Race Hustlers on Reddit are spreading misinformation on /r/”science” again

/r/science on reddit is having a race hustler thread where cathedral academics are telling everyone the same tired nonsense that differences in outcomes between groups are caused by SES and discrimination by white men. I decided it would be valuable to post an excerpt from my book which discusses the left wing bias in academia because there is a lot of it and I don’t think these people should get a free pass on spreading misinformation like this. If you have a reddit account, I think it would be a good idea to go in and counter these false claims. There is plenty of evidence that IQ differences have genetic causes, and that thread should be littered with links to it.

Since the probability that my comments will be removed is high, I decided to make a copy of them here [edit: I checked and as expected the comments are already removed. Check out this site which saves all the removed comments. Notice a pattern? Edit2: Apparently this thread was made because high level progressives in science journals or media demanded it in order for the sub to have advance access to new announcements of interesting research. In other words, spread our ideology and we will give you insider access and other perks.]:


IQ is the single best studied and understood psychological trait. It has been studied for over 100 years and has consistently found that the black/white IQ gap on average is about 15 points. It has also found that the male distribution is significantly more variable than the female curve. What this means is that among the smartest people, those most likely to do well in science, the population is about 2 males for every 1 female. Intelligence level has been shown to be mostly determined by genetics. You can see a large compilation of studies and findings which demonstrate how strongly genetic intelligence and other traits are here. These innate IQ differences explain the differences in outcomes of different populations of humans without needing to resort to unfalsifiable and unscientific concepts like “white privilege” or bias.

I gave you enough links above to start on this. Instead of repeating this easily findable information, I am going to talk about the progressive/far left wing bias that exists in academia. This bias seriously undermines the credibility of race and gender hustlers who try to use credentialism to support untrue opinions about white/male privilege. For an independent opinion, see the website of liberal social psychologist Jonathon Haidt where he and others admit to and discuss the problems caused by this progressive bias.

I wrote a book on gender differences in intelligence called smart and sexy, and it cites hundreds of studies which together confirm and explain why gender differences in outcomes exist and that they are mostly biological in origin. You can find a wealth of data in there for biological mechanisms. However, I also took the time to analyze the current state of academia and what I found was extremely troubling. Below is an excerpt of a section of that book. Remember that the focus of the book is on gender, but this left-wing bias also applies to claims about race.  Citations for all my claims will be at the end.

Saying that the academic community has a large progressive bias is a very strong claim and such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. So what is known about the “scientists” who publish “research” in politically charged areas? Diederick Stapel was previously a highly regarded and influential Dutch social psychologist who did a lot of work on stereotype threat until it came to light that he “routinely falsified data and made up entire experiments.” Another example of his politically biased work was a “scientific” article which sanctimoniously claimed to find that meat eaters were more selfish and less agreeable than vegans. Unfortunately, it is impossible to be surprised by outspoken priggishness from vegans and their sympathizers.

Thanks to this media attention, Stapel is now the most notorious charlatan in the field of social psychology, which is saying a lot for what appears to be a regularly fraudulent and pseudo-scientific discipline. Social Psychologists as a group do not make the data they collect available for outside review 2/3rds of the time. This stinginess with data is actually against the ethical rules established by social psychologists themselves and suggests that there are likely many more Stapels out there who simply haven’t been caught. A survey by the Harvard business school found that 70% of social psychologists admitted to cutting corners in reporting data, 30% reporting unexpected findings as if they were expected from the start, and 1% admitted to falsifying data.

Another meta-analysis of papers published in high-tier psychology journals found that 50% of papers surveyed contained at least one statistical error and 15% contained an error so severe that the conclusion drawn would have had to have been reversed.i, ii A meta-analysis which looked at whether or not positive results from stereotype threat studies could be replicated found that almost half could not, and that a further 25% were confounded by methodological issues.iii Methodological issues, especially in determining statistical validity, have even been used by one Social Psychologist to publish in a major, respected journal that he had proven the existence of psychic ability. His finding used standard statistical practices in psychology and resulted in heavy criticism by professional statisticians of both the specific paper and the psychology community generally.iv

This high publicity criticism led to a fair degree of soul searching among the psychological community and led some researchers to undertake the task of evaluating how widespread these problems are. One analysis reviewed articles from the last 100 years in the top 100 journals based on the impact factor; a measure of the level of influence a paper or journal has on the field. It found that in that time, for the highest impact journals, only 1% of all research findings in psychology had ever been replicated. Of that 1%, only 14% were in fact direct replications. The rest tested similar hypotheses under different conditions. However, successful replications themselves have to be received critically. Half of the 1% of replications had authors from the original study; this is troubling because the presence of the previous author greatly impacts the chance of positive replication and implies bias might be playing a role. 92% of replication studies with an author from the original paper confirm the original result, while only 65% of replications by independent researchers confirm the original finding.v

Problematic methodology isn’t the only issue in psychology. Ideological bias is rampant in the humanities generally, but especially in social psychology; both among individual researchers and among the journals publishing papers. Beyond the lack of objective critical evaluation of papers, the field itself is essentially an ideological and political echo-chamber that is considerably more left-wing politically than the general population. 80% of social psychologists identify as liberal, while only 3 out of 1000 identify as conservative. Contrast this with the general population which is 40% conservative and only 20% liberal; the remainder being moderate or apolitical. Looking through all social sciences, the ratio of liberals to conservatives varies from 8:1 to 30:1.vi Were these sorts of numbers occurring with an ideologically designated protected class, these same social psychologists would be the first to use it as incontrovertible proof of discrimination.vii, viii

Considering what is now known about the biological origins of cognition and intelligence (discussed in more detail in future sections), it is generally difficult to take claims of discrimination seriously when underrepresented groups also display relatively lower intelligence profiles. However, in this case there is no reason to think that conservatives as a group have an intellectual profile below the general population. Social conservatives tend to be a little lower in intelligence relative to liberals, but free-market conservatives (libertarians) tend to be smarter than liberals. Being very partisan, either liberal or conservative, tends to be associated with high IQ as well.ix Increased income levels, which are a proxy for IQ, also moves people right ideologically.x In other words, there is nothing that biologically determined intelligence can do to explain the lack of conservatives, and even moderates, in the humanities.xi

In a survey of social psychologists, it was found that conservative respondents feared negative consequences from revealing their political affiliation and that they were right to do so as liberal respondents expressed willingness to discriminate against conservatives in approving papers, grant proposals, and hiring decisions.xii The more liberal a social psychologist is or the more consequential the decision would be for the conservative, the more willing liberal social psychologists are to discriminate.

