Trump Wins the White House

I have been preoccupied with other matters for a while, and that probably won’t change in the immediate future, but I thought I would take a break from my recent absence to comment on the Trump victory. There is a lot of good feelz out there in reactionary circles about it, and I will admit the feeling is somewhat contagious. It is nice to finally win one after so long watching everything just get worse and worse with no apparent relief until the appearance of the Trump candidacy (and now future presidency). There is a hope that there is more to all this stuff we have been doing, and there seems to be a real possibility that there is more to living in the west than mere fatalism. Maybe we don’t just have to accept that the west is doomed.

Unfortunately, the above paragraph just about uses up my ration of optimism for this year. The truth of the matter is that Trump is not a reactionary, and there is no reason to think that he will go anywhere near far enough to correct the massive dysfunctions infecting our institutions and culture. Even if he does everything he has talked about, to the letter, most of us would agree enough still wouldn’t have been done. And I doubt he will go as far as he said he would on the campaign trail anyway, though I expect him to do something in that direction.  Let’s not forget that he will have career bureaucrats trying to block and ruin his every action even if he does try to do everything he said he would.

Our demographics are absolutely swelling with hostile minorities who falsely believe that white men are to blame for their own problems. Trump isn’t going to fix that distorted belief, and the problem is still getting worse. The distortion itself continues to become more extreme, and the number of minorities around who hold it increase at a high rate because of both immigration AND birthrates. Stopping immigration will not stop high birth rates. It will continue to get worse even if he halts all immigration the day he is inaugurated.

In addition, even if he is a natural alpha, to borrow red pill terminology, I don’t see any indication he will push for changes in law that restore more traditional family structures and end the tyranny of feminism. Such things don’t harm natural alphas much anyway. Feminists may have suffered a blow to morale, but that is temporary and ultimately meaningless. They will return with renewed and redoubled vigor, eventually.

For both of these tenuously allied groups, there is a future election waiting to be won. Especially since demographics are heavily in favor of minority factions. At that time, they will pick up right where Obama left off and make the spirit of a Hillary presidency a reality, just at a delayed date and with different names to attribute it to. This election has at best delayed the agenda of the far-left, if that. Some day they will come back and use the institution of democracy to further that agenda.

Hence we find our real enemy. The institution of democracy is what will be used to continue the dispossession of productive whites and traditional families. If not today, then in four years, or eight, or twelve. It doesn’t really matter exactly when, because the clock is ticking and it is only a matter of time. When, not if. There is going to come a point where European stock all over the world will have to accept that the number of warm bodies at the ballot box is an insufficient justification for rule. Otherwise, we will be destroyed by vindictive incompetents. We will have to stand up and yell: “I don’t care how many billions you number your horde, I will not be ruled by you and yours under any circumstance. I will not allow you to have any say over myself, my family, my people or my nation. Get out.”

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 amerika.org 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

Lesbians are Sub-standard, Imitation Men

For the most part, I consider lesbians/feminists to be essentially the same group because of the degree of overlap. At least if you restrict the meaning of “feminist” to include only those actively and fervently going out to protest or causing various problems with some intensity. I consider a woman who mentions in passing she is a feminist, but makes no effort otherwise, to be a “real” feminist about as much as I consider a “Christian” who has never actually read the bible, and thus knows less about it than myself as an atheist, to be a real Christian rather than just a status signalling churchian. Lots of people merely pay lip service to the norms of their community whether it is feminism, Christianity, or any number of other cliques just so they can fit in. Believe it or not, such behavior is not intrinsically good or bad. In a healthy culture this is exactly how you want most people to behave; we just don’t have a healthy culture. I suspect a lot of women claiming to be “feminist” fall into this category or at least are fairly passive about it and think more about make-up and shoes than women’s lib. However, I also suspect there is  a category of “real” feminists (i.e., the radical “true” lesbian feminists) and they are the ones who take leadership roles in spreading degeneracy and misleading otherwise normal, but psychologically vulnerable, women. Fortunately, not all women are susceptible.

Leftoid click-bait title aside, however, I do feel that female sexuality is probably more “fluid” than male sexuality. There is an evolutionary reason why this might be the case. As we know, both men and women have duel mating strategies. In the case of women, they have the alpha/beta dichotomy where alphas can provide good genes* but rarely provide good commitment whereas betas may provide commitment and provision but not good genes (in terms of the reproductive potential of offspring). In the ancestral environment, high tier women might have, while young, secured alpha commitment, but mid-tier women or older high tier women would have probably received very little, if any, material support from the alpha as he moved on to younger women. These women might try to move onto a beta to pay for these illegitimate children, but there is no guarantee they would be successful and even if many succeed, there are probably many more that completely fail in the second part of the strategy for whatever reason. Even betas occasionally realize providing for another man’s children isn’t a good deal and would rather spend their money on booze and whores. In ancient polygamous societies it may actually be impossible for the woman to move on anyway even if her and her children have been made a very low priority by the resident alpha. In the context of the ancestral small tribe in the jungle where no-one knows paternity, all men might have been inclined to completely ignore women past a certain age and their children. Lesbianism could provide a benefit to abandoned and neglected women psychologically and materially.

(Without digressing too much, men are unlikely to have this middle ground softening of selection pressures without the burden of child-rearing which means what we get is either complete genetic failure or complete heterosexual males without all that much in between. Sexually antagonistic selection probably explains the persistence of male homosexuals.)

For under-provisioned single mothers, it might make sense for two women to “pair” together to pool resources in raising their collective children. Clearly this is less than ideal compared to a monogamous, heterosexual nuclear family, but it may be a step up materially from raising children completely alone. They would get some benefits from division of labor. This could explain why female sexuality appears more fluid and why lesbianism might even have a modest positive selection pressure so long as the “lesbians” in question are still getting pregnant consistently. And in fact, self-identifying “lesbians” are more likely to get pregnant than straight women. Go figure. A woman having sex with another woman does not appear to stop her from having sex with men as well. Now, this last piece of evidence begs the question of whether lesbianism exists at all as a distinct thing (except in a minority of cases), or whether what we are actually looking at is a spectrum of promiscuity; greater promiscuity in women translating into more sex with whoever happens to be around. I think this may be likely for many cases, but that isn’t the focus of this post. Like I said before, I am more concerned with the exceptional “true” lesbians who populate the leadership and role-model levels of the feminist movement.

