Bloody shovel

We shall drown, and nobody will save us

Slavery in Medieval Italy, 3

Because most economic historians assumed – for the most part, correctly – that slavery in the medieval and early modern Mediterranean did not engender racial or ethnic rationales in favour of slavery, they regarded the ancestral origins and skin colour of slaves as merely two among several demographic factors, such as gender and age. They showed more interest in religion, which they understood to play a greater role in legitimising enslavement. Recent efforts to establish continuity between Mediterranean slavery and that of the Atlantic have taken a different approach. Now medieval and early modern scholars well-read in the literature on North and South American slavery have developed a healthy scepticism about the assumptions embedded in the work of economic historians of an earlier generation. Perhaps skin colour and ethnic origins, they hypothesise, were not arbitrary categories as was previously thought. Not surprisingly, the more recent efforts began by reassessing what was known about black Africans in the Christian Mediterranean.

Sub-Saharan African slaves show up in northern Italian records as early as the mid- fourteenth century. Until the mid-fifteenth century, Italian merchants from the north- ern peninsula acquired black African slaves mainly from Muslim merchants. When Portugal began to transport captives from the western coast of the African continent in the first half of the fifteenth century, Lisbon became another, important source of black African slaves.

And Portugal was never to be heard of again in world history.

At no time, however, did black Africans constitute more than a small minority of any slave population in a city of northern Italy. In southern Italy, their presence is detectable much earlier and persists much longer, due in part to Sicily’s commercial and political relations with Aragon and to its proximity to the markets of north Africa. Salvatore Bono estimates that black Africans in Sicily accounted for half of the servile population in the sixteenth century,

Explains a lot.

but their numbers decrease sharply thereafter as slave traders directed their supplies of captive Africans increasingly to the colonies in the western hemisphere. To replace them, slave traders in Sicily turned to Muslims from the Maghreb. Wherever in Italy black Africans were for sale, their prices fell significantly below those of lighter-skinned slaves, which suggests that they were not as much in demand as slaves from Central Asia or eastern Europe and reinforces the impression taken by previous historians that Italians had a prejudice against dark-skinned people.

Funny how this works huh. You get a market, where some things are bought and sold. When a product doesn’t sell well, the assumption is that there’s something wrong with the product. When Blacks don’t sell well, the market is rigged and the buyers are evil racists.

The scarcity of black Africans in Italian cities undoubtedly reinforced the exotic quality that some contemporary Italians attributed to them. But their visibility in the art of the period suggests that they were few enough to be exotic but common enough not to look out of place as servants in a painting. Isabella d’Este and members of her family are the best-known examples of fifteenth-century patrons who avidly sought but had to make considerable efforts to find captive black African children to add to their collection of slaves, servants, retainers, and objects of curiosity. In part, because they never constituted more than a very small minority of the slave populations of the cities of Italy, rationales for their subjugation on the basis of skin colour did not take hold as they did in Spain and Portugal. The interest today in black Africans in late medieval and early modern Italy seems shaped more by the knowledge of the catastrophic outcome of the Iberian and English systems of slavery across the Atlantic than their numbers would warrant.

I’d say the interest seems shaped in that academics wanna be holierthanthou.

Still, sub-Saharan Africans lived in Renaissance Italy, but there is no reason to believe their masters manumitted them less than slaves from elsewhere. This raises the question of freed slaves, all of whom would have been of non-European origin, who were incorporated into Italian city populations. During the period of domestic slavery, slaves could attain free status either through an outright grant of manumission later in life or as a condition of their owners’ last wishes as expressed in wills. Slave owners usually placed conditions on the free status they granted their former slaves. Retaining control over them in the form of patronatus, masters and mistresses freed their slaves on the condition that they continue to serve in their households for a set period of years. The promise of manumission in a slave owner’s will incited some slaves to murder their owners, prompting the government of Genoa to prohibit testamentary manumissions. Nevertheless manumissions do not appear to have been rare. Although there is no way to know how often owners manumitted their slaves, a sufficient number of acts of manumission from Florence, Genoa, and Venice survive to suggest that, even if the great majority of slaves never achieved free status, enough of them did to create the hope of manumission as a reward for a lifetime of involuntary service.

I wonder how represented were black slaves among those who murdered their masters in Genoa.

Given the ethnic diversity of slaves in Italy, the practice of manumitting slaves meant that Italian cities absorbed ex-slaves into their populations. A much understudied topic, freed slaves and their descendants appear not in only in records but also in the art of the period. Venetian court records, for instance, contain numerous references to men and women described as ‘tartarus’ or ‘tartara’ with no indication that they were or had been slaves, although it is highly likely that they had been or were descended from those who were. It was very common for ex-slaves to state their freed status in contracts in order to ward off possible counter-claims on themselves and their property. By the fifteenth century, the ubiquity in the archival record of the term ‘Tartar’ may indicate that it had become for the Venetians a catch-all label, like ‘Slav’ for ‘slave’, but more likely the term designated ex-slaves and their descendants.

Moreover, it would be a mistake to assume that all black Africans that appear in fif- teenth- and sixteenth-century art were slaves, since there is nothing to suggest that Africans benefited from the custom of manumission any less often than other slaves. The black African gondolieri in paintings by artists like Carpaccio or Veronese’s servants in ‘The House of Levy’ are likely to have been either slaves or free domestic servants, who had once been enslaved or who were descended from freed slaves. Nor is there any reason to assume that black slave women did not bear the same burden of sexual service. One scholar, in fact, has made a case to show that the mother of Alessandro de’ Medici, the first Medici duke of Florence, was a freed African slave. Whether freed slaves, especially those more darkly complected, stood on the margins of urban populations or became thoroughly and seamlessly assimilated in them is a question awaiting an answer.

The son of a slave, an African one at that, became the Medici duke of Florence! No kidding. What is this, the American Dream in Renaissance Italy? If Europeans were that cool on illegitimate children of slaves and upwards mobility, what did you need a Revolution for?

Neovictorianism in Campus

So this is doing the rounds lately.

It may be true that the feminist witch-hunt against anything that hurts women’s feelings are going to result in a return to Victorian sexual norms. The end is so sacred that apparently it justifies the means, which are screwing with a lot of boys’ future. But fuck the boys anyway; those who are having sex are the alpha bastards who are screwing all the girls to get some notches. No pity for them.

