How Social Justice Warriors Have Been Infecting Science For Half A Century

This week marks the release of Roosh’s new book Free Speech Isn’t Free, a chronicle of his World Speaking Tour last year. It includes conclusions he made from discussions with his audience and—most importantly—the rhetorically and occasionally physically violent clashes with those who would attempt to censor his speech: the SJWs, the feminists, and certain members of the governments of the nations in question.

You know this already. And you’re also wondering what, if anything, does this have to do with science, specifically anthropology? A bit of background: I studied anthropology in college—more specifically biological anthropology, and there is a very specific reason that I mention this caveat: for, much like the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, the field of anthropology has had a schism: in this case, between biological and cultural factions.

To put it very simply, anthropology studies what you probably know as “human biodiversity” (this term is not regularly used. Perhaps it should be “hominid biodiversity” instead), and cultural, naturally, studies culture—without any input from biology.

It seems relatively sedate, but I don’t think it is much of an exaggeration to say that at least half of what we hate about modern society comes from cultural anthropology. Starting in the 20th century with Franz Boas and his fraudulent measures of human skulls to “debunk” HBD, to Margaret Mead’s staggeringly inaccurate depiction of a gender-neutral Samoa, the field has only gotten worse since then, essentially becoming a left-wing pseudo-religion that cites “proof” to justify any degree of social engineering.

As I wrote in an article on the subject of the schism for my site, I didn’t know why exactly this has occurred, but after reading Noble Savages, I have come closer to the truth. More to the point of this article specifically, the reaction to Doctor Chagnon’s findings in the 1970s is almost identical to the reaction that writers in our sphere receive today. The seeds of social justice warriors were born decades ago, and just as he was censored for years, so too could we be censored should we not fight back. His memoir also reveals ways of fighting back that are similar to Roosh’s.

30 Years In The Amazon

The story of his travails in the Amazonas province of Brazil are fascinating, and deserve the 200+ pages they receive in the book, but for purposes of readability I will be concise.

As a young PHD student in anthropology (the schism had not yet occurred), Napoleon Chagnon went to Amazonas to live amongst the Yanomamo tribe. Expecting to find Rousseauian “noble savages”, what he found was a strikingly brutal and violent “honor culture” of primeval masculinity that, overall, would completely terrify and disgust your average SJW (“Tribesmen are paranoid and hateful of cuckoldry? How dare they!”). On and off over the next 30 years, he lived amongst them, learning their language and culture and gaining a great deal of respect for them. Nonetheless, he realizes that the “noble savage” ideal is, and always will be, false.


His book presents four main theses, all of which we have seen are massively triggering to the progressive mind-

  • Violence is ubiquitous in primitive society
  • The desire to maximize security (ie: form large, effective fighting forces) is the biggest driving force behind increasing socialization
  • Kinship selection is the predominant factor for increased socialization: in times of danger, you look to your family, your tribe, your culture—no atomized “blank slate” individuals in the jungle.
  • As population increases, so too does the power of leaders: despotism is the natural state of man, with only a few legitimate democracies.

While these theories are interesting enough, they are not what we have truly come here to discuss.

The Reaction

When Napoleon Chagnon first attempted to present his findings to academia, the world of scientists reacted in a way more befitting the neon-haired Tumblrite than a rational, objective intellectual. Chagnon makes it explicit that their hatred of him is far beyond that of allegedly falsified data:

For many anthropologists who cling to Rousseau’s view of mankind rather than Hobbes’, I am a heretic, a misanthrope, and the object of condemnation by politically correct colleagues, especially those who identify themselves as ‘activists’ for native peoples, because I described the Yanomamo as I found them. (page 9)

The tactics of these opponents were also identical to their modern descendants:

1. Ignorance Of Science, While Claiming To Represent Science

At the 1976 Anthropology Association of America Consortium, Edward O. Wilson was scheduled to give a lecture—Wilson being the author of Sociobiology, a book whose central thesis was that evolution, particularly social and cultural behavior, could be applied to humans. Naturally, cultural anthropologists—referred to as being openly Marxist by the author—protested and demanded that he be banned.

The entire doctrine of “safe spaces” is almost identical, but here’s just one example of them demanding that something that makes them feel bad be banned, and here’s another example of progressives using bad science as a political bludgeon. Asks Chagnon “How can a group of scientists in 1976 be vehemently protesting the theory of evolution?”

2. Cherry Picking Data

In addition to having missionaries and other researchers go amongst the tribe and tell them “This guy thinks you evolved from monkeys!” specifically in hopes it would offend them, they would also seek out the most extreme proponents of biological anthro to use as a strawman argument: “Predictably, cultural anthropologists resisted these trends [studies of primates revealing possibly the evolution of social behavior], often by denigrating the academics  or by criticizing the most sensational and amateurish work”, (P. 208).

This can be seen by media focus on our efforts being placed entire on the most extreme and odious neo-Nazis, “he man woman haters”, etc.

3. Outright Lying

Beginning at the first consortium, Chagnon is called out—in the most prissy way imaginable—by rival anthropologist Marvin Harris: “Did you know that there is a certain anthropologist who believes that this tribe has genes for warfare and infanticide?” (p. 390)

This marks the beginning of more than two decades of slander and abuse, in which Chagnon is accused of deliberately spreading measles, distributing machetes and shotguns amongst the tribe to increase violence, and somehow “causing” the high rate of observed domestic abuse in the tribe, making him a pariah in the anthropology community until the 21st century. Sound familiar?

4. Violence And Intimidation

Of course, this violence and intimidation is done in the most cowardly way possible: At the aforementioned 1976 consortium, E.O. Wilson was scheduled to speak, despite the fact that he had recently broken his leg. As he hobbles up to the podium, the stage was rushed by guests representing the “International Committee Against Racism”, who proceeded to dump multiple pitchers of ice water over the handicapped presenter while screaming that he is an evil-Nazi-racist-eugenicist.


These four tactics are what we can observe in the reaction to our meet-ups, or whenever “our side” tries to speak in public.

How To Fight It

Eventually, Napoleon Chagnon was vindicated, and he was tepidly welcomed back into the fold. How did things change?

Simply put, he stuck to his guns. He knew that his data was right, and he refused to submit to the left, knowing that even if he did his career would still be ruined. He continued to publish books and articles, and sought people who would give him a fair shake and corroborate his findings.

It wasn’t easy: Bitter fighting took place from 1976 until the late 2000s, leading Chagnon to retire from fieldwork in 1999 after a massive, stress-induced cardiac episode. And the slander essentially continued until 2010, when his findings were finally redeemed by both peer-reviewed surveys and testimony from the tribe itself:

Mr. Tierney’s book [Darkness in El Dorado, an anti-Chagnon book] has been translated…and we are annoyed with all his lies. When he was in the Orinoco [River Delta] he promised medical aid, and hospitals, we have none of these. They accuse Neel, Brewer, Roche, and Chagnon of manipulating us, when they were THE ONLY ONES that helped us (page 410).

And now that he has been vindicated, he can easily find a mainstream publisher to sell his book, which was released to rave reviews—even Huffington Post gave it a good review, in a remarkable display of tone-deafness.


This was a small but significant personal victory—he notes that nobody who attacked him in the four decades has been fired or stripped of their status. In making their wrongdoing visible, that might be a bigger victory. Our eventually victory will likely be a long and arduous one as well.

Read More: How Social Justice Warriors Miss The Mark

191 thoughts on “How Social Justice Warriors Have Been Infecting Science For Half A Century”

  1. This reminds me of JD Unwin’s criminally under-exposed work on civilisations and sexuality – namely that debauchery sends societies irretrievably into the gutter.
    Should be an essential component in any school curriculum

    1. Absolutely agree, we should study from abstinent countries, with strong traditions, like North Korea or Saudi Arabia.

      1. “like North Korea or Saudi Arabia” The first is littered with work camps with more than half the population living in a state of constant starvation. The latter country is run by gross, obese and debauched “Princes” who don’t practice what they preach. No thanks.

        1. You’re not suggesting someone posts a joke comment without verifying every single fact that went into it?

        2. I did, because it was a joke. Jokes work that way, they are not supposed to make much sense.

        3. You tried to sound clever by likening sexual discipline to totalitarian dictatorships.
          It backfired on you. Like most things in life, I imagine

      2. Yes. Study them. Use what works. Reject what doesn’t. I like making women sit in the backseat with the kids, for example.

        1. If i could just reach out and shake your hand, you, son of a gun… You and people like you are what keep this country together. Children are our future, and at young age, it is especially important to cultivate proper representation of gender roles in them. Upvote, my fellow patriot.

        2. Yes my daughters don’t even dream of going to college because they know they’d rather serve their future husbands and children than be a wage slave, serving some corporation.

        3. This is what I don’t get about feminists… why do they choose to give up their lives to uncaring strangers, rather than protect their own genetic line???
          That’s insanity, and as you can see, feminists always show a myriad of secondary signs of insanity as well. If you could vanish antidepressants right now, you’d knock half the women out of society in two weeks.

        4. The whole purpose of mainstream media is to convince women to submit to corporations and the government and not their husbands. Now women purposely choose men to marry that they have no intention on submitting to. They have more respect for their professors and bosses and they don’t even try to marry those men.
          A strong patriarch in the home has been demonized by feminists and the dumb, foolish, incompetent beta shmuck has been idealized. This way she is free to do as she pleases without alpha discipline and expectations of intimacy and reciprocity. She would feel guilty about disrespecting a man she idealizes. The guy has to be unattractive and weak. Those uncaring strangers you speak of are rich, powerful and successful. Women would rather be at work then with their submissive husbands.

        5. In the words of Jim Goad, they gave up their subservience towards men and now they kneel to the biggest mack daddy pimp of all – government.

        6. What I don’t get is how their new owners got them to give up their genetic imperative. Isn’t the strongest drive in an organism reproduction? How did they decide filing papers weekly for the boss was a bigger investment than making their genes a part of the future world?

        7. The average feminist is unwanted by the strong alphas in her society. So shes hoping to be seeded by the violent aloha thug in another, and if truly lucky, that thug will take over and she can use her influnece on him to win the endless “pecking order games” tht the other little hens constantly engage in. That is to dominate the other women and their children.

      3. Polygamy cannot produce modern societies the way that monogamy does. If you had actually read the book on which you presume to opine, you would know this.

        1. Brother, you’re totally right. You know, we should monitor people’s emails… We should ban all wrong religions. Because its the only way we can finally be free in this country!

        1. what are you talking about? Based on the timestamp of your response, you couldnt have watched the entire video.

        2. Dude… do you work for NSA? Next you’ll tell him where he lives and what he had for breakfast!

    2. It’s funny… when I read stuff like this I think of Spartacus. A savage man living in a savage world that called itself civilized. Spartacus led a man of alpha males against the civilised world until it essentially united against him to bring him down. That is our struggle.

