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

Neoreaction Denver

I was looking through /r/darkenlightenment today and saw a post about a neoreactionary club forming in Denver, Colorado. It looks like it was inspired by phalanx, but isn’t connected with it at all.

The group will use Phalanx as a template.  If values align and both groups agree, a merger with Phalanx would likely be desirable.

Is this a legit group or some sort of shill operation? I don’t know and the mods on the sub don’t appear to know either based on the comment they left. If it is legit, then this is a positive development. Rumors have it that the expansion of Phalanx has been rather slow. Their twitter account also hasn’t had a tweet since November and I only know of them having 1 or 2 meetings in British Columbia. Perhaps expansion via the centralized coordination of only a few people just isn’t practical when interest in the dark enlightenment is thinly spread all over the world. In such a case, it is unavoidably necessary to have interested and motivated individuals start things up independently.

I am not convinced it is worth avoiding though. Decentralization, separation, and geopolitically tailored values are supposed to be among the chief guiding principles of neoreaction after all. Forming and keeping such groups mostly separate confers a degree of anti-fragility. This is highly desirable. Personally, I am not sure I agree with the idea of various groups merging into a unified phalanx group as the post hints. Occasionally organizing events together, but retaining separation seems like a better idea. Any thoughts?

Share Button


I apologize that it has been over a month since my last post. I am working on a book that describes the biological underpinnings of gender differences in intelligence that I hope to have released by the end of the year, possibly earlier. I have spent most of my time on that rather than providing posts for this blog, but it has been so long I felt I needed to post something.

I recently became aware of a Father who fled to the Philippines as a result of outrageous financial demands from his ex-wife. He left behind four children: one with cancer, one who is retarded, some girl who feels bad (the article and I guess society generally seems to imply this is equally bad to the other problems), and another son who is a drug addict in rehab. Wow. Assuming all that isn’t an embellishment on the part of the mother as a ploy for sympathy, that is so many problems to deal with I could see why someone would have the temptation to flee even without the family courts being a factor. Not that I would approve of such an action if the mother was loyal and supportive.

In this case, like so many others, the family courts really are the problem, though. When they first divorced, they reached an agreement where the wife would get full possession of the 1.2 million dollar home purchased solely through his work (she hadn’t worked for 22 years). There was still a 600,000 dollar mortgage and he got 175,000 dollars to be bought out. In effect, this deal gave her equity worth 425,000 dollars in lieu of spousal support. He still had to pay child support in addition to this, of course. The house also has an apartment which can be rented for 2000 dollars per month. In his words:

“Donna got the million dollar lakefront mansion and full custody of the children with child support, but no spousal support, in exchange for the house,” Hans Mills writes. “Everyone at the time agreed that my spousal support obligation had been met fully.”

It isn’t entirely clear what happened, but they continued going to court for several years. I suspect that after the initial financial agreement he was trying to either get custody or increased visitation rights. Apparently his ex-wife’s debts were adding up from the house payments and paying for a lawyer for these continued court hearings, so she used a hearing as an opportunity to get more money from him for spousal support. The court ordered him to pay more to his ex-wife, 4000 dollars a month with the addition of spousal support and possibly an increase in the already ongoing child support payments. The court also ordered him to pay all of his ex-wife’s legal fees and made the payments retroactive. That is, a lump sum worth what he would have paid if he had been ordered to pay spousal support from the start. In an email he sent after fleeing he said:

“The result of the legal instrument which you recently designed and implemented is that there is no possibility of a comfortable life or a (secure) retirement for me in Canada at all,” Mills, 53, wrote in the email dated November 2, 2011. “Therefore I have left the country to seek greener pastures elsewhere, and will never return. Well done Einstein.”

Describing his situation to the reporter:

“I was effectively ordered to pay for my crucifixion. Ouch. Plus I still had to pay my own lawyer,” he writes. “Having been buggered once left me no appetite for a second serving, thank you very much.”

Of course, he claims that he really regrets leaving his children in the way he did:

“I did a terrible, awful thing, because I had no reasonable option,” Mills says of his decision to flee and stop making spousal and child support payments. “I miss my children terribly. I abandoned Canada, but not my children. My hope is that some day I can reconcile with my children, but not in Canada . . . a morally bankrupt state.