Not a bad argument; I’m not sure if it’s the alphas who are getting shafted by the date-rape witch hunt; by poor chance they probably are. The rest aren’t getting any poon anyway, they couldn’t possibly be doing any raping.

What’s hilarious is McDonald’s prediction: men will go back to Victorian norms too, and be celibate gentlemen who write a lot of cheesy love letters. But she forgets a small datum: there were no co-ed campuses in the Victorian era. No huge and beautiful institutions where girls aged 18-25 went giggling around in heavy make-up and short skirts.

You won’t get men to be Victorian if the girls don’t do it first. Feminism may be equipped to stop alpha dudes from pumping and dumping women, but it isn’t equipped from making girls start to behave themselves.

And the big question is: from a man’s standpoint, what’s the point of college if you can’t screw the girls? Especially when they go around showing their bodies and giggling in class all day. It’s not like women are incredibly interesting and men love to hear their profound conversations. McDonald exhorts young men to do some actual studying instead of getting drunk all day. But having women around isn’t precisely conducive to studying. Not only because having boobs shown around doesn’t help with concentration; having women around dumbs down any classroom discussion and shifts all topics to stuff women like to talk about.

If men aren’t to have even the vain hope of landing a drunken slut once a semester, there really is no point in having women around. If you wan’t people to go back to Victorian norms, get stable fiancees and do some actual studying; then do like the Victorians and get the women out of higher education. Then the men may do some actual studying and actually cherish the little female contact they can get.

Black herrings

There are many theories of what drives elite madness. Peter Turchin thinks it’s about elite overproduction, we have too many educated people with ambitions of high status, so they fight each other to see who’s holier-than-thou and gain status for themselves. Moldbug thinks it’s Puritanism evolved, getting ever more virulent. There also other theories: bureaucratic religion, mass-media induced cognitive failure. Choose your favorite one.

Whatever the cause, the disease is increasing and getting worse. It seems to be getting close to the terminal phase, when it goes berserk and kills the patient. See the Ebola crisis. A quite easily controlled tropical virus is growing out there because people would rather use it to compete for holiness rather than try to stop people from dying.

Spain has the only Ebola crisis in Europe, because a Catholic priest was in West Africa and got the virus. The 75 year old fucker, instead of dying among his flock of meek Africans who will inherit the earth, he moved all his contacts to get the Spanish government to send an airplane to take him to Spain for treatment. The 75 year old fucker obviously died. Then it became apparent that the medical team he was assigned was quite half-assed, so one of his nurses got the virus herself.

The very stupid nurse apparently has no children, but she has a dog. Some brighter minds in the government thought that the dog must be immediately be put to death. But the proud Spanish people wouldn’t have it. Poor dog! What did he do to anyone! If humans must be treated to great expense, then the dog must be saved too!

Now I’m mildly sympathetic to the argument. On the other side, though. I’d rather the infected humans and the dog be sent together to be quarantined in some concrete maze 2 miles under the ground. Or the sea, better. But no, the holy Spaniards, proud descendants of the people who made Inquisition trials into an art form, they had to fight for the rights of a dog to live with freely with Ebola in our society.

Screen Shot 2014-10-10 at 15.39.41

You gotta admit that cultural differences are funny. If this happened in China, probably by now the scandal would be that some merchants had been found selling the meat of Ebola infected dogs to sleazy restaurants, saying that it’s no big deal if you cook the meat with strong fire and thick soy sauce. Which is probably true.

As of now, there are 10 suspected cases of Ebola in Spain, all people close to the nurse. 2 of them are workers from a beauty parlor where the nurse went to have her leg wax done. But that’s not as important as the poor dog being killed for the crime of having Ebola.

On the other hand in the US, the moral ground, or should I saw the moral field, in the sports match sense of the word, is of course race. The US doesn’t have any dogs with Ebola, but it had a black man. So there’s where the moral jousting is focusing. So we have things like this: The implicit racism of Ebola.

The tragedy of Ebola is not just its staggering toll. It’s also the implicit racism that the deadly virus has spawned. The anecdotes are sickening, particularly a Reuters report this week that children of African immigrants in Dallas — little ones with no connection to Thomas Duncan, the Liberian Ebola patient who died Wednesday in a local hospital — have been branded “Ebola kids” simply because of their heritage or skin color.

No matter that nobody has been actually branded, which is what livestock and slaves in antiquity were done. No African kids had hot metal applied to their naked skin. No, they were just teased by children of their age. For all I know it was American blacks who did it; they’re pretty creative with their nicknames.

And no matter the utterly retarded reference to enterovirus 68, trying to make it look like it’s a worse threat than Ebola which is not taken as seriously. Enterovirus has nothing as close as Ebola’s fatality rate. And it’s domestic; you can’t avoid it by forbidding people to come from West Africa. But of course according to this bitch, if you can’t avoid one problem, you shouldn’t avoid any problem at all. Let us all refuse medical treatment because some diseases don’t respond to any treatment.

The funny thing though is that this retarded bitch works for the Woodrow Wilson International Center. Woodrow Wilson, besides being the founding father of USG as we know it, the crusader for democracy that destroyed all that is good, true and beautiful in Europe and beyond, he was also a southerner, and the most racist president in the history of the USA. He was the biggest fan of Birth of a Nation, and passed bills banning miscegenation. He’d probably use the Ebola crisis to nuke Liberia and poison it’s water supply. But now his foundation is paying salaries to people claiming that racism is worse than Ebola.

This two examples also show that race is actually a red herring. If the US had no blacks, or no history of blacks, the progressives would be yelling about dogs, or mice, or old trees. The precise content doesn’t matter, as long as it provides for holier-than-thou status whoring. See how popular Global Warmism has become worldwide; it’s context independent, so that moral jousters in any country can use it to claim holiness and its perks.

PS: note the English signs by the Spanish protesters. These are commonly thought as proofs of USG astroturfing. But this seems spontaneous. I think the reason is English is understood as the language of progressivism, the holy language; what Latin or Slavonic or Arabic are for their respective faiths. Instead of praying to obtain God’s favor, the ritual now is to express your holiness in English, so that the God of International Society agrees with you and gives you what you want. It’s a very short cognitive leap when you think about it.

