characteristics that my loved ones complain about in me: a stubborn cussedness, a disdain for cant and wishful thinking, a lack of interest in what I am supposed to believe and supposed to say. “Who doesn’t want to be a good citizen?” I don’t, not if it involves saying things I know to be preposterous.

Derbyshire definitely agrees that the dissident can be hard to get along with, but he is more inclined to see the glass is half full:

At root this tendency is antisocial. Indeed, if you mix with dissidents much, you notice how fissiparous they are, how they can never agree among themselves about anything for very long. The dissident scene is full of petty animosities and slanders. I find dissidents to be individually admirable and attractive, but collectively hopeless. I’m glad to know they are there, though — that I’m not the only member of what my mother called “the awkward squad.”

And even gives it to totalitarians that a society full of contrarians wouldn’t be great:

And in fact, though it’s an awful thing to say, and I’m going to smother it with qualification, in fact the totalitarians have a sort of a point. A society can’t be stable without widespread unthinking conformism. That’s why dissidents are unpopular. I have spoken to quite liberal and well-educated people in China about high-profile dissidents like Wei Jingsheng. They are not very respectful of dissidence. Mostly they just think dissidents are a bit wrong in the head. Sometimes, and you especially hear this from women, you’ll hear: “He can do what he likes on his own account, but think of the harm he’s doing to his family.” Along with the association with madness, there is an association with social chaos — in the case of Chinese people, fear that too much independence of mind could bring back the terrible chaos of the Cultural Revolution.

Just as the association with chaos has some justification, at least in societies traditionally or recently disorderly, so has the association with craziness. The totalitarians who put dissidents into mental hospitals are of course doing a wicked thing, but again, there’s a little grain of truth in the wickedness. Dissidents are poorly socialized. As Eugene said: “Who doesn’t want to be a good citizen?” And the poorly socialized are seen by the better socialized as a bit nutty.

On how a dissdent should exercise restraint:

The sensible dissident should in fact practice a lot of self-restraint. He should in particular show a proper respect for the idols of the tribe. When I was a teenager back in England it was the custom at movie theaters that when the movie program ended, the National Anthem would be played. Everyone was supposed to stand up and be still for the duration. Well, of course, by the age of sixteen I had seen through all that stupid monarchy stuff — a bunch of rich people living in palaces and doing no useful work. Stand up for them? Not me! So I and some like-minded coevals would bravely sit through the anthem. This generated a lot of disapproval from other patrons, leading once or twice almost to fist-fights. We’d made our dissident point, though.

Now I know that the point was not worth making. Harmless tribal rituals are not to be objected to. They are part of the glue that holds a nation together. That’s a fundamental conservative insight. If you’re going to dissent, dissent about something that matters.

What matters? Truth.

Truth is one of the central features of the dissident personality and it is no wonder neoreaction attracts people with that personality type given its similar disregard for feelings and sociability for the sack of truth. As a group we all care more about truth than we care about keeping our heads down or sparing feelings. And it is this concern for unmitigated truth which implies that when a dissident speaks (or writes), you should at least hear him out. His main value which leads to him being a dissident in the first place is his sole concern with the truth; especially with respect to social pressure and conformity. This concern leads the dissident to find methods of sifting truth from fiction. Methods the average person never bothers to learn for themselves. Chances are that he is much more likely to speak the truth (or at least his honest perception thereof) as a result. Derbyshire describes the thinking of the average person in comparison to the unmitigated pursuit of truth:

The ordinary modes of human thinking are magical, religious, social, and personal. We want our wishes to come true; we want the universe to care about us; we want the approval of those around us; we want to get even with that s.o.b who insulted us at the last tribal council. For most people, wanting to know the cold truth about the world is way, way down the list …

When the magical (I wish this to be so: therefore it is so!) and the religious (We are all one! Brotherhood of man! The universe loves us!) and the social (This is what all good citizens believe! If you believe otherwise you are a bad person!) and the personal (That bastard didn’t show me the respect I’m entitled to!) all come together, the mighty psychic forces unleashed can be irresistible. Ask Larry Summers or James Watson.