His kids are “innocent bystanders who got caught in the crossfire,” Mills says in his email to the Star. “It was not my intention to hurt them.”

But he is quite adamant that leaving was right for him and that he will never pay spousal support:

“The Philippines is about as far as I could go. If I had a spaceship I’d be much further away.”

He is adamant about two things — he will “never, ever, ever, ever” pay spousal support, and he will never return to Canada.

A lot of people will probably have a hard time being sympathetic to the man. Certainly the fact that all of his crumb crunchers seem to be misfits doesn’t help. However, what we are seeing here is merely a consequence of what can only be described as an oppressive regime. The only thing somewhat unique about this situation is the man’s bravery in pursuing a solution (exit) which deprived the state and the ex-wife of their ill-gotten gains. If this were a unique situation, no one would have any problem extending sympathy for the mother and children. Unfortunately, hundreds of thousands of men in Ontario alone are being charged unreasonable fees to be paid to their ex-wives (funneled through the government which skims off the top of course):

With that missive sent from an unknown location, Mills joined the more than 120,000 parents in Ontario who are in arrears on spousal and child support payments. Collectively, they owe more than $1.8 billion to ex-wives and children.

That is just in Ontario. And it doesn’t even include the men who are actually making the unreasonable payments on time. The number of men in the world subjected to this must be in the millions, even hundreds of millions, and the overall wealth transfer must be in the tens of billions if not hundreds of billions. When you think of the scope and the cost of the divorce industry it is truly staggering.

It is remarkable that we live at a time in which the metaphorical conspiracy (a strike among the productive) that took place in Atlas Shrugged actually seems to be coming true after a fashion. For those of you unfamiliar with the book, governments become increasingly socialist and the socialist “looters” demand more and more from the decreasing population of people who actually work hard and produce everything that makes civilization tick.  In response to the topsy turvy incentive structure, the masses resort to a race to the bottom because those deemed most needy are both the most moral and deserving of whatever surplus society happens to produce. With this structure in place, the moochers (most people) try to present themselves as being the most pathetic and needy in an almost competitive way. Sound familiar?

In real life, there hasn’t been any sort of organized conspiracy to accomplish anything like this, but there are trends which have remarkably similar effects. Whatever has happened seems to be a result of mass action; the independent arrival at conclusions by multitudes of men based on present incentives. The most important aspect of this is arguably the marriage strike. In this case, men tend to work much harder when they have a family to support. This benefits everyone, women who are wives, children, and unfortunately even the state through increased tax revenue. Without families, men naturally scale down their productivity to match their actual needs. Their needs turn out to be remarkably small. Men don’t like shopping for useless things to hang on the wall or more than a week or so worth of clothing and all the other non-functional things women buy and which forms the majority of the basis of the consumer market.

I would argue that an important piece of shrugging against the modern system would involve actively attempting to bankrupt the family court system (and other systems) by finding ways to deprive such systems of revenue. This would hit them where it hurts the most. I say ‘shrugging against’ here because I think it better captures the idea that exit could be used in an almost offensive manner as well as bringing up all the expansive imagery from the book which exemplifies the power of exit. So far, men not paying their court ordered bills is mostly a result of inability to pay rather than principled refusal resulting from mass action. Certainly exit is used, as in this case, if only very rarely. We need to change this. I think it is clear from the psychological disposition of men that organized activism will never really be all that forthcoming, and so we must focus on what men are psychologically disposed to: exit. Men who are subjected to these sorts of unfair payments should be actively encouraged to just pack up and leave. Possibly even with a conspiracy approximating a modern underground railroad where sympathetic men aide them in shrugging the outrageous obligations put on them by helping them out of the country. Or at least out of the reach of the state.

I can think of the obvious objection here: “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.

It is time to shrug.

Share Button

The girls who cry wolf

The boy who cried wolf is a famous tale in western culture. In it a shepherd boy who maintains a flock of sheep repeatedly calls for the help of local villagers to repel an attack by wolves. However, once the villagers arrive, they discover that there was no wolf attack and the boy simply tricked them for his own amusement. Eventually, a wolf does truely attack the flock and the shepherd boy really does need help. Unfortunately, when he goes to get help from the villagers, they remember all the many instances where his calls for help were false and decide not to help him. The flock of sheep is killed and the boy’s livelihood is destroyed. “This shows how liars are rewarded: even if they tell the truth, no one believes them.”