The Slave Trade in Medieval Italy, 2

The overwhelming majority of the women and men sold to and by Italians came from Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Merchants traded in Russians, Circassians, Tatars, Abkhazi, Mingrelli, Geti, Vlachs, Turkish, and others from the Balkan, Caucasus, and Central Asian regions, some of whom were Christians, captured by enterprising local traders or sold into slavery by debt-burdened parents. In late fourteenth-century Florence, most of the slaves were Tartars. Genoese traders sold Greek-speaking adherents of the Eastern Church in Italian and Aegean markets until the late fourteenth century, when the Genoese government no longer allowed it. Far fewer Greek slaves appear in Italian notarial sources after the turn of the fifteenth century, which suggests that the populations of Italian slave-owning societies now viewed the enslavement of Greeks to be as illegitimate as their own enslavement.

(…) The Genoese relied heavily on Russian, Circassian, and Tartar slaves into the 1460s. In Venice, Tartars stand out among the slaves sold there. Only the number of Russian slaves reaches nearly as high a figure. When they lost access to the Black Sea in the late fifteenth century, the Genoese and Venetians resorted to Bosnian, Serb, and Albanian captives of the Ottomans.15 Sub-Saharan African slaves begin to appear more frequently in Genoese and Venetian records in the second half of the century, at the same time that domestic slavery in Italy declined.

In colonies established by Italians, the origins of slaves changed more slowly than they did in Italy. The reluctance to enslave Greeks, new to the cities of Italy, did not extend to Venetian and Genoese colonies. In Venice’s colony of Crete, as in Frankish Cyprus and Genoese Chios, the enslavement of Greeks persisted into the fifteenth century, although, in the case of Crete, Greek slaves were imported to the island from elsewhere. The indigenous Greek-speaking Cretan peasantry occupied a social rank slightly higher than that of slaves, similarly tied to landed estates like serfs in Western Europe but without the feudal implications. In the port of Candia on Crete, Catalan and Venetian traders sold slaves they bought in the markets of Thebes, Naxos, and the emirates of Asia Minor, where Turkish merchants sold captives taken mainly along the Aegean and Anatolian coastlines. As the fifteenth century progressed, in the colonies, Balkan and African slaves gradually replaced slaves from the Greek Islands and Black Sea.

Surely the fact that Greece was mostly Ottoman by the early 15th century has something to do with the lack of Greek slaves around. Perhaps the Genoese government was giving them protected species status, of a sort. Not many Greeks were left by this time, and the Ottoman needed the manpower for themselves.

And so the greedy Italians ran out of Greeks, and resorted to bringing Africans instead. Talk about resource management.

The Slave Trade in Medieval Italy

Before the trade in slaves shifted to the Atlantic Ocean at the end of the fifteenth century, merchants from Genoa, Venice, Palermo, and other Italian cities, supplied Muslim and Christian markets with slaves captured in lands outside of the Roman communion. Although Italians did not engage in slave trading with quite the same dedication that Catalan and Portuguese merchants applied to the business in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the Genoese and the Venetians nevertheless offered them stiff competition. The demise of the Roman Empire in the West and thechanges in land tenure in the early Middle Ages contributed to a marked decline in slavery in Italy, but not its extinction. Venetians, for one, were supplying Muslims with slaves from Europe as early as the eighth century.Trading in and owning slaves increased after the ports of the eastern Mediterranean became accessible to Italian merchants at the start of the thirteenth century, but the most intense periodof Italian involvement in slave trading occurred during the 100 years before the most profitable trade shifted to the Atlantic Ocean in the late fifteenth century.Merchants from Italy acquired slaves mainly in the markets of the eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea and, to a lesser extent, by raiding unprotected coastlines.

After the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1204 and the establishment of the Latin principalities in what is today mainland Greece and in the Aegean Islands, Venice, Genoa and independent Catalan adventurers vied with the Turkish emirates of Asia Minor for dominance over the region. Traders stripped the dismembered Byzantine Empire of much of its human flesh. Until the late fifteenth century, slave auctions in Black Sea ports and throughout the Aegean took place at the end of summer. Merchants came tothe ports of Caffa and Tana in the Black Sea mainly in search of grain, furs, cow hides,wax, honey, salt and of course fish, which they exported to Italy, but slaves figured pro-minently among their cargoes.

Thebes and the main port on the island of Negroponte (modern Euboia) also drew Christian and non-Christian traders in search of slaves. The slaves came from the hinterlands of the ports and from the islands and coast-lines all around the eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea. They were brought tomarket by local traders who sold them to the Christians and Muslims who hadcome there in search of good deals and marketable goods. No description of the markets or the condition of slaves put up for sale in those ports survives, but the methods of their confinement were very likely to have changed little since the ninth and tenth centuries, when travellers described seeing bands of young men and women, often shackled around the neck or legs, herded together on shorelines,waiting to be loaded on to vessels.

By the fourteenth century, transporting slaves by sea presented problems that Venice sought to minimise by prohibiting the transport of slaves on galleys.

Merchants could contain the threat of slave revolt or panic more easily on cogs or other round ships than on narrow and low-laying galleys. Unlike galleys with their limited and unsuitable cargo space, the cogs adapted for use in Mediterranean water had holds in which groups of slaves could be stowed more securely than was possible in oar-propelled galleys

From this interesting paper.

Silver Linings

Cthulhu swims left, and it seems it’s approaching the internet. The volunteer thought police, now called social-justice warriors, are infiltrating a lot of internet communities and then opening the city gates for the Cathedral armies to get in and carry away the leaders to replace them with women, fags and their male slaves.

Around 5 years ago I started to notice that a lot of sports coverage on TV was now done by women, and lots of women started to come out as sports fans. I’m talking of Europe so this is soccer, basketball, formula 1 racing and that sort of stuff. I remember from my childhood that women were constantly complaining about sports being retarded, and nagging how men waste so much stuff watching sports instead of taking them out on romantic dates. Now it’s women going by themselves to the soccer stadium and yelling hooligan sons.

I didn’t like that development. It felt odd. I actually agreed with women that watching sports was retarded, and I can understand that they’d prefer their men take them out to have fun. But women watching sports didn’t make any sense to me.

Now I was never much into internet communities of any sort. I’d rather read a book or play a sport than talk endlessly about it and change my clothes to reflect my hobbies.. So I’ve not been very aware of what’s going on around internet communities during the last years.