The temptation . . . to advance a political agenda is too often indulged in sociology, especially by activist faculty in certain fields, like marriage, family, sex, and gender . . . Research programs that advance narrow agendas compatible with particular ideologies are privileged . . . the influence of progressive orthodoxy in sociology is evident in decisions made by graduate students, junior faculty, and even senior faculty about what, why, and how to research, publish, and teach . . . The result is predictable: Play it politically safe, avoid controversial questions, publish the right conclusions…

[Compared to conservative sociologists] Politically-correct sociologists enjoy certain privileges in a very politically conscious and liberal discipline. They can, for example, “paint caricature-like pictures based on the most extreme and irrational beliefs of those who differ from them ideologically without feeling any penalty for doing so,” and “can systematically misinterpret, misrepresent, or ignore research in such a manner as to sustain [their] political views and be confident that such misinterpretations . . . are unlikely to be recognized by [their] colleagues” [Social science researchers believe] “that social science should be an instrument for social change and thus should promote the ‘correct’ values and ideological positions”vi

With this sort of cultural climate, exploring gender differences, or even just acknowledging that such differences exist is extremely difficult for professional scientists to do today. The pattern of ideologically driven academics significantly undermines the ability of an objective outsider to trust the conclusions coming out of certain fields, especially when it is related to such a politically charged subject as gender (and race) differences in test scores. It is quite clear that the overwhelming majority of researchers working on this topic possess a politically desired outcome of these studies. The great potential for this systemic Lysenkoism to motivate the production of inaccurate results and interpretations contrary to reality can’t be overestimated. The objectivity of the field in concluding stereotype threat is a real and large effect phenomenon in particular is highly questionable.

Calling cynical skepticism of the social sciences “anti-intellectual,” a common criticism directed towards conservative thinkers, is only so in the sense that these “scientists” have misdefined the word “intellectual” to describe their political ideology and therefore themselves. It is quite conceivable that the modern attitudes described as “anti-science” attributed to conservatives are fundamentally merely a non-inevitable reaction to what can only be described as pseudo-science being published by leftist activists in academia; and stereotype threat is just one example of peer-reviewed pseudo-science.xi

Certainly in some cases there are conservatives that legitimately hold anti-scientific views, such as in the case of evolution generally. But when it comes to evolution of the human species specifically, many liberals are just as anti-scientific as the most hardcore creationist. The main difference is that the left, being dominant in state institutions and having ample government funding, has the power to enforce idealism contrary to reality while most conservatives do not have symmetric influence. This asymmetry in power makes leftist anti-reality beliefs of far greater concern and consequence than the equivalent conservative anti-reality beliefs.

For the average person, it isn’t so hard to notice some of the more egregious examples of leftist pseudo-science. Since most people do not have the time or energy to independently evaluate every pronouncement from every field coming out of the scientific community, it is more efficient (and natural) to use a quick short-hand, or stereotype, to extrapolate from a more narrow range of data for which they do have time and interest to look into. If their interest happens to be in an area replete with pseudo-science, and that’s likely because politically controversial areas are both the most likely to be interesting and to contain pseudo-science, then they have found themselves an extraordinary indicator of dishonesty which they then extrapolate from.

As a consequence of general distrust, society is more likely to develop unreasonable movements like that against vaccinations. It is not reasonable for the scientific community to expect the average person to evaluate every single scientific finding themselves. They have real lives that do not, and should not, have to deal with academic politics. Therefore, scientists need to do a better job rooting out bias, and especially liberal bias, in their fields so the public can actually trust what they say. If academics want to be trusted, they first must be trustworthy because trust, for institutions as much as individuals, must be earned.

I don’t mean to be misinterpreted when I point out these biases in scientific research. To their credit, the main people who have identified and raised alarm about the bias against non-liberals in academic papers have themselves been liberal social psychologists such as Jonathon Haidt. In fields that are outside of the social sciences or on the periphery, real bravery is often demonstrated in their defiance of orthodoxy. Perhaps my favorite treatment of Cultural Marxism came from a paper which starts by stating “putting aside political correctness” and then continues on to discuss multiple heretical topics and never references it again. Political correctness is mentioned only long enough to dismiss it as the irrational and fallacious sentiment that it is. This is a hopeful sign, but it must be noted that no serious efforts to actively alleviate the problem within the social sciences beyond talking about it have so far been undertaken.

I have a great respect for science generally and see it as the best method so far developed by humans to separate truth from fiction, at least when the core principles of scientific philosophy are actually followed. But the scientific establishment is still a human institution and therefore fallible. The community at times moves unacceptably far away from its core principles and this usually happens when research topics might have strong implications for an over-arching political ideology. The Lysenkoist effect of an overwhelmingly liberal character is just one problem. Another is that senior research scientists often spend as much or more time begging for money than they do actually trying to discover truth. Whether or not they actually get money is often dependent on how much they publish which creates an incentive to publish even if the research isn’t very good. Conforming to the political biases of other researchers thus constitutes a quick way to look better with lower quality research.

From the state of academia, it can be taken that the discrimination hypothesis has a great deal of influence on our current culture and the determination of public policy through the publication of questionable research. If the discrimination hypothesis is only partially true or largely wrong in the present, then social policies based on it are likely to be largely ineffectual and possibly harmful. Intelligence researcher Dr. Wendy Johnson has stated the importance of this possibility with reference to X linked intelligence succinctly,

Values create the emotionally charged climates pervading discussions of sex differences, making it difficult to evaluate scientific data objectively. Values are extremely important and appropriately form the basis of many actions and social contracts. But the laws of nature are not responsible to us or to our values and may not conform to them. It is important to understand the laws of nature as completely as possible within our circumstances in order to actualize our values as we intend. We can only develop coherent and realistic actions and social policies that will actualize our values if we understand the laws of nature as they exist.ii

Wicherts, J. Bakker, M. (2011) The (mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology journals. Behav Res Methods. 43(3): 666–678.

