[Millennial Woes continues his tradition of yearly Millenniyule series of interviews that started in Dec, 2016.
Here he chats with the thought provoking and entertaining Prof Ed Dutton, aka The Jolly Heretic, an Englishman living in Finland. They discuss witches, both old and new, the damaging effects to academia done by too many females, sex and violence, feminism, the patriarchy, etc.
The Jolly Heretic
Dec 29, 2020
Click the link below to view the video:
Also on BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/video/nH6y6ObISGs/
Published on Dec 29, 2020
Millenniyule 2020: The Jolly Heretic
•Streamed live on Dec 30, 2020
Woes: Dr Edward Dutton. So Ed welcome to Millenniyule!
Ed Dutton: Hello. Thank you for having me again. How’s it going?
Woes: It’s going quite well so far. As I say we’ve only got one, two, nights left. Well one night after this. So Millenniyule 2020 seems to have been a great success I’m very glad to say. So anyway, what kind of year have you had before we go into the main topic.
Ed Dutton: Well, what’s been going on this year? So I was working on, for a lot of the year, on a book, on a number of books. Well, at the end of last year I got onto the radar of Hope Not Hate! That was good fun. So I was in their magazine, whatever. Their thing about YouTube people.
Woes: Yeah. Annual State of Hate Report.
Ed Dutton: Chucked off PayPal and things like this. And then I carried on with my YouTube channel.
And then my colleague Michael Woodley of [word unclear], for various reasons left the YouTube channel halfway through the year. So I had to rebuild it. Which at first I was quite frightened about. And it was a bit of a kick in the nuts really. But I seem to have managed to do that. So I was quite pleased about that. I kept that going and whatever.
And then I’ve been working on a number of books. One’s called “Making Sense of Race”, which was published a few weeks ago. And then I’m working on a book at the moment called “Witch is Feminism and the Fall of the West” which looks at how our society is increasingly dominated by literal witches!
And then I’m working on a book on the future of civilization have in terms of breeding patterns for political views. And then I’m working on a book about the future Christianity. And then I’ve done various papers on various topics, intelligence, and religion and intelligence, and things like this. And then otherwise there was, …
Oh! And I was made professor! I was recognized! I was made full professor of Evolutionary Psychology at Asbiro university in Poland, despite all the evil.
Woes: Congratulations on that!
Ed Dutton: And then what else has gone on? And then, no. And then, that’s it! And then well, I one thing I got back into the other day with my, … I was couldn’t work out what to buy my son for Christmas. And so I got him a WWF wrestling game for the playstation. And I’d completely forgotten about how brilliant WWF was.
And then I found out about all the skullduggery behind the scenes and all this stuff, which I’ve been watching documentaries about that. And then I’ve noticed that the wokeness of wrestling! So now the wrestlers have gone from being big, beefy, guys they were in the early 90s, to people that like:
“Oh. I don’t take steroids, because I’m too moral. And I’m a moral woke wrestler!”
This is what’s going on now. So even that’s fallen into wokeness. And lots of women wrestlers and stuff like that, as well. So even that’s gone! Even they’ve even taken hold of WWF, which is very sad. So yes, that’s been my year. What about yours?
Woes: Oh it’s been not quite as productive as your year, from the sounds of it. But yeah, I mean, most people have talked about the BLM have Covid, and lockdown, and the US election. But obviously, you. And I have a different topic that we’re going to discuss. It’s to do with the book that you’ve got coming out next next year, about witches, transsexualism, and feminism.
Ed Dutton: Which is in “Witch is Feminism and the Fall of the West”.
Woes: And the fall of the West. Okay. So, first of all could you get us into this topic by discussing the archetype, or the figure of the “witch”?
Ed Dutton: Yeah. So I got thinking about it, … There was a comment actually that was made by Robin Riley, who I think you interviewed. And it was that comment that inspired it. That she was confronted with these purple-headed dragons, or something, and she said:
“Oh, could we start burning witches again?”
And I thought:
“That’s interesting! What are the kind of people that were witches in pre-modern England?”
I mean, the height of the witchcraft was the 17th century. And what were the kind of people that are witches now? What was going on? What’s the dynamic of the witch? What does the witch actually do? What’s her function? Why did they want to kill them? Are we supposed to believe the narrative that they were just unpleasant? They were just picked on, or whatever? Or is there something more to it?
And the more you look into it, what you’ve got is a system in evolutionary terms, as I discussed when I was on here last year, you can pass on your genes directly by having children. You can pass them on kin selection by looking after your nephews and nieces. And you can pass them on by elevating your inclusive fitness! That is your group, your extended kinship group, your ethnic group.
And once that happens then well certainly with the aristocracy of these two groups fighting, you get into a situation of group selection. Of two groups fighting each other to win out. And then, if you look at the qualities which ensure that you would dominate, that you win in the battle of group selection — and computer modeling has looked at those — these are high positive and negative ethnocentrism. High positive ethnocentrism is internal cooperation. High negative ethnocentrism external violence. So those are the groups that dominate.
So what the group is going to be selected to do, is to optimize it’s group fitness by ensuring it’s ethnocentric. How does it do this? Well, one of the things it does is it brings in religion. And religion makes adaptive things i.e., positive and negative ethnocentrism into the will of god. But another thing it needs to do, is it needs to ensure there isn’t much conflict. You need in cooperation.
So you can’t have inter-male conflict. Inter-male conflict is a bad thing! Now a lot of societies, weak societies, they’re under weak levels of selection pressure, like in Africa, or whatever. There’s massive inter-male conflict, because there’s polygamy. And so all of the women want to go for the high status males.