But apparently there’s a quite simple story, mainly that women have infiltrated all the thriving communities that existed, and shortly after the social justice inquisition came in, so that now all these communities have fallen to O’Sullivan’s law, and have become Cathedral agencies to promote feminism, negro-worship and sexual deviancy. The last of these has been videogames.

Now if I should react to anything it should be videogames. I’ve been playing videogames since before I can remember. I’ve played a lot, orders of magnitude more than what is proper and healthy. Not anymore though; I lost my passion for the thing years ago, besides the odd strategy game I still have installed to kill time during some rainy weekend.

So now it appears that the “gaming journalism”, whatever that is, has been infiltrated and destroyed by a bunch of sluts who have been fucking everyone in sight in order to promote themselves, and some games they have made. I did know there’s such thing as “indie games”, and I guess it’s natural that some women have been making themselves a name in the indie side of the industry, given that it’s a rather low-investment, small-scale thing, driven much by social marketing than by the actual content. If women are good at something is social marketing, i.e. making themselves noticed by any means. It doesn’t help that men are hard-wired to notice women from 10 miles away.

And so the gaming websites out there, which were built mostly by Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto or Nintendo fans to talk about their favourite pastime, have now become a racket full of broads and manginas talking endlessly about broads and manginas and how holy they all are. And the CoD and GTA and Mario fans have complained, only to reveal themselves as unholy demons who must be destroyed. And so videogame journalism was co-opted. And soon enough the biggest entertainment industry in the world will slowly wither away, because every single game out there without a Transgender Black Lesbian as a protagonist will be denounced as unprogressive.

A lot of men are pissed at this development, especially because videogames are very, very popular. But as I was saying the same thing more or less happened around science fiction, fantasy, sports, the military, and anything that men care about. Cthulhu swims left and everything moves with it. The laws of physics might vary in different parts or dimensions of the universe; but O’Sullivan’s law does not.

And a big part of why this is possible and resistance is futile is that: nobody gives a shit. Nobody gives a shit about “gamers”. Nor sci-fi readers, nor football fans, nor USG mercenaries. And that’s a good thing. Men shouldn’t be playing games. They shouldn’t be getting excited everytime a bunch of Africans put a ball in a basket. They shouldn’t be fighting for our sexual freedoms in Iraq. They certainly shouldn’t waste their leisure time talking about Game of Thrones.

The beatings will continue until morale improves. Women will continue to subvert and destroy any little residue of freedom and leisure that men build for themselves, the same way that NAMs will always continue to move into white neighborhoods and force people to lose their savings to flee. And that’s a good thing. Men shouldn’t feel safe and happy. Men shouldn’t have hobbies to focus on and avoid facing reality. Perhaps if women continue to destroy any community that men build, some men will come to realize the fact that women don’t belong into men’s communities. If the media continues demonizing any men that points out that social justice agitators are transparent frauds, perhaps some men will notice that the media isn’t about telling the truth.

Progressives are busy destroying what we have left of civilization. It’s a good thing that they started by depriving men of their hobbies. You don’t want men playing games when the shit hits the fan. Hopefully in 10 years Xboxes will only be available in pink, and all games will be about the journey of discovery of Transgender Black Autogynephilic Lesbians and how they learned to love Big Brother. Then perhaps a few more men will get the message.

The War on Noticing

From Noah Smith, aka yet another economist with a blog.


There are three common mistakes that many Westerners make when observing or analyzing Japanese culture. First, they essentialize it – they assume there are some core things that never change, and that you can understand these things by studying samurai culture, or stuff like that. Second, they exoticize it – they assume that Japanese culture is very different from Western culture, and that there are deep secrets that only Japanese people themselves understand. Third, they homogenize it – they assume that the difference between Japanese individuals or subcultures is much smaller than the group difference between Japan and other cultures.

Let me translate this to you: Pattern Recognition is Bad. No, it’s positively Evil. You should not try to use your brain and notice things. That may get you into trouble, and certainly prevent you from getting a job as an economics professor. What you need to do is ἐποχή squared; suspend all judgment, and if possible all cognitive function. Just do as you’re told by your academic betters, i.e. me. 

Explanation of Japan for Westerners: Japan is a collection of rocks with some human beings on it. That’s the vast majority of what you need to know.

There you go. Nothing to see here. That’s the vast majority of what you need to know. For everything else, just get a student loan of 100,000 dollars and listen carefully to what I tell you. Which is not much because I myself do not judge, do not recognize patterns, and do not try to notice things. But I am en expert™ through living 3 years (on and off) there, during which my expertly trained non-noticing skills led me to not learn the language, not understand anything and certainly not noticing anything about the country. I did notice there were rocks and human beings; but that’s probably safe to notice. Right? Right??

That’s contemporary science for you.


The science of sexual deviancy

Modernity is supposed to be about Progress, progress being made possible by Science, which discovers the Truth about nature. This is so unlike the obscurantism of the old days, where religion blinded and oppressed humanity with dogma and sheer nastiness. The funny thing is that the intellectual elite of modernity didn’t come exclusively out of those opposed to the Church(es). To some extent yes, and traditional Catholics in Europe like to tell the tale of the evil Masonic lodges waging a centuries long war against the Church. But if you check the historical record, a big part of the intellectual elite of modernity was composed of the children of clergy, and some rebellious parts of the clergy itself.

As we know, all human traits are inheritable, so if you have a movement made of the children of the enemy, what do you think will happen here? You’re obviously not going to get something much different from that you’re fighting against. It might be superficially different, but the odds are the children of the clergy are eventually going to build a church which is pretty much identical from their fathers’. And that’s precisely what happened. That’s what the term “Cathedral” is supposed to capture; the fact that the Progressive intellectual elite is not only similar to the old Christian churches; it is actually descended from them, in part physically so. And even if it weren’t, you could trace its descent just by a simple functional analysis. They just work the same way.

The latest fashion of Progressive agitation, the present phase of the Permanent Revolution is World War G, which is almost finished (sweeping the countryside to shoot fleeing enemies in the back, mostly), and World War T, which started a while ago and it’s starting to get momentum. Now I won’t get into why exactly our government is so invested with promoting sexual deviancy; American Kremlinology (Cathedralogy?) is quite a complex matter by itself. The point here is that progressives aren’t interested in the scientific truth behind sexual deviancy; some are actively hostile to studying it, and most people just don’t give a damn. And you’d think we’d need to know something before starting a massive war against disgust of sodomy.

