115 lb female “Fire Fighter”

There was a reddit thread in /r/fitness in which a 115 lb woman somehow qualified to undergo fire fighter training. Here is her original post(archive):

Hey Reddit!

So I accomplished a huge dream and kicked ass at my PAT today for fire school. I’m pretty short at 5’2 and 115lbs. I was the third person to finish out of a group of mostly guys on a 2 mile walk with an SCBA on in under 30 minutes which was brutal. As well as an obstacle course per se right after (climbing 5 story w high pack, raising 2.5 hose up, keiser sled, charged hose drag, dummy drag) that I completed in under four minutes with a 7 min time limit.

I am just wondering what exactly can I do to improve on my endurance and still be able to build strength? Should I run for a certain time and do weights after? Or maybe just do weights one day and run the next? I’d like to put on some muscle but not sure if cardio will make that difficult..

I was doing crossfit for a couple months before training with a fire dept who helped set up a course for me such as dummy drags and tire drags with a hose.

Fire school doesn’t start for another month so I just want to prepare while at home over xmas and can’t go to a crossfit gym or train with the fire dept where I’m at.

Thank you for any advice!!

EDIT: [this was added sometime after I interacted with the thread]

Thank you to those who actually gave sound advice!! There are some great replies on here I’ll definitely be trying out workouts suggested to help prepare myself even more!

I blew by men over twice my size who struggled immensely by not being prepared. It’s about heart and who’s willing to do the work to get themselves to that level.

I of course responded to this insane nonsense.

You are too small to carry someone out of a burning building. Your presence in a job you aren’t suited for risks the lives of people in very dangerous situations. The other fire fighters will not be able to depend on you to carry 100s of pounds with either the strength or endurance necessary, so it also puts their lives in danger.

Get out before someone dies because you aren’t up to the physical demands that are required. It isn’t your fault you aren’t suitable to be a fire fighter, you weren’t built for it. But it will be your fault for knowingly endangering your community and fellow fire fighters because of whatever stupid “girl power” propaganda you have been fed.

Many commenters responded to this common sense to inform me that I was an “asshole” and an “idiot” for pointing out the realities of human nature. For example:

It’s assholes like you that beat down the dreams of women willing to try that piss me off the most. Just because there are physical and mental differences between men and women doesn’t mean we don’t have a part to play. The ones willing to put up with your sort of shit and try are way more motivated than some guy who’s had this whole process made a lot easier by societal expectations.

Industries need to change and that includes professions like firefighting. It may be that she couldn’t ever carry your conceited ego down flights of stairs, but being small and feisty is certainly a trait that is worth a hell of a lot! Especially if she’s brace enough to enter buildings most of us would run from.

Stop letting your ‘facts’ about the differences between men and women blind you to the fact that we are tough, we care more, and we fight the status quo.

The only part you play is slowing down the men doing the actual work and making them work harder than they otherwise would have to. They have to pick up the slack for everything you can’t do because they are basically down a man.  “Small and feisty” translates to tiny, shrill and obnoxious bitch. I am not sure in what circumstances or by whom such traits are valued, but it isn’t in fire fighting. And not in wives for that matter. Lastly, I am advised to stop letting facts get in the way of the righteous fight for social justice because tiny women “care more”. Care more about larping as men than the potential victims of house fires is what I guess she meant. When past elites came up with the idea of negative eugenics, it is people like this they had in mind.

This comment thread generated quite a large amount of controversy as hyper-triggered SJWs fought tooth and nail with semi-motivated realists. I had a couple more comments, and there were a large number of other comments by other users both for and against my hate-fact mean-truth. Probably a 35/65 percent split (sigh, but it is better than it used to be in my experience). Unfortunately, thought-crime is illegal in weimerica and all of these comments were nuked, I was banned from /r/fitness (lol), and the entire comment thread was locked. There is no way for me to directly link to these comments since they have been removed, but if you go to the original thread and follow the instructions at “unedit” you can restore them for your viewing pleasure. You will have to scan for them though.

One enterprising user posted the following video, which demonstrates male vs. female ability in situations mimicking that of a fire fighter on the job using an actual female “fire fighter” alongside amateur males (this was also removed):

I was banned so quickly I didn’t have a chance to cite additional research. I fully intended to once I triggered enough people. In my book, Smart and Sexy: The Evolutionary Origins and Biological Underpinnings of Cognitive Differences Between the Sexes I actually devoted a chapter to physical differences because those too are actively denied in our culture with great negative consequences. And this is despite how much more obvious these differences are compared to the admittedly much more subtle mental differences. Our culture refuses to believe our lying eyes. I also didn’t even get into the financial waste of spending millions of dollars installing female bathrooms into fire stations in a major city such as Los Angeles. There were only 27 Female “fire fighters” in LA at the time this money was spent. Anyway, here are some excerpts from “Smart and Sexy” on female strength, endurance, and proneness to injury (all studies used are listed at the end of this post):

Differences in physical strength, endurance, and athletic proficiency are an order of magnitude more striking [than mental differences]. The average woman has only 52% of the upper body strength and only 66% of the lower body strength of the average man. Similar numbers are found when comparing muscular endurance. Another way to consider this difference is to look at the overlap in strength distributions between genders. When such a comparison is made, it turns out that only the strongest 2.5-5% of the female distribution overlaps with the male mean strength. Mirroring this, only the weakest 2.5-5% of male distribution overlaps with the mean female strength. One study which measured hand grip strength found that 90% of females had less hand grip strength than 95% of male group. The strongest control group female was surpassed by 2/3rds of the male control group. In the same study, female athletes who specially trained for sports they played were also considered. Even these athletically elite females only managed to reach the 25th percentile of untrained males on average. Seemingly though, cognitive dissonance knows no bounds because there are feminists who would deny this reality in the face of unambiguous and overwhelming evidence; not to mention plain common sense.

Percentage of Males and Female with a Given Handgrip Strength or More

 

The graph above compares maximum male and female grip strengths. At any given strength level the percentage of males or females who were able, when exerting maximally, to reach at least that minimum level of force or greater is shown. For example, all volunteers could exert more than 150 Newtons worth of force so 100% of males and females could exert that level of force or more. As the minimum required force increases, progressively fewer people have the strength to exert that force. Dotted lines are used to compare the strongest 5% of females (shaded area) to the male curve. It can be seen from this comparison that just over 90% of males are stronger than 95% of females. In other words, the strength differences between males and females are so large that their distributions barely overlap even at the tales. Neither males nor females in this group engaged in special athletic training.

Comparison of the Hand Grip Strength Distribution between Typical Males, Typical Females, and Elite Females

Above is a graph comparing the distribution of hand grip strength between typical males, typical females, and highly athletic females (i.e., elite females). Each distribution is divided into quartiles and each quartile is bounded by a horizontal black line. The grey area denotes 50% of the overall population (25th percentile to the 75th percentile). As can be seen from the graph, the strongest typical female is weaker than the male mean. Among the athletically trained female population, only the far tale of the distribution overlaps with the male mean. This indicates that even with training few women are able to attain a strength comparable with the untrained male population. This comparison does not include an athletically trained male population, but it can be expected that there would be little to no overlap with the female cohort if such a population was included. The shape of the curves were added as a qualitative representation of the relative population density at a given maximum strength where greater width indicates more of the population has that strength.