So why do I repeat this story that you surely already know? The lesson contained therein seems incredibly obvious right? I do this because in the recent past there have been many situations where an especially histrionic breed of woman has claimed that they were raped, usually in a most horrific manner, yet a certain amount of fact finding determines the claim of rape is false. The most famous example is the duke lacrosse case (as a former lacrosse player myself, I found the episode especially egregious), but there always seems to be a new, ostensibly obvious, case of false rape accusation which everyone takes seriously.

Bill Cosby for example is very respectable for his position of encouraging black men and women to form stable monogamous relationships and pointing out that absentee fathers is a particularly large problem for the black community. And how is this noble man (at least in this situation) treated? All of his ex-girlfriends come out and accused him of rape and harassment in some sort of opportunistic backlash in which they hope to get money from him and the raving, lunatic feminists hope to silence a particularly difficult dissenter to their culturally marxist narrative (being black gives him a certain level of immunity in the victim Olympics). All I can say about his actions is that it is fairly natural for a high status man to bed multiple women. Humans are biologically polygamous in nature and it takes a fair amount of cultural structure to make things otherwise. A culture which had been destroyed well before Cosby engaged in any dalliances. In other words, I don’t find fault with him personally for sleeping with those girls. I find fault with the girls and feminists for the Machiavellian machinations and opportunism utilized in taking advantage of the situation. The girls completely and totally created their involvement with cosby through their choices of who to sleep with. Contrary to feminist attitudes, it is in fact women who chose what males they associate with, not the other way around. This is why 80% of women in history have living descendants but only 40% of history’s men do. The girls are the ones who chose to sleep with Cosby rather than the other way around. Its all on them.

The most recent example of this sort of shenanigans is the girl named “Jackie” at the university of Virginia who claimed that she was raped by a bunch of frat guys after a date with one of them. Long story short, it turns out that all of this was made up whole sale originally because she was interested in a guy who wasn’t interested in her. She hoped to make him jealous by inventing a guy who was awesome and completely devoted to her. She bought a phone line and sent pictures of a guy she barely talked to in high school to make her story more believable. She relayed that she was so irresistible that he brought her back to his frat house and they all couldn’t help but rape her one after another; probably all wearing football helmets. She was that awesomely attractive that no male could possibly resist her beauty, they just had to rape her. Therefore her crush, Randall, must make her his girlfriend. She is just that awesome. sure… At least that was how it was supposed to work in the bizarro world of twisted logic that Jackie apparently inhabits.

I told a personal friend of this ridiculousness (repeated again and again by more women than can be counted) and stated that I simply cannot understand why the claims of any woman (especially concerning rape, but in general as well) is taken seriously any longer. It is too often an unbelievable exaggeration or complete fabrication. Usually the intent is one of three different sorts, although there a few more less common reasons. One is to bring the attention to a desperate attention whore who will say and do anything and suffer any cost for that 15 minutes of precious attention. It is also sometimes a bald attempt by an adventuress to gain financially through the legal system at the expense of men (think divorce court). And lastly, many girls, when faced with the possibility of being publicly outed as the sluts they are, opt to lie through their teeth and throw any men around them under the bus to save their “reputation.” In response I was treated to this reasonable sentiment:

It is a shame that a crazy girl who should be prosecuted and an over zealous amateur journalist looking for a seditious article failed as a professional. Rapes are very real and many women (and men) do suffer from them. Don’t forget the highschool girl who got fingered and peed on while passed out by the Ohio football team and then attacked. Those had pictures and were real.

There have been lots of incidents of women making up rape stories also, in particular on college campuses or being forced into claiming rape by crazy hateful feminists. It is a fucked up situation from all the sides obviously. [Atavisionary] you have a very strong bias against women but should recognize that rape is real and many times goes undocumented, should people not believe any rape accusers now because of this story?