You’d also think we’d need to know whether Saddam actually had nukes. It doesn’t work like that, does it? The fact is we have a lot of good science about homosexuality and gender dysphoria, but it had been long thrown into the memory hole before talk of letting homosexuals marry each other started to get traction. Although fortunately, the American Kremlin hasn’t found it necessary to actually throw things into the memory hole; it just makes people not care about it. But for those who do, the data is out there. The books are on Amazon. There’s even Wikipedia pages.

And you should be interested. Progressives give massively disproportionate attention to sexual deviancy for bad reasons, but the topic *is* very interesting. Because it makes no sense. If neoreaction means something (although it probably doesn’t anymore), it’s about applying evolutionary theory to humans. And seen through a Darwinian lens, homosexuality makes no sense. No sense at all. Zero. There’s no way on earth that a condition that makes you lose attraction towards the opposite sex is going to survive natural selection. None. And yet everybody has its own theory about sexual attraction being very malleable, psychological effects, upbringing, or whatever piece of shit one can come with. As Greg Cochran said in this epic thread at the old GNXP:

One of the interesting things you get out of this line of work is the realization that people think they’re entitled to have opinions, opinions that are somehow respectable, on subjects of which they know nothing. Not every subject, mind you: I never meet people with passionate, uninformed opinions about the relative merits of Rayleigh-scattering beacons and sodium beacons in adaptive optics, or blue versus red giants as targets for Trident’s II’s star sensor. But when it comes to evolutionary biology, every man’s a King.

This comes to mind too. Thing is, sexuality isn’t “malleable” in any animal, period. And why would it be? There’s no benefit to that. A total lockstep heterosexual individual is always going to outbreed any pansexual bohemian animal. For obvious reasons. And if it were all susceptible to random psychological quirks, you would find much more variation than actually exists. In reality, only 3-5% of men are homosexual, transexuals are 1 in 20,000+, and the manifold paraphilias have similar prevalence. These figures are consistent in most of the world. Bisexuals don’t appear to actually exist, and sexual orientation appears to be impossible to change. Some malleability that is.

The best book out there on the topic is Michael Bailey’s The Man Who Would Be Queen. It’s intelligent, thorough, and very well written. Hilarious at times. It reads itself; easily readable in a weekend. The very title tells you that Bailey has a good sense of humor. It shows during all his book; I’d love to have some beers with this guy. He sounds like a really cool man.

In fact he’s too cool: he keeps his cool in a sort of topic that would cause paroxysms of disgust in any normal person. The guy talks of decades of going to gay bars, talking to trannies, reporting the most bizarre and revolting paraphilias; and yet he has nothing but detached scientific curiosity; even when talking about really inflammatory stuff such as homosexual couples raising kids. He calls himself “pro-gay”, doesn’t see it as a big deal, and apparently it amuses him to no end. The book is a masterpiece of non-judgmentalism. And he never even intended to make a career on it; he mentions how he just stumbled upon it while thinking what to write his dissertation about. Yet he did make a career on gays and trannies with all that it entails, and he became a world-class scholar in it. Bailey makes a number of claims in his book. The first part of the book is focused on gays. I’ll make his points briefly:

  • Gays are feminine men. They were sissies as children, liked to play with girls and dress like them. Over time, through social pressure most stop acting like girls; but they are still attracted to men and overwhelmingly choose feminine professions. There is ample proof that gays have a particular way of talking, walking and even facial expressions, which are easily explainable by acting feminine in a male body.
  • Gays lie, deny being feminine because they dislike feminity. They are attracted to manly men. Unfortunately for them manly men won’t have sex with them; so they are stuck with each other. Consequently they must feign being manly if they want to attract sexual partners.
  • Gays aren’t totally feminine though. They have the same sex drive as heterosexual men, the same focus on the physical appearance of their sexual partners, the same lack of interest in children and nurturing.
  • Whatever makes gays feminine, it appears to be inborn. Nurture effects are demonstrably ineffective in changing gender roles. Babies with cloacal exstrophy are born with malformed genitals among other things. The standard practice has been to cut off the malformed penis, and force gender reassignment therapy. Male babies thus were raised as girls since birth. They never knew they were genetically male. Nonetheless most of them grew up to identify as boys, and those who didn’t are severely depressed. Cutting off the penis, constructing a vagina, putting them on pink dresses and telling them they are girls for 15 years since birth didn’t deter them from being boys attracted to women.

He amusingly calls nurture theories of sexual orientation “looked at’em funny theories”. It’s just against the evidence, and it just makes little sense. If subtle cues from the parents attitude were all it matters, there would be much greater numbers of gender dysphoric children, or at least a much more random distribution of them. Gays are quite consistently around 4% of the population in the developed world.

Now, the nature theory cuts both ways. You can’t make a boy attracted to men even if you cut his penis and call him Amanda since the day after birth. But you can’t straighten out a feminine boy even if you beat the crap out of him every time he tries one of his sisters dresses. He’ll probably stop wearing the dresses, but he’ll still be attracted to men when he grows up. There is no evidence that this can be altered either way.

No causes of homosexuality have been identified. There seems to be some small family clusters, but nothing conclusive. The correlation in identical twins appears to be in the 20-50% range. As Cochran says here, the correlation for leprosy in identical twins is 80%. So it’s certainly not genetic, at least not only genetic. And it’s nothing about the environment in the womb. Studies about prenatal stress haven’t found any correlation. He also quotes Ray Blanchard’s birth order theory, although the evidence is being contested. So we have no idea. Steve Sailer interviewed Bailey before the publication of the book, and he gives some credit to Greg Cochran’s gay gene theory, although he doesn’t seem totally convinced. Some interesting quotes:

Psychologist Sandra Witelson has hypothesized that the brains of homosexual people may be mosaics of male and female parts

For about 30 years, from the late 1960s until the late 1990s, it was de rigueur to scoff at these stereotypes and look askance at those who believed them. But recently, science has provided support for the stereotypes, in the only way that stereotypes are ever true: on average.