When women pair-bond, it is likely that one of the women assumes the “dominant” masculine role while the other assumes a “submissive” feminine role. Now the dominant woman isn’t a man, and can’t completely fulfill the role, but from the perspective of the submissive, she is probably better than nothing at all when the sub’s alpha/beta dual strategy fails in the second stage. What inclines one woman to be more dominant? Well, one thing might be a higher than average (for women) level of testosterone during fetal development[PDF]. Higher levels of testosterone in women during the critical development periods masculinizes them. I know of two specific conditions which can cause this, but I doubt they are the only possible causes out there. One is polycystic ovary syndrome and the other is congenital adrenal hyperplasia. (I also want to note that androgen insensitivity syndrome might also contribute, by a separate mechanism, individuals somewhat similar to a “true” lesbian. Except in this case, the person in question actually is male but for all outside appearances looks female. There is no way to know what influence such individuals may have historically had on the feminist movement since before recent times there was no way to know they had this condition. And even after we could know, it is private medical information the “women” would probably be hesitant to reveal). As I have already outlined, there may be evolutionary reasons why partially masculinized women may be favored. In an environment where men rarely commit, women must take on the brunt of the child-rearing duties and they are likely better at providing if they think and act a bit more like males and if they collaborate with other women in similar situations. This is probably related somewhat to the greater testosterone levels in black women. Black men are notoriously poor providers on average, both in America and Africa, so the race as a whole has developed more masculine women because it presumably helps those women provide for their children alone. (And which is in a feedback loop with female preference for higher T masculine cads).

Anyway, because lesbianism doesn’t have a strong enough selection pressure against it, or maybe even a modest positive one, the trait can stay stable in a population at above zero frequencies. It may even be analogous to the way sickle-cell anemia interacts with malaria. The sickle cell trait gene, when in a heterozygous state, provides protection from malaria but is crippling when in a homozygous state. In the same way, female attraction to other females may provide insurance against male abandonment without preventing reproduction when expressed in a partial manner while being reproductively crippling when completely expressed. The benefit of the former may, like in the case of sickle-cell, outweigh the cost of the later on balance and keep the trait present in the population. If true, however, that means that completely expressing “true” lesbians are born at some small but non-zero frequency and are in some sense “crippled” with respect to their evolutionary fitness. It is these “true” lesbians who completely express lesbian preferences who have been and are the real earth-movers in the feminist movement; at least this is what I suspect.

But you have to ask, why are these “true” lesbians not simply content to date other women and otherwise remain fairly quiet? Presumably enough women are partially expressing that they shouldn’t have too much trouble pair-bonding with the “true” lesbian being dominant and the partially expressing woman being submissive. If the “true” lesbian doesn’t have much trouble pair-bonding, what the hell is her beef with society in general? What makes her so mad that she feels she must destroy everything? I would venture to guess that the reason is masculinization does a lot more than simply create attraction for women. A key aspect of the male experience is competition within masculine hierarchies. It is this competition which allows men to demonstrate their high value to each other and especially to women they potentially want to mate with. Anything that masculinizes the brain will create a need and desire to be successful in these male status hierarchies. “True” lesbians are masculinized to such a degree that they also try to engage in male hierarchy jostling and competition. The problem is that though they are masculinized compared to other women, they are still women. They do not possess the same innate physical or mental capability of even the most beta men. Almost every time they attempt to compete with men, they almost invariability end up near the bottom of the established male pecking order. They are, therefore, masculine enough to recognize and desire to compete against men, but feminine enough that they are almost guaranteed to completely fail at every attempt. They are, in effect, sub-standard imitation men.

The idea that the “true” lesbian leaders of the feminist movement are essentially defective men seems to be tentatively confirmed by recent research  (though they say it a bit nicer). The abstract:

The feminist movement purports to improve conditions for women, and yet only a minority of women in modern societies self-identify as feminists. This is known as the feminist paradox. It has been suggested that feminists exhibit both physiological and psychological characteristics associated with heightened masculinization, which may predispose women for heightened competitiveness, sex-atypical behaviors, and belief in the interchangeability of sex roles. If feminist activists, i.e., those that manufacture the public image of feminism, are indeed masculinized relative to women in general, this might explain why the views and preferences of these two groups are at variance with each other. We measured the 2D:4D digit ratios (collected from both hands) and a personality trait known as dominance (measured with the Directiveness scale) in a sample of women attending a feminist conference. The sample exhibited significantly more masculine 2D:4D and higher dominance ratings than comparison samples representative of women in general, and these variables were furthermore positively correlated for both hands. The feminist paradox might thus to some extent be explained by biological differences between women in general and the activist women who formulate the feminist agenda.

My longstanding impression that the main activists in feminism tend to be highly masculinized women seems to be corroborated. Also, I am not alone in this perception:

A survey by Scharff (2012) found that amongst a demographically diverse sample of young women sourced from Germany and the UK, 30 out of 40 women rejected feminism as a consequence of their belief that the ideology is unfeminine, associated with lesbianism, and encourages man-hating. Feminism was also found to be strongly associated with unattractiveness and lesbianism by young men and women alike

The study sample, taken from attendees at a feminist conference, had a large over-representation of lesbians. 45% of the responders were attracted to women vs. 5.6% in the general population. Feminists attending a feminist conference are thus 4.5 times more likely to be attracted to other women than the general population, apparently. Though there is probably a fair margin of error here, I suspect the overall trend is very real.

The feminist activists are at least partially motivated by female solipsism. They project their own atypical experience and feelings onto normal woman and imagine all women want to compete in masculine hierarchies and are resentful of their failure. They aren’t really capable of understanding that normal women have very little in common with masculinized lesbian feminists and do not feel the need to compete against men or feel resentful that they are unable to.

Another possible explanation of why feminism represents a minority position amongst women is therefore that the activists who shape feminist attitudes and beliefs are themselves generally more physiologically and psychologically masculinized than is typical for women (Wilson, 2010). This might for example explain their belief in sex-role interchangeability, as they may perceive the behaviors and interests of sex-typical women as incomprehensible and at variance with their own more masculinized preferences in terms of child-rearing and status-seeking. This might then lead them to infer that women in general have been manipulated to become different from themselves by external forces, as embodied by notions of social constructions or gender systems

As I mentioned before, and is gone over in detail in the article, many women do not identify as feminists. This is true even when they agree with some or all of the goals of feminism. This is known as the feminist paradox and the consensus seems to be that normal women view feminists as manly lesbians and don’t want to themselves be seen as unfeminine. If activist feminists are in fact mostly manly lesbians, say because of higher levels of testosterone exposure, then this paradox can be explained. Those women really are a breed apart and normal woman don’t want to associate with them. Who could blame them?

In conclusion and summary, feminist activists (i.e., lesbians) in general were exposed to too much testosterone, probably during fetal development, which made them masculine enough to feel compelled to compete in ways similar to men and be a part of the masculine hierarchy. Unfortunately for them, they are still women and though their brain is masculinized somewhat it isn’t very masculine relative to real men. As such, they invariably are placed in the very bottom of the masculine hierarchy when they try to legitimately compete in it. This of course builds resentment and they seek any method to push themselves up. Specifically, they are still feminine enough to use means not generally accepted from men by other men. They can be socially manipulative similar to normal women and can act up in ways that men would never allow another man. Men have some sort of chivalrous instinct which usually prevents them from striking down duplicitous and disingenuous feminists. How lesbian feminists behave is thus a sort of hybrid masculine/feminine strategy. They use it, and male passivity towards women generally, to manipulate cultural institutions to artificially place themselves higher in the male hierarchy than they could have ever achieved through honest competition. They want to compete in the male hierarchy and are compelled to try something, anything, to boost their status within it because of their masculinization and they achieve boosts through artificial means like affirmative action and quotas engineered through primarily feminine social manipulation. Clearly their hybrid strategy has been extraordinarily effective in degenerating our society into the crumbling farce it is today.