It seems to me that the groups that have largely created the hateful attitude towards men, and white men in particular, care little about reason or measured consideration of specific events one at a time. They seek only to maximize the benefit of their ingroup or thede in the maximum number of situations regardless of how wrong a particular member may be in a particular situation. Fairness has never once entered their reasoning. Their demands and agitations are nothing but Machiavellian and have little to do with everyone just getting along. Generations of reasonable men have come before us and time and again they have been burned. Every inch they gave, every concession they made, every time they tried to play fair by a logical set of rules, it came back to bite them in the ass. Our culture is shot to shit because reasonable men tried to be fair to an opponent they did not, perhaps could not, understand and had no such consideration for them. It is suicidal to play by the rules when your opponents have long ago thrown them out and reap huge advantages from the asymmetry of discourse and trust. So while I do agree with the sentiment of fairness in the abstract sense, I have abandoned such sentimentality. It is useless in the absence of a good-faith arbiter with unambiguous authority who can enforce proper rules of logic and debate.

I un-apologetically state that this is a war and to win means you have to go for the throat and take no prisoners. The average woman very much had the power (women are naturally very good at social manipulation) to silence or dissuade the most delusional of rape obsessed feminists long before it got to the point of culture-wide hysteria. A hysteria which has had a great negative effect on myself and all other men. Yet they did nothing. And now I, and every other decent man, is supposed to continue treating women (and their statements) as privileged despite the fact that a large number of publicized examples clearly demonstrate that women as a group tend to lie excessively and are treated with undue leniency. This general finding by the media is fully consistent with my personal experiences over the years. Although it falls short in that it is not completely faithful to the ubiquitousness of deceit among the fairer sex that I am familiar with. And so I am left in the position that I don’t think being fair or logical will be effective in fixing this problem. Certainly uncritical white-knighting won’t help. Tough love is sometimes necessary and it seems that this is a case that the actions of women demand the toughest love imaginable. If thousands or hundreds of thousands of women have to suffer grievously at the hands of indifference to teach them as a group not to cry wolf, and for women to self-regulate other women that do cry wolf, then so be it. It is a lesson that has been a long time in coming. “This shows how liars are rewarded: even if they tell the truth, no one believes them.” This goes for groups as much as individuals. Don’t cry wolf, we aren’t going to believe you anymore.

Share Button

Stereotype threat and pseudo-scientists

The politically acceptable explanation for gender differences in intelligence studies and tests is that discrimination accounts for all current disparities between men and women in intellectual Fields, starting first and foremost with the standardized tests themselves. The question is: does the data support this? The most fashionable (possibly faddish) explanation for test differences between gender (and race) come from social psychology and is termed ‘stereotype threat’. Stereotype threat is a type of implicit discrimination that is supposed to result from traditional stereotypes based on the gender of test takers. It is supposedly all pervasive throughout society, and constantly present everywhere you are. This obscure and unfalsifiable ether is supposed to depress the scores of females in tests. Society has historically held that women were not as intelligent as men. Stereotype threat proponents argue that knowledge of this history combined with the manner in which questions are designed and phrased leads to lower test scores for women in a sort of self fulfilling prophecy.

It is important to consider who should be affected by stereotype threat and other types of discrimination and what kind of pattern in the distribution of scores should result if it was having a widespread impact. Discrimination of this type is assumed to be universal and omnipresent. It is supposed to be present in both the society at large as well as in the test that all students are taking. If it is universally present then it should have a universal effect. It should affect women equally at all levels of test taking proficiency and should result in a uniform downward shift of the score distribution compared to men. In the graph below, hypothetical male and female test score distributions are super-imposed and the expected influence of stereotype threat is shown. The male distribution does not have as high a peak and extends out farther in either direction to reflect the greater male variability in scores found in virtually all IQ tests. I am not the best artist so you will have to forgive me if it isn’t as pretty as it could be.

Hypothetical male and female IQ distributions before and after stereotype threat

Stereotype threat voodoo action from the ether

If it does not fit this pattern, explanations for why women at different test taking levels react differently to stereotype threat must be invented. The more disagreements from this trend, the more explanations that must contrived, and the more parsimony is lost (which generally means a theory is weaker). The difference between average IQ at least suggests that this might be happening, but the 3-5 iq points generally reported is a relatively small difference and mainly suggests that whatever universal influences do exist, their importance must be relatively minor. (However, there is reason to suspect that male IQ advantage is severely underestimated)

The discrimination theory is not the only possible explanation for this overall shift. The difference could just as easily, in fact probably much more easily, be explained by biological differences in brain development. Especially the fact that males in general grow to be larger, which translates into larger brain sizes on average, which for reasons that should be obvious correlates with higher IQ.