And so you get, in the case of the Bushmen, about 60% of the male population don’t breed! And what those men spend their time doing, is fighting and whatever. And so there’s this very little in the way of cooperation! It’s not good for the group.
So you have to reduce inter-male conflict! How do you reduce inter-male conflict? You create patriarchy! And there was a fascinating paper which looked at this. It was in the “Mankind Quarterly”. You create patriarchy. What patriarchy does it means that the male has control over the female. He controls her sexuality. She is controlled, by him whatever means it is. Whether it’s foot binding, or veiling, or whatever. But he controls her sexuality, so she is not independent of him. And that’s patriarchy.
And therefore the patriarchy helps to ensure the group is more positively and negatively ethnocentric. And therefore the patriarchy becomes part of the religiousness and becomes the will of god, and is promoted as the will of god. So that’s it! And the witches deviate from this.
And if you look at the kind of people that were accused of being witches everywhere — men are a slight exception that we I look at separately in the book. Basically the men that are accused of being witches are anti-social men! So they’re damaging to group selection. Group selection is about cooperation. They’re anti-social men! So they get accused of witchcraft. Deeply unpopular anti-social types.
It’s mostly women, because what these women are doing is inadvertently questioning the patriarchy. They do that in a number of ways. One, they work as prostitutes. They work as financially independent women, which is showing other women that they can operate outside the patriarchy, and which is also undermining the system of sexual ethics, and whatever. So prostitutes are accused of being witches.
Two, they’re sexually loosely! They have illegitimate children. Things like this. Again, they’re not conforming to the patriarchy. They should never be alone with a man. They’re not conforming to the patriarchy!
So thirdly, they are independent women, they’re widows that have money, and are independent, or they’re spinsters and they never marry. And so they operate as independent women.
Fourthly, they are anti-social women, who in a context of literal belief in witchcraft do actually believe it. They’re basically operating a separate religion of folk magic, which is therefore a rival to the patriarchal system. And so some of these people would genuinely believe that they were witches. And they would genuinely believe they had magic powers. And they would confess to it, and whatever.
And so in all of these ways that you can see that from an evolutionary perspective these witches were people that were undermining the patriarchy. And that’s why at times of intense selection — and that’s what the 16th the 17th century was, it was bloody cold — there was very intense group selection.
And so you can see how therefore the group is under harsh selection for religiousness. And it becomes so religious that gradually across the 16th and 17th century they start persecuting witches, particularly in your native Scotland. That was where it was very, very intense.
James sixth of Scotland, first of England, wrote a book on this, which I quoted extensively in my own book and he said:
“Witches are real!”
And I agree with him. So this is basically what you have. This is the nature of the witch! It is the person that undermines the patriarchal system. And in a system of harsh group selection it is adaptive to remove those people from the population, because they will spread negative social epistasis. They will spread behavior which undermines the group’s inclusive fitness. And so therefore they had to be removed, or they had to be stopped. And that’s what you get!
And you get it more intensely the more harsh the group selection. So it’s much harsher in the north of Europe than in the south of Europe. And so, yeah that’s basically the essence of it.
Woes: I can imagine a feminist hearing this and feeling quite vindicated. That witchcraft, the demonizing of certain women, was all an attempt by men to stay in power and maintain their power structure. And you seem to be saying that:
“Yes! That’s exactly what it was!”
Ed Dutton: Well, there’s slightly more to it than that. So yes, this is the nature of these witches. And so what you have is a society which is adapted towards patriarchy. If you are a female and you are patriarchal, you will signal that you are patriarchal. You will signal that you are religious. This is why one of the reasons why women are more religious than men.
Men will want religiousness, because it will be a sign, the woman is saying in order to have sex with me you have to invest! Then the man wants evidence that she’s not going to cuckold him. What is the evidence that she’s not going to cuckold him? It’s conformity to the patriarchal system. What is the evidence that they conform to the patriarchal system? It’s religiousness!
So you’re going to have a system where religiousness is going to become selected for, particularly in women, where submission to the patriarchal system is going to become selected for, particularly in women, and women that don’t select for, don’t conform, will not pass on their genes. And so the way that you will get women who don’t conform to the patriarchal system, and who go into prostitution, and illegitimacy, and witchcraft, and all these things that deviate from the patriarchal system, is through mutation. So you’ll get mutant genes!
Woes: Spiteful mutants!
Ed Dutton: Right! People who are high in mutational load will be born every generation, and they will die, because the child mortality rate in 17th century, 18th century, was 50%. And they will die out to varying degrees, of course, but they will die out.
And what you would expect is for these people who deviated mentally from the norm in terms of not being patriarchal and thus being accused of witchcraft for that reason, you’d also expect them to express other maladaptive behavior. Such as being mentally ill. Such as having depression. Such as having schizophrenia. Such as histrionic disorder. Such as being anti-social. Such as all the things that are associated with witches! So you’d expect them to be these ghastly, nasty, psychopathic, women who we are warned in fairy tales that we have to avoid! These nasty women, that live in gingerbread houses and kill you, or whatever.
And that’s what these women were! They were at the bottom of society, because and not only that, but, of course, the brain is about 84 percent of the genome. And so if you’ve got mutations of the brain, you’re going to sure as dammit have mutations of the body, because the brain is a massive target for mutation. And so this means that they’re going to be physically ugly! They’re going to have ugly faces, and big noses, and big chins. And they’re going to age quickly, just as the stereotypical witch did!
And. So if you look in detail those that were targeted, it was women who were spinsters, it was women, … I think I read that it was over half of those that were executed for witchcraft across the 17th century were spinsters, over the age of 50.