It is ironic that what leads to the dedicated propagation of destructive feminism is actually a dash of masculinity. A trait which is good and beneficial in men becomes highly toxic and destructive when it appears in women. Unfortunately, given the evolutionary pressures I described it is likely that lesbian feminist harpies will always appear in every generation. Even if we create a new reactionary order these “women” will always be a destabilizing influence. If and when we create a new order, the problem of excessively masculinized women will have to be proactively addressed lest we get a repeat of feminism all over again. Their influence over society must be curtailed as a primary necessity. I’ll leave it to you to consider how that might be done. Perhaps we should exile them all to lesbos.

——————————————————————————————–

I will end with a mildly interesting anecdote which isn’t meant to be persuasive evidence of this idea, though it may be somewhat relevant. I was playing pool in a bar with my brother one time when a group of women sat down at a table near where we were playing. I scoped them out to see if any might be worth approaching. I observed that two of the girls seemed closer than you would expect from friends (i.e., they had their hands on each others thighs). After four or five beers I autisticly went up and asked if they were lesbians. Things were awkward for them, I just didn’t give a damn. I did not condemn them or anything like that, but one of them did get pretty mad (based on non-verbal ques). I think she was still in the closet and didn’t like the overt attention. We talked for a little while then I went back to play pool. Later I was going to the bathroom when one of the lesbians walked by and intentionally chest bumped me. I staggered slightly but she just bounced off me and nearly fell. And this when I wasn’t even paying attention and she was fully conscious of what she was doing. Surprised, I said “What the hell is your problem?” If looks could kill I would be dead, but after a second she just walked off without saying anything. I laughed because after the initial surprise I immediately realized she was mad that I pointed out she was a lesbian and she wanted to chest bump me in anger and frustration. My brother and I still laugh about the lesbian chest bump story every time it comes up. Now, you guys might say I’m a dick, and you are right, but I don’t care.

I imagine that is the type of experience many of these lesbian feminist activists have (figuratively or literally). Not the specific situation, but attempting something competitively with a man (chest bump) and it being almost completely ineffectual (she bounced off harder and farther than I moved) which is probably what makes them so mad.

High quality is determined by instincts and evolution, not reason or preference for civilization. Resources can indicate high quality, but so can great charisma, as well as physical attractiveness. The instincts of women seem to consider all such traits holistically. The only thing that is important is the potential for the children of these men to inherit the traits that enable them to reliably reproduce themselves.

Share Button

The Inspiring Role Model America Deserves

Google ads just emailed me saying my post “the role model america deserves” violated their policy because of the lewd jokes in it and that I need to not have any adds on that page. I have deleted the original post and made it a page, because that was the easiest way to disable the sidebar. The post has been moved to the link below and no adds are present on it:

Here is a link to the new location for this post.

Share Button

Standardized Tests and Propaganda

Now that I am finished writing my book and it is in the process of being published I have been looking for a more traditional vocation. While I look for another job, or possibly start up a business, I have been doing 1 on 1 tutoring sessions for high school students in my area. Sometimes this means their school subjects, but more commonly I work with them on SAT and ACT preparations. And, believe it or not, I usually work with them on mathematics. Mathematics has the virtue of being mostly immune to progressive signalling digressions which is very nice.

However, I also will work on reading and writing if they really want that as well.  The reading and writing sections are not always so lucky with respect to progressivism. In fact, I would venture to guess that there is progressive moral posturing in these sections more often than their isn’t (whether the passages in the reading section or the essay prompt for the writing section). Anecdotally this is the impression I have from reading a fair number of these passages and prompts. Although today I will also be discussing one surprising exception. In the case of the writing section the advice I give is to just follow the rightthink regardless of your personal opinion. It is easier to score higher that way though I am assured by the resources I use to help me tutor this that you can in fact take non-politically correct positions and score well. There is a rumor that some student defended the south in the civil war and got a perfect score. That is just a rumor though. The rubric for grading essays is not meant to take into account a person’s position and is only supposed to be based on writing quality. However, we all know that bucking the progressive trend on this test will only make it harder and really on the test isn’t the time or place to pick a reactionary battle.

Anyway, I use the official red book published by the ACT people when tutoring anything ACT related. In this book they have a series of sample tests which I believe were actual tests used some time in the past. The reading section of the ACT is comprised of four different types of passages. There is the prose fiction passage (a short fictional story basically), a social science passage, a humanities passage and a natural science passage. On the test, the passages always appear in that order so I advise students to start with the passage subject topic which they feel most comfortable with; then the second and so on.

The first practice test opens with a prose fiction passage I have affectionately dubbed “Fran the Sloot.” Below is a picture of this I took, which you should be able to read if you open it in a new tab. Control + mousewheel if you need to zoom in. Actually it is two pictures I edited together since the passage goes onto a second page. I covered up the questions since that isn’t really relevant to the post, but you can read the whole passage.

prose fiction

As you can see from the beginning, the passage is actually not an ACT original but some writing published in 1991 by a progressive academic who I guess wanted to end stigmas on sluts and abandoning children. She was/is quite the moral paragon… However, the author’s intention seems somewhat vague at first glance. All that can be said is that it takes a more neutral tone rather than a highly negative tone appropriate for a degenerate society which tolerates single mothers and/or child abandonment. The gist of the story is that there is a sloot named Fran who got knocked up as a teenager. She gave up the baby for adoption (though her own mother didn’t want her too) and finally 24 years later she gets a (first) letter from the abandoned daughter informing her that she is a grandmother. It mainly details the interactions between grandmother and great-grandmother as they react to the news.

One interesting quote is the following:

Before I even read the letter I knew. I knew how those Nazis feel when suddenly, after twenty or thirty uneventful years, they are arrested walking down some sunny street in Buenos Aires. It’s the shock of being found after waiting so long.

So the author, through the character, at least acknowledges that what she had done may be wrong, and even invokes godwin’s law  before getting 400 words in. That’s a plus, even though Nazis were typically very pro-family and pro-traditional gender roles which makes the analogy, um, quaint. In reality the Nazis would have probably opposed everything that Fran symbolizes. Anyway, this is towards the beginning of the passage and I think it is meant more for contrast with the conclusion than any real condemnation.