The discrimination and biological differences above have one thing in common: they are universal and thus are not good explanations for greater male variance which is the root source of most male/female disparity in the highest levels of achievement. A consistent universal factor should have a consistent universal effect for all levels of ability as shown in the figure above, and the only consistent universal difference in mean IQ scores between gender are small. Assuming stereotype threat is real, which is doubtful, it is not impossible that of the small difference that does exist, stereotype threat only makes a small contribution in addition to other factors like biological development. In such a case, the individual contribution of stereotype threat would be vanishingly small and would approximate complete irrelevance.

In the case of gender, stereotype threat is pretty much ruled out for the above reason. However, racial gaps do take a form that would be consistent with the idea of Stereotype threat. However, there are other reasons why it is also doubtful in the case of race. For more exploration on why conclusions drawn from stereotype threat studies are doubtful for methodological reasons, I recommend this paper by law professor Amy Wax: Stereotype Threat: A case of overclaim syndrome? (I have a special love for this paper because insisting on using it in the sex and intelligence wikipedia page years ago is what brought down a flock of feminist harpies who eventually got not only the paper, but also my user account banned from wikipedia.) Seems like Wax really likes sticking her neck out and fighting the good fight.

At best, stereotype threat is something that exists and has only a very small effect and at worst it is an example of publication bias amongst journals where positive results that support politically progressive ideas (like discrimination against women) are overwhelmingly published relative to studies that don’t confirm progressive beliefs or which might positively refute progressive beliefs.

Diederick Stapel was previously a highly regarded and influential Dutch social psychologist who did a lot of work on stereotype threat, among other things, 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. 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 their 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. Yet another 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. A substantial majority of the findings were unreliable.1,2,3

Bias is rampant in the humanities, but especially in social psychology, both among individual researchers and among the journals publishing papers. Beyond the 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. Were these sorts of numbers occurring with a protected class, these same people wouldn’t hesitate to use it as incontrovertible proof of discrimination. Considering what is now known about the biological origins of cognition and intelligence, it is generally difficult to take claims of discrimination seriously when groups also display a relatively lower intelligence profile. 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. Being very partisan, either liberal or conservative, tended to be associated with high IQ as well. Increased income levels, which are a proxy for IQ, also moves people right ideologically. In other words, there is nothing that differentials in biologically determined intelligence can do to explain the lack of conservatives, and even moderates, in the humanities.4,5,6,7 Presumably academia wasn’t always so partisan, and thus its current state is a classic case of successful entryism.

In a survey of social psychologists, it was found that conservative responders feared negative consequences from revealing their political affiliation and that they were right to do so as liberal responders expressed willingness to discriminate against conservatives in approving papers, grant proposals, and hiring decisions. 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. That willingness to discriminate against (or for) articles and proposals for ideological reasons has been empirically confirmed in several instances. In one study, reviewers were sent a manuscript which purported to show the mental health of a group of leftist political activists compared to a control group. Reviewers who were sent a version which showed that the activists had better mental health consistently felt that the paper was more publishable and even felt that the statistics were more adequate than reviewers sent a version that showed the activists had lower mental health. In another case, a research proposal which either wanted to study discrimination or reverse-discrimination was sent to 150 review boards. The proposal on discrimination was approved twice as often as the proposal on reverse-discrimination. In college admissions, it was found that reviewers would attach greater value to the criteria (grades vs. test scores) which would allow them to pick the candidates with similar partisan politics. Lastly, controlling for research productivity and academic achievement, another study found that conservative researchers were working at lower quality institutions relative to equivalent liberal colleagues than would be expected. The irony that a group which commonly publishes on the asserted negative consequences of discrimination would prove to itself be extraordinarily discriminatory is stunning.8,9,10,11

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 which are contrary to reality can’t be overestimated. The objectivity of the field concluding stereotype threat is a real and large effect phenomenon is highly questionable. Calling this cynical skepticism “anti-intellectual,” a common criticism of conservative thinkers, is only so in the sense that these “scientists” have mis-defined the word “intellectual” to describe their political ideology and therefore themselves. Like most things on the right the “anti-science” feeling exposed by some is just a reaction to leftist entryism in academia and the dominance of pseudo-scientific articles surrounding politically partisan topics.