Earlier in this chapter I suggested that having been mistreated as feminine boys is not the only reason gay men tend to react uncomfortably to the implication that they are, or used to be, feminine.The other reason, which I hope is now obvious, is that gay men themselves dislike femininity, or at least they find it sexually unattractive. To call a gay man “feminine” is not only to say that he is a target of many straight men’s ill will, but also that he is less attractive than he would be otherwise. It is certainly an unfortunate state of affairs that gay men tend to be feminine, tend to be less attracted to femininity, but tend to be stuck with each other. There are similar ironies in straight relationships. The designer of the universe has a perverse sense of humor.

 AIDS patients with an average age of 35 years reported an average of 60 sex partners per year, or approximately 1,000 lifetime partners.

 On average, gay men have their first homosexual experience at about age 14.

 A gay male must be careful about approaching other males sexually, but very feminine boys are a safer bet. I would wager that among the many highly publicized cases of predatory men having sex with adolescent boys, a non-trivial percentage of the boys were recognizably feminine.The older men had reason to think that their advances would succeed.

The second half of the book is about transexuals. Now, given the massive attention behind World War T, you’d think there’s a transexual in every neighborhood. But the figures he gives are about 1 in 20,000 males changing their sex. That’s about 15,000 people in the whole USA. But these figures aren’t very important, and can be very variable. You’ll see why. He explains the research of Ray Blanchard, and puts it succintly:

The two types of transsexuals who begin life as males are called homosexual and autogynephilic. Once understood, these names are appropriate. Succinctly put, homosexual male-to-female transsexuals are extremely feminine gay men, and autogynephilic transsexuals are men erotically obsessed with the image of themselves as women

Let’s start by the most familiar type. Homosexual transexuals are in other words consistent gays; feminine boys who actually change into women. They tend to change their sex relatively young, usually as young as they can afford to. And they tend to look pretty good. There have been actresses, playmates, and many actually marry heterosexual men. He writes some hilarious stories about them:

Terese lived as a woman for three years before she got enough money together (about $10,000) to get her operation. Part of the money was a loan from Cher, who had become one of her best friends. In July 1997,Terese (then 25) flew to Belgium and over a four-day period, had sex reassignment surgery, learned to care for her new vagina, and recovered sufficiently to leave the hospital. Within three months, her neo-vagina had healed, and she lost her neo-virginity soon after.

In many ways Terese has blossomed since her surgery. She looks great. Not only do people fail to notice that she is a transsexual, but most men find her sexy and attractive. Depressed and in self-imposed isolation when I first saw her, she is flirtatious, energetic, and socially busy now.Among other things,she models lingerie.She has dated and had sex with several heterosexual men, none of whom knew about her past life. (She is still looking for a serious boyfriend.)

Why do they look good? The obvious answer is that only the ones that look good change their sex. Transexuals are gay men who could have just continued being gay man. That they went through all the cost and trouble to physically change their bodies means they had reason to think they could pull it off. As he puts it:

homosexual transsexuals are better looking because homosexual men who want to be women tend not to enact that desire unless they can pull it off.The standard transsexual story implies that the transsexual is so dissatisfied with her incorrect male body that she cannot wait to discard it, regardless of how good she will look as a woman.This is another place where the standard narrative is wrong, at least about homosexual transsexuals. I have begun asking the homosexual transsexuals I meet whether, if they had looked awful as women, they would have transitioned to full-time females. Most have said “No,” and no one has answered with an unambiguous “Yes.” Extremely muscular and masculine looking homosexual transsexuals probably choose not to transition, but instead remain among gay men, who value their masculine looks. (…) As men, the homosexual transsexuals look and act extremely feminine, and that presentation is not very marketable among gay men.They are far more fetching as women.

Not really

There’s also a social aspect to transexualism. One often hears talk about how the idea of “gays” is a social construct unique to Western culture; the idea of men who are attracted to men and have a particular feminine lifestyle doesn’t happen anywhere else. In academic circles that’s called “egalitarian homosexuality”. But most foreign cultures do know of transexuals, which are often conceptualized as a “third sex”. This is called “transgender homosexuality”. He gives some examples:

The hijras are paid to perform at weddings and the celebration of male births, but this service is actually more extorted by the hijras than solicited by families. If a family does not pay, the hijras make trouble, perhaps even flashing their mutilated genitalia. Many of the hijras also engage in male prostitution


When he visited Tahiti, Captain Bligh (commander of the Bounty) noted that the mahu participated in the same ceremonies as women did. At first, their feminine behavior and speech led him to believe that they were castrated, but he learned otherwise. He observed with disgust the practice of men rubbing their penises between the mahus’ thighs.The contemporary mahu fellate the men they have sex with, who do not return the favor.


The xanith perform women’s chores in highly sex-segregated Oman and are classed with women for many social purposes. Their clothing and physical presentation is a mixture of male and female, perhaps because they are denied by law the right to dress as women. Their attractiveness is judged by female standards of beauty (white skin, large eyes, and full cheeks, for example), and they serve as homosexual prostitutes.


in the Philippines many straight adolescent males have their first sexual contact with bayot, or members of the transgendered gay male tradition there. Sexual liaisons with bayot are thought of as adolescent peccadilloes no worse than smoking and drinking. They are certainly more acceptable, in certain respects, than spoiling the virginity of “nice girls.”

Surely more homosexuals in Thailand or the Philippines choose to identify as women because their society does not allow the idea of girly men having their own society where they have sex with each other. Girly men are thought of as girls who can’t have children. And they’re often quite useful as that, especially given that in most traditional societies, women aren’t very accessible for casual sex. Another interesting point that Bailey makes is that homosexual transexuals are the perfect prostitute. Gays, remember, have male sex drives, and absolutely no qualms about casual sex. He puts it very clearly:

Nearly all the homosexual transsexuals I know work as escorts after they have their surgery.