Woes: So that’s, because they were ugly?
Ed Dutton: Exactly! Why would they spinsters. Because they were ugly! Because men don’t want ugly women.
Woes: But then the other fifty percent of them must have been sexually promiscuous.
Ed Dutton: Widows, prostitutes, those that practiced magic, whatever. But yeah, so generally they were physically unattractive. So you have a situation where under conditions of harsh Darwinian selection, health correlates with intelligence, health correlates with good character, good character intelligence, good genes and they all are co-morbid.
And so those that rise to the top in that kind of society, are going to be highly patriarchal. And those that deviate from this, will be at the bottom, because of their personality, because of their low intelligence.
And, because of their high mutational load, which will mean that they’ll be more likely to find them being witches. So they were at the bottom of society these people, these anti-feminists. These women who were adapted to a fast life history strategy and ecology. Basically of the pump and dump, of live fast, die young. That’s the kind of people we’re talking about, right? Basically women that were whores, sluts, or wanna be whores, sluts. And that’s who ends up at the bottom of society.
Now, once those conditions break down. And that’s what you get in 1800. Once those conditions break down. So we go from 50% child mortality to 1% child mortality today, then you get a huge rise in mutational load across the population. You get more, and more, people who are mentally ill more, who deviate from what we were selected for was to be patriarchal, was to be religious, was to be pro-social personality, and was to be intelligent.
And you get more, and more, people that deviate from this. And it’s gonna normally be in a negative direction, because it was so strongly selected for these things. And they are going to be higher in mutational load. And they’re going to be physically ugly, and whatever.
But the selection pressure broke down first among the higher classes! They were under weaker selection pressure for longer. What is it that weakens selection pressure? Good housing, access to medicine, wealth basically. And so they have been under weaker selection for longer. And so you’re going to expect higher mutational load.
Remember the heritability of socioeconomic status is very high! It’s about 0.7. Higher mutational load among the higher classes. And therefore the witch, the women who are these maladaptive spiteful mutant witches, have moved from the lower classes to the upper classes!
And you get these women in those classes who are anti-patriarchal, who advocate male roles for women, who are aggressive, who are anti-religious, who advocate destructive ideologies for the group, who advocate things that just mess the group up and make the group maladaptive, and low and positive and negative ethnocentrism, who advocate the destruction — what is it that causes the reduction into male conflict monogamy? So they advocate the breakdown of monogamy.
So you have an increasing system whereby there’s lots of men that can’t get women. And so you have, you know, as we now see. And so they have lesbianicious tendencies. And they are feminists! They call themselves feminists. And they are the modern day witches!
And they are also physically ugly! I mean, there’s detailed studies on this that show that feminist identification correlates being ugly! It correlates with having masculine hands! It correlates with all kinds of markers of being [word unclear] and unattractive.
So you have basically these witch spinsters of yore, and the witch spinsters now! The social class has changed. But they are both witches. And the difference was that under pre-modern conditions we were adapted to be highly religious and thus skeptical of witches, so we dealt with them! Right? We jailed them, or we hanged them.
Now, because of a build-up of mutational load. And also, because of the destruction of the conservative society, and the inculcation of society, the flip of society over to these Leftist values that promotes Leftist ideas, anti-group ideas, as the norm.
Once you reach about 20 percent of the society advocating maladaptive things everyone moves over, apart from the genetic cream. Then people are inculcated by these feminists. Normal women are inculcated by these feminists to do maladaptive things. To delay fertility. To not have children, and whatever. And to destroy their own children! To allow their own children to be transsexuals. To what whatever it happens to be.
And. So that’s what I think we’ve got. The modern day feminists are literally witches! And when James VI of Scotland said:
“Witches are real.”
Yeah, they are. And they’re here now, and they’re called feminists!
Woes: But he didn’t mean, just for the sake of clarification, when James VI said that, he didn’t mean that witches are real in the sense of supernatural beings, you know, working with potions that alter, you know, affect life in a metaphysical way, did he?
Ed Dutton: Yeah! He strongly believed in, he literally believed in witches. And he believed that they tried to kill him when he was trying to get married to his Norwegian wife. And they tried to sink his ship. And that’s how this witch craze in southern Scotland in the 1590s, that’s how that started. And lots and lots of people were killed.
Woes: But out of interest, do you believe that there is any supernatural element to this? And presumably not.
Ed Dutton: No. But I think that what you’re dealing with the same type of people. But, for the reason I laid out, these people have migrated from the lower class, from what was called the lower sort the people at the bottom of society, to the people basically near the top of society, which is where these feminists tend to be.
Woes: Yeah. The Champagne socialists.
Ed Dutton: Yeah! Yeah! But you’ve got to talk about the really extreme examples, because a champagne socialist might just be some stupid private school girl, like Harriet Harman*, or something that push pushes the society in a maladaptive direction.
[Harriet Ruth Harman is a British politician and solicitor who has served as Member of Parliament for Camberwell and Peckham, formerly Peckham, since 1982. A member of the Labour Party, she has served in various Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet positions.]
I’m talking about the people who influence her! So the Andrea Dworkin, the Kate Millet! The real battle axe feminists.
Now one of the interesting things about. And it’s a parallel, so what we’re thinking is that women are selected to patriarchy. What does that mean? It means that the woman is submissive! It means that the woman is selected to what’s called a slow life history strategy. A woman that’s selected to patriarchy is the kind of woman that is selected to a society where you invest! The man invests in the woman, and the man invests in the children. And the woman invests in the man, and is loyal to the man. And the woman invests and nurtures the children
So we’re talking about a mother, rather than a whore, basically. If you think about the deviation from this, is a fast life history strategy. If you’re evolved to an unstable ecology, live fast, die young, you could be wiped out at any minute. And so you don’t bother with nurture and bonding with people, because there might never be any pay off.