      1. When I think of something like Spartacus I wonder what they used for toilet paper, how many BTUs their air confitioner was and how the delivery service managed to get them their groceries.
        I got a lot of love and respect for the people who are ready to lead a band alpha males against a world united to bring it down. But I am a product of my time. I am more suited to listening to a band of jazz musicians while drinking a martini and leading a well waxed woman in heels back to my apartment.

  2. I don’t agree with the premise that all tribal societies are violent. Yes, they might be harsh ways of living like the Inuits in Greenland, but, they’re certainly not run by violence and fear. That’s bullshit as small isolated communities have to work together to survive and, violence and fear, would led them to die out. That’s what anthropologists often describe as the “natural altruism” and sense of community bonding which you find in more “primitive” groups.

      1. Perhaps Chagnon underestimates the huge role which barter, trade and mutual exchange play in the social fabric of remote and primitive communities. I know for example raiding and pillaging the tribal homelands of other tribes among the indigenous Siberian peoples does not occur. In fact, mutual exchange and trade of furs, weapons and fish oils is the common currency between these tribes and not violence and the will to conquer others.

        1. Certainly there are peaceful tribes and peaceful times, but there’s definitely enough evidence of violence to put to pat the Rousseian idealism.

        2. I wonder is there a correlation between the violence and mutual hostility of tribes who live in areas of great natural abundance and those who live in physically very harsh and remote regions where barter and mutual corporation are essential to survival?
          Abundance of natural resources in an area is more likely to cause antagonism and mutual violence as such tribes have moved beyond the level of mere basic survival against raw nature.

        3. I think it’s the opposite, the jungle is restrictive in resources and jungle tribes tend to be fierce and competitive. You have time to think and share when there is abundance and generally higher religious ideas that go beyond the tribal realm.

        4. But, that’s the problem, When there is abundance, different tribes have the time and recourses to identify themselves as being different from their close neighbors, through religion, myths and cultural practices. This, I believe is the foundation for one tribe to say “we’re better” and we can conqueror you because of our superior beliefs and costumes.

        5. The numbers do not support your feelz on this issue. Yoi’re just regurgitating a milder form of “noble savage” propaganda that is so deeply ingrained by modern propaganda that you don’t even realize its source.
          All honest studies of hunter-gatherer tribes that have had minimal contact with the modern world show very high rates of violent death, especially among men, due to intertribal warfare/ raids. Think about it for a second– if your tribe engages in this kind of behavior, and the neighboring tribe are pacifists, who’s going to be around in a couple of hundred (or a thousand) years?

        6. You are correct, the indian tribes living in the harsh conditions found in the east of Canada were constantly engaged in tribal warfare whereas the tribes living near the pacific ocean were not. It was so easy for them
          to meet their survival needs that they had time to carve totem poles.
          Even jungle tribes spend much more time lounging in hammocks and much less time working than modern city dwellers do though, even with all this technology that was suppposed to make their lives so much easier that they would have nothing but free time because robots were supposed to be doing all the work like on the Jetsons by now

  3. In the modern west, being a scientist is the equivalent of a pastor or priest 200 years ago. Just claim to be a scientist and your motives and morality are automatically not to be questioned. You are doing it in the name of science, just as holy men did it in the name of God.
    The fact is motives are always money, power, sex and social acceptance. Scientists are no different. The SJW anthropologists can never point a mirror at themselves. They are far too holy and above the savages for that.
    The game is ‘science’ is to create crisis and controversy, promote political correctness so you can get funding from the taxpayers, university students and wealthy donors. This way you avoid working in the real world.

    1. Anthropology isn’t in my mind a “real” science. It’s in the same grouping as sociology and economics- essentially theorizing about group behaviors based on no direct evidence and that’s why it appeals to SJW scholars.
      There is no such enterprise as a totally objective science- even physics and chemistry- are pursuits undertaken by culturally informed “human” minds with all the subjective and prejudicial baggage that entails.

      1. Well, you don’t possess a direct evidence that there is brain inside that skull of yours, and yet you assume it objectively exists?

        1. That’s a matter of empirical fact that can be supported by evidence. However, stating that the brain exists and therefore must be evidence that it objectivity does x, y or z, presupposes a number of assumptions that don’t necessarily have any objective basis to support them.

        2. “stating that the brain exists and therefore must be evidence that it objectivity does x, y or z”
          What does it have to do with sciences you disregarded as “not real”. Or, with anything, frankly.

        3. Everything. If you call anthropology a real science that you actually allow academics to build up “scientific” theories that are based upon nothing but the wind. This is precisely the entire point of the article.

        4. Fair, i haven’t read the article, i came here to laugh at the comments section. Actually, i’ve discovered this site by googling “feminists ruin”. This site, dude, pure comedy gold.

      2. Physical anthropology at least has the potential to be a “real” science. Cultural anthropology has been all propaganda, all the time, ever since Boas, and its inherently high ratio of political importance to objective data makes the prospect of useful insights from it unlikely.

      3. How is it not a real science lol? How is comparing human skeletal remains theorizing?

  4. Excellent lessons to be learned from this article. We should keep a lot of this on mind the whenever SJWs pull their idiotic stunts.

  5. To the author, your article caught my attention. Just ordered the book. Looking forward reading it!
    There are victories here and there for the Red Pill camp even in academia. Seems once you stick to your guns with SJW’s you tend to come out on top.

      1. Got it today a random glance at it looks like I’ll burn through it quickly! cheers..

    1. As with Apocalypse Now, the only reason to watch that movie was for the caricatured “right wing” characters, the Colonel and the bureaucrat.
      I do like the fan theory that Sully became a traitor because the hippie space aliens hacked his brain. After he plugged his alien body’s “USB pony tail” into the alien animal, he became part of their hippie commune lol.

  6. This is the most telling part of this article: “…he notes that nobody who attacked him in the four decades has been fired or stripped of their status.”
    The fact is that the cultural-marxist left and their allies can commit any kind of act and not suffer from it as individuals or as a movement. The fact that Chagnon was, in some way, vindicated is irrelevant. His vindication occurred within a relatively small population of academics while his detractors and defamers have affected how millions of students and common people view the world. That cannot be undone.
    As always for the cultural-marxist left, it’s two steps forward and, sometimes, one step back.

    1. Another example: everyone “knows” that Joe McCarthy was an evil guy who persecuted the poor innocent (((Communists))) who dindu nuffin. Yet he was completely vindicated when the Venona decrypts were released >20 years ago. Read “Blacklisted by History.”
      Meanwhile, under FDR (and continuing under Truman), large numbers of people, whose only offense was that they were political opponents of FDR, were jailed and put on trial in a much better example of a “witch hunt,” that lasted from 1941-47.
      Yet how many people have heard of th Great Sedition Trial of 1944? It’s not on TV; it doesn’t get taught in schools, so it never happened. Propaganda works. The winners write the history books.
      Even the leftists at think that FDR’s persecution of these people was over the top (though they couldn’t resist throwing in a swipe at McCarthy).

      1. Quite so. This is where “the Right”, in all its incantations, has failed utterly. They have a “let bygones be bygones” attitude in which they simply allow any and all crimes or evil deeds by the Left go unpunished so they can earn their 30 pieces of silver going forward.
        In the mean time, the Left acts with a ruthless vindictiveness that always leaves then with strategic victories even when suffering small tactical defeats.

    2. good point. They still have a stranglehold and if anything its getting worse. Universities have been re-purposed as transmitters of ideology, and research is increasingly subordinate to this. Until they start to take some hits amongst their key personnel nothing is likely to change

    1. What science today isn’t fake science? SJWs have infiltrated the “hard” sciences as well as the “soft” ones 🙁

  7. All I’d add is that what constitutes a “tribe” is much more fluid in the modern world than in the jungle. A tribe need not be a group of closely related individuals, at least at first.
    The “tribe” that rules and lords over us is a case in point. The fairly large contribution of the Jewish nation to that tribe is an enduring source of shame for Israel precisely because they have no loyalty to her, and on the contrary, hate her as much as any nation if not more. They are mostly white men, but have no use for other men or other whites, Jewish or Christian.
    On the contrary, they consider us the greatest threat to their small tribe (no more than 30,000), precisely because we are smart and strong enough to fight back. We are to be disarmed and gotten rid of before we wake up and get rid of them.
    Yes, violence is an unhappy fact of human life. The class war is a tribal war.
    All too many otherwise good men have been convinced that the class war isn’t real and wouldn’t be necessary if it were.
    The masters know better. And they are fighting to win.
    Their alliance with the sisterhood and the savages is a means to an end. In the end both will be fed into a mass grave.

      1. Yes. It is. Unfortunately you don’t learn much about the world if you’re not willing to see it as it is and not how you wish it were.
        Only in the imagination of useful idiots is “live and let live” an option. In the real world, the rule is kill or be killed. Who Whom, if you prefer Lenin’s version. If we don’t fight back they will be only too happy to take everything we have and drive us into extinction.
        Everyone knows the elites, the sisterhood and the savages await that happy day when they’ll be rid of us once and for all. Better them than us.

        1. Well, the point is that you can live in a detached manner while in the world. Sure, you can hate and get angry with these people, but, why? The world is but a passing phenomena.

  8. Mr. Tierney’s book [Darkness in El Dorado, an anti-Chagnon book] has
    been translated…and we are annoyed with all his lies. When he was in the
    Orinoco [River Delta] he promised medical aid, and hospitals, we have
    none of these. They accuse Neel, Brewer, Roche, and Chagnon of
    manipulating us, when they were THE ONLY ONES that helped us (page 410).
    This is OK because in Marxism the ends always justify the means so if you think lying and fabrication will get you to where you want to go than do it.

  9. The field of sexology has become politicized into a pseudoscience to serve the purposes of propagandizing and gaslighting us into accepting homosexuality and transgenderism as different kinds of normal.
    Basically apply what I call the Mars Colonization Test to this nonsense: If you wanted to colonize Mars, meaning that you wanted humans to settle there and make babies, would you send gays and transgenders?
    The corrupted state of sexology also determines the content of sex education directed towards the young. Sexologists have almost completely ignored male sexual eviction, despite the fact that every few months a sexual reject succumbs to existential despair and goes on a rampage killing. One textbook I have even defines “involuntary celibacy” to mean you can’t get sex because of a disability or some kind of institutional situation like military service. The idea that a nontrivial number of free-range, healthy, able-bodied men can’t attract women, no matter what they do, just doesn’t register with sexologists. Their failure to deal with the tragic nature of male sexuality means that the sex ed curriculum they design assumes that all boys have approximately equal prospects for sex lives, when we can see that this simply doesn’t describe the real world. You could have given a boy like Elliot Rodger the most comprehensive sex ed imaginable, but he would still have found that all the girls reject him.
    A reality-based sex ed for boys would require taking the boys aside and explaining to them that girls will find most of them sexually repulsive compared with the handful of cool boys these girls want for their early sexual experiences. As these girls grow up into young women, because the math doesn’t work out for the kinds of men they really want, they will turn to the nerds for boyfriends and husbands, but reluctantly and without enthusiasm. Telling the boys the truth about their sexual prospects early on, instead of the egalitarian and romantic bullshit current sex ed promotes, will save them a lot of grief.