Franklin, K. (2011) Psychology rife with inaccurate research findings. Psychology today. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/witness/201111/psychology-rife-inaccurate-research-findings

Stoet, G., Geary, D. (2012) Can stereotype threat explain the gender gap in mathematics performance and achievement? Review of general psychology. Vol 16(1), 93-102

Wagenmakers, E., Wetzels, R., Borsboon, D., Van der Mass, H. (2011) Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: the case of psi: Comment on Bem. Journal of Personallity and Social Psychology. Vol 100(3). 426-432.

Makel, M., Plucker, J., Hegarty, B. (2012) Replications in psychology research: How often do they really occur? Perspectives on psychological science.Vol 7(6). 537-542.

Redding. R. (2013) Politicized Science. Society. Vol 50(5), 439-446

Haidt, J., Post-Partisan Social Psychology. http://people.stern.nyu.edu/jhaidt/postpartisan.html

Tierny, J. (2011) Social Scientist Sees Bias Within. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=5&ref=science&

Kemmelmeier, M. (2008) Is there a relationship between political orientation and cognitive ability? A test of three hypotheses in two studies. Personality and Individual Differences.Vol 45(8), 767–772

Morton, R., Tyran, J., Wengström, E. (2011) Income and Ideology: How Personality Traits, Cognitive Abilities, and Education Shape Political Attitudes. Univ. of Copenhagen Dept. of Economics Discussion Paper No. 11-08. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1768822 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1768822

Duarte, J., Crawford, J., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., Tetlock, P. (2014) Political Diversity will Improve Social Psychology. Behav Brain Sci. Vol 18. 1-54

Inbar, Y. & Lammers, J. (2012).  Political diversity in social and personality psychology.  Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 496-503.

Abramowitz, S. I., Gomes, B., Abramowitz, C. V. (1975), Publish or Politic: Referee Bias in Manuscript Review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5: 187–200. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1975.tb00675.x

Ceci, S. J., Peters, D., Plotkin, J. K., Alan E., (1992). Human subjects review, personal values, and the regulation of social science research. Methodological issues & strategies in clinical research., American Psychological Association, 687-704

Crawford, J. T, Jussim, L., Cain, T. R., Cohen, F.  (2013).  Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation differentially predict biased evaluations of media reports.  Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 163-174.

Munro, G. D., Lasane, T. P. and Leary, S. P. (2010), Political Partisan Prejudice: Selective Distortion and Weighting of Evaluative Categories in College Admissions Applications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40: 2434–2462. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00665.x

Rothman, S., Lichter, S. R., Nevitte, N. (2005) Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty. The Forum. Vol 3(1). Article 2.

Harvard sex row and science. BBC News. Jan 18, 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4183495.stm

Lallensack, R. (2014) UW to host first feminist biology post-doc program in the nation. The Badger Herald. http://badgerherald.com/news/2014/04/21/madison-host-first-feminist-biology-post-doc-program-nation-rl/#.VO5GIS6GN8H

Pinker, S. (2009  Letter from Steven Pinker to Aarhus University in defence of Prof. Nyborg, December 9, 2009. http://www.helmuthnyborg.dk/Letters-Of-Support/PinkerLetter.pdf

Nyborg, H. (2013) Danish Government Tries to Censor Science it Doesn’t Like. American Renaissance, November 14, 2013 http://www.amren.com/news/2013/11/danish-government-tries-to-censor-science-it-doesnt-like/

Thompsom, J., (2013) Helmuth Nyborg gets Watson’d. Psychological Comments. http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2013/11/helmuth-nyborg-gets-watsond.html

Nyborg, H. (2003) “The Sociology of Psychometric and Bio-behavioral Sciences: A Case Study of Destructive Social Reductionism and Collective Fraud in 20th Century Academia.” The Scientific Study of General Intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen.

Nyborg, H., The Greatest Collective Scientific Fraud of the 20th Century: The Demolition of Differential Psychology and Eugenics. The Mankind Quarterly. University of Aarhus (Retired, 2007)

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.


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

Reversing the Demographic Winter

I found this documentary via reddit which found it via thinking housewife. It discusses an issue of deep concern to the dark enlightenment and that is the issue of population decline. For what I guess is a mainstream documentary, it is refreshingly frank with regards to the negative consequences modernism/post-modernism is having on our culture and subsequently population. Big factors in this decline and identified by the doc are feminism, the break down of sexual continence, divorce friendly laws, and promoting careerist women (mostly discussed in part 2) All of these things work together to destroy the family and set off a runaway effect of ever decreasing fertility. Watch it, it is pretty good:

Part 1

Part 2

As the documentary shows, it isn’t just white Europeans that are having fertility declines even if they are are most advanced in said decline (with the exception of some Asian countries). Even the countries which supply the current batch of immigrants to the west may not be able to keep that up if the same trends advance in their countries and they are only lagging by maybe 20-30 years behind the west. The whole white genocide meme put forward by identitarians may end up needing an overhaul and be redefined as human genocide. Actually, I think it is better called human suicide than genocide as it is mostly a voluntary action. Not to discount the fact that it is intentionally inspired cultural marxism, but people do assent to its ideas more or less voluntarily. It is an interesting idea to think that the immigration issue may be resolved by fertility drops in the rest of the world, though I am not holding my breath on that one. Lots of people worry about Muslim fertility, myself included, but Iran for example has one of the worst fertility crises in the middle east. Clearly this isn’t a European only problem. It is a global problem with various groups merely at different stages of it and with a few particularly disturbing exceptions to the trend. Though most of that population will probably remain confined to their current locations.