Woes: R-type and K-type.
Ed Dutton: Yeah, R-type individual. That’s right, as we talked about last year. And so those, …
Woes: There is actually the expression “fast women” ironically, from decades gone by.
Ed Dutton: Right. Yeah, well that’s what we’re talking about. These kinds of women, right? And so they are evolved to an ecology of violence and whatever, where the men don’t invest in them. It’s not patriarchal at all! The men don’t invest in them, they are not invested in. They have to take on some of the male roles. It’s perhaps the polygamy and the man will invest in them for a bit, and then shun them in favor of the new younger, more nubile wife. And so they will have to bring up their children somehow. One of the things they will do, by the way, is alloparent*.
[Alloparenting is a term used to classify any form of parental care provided by an individual towards a non-descendant young. Non-descendant refers to any young who is not the direct genetic offspring of the individual, but does not exclude related young such as siblings, or grandchildren].
So they’ll get together with other co-wives and like lesbianiciously bring up the children. And it’s been suggested that’s the heritability of sexuality in women is very, very low. It’s 0.2. And it’s been suggested that one of the reasons for this is that women are adapted to this kind of situation, where you have to be able to — you’re going to get dumped, basically. So you have to be able to bring up your children.
And so you bond strongly to the point of sex with another woman, and you co-parent your children. Which is what happens to Sanna Marin [born 16 November 1985] who’s the current Prime Minister of Finland [since Dec, 2019]. We have it, by the way, a kind of witch government of Finland! I call them the spice girls. But you, …
Woes: Or the spiteful girls! [chuckling]
Ed Dutton: Spiteful girls! That’s very good, my Scottish friend in earlier, calls from the “spice girls”. He came up with that one. But the “spiteful girls”, that’s excellent! That’s right, that’s very good! I might have to quote you on that.
And so what you have is these women who, because they have to take on some of the masculine roles, because they’re not being looked after, there’s no patriarchy, they’re more masculinized! They’re much more physically and mentally masculinized.
Now one of the things that’s interesting in terms of the witch. So you’re [word unclear] and therefore they’re physically ugly and unattractive, which is true stereotypically, and provenly true of these feminists . And, of course, true based on the historical sources of these witches. Masculinized, unattractive, ugly, women. Also faster life history strategy, greater diversity, more ugliness.
But what’s fascinating is the fantasies they have. So it’s been shown that women feminist identification weakly correlates with having rape fantasies.
Now, why would that be the case? Well, because if you’re in a fast life history ecology, the kind of man you want, the kind of man whose genes will be passed on, the kind of man if you have his children your children will survive, will be a violent, domineering kind of kind of guy, because that’s who survives in an unstable ecology. Selection isn’t particular particularly favoring intelligence, or emotions, or character, or whatever. It favors a violent, you know, sort of WWE [World Wrestling Entertainment] wrestler, Chris Benoit type. Well that’s perhaps not a good example, but whatever.
Woes: It’s interesting thing that such women also create social discord, so that it is the violent men who will be able to survive that situation.
Ed Dutton: That’s a very good point! Precisely. That’s what I want to move on to now. You’re ahead of me here Woes! So it’s like sperm selection. So the man ejaculates with half a billion spermatozoa, and the woman’s immune system, she wants to get pregnant,. But she also does everything she can to kill the sperm! So that only the strongest possible sperm can get through. Only the R-strategy sperm, if you like, can get through. So she violently repels the sperm, like she’s being raped! She fights it off. And ultimately only the strongest man, the strongest sperm, if any of them, can get past her violent defenses. And then that’s the one by which she gets pregnant. Well, that’s how these rape fantasies work.
The woman is dominated by, she’s fantasizing about being raped by a fast life history man who can’t keep his hands off her. But ultimately, you know, by doing that, he’s proving ironically, that paradoxically, that he’s the man she wants. And so these fast life history strategy women will tend to have rape fantasies.
And feminist identification has been shown to correlate with having, ironically, having rape fantasies. And two of the major feminists, or second wave feminists that you may have heard of, (((Andrea Dworkin))) and Kate Millet, both had intense rape fantasies, and wrote about them.
In the case of Andrea Dworkin she thought it was real! Obviously it wasn’t. I mean, she was a fat, ugly, hairy, old woman!
I’ve got a paper that’s coming out soon on this. If you look at the witches in the 17th century. Right, first of all in England, not Scotland, forget Scotland, that’s different. In England they weren’t subject to torture, other than in the case of Matthew Hopkins, the Witch Finder General, where they were walked and sleep deprived. But put that thing aside. They weren’t subject to torture. They admitted freely to — in many cases it is documented — to being raped, to having sex with the devil!:
“The devil appeared to me in the form of a black man, and he had sex with me on six consecutive nights; the devil appeared in my chamber and he sucked my breasts until it hurts, and then he had sex with me from behind.”
Now what I think these were, were rape fantasies. And I think these are the kind of women who we would expect to have rape fantasies. These fast life history strategy, relatively fast strategy women. And I think that they were having, … There’s no reason, they weren’t tortured, they weren’t induced.
And if you go back, the idea of the incubus, is very ancient it’s not some new thing that was created, or something, by the patriarchy to have a go at women, or whatever. It’s very ancient, the idea of the incubus, of women, these night devils. And equally, .