    1. Brilliant! How come nobody came up with the Mars Colonization Test argument? As a society, we can’t let people, incapable of interplanetary travel, be considered normal. Just to imagine a state, where something one does privately in his bedroom is not subjected to moral judgment by majority? Thats a socialist utopia those SJW nazi’s want us to live in.
      And those stupid chicks, man, i’m sick of them. Why can’t she just recognize, what a nice and interesting person i am, i mean, i totally consider myself nice and interesting, why would she think otherwise, surely leftists feminists propaganda got into her feeble mind.
      Women, so susceptible to brainwashing with politicial agenda by those of higher class, am i right, guys?

      1. some quality SJW trolling there. Well done.
        Other than not sending gays to Mars though his point isn’t unreasonable though is it? Boys (and girls) are taught the opposite of what they need to know, and the main reason is ideology and political correctness. Roger Elliott can burn in hell as far as I’m concerned but there is a genuine neglect of the needs and interests of young men in this society

        1. “some quality SJW trolling there.”
          Thank you, glad someone found it entertaining. But, you know, its a far right wing site, its hard to screw up trolling those.
          “There is a genuine neglect of the needs and interests of young men in this society”
          Radical feminists chant the same stuff, but for women, and, although intent might be pure, it makes them look like assholes. Same applies to you, and other folk with similar message. Don’t identify with your balls or vagina, that’s what i’m saying.

        2. its not ‘far right’. It’s right wing yes, but its only considered ‘far right’ because that’s a tag left wingers can use to de-legitimise anything that is said here. That’s one of the reason’s I hang out here I like the off-message politics and commentary.
          A lot of interesting things appear on these pages. I know you’ll scoff but if so that’s probably because you’re still functioning within the hegemonic left-liberal paradigm. Sure some of it’s funny too but trying to send everything up as though from a position of intellectual superiority is tiresome. You wrote a good sarky post, but if you’re going to stick around I suggest you engage with the material a bit more. There is nothing silly about this article, however much you might disagree with it

        3. “you’re still functioning within the hegemonic left-liberal paradigm”
          I live in Russia. 16 years of conservative ruling, pal. And don’t even start your “Putin is secretly a communist”, i’ve rebutted it before, can’t bother doing it again. I’ve never even traveled west, apart from that trip to Sweden 12 years ago.

        4. What is about you and pro-leptic (i.e. anticipatory) attack. Why would you think I think Putin is secretly a communist?
          Maybe Russia isn’t a left-liberal democracy but that doesn’t mean you don’t function within such a paradigm. You’re partaking right now of the English speaking world, and that means you’re inside of that paradigm, at least in part. If you’ve had anything like a western education or are influenced by western culture likewise you’re inside of it.

        5. Come on, don’t go SJW on me, i wasn’t attacking anyone, bro. I’m not sure were are you going with your “functioning within paradigm” narrative, but it sure doesn’t progress the conversation. I was influenced by western culture to much lesser extent, than you, that’s a fact. How is that relevant?

        6. I’d say it was relevant because you appear to have swallowed the whole bottle of progressive poison. I’m not saying Russia is great and the west is worse or anything, but if you spend some time over here (perhaps you already have) you might find that we’re the ones living in a one party state i.e. ideologically speaking at least

        7. I know Russians. They’re still good people for most of them, but it’s sad to see how fast the western progressive poison is growing on them.

        8. I was for people’s rights and against homophobia before i even knew how to speak english. I’m not trying to render your views as “fostered” or “forced upon by patriarchy”, i believe you are sincere in your outlook, please treat me with same respect.
          please don’t ban me again, i’m sorry, flood is over, pleeeeease

        9. Dude, you can’t imagine how bitterly sarcastic your statement appears to someone from today’s Russia. It has never been as conservative and right-wing leaning as it is now. Our mainstream media is actually very very similar in tone to articles found on this site.

        10. “i believe you are sincere in your outlook, please treat me with same respect.”
          I appreciate you may be a little sore from your recent banhammer spanking (I presume you are addressing the mods in your PS) but it’s just debate. I’m honestly a bit puzzled by your plea for respect. Asserting that you are victim of a particular paradigm isn’t what I’d call disrespect, particularly given your earlier (and initially fairly funny) trolling. Hate to indulge in stereotypes but you Russians are supposed to be tough as nails….clearly not in all cases
          As for my views you’re at liberty to characterise them in any way you like, although if you actually care to stay either to sup or to snark you would probably be well advised to stay on topic

        11. I’m glad to hear that. I’ll be staying a month there during summer to study your language.

        12. That’s because it’s still recovering from overt Maxist insanity that killed millions and wrecked a superpower… I’m sure there’s still a lot of garbage to take out… Good for you, continue your swing to the right.

        13. No I’ll be in St Petersburg. И там я поговорю по-русский. )

        14. My Russian friends tell me walking the streets of St Petersburg in springtime is a quite uplifting experience. Skirts galore.

        15. In America men lift skirts. In soviet union, skirt lifts you.

      2. Your sarcasm is a bit off the mark. SJW indeed do want us sounding judgement on what happens in the bedroom; they demand that we condone it. That is why they have enforced same sex marriage on the states. For marriage is, at least in part, the public acknowledgement and acceptance of what goes on in the bedroom. I’d be more than happy to simply ignore homosexuality, but that is simply not enough, it must be condoned and even encouraged according to SJW ideology.

        1. “I’d be more than happen to ignore it, but that is simply not enough, it must be condoned and even encouraged.”
          You contradict yourself. First, you say, that you’re happy to ignore it, and then, suddenly “it must be condoned and even encouraged”. Who says that? Voice in your head? Feminists? TV? Ignore them. Done. Problem solved.

        2. Ignore the fact that the state give them my money to finance their propaganda and their parades on the public space ? Nope.

        3. are you saying there isn’t a concerted movement to ‘change attitudes’ to homosexuality?

        4. I am sorry you cannot understand my writing. I was referring to the federal government demanding that it be acknowledged and condoned through the institution of marriage. In case you haven’t heard, the Supreme Court ruled on it. Since you are dealing with an intelligent and hostile crowd, you might want to read up:

        5. If by “changing attitude” you suggest turning people gay… Well, if someone’s “concerted movement” is enough to make men appear sexy to you, you are gay anyway. If by that you mean forcing you to accept gay’s rights… What else are we supposed to do about them? They are, like, 10 – 20% of the population, you either discriminate against them, which leads to a whole lot of negative consequences for society (not just gay, but whole), or just go PC. Not using a few words, like “faggot”- is it such big of a deal? Its the convenient way, why rage childish wars against them, when the solution is that simple.

        6. by trying to anticipate what I mean, you seem to have managed to have a to and fro with yourself. I don’t have a problem with gay people, but like many others I note the concerted attempts to change what people thing about gayness. I don’t know how old you are but your citation of the figure 10-20% may be a case in point. Even 10 years ago, nobody in the mainstream would have claimed 10-20%. The MSM used to claim 5%. Note, I am not saying that gay people comprise any particular percentage of the population. I do not now how many there are. What I do know is that the figures have been revised upwards. Likewise there endless campaigns to increase the representation of gayness, and as I stated this is partly about persuading people generally to change their attitudes to homosexuality. If you recall your original point, you mentioned that the issue was about what people did in the privacy of their own bedrooms. I am saying it is not about that at all.

        7. Justin Bieber makes shit music and yet makes tons of money. And if i go around bitching about it on the internet, i would be immediately recognized as an “edgy” kid with a complex.
          Imagine, how much money your government actually wastes inefficiently, should social studies really be your primal concern, if that’s your take on the issue?

        8. How does ability of gay people to marry affect you personally? Maybe… Ignore?

        9. They are 2-3% at most.
          And no I don’t have to accept “gay’s rights”, no more that I’d have to accept “alcoholic rights”, “obese rights” or “fan of justin bieber’s rights” if they started asking for it. They already have rights : the same as everyone else.

        10. Marriage is the public and legal acknowledgement of a romantic and sexual relationship. It cannot, in a legal sense, be ignored. If you don’t get that, take a look at what happened to Sweet Cakes bakery for refusing to acknowledge such a union. If that is not enough, perfunctory research will demonstrate many other examples.

        11. Why can’t you just acknowledge it, and move on… Why is it such a big deal for you. Its childish. World is full of real issues and challenges, why not just accept gay couples as equals and move on with your lives. Its, like, the simplest thing one could accomplish – do not judge.

        12. “why not just accept gay couples as equals and move on with your lives.”
          Because they’re not. It perverts a very central institution on which society has been built. Because the only reason why state-sanctionned marriage exists, and why the state glorified a sexual relitionship between two individuals, is because the state must ensure and encourage the reproduction of its people.

        13. Estimations are changing, as more people feel like society is adapting to accepting them. And that’s a great thing, because sheltered latent homosexuals are not fun to be around. Usually those become the most prominent anti-gay speakers, as their self-hatred and fear of being revealed aggravate.

        14. First off, the point of this whole article is that sexual expression of the individual can and does effect the whole society. That is why we question your desire to see us simply “move on.” The point of my original comment to you is that SJW demand, as you are in the comment above, that we acknowledge and accept it. We don’t want to for various reasons, at least not without rigorous debate, which there has been none. My last comments on this (for now); it’s sunny out.

        15. “more people feel like society is adapting to accepting them”
          I have no doubt that for most gay people becoming more accepted and not feeling like freaks is important and the main thing. There is also however a gender agenda that goes well beyond a little bit of acceptance. Most people who are in any way critical of this, aren’t against gay people living their lives, but are very aware of how values are being changed at a far more fundamental level (at least in the west, if not in russia yet). It really doesn’t matter to you whether you’re gay or straight, in or out, or just supportive: there is far deeper agenda involved here which is about shaping future society to be less masculine and more feminine, more bisexual, and (arguably) more matriarchal. In other words it isn’t just about ‘fairness’ ‘acceptance’ or ‘coming out’, it’s about changing power relations at a fundamental level, and not just between men, women, gays and straights.

        16. I don’t see a problem with that. Women get more powerful, so what, not a big deal. Especially, considering from what miserable state they are ascending from. Yeah, importance of masculinity is decreasing. Be positive about it. Women are awesome.