Data from Leyk, D., Gorges, W., Ridder, D., Wunderlich, M., Ruther, T., Sievert, A., Essfeld, D. (2007) Hand-grip strength of young men, women and highly trained female athletes. Eur J Appl Physiol (2007) 99:415–421

… [lack of physical aptitude in military recruitment, non-italics are a direct quote from a study listed at the end of this post]

At the time of enlistment, a seventeen-year-old female is expected to do thirteen push-ups, compared to thirty-five for males, while for forty-one-year-olds, the numbers are six and twenty-four, respectively. A seventeen year-old girl is expected to run two miles in nineteen minutes, forty-two seconds or less, which is twelve seconds more than a forty-one year old man gets. A forty-one-year-old woman has to “run” two miles in twenty-four minutes and six seconds, almost five minutes more than a man receives.

More than 50% of female trainees in the marines are unable to do even three pull-ups. Instead they are required to do a “flexed arm hang” for a minimum 15 seconds; a much less stringent requirement. Over all age ranges, women can only do about one third the number of pushups compared to men; 30 vs. 10. Men average 2-4 fewer minutes per mile on long distance running tasks (7 vs. 10 minutes for a 1 mile run and 16 vs. 20 on a 2 mile run). Women can only do 40 sit ups on average compared to the male mean of 60. Female recruits also tend to be less physically fit on average (i.e., they are fatter). One of the most remarkable reductions in standards is the lowered minimum throwing radius expected of women throwing grenades. Women are only expected to be able to throw a grenade 25 meters compared to 35 meters expected of males and many can’t even throw it that far. What happens if a female combat troop muffs her throw and gets everyone around her killed? That incurring this level of increased danger to troops is accepted is incomprehensible, and yet that is how things are actually done today.

…[female proneness to injury in the military]


 Beyond simply having less physical strength, the female body also appears much less suited to strenuous physical exertion. Multiple studies have all found similar results: Women are consistently and significantly more likely to be injured. During basic training, it can be expected that 50% of female recruits will develop some sort of injury compared to 27% of men (i.e., they are 1.8 times more likely to be injured). Women are 2.5 times more likely to develop injuries that lead to significant time loss from training. More than 50% of women are prevented from ever completing their training because of some sort of injury. This pattern has been stable since the 1970s.

Women are several orders of magnitude more likely to incur some specific injuries. For example, 1 in 367 female military personnel can be expected to suffer a pelvic stress fracture compared to only 1 in 40,000 men. This is unsurprising given that the female pelvis has evolved to accommodate childbirth, not heavy load bearing or other stresses. More generally, stress fractures occur about 10 times as often in women than men in the military. Depending on the study, ACL ruptures are between 2.4 and 9.7 more likely in women than in men. Overuse injuries, defined as an injury that results from extended, repetitive use of a specific body part, occur in 68% of women compared to 48% of men. The cumulative result of all of these injuries is that women must go to the doctor and seek medical care at 9.2 times the rate of men.

All these extra injuries constitute a huge additional immediate cost to military operations and can be expected to increase with additional female involvement in the military. However, the extra costs do not end in immediate medical costs. Injuries which cause sufficient damage result in physical disability discharges. Such discharges entitle the person who receives it to financial benefits for the rest of their lives. Consistent with their higher rate of injuries generally, women are 64% more likely to receive a physical disability discharge. And this was without them ever being intentionally exposed to combat situations at the time these studies were done. One year saw female disability discharge be as high as 140 per 10,000 female military personnel. In the same year, male disability discharge was only 80 per 10,000 male military personnel, despite the fact that they are more commonly exposed to dangerous and/or physically demanding tasks. Disability costs take up an absolutely staggering amount of the military budget. In 2001, 21 billion dollars was paid out in compensation to disabled military service personnel when all services are considered. 25% of this disability compensation budget is made as direct cash payments and this was the level of payments before the recent Iraq and Afghanistan wars even took place.

As a side note, I also summarized an anecdote recounted in Jared Taylor’s book “Face to Face with Race” [highly recommended] which digressed long enough to talk about a specific female fire fighter:

Strength isn’t the only problem, either. Gender differences in bravery and risk-taking also matter. Jared Taylor, in his book Face to Face with Race, digresses from the general focus of the book to discuss the story of a female fire lieutenant who was hired and then promoted, in complete disregard for any sensible, merit-based physical standards. The hiring and promotion of this woman, like most female fire fighters, was done by the fire department to meet politically inspired quotas. When her crew arrived to a fire, instead of doing the standard procedure of dragging the heavy hose into the house, breaking down the door to the room on fire, and putting it out, she became afraid and reminded the crew that she was in command and ordered them not to enter. They were to try to put it out from the outside. Of course this didn’t work and it wasn’t until a male chief from a different crew showed up, relieved the cowardly woman of command, and ordered the firefighters to do the correct thing that the fire was put out. Later, the female fire fighter had a nervous break down as a result of her now widely known incompetence among the other fire fighters. She was reported to have started hitting herself repeatedly as part of this. She also became enraged at the fire department and sued them for “discrimination.”

Its funny how anyone who spends genuine effort and time trying to learn about the realities of a situation like female fire fighters or military personnel, they automatically become an asshole, an idiot, and a moron. And then they get banned from polite society (and reddit sub-forums).

Bonus, the dutch version of survivor where the give men and women different islands with completely expected results:

Studies used in the sections quoted from the book:

Miller, A. E., MacDougall, J. D., Tarnopolsky, M. A., Sale, D. G. (1993) Gender differences in strength and muscle fiber characteristics. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1993;66(3):254-62.

Meyer, L. G., Pokorski, T. L., Ortel, B. E., Saxton, J. L., Collyer, P. D. Muscular Strength and Anthropometric Characteristics of Male and Female Naval Aviation Candidates. Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory.

Leyk, D., Gorges, W., Ridder, D., Wunderlich, M., Ruther, T., Sievert, A., Essfeld, D. (2007) Hand-grip strength of young men, women and highly trained female athletes. Eur J Appl Physiol (2007) 99:415–421

Browne, K. (2007) Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn’t Fight the Nation’s Wars. Sentinel. ASIN: B000W94H5I

 (2014) Marines delay female fitness plan after half fail pull-up test. Associated press.

Jones, B., Bovee, M., Knapik, J. (1992) Associations among body composition, physical fitness, and injury in men and women army trainees. National Academies Press. Body Composition and Physical Performance: Applications For the Military Services.

Frum, D. (2013) The Truth About Women in Combat. Daily Beast. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/01/the-truth-about-women-in-combat.html

Jordan, B. (2014) Data Predict Spike in Female Troop Injuries. Military.com. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/01/13/data-predicts-spike-in-female-troop-injuries.html

Springer, B.A., Ross, A. (2011) Musculoskeletal injuries in military women. Borden Institute.