He even writes about a transexual who actually got to marry a heterosexual man and live with him as the closest thing to a real woman. 1 year later they separated, and “she” was back as a hooker. Allegedly, monogamy wasn’t very fun. In the end, homosexual transexuals are easy to spot. If a man has changed his sex to female, and has sex with men, he’s just a homosexual transexual. Which as we’ve seen is a common occurrence in many cultures. What about transexuals who aren’t attracted with men? These are the autogynephiliacs, the likes of Donald McCloskey, Linn Conway (who tried to destroy Bailey’s carreer for writing about it), the Navy SEAL Sailer often talks about, Jennifer Pritzker, and all those eerily looking cross-dressers who one always feels weird about when reading the news. These are easy to spot because they are invariably older, on average older than 40, and they just look like dudes. Autogynephiliacs are often very masculine men, married and with children, that some day suddenly come out wearing a dress and say they are now to be called Jennifer. After their sex change, they often stop having relationships of any kind. They of course claim the old story that they always felt like a girl inside, in effect claiming to be homosexual transexuals. But a careful look at their life paints a different story:

Honest and open autogynephilic transsexuals reveal a much dif- ferent pattern.They were not especially feminine boys.The first overt manifestation of what led to their transsexualism was typically during early adolescence, when they secretly dressed in their mothers’ or sisters’ lingerie, looked at themselves in the mirror, and masturbated.This activity continued into adulthood, and sexual fantasies became in- creasingly transsexual—especially the fantasy of having a vulva, perhaps being penetrated by a penis. Autogynephilic transsexuals might declare attraction to women or men, to both, or to neither. But their primary attraction is to the women that they would become.

While gays might have some reason to claim they are functional human beings (letting aside their sexual practices), autogynephilia just sounds like plain mental illness.

Blanchard noticed different forms of autogynephilia in the different patients he saw. Some patients were sexually aroused by cross- dressing, others by the fantasy that they were pregnant, others by the fantasy that they had breasts, and others by the fantasy that they had vaginas. One patient even masturbated while fantasizing about knitting in a circle of other knitting women or being at the hairdresser’s with other women.

He mentions amputee fetishes, and it sounds similar.Transexuals of this sort, and Blanchard here includes also people who don’t end up chopping off their penises i.e. masculine cross-dressers, just have a very weird fetish. They are not feminine, don’t have feminine hobbies, have generally been attracted to women, and for all observers lead absolutely normal lives as heterosexual men. If anything, they are more stereotypically masculine than normal:

Autogynephiles rarely have stereotypically female occupations. On the contrary, many have served in the military. I even met one who was in the Green Berets.Technological and scien- tific careers seem to me to be over-represented among autogynephiles. (Ray Blanchard remarked to me that he saw a seemingly close relation between autogynephilia and computer nerdiness.)

These explains theiroverrepresentation in LW! Autogynephilics have what seems to be a combination of extreme narcissism and attraction to women. For some reason their attraction is not towards actual woman, but towards themselves, as a woman.

Autogynephiles are not “women trapped in men’s bodies.” (Anne Lawrence, a physician and sex researcher who is herself a postoperative transsexual, has called them “men trapped in men’s bodies.”) Homo- sexual transsexuals, so naturally feminine from early on, can make this claim more accurately, but as we shall see, it is not completely true even of them.A utogynephiles are men who have created their image of attractive women in their own bodies, an image that coexists with their original, male selves. The female self is a man-made creation. They visit the female image when they want to have sex, and some became so attached to the female image that they want it to become their one, true self. This explains the name of the transvestite organi- zation “Society for the Second Self.” It also explains the maddening tendency of some autogynephilic research subjects to put down two answers to every question—one by the female self, and one by the male self. Homosexual transsexuals do not do this.They have one self that is a mixture of masculine and feminine traits, and not alternating selves. No, autogynephiles are not women trapped in men’s bodies. They are men who desperately want to become women.
Bailey doesn’t feel the need to explain the existence of autogynephilics. It’s just yet another paraphilia. There are all sorts of paraphilias, all of which seem to only occur in men. Some men are attracted to babies, others to feet, others to shoes, others to obese women, others to old women. There’s a lot of weird stuff out there.
First, all paraphilias occur exclusively (or nearly exclusively) in men. Second, paraphilias tend to go together. If a man has one paraphilia, then his chances of having any other paraphilia seem to be highly elevated.The best established link is be- tween autogynephilia and masochism.There is a dangerous masochistic practice called “autoerotic asphyxia,” in which a man strangles him self, usually by hanging, for sexual reasons. Although autoerotic asphyxiasts arrange an escape hatch—for example, a well-placed stool they can stand on before it’s too late—sometimes things go wrong. Perhaps 100 American men per year die in this way. About one- fourth of the time, these men are found wearing some article of women’s clothing, such as panties. There is no obvious reason why autoerotic asphyxia should require cross-dressing. Apparently, these men are both masochistic and autogynephilic. Cross-dressing has also been linked to sexual sadism—although most autogynephiles are not sexual sadists, they are more likely to be sadists compared with men who are not autogynephilic.
Paraphilias are overall very rare, and there is some family clustering. So it’s plausible that they are just the result of bad genes. We’re talking less than 0.001% of the population in most cases. Yet here we are, with the worlds newspapers running a massive campaign in order to allow these people to use women’s toilets. And they are fierce in their claims that they always felt like girls in the inside while signing up for the Marines and fathering children. They are obsessed with their female identity, to the eternal annoyance of actual gays who do behave like girls.

Not a woman

Now, the book is very interesting as an explanation of what homosexuality and gender dysphoria is in reality. But Michael Bailey is also a psychologist by profession, and so the book also gives much attention to the treatment that the medical profession should give to this people. Bailey, cool, detached, non-judgmental, explains the whole debate between the rising clout of homosexual psychologists who want to want all gender dysphoria to be not considered a disease at all, and some doctors who insist that at the very least transexualism should not be encouraged. The standard they use is “happiness”. Will a sissy be happier as a transexual woman or as a gay man? Will a cross-dresser be happier with a penis or without one? Baley calls himself a utilitarian, and generally proposes letting them do what they want.
Yet you can somewhat sense that his endorsement is quite sarcastic. The thing is, the picture one gets of gays and particularly transexuals is one of severely damaged people. They are incredibly dysfunctional, and the autogynephilics are genuinely mentally ill. The “happiness” that spending 30,000+ dollars in a sex change operation is going to give them is a small and fleeting thing. For one they will never be real women; they are always haunted by the chance that the men they attract will find out, that pre-op friends of them will rat out to their mates and reveal their identity. Autogynephilics all end up divorcing, and in a vast majority of cases not being able to talk to their children again; in most cases losing their jobs (unless your boss is a savyy Cathedral apparatchik like Cheap Chalupas) . And that’s when the sex change goes well; which is not always the case.

