Has the Anglosphere become more unstable due to Lamestream Exaggeration of Female Abilities?

 

Happy Christmas, everybody.

Or as happy a Christmas as one can have in the Anglosphere's dysfunctional, misandrist matriarchy...

We all know that unrestricted female mate choice inexorably reduces IQ, due to the reflexive female preference for retarded thugs and criminals. Now, this truth is becoming plain to even the most Blue-Pilled Anglosphere commentators:

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3922608-american-iqs-rose-30-points-in-the-last-century-now-they-may-be-falling/

By lauding women's 'educational achievements' (degrees in womyn's studies, for the most part), the lamestream Anglo media plays a prominent role in this decline. In reality, most women only attend college because educational standards have been so eroded. How many study the hard sciences or engineering? Yet the myth of female 'genius' is extolled at every turn, abetting their over-promotion in the public sphere.

So now women are prominent players in law, politics and academia across the Anglosphere, causing it to crumble before our eyes. While males are thrown in jail for approaching a woman in public, female doctors, nurses and teachers are showing their nether regions to toddlers in Canadian kindergartens. Over-promoted women are destroying banking, education and the military with equal aplomb; even Truth is an outlawed concept.

All is not lost, though. For Awakened men like ourselves, the deluded masses are easy marks to outwit and exploit. This crumbling, deluded cultural bloc presents rich opportunities for those armed with the Crimson Pill. The dumber our foes, the greater our chances for glory.

So roll on, 2024.

 

Apologies for not Posting

As you can see, the blog has been restored. Good news, because it now has 1.3 million views and many people clearly like the arguments presented here.

I have not been posting as regularly as I used to, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the rest of the Awakened or Red-Pilled world has caught up with my perspectives. There is now mass discontent with gender-relations, male sexual disenfranchisement, female abuse of minors, and the general direction of society across the English-speaking world (especially the US, UK and Canada). Many of these issues are just common knowledge, now: only Boomers, women and the utterly stupid still think that the contraceptive pill and Tinder unlocked a trove of free sexual delights for most males; or that women aren't obviously advantaged in most spheres of life; or that underwear models are regularly banging one-eyed Indian janitors. Paradoxically, this 'insight revolution' makes it much harder to write profound or original articles on these issues, since the ground is 'taken'. This is testament to all the hard work I and others have put in over the past decade, I guess; but it does not make my task any easier.

Secondly, I just don't get the same insights I use to. Revolutionary concepts like the Crimson Pill or Sexual False Consciousness just don't spring into my mind any more. This is partly because a lot of younger writers and commentators have flooded social media with excellent blog posts, webcasts and podcasts, saturating the field. It is also because there is only so much one can write about a certain topic, before exhausting its conceptual possibilities.

Thirdly, the death or displacement of various people who posted or commented here from the beginning has neutralized my energy and resolve. Although younger people have introduced powerful new perspectives about female child abuse, someone my age also likes a certain social continuity with his generational peers.

Lastly, I think my mental abilities are simply in decline. I'm just not as sharp or insightful as I was. This is just a natural feature of ageing, not a specific condition: so nothing to worry about.

Anyway, it's good to be back. 

Survivorship Bias: The Main Cognitive Error Underpinning Blue Pilled Perspectives

Most essays on survivorship bias begin with the story of Abraham Wald, a statistician working for the US military in World War 2; and this one will not deviate from that tradition.

Too many planes were being shot down by the Germans, and the Allies had to armor their bombers to make them more resistant. The top brass looked at the battle damage on the surviving planes, and proposed putting armor on the areas hit by enemy bullets. All wrong, said Wald; wrong because these planes were the survivors, the ones who returned home. Instead, he proposed that the air force should armor the areas that were not hit, because bullets striking these areas must have brought the non-surviving planes down. In sum, the top brass had focused only on an unrepresentative part of the data before them (the surviving planes), distorting their perceptions of the problem and its solution. Wald prevailed, the armor went on the unscathed areas, and far more planes began returning to base.

Despite Wald's victory, survivorship bias is still rampant in the media, in business, even scientific research. Research findings that are not statistically significant are usually resigned to the filing cabinet and forgotten, distorting the overall picture of a given topic; because significant findings might be unrepresentative products of pure chance, in relation to the total (mostly hidden) sample. Business people and investors write books about the 'laws' of financial success, conveniently forgetting all those who tried exactly the same methods without a positive result.