Another interesting quote is the following:

“I guess that makes you a great-grandmother,” I said. [Fran the sloot]

“What about you?” she snorted, pointing a jungle orchid fingernail at me. “You’re a grandmother.” [Fran’s mother]

We shook our heads in disbelief. I sat silently, listening to my brain catch up with my history. Forty years old and I felt as if I had just shaken hands with death. I suppose it’s difficult for any woman to accept that she’s a grandmother, but in the normal order of things, you have ample time to adjust to the idea. You don’t get a snapshot in the mail one day from a baby girl you gave up twenty-four years ago saying, “Congratulations, you’re a grandma!”

“It’s not fair,” I said. “I don’t even feel like a mother

Where to begin? The woman gets a letter telling her she is a grandmother and the first thing she thinks about is how that makes her old. Really deep introspection there. In other words, she gets a blatant reminder of her rapidly deflating sexual market value and that is really the main thing she is concerned with. Even now, with twenty years to acknowledge regrets, the character is only concerned with her own selfish desires and feelings. Not only that, but a woman who abandoned her baby has the audacity to cry “It’s not fair.” Really. It was hardly fair to the child, or the taxpayer who presumably paid to have the kid raised either. But no, the real concern is a woman feeling bad about getting old. Academics are a very strange breed with very warped priorities. At least the ones like the female who wrote this short story.

You can also guess from this passage that the child abandoner never had any more kids since being a grandmother comes as such a shock. There apparently were no other children who could have made that happen. Presumably she was just self-absorbed and selfish throughout her life up until her current age and was almost entirely only focused on herself and possibly her career. What a role model, what a moral story, what a great thing to essentially force millions of teenagers across the country to read. Who wants to bet this is representative of the lives of most academic feminists; or just feminists in general?

Anyway, the story finishes with the following in response to the great-grandmother musing about the marriage status of the abandoned daughter:

“She didn’t mention any husband at all,” I said, getting drawn into it despite myself. [said Fran the sloot]

“Maybe you’re worried she’ll be disappointed in you,” she said. “You know, that she’s had this big fantasy for all these years that maybe you were Grace Kelly or Margaret Mead and who could live up to that? No one. But you don’t have to, Fran, that’s the thing. you’re her flesh-and-blood mother and that’s enough. That’s all it’ll take.” [Said Fran’s mother]

This, being the concluding paragraph, most nearly captures the author’s desired interpretation of the situation for her readers. In short, she wants to absolve the selfish, slutty child abandoner of the consequences of her poor decisions. The message seems to be, “don’t worry girls you can be irresponsible sluts and there won’t be consequences. Your abandoned children won’t be bothered by your irresponsible behavior at all and won’t hold it against you. If you abandon your spawn you can go back to being career oriented and selfish, no problem.” Perfect, just perfect.

Most troubling is the mention of Margaret Mead. For those of you who don’t know, Margaret Mead went and lived in Samoa for some time and upon her return wrote a book detailing the culture. She was, most likely, a lesbian and definitely a feminist.

She portrayed Samoa as a gentle, easy-going society where teenagers grew up free of sexual hang-ups. Premarital sex, she claimed, was common. Rape was unheard of. Young people grew to adulthood without enduring the adolescent trauma typical in western countries. She used these findings to support her thesis that culture, not biology, determines human behavior and personality. The book became an anthropological classic, read by generations of college students. [emphasis mine]

How progressive and wonderful and relativist and delightfully feminist that all sounds! Unfortunately it was a bunch of bullshit; as all such accounts invariably turn out to be. Mead’s account was and is simultaneously both utterly implausible for any culture while also being an extremely attractive wish fulfillment for the average progressive academic. Such academics had no intention of letting facts interfere with a good progressive narrative so they didn’t bother double checking Mead’s description; and just made it required reading in anthropology courses for the better part of a century. I’m so inspired by confidence in our educational institutions… The short of it is that Mead either was tricked by locals having a laugh, or more likely she intentionally wrote a fraudulent account to support her desire for a progressive world in which the ideas of feminism have some overlap with reality.

In 1983 New Zealand anthropologist Derek Freeman published Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth, in which he challenged her claims. He argued that the reality of Samoan culture was very different from what Mead had portrayed. Samoans, he insisted, actually had rather puritanical attitudes about sex. Rape was common. Men were aggressive. Premarital sex was disapproved of. In fact, a great emphasis was placed upon a woman being a virgin when marrying.

Clearly the author looks up to Mead given the context, and shoehorns the same appreciation typically only found in delusional “academics” into a random working class mook of a character. Most mooks probably have never even heard of Margaret Mead let alone admired her. When was the last time you met a receptionist or construction worker who cared two licks about Samoan culture past or present? The only people who care about Margaret Mead are parasitical (relative to taxpayers) “academics” in the humanities, anthropology, and dyke-feminist studies. Considering that this passage was written AFTER Mead was revealed to be fraudulent,  the author can’t even be given the benefit of the doubt that she didn’t know this prior to referencing Mead. I suppose it isn’t uncommon for progressives to continue to cite and look up to discredited people. Its all about the narrative and not the facts.

If we weren’t sure of the author’s purpose before we are now by her subtle insertion of Mead as some sort of admirable figure rather than a fraud. It was/is the author’s goal to make degeneracy such as that featured in this story appear normal and acceptable; and with minimal consequences. To promote completely fabricated and fallacious interpretations of reality and to all around give women the worst kind of role models imaginable. Just like Mead before her, this account of fraudulent morals and degenerate culture is also being read by generations of students thanks to its inclusion in the ACT and the ACT prep book. I guess the author really did aspire to the same status of Mead and unfortunately succeeded in her own way. We can only guess that the author is also a selfish and militant lesbian as well and her characters are just elaborate Mary Sues.

The next section to come up in the test is the one on social science. However, I would like to save that for last and discuss the section on the “humanities” first. I won’t discuss the section on natural science at all except to say that it was written by Stephen Jay Gould, notorious for his pseudo-scientific perspective on human biological diversity vomited onto paper in “The Mismeasure of Man.” However, the passage in the test is just about dinosaurs and has not much, if any, bearing on politics. In general, I have found that a lot of passages on natural science have something to do with climate change if that says anything but since this one was fairly neutral I won’t harp on it; except to say I am not surprised a darling of progressives like Gould (invariably another charlatan like Mead) was picked even if they used neutral content.

The humanities passage can be read below; again with the questions covered up.

act humanities

I can’t express in words how truly irritating this article is. Though I will try. The article is written by an ethnic Bangladeshi who grew up in India and immigrated to the United States. She is an author apparently and her goal is to transform the Culture of the United states. Here are some quotes:

I am an American writer, in the American mainstream, trying to extend it. This is  a vitally important statement for me–I am not an Indian writer, not an expatriate. I am an immigrant; my investment is in the American reality, not the Indian.