Woes: Is that the same as the succubus?
Ed Dutton: The succubus is a woman. A succubus is a woman. And now that’s an interesting point as well. Because if you look at the research on BDSM. So people that like, you know, hitting, and whipping, and canning, and stuff like this. Those people are tend to be fast life history strategists. And also the tendency is for the women to like to be hit, which makes sense, and the men to like to hit.
Now why does, why is that the case? Well, because we know from the evolution of sex. There’s a very interesting book on this called “A History of Rape”, or something, “A Natural History of Rape”. I can’t remember the author, Palmer and something, or other.
And they look at this. Why is sex related to violence? Why do men become more aroused by violent porn than normal porn? They become more aroused by rape porn than normal porn. They ejaculate more when watching rape porn, and violent porn, than normal porn, right?
What’s going on? Well what’s happening is that in pre-history men that raped passed on more of their genes, of course! So, how do you pass all genes? Normally within marriage, or whatever. But also by ganging together and going around and gang raping. As you see with these Muslim immigrants, whatever, that are right at the bottom of society. That’s how you do it. And so therefore it would make sense that a man would be sexually aroused by violence. It would make sense that the two would go together, because it was the men that were, …
Woes: Yeah. I have heard that the parts of the brain in men that process violence and process sex are overlapping. I don’t know if that’s a physical thing, or just functional correlation.
Ed Dutton: Equally with women, you’re gonna get the same sort of thing. The women that would in a sense be aroused by violence, would get the more violent man. And that would be the man with the better gene quality in a fast life history strategy ecology, or the women that would just give in and would not be killed, or whatever.
So there was an advantage to being aroused by violence. And this would be higher among fast life history strategy people. And so you can see where these relationships come from. And then that you can again further understand the relationship between fast life history strategy, non-patriarchal types, and this rape fantasies, and whatever. So I think that’s what you’re dealing with.
And I think that basically this irony that these women who are these feminists, and whatever, go on about how:
“I’m an independent woman!”
And they ultimately, probably, want to be hit, and smacked, and beaten up! And that’s what they want.
Woes: There does seem to be a correlate. I mean, you hear about this. A correlation between women who hate men, and women who want to be beaten up by men. And rape fantasies, and so on.
Just for the sake of clarification, because some people are saying in the live chat that they don’t have rape fantasy, they don’t like violent porn. For the record, [chuckling] I certainly don’t like it.
Ed Dutton: Hang on! Wait a minute. We are a broadly nationalist show yeah?
Ed Dutton: So people who are going to watch are going to be highly group selected and patriarchal. So why would they like rape fantasies and violent porn?
Woes: I see. I just wondered, because you were saying it’s part of our makeup from, ..
Ed Dutton: It is part of our makeup. But you’re going to get group and individual variation in the extent of it. And what I would expect is that the kind of people that were religious, or were patriarchal, or who would have survived under harsh Darwinian conditions that I’m talking about, they would be less inclined towards this stuff, than the mutants, than the feminists, than the witches, than whatever. So that’s it!
So if I was on this show and there were a lot of Leftists watching. And they were perfectly honest, I think they would perhaps say:
“Yeah, I bloody well like this kind of stuff!”
The other thing I was going to say though, that you mentioned with the succubus, was that the relationship is in general that when it comes to BDSM the men like to be the dominant partner and the woman the submissive.
But there is crossover. And so you do get some, particularly men, that like to be the submissive. Why? Well, because if the woman could dominate them, then there’s a sense in which it’s like she’s a fast history strategy woman. Her genes would survive, good to get her pregnant.
Ed Dutton: So you can see some crossover. But in general, not. So basically that’s it.
So the rise of feminism then on that level is extremely bad for society! It’s the rise of anti-ethnocentrism. It elevates into male conflict, and it makes the society less group selected. And those that are advocating it are in that sense paralleling modern witches.
The second problem then is another element of a society that dominates, that wins in the battle of group selection, is ingenuity, is intelligence, is genius. And what the genius is outlier high IQ combined with, … By the way, you said there’s a chat. I can’t see the chat! Where is this chat that you’ll see? I can’t see any chat in the comments.
Woes: Oh, hold up. All right, yes, because Stream Yard doesn’t show that. Hold on a second I’ll show you where it is. I’ll send this to you on Telegram so you can, ..
Ed Dutton: All right. What’s that on then? Oh yes. All right.
So the other way that you win in the battle of group selection is genius. So even though the Japanese and the Chinese are more ethnocentric than us, they have a smaller gene pool than us, and they produce fewer per capita geniuses. They have fewer outliers, they produce fewer geniuses.
And so what is the genius? The geniuses outlier high intelligence plus moderately psychopathic traits. That’s what the genius is. And so that means that he can come up with the original idea and he thinks outside the box, low conscientiousness, and he doesn’t care about offending people, which new ideas almost always do! You know, I had a chap on my show and he’s disputing dark matter. And there’s so much wrapped up in that he’s like an outcast in physics, just disputing dark matter.
So women are a problem then! The promotion of women in academia then becomes, and in life in general, becomes a problem, because there’s less female genius. And one of the things that you have to do is you have to nurture geniuses. They’re often these kind of impractical types, they need someone to do their laundry for them, or do their cooking for them, or whatever.
And so the universities were a place that nurtured genius. They would allow these people to get there and just get on with it! It was about finding out the truth! Indeed these universities were founded originally on religious lines. We’re here to discover the nature of god’s creation, and lies, therefore blasphemy!