Of course,  I have written several posts tangentially related to this. Of Madonnas and whores is one, shrug is another. The first is on how a culture which has a healthy fertility rate is structured and the other is on how men should respond to the current horribly designed structure. It occurs to me that these two posts probably appear on the surface to be at odds with one another because one attempts to reverse the problem while the other attempts to exacerbate it. However, there is a method to my deep and frightful madness. I refer you to the analogy of a frog in boiling water. If you put a frog into luke-warm water and then slowly bring it to a boil, the frog will swim merrily and make no attempt at escape until it is too late. However, if you drop the frog into water that is already very hot it spends its few remaining moments among the living desperately attempting to escape. (I have never actually attempted to boil live frogs, so maybe they don’t act as described, but the analogy creates a vivid picture anyway and is thus rhetorically useful.)

The analogy demonstrates that it is the nature and speed of the transition which is the governing force of the response to the change rather than the destination of the change itself. A jarring transition spurs reaction, while a slow transition results in docile acquiescence. The purpose of articles like shrug is to create such a sudden and uncomfortable transition in our culture that it becomes fertile for introspection and ultimately action. Well, hopefully the correct sort of reaction like that described in Of Madonnas and whores and other articles. By magnifying the problems faced by both family destroying women and the state, you may, just may, catalyze some pragmatic thinking. Not to mention sparing as many individual men from the machinations of the state as possible.

Of course I am just some trivial blogger who very few people read. : ( My articles are likely to be quite inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. Or maybe not. There are a lot of men in positions which make them quite receptive to a new and sympathetic view of their situation that not only successfully diagnoses their problem, but also suggests some sort of solution. It is that last part that is most important. Men naturally want solutions. If there is a problem in their lives, they are much more likely compared to women to take some sort of unilateral action. Even if there are downsides to that action in this situation, the alternative is something akin to slavery. Worse maybe because of the culture of contempt directed towards so-called “dead-beat dads.” Therefore, the level of acceptable costs and downsides with respect to the working of the divorce industry are quite high. Even more, many men are likely to accept a great deal of problems if it means they can ensure that the state and the parasitic ex-wife come up empty handed merely as a result of well-deserved spite.

However, there is one last piece of this puzzle which must be dealt with before men shrug en masse and inflict a painful jolt on the system. Men have to be ideologically deprogrammed. Both social conservatives and the cultural marxists demand sacrifice from men for the sake of women and children and indoctrinate them accordingly. Sacrifice of men for those groups isn’t so bad when it is paired with the rewards and assurances given them in a traditional context. It was merely a more or less fair contract. The dominant culture on the left and “right” have decided that they can get away with taking those rewards and assurances away without any consequences. Well, we already know that didn’t turn out to be true, but even with the current consequences things seem to be accelerating leftward rather than reversing. Perplexing that. It seems that the consequences haven’t been severe or blatant enough which is why it is probably still the time of creative destruction rather than direct building (outside of individual properly patriarchal families, a difficult thing to achieve today even for the most skilled). Acceleration towards the left singularity has continued unaltered because of the so far effective ideological indoctrination men face from both the left and “right.”

The incentives that should result in men exiting en masse are already well established and have been for a long time. The only thing keeping them around is the tiny thread of cultural mind control; a thread that is ripe for the cutting. This indoctrination mainly revolves around questions of what is and isn’t moral. So long as good men believe that exiting from the unfair arrangement is immoral, they will be loathe to do so regardless of the cost to themselves. In shrug, the question of the morality of exit is directly addressed, although briefly:

I can think of the obvious objection [with respect to exit from alimony and child support]: “Won’t someone please think of the children!” Well, I am. I am thinking about children (and the whole family), but I have escaped myopia and took a view that extends all the way to the horizon. Children are done a huge disservice by easy divorce. It is a fact that they are better off when their parents stay together until at least they grow up. So long as the system exists in the current state, the only thing we can be sure of is that millions more men and children will be caught in its clutches in the future. Suffering will only increase and increase. Anything that lets the system of easy, no-fault divorce with the concomitant asset division last even one week longer than it has to is immoral.

In a properly functioning society, going after fathers who shirked their duty is a just imperative. We don’t live in a properly functioning society. These days it is rare that family breakdown is caused by men unwilling to be fathers. Worse, they have absolutely no power to prevent the destruction of the family that causes so much suffering to everyone, especially children. When family breaks down, it is not their fault. Such men are thus morally guiltless for leaving. As much should be explained to them and they should be encouraged to shrug. The men who willingly continue to pay into this system are essentially complicit in its perpetuation, at least once they understand how it works. They are just like Hank Rearden who through his diligent efforts kept the morally bankrupt society going that much longer than otherwise had to be. He did this despite emotional torture by his ungrateful family and incrementally increased injustice towards him by society. By keeping the current system solvent, today’s men ensure that more men in the future will be dragged into it. By shrugging, they bring the day of its collapse closer and ensure that less children will ultimately be caught up in it. Continuing to pay into the system, judged by the number of future men and children who will be dragged into it by its continuation, is thus itself the height of immorality.

In other words, it is the demands society place on men without compensation or assurance that is immoral. Men not only have a justification for exit, they are morally obligated to demand their dues for their sacrifice because if they do not they are dooming future generations to the perdition caused by incorrigibly capricious women and the ever more greedy state. If they are not given what they are owed, they must exit as a moral imperative. The elucidation of pragmatic morality here cuts the thread of indoctrination and prepares men psychologically for the difficult decision to pursue exit as the difficult solution to their involuntary servitude. The sting of mass exit would then ultimately facilitate some move back towards tradition.

At least this is the theory. Why should anyone listen to someone like me? Well it seems that at least one person has. Though I am not a MGTOW myself, I subscribe to the subreddit because they sometimes have interesting links. If anything, MGTOW philosophy will just make the demographic winter even worse so ultimately it has no promise as an effective strategy for a better future. Anyway, I stumbled on this self post which stated:

Frankly, we need to be very specific here about a certain aspect of going your own way. I’m looking for that direct insider info strictly speaking of alimony and child support obligations and uprooting and leaving it all behind.