Bell, N.S., Mangione, T. W., Hemenway, D., Amoroso, P. J., Jones, B. H. (2000) High injury rates among female army trainees: a function of gender? Am J Prev Med. 2000 Apr;18(3 Suppl):141-6.

Department of the Army (2011) Prevention and Control of Musculoskeletal Injuries associated with Physical Training. Department of the Army.

Share Button

Star Trek: Voyager’s anti-false rape allegation episode. No really.

[Image source, no affiliation with atavisionary.com]

[There will be spoilers, I will note where they start]

Star Trek has long been known to be thinly concealed propaganda for the left. In almost every episode (and movie) there is a “moral” of the story which (almost) always coincides with some popular leftist cause at the time. This harkens back to the original series such as in episode “Let that be your last battlefield” where the people from an alien species had a black colored half and a white colored half with two different races. Each race was basically the mirror image of the other, where one had black on the right side and the other had white on the right side and vice versa for the left side. This was obvious commentary on the contemporary civil rights movement with the (verifiably false) “moral” that we are all the same and differences between races are only skin deep. In the subsequent series this pattern of leftist hugboxyness only became more pronounced.

However, there are the occasional and sometimes hard to fathom exceptions. For example, Klingons transformed from a vaguely hispanic and relatively reasonable race (though also treacherous and full of guile) to a black race full of directly confrontational and violent barbarians. Perhaps this was some thinly veiled semitic racism? Could it be a result of greater interaction between the entertainment community and black musicians during the 70s and 80s between the end of the first series and the beginning of the movie franchise? One can only guess…

Of all the series, Star Trek: Voyager is known to be one of the worst offenders with their not so subtle promotion of left-wing values. The captain is a woman, the first officer is a native American, the chief engineer is a miscegenated half Klingon-half Human (played by a Hispanic woman), an Asian science officer (actually, that one is pretty legit), and the security chief is black. Quite the diversity utopia. There were only two white male main roles, and one of which was an unresponsible man-boy (Tom Paris). You can imagine what the plot lines were like in general. Voyoger was also really bad at using nonsensical technobabble.

So when I say that there was actually an episode which came out AGAINST false rape accusations I can understand why you would be incredulous. That sort of thing is incredibly out of character for Star Trek. However, the 1998 episode “Retrospect” does just that. I was a bit too young to retain an understanding of the contemporaneous cultural atmosphere of the time, but something tells me that false rape accusations were happening. Also, feminists might not have quite achieved the cultural hegemony necessary to prevent something like this from going through. Either that, or it was the writers choice to replace “rape” with “unwanted examinations” which allowed it to slip by the admittedly low-iq feminist commissars at the unofficial ministry of culture. [Spoiler alert, watch the episode now if you don’t want to see the plot first]

So let me give you a run-down of the plot. Voyager is at a trading planet looking to purchase better weapons since despite their 100% peaceful and reasonable intentions they always seem to piss off everyone they come into contact with. There is clearly something wrong with every other alien species in the galaxy. They enter into a trade negotiation with a merchant named Kovin. During the negotiation, Seven of Nine goes to Kovin’s workshop to look through some of his merchandise. Seven of Nine was basically the hot chic used as fan service for all the fat, lonely star trek nerds. The choice of her in the role of “non-consensual, physical examinee” really emphasizes the episode as a false rape allegation allegory. Anyway, while she is looking at a rifle, something overloads and she is hit by a gratuitous discharge. This causes some damage, but otherwise she is ok. Or so we think.

Later, after agreeing to purchase a new weapon for the ship, Kovin and Seven of Nine are working at a console in engineering and get into a bit of an argument about technobabble configurations. Kovin is a passionate guy so he moderately pushes seven out of the way to get to the console. She gets pissed and clocks him right in the nose. This leads to an investigation and the Doctor scans Seven to see if anything is amiss in her female borg brain. Unsurprisingly there is. As he is trying to perform the scans she starts p.m.s.-ing (anxiety attack) about medical procedures and makes the doctor let her up. He ends up having to sedate her to do the scans. It turns out that she had a neurotransmitter imbalance or some other nonsense which might “be a result of suppressed memories.”

The Doctor decides to take it upon himself to become a psychologist and do some sort of hypnotic regression therapy to see what these suppressed memories are. With the Doctor’s “help” Seven “discovers” that the incident in Kovin’s lab wasn’t an accident at all, but that he had intentionally shot her so that he could do invasive medical procedures to recover borg technology from Seven’s body in the hopes of creating new weapons to sell.  It seems that even in the 24th century, humans will still have yet to accept the fact that suppressed memories “uncovered” during therapy sessions are almost certainly crap. This alleged non-consensual and physically invasive examination was the clear stand in for rape.

With the help of the local authorities the Voyager crew begins an investigation into the incident. Kovin is understandably quite distressed and angrily professes his innocence. He also distrusts the objectivity of the crew, and explains how according to his local government’s policy or maybe just culture that even an allegation proven to be false could ruin a man. He frantically worried about his own life and livelihood being over. How no one would ever trust him again. Of course, the Voyager investigator promises him a fair shake at things. Since this is fantasy fiction, we can believe this promise.

Meanwhile, the Doctor spends time with Seven and asks her how she feels about the whole thing. At first she has no feelings at all, but then the doctor gives the following impassioned speech:

Doctor: How are you feeling?
SEVEN: I am undamaged.
Doctor: But how do you feel? Seven, your physical scars have healed, but the psychological effects are still there. You’ll have to deal with them.
SEVEN: For what purpose?
Doctor: In order to heal. Kovin attacked you, violated your rights as an individual. It’s important that you recognise that, so you can understand any hostility or resentment you might be feeling.
SEVEN: Resentment is a human trait. It has no structure, no function. I want no part of it.
Doctor: You’re going to have to begin accepting the fact that your human feelings exist, and that suppressing them can damage you.
SEVEN: If I am not aware of these feelings, how can I express them?
Doctor: Let me ask you this. What would have happened if Kovin had tried to take Borg technology directly from the Collective?
SEVEN: He would have been assimilated.
Doctor: Precisely. Which is why he chose you. He could get what he wanted without running any risks.
SEVEN: It was my individuality which made me vulnerable.
Doctor: Exactly. He violated that individuality. What he did is an affront to everything you are, Borg and Human.
SEVEN: It was the act of a coward.
Doctor: Yes! Someone who was willing to use you in the cruellest way so that he could create new weapons and sell them.
SEVEN: I believe I’m beginning to experience anger. Anger toward Kovin.
Doctor: Good. That’s a perfectly healthy, normal response. And when Kovin gets what he deserves, you’re going to feel much better.

So the Doctor takes a non-emotional Seven and convinces her to become an angry, accusatory bitch. And this after he helped her “find” these examination memories through psychoanalytical hypnotic regression. Replace “Doctor” with feminism and “seven” with the average woman and you have our culture writ large. How the hell did the commissars miss this thought-crime?

The rest of the crew continues the investigation in Kovin’s laboratory and come up with only circumstantial evidence. The only thing remotely supporting Seven’s story (or is it the Doctor’s?) is some borg nanobots which were still active when they shouldn’t be. (That part is just technobabble they made up for plot convenience, don’t think too hard about it.) The doctor then tells Kovin he must have done it because of this “evidence” which causes him to go insane, grab a gun, and try to escape in his ship.