        17. The only other explanation i can derive from your post, is that somehow gay acceptance damages birth rates.
          Or maybe it’s time to sleep…

        18. I’m not sure you read my post carefully: I pointed to deeper reasons beyond just those things.
          “importance of masculinity is decreasing. Be positive about it. Women are awesome.”
          You are so going to love this site. I suggest you submit an article using that quote as the title. It would be a major hit. I personally vouch for it

        19. If the estimations are changing solely because people feel like society is adapting to them, it proves the estimations are entirely exaggerated and the studies worthless statistically.
          Surveys on sexuality are anonymous and confidential. Societal acceptance or discouragement is meant to be screened out thereby.
          Indeed the earliest surveys of sex in the 1950s put the estimates of homosexual individuals in the US population (Kinsey’s reports) at 30% of the population or higher. Logically if society’s acceptance of homosexual behaviour was greater those numbers should have gone up, not down; and current estimations are, for most Western countries, homosexual behaviour at the 2% mark. Funnily enough, it’s only in Israel that the numbers go anywhere near the oft-cited “10%”.

        20. Not anymore they’re not.
          You don’t quite get that equality doesn’t mean everyone is equally special. It means everyone is equally expendable.

        21. Women shoehorned by social scientists and their own propensity for groupthink into the roles of men f-cking suck and are not ‘awesome’. There is nothing ‘positive’ in taking 50%+ of the reigns of the wider civilization away from the men who created it and handing them over to women who didn’t earn them and who don’t have the aptitudes or disposition to handle them competently. This is a recipe for suicide at the level of an entire civilization as we’re seeing now in Western Europe as the greatest civilization the world has ever seen surrenders to the barbarian hordes without a shot being fired… This is what ‘girl power’ gives us… F-ck that, the experiment in universal suffrage has ended in failure, it’s time for men to pack it in and pick up the pieces.

        22. It damages family building and status. Back then marriage was the most sacred thing there is. It was nigh impossible to divorce. As you should know this is good for children. It has been proven that children need a mother and a father to be healthy in mind and body.
          Now two guys or girls who can never built a family and basically the only reason for them living closely together is to have perverted “fun” can actually marry.
          It doesn’t have any status or anything anymore.

        23. I’m actually against single parenthood and i was raised in a dysfunctional family. Don’t get how is that related to gay marriages though. They are as prone to divorce as straight couples. Also gay parenting also consists of “fatherly” and “motherly” figures.

        24. Just because someone happens to be attracted to the same sex due to a biological or psychological fuck-up doesn’t make him sufficiently fatherly or motherly in opposition to his sex.
          That person is still just damaged. To let them raise children is immoral.

          I also believe that couples with high domestic violence suck at parenting and have relationship issues.

        25. “Miserable state” either you are a liar or more ignorant than I thought possible.

        1. That was totally a different person, acting from my account, how impolite of you to suggest otherwise.

        2. Not going to upvote your own comment to congratulate yourself on your astute observation?

        3. Nobody gives a fuck he up-voted himself, man. It was really stupid to take a screenshot of it, is all.

        4. Yeah. It should be illegal and people caught doing it should be executed by being boiled alive.

        5. It is pathetic and shows how self and attention centered the person is.
          But with your avatar…

        6. I look like a rainbow princess, don’t I?! But you should see how big my cock is! (That is, avatar looks can be deceiving)

        7. A bit fucking fruity to talk about your wang all of a sudden mate. Do your partners have the decency give you a reach over when they ream you and call you their rainbow princess?

      3. There we go. You leftists truly don’t know how a society works.
        It is mandatory for society to reject perversion in any form. Even if you’d only do your stuff completely alone and without anyone noticing, it is obvious that your lack of values and especially your complete lack of sense or care for dignity cannot be confined.
        By the person atleast.
        As such as soon as any such depravity gets known your ilk should be thrown out of society.

    2. Excellent statement! In essence this brings up one of the general weaknesses of institutionalized “learning.” In many fields of study, and particularly when it comes to sex, universal norms fail us. Think of it like this, let’s say you have a boy, who you know isn’t that good looking, or “cool” or whatever. If he is yours and you love him, are you going to tell him the dark truth that you have? No (at least you’ll put it to him gently as possible). You also shouldn’t tell him the limp wristed drivel that comes from the left and sexology, as you make clear. What you would do is sit down with the kid, and give him an honest talking to about honing ones “assets.” You might advise him for example, to work on his sense of humor, his witt, and cultivate skills that are likely to place him in target rich environments. If you had a kid who was born with natural talent, you might let him know that he needs to “go for it.” This is the kind of information an institution could never give because it is uniquely individualized. It is also vastly too empowering to men, and therefore against the underlying purpose of today’s “education.”

      1. This sounds strange coming from an atheist, but I have to admit that the Catholic Church in its prime a few centuries back valued male nerds’ lives more than our society does now. It provided a celibate priesthood and monastic orders to take in male sexual rejects, especially when parents decided they had an unfuckable boy on their hands. For a famous example, when Thomas Aquinas was five years old and the unattractive, fat kid in his family compared with his brothers, Thomas’s father sent him to a monastery.

        1. well done. Now if I can just prove that longclaw is really blackfyre and that the end game is a faceless men apocalypse scenario.

  10. Excellent article, Larsen. I’ll be sure to read the book “Sex and Culture” by JD Unwin.
    There’s also another perspective we could take on this, though. There is a secret society of “alpha males,” or “players,” or whatever you want to call them, that exists in every civilization.
    While 99% of men are monogamous, and thus build civilizations, this 1% of men fuck all of their wives and spread their seed.

  11. Anyone want to guess what else people like Boas, Diamond and Gould got in common? Other than an interest in anthropology ofc.

  12. Now seriously, people, aren’t we gonna do something about it? Look at this guy, Roosh, doesn’t he look suspicious to you? With the beard and stuff? Do you realize he might even be arab? I’d recommend alerting the authorities.

      1. Dude, i can’t just churn out excellent gags one after another, give me a break.

        1. Нет, ты только ужасен в троллин. Ещё хуже то, что ты не знаешь как правильно обсудить.

        2. why can’t you europeans speak american like normal people

        3. Like in Hollywood movies, when everyone on earth speaks perfectly american, even when among each other, but with a strong foreign accent.

        4. I believe the classic britcom ‘allo ‘allo threw down the gauntlet of accent speak

  13. As a holder of an advanced degree in anthropology myself, the beginning of this article basically hits the nail on the head. From an archaeological/biological perspective, Cultural anthro is largely an evidence-free zone, and the ideas propagated therein are succor for larval SJW’s. The usual teachings one would get in bargain basement cultural anthroplogy classes (which I myself taught for years, as propaganda free as possible) are chock full of Marxian assumptions and gender constructivism.

  14. Franz Boas was a marxist jew, it figures that anthropology evolved into a SJW cult that it is today.

  15. I research some extremely off-beat subjects from time to time. One of them happens to be the resurgence of mountain lions in the Continental United States.
    After poring over the comments sections at scores of websites dedicated to mountain lion sightings around the USA over the years, and reading numerous “official” statistics offered by various SJW scientists who are fairly well paid to lie (as are most scientists) – and most especially after having my own encounter with a mountain lion, which, according to wildlife officials within the state in question, couldn’t possibly have happened in the area where I saw it – I’ve come to the startling conclusion that wildlife officials at the city, county, state and national levels are very much aware of the fact that mountain lions are indeed proliferating in every state in the Continental U.S., and those same agencies are actively engaged in covering it up.
    Regarding my personal experience with a mountain lion: About five years ago, I was staying at a hotel in Ardmore, Oklahoma, while doing some web development work for a client. Interestingly, the client was a notable Professor Emeritus from a well-known university in the Desert Southwest. He’d battled for many years to expose the dangers of Aspartame (the sugar substitute). This guy had huge balls and he was going up against the FDA (and the federal government by default), various food manufacturing conglomerates, and a variety of other heavyweights. His house was burned down once, with him in it. They warned him over and over to shut up, or he’d be killed. But he kept at it – and now most people realize that Aspartame is really bad news. So at that point, they left him alone.
    But Aspartame is just one method the ruling class uses to thin the population via “Death by a Thousand Cuts”. (One of hundreds, if not thousands.)
    So while I sat there, working on the websites I was designing to promote one of his new books, it was ironic that I happened to look out the window about 8:00 a.m. on that bright, sunny, spring morning, and see a mountain lion strolling very leisurely right next to the tree line at the very edge of the parking lot of my hotel, about 20 yards away from my vantage point. I saw the animal for about 30 seconds. It was quite long – about eight feet from the nose to the end of its tail – and it was very muscular. It was not a bobcat; it was not a huge house cat – it was a freakin’ mountain lion…
    Suddenly it dawned on me that I had walked through those very same trees only the day before, while crossing the huge, grassy field behind it, after purchasing and then lugging supplies back to my hotel. In fact, as I sat there thinking about it, I had passed through that field and through those very same trees in the evening, a couple of times. And one of the very few things that I knew about mountain lions, back then, was that they did most of their hunting at night and their territories were vast – hundreds and hundreds of square miles, in most cases.
    So that started to piss me off…if mountain lions were living in Southeastern Oklahoma, I damn well wanted to know about it, and I’m sure I wasn’t the only person who felt that way.
    I immediately started doing Internet searches for mountain lion sightings in Ardmore, Oklahoma. And very quickly, I was sifting through numerous articles and comment boards on the Internet. And sure enough, after absorbing some of what had been written at those venues, many people had claimed to see mountain lions in Ardmore, Oklahoma, even though all of the city, county, state and federal officials at the time flatly denied that mountain lions existed in that area.
    This pattern was to repeat itself over and over, as I sifted though many more reports, in every state in the Continental USA, in the years to come. And in every single state, numerous people were reporting seeing mountain lions. Many had taken photos and videos. And wildlife officials continuously denied that they were present in each and every state in question.
    Eventually, in some of those states, a mountain lion was ultimately hit and killed by a car. At which point, wildlife officials jumped to the fore with their prewritten scripts and confidently proclaimed that it had been “a house pet, an exotic animal owned by some drug dealer”; or, “The animal just strayed far out of its territory; they are not breeding in this state”.
    Over and over this same scenario repeated itself. Over and over, the officials offered the same lame excuses. And in every state, the people who saw mountain lions despite official denials were getting more and more perturbed about the situation.
    So what does the proliferation of mountain lions in North America mean? Well, it means that pretty much anybody who lives near a wooded area anywhere in the USA, is a potential target for these predators. Having absorbed quite a bit of material about mountain lion behavior over the years, it’s abundantly clear that the young are most especially at risk. There are many cases of child disappearances in this country, and no official federal organization keeps track of them (for example the FBI keeps records of every car that is stolen in the USA, but they keep no such records of missing children – or at least they didn’t as far back as 10 years ago), but, unofficially, tens of thousands of children go missing in the USA every year.
    Mountain lions are very cunning and efficient when they kill. They approach the victim from behind, in the vast majority of cases. And the victim rarely hears them coming, because they are adept at being silent. They typically select the smallest target in a group. They dig their claws into their prey from behind, and bite the spinal cord at the base of the neck, severing it instantly.
    In the rare cases where people have managed to fight back, and wound up facing their adversary, the cats often resorted to scratching at their midsections with their back legs, in an attempt to disembowel them. (Like I said, they are very efficient killers.)
    So…why isn’t anything being reported about this – not by various governmental bodies at the city, county, state or federal levels, and not by the mainstream media?
    In most states east of the Mississippi river, it is a crime to kill a mountain lion (as it is in most states west of the Mississippi river), and yet, at the same time, state wildlife officials in all of those states to the east, flatly deny that mountain lions exist within those very same states. (A bit of a contradiction there, to put it mildly…not to mention a giant red flag.)
    I personally believe that this has to do with the “Death by a Thousand Cuts” program. The elite want to wipe out all of the non-elite human beings, and do it by any means necessary. And they are doing it a chunk here, and a chunk there, across hundreds of different venues.
    For example, 28 people were killed in the USA last year, by pit bulls or pit bull-mix dogs. Many, many more were severely injured. The closest competitor is the Rottweiler, who only managed to kill three human beings in America last year, according to
    Pit bulls killed more people than lightning last year. You see warning signs about lightning everywhere you go, but the SJW’s get up in arms whenever a municipality broaches the subject of banning this extremely dangerous breed…they are portrayed as nanny dogs (a laughable concept, for a breed of dog that has exclusively been bred to fight to the death), the victims of social injustice, the recipients of bad training techniques (this is the most common lie, “It’s the owner, not the breed!”) and they have been appearing in more and more TV commercials lately, too, for dog food, dog treats, pet adoption centers, and such. They are being promoted in a subtly prolific way by the media. They are the favorite pet of wannabe bad boys, and wannabe bad girls, pretty much everywhere. And they are dangerous as fuck. (As the 28 deaths last year prove.)
    Well, hell, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet (to quote Ronald Reagan).
    Mountain lions, black bears, brown bears, alligators and wolves are all protected on some level here in the Land of the Fee and the Home of the Slave. And each of them is making a ferocious comeback. And they kill more and more human beings every single year (and yes, despite the lies of animal rights activists and wildlife biologists everywhere, wolves have killed people in North America for centuries – wolves actually kill for bloodsport, if you research the matter deeply enough and get past the huge barrage of lies passed off as truth by SJW scientists and their mainstream media enablers). And a great many of these deaths go completely unreported, or are covered up, based on the personal research that I have done.
    So if you aren’t already packing heat, this is just another really good reason to do so. There are dangers out there in the big, bad world, that most people don’t even know about…and if you don’t know that a particular danger exists, how can you defend yourself against it…the short answer is, you can’t.

