Smart and SeXy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who to thank?

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

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

Blog vs. book

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

Career women are dysgenic

How standardized testing undervalues men

stereotype threat and pseudo-scientists.

Share Button

A review of “Speak” by Laurie Halse Anderson

There are minor spoilers. This book isn’t worth reading so I wouldn’t worry about that.

In high school, which was quite a long time ago, my entire class was required read the book “speak” by Laurie Anderson.

A 13 year old girl goes to a party at the beginning of the story, gets “raped” and then we get to explore her repressed emotions about the experience and how the cruel world won’t believe in her problems. Certainly no one in high school believes her and the other girls are mean to her. In short, this is an incredibly feminized story. Or to put it another way, it was literally the most boring story I have ever read without any serious competition. NOTHING happened throughout the vast majority of the book. It was mainly going through this girl’s feelings in her art class where she made freaky sculptures out of turkey bones and wore weird attention demanding clothes. I couldn’t imagine anything that could be of less interest to adolescent boys.

The “climax” involves the the women’s tennis team coming to the rescue against the evil rapist brandishing tennis rackets. I can’t express in words how truly lame this scene was. And in fact, it made the book even worse because it was the ONE point where something almost happened in the entire story. That is, there was about to be a beat-down described in gory detail. It was like “oh finally, something interesting will happen.” Nope, it was nothing but a tease. They all talked themselves out of it and no fight occurred. The book got just close enough to an actual event of interest (without delivering) to highlight how horribly uneventful the book was. It was like the author was trying to rub salt into the wound of boredom by creating this anti-climactic almost-event.

As for the “rape” scene itself…. Why do I put rape in quotation marks? As a fictional story it should be pretty easy to make it a real rape scene, right? Right?! You’d think so, but you would be wrong. You see, the “rape” scene has much more in common with a female sexual fantasy commonly used as a masturbation aid than to an actual rape. It is basically 50 shades of grey for high school girls tamed down enough to pass by censors. You see the “rapist” was the most alpha guy in high school. He was the most popular guy, played on the sports team, was physically super attractive, was smart, was older and more mature. He is the perfect fantasy man. The author didn’t believe in brevity when it came to describing the alpha characteristics of this guy. Being a straight man myself, reading this was awkward and undesired to say the least. In fact, the “victims” internal dialogue explicitly described him as “a greek god.” In the “rape” scene he dominates her and they do the horizontal mambo. She then regrets the experience despite initially being excited and the rest of the book covers the mix of her emotions. I remember being very incredulous at how her description of this guy indicated clearly that she wanted to have sex with him, yet afterwards decides it was rape. This made literally no sense to me. I now know that Female rape fantasy fiction is a popular genre, and this rape scene fits into that category. But at the time I had no idea about this aspect of female psychology so I was thoroughly confused.

I vividly remember how much I hated this book. There were a few times I was so frustrated with it that I almost ripped the book to pieces. Of course, this was well before I knew anything about the red pill, or feminism, or even general politics. My reaction to the story was very hard to define at the time, but it was a natural uninfluenced reaction. It was as if I knew innately or instinctively that there was something wrong with this story. It was so bad that there was no way to explain why it was included in the curriculum or how it won a series of awards without understanding external political and ideological motivations completely unrelated to the quality of the story. At the time all I could say was that it was poorly written and boring. It wasn’t until the insights of the red pill that I could really put everything into perspective and explain why it was horrible.

This experience that many young men in our schools are forced to endure is a form of psychological torture on the part of the school system (and specifically the feminist elements therein). We were forced to read something that has almost no active scenes; a type of storytelling that is naturally and correctly repugnant to the psychology of boys. They were trying to socially engineer me (and the other boys) not to be rapists, as if there is a real risk of most boys becoming rapists. (Real rape is mostly a racial issue). We were being trained or indoctrinated to believe that anytime some girl claims rape, she needs to be believed automatically and the boy needs to be crucified. This book is directly designed to increase the misandry in our society and make it even easier to punish innocent men for false rape accusations.

One of the worst things to consider about this book is the prizes and awards it has won. This is a perfect example of feminist/progressive circle jerking. See also. It was awarded these things because it works to advance the feminist narrative of society (specifically the neurotic obsession they have with fantasizing about rape) and could be used as an indoctrination tool against young boys, not because it was a good piece of writing.

Share Button