That is just delusional. Yes, you are an Indian expat. You aren’t American; you just happen to live here and no number of assertions to the contrary is going to change that. Though it isn’t necessarily clear from the above context, “trying to extend it” means that she is trying to transform American culture by forcefully inserting non-American culture in her writing. Basically make it less white male and more third world shit street. This is made clear in no uncertain terms by one of the following questions which references that line. Also, given the rest of the passage it is quite clear she isn’t invested in the current American reality despite her claims, but in radically transforming it into something that isn’t American at all. She continues to discuss what her current struggle is:

The remaining struggle for me is to make the American readership, meaning the editorial and publishing industries as well, acknowledge the same fact. The foreign-born, the Third World immigrant with non-western religions and non-european languages and appearance, can be as American as any steerage passenger from Ireland, Italy, or the Russian Pale.

My literary agenda begins by acknowledging that American has transformed me. It does not end until I show how I (and the hundreds of thousands like me) have transformed America.

The audacity here. People already live here and maybe they don’t want or need some recent arrival trying to radically change things. I mean this is an almost threatening tone. Hundreds of thousands? Are you planning to amass an army or something? It doesn’t seem like she would be opposed to that if the opportunity arose. Her stories and characters are often, apparently, based on recent immigrants. Therefore she is quite delighted by the massive demographic changes since the 1965 immigration “reforms”:

I have been blessed with an enormity of material: the rapid and dramatic transformation of the United States since the early 1970s.

The following I just found to be ridiculous:

For all the hope and energy I have placed in the process of immigration and accommodation–I’m a person who couldn’t ride a public bus when she first arrived, and now I’m someone who watches tractor pulls on obscure cable channels.

Well, our immigration policy is in tip top shape. We are letting people in who can’t even figure out how to ride a bus?  Also tractor pulls? Why don’t I hear anyone whining about cultural appropriation here? Oh, right, whites have no right to any sort of cultural exclusivity while everyone else does. I suspect the tractor pull thing is just a lie though. Made up to make it look like she identified in some half-assed way with rural white culture. Though clearly everything else she seems to believe in and advocate for, somewhat militantly and aggressively, suggests anything but identification with authentic American culture. This is merely a bit of lazily implemented lip-service believable to precisely no one.

The passage ends with the following:

Writers (especially American writers weaned on affluence and freedom) often disavow the notion of a “literary duty” or “political consciousness,” citing the all-too-frequent [all-too-infrequent in my opinion] examples of writers ruined by their shrill commitments. Glibness abounds on both sides of the argument, but finally I have to side with my “Third World” compatriots: I do have a duty, beyond telling a good story. My duty is to give voice to continents, but also to redefine the nature of American.

My question is, if the culture of India and/or Bangladesh was so awesome, why the hell did you leave? If the cultures of those countries suck so much, from your own perspective, that you felt the need to leave, why are you trying to transform the culture of the country you just moved to to get away from that? Do you think the people already here want their culture transformed to resemble a third world shit hole field? Do YOU even want that if you really think about it? I mean you obviously left because you didn’t like your home country and its culture. I mean I don’t even understand this perspective. Why leave a shit hole and then immediately try to make nice places suck just like the place you just left? Just stay where you are if you want things to be like where you were born. It is like that there now. Go home and then you won’t have to transform anything. [Full disclosure; though cleanliness isn’t one of the characteristics India is known for, I am sure it is an interesting place to visit. I am just making the point that it doesn’t make sense when people leave their home country, because they don’t like it or the economy sucks or whatever, and then immediately try to create the same problems they escaped from in their new residence. So many migrants fail to see the irony in their actions and efforts. Just like this woman.]

The entirety of the content here is arrogant and aggressive to the extreme. However, it does gives words to what we already know many immigrants think and that is that given the numbers they will have no problem taking over and making all the world into the third world. They aren’t content to come here and appreciate the opportunity they really shouldn’t have been given in the first place by adapting to the culture of their new residence. They want to radically and irredeemably alter what WE have built; making it inaccessible to everyone. I honestly find it difficult to tutor this passage because it makes me so mad. It also annoys most of my students, who usually happen to also be white. We sometimes discuss how obnoxious the passage is, and how even more obnoxious it is that it was selected for something that should be a politically neutral test. I think I even called the author an arrogant cunt in front of one student accidentally. Oops. Luckily she just agreed with me.

The last thing worth mentioning about this passage is the editor by the name of Janet Sternburg. I don’t buy the whole Jewish conspiracy theory stuff. I do not believe in an organized conspiracy ran by Jews to destroy Europeans. However, it is hard not to notice that a lot of the most militant and aggressive articles relating to demographics or feminism or social justice and other cultural marxist ideas often have Jews very actively involved. I am not sure why this is, and I know there are plenty of Jews who don’t do this. Some are personal friends of mine and are quite reactionary. Given how common this pattern is, however, I can understand why people get annoyed with Jews as a group when this sort of propaganda often seems to have them involved. It would be nice if they did more to stop their compatriots from developing, or at least from advocating, such radically destabilizing ideologies.

Moving on. The social science article, which is sandwiched between the two previous passages, is actually fairly reactionary. Ya, I was surprised too. It is adapted from the book “How Courts Govern America” by Richard Neely, which was written in the early 1980s. You can read it below:

social science act I think the passage gets away with being reactionary because it doesn’t directly criticize any particular political issues and rather criticizes democracy as a political philosophy.  Unlimited immigration and the “right” for women to be irresponsible are sacred to the extreme; whereas democracy is abstract enough that people don’t get as mad about it when criticized in the most general terms without reference to anything in the particular that might raise passions.

Or maybe the article got through because it criticizes non-brahmins who know very little about government anyway. Progressives like to make fun of “flyover” states so maybe that conceit was present in choosing this article; since it can be reasonably inferred that the unintelligent mooks referred to in the article are assumed to be rural whites by progressive test designers. Related to this is the fact that progressives have so often used the courts to overturn non-progressive laws and positions legitimately democratically selected by the same fly-over staters. The most recent example being the legalization of gay marriage. If you think about it, progressives first loyalty is to progressivism and not democracy at all. Generally they like democracy because it tends to progress progressivism but don’t hesitate to abandon the principle as soon as it interferes with moving further left. So maybe they secretly hate democracy as much as we do but for completely different reasons. It is a useful tool and no more; something to be abandoned at the first sign of a slow in “progress.”

Alternatively, perhaps they hope that articles like this will result in people wanting MORE democracy because it shows how little representation is really present in the system. Since the examples of democracy slowing “progress” are few and far between, and when they do happen “progress” can be restored via plenty of non-democratic channels, perhaps the tool is still far more useful than not even despite a hiccup every now an then.

Lastly, I suppose it could also be included to basically encourage greater and more widespread “education” since lack of general interest in the technical functioning of government is cited as the main problem and because education is almost entirely run by progressives.  Those are my theorized possibilities for how it got past the progressive commissars. Whatever the reason, there are some nice statements in it. This book may be worth a read.