Has anyone up and left, and the consequences be damned? Like, as in – I Don’t Give One Single Fuck what the ex, or the courts are gonna do to me type of attitude.

Seriously looking into this, if the statistics of non-payment of child support are such that “billions of dollars have gone uncollected” Then I must be living a delusion that I will in-fact go to jail for non-payment, and this can all be managed in a way that we can call their bluff and move on with our lives.

So speaking of what did you do, how far did you move? Out of county, out of state, out of country? How far did the legal system pursue you in your new found location? What and who did you leave behind? What would you have rather actually kept and/or sold or left behind? What legal ramifications were the result of leaving your “free-range prison” behind? (Think alimony, child support, garnishments, mortage, etc.) Were you able to successfully break free forever? Or did you come back and have to pay the piper? How did you hide assets like a home, or your money from being legally stolen from you? Would it have been a better idea to keep the home and rent it out while away, or sell the home because of the headaches, ramifications and hassle while gone? How have your children taken the change, and have you managed to keep in touch? Has the ex held them back from keeping a relationship with you because you are no longer paying for the extortion known as child support? Has she kept the children from relatives while you are gone? How much better was the new life compared to the old life? Any other comments or words of wisdom we could all potentially glean from you that aren’t covered here?

We are not discussing the morality of such decisions, or how you came to get to this point. We all come to our own point of no return, and I for one, and you yourself do not deserve to be ground into dust with no recompense for the rest of our lives.

Of course this reminded me of my shrug article so I told him about it in a comment to which he replied:

You have a really great website! I’ve read that article before too, and re-read it.

Flattery aside, I feel a bit like I may have opened pandora’s box (it was bound to be opened eventually by someone). If we take the 1% rule seriously, then there may be at least 100 more men out there somewhere who read that article and took it to heart and are seriously considering implementing the suggestion. That is assuming I have seen every instance of a re-post of this article, which I probably haven’t and would mean there are more than this. Of course, even if they don’t act on the idea it is in their head and they will think about it regularly because they will be faced with their burdens regularly. They will also likely spread the idea to other men (with or without linking back to me) and some of those men will act. The redefinition of appropriate moral response to the current divorce regime could eventually have significant repercussions and things will get worse generally before they get better. I have, in concert with the efforts of many others, engaged in black magic. What is and is not moral is changed to be a more accurate representation of reality. Moreover, from what we know about moral signaling behavior this redefinition could spread quickly and rabidly if it becomes entrenched in some dedicated minority. Considering the current incentive structure, such a result might be expected. People will fall all over themselves to do the right thing in the eyes of their peers, especially if they have overwhelming personal incentives rarely present in other moral signaling games.

All I can say is that I hope my appraisal of the situation is correct and that this action brings closer the light at the end of the tunnel. If I’m wrong about this, though I don’t think I am, then the spreading of the idea could result in some difficult to reverse consequences. Either way, what is done is done and the lid can not be put back on the box. At the very least, progressive culture will suffer mightily for ignoring gnon. Most importantly, though, individual men will be more likely to free themselves from involuntary servitude and that is a positive moral change even if that is the only positive change that results.


Here is another self-post titled “How to shrug at the family courts and evade slavery.” Though I didn’t ask him if this had anything to do with my article in my comment, the wording suggests he had read it.

Share Button

Tribal posturing: Parents of Michael Brown testify before UN

I haven’t said much on the the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, but I have been following it. In short, a young (and large) black man named Michael Brown was shot and killed by police officers. Most of the available evidence suggests that Brown was a thug and criminal (here is a video of his robbery immediately before his death). Considering his previous actions and history, there is a pretty good chance that the officer’s story is correct. Brown attacked them and left little choice but to open fire. A regrettable turn of events, but Brown is largely responsible for his own fate by virtue of his poor decisions.  Unfortunately, many blacks and progressives do not see it that way. Given the facts available, it is hard to understand how the situation could be interpreted in any way that doesn’t acknowledge the role Brown’s actions had in his death.

Hard, but not impossible. Evolution (or evolutionary psychology) doesn’t always favor pure rationality. In this case, thedish loyalty or tribalism outweighs the facts on the ground on what is fair between the two individuals. When two individuals from different groups or tribes come into conflict, from an evolutionary standpoint it is likely that members of a tribe stand more to gain from unconditionally aligning with another member of the tribe against outsiders even if the outsider is objectively in the right. Through this lens, it is much easier to understand why no matter how obviously a black person is shown to be in the wrong, you will always have droves of other blacks aligning with him/her unconditionally and trying to convince everyone else of the tribe members innocence. This course of alliance making is true of most human groups. The notable exception seems to be white liberals. HBD chic suggests that a large fraction of whites are exceptions from tribalism because of past extensive out-breeding. With this unique heritage that now seems to have become pathological, it can be seen why progressives come to ally with the group outside their thede. With less loyalty to others who are clearly related to them, the instead rely more on cultural cues (progressivism) to signal to and find other members of their thede who may or may not be closely related.

In any event, to get to the title of this post. The parents of Michael Brown recently were allowed to address the U.N. on the death of their son despite all evidence that suggests Brown was no martyr. This would be risible if it weren’t a symptom of extreme decay in our civilization.

The media, as is typical with racial issues, at best only shows ambivalence towards possible guilt by minorities:

Accounts differ as to what led to the August shooting of Brown, an unarmed black 18-year-old, by a white police officer.

“Accounts differ” is quite a stretch. They have video evidence of Brown committing a robbery immediately before he was detained. That doesn’t discourage Brown’s parents from making calls of action:

“We need answers and we need action. And we have to bring it to the U.N. so they can expose it to the rest of the world, what’s going on in small town Ferguson.”

Of course, they want the officer who was attacked to be immediately arrested regardless of evidence in a classic case of tribalism. What kind of action are they looking for?

[The parents want] an end to “racial profiling and racially-biased police harassment across the jurisdictions surrounding Ferguson.”

Blacks don’t commit more crimes on average, it is just discrimination…. How might this “discrimination” be solved?

