Smart and SeXy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who to thank?

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

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

Blog vs. book

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

Career women are dysgenic

How standardized testing undervalues men

stereotype threat and pseudo-scientists.

Share Button

What Is Biotemperance?

[Edit: this post was written at a time when I was still reluctant to say publicly that I was both atavisionary and nemester but I still wanted to include this work here. I have since revealed this information, but I have left this post as was originally written.]

I was browsing through the Dark Enlightenment subreddit the other day when I clicked on one of the required reading links put up by one of the moderators there. I was pretty impressed by the word bio temperance coined in the post. I have had more or less a similar idea, undefined, in mind when considering how a good eugenics policy might by structured. Obviously, such a policy should aim to not result in increasing suffering. Here is the relevant part of the post excerpted:

There has recently been some confusion about how discussions about different ethnic groups can be conducted in this subreddit. Frank and open discussion on any and all ethnicities is and will be tolerated. Period.

However, there is a common concept or principle in the manosphere that is equally applicable to this situation (slightly modified) which I will refer to as biotemperance. In the context of game and relationships there is a disparity between what men tend to want in terms of love and relationships and what women are able to provide. (read this, then this, then this for more detail) Taking the red pill involves the understanding and acceptance that due to biological instincts women act in certain consistent ways which often lead to frustration in men. By understanding the biological imperatives of women, a man can work within that framework to then create more fulfilling relationships. Men gain an understanding and acceptance of biological determinism in mating with the intent of improving the quality of his life and that of the woman or women he is with. Women can’t be blamed or hated for having the instincts that they do because the man would never, ever be able to form fulfilling relationships with that kind of baggage. Moreover, natural selection has endowed women with these instincts for a reason: it improves her odds of being successful in reproduction. Therefore not only is it necessary to not hold onto hate or blame from a quality of life perspective, it is also irrational in the context of evolution.

In the general case, a good definition of biotemperance:

biotemperance is when the pursuit of knowledge of biological differences between human groups is guided by a moderate temperament and desire for benevolent outcomes for both the pursuer and group under consideration.

I do not suggest that one group should make sacrifices for the sake of another (see Atlas Shrugged for more details).

I feel the concept is important for the growth of this sub. Western culture is irrationally afraid of HBD as part of the aftermath of World War II. Racial conflict and mass murder figured greatly into all the theatres of that war. After it was over, it is understandable that intellectuals would try to craft the culture in such a way as to prevent such things from happening again. Preventing genocide is a desirable goal. Unfortunately, they resorted to a fiction of complete egalitarianism which, being untrue, is also very unstable. To quote Anthony Edwards

It is a dangerous mistake to premise the moral equality of human beings on biological similarity because dissimilarity, once revealed, then becomes an argument for moral inequality.

Biotemperance, if genuinely accepted by neoreaction, should allay the neurotic fears many people have that even talking about HBD is one step away from genocide. Most people have a knee-jerk reaction of fascism when they read this sub, I want to do whatever I can to get rid of that impression.

If and when the egalitarian bubble pops, and neoreaction grows significantly, biotemperance should ensure that whatever realistic steps are taken to improve order in society do so in a humane way. (I am not using the liberal definition. For example, it would have been far more humane for Belgium to have maintained control over the Congo so it could have imposed order. Imposing order through force by colonial powers would have clearly been more humane when compared with the suffering, deaths, rapes and other atrocities since the country became “independent”.)

Biotemperance will be treated as a guideline or suggestion and not a rule. It is not mandatory that you agree with it. You should feel free to disagree with the concept and perhaps post a better alternative if you have one. In terms of moderation, biotemperance will be my main guide for evaluating whether posts are trolls or, less likely, shills. If experience of /r/theredpill is any indication, there are people who would like to create havoc here because they strongly disagree with the DE. One of the tactics employed is to post extreme crazy ideas in order to discredit the overall sub to outsiders. This problem hasn’t happened yet, but if the sub grows it will likely be something that needs to be addressed. If a post strongly deviates from biotemperance (IE advocating genocide) it would be removed. However, I only anticipate applying this in very extreme and obvious cases.

Wanting to reduce the perceived association of neoreaction from the leftist movement that was national socialism seems reasonable. Certainly the movement gave a bad name to eugenics as a result of its irrational desire for genocide. Rather than attributing the genocidal delirium to the irrational mob who elected Hitler, they blame eugenics. On the topic of Nazism as a leftist product of democracy, I recommend the great three part series from the social pathologist on the topic (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3).
Part 1 of the Eugenics series: Why we need Eugenics.

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