On the average person’s interest in the economy:

When times are bad, or there is a nationwide strike or disaster, interest in the economy becomes all-consuming. However, the daily toiling of countless millions of civil servants in areas such as occupational health and safety, motor vehicle regulation, or control of navigable waterways escapes public notice almost completely

True enough. Government is in fact almost entirely ran by career bureaucrats and most of us don’t even think about that until we are inconvenienced in some way by them.

Futhermore, even with regard to high-visibility issues [such as?], significant communication between the electorate and public officials is extremely circumscribed. Most serious political communication is limited to forty-five seconds on the network evening news.

Also true, most political discourse consists of soundbites and sensationalism. A great demonstration of the futility of democracy.

Most of what one says to a local newspaper gets filtered through the mind of an inexperienced twenty-three-year-old journalism school graduate. Try sometime to explain the intricacies of a program budget, which basically involves solving a grand equation composed of numerous simultaneous differential functions, to a reporter whose journalism school curriculum did not include advanced algebra, to say nothing of calculus.

There was an article I stumbled across the other day which makes a similar point; though sadly I have forgotten which blog it was on. Journalism is generally a lower IQ major choice; though perhaps not the lowest. At best journalists are average IQ among the professional occupations, but more likely the are a bit on the dumb side. Yet these are the people who we inexplicably trust to report the news and to inform us on important political issues. I can’t say that makes any sort of sense; even if we excluded the general left-wing biases of most journalists. They just aren’t smart enough for us to trust their competence irrespective of the political beliefs.

The electorate is as interested in the whys and wherefores of most technical, nonemotional political issues as I am in putting ships in bottles: they do not particularly care. Process and personalities, the way decisions are made and by whom, the level of perquisites, extramarital sexual relations, and, in high offices, personal gossip dominate the public mind, while interest in the substance of technical decisions is minimal….

Since the populace at large is more than willing to delegate evaluation of the technical aspects of government to somebody else, it inevitably follows that voting is a negative exercise, not a positive one. Angry voters turn the rascals out and, in the triumph of hope over experience, let new rascals in. What voters are unable to do–because they themselves do not understand the technical questions–is tell the rascals how to do their jobs better.

It is hard to say it better than this. Truly this is one of the great flaws of democracy:  the assumption that the average mook has enough understanding to decide how government and policy should be run. This is a dimly naive assumption which has no bearing on reality. I would go even further and state that even smart people often have more productive endeavors to invest their thought in. Which is more valuable: the smart guy who devotes all of his mental resources to running a business which employs many people, or discovers some new mechanism in biology or chemistry, or one who sits around making sophist arguments about some transient political cause? Yes it is true we need people who can competently manage government, however engaging more people than the bare minimum in this type of work is extremely wasteful of human capital. Most people have more valuable things they could contribute to society. Lastly the passage ends with the following:

That anything gets done by a political body at all is to be applauded as a miracle rather than accepted as a matter of course. When we recognize that in the federal government, with its millions of employees, there are but five hundred and thirty-seven elected officials, put into office to carry out the “will” of a people who for the most part know little and care less about the technical functioning of their government, the absurdity of the notion of rapid democratic responsiveness becomes clear. The widely held tenet of democratic faith that elected officials, as opposed to bureaucrats or the judiciary, are popularly selected and democratically responsive is largely a myth which gives a useful legitimacy to a system. In fact, however, far from democratic control, the two most important forces in political life are indifference and its direct byproduct: inertia.

Yep, though moldbug is extremely influential in our circles, a lot of what he has said is just a colorful retelling of writings by other reactionary thinkers; which I believe moldbug states himself.  It is good that such a passage found its way into the test prep book, but it is so general that it doesn’t risk anything. It is hard for people to get truly angry over abstractions. What moldbug and the rest of the neoreactosphere tend to do better than the above passage is to actually engage in crime think and call a spade a spade. Specifically pointing out and discussing the horribly misguided sacred policies and beliefs associated with democracy to one degree or another. Its easy to say “government doesn’t work” because pretty much no one of any political persuasion is going to disagree with that ambiguous truism. When you start saying it doesn’t work because of social justice, or feminism, or nonsense about “oppression” then you are getting to the real meat and potatoes of the problem. Anyway, this passage is good for what it is and better than naught.

The social science passage stands as a notable exception (the only one I am aware of and I have seen a fair number of passages) in a long series of politically motivated choices of passages. There are many more I could have included that fit the prog narrative. However, the mere existence of such people and such warped perspectives can only be so annoying to someone desensitized and numb to the rampant bullshit in our society. It is far more annoying that millions of teenagers are being fed this kind of garbage either on tests like the ACT and SAT or through test prep books. More students undoubtedly read the passages I have highlighted because of the prep book than would have from a single test. Examples like this demonstrate that education really is used to a significant, if not primary, degree for purposes of propaganda. Whoever these academics are which choose what to include clearly have an agenda and slaver at the opportunity to put this stuff in the heads of as many innocent children as they can possibly infect with delusional ideologies. Parents or aspiring parents should be aware of what is out there and take the time to talk to their kids about it. A child will often uncritically receive the positions and ideas of elders and as can be seen from any school humanities curriculum most of that is bunk. They should be informed early on that a lot of it is bunk so they are less likely to just believe it unthinkingly. The first step is acknowledging there is a problem. Once recognized you start to spot it everywhere.

Share Button

Conversation with a Blue Pill Churchian

Though I am not religious, I do have some Christian friends. These friends tend to be more independently minded and have some serious gripes with the average church because of some commonly held, yet arguably unbiblical beliefs many church congregations share.

Last night, I was hanging out with these friends when we were all invited out to eat by some of their churchian friends. Knowing of my irreligious philosophy and reasonably high level of debating skills, my friends like to instigate debates between myself and churchians when the opportunity arises. They find it entertaining… However, as I have grown older I have come to realize that attacking the core beliefs of the tribe, assuming they aren’t self-destructive, is bad-form and unnecessary. John Derbyshire put this thought succinctly:

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.

So rather than indulging my friends in some heated argument about whether or not the bible is literal truth, I opted instead to focus on something that is arguable from within the Christian frame. This is of course that of proper gender roles, family values, and marriage.

I began by stating that I tend to agree with the Christian community that marriage is between a man and a woman. The intention of marriage is to force people, many of whom are deeply irresponsible, into providing the optimum environment for the raising of children and to keep birthrates high enough that there isn’t precipitous population declines. Most importantly, widespread traditional marriage works to reduce criminality and other social problems in that generation of children and this effect requires both a mother and a father.(1) Gay “marriage” does not contribute to this goal and thus is not a legitimate institution. It is an idea deprived of purpose and is thus meaningless.