    1. interesting and detailed comment. You make a good case that something is going on, in terms of suppression of the facts, and perhaps of the research agenda as well. I would hesitate before linking this to some kind of depopulation agenda – I don’t quite get how even thousands of unreported killings (say for example all of those missing children) would even dent the populations. What it probably does reflect is a prioritisation of animal life over human life, and the politics behind that prioritisation (you mention the SWJs here).
      I was actually quite interested to read this, as I read a report only today that a woman had fought successfully to free her toddler son from the jaws of cougar (not sure how old she was but if she was 40 I guess that would be cougar vs cougar) – I think attack happened in Vancouver – at least it was a state with a known large cougar population)

    2. “I happened to look out the window about 8:00 a.m. on that bright, sunny, spring morning, and see a mountain lion strolling very leisurely right next to the tree line…”
      Did it look like this?

  16. My favorite finding of Napoleon Chagnon was how Yanonamomo women were more attracted and willing to have relations with men who had previously killed other men. It corroborates previous ROK article’s about how women like bad boys and damaged men; and my own postulation that women are attracted to the mystique of PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) symptoms in men.

    1. My experience would corroborate this.
      When I was about 16 I got into an altercation with another kid and well, he died.
      I tell this story to girls and not one ever has been turned off by it, most of them have been turned on by it. The

    2. Bullshit. A man who openly gets away with murder is a high status, dominant male, and that’s what women are attracted to. The man is a proven victor who can both provide good DNA for her offspring and protect them once they’re born. This makes perfect sense.
      What doesn’t make any sense is healthy women being attracted to men with bad DNA who cannot protect their offspring because they’re “damaged” losers.

        1. I’m disagreeing with the assertion that murderers are inherently “damaged” men. If the murder is accepted as legal by the culture and goes unpunished then the murderer is an Alpha male, and women are attracted to Alpha males.

        2. Oh right ok. I’ve never been charged with murder or anything like that, but I have directly and indirectly killed people.

        3. Well, it does sort of depend on the situation. Accidentally knocking a man down the stairs and unintentionally killing him is not the same thing.
          Likewise, healthy women aren’t attracted to cowards and social degenerates. A man who knifes somebody in an alley for his wallet isn’t an Alpha and won’t win any women. Yet an SAS veteran with dozens of confirmed kills and the medals to prove it will wetten the cunt of every girl in town.

      1. I’m disagreeing with the assertion that murderers are inherently “damaged” men. If the murder is accepted as legal by the culture and goes unpunished then the murderer is an Alpha male, and women are attracted to Alpha males.

      2. Bo Peep, when you were in a position of having to take life; did you not experience a round of PTSD afterwards? Or is it perfectly sensible to assume that you never did?

        1. Are you saying it’s normal for Alpha males to suffer psycho-emotional break-downs after killing somebody?
          Is that how you think the Vikings were after every battle? They slumped down on the field and cried on each other’s shoulders as they talked about their feelings. LOL
          You’re as soft as warm butter, man. Put some concrete on your cereal and harden the fuck up.

        2. Yes.
          Since its obvious that you never have, I’m going to give you an example you can relate to. Did you watch the movie American Sniper, and did you comprehend the main them of the story?
          You’re ignorant to PTSD. It doesn’t make you cry and talk about feelings, but the opposite. You can’t cry, and you don’t want to talk about your feelings – (especially to the tenderlings who never experienced it.) It doesn’t make you soft, it hardens the emotions, to the point that fear or pain barely effects you, and you end up with a characteristic boldness.
          One of the things that alleviates the pain of PTSD is blood. In the Finnish winter war they sent PTSD victims back on the front as soon as possible, where they’d go on a devasting killing spree against the Soviets (highest kill ratio in modern warfare, much higher than the typical Hollywood Viking of your fantasy world.)
          You’re lucky you’re hiding behind a web-forum. If you said what you just did to me in person, (or to anyone else who’s hardened) you’d be unconscious on the ground. As well as your boyfriend/husband/or white knight guy friend.

        3. I’m a former professional soldier and a Muay Thai fighter. I’m not hiding and nobody is putting me on the ground. But no, I’ve never killed anybody.
          However, it’s not hard to see you’re a soft loser. Do you honestly think all men get mentally fucked up by a simple thing like killing? Can you explain why you believe it’s natural for men to be mentally ill?
          What country are you from? You sound European judging by your lack of virility.

        4. You’re an archetypal Valkyrie, and long for a man to defeat you, so you can go into estrus.

        5. Its an interesting question, PTSD implies that the person involved is suffering because of stress he experienced, one doesnt have to be in battle to suffer PTSD. Just having suffered stress due to concerns of imminent harm.
          However, that implies if someone can either process stress effectively, or doesnt feel stress, will he suffer PTSD?
          For example, if I put someone in front of a very effective simulation of battle, and he feels stress from it, will he suffer PTSD, alternatively, if I put a man into an actual battle and drug him wih enough LSD so taht he thinks his machine gun is a waterhose and the men he is shooting are butterflies being sprayed by water, will he suffer stress?
          Then comes the question of what benefit PTSD could be evolutionarily speaking. Does a high level of stress give the sufferer more focus on a situation?

        6. What you are saying about the Finnish war makes sense. It implies an evolutionary role of PTSD. That it creates a change in someones mental state in order to enhance his survivability.
          Whether it helps him fight a battle that must be fought or avoid one that must not be fought.

  17. Shout out to Ignaz Semmelweis.
    I thought *everyone* learned about Semmelweis in high school, but after I became an adult I found that virtually nobody has heard of him!!!
    Anyone interested in science, and how science can be corrupted should click that link above and read about one of the most rotten political assassinations in science– ever. (Scroll down to “Efforts to reduce childbed fever” … and you’ll never endure anyone saying “scientific concensus” again)

  18. Well, I know Chagnon, and to be honest his theories regardless of SJW, are still…Theories. So they can be discussed.
    The issue now that you brought up with safe spaces is interesting…I am going to go outside of anthropology for that.
    The influence of Foucault, Lacan, Derrida, aka intellectual masturbators is quite insane among the SJW crowd. I am a French born, studied the situationists and all of that, and honestly you can maybe keep %10 of the writings of the aforementioned authors. The issue was the hijacking of surrealists (art stuff) in the way they write by French post modernists…add a Marxist sprig, a bit of linguistics, steal from mathematics, serve over ice…shazam…science!
    Where is the science into that?
    Their texts are a bunch of BS, books from Foucault on prisons are crap, ask any criminologist or anyone who knows the reality of prisons, and they will tell you.
    Those 3 used gibberish language mixed with hard science vocabulary in order to impress and give themselves a legitimacy, and a moral superiority.
    Which leads me to my dear Sokal a hardcore physic professor who wrote this:
    “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”.
    He basically said that Gravity was a “cultural construct”…it was an hoax…and it went through…till he revealed it.
    Today the bar is so LOW, in humanities, that anything goes through.
    Under the cover of morality or ideology, SJW and the religious right/intelligent design (so there is stupid design?) are trying to get a hold on science.
    Woo is the new God, or maybe he is just a giant spaghetti monster…
    Some feminists explained that physics were too involved into the study of “matter” which was solid therefore masculine and it should be also preoccupied with more fluid forms…which was seen as feminine…what the hell?
    When I discovered physics and mathematics, I saw it (no pun intended) as the holy grail, the top of the top, it questions the nature of things, the complexity, research and intellectual depth of this discipline is phenomenal.
    Those authors I mentioned above are the lowest academic standards. Diderot, D’alembert, Avicenna (the outstanding canon of medecine), and many more have all contributed to society, and some of the inventions influenced by those people are still used to this day.
    Instead of complaining…what does all the SJW contribute to society instead of crying on FB and tumbler?
    What do I do myself to make my surroundings better and try to be a good citizen?
    I started small by teaching astronomy and languages to my cousins. Small steps, without putting a pic of myself doing it in some social media website, like “look at me I care”.
    As some native tribe said…”most people look at the moon…while their legs are swimming in swamps.”…
    Jah pastafari…may the pasta be with you brothers.