Now it’s been suggested by Simon Baron Cohen that you have an extreme male brain, which is basically autistic and focused on systematizing, and therefore essentially low in agreeableness and low in conscientiousness. And sort of quite the high testosterone they inter-correlate. That’s the male brain. High in systematizing, but blind to empathy.
And the female brain is very high in empathy, but system blind. So what the female is concerned about is not truth! It’s not systematic, you know, understanding the world. There are things that are more important than truth! Like everyone getting along, and being happy, and feeling validated, and all that.
Woes: Yes, of course.
Ed Dutton: But it is inimicable to what the genius does, which is the search for truth! And so if you have a society where women are allowed into higher education, then eventually you’re going to get the distinction between the genius who’s going to be outlier intelligent, but socially awkward, and, you know, crap to work with, and whatever. And the “head girl” type! The type who runs Finland. The straight A’s pupil at school, who’s very reasonably intelligent, but not outlier intelligent. And who’s very conscientious, and very hard at work, …
Woes: Very conformist!
Ed Dutton: Socially skilled, and conformist, absolutely conformist! Women are higher in conformism than men. Much higher conformism than men! Because they’re higher in agreeableness and higher in conscientiousness. And so who’s going to get the job, if you’re put up with a genius and someone like that? Well, obviously it’s going to be the woman that’s going to get the job, who would you like to work with?
And so, then original ideas, and originality, and new ideas, and whatever goes! And the whole spirit of academia that it’s to do with coming up with original ideas, and challenging convention, and whatever, you know, come what may, is suppressed, in favor of the new model of university as a kind of nursery school. Where everyone’s a winner, and everyone has to be happy, and whatever.
And eventually once the women make up about 20 of an organization, it starts to tip towards them and their values start to take over. And so the values of academia which is the pursuit of the truth no matter what, which is the genius strategy, that where you find out things, that goes!
And so you have a society dominated by women and all these things that would have happened, you know, things that, … We’ll think of all the inventions that have come about. Rockets! If people think we’ll have died in the attempt to get to the moon. All of this wouldn’t happen, because you have women in charge and women are averse to these things and they want everyone, …
Woes: Yeah, absolutely! And so modern academia is a very conformist space which specializes in enforcing a consensus! And adopting it. I mean, I did a video just for the sake of plugging here, I did a video back at the very start, 2014, called “How Feminism Killed the Space Age”. And it was basically making this point. That once you have women in charge of things there is going to be less innovation. And there’s going to be less, because women are less interested in things that aren’t immediately useful. I think that men have an ability to get, …
And they also have something called I would call “random curiosity”. I did a video with that title as well. Where I was making that point. That men can be fascinated by things which are not immediately relevant, or useful! But which end up being extremely relevant and useful. And I think that difference alone means that an academia dominated by women is going to be much less intellectually curious. Which is exactly what we see now!
Ed Dutton: Precisely! So that’s downstream of the destruction of patriarchy. And what that does to ethnocentrism. That’s the next problem.
Now the next problem then is that a lot of these women are, of course, adapted to patriarchy — most women are adapted to some extent to patriarchy — undermine the patriarchy and undermine the religious system. And what you get is this free-for-all that we now have. What they promote, these feminists, is not just feminism, but it’s this broader undermining of the traditional system a and what that does is it undermines group selectiveness, …
Woes: Just before you continue, there’s one thing that just occurred to me that I think (((Germane Greer))) actually said that:
“If women had been in charge all along, we would still be living in caves.”
I think that there’s a quote from Germane Greer about this. Let me just see if I can find it. But it’s basically backing up what you and I are saying here. Let me see if I can see it. Yeah, I don’t know, I can’t find it now. But anyway I’m pretty sure that even Germane Greer is on our side on this.
Ed Dutton: I wouldn’t be at all surprised. And by the way, she has this fast life history strategy background. She was beaten up by her parents, and things. She confesses to this.
So the downwind of that then, the next thing you get is the general Leftism of these feminists. So it’s undermining patriarchy. It’s undermining traditional values, promoting things like anti-natalism, and whatever. Being a feminist, as with the witches of yore, being a feminist and being a left-wing woman, of course, is associated with being mentally ill.
Why? Because it’s a reflection of general mutational load. And also having high levels of depression tends to be associated with being individualistic, and self-interested, and just everything’s bad! Everything’s awful! And having just a negative view of the world. And then the next thing that becomes. The problem is that it creates this arms race of virtue signaling. Where you have to move on to the next group, and the next group, and the next group.
And under normal conditions women are more religious than men. And they’re adapted to patriarchy, and they’re more religious than men. And this makes them more Right-wing and more conservative than men.
If you undermine the religiosity, if you undermine the patriarchy, which directs the women, because the women remember are evolved to be directed, they are evolved to not make decisions for themselves, but to make their fathers make decisions, or their husbands make the decisions. Then, of course, they become completely maladaptive. More so than men. And this is what you see.
So once the religiousness collapses and the religion itself stops being a protective force. They are more religious than men, but it becomes this left-wing deracinated religion of just pathological altruism! Of generalized altruism which means they’re highly in favor of immigration and stuff like that. And they make these very maladaptive decisions, which involve lots and lots of not having any children, and things like this.
Furthermore it may be the case that women are literally selected to be less ethnocentric than men, because under prehistoric conditions, it would be the women that would be abducted and taken away by other tribes, and raped by them, and whatever. And so if they could be less ethnocentric then they would be more likely to survive.
That may also be why women are better at learning languages than men, perhaps.