However, overall I view gays getting married as trivial. There aren’t many of them to begin with, and even then only a small portion of them have interest in “marriage.” In terms of numbers, whether they marry or not probably won’t have much direct impact. (Kafkaesque enforcement by the Cathedral of twisted values will have much worse consequences, however). More important than that, though, is this fallacy that marriage in its current form is still a functional institution that is capable of further destruction. Marriage will not be destroyed by gay marriage. It was destroyed, past tense, in the 1970s with the introduction of no fault divorces combined with alimony and child support. The later is supported especially by the informal assumption that children should virtually always go to the mother such that she is the recipient of the child support. The results of these laws is the currently very high divorce rate in the US. The churchian community has not been immune or otherwise done anything significant to halt divorce surging among their members.

Thus, the argument instigated was that while the church may have its heart in the right place, it has completely and utterly failed in its mission of being pro-family as judged by the consequences of its muteness or even support of divorce policies which destroyed marriage. These policies are several orders of magnitude more important than gay marriage. Moreover, the enthusiasm with which single mothers and sluts are readily accepted into the church causes huge problems when naive young men are encouraged to marry them because the church condones them as proper wife material when they are not. The churches’ stances on these issues demonstrate that in this respect they are hardly living up to what it is supposed to mean to be Christian. Such was my opening statement in the debate.

To this, our blue pill churchian responded that all sin is equal and that once Christ has been accepted people truly are born again on earth. Their past mistakes are washed away. Thus, the sluts are not just redeemed in a spiritual sense with respect to the afterlife but also in physical reality they are no longer sluts. This redemption process is capable of making them into suitable wives here and now in their lifetime and no harm could possibly come to pairing them off with Christian men who have actually been following traditional values.

I think I was about to have an aneurysm. As I told him, whatever he may want to believe about forgiveness of sin, we have clear evidence that forgiving whorishness does not make a slut a good wife. I have no problem with the idea of forgiving people their mistakes, but the idea that forgiveness can be equated with removing all consequences of mistakes within physical life is nonsense. I made the following rebuttal up without reference to any specific theology, but it supported my point and that is an important component of debate. I confidently stated that forgiveness of sin applies mainly to concerns of spiritual life after death. Forgiveness does not remove consequences of actions within a person’s lifetime, and can not make a slut into a non-slut. They will have to deal with the consequences of their sin even if forgiveness of said sin allows them to still go to heaven. There is no such thing as a “born-again virgin.”

Feel free to tell me I’m wrong on scriptural grounds. As I have stated previously, if scripture can legitimately be used to justify the born-again virgin position then it is just wrong and should be ignored. We know it is wrong based on studies and statistics that compare the marriages of sluts with non-sluts. Sluts making for bad wives is a reality of the world we live in and no faith-based arguments can overturn the evidence.

With this in mind, I iterated that most deplorable of all was that objectively good men who are good husband material were being thrown on the spikes for the sake sinful whores because of this faith in immediate transformation within a person’s lifetime. Unbelievably to me, he stated that we are all equally sinful. A practicing Christian man who follows abstinence before marriage and otherwise does a fair job at trying to be Christian is just as sinful (say he masturbated once) as the born-again virgin. There is no differentiation between the magnitude of different sins. Small mistakes of one are equivalent to large mistakes of the other. Ridiculous egalitarianism truly is a concept memetically descended from Christian theology. Since this faithfully Christian man is considered to be equally sinful with the whore, there is no reason to treat each one differently based on different degrees of sin. In fact, he stated that it was only right and proper to throw the poor guy under the bus because his suffering would bring him closer to god. Face palm. No wonder so few men go to church these days. They aren’t going to look out for your interests, that is for sure.

The churchian used two scriptural passages to justify these attitudes. He first paraphrased Hosea to support marrying sluts as well as handing money and resources over to them; the later being a justification of the current policies which facilitate wealth transfers from men to women during divorce. In Hosea, god commanded the prophet to marry a slut and have children by her. However, she eventually went back to whoring and she was to be hated and foiled. Despite this, god then commanded Hosea to literally buy her back and supposedly this command can be extrapolated to all men by the churchian’s view. See the paragraphs which he uses to justify his view:

When the Lord began to speak through Hosea, the Lord said to him, “Go, marry a promiscuous woman and have children with her, for like an adulterous wife this land is guilty of unfaithfulness to the Lord.”  So he married Gomer daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son.

[After gomer went back to whoring] The Lord said to me, “Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another man and is an adulteress. Love her as the Lord loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods and love the sacred raisin cakes.”

So I bought her for fifteen shekels of silver and about a homer and a lethek of barley.  Then I told her, “You are to live with me many days; you must not be a prostitute or be intimate with any man, and I will behave the same way toward you.”

The above is from hosea 1 and 3 respectively. This is all extremely blue pill and seems to support his claim that the bible is in favor of marrying sluts. However, Hosea 2 is very, very red pill in how it treats the slut. So what we have is a sort of blue pill sandwich with red pill meat:

“Rebuke your mother, rebuke her,
for she is not my wife,
and I am not her husband.
Let her remove the adulterous look from her face
and the unfaithfulness from between her breasts.
Otherwise I will strip her naked
and make her as bare as on the day she was born;
I will make her like a desert,
turn her into a parched land,
and slay her with thirst.
I will not show my love to her children,
because they are the children of adultery.
Their mother has been unfaithful
and has conceived them in disgrace.
She said, ‘I will go after my lovers,
who give me my food and my water,
my wool and my linen, my olive oil and my drink.’
Therefore I will block her path with thornbushes;
I will wall her in so that she cannot find her way.
She will chase after her lovers but not catch them;
she will look for them but not find them.
Then she will say,
‘I will go back to my husband as at first,
for then I was better off than now.’
She has not acknowledged that I was the one
who gave her the grain, the new wine and oil,
who lavished on her the silver and gold—
which they used for Baal.

“Therefore I will take away my grain when it ripens,
and my new wine when it is ready.
I will take back my wool and my linen,
intended to cover her naked body.
10 So now I will expose her lewdness
before the eyes of her lovers;
no one will take her out of my hands.
11 I will stop all her celebrations:
her yearly festivals, her New Moons,
her Sabbath days—all her appointed festivals.
12 I will ruin her vines and her fig trees,
which she said were her pay from her lovers;
I will make them a thicket,
and wild animals will devour them.
13 I will punish her for the days
she burned incense to the Baals;
she decked herself with rings and jewelry,
and went after her lovers,
but me she forgot,”
declares the Lord.

Well, if the story was concluded with this passage, then I would say he was wrong in his interpretation. However, after this passage Hosea was ordered to take her back despite how depraved she was so in my view Hosea clearly supports his case. I suppose it could be argued that this was only meant to apply to Hosea in the particular and no one else because he was a prophet in a specific situation (Hosea’s relationship with his wife was a metaphor for the contemporary relationship between God and Israel), but even if that is true not everyone is going to understand that and confusion will be continual. In this instance the bible has proven to not be a good supporter of traditional values. It clearly opens the door for men to be thrown under the bus for whores based on scripture. This is a nasty strike against using the bible as the foundational text to support traditional values and gender roles. Criticism of the bible from the right, who would have guessed.