Derbyshire also goes on for a while about “soft-totalitarianism,” what we would call the cathedral. One of the examples he uses is on black/white IQ differences, but there are other examples:

At the beginning of lecture 25, “Intelligence, Genes, and Environment,” [Princeton neuroscientist Sam Wang] promised a discussion of group differences, but all we got was some bland stuff about males vs. females. In one of the lectures on learning he skated as close as he dared to the dread topic, but then opened an escape hatch and dropped through it. The name of the escape hatch is “Eyferth,” a great favorite with those on the nurture side of the nature-nurture issue. Klaus Eyferth was a German researcher who in 1961 published a study on the children of black and white U.S. servicemen born to German women. The study showed no overall difference in average IQ between black and white children. There are all sorts of open questions about the study: we don’t for example know the IQs of the fathers. The really big question, though, is this: Since the Eyferth study has been such a huge hit, and gets mentioned by every politically correct commentator on the human sciences, how is it that in fifty years — fifty years! — nobody has been able to replicate the findings?

The 2003 Turkheimer study that claimed to show heritability of IQ is lower in low-income families is another one of these nurturist darlings. David Brooks cites it uncritically in his new book, which I reviewed in the last but one issue of National Review. Sam Wang refers to it too, also uncritically. Neither of them seems aware that at least three attempts to replicate Turkheimer’s findings came up with results that were either null or else the opposite of what Turkheimer claimed to have found. The omission is pardonable in Brooks’ case — the guy’s just a journalist, after all — but not in Prof. Wang’s.

This is the environment of soft totalitarianism I am speaking about. Quite well-established facts about human nature may not be mentioned, even in a lecture by a professor at a prestigious university — a lecture I paid good money for. (Do I have a case in law here?) Where facts are not well-established, but suggest more than one possibility, only possibilities agreeable to ruling political orthodoxies may be discussed.

It is when pervasive lies and/or denials like that of racial differences, gender differences, socialism, immigration or other parts of the mainstream consensus are both extremely harmful to society and become unmentionable that the dissident personality becomes absolutely critical and indispensable. Only the dissident can withstand the pressure of conformity and tell everyone to pull their heads out of their rears. Society needs them for those inevitable times when Lysenkoism takes over. They are the release valve that can slowly drag the society back to sanity. With the dissident comes the chance to escape collapse. Without them, collapse is inevitable. So when considering whether or not a dissident should be ostracized great care should be taken. Dissidents provide a valuable service and whether or not they are right should always take precedence over whether or not they are disagreeable. That is true in general, but doubly true for neoreaction. It is true that you should protect your community from the sorts who will destabilize it, but at the same time moderation should be shown in such judgements. Not every contrarian is a trolling entryist.

For the non-dissident personality types, as well as for my fellow neoreactionaries, I leave you with Derbyshire’s request in relation to the dissident personality. One I wholeheartedly agree with:

Give the dissident temperament a little respect. When dissidents are obnoxious or nutty, which we often are, cut them some slack. Bring your own critical faculties to bear on the things they talk about, and always check the source materials. Try to learn to spot an urban legend or a convenient truth, especially one you hear a lot from not-very-well-informed people. If, when passing through a public square, you see that they’re burning a heretic at the stake, at the very least don’t join in the applause.

Also, this poem at the end was pretty good:

Here, in this little Bay
Full of tumultuous life and great repose,
Where, twice a day,
The purposeless, glad ocean comes and goes,
Under high cliffs, and far from the huge town,
I sit me down.
For want of me the world’s course will not fail;
When all its work is done, the lie shall rot;
The truth is great, and shall prevail,
When none cares whether it prevail or not.

(Note: Unsurprisingly, in an example of possible lysenkoism, firefox doesn’t recognize “lysenkosim” as a word).

Share Button

A proposal: Social Matter for the sciences.

A user on reddit posted a link in which he lamented that there is not a neoreactionary magazine devoted specifically to science and technology news. Frankly, I think this is a very good idea. I have published things related to this several times before. You can see two of these articles here and here.

My book on gender differences in intelligence, and the biological basis thereof, is actually finished and loosely qualifies for what he wants. So that is science, which is just science, coupled with neoreactionary interpretations. I am still negotiating with a potential publisher, otherwise it would already be available. I hope to have it out by the end of the year, but this process takes a long time I understand. If that doesn’t work out, I will put it out on amazon instead. As important as I feel that is, it isn’t a science magazine which has regularly published short articles. It would be quite beneficial to start such an institution.