Woes: And then they’re also more social. I mean, they need language in a more immediate ways than, …
Ed Dutton: Yeah. And then the next thing is the issue of transsexuality. Which I think is absolutely fascinating! So you then move on to the next minority group, you know, this constant empathy, this constant desire, this female desire to constantly help the unfortunate, and help the marginalized and whatever.
And then you end up with the issue of transsexuality. Now I think that it associates with this sort of stuff in the sense that it’s like. I mean, it’s kind of demonic! It’s basically telling us that, … It says in the Bible:
“The devil is the father of lies.”
And it’s basically telling us that “lies are truth” and “truth is lies”. The purpose is to make us in a situation where there’s no structure, there’s no order! In religious terms:
“God decides what you are. God is the source of ultimate truth. And god says you’re a man. God says you’re a woman. Jesus says I am the way the truth and the light. God is truth. There is objective truth. God is truth! And the only person who is his own truth is God!”
And what these transsexuals are saying is:
“If I say I am something then I am that!”
And in that sense they are saying:
“I am God!”
And so that you could argue that like the devil, they are literally a fallen angel that is challenging God! And I look at this in the book, and it’s worse than that! If you look at these things about titles. Who is it that we give a special pronoun to? It’s god! God gets a capital “H”. Who is it that demands their own pronouns? And to have different say what my pronoun is? Transsexuals! And who is it that says to you:
“Look, this is how I have to be addressed! I have to be addressed like this. And if you cheek me I will banish you!”
The monarch! Who is it that asserts:
“Oh, I have to be addressed in this way. And that’s what you have to do! And I want sanctions if you don’t!”
Transsexuals! So it strikes me that there is something kind of demonic about this. To humiliate people, and to just grind them into the dirt and say:
“There’s no meaning! There’s no nothing! There’s nothing! It’s this is just hell! There’s no meaning! There’s no logic! There’s no nothing! There’s nothing! It’s just about power! It’s about power! And you bow down to me! Bow down to me! And if I say I’m a man, I’m a man! If I say a woman, I’m a woman! And it’s power!”
And that’s either saying you’re god, or it’s something demonic, as far as I can see. I don’t literally believe in these. I’m saying that’s how you can interpret it.
Woes: Yeah. And it does say, … I think Roger Scrutton might have made this point as well. That when he saw Leftists rioting in 1968 in Paris, it was as if they were wanting to be “God”. They wanted to take control of, to have power over everything. He made some vague point in that direction which I’m completely misquoting it, but that was the broad point that he was making.
And apparently it was Camille Paglia who said that about, … It wasn’t Germane Greer, by the way, earlier on. People are correcting me.
Ed Dutton: Oh I see.
Woes: Yeah, go on.
Ed Dutton: No, I was just going to say that what you have, it’s quite interesting this, what you have with these transsexuals, if you want to understand what’s going on. Transexuality is strongly associated with autism.
And it’s also strongly associated with being masculinized. I did a paper on this recently. It’s one of the only papers that’s got like an immediate complaint, demanding, saying it should never have passed peer review. And it should never have been published. And that was published by the journal. And that was written, of course, by a trans-woman. A trans-women academic.
And what they are saying is all of these markers of being masculinized, associated with being a trans-woman. So trans-women, that’s male to female transsexuals, are more masculinized, psychologically and physically, than the average man. Now this is fascinating!
Now what that means, autism is an expression — of which is low empathy, high systematizing, whatever — is an expression of being of masculinization! So people that are high in autistic traits tend to be more masculine. So that’s consistent with that.
Now what you get with autism, is you get a limited sense of self! So the sense of who you are, a sense of having:
“This is me. And this is who I am. And this is my place in the world.”
Doesn’t develop properly. And it doesn’t develop properly, because autistics don’t pick up on social cues very well. And they’re easily overwhelmed by stimuli. And so they feel that they’re in a world of sort of chaos, and that they’re not in control of things. And so they feel almost separate from themselves. Almost like they’re watching their lives pan out. And they have no control over it. Which is why some autistic people will refer to themselves in the third person, and things like this.
And so, that’s what that that then is associated with what’s called borderline personality disorder. Which is when you have a fundamental lack of self and your world is chaos. And there’s this void at the heart of you. And you deal with that, …
Woes: And this is usually women who have borderline disorder, …
Ed Dutton: That is more likely to be women. And you deal with this — it’s also present in men — and you deal with this by creating a separate sort of personality, or something like a black and White clear sense of structure that gives gives life meaning and whatever. But that can be unstable and sometimes that will break down and you’ll flip to the opposite, the exact opposite of it.
You see that in religious converts. And you see that in even in the Alt-Right. People that go from being far Left, being far Right, to being Christian fundamentalists, to being whatever. You see people like this.
Now one thing that’s parallel, that’s very similar to borderline personality, is perhaps an example of it, is narcissistic personality. And this is much more common among men.
Ed Dutton: Because the way you deal with your chaos and your void at the heart of your life, is to create a very, very, you know, superior sense of self. You decide that you’re better than others, and whatever.
But you also need to have this, others need to tell you that’s the case, others need to worship you, and whatever so that you’re reassured that you are, in fact, brilliant! And when they fail to do that, indeed when they do something which questions your sense of self, or questions the dogmas which you believe in and, because you believe in them you’re brilliant, and whatever, … When those are questioned by them, this can trigger narcissistic rage!
Because you can realize that this will undermine everything, and you will be confronted with the hell and the nothing that you are! And so you can see that you’ve got these two things. Narcissism, which goes together with a limited sense of self, which goes together with borderline personality.
So another thing that’s associated with autism is sexual fetishes! Autistics, and masculine men in general, are focused on things! So a man will say:
“I’m a breast man!”