In medicine, we continually have to struggle against 'anecdotal' survivorship bias. Patients often resist their doctor's advice to stop smoking because "Grandpa Joe smoked 200 cigarettes a day and lived to 96!" What these patients fail to grasp is that Grandpa Joe was a memorable surviving outlier; and that it would be far wiser to consider the 30% who died prematurely of smoking related illnesses, rather than Grandpa Joe (0.001% of the total sample, if that).

Survivorship bias seems especially strong among among low IQ or uneducated people, partly because they cannot think objectively. This is why the lower classes are far more likely to play lotteries and games of pure luck than the educated classes. 

In sum, survivorship bias is a fascinating concept and once it is pointed out, one starts seeing it everywhere. 

But what has it got to do with the Blue Pill, Anglo-American feminism, and all the other things that interest us?

 

Plenty. In fact, survivorship bias is the key cognitive error underlying Blue Pilled thought.

This is because the Blue Pill fixates on self-reportage, and on narratives derived from unrepresentative social samples. The Anglo-American media continually regales us with tales about some one-legged ethnic tramp attracting a fashion model, precisely because it is so contrary to our experience. He is the one 'survivor' out of millions of low-value incel men who got nowhere; but since the millions had no interesting story to tell the media, their sexless lives got shelved and were conveniently forgotten. 

It is interesting that the Manosphere emerged as the mainstream media crumbled before the advance of social media, in the late noughties. While this is partly because social media facilitates the rise of international dissident movements, it is also because the mainstream media can no longer project its reflexive survivorship bias on the masses. As we know, this has stimulated more realistic views about ethnicity, looks, economics, and many other things. Only Boomers, SiGens, and the lower classes still accept the mainstream twentieth century narratives, on any major issue. And all those narratives were (and are) underpinned by massive dollops of survivorship bias.

In fact, the Red Pill also presents a sexual narrative heavily larded with survivorship bias. PUAs continually present us with one-eyed cripples who used 'Game' to get girlfriends, as if they were in any way representative of the total PUA sample who ended up with nothing. When Red Pilled men started to realize they were members of the representative 99%, not the unrepresentative 1%, the Red Pill rapidly yielded to the Black Pill.

Taylor Swift: Hardly the 'Girl Next Door'...

This leads me to one final observation about survivorship bias. Although surviving outliers do exist, the mainstream media or Blue/Red Pill commentators usually omit the fact that they are often highly unrepresentative in other ways. For example, while Bill Gates and Steve Jobs both dropped out of college to start successful tech businesses, they both came from upper-middle class backgrounds and were endowed with very high IQs. Many popular entertainers hail from hyper-privileged backgrounds, even in such 'rebellious' fields as pop music, acting or comedy (Robin Williams, Humphrey Bogart, Kit Harington, Jake Gyllenhaal, Salma Hayek and Taylor Swift, spring to mind). This is not mere 'sour grapes', as the English say: these celebrities probably have better genes than most people, quite aside from their socioeconomic advantages. The mainstream media could once conceal this unstated reality, of course; but now the facts are just a Google search away. 

So when Red Pilled PUAs tell us about one-eyed Indians in wheelchairs snagging cheerleaders with 'Game' techniques, don't be surprised if said outlying Indians are also about to inherit fortunes, patent royalty rights, or some other valuable resource the cheerleader can exploit (of course, the PUAs will never tell us about these 'additional' outlying traits, because that would deface their weary 'personality is all' narrative).

I'll sign off by saying: look at the big picture if you want valid information. And the big picture usually looks very different from the one presented by Blue Pilled clowns.

 

The MSM's improbable norms are testament to rampant Survivorship Bias

 

Chickens Home to Roost: The REAL origins of Woke 'Misogyny'

Trans Activists Battle TERFs in NZ

The conflict between TERFs (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists) and trans activists that has recently engulfed the Anglosphere is best explained by the Anglobitch Thesis. As we shall see, the trans activists have a certain justification in their concerns about both TERFs and Anglo feminists in general:

Anti-trans activist Posie Parker leaves New Zealand after chaotic protests

Gender-critical activist was booed and heckled in Auckland and cancelled event in Wellington

The anti-trans activist known as Posie Parker cancelled a planned event in Wellington and left New Zealand, after chaotic and at times violent protests curtailed an appearance in Auckland before she was able to speak in public.

Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull had been due to speak in Auckland on Saturday morning. The British activist was met by crowds of pro-trans rights counter-protesters estimated to be in the thousands, substantially outnumbering the speaker’s supporters. She left the event after being booed, heckled and doused with tomato juice.

Keen-Minshull’s appearance in New Zealand had been controversial before her arrival. An earlier appearance in Australia had been attended and supported by white supremacist groups, who marched the streets repeatedly performing the Nazi salute.

A number of LGBTQ+ rights groups had pushed for New Zealand’s immigration authorities to deny her entry on the grounds that she posed a threat to public order. On Friday, New Zealand’s high court ruled that the decision to allow Keen-Minshull entry to the country was lawful.

The immigration minister, Michael Wood, had said on Thursday: “Like many New Zealanders I would prefer it if Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull never set foot in New Zealand. I find many of her views repugnant, and am concerned by the way in which she courts some of the most vile people and groups around, including white supremacists.

However, he said he had consulted Immigration New Zealand and concluded that the “case does not meet the threshold for ministerial intervention”.

The protest and counter-protest on Saturday was violent and chaotic. The Green party co-leader Marama Davidson, who was demonstrating in support of trans rights, was hit by a motorcycle at a pedestrian crossing. A convoy of motorcyclists had appeared at the protest in support of Keen-Minshull.

UK Guardian, 26 March 2023

A drenched Posie Parker

Given the jaundiced state of gender-relations across the Anglosphere, this conflict should hardly surprise us. Anglo-American feminists want to preserve their existing rights and privileges (not to mention homosociality and sex-negative repression) which are ideologically threatened by the very existence of trans women. Meanwhile, the trans lobby is entirely right to fear TERFS (and indeed, Anglo-American feminists in general) as reactionaries and racists.

As I have been consistently showing over the past 12 years, Anglo-American feminists (and women in general) ARE racist, classist, sex-negative and reactionary. In fact, their views hail straight from 17^th century New England. Prominent Anglo-Saxon feminists like Marie Stopes were avowed racists and Nazis who wanted to sterilize people who wore spectacles. Therefore, the Anti-TERF protestors are not entirely wrong in their concerns, and their reflexive notional conflation of Anglo feminism with fascism and racism is both reasonable and accurate. Posie Parker represents a movement with a stark history of prejudice, misandry and hate, even if she claims not to personally espouse such values.

 

Anti-Male Apartheid in plain sight

As the transmaxxers point out, most women now enjoy significantly better lives than most men; they are on the winning side of history and culture, in all ways. ‘Female only spaces’ are therefore synonymous with female privilege. It is a 'no-brainer' that male prisoners would want to serve their sentence in a female jail where they can wear their own clothes, get specialized therapy and are not subject to rape, overcrowding and violence. 

While men are routinely thrown into jail for having consensual sex with 16 year-old whores, female teachers can show their anuses to toddlers in Canadian schools with complete impunity. Feminism been saying that gender is a 'social construct' for the past 200 years; but now ‘trans’ women have exploited this perspective to co-opt and enjoy female privilege, feminists do not like it. However, low-value men adopting a female identity makes perfect logical sense from an impartial perspective: they have everything to gain and nothing to lose by doing so. 

 

Posie Parker sent packing: is that poetic?

The puritanical undercurrents within the Anglosphere are inherently misandrist and gynophile; Anglo-American men are largely viewed as disposable, unwanted trash or at best, a necessary evil. In fact, Anglo-American feminists have always held such views. Therefore, why are the authorities so surprised that so many Anglo-American men are dropping out of society, fleeing abroad or transmaxxing? Such a response is entirely predictable.  