While pursuing the ship, they do an additional test on Seven to see if the active nanobots which should have been inactive could have unexpectedly become active from an accidental discharge of the weapon in question. If so, then they would have literally no evidence to support Seven’s story. The test confirms that an accidental discharge could have led to the spurious state of the nanobots. Everyone at this point except Seven, who was still under the influence of the Doctor’s incompetence, accepts that whatever Seven was remembering it wasn’t something that happened with Kovin. Probably it was something she experienced or witnessed while still part of the borg because they do that kind of stuff all the time.

Voyager catches up to Kovin and Captain Janeway tries to explain that they made a mistake and that they know he is innocent. He doesn’t have to run. Kovin replies and says he thinks it is a trick and that they just want to capture him to put him through the wringer. He lashes out and starts firing on voyager. Voyager doesn’t return fire and tries to beam him off his ship, but can’t for technobabble reasons. Something overloads on his ship and boom, no more Kovin.

It is at this point where Janeway, Seven, and the Doctor all start to feel remorse for what happened. Thanks to their actions, they end up destroying an innocent man’s life. Fictional leftists are far more self-aware and reflecting than their real-life counter-parts. At the end the doctor (AKA feminism) describes himself like so:

“I became a self-righteous advocate and didn’t stop to think for one second that I might be wrong.”

Captain Janeway consoles him somewhat in this way:

“We all rallied around seven, doctor, myself included. I wanted her to know she was part of this family. That we would support her, fight for her, no matter what. We let our good intentions blind us.”

I honestly can’t think of another instance off the top of my head where a Star Trek episode tries to give a cautionary moral lesson about the leftist tendency to engage in manic episodes of moral self-rightiousness. In fact it is difficult to think of any episodes which are tacitly non-leftist. And it was in Voyager of all things. Quite extraordinary. For all the problems with the utopianism in Star Trek, you have to give credit where it is due. This was an exceptionally well done exploration of false allegations and the potentially lethal negative consequences they might have. It might even be worthwhile to show this episode to someone who can’t seem to “get it” that there are false rape accusations and that they are the epitomy of injustice. Given the leftist tendency for purely emotional thinking, the fact that they get to know the characters as people might help them learn something new through their thick skulls.

Ultimately, the take away is that the Doctor is the main villain here. If he hadn’t been such a self-righteous busy body, Seven would have never come to believe that she had been assaulted when she hadn’t. She also wouldn’t have progressed from believing in the assault to a start of anger with a desire for revenge. If the doctor hadn’t jumped the gun on what some piece of “evidence” actually indicated, Kovin wouldn’t have felt the need to run. A situation was created that didn’t need to exist, and was escalated far beyond reason thanks to the involvement of an ideologically rigid and corrupt third party. This is essentially how feminism behaves with respect to family law as well as rape. Domestic violence, divorce, alimony, child custody as well as other areas are all things that could be handled far more reasonably than they are now and the only reason they are not is because of the political involvement of feminism.

The part where Kovin goes belligerent as a result of the injustice of a false accusation is reminiscent of the relatively frequent lashing out by fathers forced through the family court system. I know it isn’t exactly the same thing, but it results from a similar sort of court bias which leads to excessive credulity of society and the courts with respect to false allegations. And honestly, I don’t even know if you could find any data about how common violent revenge is as a response to a false allegation of rape. This may or may not fit a similar pattern. Though all parts of the current family regime is problematic, the part of it which is closest to a false allegation of rape is false allegations of domestic violence. False allegations of domestic violence are commonly used by women in divorce and/or child custody battles against their husbands as a tactic to get favorable rulings. They are almost always believed no matter how baseless the accusation.

As far as I am aware, there aren’t any well put together studies on violence committed by men forced through the family court system, but legal professionals (judges and lawyers) seem to be aware of it and have wrote or talked with the media about it. One family court judge, who was shot in the chest with a sniper rifle an inch above his heart but survived wrote about the issue.

Eight years ago, while I stood in my chambers at the Family Court building in Reno, Nevada, a sniper shot me just above the heart from the upper level of a parking garage about 200 yards away. The shooter was a husband no longer content with battling his wife about assets and child custody in a divorce action. [talk about the mother of all understatements] I wasn’t his first target that morning. Before driving to the courthouse, he stabbed his wife to death at his suburban home during an exchange of their nine-year-old daughter.

Perpetrators of courthouse violence cannot be limited to one or more demographic profiles. They are mostly men, but of all ages, levels of educational attainment, employment histories, criminal histories, and experiences with substance abuse. They can be identified, not by their characteristics, but by their motivations… Two-thirds are motivated by a desire to take revenge. More than half of perpetrators seeking revenge intend to kill.

One-half of all court-related violence is family law related. It occurs in conjunction with cases involving divorce, alimony, child custody, child support, or domestic violence restraining orders.

Few judicial attackers suffer from mental illness. Nothing in the literature states or implies that perpetrators of court-targeted violence act under the influence of a mental imbalance or an irresistible impulse. They have not lost their free will or their ability to control their emotions. They act purposefully.

Forty years of record keeping show that the perpetrator is the person most likely to be killed in courthouse violence. Law enforcement officers are injured almost as often as perpetrators but are much less likely to be killed. Ex-wives and family members of the perpetrators make up the largest group of unarmed victims of courthouse violence, followed by members of the general public. Judges are not the most frequent victims of attack but, when they are, they are twice as likely to be killed as wounded. Court staff and judges’ families have also been victims, but with lesser frequency than these other categories of persons.

Courthouse violence also has a psychological cost. On May 5, 1992, during a divorce proceeding at the Clayton Courthouse near St. Louis, Missouri, a husband went on a shooting rampage. In less than 10 minutes, he killed his wife; shot his own lawyer and his wife’s lawyer; shot at, but missed, the judge; and wounded three other people who happened to be in the vicinity of the courtroom. A three-year longitudinal study was conducted of the consequences of the violence for courthouse staff, law enforcement personnel, attorneys, and others who were present during the attack. Two months after the incident, almost three-quarters were suffering a wide range of psychiatric symptoms including anxiety, difficulty concentrating, and substance abuse. Some continued to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder three years later. A study of the judges in my judicial district following my shooting found that my colleagues had responses that could potentially interfere with judicial functioning. Almost one-half expressed recognition that their fear of violence might affect their decision making. Courthouse violence causes continuing emotional effects and substance abuse. It can lower memory capacity, interrupt decision making, and increase stereotyping in decision makers.

So, unlike every other form of violent crime, attacks against family courts transcend race, economic status, educational attainment, and substance abuse (according to this judge, who presumably has enough credentials to be trustworthy). Now that is equality we can believe in. The only non-equal part of it is that it is almost always men, but that might have something to do with the overwhelming gynocentric bias of the family court system. Its funny that every time you read a lawyer’s take on this cultural phenomena they almost never ask whether or not there is something wrong with the system itself. Their main concern is how to conduct business as usual while reducing risk; so they typically just advocate for increased security. Can’t let this legal cash cow get away. They do admit that immediate concern for their own personal safety might prompt them to be less likely to dick over fathers, so there is that I guess. Completely unconsidered and selfish though that sentiment is.