He also directly quoted Corinthians chapter 5 to consciously and purposefully support throwing men under the bus.  Let’s see if that fares as badly:

So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

Yikes! During the conversation I was quite taken aback by this clear support of throwing men under the bus. Although I clearly don’t agree with what he is trying to support with this quote, I do find it entertaining that he inadvertently implied that sluts and whores are equivalent to the ultimate embodiment of evil. Anyway, thanks to smart phones, the context was made clearer then and there:

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough?  Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

To me, this passage does nothing to support the churchian’s argument. If anything, it clearly shows that the exact opposite of what he was saying was advocated. Though, the solution is to expel the sluts rather than accept them while avoiding promoting them as marriage partners. Fair enough, I have no objections with that. In fact, the bible’s solution is better than the compromise of forgiveness without encouragement of commitment I suggested during the argument. In this case, I believe his interpretation was wrong and that the bible is supporting traditional values here.

Is it just me, or does the actual consequence of the churchian thought pattern and action seem more likely to drive men away from the people who give them bad advice rather than bring them even deeper into Christianity? Regardless of its being justified by scripture or not, I have already addressed the belief in born-again virgins and the encouragement of good men marrying them in my “Chastity, Once Lost, is Forever Gone” post, so I guess I will just quote myself:

[The idea of a born-again virgin is] that if a girl repents her actions she can be forgiven and it will be like it never happened. Maybe this can be justified by verses in the bible, and maybe it can’t. Certain Churchians certainly made a persuasive stab at it. Not being a Christian, I will let you know you can save your theological arguments. As far as I am concerned, if this can be justified in the bible, then the bible is wrong. If it can’t, great. If some people can be legitimately and understandably confused on whether the bible supports this then Christian Traditionalists have a real problem. Even if it can be demonstrated through some convoluted means that “born-again virgin” isn’t a Christian concept, ambiguity here is a very big fault with using the book as the basis for the traditional family. That being a slut can’t be taken back should not be ambiguous in any way in the foundational religious document of a society. Chastity, once lost, is forever gone.

Back in my more red pill, less reactionary days it was widely known and accepted among my group of friends that the “born-again virgin” girls were easy prey. And yes, we occasionally went to “singles” church events to find these girls despite not being religious. Lots of them were single mothers. Most would get drunk and have premarital sex with you Saturday night before stomping off to church Sunday morning in hopes of tricking some poorly advised Christian beta into paying for her and her bastard children. The “born-again virgin” status of these so-called “Christian” women is a complete fabrication. Their facade is a purely Machiavellian attempt to maximize their Alpha Fucks/Beta bucks mating strategy. And like the rest of society, the Christian community is far too credulous of these girl’s crocodile tears of repentance. Worse yet, they gladly throw the legitimately Christian men under the bus by pressuring them into dating and marrying these skanks. No wonder men are leaving the church in droves. I would too if I was given shitty advice like “marry the sluts”. I would leave any such organization which thought that way and I would laugh when it was completely destroyed, as it justly should be.

This was more or less the same response I gave our blue pill churchian in the argument.

I made sure to highlight the fact that modern churches are extremely emasculating and attitudes like those promoting the marriage of sluts were driving the trend of low male attendance at christian churches. To this the churchian informed me that the church does support masculine virtues. He obliged my request for him to describe masculine virtues and used adjectives like gentleness, kindness, meekness, tenderness, compassion and other similar things. All of these things aren’t masculine virtues, but feminine virtues. I should point out that he wasn’t using the right definition of meekness which is a synonym for timidness (I grilled him on that). Rather, he thought it meant “strength under control.” Strength under control actually isn’t that bad of a masculine virtue, but meekness does not mean that. I assume that he has absorbed all of these so-called “masculine virtues” from various sermons he has heard, including the incorrect definition of meekness.

With these weak and effeminate concepts of masculinity being preached in churches, is it any wonder that male attendance is down to 43% overall and as low as 35% in certain denominations and churches with female ministers. Female ministers is particularly ludicrous to me. If you claim to believe in the bible, you can’t allow women to even speak at church let alone establish them as leaders. Corinthians 14:34:

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

The previous link elaborates on the feminization of the church that drives men away in droves. Here are some select quotes:

Yet, as Murrow (2005a, 8 ) points out, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam all have at least as many male adherents as female ones. Podles (1999, ix) also notes that, within Christianity, the Orthodox Church has a general [sic] balance. The implication is clear: it is not that religion or spirituality per se are inimical to men. Rather, it must be specific forms and expressions of religion or spirituality that alienate men and deter their participation.

‘Perhaps the main focus of those who criticise the Church for having become feminised is that its worship is too ‘touchy-feely’, overemotional or over-personal. This has been derogatorily called ‘Jesus is my boyfriend’ (or, more provocatively, ‘girlfriend’) worship. As Murrow (2005a, 187) argues, “today’s praise music invites the worshipper to assume the feminine role” and praise music can resemble the Top 40 love songs.’

‘It is a commonplace that masculinity is in crisis. Men are experiencing considerable confusion over their identity, in terms of who they are and what their roles are. As the end of the millennium approached, Roy McCloughry reported “a loss of definition and a confusion about what is expected of men… It is amazing how quickly men seem to have lost their confidence”

Clearly this crisis in masculinity in the church (and everywhere else) is quite rampant. This churchian has no clue what masculinity actually is and in fact seems to think a whole host of feminine virtues define what it means to be masculine. I don’t believe this is his fault, honestly. It is the fault of the church leaders who have adopted ideas from feminism (probably without quite realizing it) about the differences between men and women. They then teach these false beliefs to their flock which sets the men trying to do the right thing up for complete failure. At one point, after arguing that even if church leaders forgive sluts their sin when they repent, they should not support chaste men marrying them. It is their responsibility as elders to properly guide young men to proper wives and help them avoid mistakes. His response was that the blind could not lead the blind and these young men should just be allowed to make the mistake. At the time I argued against him. The leaders should be somewhat knowledgeable of proper morality (and consequences of certain actions) and it is their duty to guide men correctly. However, later consideration of his quip made quickly and without reflection has unintentionally won me over on this position. This churchian’s blatantly blue pill, misandric, and factually inaccurate understanding of the male condition clearly demonstrates that church leaders are blind and have no business guiding anyone. Its like someone gauged out their eyes with a pitchfork.

(1) The paper shown studied the differences between children raised in normal families vs. gay “families” and found that children raised by gays are worse off. You should be able to download it at the link provided, but if not go to /r/scholar and you can request it (make sure you read their instructions for how to get it before making a request). The paper is “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study” by Mark Regnerus. To view the anti-science response to this article by the cathedral, look for “Politicized science” by Richard Redding.

Share Button