  1. Can stereotype threat explain the gender gap in mathematics performance and achievement? Stoet, Gijsbert; Geary, David C. Review of General Psychology, Vol 16(1), Mar 2012, 93-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026617
  2. The (mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology journals. Marjan Bakker and Jelte Wicherts. 2011. Behavior Research methods.
  3. Psychology rife with inaccurate research findings. Psychology today. 2011
  4. Jonathon Haidt’s post-partisan psychology page.
  5. Social scientist sees bias within. New York Times. 2011
  6. Is there a relationship between political orientation and cognitive ability? A test of three hypotheses in two studies. Markus Kemmelmeier. 2008
  7. Income and Ideology: How personality traits, cognitive abilities, and education shape political attitudes. Rebecca Morton. Jean-Robet Tyran. Erik Wengstrom.
  8. Political Diversity in social and personality psychology. Yoel Inbar, Joris Lammers. 2012
  9. Publish or politic: Referee bias in Manuscript review. Stephen Abramowitz, Beverly Gomes, Christine Abramowitz. 1975
  10. Human subjects review, personal values, and the regulation of social science research. Ceci, Peters, Plotkin 1985.
  11. Political Partisan Prejeduce: Selective Distortion and weighting of Evaluative categories in college admission applications. Munro, Lasane, Leary.
Share Button

HL Mencken Describes Hypergamy

I have heard of HL Mencken, called by some the greatest misogynist of all time, talked about in a number of different places in the manosphere and in neoreaction. Specifically, the book “In defense of Women,” written in 1918, was recommended to me and so I decided to go ahead and order this book and read through.  I can’t say that I agree with everything he states in the book (when I am sure it is serious, rather than hyperbole). However, a few things he mentions are deeply insightful. For example, the book contains one of the best descriptions of hypergamy I have read (before the phrase hypergamy was even coined):

But here I rather depart from the point, which is this: that the average woman is not strategically capable of bringing down the most tempting game within her purview, and must thus content herself with a second, third, or nth choice. The only women who get their first choices are those who run in almost miraculous luck and those too stupid to formulate an ideal—two very small classes, it must be obvious. A few women, true enough, are so pertinacious that they prefer defeat to compromise. That is to say, they prefer to put off marriage indefinitely rather than to marry beneath the highest leap of their fancy. But such women may be quickly dismissed as abnormal, and perhaps as downright diseased in mind; the average woman is well-aware that marriage is far better for her than celibacy, even when it falls a good deal short of her primary hopes, and she is also well aware that the differences between man and man, once mere money is put aside, are so slight as to be practically almost negligible. Thus the average woman is under none of the common masculine illusions about elective affinities, soul mates, love at first sight, and such phantasms. She is quite ready to fall in love, as the phrase is, with any man who is plainly eligible, and she usually knows a good many more such men than one. Her primary demand in marriage is not for the agonies of romance, but for comfort and security; she is thus easier satisfied than a man, and oftener happy. One frequently hears of remarried widowers who continue to moon about their dead first wives, but for a remarried widow to show any such sentimentality would be a nine days’ wonder. Once replaced, a dead husband is expunged from the minutes. And so is a dead love.

One of the results of all this is a subtle reinforcement of the contempt with which women normally regard their husbands—a contempt grounded, as I have shown, upon a sense of intellectual superiority. To this primary sense of superiority is now added the disparagement of a concrete comparison, and over all is an ineradicable resentment of the fact that such a comparison has been necessary. In other words, the typical husband is a second-rater, and no one is better aware of it than his wife. He is, taking averages, one who has been loved, as the saying goes, by but one woman, and then only as a second, third or nth choice. If any other woman had ever loved him, as the idiom has it, she would have married him, and so made him ineligible for his present happiness. But the average bachelor is a man who has been loved, so to speak, by many women, and is the lost first choice of at least some of them. Here presents the unattainable, and hence the admirable; the husband is the attained and disdained.