Another article has some interesting quotes:

“There’s a saying that in criminal court, you have bad people at their best,” said Texas Supreme Court Judge Debra Lehrmann, who spent more than 20 years as a family court judge. “In family law, you get good people at their worst. In criminal court, dangerous people are in handcuffs. In family court, you don’t have any idea who is dangerous…”

“It’s not uncommon [to be threatened],” said Linda Lea Viken, a family law practitioner in Rapid City, S.D., and the president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. “I’ve talked to women lawyers who have had guns pulled on them. I’ve talked to a lot of lawyers who were threatened. It seems like everyone has a story.” Viken has had her mailbox smashed and a golf ball sent through her office window; she suspects that both incidents were instigated by estranged husbands of clients. The only time she felt truly frightened for her safety, however, was when a man against whom she had obtained a protection order for a client followed her home from her office one night two years ago.


Todd Scott, vice president of risk management and member services for Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance Co., began looking in 2010 for safety advice that he could pass on to his attorney clients and was surprised to find few formal resources. “I would go to these attorney panels and seminars, and almost everywhere I spoke, there was a local story about someone getting attacked or killed, and family law is at the top of the list.”

England has similar problems. Though the mail goes out of its way to avoid mentioning that it is mostly fathers aggrieved by the injustice of the system doing most of this.

If you take responsible, reliable, law-abiding fathers and totally shit on them in family court by taking their children away, giving his children and most of his assets to a woman who hasn’t worked in 5 years, then force him to pay 50-70 or more percent of his income to her on a monthly basis, it shouldn’t surprise anyone if this once decent and economically productive man feels he has nothing left to live for and decides to take out every dirty S.O.B. who screwed him over.

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

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

Jumping the Shark: How Cultural Marxism is Set to Ruin GitHub

[title reference explanation]

Though I know how to do some basic coding, I would not call myself a programmer. As such, I have never spent any time in the open source community; a major subset of which is facilitated in their efforts by the company GitHub. GitHub apparently provides server hosting for various projects and a forum that volunteer programmers can use to collaborate. These programmers are working on these various projects that are intended to be freely available; both to use and to work on. They mostly interact with each other using screen names and without ever knowing the identity, race, or gender of their collaborators.

My impression as a disinterested outsider is that most of these people are sort of nerdy and have a special interest in coding for specific projects. Given what we know about IQ distributions between race and gender, it is safe to assume that most of the guys working on this project are either white or Asian male, and possibly Indian males as well. What we can also be sure of is that women are a small minority. Programming is intellectually rigorous work. Women don’t have the numbers at the high end of the IQ distribution to have large numbers of women with the right capabilities, and even those women smart enough to do it usually lack interest. We can also be relatively sure that blacks and Latinos are a minority as well, again merely because of what we know about racial IQ distributions. I would expect there to be more Latinos than blacks, however. I don’t know for sure what the demographics of github are, but the above is an educated guess based on what can be generalized from data on various groups of people. It also fits with the known demographics of various tech companies working on similar projects. In fact, the demographics of tech companies likely look “better” due to quotas. In an all volunteer project, chances are demographics are even less nationally representative than at most tech companies.

Knowing the above is relevant to understand just how obnoxious Github’s new code of conduct policy really is. It seems like it was intentionally designed to alienate the core demographic. So much so that I would say that if they implement it as written, normal white males will essentially be 2cnd class citizens within this online community. There are two sections I want to highlight, but I encourage you to read the whole thing at the previous link. Here is the first:

Our open source community prioritizes marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. We will not act on complaints regarding:

  • ‘Reverse’ -isms, including ‘reverse racism,’ ‘reverse sexism,’ and ‘cisphobia’
  • Reasonable communication of boundaries, such as “leave me alone,” “go away,” or “I’m not discussing this with you”
  • Refusal to explain or debate social justice concepts
  • Communicating in a ‘tone’ you don’t find congenial
  • Criticizing racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions

Holy… This is like /r/tumblrinaction.

Bullet point one says that hating you because you are white, male, and/or straight is completely allowed. If some black lesbian comes in to disparage you and says you are horrible because of your race and gender (i.e., white and male), that is fine. If you talk back to her using the same language in return, you are in violation of the rule and will be punished.

Bullet point three suggests to me that when some SJW comes in to complain about something retarded, demands that they use some sort of logic to justify themselves will be ignored as part of official policy. If it is categorized as “social justice” it is sacred and is not up for debate.

Bullet point five seems to imply that people who try to defend themselves from unjustified accusations of racism et al, will have their complaints ignored. “If someone falsely accuses you of racism or sexism, T.S., you deserve it whitey.” Though I am not entirely sure about this last one, given the context that interpretation is most likely.

This is a level of entryism well above average in scope. It seems like it was just copied and pasted out of some victimology studies class textbook from Berkeley and pasted into this code of conduct. The level of absurdity in this becoming official policy here is more than I can fathom. This is straight out of 1984, or possibly Atlas Shrugged.

There are two things that really strike me about the above text. One, the main and largest demographic of this all-volunteer community (white men) is the one that these SJW entryists are going out of their way to define as second class citizens. They are telling them point blank that hating white men is allowed and they aren’t going to do anything about it when someone comments in this way. Even though these guys are freely giving away their time and effort, they still aren’t above being the officially sanctioned object of hatred. Two, if those same white men wanted to have some way to defend themselves from false SJW allegations, they are officially disallowed from doing so. They are banned from making SJWs defend their faith in “social justice,” logic need not apply. In addition, when they are accused of some -ism falsely, official channels will not address the slander in any way. They just have to take it. Sounds like a good community to be part of right?

My question is, how the hell did these radical cultural marxists get into a position to write this code of conduct in the first place? The demographic is mostly white male and there are a lot of programmers I have met who hate this kind of stuff; it is a common enough sentiment you wouldn’t have expected it to get this far. How did they allow these nuts to gain control of their community? Moreover, why did discussion about social justice, sexism, and racism become so important to a community which works with open-source programming projects? These things aren’t even tangentially related. Most of the people interacting do so only via the internet using screen names. You could be a purple teletubbykin Xer and no one would have a clue about it. I mean, there isn’t a better situation for race and gender blindness possible. Blacks and women could contribute all they want and would only be judged by the quality of their code.

Though I am not sure what instigated this change in policy, I think the last sentence suggests one possibility. Women and blacks probably were spotted because they contributed crappy code purely as a result of having lower IQs than their collaborators on average. No one knew they were black or female or whatever, but people spotted shitty code and called them out on it; quite harshly too as is common when men interact with each other. Autist programmers are probably at another level entirely as well. No racism or sexism would have been intended (the criticizer had no way to know these attributes anyway). With women and blacks more consistently contributing crap code compared to other groups there would be a disparate impact on who was on the receiving end of flaming. That disparate impact would have been totally justified, however, because crappy code probably makes everyone else’s work harder. Thus, it would be better for the community as a whole if those not up to snuff just left. Blacks and women would leave more, but fewer of them are legitimately good enough. They should leave until they gain enough ability to be a better contributor, if they even can. Meritocracy can’t have protected classes by definition.