    1. It seems that people too often conflate things that they don’t understand with things that don’t make sense. There is a lot of wisdom and intelligence in foucault and derrida. Just because SJWs have cooped the ideas to support their desired outcomes doesn’t mean that is the only way to understand them.
      I know the jargon can be difficult, but that is because the concepts require it.
      For instance, with your gravity concept — Just because gravity is a cultural construct doesn’t make it a hoax. Humans have a shared subjectivity in part which allows for consciousness and some things, while subjective, can be assumed to hold for all thinking subjects making the subjective-universal.
      The language that it takes to explain this is incredibly complicated because the idea itself is incredibly complicated. I wouldn’t be so quick to brush something off just because you don’t quite get it.

      1. You are skating on the edge of the social studies person saying you can’t know your a boy or a girl before you know the words for it and the meaning of them.
        Generally I would agree with you but I think a too great weight has been placed on the guys doing thinking in the past and its nowadays like you almost have to quote someone to be valid,

        1. I agree the quoting of other people (or, more likely, wiki or just general “science says” etc) as an appeal to authority is way out of hand. Won’t even elaborate as I think we agree in total. However, it isn’t this quote or that quote that is important, but learning a larger picture that it outside of your normal view point in order to better orient your own thoughts.
          As for the boy or girl problem, here is where I may be a bit controversial. I was just having this conversation wjgh some. I will put this out there: I agree with the feminists in the gender roles are performative social constructs.
          Where I differ with the feminists is on what to do with this knowledge.
          The feminist wants to take the knowledge that there is no grounding truth in gender and deconstruct the entire history of fucking wester civilization. Dress men in dresses, demand government enforced equality and basically pull back on all of those things that helped mankind rise from filthy jungle savages to civilized creators or art, science, poetry, music, philosophy and fucking rocket ships.
          This is literally a bat shit insane and suicidal response to revalstion of the subjectivity of truth and the meaningless of life.
          While I agree with all of the knowledge that allows feminism to make headways, I obviously disagree with their crazy fucking response to it.
          We know that gender roles are subjective social constructs. However, we also know that by maintaining them society reached the heights of civilization. So rather than setting the whole damn house on fire I say that what we need to do with this knowledge is double down on the traditional gender roles, reenact them all day every day until we sublimate them and forget, once again, that they are artificial constructs.
          Knowing how the rainbow is made doesn’t make it any less beautiful

        2. Only, gender roles AREN’T social constructs! That must come as a big shock to you.
          If you wish to retain any respect then you’d better elaborate.
          Men’s superior strength, aggression, and spatial reasoning makes them more suitable for certain roles. As does women’s superior patience for annoying fucking infants, better communication and empathy skills, and bigger tits.
          Also, women are attracted to men of superior wealth and status to themselves, meaning male dominated households are a natural product of biology, not a social construct.

        3. I think this takes the prize of the longest single reply anyone ever did to me here hehehe.
          Props for that.
          But like LBP says gender roles are not fucking social constructs.
          The thing is I’m on ROK because I find men to be worryingly useless around me, not because I have some issue myself.
          Most girls are sexually submissive, that’s just how nature is, no social construct needed.
          Gender is not some fucking culture thing, you can do a cognitive test on a baby 1 day old and tell if it’s a boy or a girl without checking.
          In general I think you have good ideas but I have to say this one is shit,

        4. Biology iterates.
          Culture elaborates and exaggerates.
          I think that’s part of what lolknee is saying. Meaning. Sex is hardwired, with all of its primary and secondary characteristics. Muscular strength, chest hair, deep voice, raw aggression or nurturing tendency.
          Your society/culture takes this biological basis of xx and xy and elaborates on the basic tendencies of each sex, outlining a fitting role for each. Nurturing becomes mothering expectations, male aggression is channeled into warfare or the stock market, strength into pushing spears into mastodon or the discipline of steel in the gym. The New Guinea natives used to say that it takes a man to make a man, meaning only a man can teach a fledgeling how to grow into their culture’s idea of a masculine being.
          There is a cultural aspect to sex that social scientists call gender. The problem is that western society is aberrant nowadays in decrying all gender/sex polarities on this basis. It is absolute bullshit with no historical precedent or rationale. Some societies have a 3rd gender for misfits but no one else has had faddish Choose Your Own Adventure Gender like we have had for a couple years.

        5. Although, culture is also biological. Culture is the physical phenomenon of human interaction, which, like all behavior, is dictated by our genes/biology.
          If culture does in fact exaggerate gender then it’s doing so at the natural bidding of our biology.

        6. Every day I log onto this site. Every day I comment. Sometimes seriously, sometimes joking around and sometimes Kratom.
          Every day I see not just one, but many people, complain about the status of masculinity and femininity today. There is a meme. I couldn’t find it. Something like men then and now. The then has this clean cut soldier having a cup of coffee and then now has some hipster in flannel pajamas. When I tried to find it I did a google image search “men then and now” and while I didn’t find it I found about a million memes with pretty much the same theme.
          I have seen your comments on this site. You and I agree on a lot of things. So I ask you this not with my usual tone of condescending twatness, but quite seriously: Have you not noticed that over time men have become more effeminate and women are becoming more masculine?
          We, on this site, sit around and complain about it every day. It is true. Masculinity is dying with these fairy boys who are getting more and more androgynous every day. I won’t even bother explaining because I take it you already know. It is disgusting. And women? They are getting bigger, less feminine in all the ways that are admired by the men on this site.
          If you can seriously look at this world and tell me that the worm hanging between your legs and you Y chromosome are the font of your masculinity then I am shocked and in awe. It is the same Y chromosome and the same cock that is hanging between these fags and hipsters and androgynous girlie-boys and their masculinity is non-fucking existent and day after day, year after year it gets worse and worse.
          You think that axe wound between the legs of “women” give them femininity? Tell that to those bull dyke Williams sisters. They have cunts. Are they feminine? And more and more men are becoming women and women are becoming men because feminists and SJWs and fags are leading the world by the nose and collapsing the very foundation of gender that has stood and prospered for thousands of years.
          Gender roles absolutely are a social construct and if you want proof turn on your tv, watch a movie, go to a college campus or a night club, walk the streets and look at people around you.
          Men’s superior strength, aggression and special reasoning are being fucking destroyed. Yes, there are people out there that are still holding on but you know the momentum. It is why you are here coming together with like minded men.
          Yes, there are biological realities. Women aren’t going to start sprouting dicks. But masculinity and femininity are absolutely social constructs.
          Now, back to my original post, the question isn’t whether masculinity and femininity are subjective social constructs….google image “hipster” and tell me that masculinity is inborn and objectively part of what it means to be male. We know it is true just by keeping our eyes open.
          Instead of raging against this reality and saying we need a return to traditional values and masculinity lets actually do something that means something.
          Feminists want to take this reality and destroy the notion that men can or even should be masculine while at the same time shaming femininity out of women. They have been doing it for years and have been very successful because traditional values men aren’t fighting back. They keep saying “its not true, its not true” while the feminists keep doing a full court press of shaming the masculinity out of men and the femininity out of women successfully.
          Instead lets get into this fucking fight rather than sitting on the sidelines and wishing the world was different. Yes, masculinity is a social construct. And as a social construct it has done more good for this world than any other single force. So lets reconstruct it. So lets be recinstructionists. Let’s double down. Let’s say “yes” to the masculinity that created the modern world. Let’s say it now and all the time. Let’s start dressing like men. Let’s start acting like men, treating our women like men and, shaming those who don’t.
          Just sitting around and pretending that masculinity and femininity aren’t socially constructed is only playing into the hands of an enemy who has spent 6 decades winning a fight because the people they are fighting having been arguing that the fight itself is actually possible.

        7. It is and until we understand that the momentum will continue to move, even at a slow pace, the way that feminists want. I just responded to a similar reply to bo peep so you can read it there.
          You and I agree on a lot as well. The danger of not accepting the social construction of masculinity and femininity is present all around us and until we get ourselves out of denial and start getting into this fight in a real way we will continue to lose ground a little at a time until there is nothing but a bunch of androginous bisexeual hipsters with no real concept of being masculine or feminine.

        8. Huge comment! Big step up from your usual nihilism, now you’re looking to take action. What ideas did you have?

        9. It’s all part of the nihilism. I call it active or positive nihilism.
          There really is only one step.
          Men are always watching movies, old movies, Bogart, boy he was a man, your own icon, the godfather or looking at the guys in the rat pack….and then what, throw on jeans and a tshirt and go out and live their lives.
          Our role models, real, fictional, famous, family, whatever, we need to start emulating. If we don’t have role models we need to create an image of the man we want to be and be that man. Not on Friday nights. Not when the boss isn’t looking. Not when we are with our friends.
          I took this to heart some years ago. Even when I am alone I strive to keep an atmosphere conducive to masculinity. My pajamas, the music I listen to, the furniture I have….every fucking aspect of my life down to which soap I use.
          I shave every morning as part of my face washing routine. I’m not saying it is for everyone but when I imagine the proper masculine man he shaves every day. That is what I see and so that is what I do.
          Keep in mind, this is only possible BECAUSE of the nihilism. Feminists realized early on that they can change themselves and in doing so change society and bit by bit look what we have: a bunch of hyper masculine chicks and hyper fem guys. They couldn’t have done that in a world where objective truths reigned supreme.
          Don’t get me wrong. I am not looking to save the world. Fuck it. But I am doing my little part of making sure there is at least one “guy” who retains the notion of what it is to be a man and does what is necessary.
          If men keep sitting around just waiting for the word to come to their senses while feminists actively continue the path they have been on for over half a century, in another 20 years there will be nothing left of masculinity at all except in the square jaws of the women.
          Anyone who says that gender isn’t cultural is either not paying attention to men and women and the drastic changes that have been made and are continually being made or are in denial and they just aren’t helping.
          Go team nihilism!