If there was going to be a neoreactionary science magazine I think that it would mostly be the regular critiquing of various published articles and pointing out the liberal bias in them. You can see a good template in Steve McIntyres Climate Audit website. Imagine this, but with broader topics and an explicitly neoreactionary position. Academia is a left dominated institution after all and I don’t see reactionary scientists getting funding or being published anytime soon. So really that is all we could do with the occasional exception. Before I started my current blog, I considered doing just this kind of content. Specifically, I had in mind a blog which took a published article from psychology every week or two and went through it to find bad or missing interpretations of the findings. Social psychology especially provides a wealth of material to be ripped apart by critique, but plenty of other branches do as well. Basically, what I have found in reading these articles is that often the data collection and number crunching is about as decent as could be expected, but the interpretations of the findings are often just way off; or certain conclusions are conspicuously absent. We don’t necessarily have to analyze papers as a statistician would to critique these papers. In fact, we can often just assume that all the data and math was done superbly (even if that probably isn’t true) and still find major problems with the paper. By conceding that part and focusing on interpretations it should make it so many more of us could participate in writing content for this magazine. Of course, we could also include pieces which simply analyses new advances in technology as well. I believe I could make a commitment to creating content at least once every two weeks and maybe once a week when time permits. Would anyone else in the neoreactosphere be willing to start working on this sort of thing with me such that we have something similar to social matter but for science and technology specifically? Please email me at or comment on this blog so we can start to make a plan.

Also, pretty much any paper should be freely accessible if we use and /r/scholar to get them, so no one should go out of pocket to get papers for thrashing.

Share Button

The Cathedral Compilation

One of Mencius Moldbug’s most important insights and contributions to the Dark Enlightenment was the idea that modern secular progressivism is actually the evolutionary descendant of puritan/Calvinist Christianity. The Cathedral is a Christian sect that very cleverly adopted the camouflage of secularism so as to more easily infect (memefect?) non-Christians and non-religious institutions in addition to actual believers. Only later did it deign to reject all pretenses of overt Christian theology. The biggest advantage of the camouflage was that it could get around that pesky separation of church and state in order to gain control of the coercive power of government and yet still not worry about anyone objecting to the new crypto-theocracy. Some very intricate rhetorical techniques have been developed, such as the motte and bailey, to support the effectiveness of this camouflage. In hindsight, the inclusion of the separation of church and state may have made such an evolution of religious feeling inevitable.

Keep in mind that all of this discussion isn’t meant to imply a grand conspiracy with central authority or control. Quite the contrary. In so far as as people are Crypto-calvinists today, it is a matter of mass action. Each individual, with the some helpful nudging in the form of mass education, individually decides to assent to Universalist mysticism. A knowledge of the origins of this mysticism is not required to adopt it so most people are blissfully ignorant of where all these strange ideas came from. (Most) humans are religious animals, and they are going to believe in something transcendent no matter the circumstance. If explicit belief in the supernatural becomes untrendy or marginalized, then spiritual feeling will assume a covert form. Alternatively, a new spirituality with the potential for trendiness will simply be made up.

Crypto-Calvinism didn’t just appear overnight, it has been slowly evolving in the United States and particularly in the northeast ever since the constitution was written and religion was banned from government. In the same way natural selection can create complex emergent forms in nature without conscious guidance or goal, so too can the same process create complex and intricate memeplexes in culture without the requirement of central planning or a pre-imagined endpoint. (The current version of this article on la wik appears to have been gutted, so I used an archive)

Anytime someone stumbles upon neoreaction for the first time, inevitably one of the first things he wonders about is this concept of the Cathedral. Rather than repeat what has already been explored beyond the short summary above, I decided to create a compilation of articles which explore the cathedral and modern progressivism as a nontheistic Christian sect. Any newcomers can then have fairly straightforward access to most of the writings done on this topic in one convenient place. Without such a compilation it would be very difficult to find all the relevant essays.

Mencius Moldbug:

Fossetti gave a good summary of unqualified reservations, Moldbug’s blog, if you are looking for (relative) brevity.

Moldbug mentions the Cathedral in many of his posts, but I tried to only pick the ones that seem to focus mostly on cladistics. Here are the Moldbug posts which originally started outlining the idea:

A PDF copy of the above posts.

Moldbug later went on to develop the idea of the cathedral in book length detail:

In fairness, I must point out that Dawkins disagrees that he was or could be pwned.

Descriptions from others in the Neoreactosphere:

From outside the Dark Enlightenment

Signs of the Cathedral

This is certainly an incomplete list of Cathedral related posts and articles. Should you find any other articles that you think should be included in this list, please leave a comment with a link.

Share Button