I will hazard a guess and say that this was probably the result of feminists more than blacks or other minorities. Feminists are more likely to be overly sensitive to criticism than the black male programmer. White female feminists are smarter than blacks as well and so are more likely to have sufficient numbers trying to invade this community; thus gaining a measure of success. In addition, the feminists wouldn’t hesitate to add all the stuff about race while feminizing the other rules even if race didn’t come up very often.

Essentially what happened, by my guess, is that a group of feminists are trying to legislate out one of the most important rules of the internet. That is, there are no girls on the internet. Probably the best way to get this explained is to quote the original 4chan comment which defined the modern version of the rule. Sorry if it is a bit crude:

If I can pontificate a bit, for your edification, one of the rules of the internet is “there are no girls on the internet.” This rule does not mean what you think it means.

In real life, people like you for being a girl. They want to fuck you, so they pay attention to you and they pretend what you have to say is interesting, or that you are smart or clever. On the Internet, we don’t have the chance to fuck you. This means the advantage of being a “girl” does not exist. You don’t get a bonus to conversation just because I’d like to put my cock in you.

When you make a post like, “hurr durr, I’m a girl” you are begging for attention. The only reason to post it is because you want your girl-advantage back, because you are too vapid and too stupid to do or say anything interesting without it. You are forgetting the rules, there are no girls on the internet.

The one exception to this rule, the one way you can get your “girlness” back on the internet, is to post your tits. This is, and should be, degrading for you, and admission that the only interesting thing about you is your naked body.

tl;dr: tits or GET THE FUCK OUT

I will craft some fiction which I would guess has some resemblance to the events which led to these new rules. What happened was that female programmers who in real life are used to being held to lower standards compared to their male counterparts must have joined GitHub. These women as a group aren’t as good as men and are not criticized for this when people address their work in person. Maybe its because male coworkers want to fuck them or maybe its because her employer fears lawsuits and just needs a vagina on the programmer payroll regardless of how much she sucks. Whatever the reason, these women met with a harsh climate when they contributed junk code using an anonymized account. They were being held to the same standards as men for the first time in their lives and they didn’t like it. So, they immediately violated the internet rule of “there are no girls on the internet.” They stated they were female, despite that having no bearing on whether the code was good or not, to try to get their female advantage back. A number of programmers rightly condemned this and told them to hit the road with that nonsense. Some might have used especially harsh language, but the message was clear. Code well or leave. Somehow, feminazis had managed to gain power within the corporate structure of GitHub, or the males there were complete pussies, or both. They saw these interactions, and being feminists and cucks, created these rules so that when people use the race or sex card to defend their low quality work, good programmers are put into a corner where they can’t defend themselves or have any mechanism to reject poor code from the coddled classes. It was mainly about m’lady, but being good leftists they added in several other contenders for the victim Olympics. If someone has a better theory, please share.

In essence, the same pathetic “victims” who we are all sick of hearing complain found that in a pure, unadulterated meritocracy they were clearly found to be less skilled. Their initial attempts to use the same -ism crutch they use in real life to excuse their incompetence didn’t work because no one could tell what kind of otherkin they were just by a screen name before they called them out. Friends of these losers in high places thus crafted these rules to make sure that their crutch would work. Good bye GitHub, I only knew you for a brief time, but your cultural Marxism infestation is so severe that nothing can be done. It will be better just to put you down like old yeller. Good bye meritocracy, hello community destruction.

Moving on to the next section I want to quote:

We encourage everyone to participate and are committed to building a community for all. Although we will fail at times, we seek to treat everyone both as fairly and equally as possible. Whenever a participant has made a mistake, we expect them to take responsibility for it. If someone has been harmed or offended, it is our responsibility to listen carefully and respectfully, and do our best to right the wrong.

Although this list cannot be exhaustive, we explicitly honor diversity in age, gender, gender identity or expression, culture, ethnicity, language, national origin, political beliefs, profession, race, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and technical ability. We will not tolerate discrimination based on any of the protected characteristics above, including participants with disabilities.

This section is one of the reasons I think it was feminists rather than minorities generally. The concern about feelings and being offended is a clear sign that some female busy body wrote this or at least demanded the language highlight feelings.

We also see the whole rainbow of protected classes. Its almost funny. Most of these things would never come up if only actual programmers doing programming work were part of the community. They would be focusing on working rather all this random identity politics crap. It is the invading SJWs which prioritize this nonsense and probably barely do any coding. It is especially absurd in cases like this where the work has literally no connection to the SJW agenda. I mean seriously, open source software does not have anything to do with identity politics. It is also quite easy to never reveal your weird sexual fetishes or other hangups to anyone on there while working on a project.

Culture and political beliefs are also on the list of protected classes, but you can bet only progressive culture and political beliefs will be protected in practice. Anything not progressive is “racist,” so its banned by default.

Perhaps funniest is they don’t allow discrimination based on technical ability. Lol, what? YOU GUYS ARE PROGRAMMERS WORKING ON TECHNICAL PROJECTS!! YOU CAN’T TELL SOMEONE WHO CAN’T CODE NOT TO SCREW UP YOUR PROJECT? WTF!!11!! Unbelievable. Again, this is extremely feminine perspective. Everyone just get along, girls need special treatment even if they aren’t as good. Be nice to your sister.

All I can say for the guys who were legitimately trying to do work they were passionate about on this platform is I am sorry. SJW entryists have invaded your hobby and are doing everything they can to destroy it. It looks like they will succeed as well. The good news is that because all of this is open source, you should be able to migrate to a different platform pretty easily. At least, you can copy all of the relevant code and move it without any trouble. You could even start up your own competitor which advertises that it doesn’t have SJW cancer. I am sure that would actually be quite attractive to a lot of people. However, you have to remember that the downfall of GitHub was because it was excessively open and welcoming. You let the crazies in and you didn’t get rid of them when you discovered they were crazy. You possibly feared being called “far-right” and capitulated like a cuckservative. This was your mistake.

Open communities are doomed to this fate. It has happened again and again. It happens every single time without fail. It doesn’t matter how apolitical your community is, without a proper immune system radical leftists will invade and change the priorities to social justice and other fantasies. The original work of the community or business will be subjugated to the progressive religion. By direct decree, you will not even be allowed to criticize the progressive social justice. Social justice doesn’t need to make sense, it just has to be sacred. Being sacred, no one is allowed to criticize it. Not even apolitical programmers just trying to work on their apolitical hobby in peace.

For the formers of new communities, including GitHub’s replacement, finding out your choices are limited is difficult, but it should also give you sterner resolve to prevent your next community from being taken over by radical cultural marxists. For one thing, it should make you accept how important exclusivity is and keep you determined to immediately eject people who want to destroy your painstakingly created community by making it another arm of progressivism. If you want your new GitHub to stay pure and apolitical, you will need to prepare yourself for your new role as inquisitor.

Edit:

Thanks for the comments; especially those showing entryists at github, and that at least some parts of the community are adopting the policy.