        10. I do understand the disease you’re speaking of and I’m utterly on your side, but you’ve failed to identify the true causes of the disease. You need to study evolutionary psychology to identify the causes. This is because evolutionary psychology is the only existing scientific explanation of human behavior. Trying to explain why humans behave the way they do without evolutionary psychology is like trying to explain the origins of species prior to C. Darwin – it’s literally impossible.
          First, ask yourself what is culture? And how does it exert its influence over us?
          Feminists actually describe culture as a metaphysical power not much different from the concept of God, and you have bought this explanation without questioning it.
          In reality, culture is nothing more than humans interacting with one another, and this interaction, like all behavior, is dictated by genes. Culture is biological, and therefore physical and real.
          Once you realize this then you can begin to identify the ultimate, biological causes of cultural phenomena.
          First, you need to realize that each person is acting independently and that their behavior is dictated by their genes interacting with their environment / other people.
          Then you have to ask yourself the question why the genes are prompting a person to behave in this way when they encounter this modern environment? That is, how did this behavior evolve to begin with?
          The main reason why a person will adopt abnormal gender roles in evolutionary ancestral populations is adverse reproduction conditions. The thing you will notice about the vast majority of people who adopt abnormal gender roles is they either don’t have any children or they’re failing to build a long-term relationship, am I right?
          Look at the Amish, Mormons, or Muslims. Do they have these problems? No. Not at all. What they do have is good relationships and lots of children.
          This is a West-wide phenomenon, and it’s accompanied by a total collapse in reproductive capability. The people you’re speaking of, quite simply, do not know how to reproduce. They will not contribute to future generations and humanity’s evolutionary progress.
          I’ve identified many causes responsible for the failing sexualities in modern times and the accompanying population collapse. The main one is contraception – condoms, pills, and abortions.
          Simply, humans aren’t evolved to have copious amounts of sex without the billion+ year old side effect of offspring. We are designed to reproduce by instinct – in the exact same fashion all animals are – but suddenly we have contraception and now our instincts simply don’t work. That the side effects of this is radical social collapse should’ve been expected. We have introduced products that cause our billion+ year old instincts to fail, for fuck’s sake. We are deliberately destroying ourselves by doing this.
          Because of this, humanity has reached a bottleneck. I’m dead serious here: The selective pressures we’re currently facing due to contraception are greater than the Ice Age that forced homo erectus to evolve into modern humans. We are about to evolve rapidly again because of this. When our age old instincts no longer help us reproduce, natural selection will discard those instincts and all associated behavior with surprising speed in favor of more industrious traits.
          Future humans will be the evolutionary descendants of people who reject contraception, ineffective casual sex, and even feminism, and are instead instinctively driven to form long-term relationships free of contraception and simply breed.
          This actually sounds like a good thing. It sounds like conservatives will win. Mormons and Amish will ultimately inherit America and who’s complaining about that?! Yet, at the same time, I also perceive that this will be a much more simplified version of the humanity we know today.
          In any case, the only way to cure the disease of which you speak is to ban contraception. Otherwise, natural selection will have to step in and reorganize things for us.
          On a personal level, you can rebel against the degeneracy by boycotting contraception in its entirety (such as I have) and having as many children as possible.
          I would highly recommend you read this book:
          A Natural History Of Rape
          Not only will ANHR serve as a good introduction to evolutionary psychology, but it also clarifies the misassumption you’ve made about culture in great detail. Also, ANHR completely destroys feminism in a way you will not have seen before. I mean this: The book annihilates feminism with science-backed brutality.
          You won’t regret reading that book. I promise.

        11. Hipsters were created by the chemicals the water, air and packaged food containers were poisoned with. The few remaining “masculine” men would have been berserkers had they not been poisoned.The Williams sisters are not feminine because they are exceptional shaved female mountain gorillas who learned tennis like those chimps learned to ride bikes, smoke, even sign language! and those bulldogs who can skateboard and even surf.

        12. yeah, you’re an idiot. For what it is worth, it all comes down to where you stand and what you are looking at. From my perspective you are very similar to a shaved mountain gorilla who has been taught to type and surf the web.

        13. I have read a bunch of evolutionary psychology and find it to be lacking. It is a pseudoscience that is best described as “bunk”
          You are right that *some* feminists define culture as a metaphysical replacement of God. They are idiots. The problem is, you are probably smart enough to realize that the people who will just blame some shadowy group of elites or the joos or whatever boogie man these idiots are into at the moment are really weak losers not too different than the feminists who want to blame patriarchy.
          Evolutionary psychology offers something that looks like science but actually is just more of the same for a smarter demographic. The idea that culture is biological, that there is a selfish gene, that a science is able to stand without meeting standards of falsibility, its incredible blind spots wrt areas it doesn’t bother looking into like suicide, beauty, etc. I would say it fails as a science but it doesn’t even meet the criteria to be taken seriously.
          PE basically takes the assumptions that some segment wants to hear and backs them up with poor science wrapped up in what looks like a scientific method so people can prop it up and think that it is serious. The first key into this is that otherwise smart people, like you, are willing to go down the road and say things like ” This is because evolutionary psychology is the only existing scientific explanation of human behavior.” This kind of blanket claim is undermining the incredible complexity that is human behavioral evolution and has to because PE needs to stay surface level deep because it really isn’t something anyone can take seriously unless they already are wrist deep committed into the conclusions.
          Simply put, it is the worst type of pop nonsense because it appeals to people who actually do have the gray matter to understand things in a much more fundamental way, but cuts them off at the pass by feeding them exactly what they want to hear. It is a pseudoscience which is totally defined by the starwman argument. It is like the person who is walking home from the gym to eat their healthy dinner and gets side tracked into an ice cream shop. Yeah, its yummy but you are wasting not just the time there but the time you just spent at the gym and when you get home you won’t have the appetite for the truly nourishing food.
          The Mormons and the Amish will ultimately end up inheriting dick. They will stay just where they are because they don’t care about the world outside their sheltered backwards communities and the world at large is big enough not to give a fuck about them. If they are happy so be it. Population density isn’t such that we need to build cities where they are. However, if it were be sure that we would.
          Saying it all comes down to genetics is really not a way to account for anything other than to sound somewhat smarter than the alt-right idiots who say it comes down to the elites while getting everything you are craving and, simultaneously, ruining your appetite for better, more substantial nourishment — even if that nourishment doesn’t taste quite as sweet.
          I looked at the nat history of rape. Again, this is bad science, bad theory is to real work at understanding the underpinning forces of human nature and biology what new age medicine is to the labs at Johns Hopkins.
          Here is where the worst part os psychological evolution rears its ugly head. Because it is nonsense dressed up like science, it is lipstick on a pig, people wind up falling into the trap it sets and, in turn, never get to confront what is really going on….which is that there are thousands of different forces at play which can, like a sail boat, be slowly shifted to a different course over a period of time by very small and subtle motions.
          Standing out against contraception does exactly nothing. Until we regain a personal sense of masculinity, force ourselves to be more masculine in whatever way we find and harshly shame those who do not, then the feminists will have their fat little hands on the rudder so to speak.
          Man will continue to be emasculated while women will continue to be shamed out of their femininity all while people who could otherwise be playing an active role in combating that are falling into the trap of believing in this tripe.
          For my part, I have created a hyper masculine world insulated around me and am happy in it. The world changes slow enough and I have made decisions (even when they were hard) to insulate me enough that I can live out my days far removed from the fuckery that surrounds me. I am not unlike Moses walking through the parted sea or Christ walking on water. My shield would, on a long enough time line, collapse but that timeline is only as long as the body machine will allow it until I return to dust so I don’t have to worry about it.

        14. It’s the hormones in the milk they drank or use in their lattes or in the ingredients in energy drinks that substitute natural sugar ingredients .

        15. You obviously don’t know the first thing about evolutionary psychology. Your assessment of it was simply untrue. It’s impartial science and completely testable. That in the field which isn’t testable is clearly labeled “hypothesis” and accordingly treated as such. There’s no leaps of faith required.
          You, however, ARE asking for me to make a leap of faith. You tell us that gender is a social construct (but don’t even bother to clarify what society/culture is and how it can exert influence over us). All I have to do to show how full of shit you are is 1. point out that your claim is made without any supporting evidence, and 2. point out that you only came to your conclusion by sitting down and thinking about it – there’s absolutely no science involved in what you say, so don’t pretend there is.
          That’s the same thing feminists and social scientists do – they sit in a room and talk things over, then “decide” what’s true. You ARE preaching social science, by the way. Good luck holding an intelligent audience with that shit.

        16. Lolknee, what you need to do to know whether you’re on the right track with any science is always ask and answer the question, “Why?”
          For example, simply stating the sky is blue isn’t science, even though it appears to be factually true at face value. You need to ask WHY is the sky blue? The answer: Because the human eye has evolved to register the stimuli of the sky as blue. Once you answer the why, you make a genuine scientific revelation: There’s no evidence that the sky is actually blue – humans simply believe it’s blue.
          This is the integral point of evolutionary psychology – it’s the only known science that can answer WHY humans are the way they are. The only. Other “sciences” merely make observations about humans – no different than observing the sky is blue and being naive enough to think you’re right.