Many of the transsexual people who went to Mexico for gender reassignment surgery in the seventies and eighties wound up mutilated, with genitalia looking like they belonged to one of the creatures in the bar scene in “StarWars,”and not like something likely to be found on a human being of either gender. Some of these people, expecting vaginoplasties, received simple penectomies, leaving them looking somewhat like a Barbie doll. Others ended up with something that looked like a penis that had been split and sewn to their groin—which is essentially what had been done. Some ended up with vaginas which were lined with hair-bearing scrotal skin; these vaginas quickly filled up with pubic hair, becoming inflamed and infected. Some ended up with peritonitis, some with permanent colostomies. Some ran out of money and were dumped in back alleys and parking lots to live or die. Some died in those parking lots or back in the States, of complications from the surgery.

And all for what? For the chance to live as a fake woman. Which can’t work well, at the very least because men have male sex drives, which are a very dangerous thing when not constrained by women. Males just want to have sex, and males having sex with males allows the sort of free impulse, short-term pleasure seeking that has led to them becoming a massive reservoir of nasty STDs.

Yet this is being enabled, and lately elevated to the most important issue of social morality because of our society’s focus with “happiness”, together with the bizarre cult of “love”, is just the endgame of utilitarianism. Utility can’t actually be measured, it relies on self-reporting, so if a she-male really really wants to chop of his dick because he’ll make 10x as an escort, and has convinced himself that it’ll make him happy; well his dick must be cut off (in Northern Europe paid by the state), and anybody who opposes that is an enemy of humanity.
Given that sex is an incredibly powerful drive, any utilitarian morality system is going to give sexual pleasure a very big place, overriding many other considerations that may be actually more conducive to a functional society. And of course any objective research on the topic is likely to work against the realization of happiness of sexual deviants, so that must go to. See the amount of shit that Ray Blanchard is given in an interview he gave to Vice magazine.
The doctor likes to flout political correctness, he can’t resist an off-color joke, and his ideas about gender and sexuality are archaic, even by the standards of the peddlers of pathology at the APA. It has been 40 years since homosexuality was removed as a mental illness from the DSM. But given a clean slate, Blanchard said he would still classify homosexual sex as abnormal.

So you don’t see a male-to-female transsexual as being female?

I think that a transsexual should be considered as whatever their biological sex is plus the fact that they are transsexuals. That’s how you would do research on them. There’s no other way to do it. If you’re interested in whether the brains of transsexuals are different in some way, you’re interested in seeing if they differ from other individuals with the same biological sex.

So in a way psychiatric research is inherently gender normative?

I would say medical research is inherently gender normative.

You wrote in a blog post the word normal has been effectively off limits for describing erotic interest for decades. Why do you think people object to the word “normal”?

I always say “normal” is the other n-word. You just aren’t allowed to say it. I would say I have almost never written the word normal because for decades now, since I was a graduate student, and I’m an old man, normal has been a dirty word.

So why do you keep using it?

I guess because I think it’s a perfectly good concept. I don’t aggravate people if I don’t have to, but I’m not going to say that there is no gold standard of what sexual behavior’s purpose is.

So, in your point of view, science rules. Scientific inquiry is the first priority, whatever it might mean for social justice?

If you put it in abstract terms, it makes me sound vaguely lunatic.

Blasphemy! Social justice is the first priority. Of course. Scientific inquiry is evil. Thankfully there are still people like Ray Blanchard and Michael Bailey, willing to be tarred, feathered, and deemed witches by the media, and try to bring the truth to light.

As an epilogue, I’d like to suggest some further areas of research. On the interview, Blanchard says:

Do you think autoandrophelia, where a woman is aroused by the thought of herself as a man, is a real paraphelia?

No, I proposed it simply in order not to be accused of sexism, because there are all these women who want to say, “women can rape too, women can be pedophiles too, women can be exhibitionists too.” It’s a perverse expression of feminism, and so, I thought, let me jump the gun on this. I don’t think the phenomenon even exists.

Which does sound right because you never see heterosexual women cross-dressing regularly, let alone actually getting a sex change operation. But then I remembered this by Scott Alexander’s girlfriend:

ozymandias says:

This is a public commitment to still being interested in a relationship with Scott if he becomes a reactionary.

I actually suspect that polyamory is a harder fix than transness in the case of a relationship with Hypothetical Traditionalist Scott. I am really, really unhappy in monogamous relationships and traditionalists tend to be really firm about the monogamy thing. OTOH, as in my discussion with Mai and Nydwracu upthread, it is possible to incorporate gender dysphorics within a traditionalist framework, and even without that I would be no more than mildly unhappy as a woman as long as I got to have a double masectomy.

! Might this be a first case of autoandrophilia? Or just an amputee fetish? More research is needed.

Brutalism and Signaling

スクリーンショット 2014-08-09 21.55.55


Of course you do, Tabarrok. Of course you do.

The nature vs nurture of slutty women


Should she flaunt her sexuality to get a high-quality cad (with good genes, immediate resources, and perhaps the possibility of changing his mind later)? Or should she advertise her fidelity and other charms to attract a long-term, investing dad? Gangestad and Simpson have measured how much time and committment a woman requires before entering a sexual relationship (a variable they term “sexual restrictedness”), and have explored its genetic underpinnings with twin studies. They argue that some of the personality traits underlying this behavior are heritable, and that the genetic variation is bimodally distributed. This finding is consistent with the notion that the costs and benefits of sexual restrictedness impose trade-offs, and that a woman may be better off trying to maximize one thing or the other.

There is also evidence supporting the role of early learning in sexual restrictedness, although it is difficult to separate this effect from genetic in- fluence. Hetherington did behavior observation studies of “father-absent” adolescents (those whose mothers divorced when they were very young) and compared them to adolescents whose fathers were present when they were growing up and to adolescents whose mothers were widowed rather than di- vorced. The girls who were father-absent due to divorce behaved in a more seductive fashion towards men than either of the other two groups. These and related results have been interpreted as evidence of early learning of appropriate mating strategies.  If true, the difference between daughters whose mothers were divorced and those whose mothers were widowed suggests that they are learning about men from their mothers, not from father absence per se. The lesson they are learning is presumably “don’t count on male investment—get what resources you can through short-term liaisons with high-status men.” The proximate mechanisms leading to differences in sexual restrictedness may, of course, be both genetic and environmental. Evidence for one does not rule out the other.


Divorcees with slutty daughters: it’s your fault.