See also “We will not act” (turns out that I was right and this was written by a white female feminist)

Share Button

We’re not in Kansas anymore

I have been planning to write this cladistics post which looks at the history of Kansas and its connection with the Cathedral for some time. Recently, Occam’s Razor had yet another post where he tries to say that progressivism is 100% Jewish and not Christian which convinced me it was time to add yet more evidence to the cathedral description camp. Much has been written on this which draws the link between puritanical Christianity and the modern progressive movement and I am no less convinced that this is an open and shut case. You can see my previous posts which talk about this: The missing links and the cathedral compilation.

As far as the “Jewish Question” is concerned (since Occam brings it up), I have no quibble with the idea that a select group of individual Jews have had an outsized influence on it. Much like they have an outsized number of nobel prizes. All this shows is that given a certain popular trend, progressivism being only one such trend, Jews have a tendency to produce unusually successful individuals. In my opinion, this is entirely explained by biological intelligence differentials. The Jewish intelligence distribution is to the right of most other groups so I wouldn’t expect anything else.  In addition, lets not forget that half of the Christian bible is Jewish. The two religions share part of their common core with each other. Logically, that both are capable of propping up progressivism is not surprising in the least. However, I would argue that the new testament does a better job supporting progressivism than the old. In short, individual Jews looking for success saw that progressivism was popular with the majority Christian culture around them and simply did the smart thing from a personal perspective in becoming leaders within said cultures. If reactionary culture had been dominant, they probably would have gone after that instead. Lastly, today brahmin whites and Jews are in my opinion the exact same culturally. These two groups are barely distinguishable as it is and are currently engaging in a great deal of admixture with Jews marrying non-jews at an astounding rate of 58-70% (only current marriages are addressed in link, so divorce probably makes it higher overall), so before too many generations they will be genetically the same, not just culturally the same.

Moving on to the main topic. Surprisingly given their modern conservakin demographics, the history of Kansas makes for an excellent example of a transitional period for progressivism. Kansas became a center for progressive politics in the 1800s which peaked around 1890 because so many of them moved to Kansas because of the slavery issue. New England abolitionists were invested in a pure morality status signaling way in the outcome of whether new states came into the union as free state or slave states. Based on purely moral reasoning without regard to economics or convenience, many of these New England proto-cathedralites moved to Kansas just so they could ensure Kansas would be a free state.

The most famous example is that of abolitionist John Brown. He was every bit of the same kind as the violent far-left activist/terrorist of today, but in the setting of the 1850s. Brown led raids with other activists and even murdered a number of people as he believed a peaceful end of slavery was not possible so a violent overthrow of government was the only solution. He was motivated by his religion: “He believed he was the instrument of God’s wrath in punishing men for the sin of owning slaves.” The stage was set for the civil war by conflict between free-state puritans who had moved to Kansas and Slave-state Missourians who had a number of small conflicts that happened before the civil war. These events became known as bleeding Kansas. Brown later went on a raid of an armory in Virginia in 1859 in which he and his supporters killed five men. Brown was executed for treason for this act, but its effect was to greatly increase the tensions between the North and South. The South was correct in identifying the highly aggressive posturing and support of violence by Northern abolitionists. Even if most paid lip-service to a peaceful resolution, they weren’t exactly angry that the fringe of their movement was engaging in violence and were dead set in isolating and inconveniencing the south as much as possible. This was Anarcho-tyranny at its very core. During the civil war proper, the union army even had a marching song celebrating Brown as a martyr.

After the civil war, abolition was no longer an issue, but Kansas was still full of puritans and through their activism the state became one of the main centers of progressivism during last half of the 19th century and into the early part of the 20th century.  They instituted or tried to institute child labor laws (somewhat understandable, but this had an undesirable side-effect of turning children from a economic gain into an economic cost for families), temperance/prohibition, direct election of federal senators, and labor reform among other things. They even had a populist party called “the people’s party” which engaged in outright illegal actions in the Kansas house of representatives. For example, locking the republican party out of the state congressional hall. Armed conflict almost resulted in Kansas because of these sorts of antics, which demonstrates that democracy really is just a low level civil war that always has the potential to turn violent.

inatior001p1

Though this is just a very brief synopsis of progressive Kansas, it clearly draws a link between the progressive movement and Christianity. I invite you to do more research on this historical period yourself, but even from this summary it is clear that Jews were not all that involved in significant portions of the evolution of progressivism. Puritanical Christians were the ones driving this movement from the bottom up and it is the same movement that has evolved into the modern cathedral. A few Jews which punch above their weight in terms of influence here and there does not undermine the fact that the cathedral is a christian spawned demon through and through. I am not sure how much of this was because of their particular version of Christian culture or because of the genetics they possessed from direct descent from English dissenters. I would imagine that it was a little bit of both, culture and biology have a lot of feedback with each other. Either way, the christian character of the cathedral cannot just be washed away.

Share Button

Wikipedia in Action on Race

I like to refer to Lewontin’s fallacy frequently when debating people who deny the biological basis of race. Wikipedia, while clearly not perfect, did have a reasonable article (at least for quick referral of lay-people) on the paper written by W.F. Edwards which coined “Lewontin’s fallacy.”(1) A brief overview is that in the 1970’s an academic social justice advocate published a paper(2) in which he claimed that there is more variation within individuals from one race than there is variation between different racial populations. So much that you can regularly find people of different races who are more similar to each other than they are to members of their own race. However, the first paper linked to above shows that the problem mainly stems from the fact that very few loci were studied by Lewontin. Allele frequencies differ between populations and with enough loci studied, the ability to distinguish between racial groups based purely on genetic information is quite high. Virtually 100%.

As is typical for pretty much all articles on Wikipedia, anything that isn’t politically correct can be expected to drift over time such that claims that are not PC are deleted, diluted, and placed next to a larger number of criticisms than is warranted such that it implies that the non-PC claims seem unsupported or only supported by very few outliers. Sometimes, like in this article, a paper which can be seen to support one conclusion actually supports the opposite on more careful inspection. All of this is the wikipedia version of death by 1000 cuts. I once tried editing the page on gender differences in intelligence and was basically run out and banned by marxist feminists. I assume this happens to anyone who objectively tries to include factual and balanced information into potentially politically incorrect articles. These same people got that article deleted or subsumed into gender differences in psychology for awhile, but it looks like it has been resurrected now. Honestly, the constant battle over these sorts of articles is just beyond all reason and I will never bother editing wikipedia again. Chances are your work is just going to get deleted and there are other platforms where that won’t happen.

Subjectively, it seems like this sort of thing has been happening to the Lewontin’s fallacy article, but I will let you be the judge:

Here is an old archived version of this article.

Here is an archived version of the current article.