I have used the phrase, “in despair of finding better game.” What I mean is this that not one woman in a hundred ever marries her first choice among marriageable men. That first choice is almost invariably one who is beyond her talents, for reasons either fortuitous or intrinsic. Let us take, for example, a woman whose relative naivete makes the process clearly apparent, to wit, a simple shop-girl. Her absolute first choice, perhaps, is not a living man at all, but a supernatural abstraction in a book, say, one of the heroes of Hall Caine, Ethel M. Dell, or Marie Corelli. After him comes a moving-picture actor. Then another moving-picture actor. Then, perhaps, many more—ten or fifteen head. Then a sebaceous young clergyman. Then the junior partner in the firm she works for. Then a couple of department managers. Then a clerk. Then a young man with no definite profession or permanent job—one of the innumerable host which flits from post to post, always restive, always trying something new—perhaps a neighborhood garage-keeper in the end. Well, the girl begins with the Caine colossus: he vanishes into thin air. She proceeds to the moving picture actors: they are almost as far beyond her. And then to the man of God, the junior partner, the department manager, the clerk; one and all they are carried off by girls of greater attractions and greater skill—girls who can cast gaudier flies. In the end, suddenly terrorized by the first faint shadows of spinsterhood, she turns to the ultimate numskull—and marries him out of hand.

This, allowing for class modifications, is almost the normal history of a marriage, or, more accurately, of the genesis of a marriage, under Protestant Christianity. Under other rites the business is taken out of the woman’s hands, at least partly, and so she is less enterprising in her assembling of candidates and possibilities. But when the whole thing is left to her own heart—i.e., to her head—it is but natural that she should seek as wide a range of choice as the conditions of her life allow, and in a democratic society those conditions put few if any fetters upon her fancy. The servant girl, or factory operative, or even prostitute of today may be the chorus girl or moving picture vampire of tomorrow and the millionaire’s wife of next year. In America, especially, men have no settled antipathy to such stooping alliances; in fact, it rather flatters their vanity to play Prince Charming to Cinderella. The result is that every normal American young woman, with the practicality of her sex and the inner confidence that goes therewith, raises her amorous eye as high as it will roll. And the second result is that every American man of presentable exterior and easy means is surrounded by an aura of discreet provocation: he cannot even dictate a letter, or ask for a telephone number without being measured for his wedding coat.

Mencken has a lot of good passages in his book as those two listed above, so I highly recommend reading the whole thing (free online). I think his discussion casts a lot of clarity on the relations between the sexes. It may be that many readers might object to average men being described as romantically idealistic numbskulls, but keep in mind that it is unlikely that the the average man would have made it to the point of browsing neoreactionary blogs and reading HL Mencken in the first place. He isn’t describing such above average men (you my dear readers), but strictly the average, and I think his description is accurate.

At any given level of intelligence, it is likely that the women excel at social engineering and manipulation relative to men of similar intelligence. Men’s talent advantage tends to express more in mechanical fields at the cost of social acuity. However, what we see is that the greater social acuity in women does not result in their increased happiness, but in increased dissatisfaction in their romantic lives. That they are keenly aware and constantly comparing and contrasting the men who make up their potential partners even with fictional characters leaves many women in a state where they simply cannot be fully satisfied with whatever man they happen to actually attach themselves to. This is a moral failing which many, if not most, women are susceptible. Through most of the book, Mencken regularly highlights the greater cunning most women demonstrate in their social dealings but the implication is that these gifts are used in devious and disingenuous ways; ways that cause problems for both the men and women involved and for society at large. More often than not, women are just as much a victim of their own cunning and deception as the idealistic men that get manipulated. This is the source of the controversy about whether the book is one in favor of women’s rights or a tongue in cheek criticism of the moral failings of women.

The old standards of marriage were to a large extent designed to mitigate the hypergamous tendencies of women since they often extend past the point of pragmatism into irrationality and immorality. As is readily apparent by the divorce rates and laws that exist today in the west, it is quite clear that women can’t be depended on to act loyally towards their husbands (all of which are “second raters” compared to flights of fancy) or for them to willingly accept the weight of responsibilities that should be concomitant with their vows of marriage. Even the system of arranged marriage starts to look better as it prevents the mechanism of hypergamy inherent to women from playing any role.

EDIT: Here is another good discussion of Mencken.

Share Button