Because Anglo-American feminists (and women generally) are sex-negative, hyper-hypergamous, racist puritans, the benefits traditionally associated with being male no longer exist (despite the media-driven Sexual False Consciousness that strives to pretend otherwise). Romantic adventurism and reproductive opportunities have traditionally bound males to the social order; now both have been withdrawn, men are withdrawing their own consent from society itself. This is why Boomer stooges like Jordan Peterson admonishing young men to 'man up' and conform is so laughable: why would sexually-disenfranchised young men bother to do that when young women are never asked to conform at all?

So there we have it. As usual, the Anglobitch Thesis cuts through the fog of confusion to explain everything about, well, everything.

 

 

The Truth Behind TRANSMAXXING: Gender dysphoria is a MYTH

Transmaxxing: A WIN-WIN Solution for low SMV/Priapic males

The phenomenon of Transmaxxing has recently received a lot of attention in the lamestream media, especially among cuckservatives and misandrist Anglo-American feminists. 

 

In simple terms, Transmaxxers are males who want to transition into females because they think they will enjoy better lives as women than they do as low-value, sexually-disenfranchised males. Crucially, they do not claim any sense of ‘dysphoria’ or gender-confusion behind this desire: their motivations are entirely rational and self-interested. Indeed, most Transmaxxers want to retain their male genitalia in order to enjoy post-operative sexual relations with lesbians and other ‘Woke’ women.  

 

None of this is new to me, however. I wrote about the true motivations of ‘gay’ men back in 2011, in typically classic style. My key argument was that gay men ‘reject’ heterosexuality because it is far easier for them to get sex with other hyper-sexualised men as opposed to ‘heterosexual’ women, who are typically frigid, misandrist and hyper-hypergamous. There is nothing genetically or psychologically different about ‘gay’ men, for the most part: like men locked in jail, they can simply get far more sex from other ‘gay’ men than they can from ‘heterosexual’ women. This is not an especially complex argument: in the puritanical Anglosphere, its truth is entirely self-evident.  

My 2011 article received a laboured riposte from the execrable David Futrelle, who – after arguing around the houses for five thousand words – eventually agreed with it: 

Now, human sexuality is a weird, messy, complicated, wonderful thing. It may well be that some bisexual men end up having sex with men more often than with women because they find it easier to find male sex partners for casual sex.  

Predictably, lamestream and tradcuck commentators have attacked the Transmaxxer’s ‘Manifesto’, calling Transmaxxing a fraudulent challenge to authentic ‘dysphoric’ transsexuality. There are several problems with their critique, however:  

 

• Since ‘dysphoria’ is an entirely self-reported condition, using this mental state to distinguish authentic transsexuals from Transmaxxers has no medical value whatsoever. 
• The lamestream doubtless fears many low-value, sexless men will opt to Transmaxx given their despised and sexually-disenfranchised status in the misandrist Anglosphere. This will result in reduced economic productivity as males reject the ‘striving’ memes that oil the wheels of consumer capitalism for a more retreatist, low-stress lifestyle.  
• Why are tradcon women who weaponise sex against low-value men so worried about them Transmaxxing? Surely they reflexively hate such men and desire their genetic eradication? However, fewer men and more ‘nominal’ women in society necessarily lowers female sexual market value. If just 5% of American males Transmaxxed, it would immediately upset women’s exalted scarcity value in the sexual market place. 

 

My overall point is this: like males who adopt a gay lifestyle in order to get more (or any) sex, male to female Transsexuals are adopting a female identity to acquire the exalted status of ‘honorary’ females. None of them are suffering from ‘gender dysphoria’ or any other psychological condition. They merely nurture a rational desire for improved sexual opportunities and higher social status.  

 

In other words. ALL TRANSSEXUALS ARE TRANSMAXXERS: Gender dysphoria is a MYTH. 

 

In the Anglosphere, where dating apps and residual puritanism have inflated women’s sexual status to Olympian proportions (and where most sub-8 males are sexual pariahs), the ground is especially fertile for both male Transmaxxing and recreational homosexuality. In sum, a substantial proportion of men have everything to gain and nothing to lose (not even their genitalia) by discarding their despised existing gender roles or sexual identities.  

 

As the Transmaxxing Manifesto says, trans women are on ‘the right side of history’; not unlike the feminist teachers who show their anuses to toddlers in Toronto’s schools on a daily basis. 

 

Definitely on the right side of history...