        17. This is exactly wrong and shows an inexperience with scientific methodology which is indicative of someone who would take evolutionary psychology as being a real science and not just something that belongs in the check out isle of a grocery store next to magazines with articles about the return of elvis, celebrity aliens and bigfoot.
          If you spend time learning the methodology by which science is conducted you will learn that “why” is pointed out, specifically, as a bad or invalid question. Why is a question for women, children and imbeclies.
          Questions of science involve how or, occasionally, what but never, ever why. That isn’t how one learns anything. Further, that you think that all of the social sciences are just someone sitting in a room and thinking about something and saying “ok this is what it will be” couldn’t be further from the truth.
          Are their bad scientists? Are their bad philosophers, sociologists, archeologists, psychologists? Of course. There are a ton of them. Probably more bad than good out there. People who come to a conclusion based on personal beliefs and then shoe horn the science in to make the premise support the belief. There are also bad soldiers, bad auto mechanics and bad dentists. You can’t point to the absolute worst that a profession has to offer and then discredit the entire field by that. That would be like saying all baseball players and baseball itself is totally worthless based on lolknee’s ability as a short stop.
          To go one step further, in accusing social scientists of just deciding what they believe to be true and then going our and acting like it is truth is exactly what you are doing while maligning a field that is over 3000 years in the making with rigorous methodology that has been evolved and refined for millennia based on what? Really? What do you know about philosophical methodology? How does one go about using philosophical tools to come to a conclusion? You don’t know. I can tell you don’t know because of the way you talk about it.
          Further, you don’t know how hard scientific methodology works. If you did you would know that “why” is specifically pointed to by scientists from biologist to theoretical physicists to geologists (as well as social scientists) as being a “bad question.” It isn’t even a point of contention or argument. You are telling me that I need to get a touchdown to win a baseball game. It just isn’t how this game is played.
          As for me not fleshing out my claims, you are right. I didn’t, on the ROK message board, go through the thousands of years of work that leads us to the current state of epistemology, metaphysics, ontology and ethics that took me decades of rigorous study and deep thirst for knowledge with nearly indefatigable spirits all while being open to all ideas and taking them all in (one gift of being a nihilist is that I don’t come to the table with a preconceived notion of truth and bring less of myself to the study than people who come in with beliefs and shit).
          If you wanted I could give you some basic stuff to get you started on learning the foundations of how to go about learning scientific method both for hard and social sciences. I could give you stuff to read. It is all free now. The internet is a wonderful resource. I could show you links to professors who put their lectures on your tube…ones who aren’t ramming politics and feminist nonsense down the throats of their students but who are real thinkers who are doing serious work.
          As for holding an intelligent audience, I have never found that a problem. I have found a problem holding the attention of pseudo-intellectuals who don’t bother learning a subject before pontificating on it as if they are experts.
          This is a common mistake and I think you are a bright guy. I do implore you to allow your thinking to mature past where it is.
          There is a serious way to go about thinking about this stuff and there is a bullshit pseudo-science way that is more suited to highschool kids who learn a new big word and then use it all the time and think it makes them sound smart. The former has conclusions which are, by the way, something that, while they have taken a long time and have followed a long arc, are born out in every day life.
          I really am sorry if I come off as cunty in this response. It isn’t my intention, just my personality. You have a lot of unrefined tools and a lot of potential, but it is wasted right now. Honestly, you sound like a petulant child when you talk about science and philosophy not like someone with any real knowledge. But that can change if you want it to. This is a learnable skill. I would advise, however, that like Wittgenstein, if you refuse to learn how to play ball your never suit up for the game…. Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.
          One last word. I do understand where you are coming from. The cuntishness present in the social sciences is so big in this day and age. They are really terrible. That is the main reason why I left the academy 10 years ago and went into the corporate world. I don’t regret my decision as things have actually become worse in the decade since I left. I am much happier making philosophical pursuits an avocation rather than a vocation….what I now have come to learn is the intended course and probably one of the very few ways to enter the field objectively.
          Again, I wouldn’t let the really awful social scientists and their poor excuse at methodology sour you from the field in such a demonstrative way. You are throwing the baby away with the bathwater in this case and jumping on the bandwagon of a pseudo-science which is made up to look much smarter and much more rigorous than it is.
          With that said, I’ve enjoyed this discussion. If you are curious about where to begin learning the fundamentals of real scientific methodology I will be happy to continue and, of course, will be happy to suggest things you might enjoy and learn from. Other than that, I can’t argue about it anymore. Not to put too fine a point on it but it is like arguing about the relative merits of Herman Melville with a chinamen who only speaks 8 words of English.
          See ya in the funny papers.

        18. “I think that’s part of what lolknee is saying. Meaning. Sex is hardwired, with all of its primary and secondary characteristics. Muscular strength, chest hair, deep voice, raw aggression or nurturing tendency.”
          This is just the beginning. It is correct, but just the beginning.
          The hardwired sex is being unwired too. It is just taking a longer time. These things are happening on a multi-millennium time line and the arc is so subtle that you can hardly see it.
          These are meant as jokes, but look past the jokes and think about people you see all the time…..add 100 years and extrapolate
          Chose your own gender is only the beginning. They are wearing the costumes, but men and women have been evolving in such a way that the hardwired masculine and feminine traits we associate with men and women are being broken down and changed. It has been happening little by little for 60 years now with a couple of stand out freaks every generation who seem less and less freakish.
          It is perfectly conceivable that the things that have been so long taken to be hard wired (like hair on chest, deep voice, raw aggression etc will have been, for the most part, totally weaned out of XY and replaced in XX while a generation of proud stay at home fathers become more nurturing, soft and in need of protection.
          The fact that there were people in the late 1800’s who were doing work in philosophy and understood not just that this would happen but exactly the way in which it would happen is a testament to their ability to understand the way culture worked and the trajectory it was on and it wasn’t just lucky guessing.

        19. Curious who the philosophers are that have done this work? I would like to read up on what sounds like some eerie retro futurism.
          Anthropologists have until recently by and large gone with the idea of a gender binary plus the possibility of a third or fourth gender depending on the specifics of the culture…for example, Lakota medicine men that sometimes were called “two spirits” possessing the souls of both a man and woman. That until the “pioneering” work of Judith Butler (who curiously was known for her S&M fetish) and the feminist lit crit crew, which posited an unlimited “spectrum” of genders, and idea which unfortunately got co-opted by someone into anthropology and other social sciences and almost simultaneously into society at large. I think that was the disease vector, a relatively focused aspect of the postmodern fracturing of anything resembling a coherent paradigm as writ on long accepted modalities of gender. And at the same time, someone stopped using these models to describe what they saw and instead set them as political goals, probably because they seemed so compatible with the far left motives of a perfectly legislated state and thence individual (funny, almost the same thing that happened to Marx).
          I definitely think you are onto something with the notion that what was once freakish is now accepted, and on it goes.
          Following your idea that even what we think of as hardwired sex traits are breaking down, do you think there could be environmental causes as well? Such as BPT’s, epigenetics, methylation, etc? Or some kind of accelerated natural selection wrought by social change (which is where it sounds like you are going)? With what we know of natural selection, and given the relatively minor differences even between just archaic humans of 160,000 BP and the present, I find it difficult to support the notion that the human genome itself could be changing this quickly, unless I am misunderstanding the nature of the changes you are suggesting, but am interested to understand your thesis. There would have to be some factor that would result in less masculine males having more offspring that survive to produce their own offspring for this to be taking place on a genetic level. Is there evidence to support this?

        20. I only care about learning impartial facts and theories. It’s a big stretch to dismiss somebody like that as “psuedo-science”. Absolutely nobody who isn’t biased will believe you.
          Okay. I need you to answer 3 questions that you’re obliged to answer because you’ve dismissed my explanations out of hand without providing alternative explanations:
          1. What is culture?
          2. Where does culture physically reside?
          3. Through what agent / how does culture influence us to do things such as alter our gender?

        21. Dude, really I can’t. I’m not going to do it. The information is out there and if you want to learn proper methodology I can point you towards some tools. But like I said, I am not going to have discussions like this with people of faith.

        22. I ask for hard evidence to verify your claim that gender is a social construct and you accuse me of faith?! You’re completely twisted.
          Here are my answers for anybody who is watching this:
          1. Culture is the phenomenon of at least 2 beings interacting in a “vibrant” way.
          2. The source of this interaction – and thus the physical location of culture – is genes, which is the source of all behavior.
          3. Culture is able to influence us via – and dictated by – our genes. Put simply, when a being encounters a cultural exchange, his response of how he chooses to engage in (or ignore) that activity is dictated by his genetic make-up.
          However, this is not genetic determinism. Past experiences and how the being has been educated prior to encountering the cultural exchange will also affect his response. Yet, ultimately, those prior experiences were also, at the time of occurrence, dictated by his genes and the genes of those he was interacting with.
          Finally, genes are the product of evolution. Thus understanding such cultural behavior in its full scope is the science of evolutionary psychology.
          I don’t see a single flaw in this theory, Lolknee.
          As I show, it’s not difficult to form a concise, understandable answer to those 3 questions. It’s you who’s rejecting the hard science of biology in favor of the soft social science, where we’re expected to believe in a culture that arose from mist and mud like a god and exists everywhere at once… but it’s invisible.
          See that plate in front of you stacked with intestines? That’s your guts that just got served to you.

      2. Well, Monsieur bonjour!
        “It seems that people too often conflate things that they don’t understand with things that don’t make sense.” I see what you are saying, It don’t think it is relevant in this case.
        My teacher was Foucault’s lover (his ex-boyfriend) in college. It does not make me a genius but I studied him for quite a while, in french.
        I am not writing off subjectivism, at all. “gravity as a cultural construct”, is a funny concept/joke build by Sokal, however a total disaster in science. Anyway…^^.
        The argument that we do not quite get it…well from Chomsky:
        “I’ve dipped into what they write out of curiosity, but not very far, for reasons already mentioned: what I find is extremely pretentious, but on examination, a lot of it is simply illiterate, based on extraordinary misreading of texts that I know well (sometimes, that I have written), argument that is appalling in its casual lack of elementary self-criticism, lots of statements that are trivial (though dressed up in complicated verbiage) or false; and a good deal of plain gibberish”
        I am not a die hard fan of Chomsky , and the criticism he makes can be applied to his own work, but he nailed it on this one…talking about PC…
        I read those guys, and for me they are a bunch of Parisian intellectuals (I am a Parisian myself) they just made things over complicated to catch up on their elders of the enlightened age, or “siècles des lumieres”, most of them were Maoists/Marxists who drunk to much coffee blowing their nose in their scarfs. We even have names for them” intellectuels de la rive gauche”…
        A sect would not have done It better.

  19. …Not to mention what happened to poor Watson (not the one of Sherlock’s fame…)), when he dared to speak the truth…

  20. Fucking excellent article. I loved it and had no idea about any of it. I love this type of article to punctuate the more mainstream ones.

  21. Chagnon has theories, and all scientific theories are subject to criticism and debate. In any event, part of the criticism of his work is that he evoked participant instigation, I believe it’s called. By that I mean he began trading weapons for blood samples et al. In that respect he violated the rules of ethnographic observation. Meh, cultural anthro will always be flawed in this respect, as it relies on an outsider observing and interpreting the actions of a foreign culture, and the mere presence of said outsider is liable to influence the behaviour of his subjects. It really boils down to the degrees to which the observer interferes. Frankly all cultural anthropological studies should be taken with a grain of salt.

  22. Cool story. Makes sense, its the nature parasites and liars to tear down those who put in the hard honest work, because its a lot easier to speak bullshit than to speak the truth.
    Its also interesting how saying a culture has “violent genes” is considered insulting by these people. Liars are always cowards, and so abything that indicates a potential of strength in another horrifies them. Just because a man has potential for violence, doesnt mean he will always choose that, especially when that choice involves an equally violent man who can destroy him. The nature of cowardice is that the coward has no sense of strength in himself or even the potential to develop it, and as such he always feels helpless and overwhelemed in the presence of another who has it,
    Another thing I noticed, that the primitive society described is one that face immedate consequence for every decision made. You are going to trust your kinsman more than a stranger in that environment, because trusting the wrong person can get one killed in an instant. I think that might have also been something that set off the detractors. Ive noticed that SJPs tend to have a disconnect betseen Decision and Consequence. They have a childish mentality.

  23. You can attack the messenger ,but the truth can’t be stopped and we never be afraid to speak unpopular truths.

  24. Ok finally read the book. Genetlemen we have a winner here!
    The author’s 30+ years experience in the Jungles of Venezuela studying these natives is so in depth and well reasearched that it shook the world of anthropology.
    To sum up his thesis:
    Yanamamo society is incredibly violent and it’s all because of women.
    This contravened the “narrative” of “nobel savages” and got a lot of book anthropoligsts, who rarely set foot in the field, excited as they had build carrers on such marxist fallacies rather than the “scientifc” approach of the author.

Comments are closed.