[The US department of Justice] “must conduct a nationwide investigation of systematic police brutality and harassment in black and brown communities, and youth in particular. Methodology and findings of this investigation must be made publicly available.”

So the tax money of law abiding citizens must be used to concoct excuses whole sale for underclass, and especially black underclass, criminals. I think I could imagine better ways to spend tax money than imagining stories which are meant to keep criminals out on the streets.

But wait, there’s more! The Brown’s weren’t acting by themselves. In fact, one can wonder if they had much to do with their appearance at the UN at all. Low SES people don’t generally have the time or connections to garner such an audience or to draft political speeches. So who helped them?

The delegation that organized their trip said the couple would read from a statement submitted by the Brown family and organizations called HandsUpUnited, the Organization for Black Struggle, and Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment.

What a wholesome line up…. Unsurprisingly,  Marxists and black nationalists are milking this situation for everything it is worth, which is surprisingly more than I would have guessed. I imagine they probably talked or possibly pressured the parents into doing this. I wonder what the parents thoughts would have actually been if the media exposure and special interests groups hadn’t interfered.

I feel bad for these parents. They lost a son and instead of being allowed to come to terms with what he did wrong to get himself killed, they are being fed a bunch of Marxist lies about racism and class struggle which can only serve to fuel their bitterness and hatred for many years to come, if not for the rest of their lives.

If you are interested in more thoughts on the Ferguson shooting from neoreaction, here are some other posts:

Why didn’t they shoot

The myth of Ferguson


Share Button

A Neoreactionary Analysis and Review of “12 Angry Men”

[Spoiler alert] I recommend you watch the movie before reading this review, which includes a summary. If you have already seen it or don’t care, read on. It is currently available on Net Flix.

12 Angry Men is about a jury of twelve (all white) men who must decide whether or not to convict an 18 year old hispanic boy from the slums of murdering his abusive father. If they convict him, then there is a mandatory death sentence for his crime. The events of the night, though never defined very clearly, go as follows:

  1. 7 PM the boy purchases a knife from a pawn shop. This knife is either the murder weapon or is identical to the murder weapon.
  2. 8-9 PM The boy has an argument with the father that ends in the father hitting his son several times.
  3. 9 PM The boy leaves the home. According to the boy, he loses the knife he purchased earlier.
  4. 11 PM The boy claims that he goes to the movies and watches several features. This is his alibi.
  5. 12:00-12:10 AM The father is murdered in his apartment using a knife that was identical or the same as the knife purchased earlier by the boy. The murder is supposedly heard or seen by several witnesses.
  6. 12:10 AM The murderer escapes the scene leaving the knife in the body, but did not leave any finger prints on the knife
  7. 3 AM The boy returns to his apartment and is apprehended by police. He witnesses his dead father before being questioned by police. He is unable to recall the films he saw during this initial interrogation, though later at court he is able to elaborate on the films he saw.

The majority of the movie takes place in the jury deliberation room and follows the unnamed men as they discuss the evidence and testimony of the case. It starts out with 11 of the 12 men being thoroughly convinced that the boy is guilty, but the one dissenter (the protagonist played by Henry Fonda) is progressively able to convince the other men that there is a reasonable doubt of the boys guilt. Most of the dissenter’s doubt focuses on the fallibility of human memory in the case of both the witnesses and the boy.

Some, but not all, of the pieces of evidence they consider:

  • They look at the knife the boy purchased immediately before the murder that was used to kill the father. They were able to demonstrate that it was a rather common model. The dissenter purchased the same knife at one point while the jury was in recess and shows the copy to the other jurers.
  • They considered the testimony of the first witness, an old man, who claimed to have heard the boy shout, a body drop, and to have seen the boy running away after rushing to his door. However, the old man was seen to limp so it was determined to be improbable that he could make it across his apartment in the short time needed to catch the murderer running away. In addition, thanks to the testimony of the other main witness, it was known that a train would have been passing by as the murder took place which undermines the testimony that the old man was able to hear either the shout or the body drop. Lastly, it was speculated that an old man of this sort was hungry for the attention provided by the trial and may have embellished his story to experience a feeling of importance.
  • They considered the testimony of the other witness, a middle aged woman, who claimed to see the murder take place. It was determined that she wore glasses normally and that she probably wasn’t able to put them back on after getting out of bed because of the scream to positively identify the murderer. In addition, a train was passing between her and the other window which would have further obstructed her view.
  • They considered the inability of one of the jurors to accurately remember a film he saw only a few days before despite not being involved in a traumatic situation; implying that it was reasonable that the boy couldn’t remember the movies after seeing his dead father.
  • The boy was supposedly good with switch blades like the murder weapon. As such, his experience would have led him to use it underhanded. However, the murderer held the blade overhanded which suggests a person with less experience.

Sometime when I was in high school I was in a class that watched 12 Angry Men, rightfully considered a classic film. I vaguely remember my impression at the time was of surprised admiration. The fact that a black and white film could be enjoyable and impactful was somewhat unexpected to my shallow 15 year old self. Of course what really struck me, and presumably everyone else who likes the movie, was how close the jury came to carrying out an “obvious” miscarriage of justice. The portrayal of the situation by the movie was that prejudice and human fallibility were conspiring to condemn a young boy to death. As such, it was only just that he should be found not guilty. At least, that was how 15 year old me felt. How I was supposed to feel I guess.

I recently watched this film again and I now take the message of the film with a large grain of salt. As I have grown older and wiser, and also more experienced with neoreaction, it is easier to spot the undeniably progressive stance of the film. 12 Angry Men is the quintessential artistic expression of the progressive attitude toward the criminal justice system. The film itself was made in 1957, which was a time at an early stage of progressive reform of the courts. These reforms, which were implemented during the 50s and 60s, led to a huge spike in criminal activity during the 70s and early 80s. The reforms made it much more difficult for prosecutors to actually convict real criminals at trial. After all, it is better that 99 criminals go free than 1 innocent man goes to prison, right? Well, apparently not. Legislatures and prosecutors reacted to the surge in criminality created by these reforms by putting into place the draconian penalties and mandatory minimum sentences that allow prosecutors to scare 97% of the accused into accepting plea bargains to avoid the extremely harsh sentencing that would result from a jury trial conviction. For more on the changes that have taken place in the criminal justice system over the last 60 years or so, I recommend Handle’s review of “The collapse of American Justice” (and of course the book itself).