Here is a direct link to the article. (It shouldn’t look different than the above link at the time of this post, but who knows what future changes will be made. In a year or two it could be interesting to compare these three versions)

The thing that is most obvious in my mind is that a paper discussed in an earlier version of the article which supported the concept of Lewontin’s fallacy has had any reference to it completely deleted. Here is the now deleted content:

Studies of human genetic clustering have shown that people can be accurately classified into racial groups using correlations between alleles from multiple loci. For instance, a 2001 paper by Wilson et al. reported that an analysis of 39 microsatellite loci divided their sample of 354 individuals into four natural clusters, which broadly correspond to four geographical areas (Western Eurasia, Sub-Saharan Africa, China, and New Guinea)

In addition, a paper which purports to undermine the concept that Lewontin’s thinking is fallacious is present at the end in both versions, but is quoted more (and very selectively) in the most recent version. In my opinion, the findings in both wikipedia versions are misrepresented.

In the old article this:

The paper claims that this masks a great deal of genetic similarity between individuals belonging to different clusters. Or in other words, two individuals from different clusters can be more similar to each other than to a member of their own cluster, while still both being more similar to the typical genotype of their own cluster than to the typical genotype of a different cluster. When differences between individual pairs of people are tested, Witherspoon et al. found that the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” is not adequately addressed by multi locus clustering analyses. They found that even for just three population groups separated by large geographic ranges (European, African and East Asian) the inclusion of many thousands of loci is required before the answer can become “never”

On the other hand, the accurate classification of the global population must include more closely related and admixed populations, which will increase this above zero, so they state “In a similar vein, Romualdi et al. (2002) and Serre and Paabo (2004) have suggested that highly accurate classification of individuals from continuously sampled (and therefore closely related) populations may be impossible”. Witherspoon et al. conclude “The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population”

expanded into this:

In the 2007 paper “Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations”,[20] Witherspoon et al. attempt to answer the question, “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?”. The answer depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity, and the populations being compared. When they analysed three geographically distinct populations (European, African and East Asian) and measured genetic similarity over many thousands of loci, the answer to their question was “never”. However, measuring similarity using smaller numbers of loci yielded substantial overlap between these populations. Rates of between-population similarity also increased when geographically intermediate and admixed populations were included in the analysis

Witherspoon et al. conclude that, “Since an individual’s geographic ancestry can often be inferred from his or her genetic makeup, knowledge of one’s population of origin should allow some inferences about individual genotypes. To the extent that phenotypically important genetic variation resembles the variation studied here, we may extrapolate from genotypic to phenotypic patterns. […] However, the typical frequencies of alleles responsible for common complex diseases remain unknown. The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes”,[20] and warn that, “A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further.”

This paper… It had decent data and methodology actually. But as is almost always the case with these sorts of things, interpretations and framing of the results are key. It is clear that the people who wrote this are deliberately softballing their wording either to cover their ass (my guess) or to promote a more progressive narrative.

ω in the following quotes is defined as given a certain number of loci considered, the probability of individuals originating from two distinct geographical areas will be more similar to each other than to someone originating closer to them. I.E., the probability that two randomly selected individuals from different races will be more similar to each other than each is similar to a randomly selected member of their own race. Keep in mind that ω is not the same as determining what race a person is based on genetic data. Even with small numbers of loci and a high ω, there is very low probability of misclassifying the race of an individual person. From the very same paper used to undermine the Edwards’ paper:

[A relatively large ω is found with low numbers of loci] It breaks down, however, with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations: In such cases, ω becomes zero.

With the large and diverse data sets now available, we have been able to evaluate these contrasts quantitatively. Even the pairwise relatedness measure, ω, can show clear distinctions between populations if enough polymorphic loci are used. Observations of high ω and low classification errors are the norm with intermediate numbers of loci (up to several hundred)

Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, ω, can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is ω ≅ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ∼20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, ω ≅ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.

Molecular biologists and geneticists use a little bit different definition of polymorphism than some other branches in biology. In this case, they are referring to single nucleotide differences in the genome. This is equivalent to having one letter different in spelling a word. Prog and prig mean almost the same thing, but there is one letter difference which slightly changes the meaning. This is a reasonable analogy to the differences in the genetic code.

What this paper says (and it should be said with less tip-toeing) is that if you only consider a small number of these single nucleotide polymorphisms, there is a high degree of error and you can often erroneously conclude that two people from different races are more similar to each other than they are to individuals of their own race. The key word here is erroneously. This is a statistical problem, not biological fact. If you consider thousands of SNPS at once, then you have virtually no chance of encountering this problem. The authors of this paper found that Edwards was right and Lewontin was wrong. Individuals from two different races are never more similarly related than people from the same race, and the genetics supports this when you consider enough loci. It is pretty unambiguous. The quotes in the Wikipedia article and in the paper don’t really represent what the researchers actually found. The researchers had to dress this language up the way they did because of progressive influence in academia. Chances are they wouldn’t have gotten published if they were straight forward about what they found, and even if they could have published political heresy they may have had their careers ruined by SJWs in academia. See what happens when you don’t toe the line with the progressive narrative by reading what happened to a University of Texas researcher who didn’t find the “right” conclusions with regards to gay couples raising children. Though there is a huge problem with how Wikipedia articles are written and “maintained,” they wouldn’t have been able to misconstrue these results so badly if it weren’t from the same sorts of SJWs in academia malevolently influencing researchers. Though it shouldn’t be understated that the wikipedia editors did in fact selectively quote from this already bludgeoned paper. Two layers of SJW influence changed the findings of this paper to mean the exact opposite of what it actually found. Unbelievable. It is truly amazing that this sort of shenanigans is allowed to go on.

You might object that “thousands” is a huge number and that this demonstration of statistical problems convincingly shows that races don’t differ if it takes that many to reduce error to zero. However, the human genome is about 3 billion base pairs long. If you were to use 3000 base pair SNPs, which is consistent with the minimum in the paper, then you need to utilize only .0001% of the whole genome to reduce this error to zero. Or, if you want to consider SNPs only, there are about 10 million SNPs in the human genome. A sample of 3000 SNPs is only .003% of the total number of SNPs that could be used. This is a conservative estimate because their figure 2 indicates it only takes about 1000 SNPS to minimize this error. In other words, it only takes a vanishingly small fraction of the genome to relieve you of this statistical error that can find that humans from two different races are more similar to each other than either is to their own race.

Yet this paper, which so conclusively shows that human races are different from each other on the genetic level, is used to debunk the original Edwards’ paper. The author’s of the paper attempt to debunk themselves or at least pretend like they found the opposite of what they actually did. This paper is absolutely one of the worst instances of doublethink I have ever come across. It literally blows my mind. As a society, we seem to have a real hatred for truth when it comes to biological realities and the uninformed are clearly being purposefully told lies.

Sidenote: I know there was another article on cathedral entryism on Wikipedia in the alt-right in the last year or so, but for the life of me I can’t find it. If anyone can provide a link I would appreciate it. Edit: Found it.

(1) Bioessays. 2003 Aug;25(8):798-801. Human genetic diversity: Lewontin’s fallacy. Edwards

(2) The Apportionment of Human Diversity. R. C. Lewontin. 1972

(3) Genetics. 2007 May; 176(1): 351–359. doi:  10.1534/genetics.106.067355 PMCID: PMC1893020 Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations J. Witherspoon, S. Wooding, A. R. Rogers, E. E. Marchani, W. S. Watkins, M. A. Batzer, and L. B. Jorde

Share Button