One of the most striking things I noticed when watching the movie was the easy association it made between the progressive attitude toward the boy, as embodied by Henry Fonda, and the church. Near the beginning of the film, one of the other jurists repeatedly paints Fonda’s character as a progressive Christian through sarcastic comments about his position such telling him to stop “giving a sermon” and asking if he also wanted them to “throw a quarter in the donation box.” Like the article “American Malvern,” 12 Angry Men comes from a time before progressivism had fully divorced from its Christian roots. That the audience would understand that progressive attitudes were associated with mainline Protestantism was simply taken for granted. No explanation necessary. This point was further hammered in by the same character later pejoratively calling Fonda’s character and the other jurists he had convinced “bleeding hearts;” a common slang for liberals and social justice advocates. “Bleeding Heart liberal” itself was likely coined as a reference to the bleeding heart of Jesus, which further underscores the shared cladistics of social justice liberalism and Christianity.

The accusing jurist himself, along with 2 or 3 other jurists to a lesser degree, is an interesting example of a caricatured archetypal conservative. Where the progressive leaning jurists are portrayed as calm, reasonable and objective, the “conservative” jurists are portrayed as emotional, angry, and prejudiced in order to create as polar a dichotomy as possible. In other words, good and evil were clearly defined by the exaggerated character and personalities of the individual jurists. This was especially pronounced in the attitudes written for the right leaning jurists towards immigrants and other ethnicities, which seems to be an early example of anti-white “anti-racism”. That is, the audience is made to feel antipathy towards the obviously negative personalities of the white, conservative jurists with illiberal opinions by associating those opinions with the absurd and flawed characters. For example, the “bad” jurists angrily referred to immigrants and minorities with disdain through terms like “they are just like that,” “that’s how they are,” and “that’s what people from the slums do”. Never mind the fact that such observations aren’t completely irrational, the point was to paint the picture that anyone who might use such information to help them decide a case is just as evil as this caricature through the association of flawed personalities with quick and prejudiced judgements. As illogical as such an association is, the film succeeds masterfully at this point.

It was this portrayal of the personalities of pro-guilty (IE conservative) jurists that I found to be most bothersome. In the most notable example of ad hominem via caricatured conservative, one jurist was given a back-story of conflict with his own son. He apparently was a hard father who engaged in a savage fight with his boy when he was 16. The boy had left and never spoken to his father again for many years. This bad father thus projected his bad situation onto the accused boy and associated the accused with his own disappointment and bitterness he experienced with his son. “Bad” was determined as much if not more via synthesized character attacks against the archetypal conservatives as it was by synthesized doubtful evidence. Surely this emotional appeal has little to do with jurists, conservatives, or justice in reality. And yet, we can see how effective it was on influencing the average person by the prominence of the movie in cultural history and the ultimate success of the progressive reformers to change the system.

Although this is a well made film and worth a watch, it has to be understood in the context of the times and especially the progressive ideologies of the writers. Being fictional, it is easy to simply manufacture doubtful evidence, testimony, and flawed personalities of jurists. Within the context of the reality created by the film, the progressive message does indeed seem right and just. However, a better way to judge the film is by the real world consequences of the progressive ideologies it embodies. Considering the sorry state of our modern criminal justice system, history should not remember this film anywhere near as favorably as it currently does.

Share Button

How Cultural Marxism ruined the Mass Effect franchise

When I first read about the original Mass Effect, I found myself very interested. A third person futuristic shooter with significant roleplaying elements seemed like a very unique style. Unfortunately, I did not own an X-box at the time so I did not have a chance to play the original or the sequels when they were first released. However, last year I found out that there had subsequently been a release for the PS3. I decided to get all three games and play straight through one after another.

The games were very good from a technical standpoint and in terms of gameplay. However, as the games progressed (pun intended) the influence of Cultural Marxism crept insidiously up until it made Mass Effect 3 almost unplayable. Unfortunately for me personally, and fortunately for this review, I was completely unaware of the controversy surrounding the progressive stance of the third installment which allowed me to experience it without preconceived notions.

The first issue I have with Mass Effect 3 is the shift to an over-emphasis on romantic relationships. A game of this sort is about roleplaying a tactical commander set amongst a myriad of alien species, both hostile and friendly. You are there to lead your team against the odds and save the day, to navigate political intrigue and win by force when necessary. In short, it is for role-playing the ideal masculine character who must confront difficult situations that brings out the best of his masculine virtues. To have large digressions into discussion about relationships and romance really distracts from the desired purpose of the game (from the consumer’s perspective). For example, you might be walking by couples talking to each other about their relationships or NPCs complaining about their spouses. There is also significantly more romance related dialogue for Shepard. In essence, the game and the main hero were significantly more feminized than the previous installments. That might be OK if the target demographic for this game had a significant number of women. The thing is, the large majority of gamers are young, straight men. It makes zero sense to cater to a demographic who won’t be interested in a game like this regardless of how many female friendly attributes you add to it. Game companies will never get large populations of women to play games like this because this genre of gaming is not appealing to most women. The only thing you do with this is alienate the guys who actually want to play as a tactical commander. Guys bought the game to shoot aliens, not hear npcs whine about their lovers. The first game had it right, there was very limited dialogue dealing with relationships and you could skip it easily (Sorry, I have no romantic interest in a tentacle head). It seems that if there is ever a point where there is a product or form of media that specifically caters to the interests of men, there is always a loud and vocal minority who demand that it does more to cater to women and for some unknowable reason that vocal minority is listened to despite the changed implementation alienating the largest fraction of fans.

Too much romance was bad enough, but it gets worse than that. I haven’t done an exact count, but my impression was that there are more homosexual couples in the game than heterosexual ones if you include NPC-NPC interactions.

In one example among many, there is a point where the lesbian romantic interest comes up to your quarters and beats you at chess while giving intentionally misleading innuendos if you have a male Shepard, though presumably it would lead to more if you had a female Shepard. It is obvious that bioware did not change the dialogue to match what you would expect from an uninterested lesbian talking to the male Shepard. Given her character, she should not make flirtatious comments towards the male Shepard. Instead you have a lesbian being extremely flirtatious with a male character who then suddenly changes her disposition and rebukes him. In other words, she is a tease. I can’t imagine a way to make a character more annoying or better evidence for lazy writing on the part of bioware.

In another example, there is a woman complaining on the phone that her “daughter” with another woman couldn’t be sent to her family because she was disowned by the mean traditionalists. I sympathize with people in this situation to a small degree*, but being preached to about this politicized issue is not something that should be happening in this game.

I have nothing against gays. Fluke biological events almost certainly explain most of this evolutionarily maladaptive aberration in the same way biology accounts for downs or muscular dystrophy. As an Atheist, I don’t view it as some sort of moral question or as a sin. However, just because I can understand and accept that there are and will be homosexuals**, that does not mean I want homosexuality forced on me in video games or other media. I do not, and will never, enjoy content that has a heavy homosexual theme. I don’t even like heterosexual relationship discussions in my games or media. Why does bioware think I or the rest of the straight male majority want to hear a gay dude crying over his gay lover? (Yes, there is a scene like this in the game and no you can’t avoid it). So again, the interests of the main demographic for this game (straight male gamers) is thrown under the bus in an attempt to be inclusive to an even smaller minority of activist whiners and to push the “correct” values on a large audience who were never interested in the game for any sort of partisan political message.

What does bioware say to the majority of its customer base when they complainGet over it. They apparently know what’s good for us. Small minorities have to be catered to despite the fact the game will be much less enjoyable as a result for the main demographic. I am not against there being separate video games that can cater to those minorities, but I know that I don’t want that content included in the games I play because it kills the immersion and enjoyability of the games. For a significant fraction of the gamers, this was also done despite the fact that the depicted lifestyle might be deeply offensive to their religious beliefs. I may not believe in religion or god or be offended for this reason personally, but I find the attempt to force values onto religious communities to be repugnant. Deeply religious gamers are probably also a minority, why are the interests of this minority ignored in favor of homosexuals? Homosexuality should have been left out, or at least there should have been an option to not have it be part of the game for those who didn’t want it. Content that aggressively pushes politically progressive agendas when playing escapist entertainment destroys the gaming experience and as a result I will be avoiding bioware content in the future. Not the least because of how disrespectful they were to the part of the fan base who voiced their concerns. I suspect that I will not be the only one.

Another aspect of the lesbian beating Shepard at chess should be addressed. Beyond being annoying for having incongruent dialogue and imposing a specific value system, the scene is also completely disconnected from reality when it comes to her victory at chess. The ratio of men to women in chess favors men to such an extreme degree that they have to create separate all-female leagues because there aren’t enough women who can compete effectively with men; not unlike most physical sports.This is due to biological differences between men and women in visual spatial, numerical and mechanical intelligence as well as the greater variance in intelligence among men. This leads to there being a larger number of very high intelligence men than women. I know that some women are better at chess than some men, but nonsense scenes like this are both unnecessary and ineffectual at achieving progressive goals. Seeing women winning at chess in fiction will never translate to women winning at chess in reality. The population that makes up the most elite chess players will always be overwhelmingly male. Just like the population of people who like to play video games will always be overwhelmingly male.

The Leftoids who make up the cathedral have this weird (and incorrect) idea that different outcomes for different groups result not from innate biological differences, but from social conditioning. They think if they expose young people to the “right” types of tropes in stories they will be able to increase a person’s aptitude for a field (or make them have the “right” opinions in the case of values). In this game, the relevant cues are female soldiers, scientists, and technicians. They made a lot of female scientists and technical specialists and several female soldiers in all three games. This, of course, is nonsense. Elite Men who are well-suited to engage in both extreme physical and mental tasks (see studies above) are overwhelming more numerous than elite women for biological reasons. Women didn’t need to be elite to be successful in evolutionary history, men did and still do. Though I know the portrayal of women is extremely unrepresentative, it doesn’t bother me as much as the imposition of progressive values or excessive female inclusiveness detailed above. For one thing, the technobabble dialogue doesn’t directly annoy me like relationship dialogue does, and I don’t care who voice acts it. However, it is another example of leftoids trying to social engineer and force progressive values on the general public and is worth mentioning and understanding.

Games are meant to be escapist entertainment. They aren’t supposed to be used as a soapbox for leftoids to force tolerance and biologically inaccurate representations down the throat of the gaming community. This side content was a very dark stain on what would have otherwise been a great game franchise.

* There is robust evidence that children who are raised in homes without fathers have a lot more difficulties in their lives. Generally speaking, fatherless homes should be avoided where possible. In cases of adoption, a lesbian home might be better than nothing or an abusive home, but childbearing that does not include the presence of a father should be discouraged.

** Male homosexuals tend to have extreme sexual lifestyles with many partners which contributes significantly to disease spread. HIV is the most well known example, but it is hardly the only. Extreme promiscuity probably should not be acceptable even if homosexuality is viewed as unavoidable.

Share Button

What is a leftoid?

According to urban dictionary a Leftoid is:

This is a derogatory term for left leaning people who have naive, unrealistic, and overly optimistic views about how the world works based on what they would like to be true rather than what is actually true in reality. How the leftoid would like the world to work is usually based on dogmatic ideologies like feminism.

There is an emphasis on them being biology, genetics, and evolution deniers. Leftoids don’t explicitly deny evolution in all of its forms like the religious right. They only deny evolution and biology in special cases where facts conflict with their ideologically motivated beliefs. Especially with regards to gender and race politics.
Realistic Cynic: “Men and women are different because of biology.
Leftoid: “Gender is a social construct and has no basis in biology!”
Share Button