“I’m an ass man!”
And what a fetish is, is that taken to a kind of extremes. You could only get it up if there’s a nice pair of tits, or whatever! And these fetishes can then become things that are associated with sexual things, that aren’t actually sexual. Like, I don’t know, people that want to like leather [?], or something like that. And these are more common among autistics.
Now, this all comes together in the trans sexual according to the research by Blanchard. Because the transsexual is a narcissist! Transsexuals are high narcissism. And the transsexual fetish is that he is sexually aroused by the idea of himself as a woman!
Woes: Oh my god! This is like in Silence of the Lambs!:
“Would you fuck me? I’d fuck me! I’d fuck me hard!”
Ed Dutton: Right! Well, that’s what we’re talking about. They are sexually aroused by the idea of themselves as women! There’s a small minority where, yeah, it is true, they are intersexual, or whatever. But in general that’s what we’re talking about. They’re sexually aroused by the idea of themselves as a woman.
And why would that be the case? Well, because they’re narcissistic. And so what you would expect then, if they’re narcissistic, is they would demand that society accepts them as women. And they would demand! And they would get narcissistic rage and go bonkers, if people question them, which they do! They’d be very aggressive, because they’re very masculinized, and indeed they’re narcissistic.
And I think we shouldn’t even call them these, … What do we call them? Transgender, … We should just call them “trans-narcissists”! That’s what they are.
And so what is the devil? What is the narcissist? The narcissist is the person that thinks he’s god. And so that’s what these people kind of think they are.
And so I think it’s extremely dangerous! These people are seriously mentally ill! They are a danger to society. They’re narcissists, they’re capable of narcissistic rage and all that entails. And the idea that they should be given equal rights, or something, is insane!
Ed Dutton: And this I also look at in the book. That this feminism, this witchcraft, just takes us down to the bowels of hell.
Woes: Well, indeed! There is a dizzying array of personality disorders that one can encounter in life. And I think that a lot of us, … I certainly wasn’t familiar with it until maybe a couple of years ago. And yeah, they are very dangerous and destructive people.
I think it would be useful if you were to talk about, … You know, you were saying earlier about witches being anti-social, causing problems in the community, and so on. Could you go into some examples, or just detail about that? What would it be that they were doing?
Let me just preface this. Women are capable of social degree of social intelligence that I think often completely eludes men. And so they can do things, they can set things up, that really take men by surprise! I think women are very good at that. And so there are all sorts of subtle small things that could be set up by malicious women which then have devastating effects for the community.
Would you like to talk about this?
Ed Dutton: So in the book I look at examples from the 17th century, which was the height of the witch craze. And so it’s things like:
“Oh. Yeah, she put a spell on my cow and the cow died.”
Probably she poisoned the cow. So nasty things like this. Babies! Killing babies was a big thing that they were often accused of killing other people’s babies. And so it may have been that kind of behavior. You know, you get these nurses, what was her name, this case recently? There were case in the early 90s of a nurse killing babies and whatever.
Ed Dutton: And there’s that. And you have them just cursing people, and with a society that believed in the power of the curse, they believed in the power of the curse! People believed this:
“And they told me, now I curse you! I hope you’re infertile!”
And whatever. So they engaged in what you would call the “nocebo effect”. It’s the opposite of the “placebo effect”. And it can be extremely powerful! If you believe in the nocebo effect, then it can make you infertile if you really believe it. And these people did believe it. They believed in the power of the witch’s curse. And people would identify as witches, they’d be known as witches, and they cursed people.
Woes: That’s the power of suggestion.
Ed Dutton: So exactly. I mean, there was a case of a known witch. A little girl, she was about 16 years old, and she was walking past — this is about 1610 — and she was in a Pendle, in Yorkshire, Lancastershire is it? And she was walking past this guy called John Laws. And she asked him to give her some pins. And he wouldn’t give her any pins — which we used to hold clothes together — so she cursed him! And he immediately fell down and had a stroke. And then she admitted. She felt really guilty at what she’d done, and she admitted:
“I cursed him, and I did this!”
And they hanged her. And so, that’s the kind of thing they would engage in. Deeply anti-social, nasty behavior, which for people at the time, was very serious! And was taken very, very seriously, and had, as far as they could see, serious consequences. So that’s what we’re talking about.
And what do these feminists do now? They engaged anti-social behavior. They sit behind keyboards telling you I hope your children get killed in a car accident! You know, they smash up public, …
Woes: Yeah. And another thing that feminists do, and you see this in public life now, is they specialize in destroying men’s character!
Ed Dutton: Oh yeah! That judge that Trump appointed. Some Scottish, Irishy sounding name. And the moment he was appointed.
Ed Dutton: Kavanaugh, right. And all of these women, some of them were ugly, frankly, who had dated him in the past, suddenly came forward after 30 years, or 40 years:
“Oh! He raped me! Touched me up!”
And you had this hysteria of all these women, one after the other, coming forward. Because this person had dumped them basically, or refused to have sex with them, or something. And so they had borne a grudge, as women do, for a very, very, very long time! And they had seen this person get into a position of power and success. And the resentment that they felt, they wanted to bring him down.
And these would, perhaps, be the kind of women that would have rape fantasies. That would have fantasies that he raped them. And that would deal with the feeling of humiliation of being scorned, by concocting this! I mean, we know that the nature of memory is such that it’s highly inaccurate. And you will tend to literally alter your memories to make you seem good at any given time.
And so you can see how one way you would do that is, if you get dumped by a girl and you alter the memory to:
“Oh well it was a mutual thing, or whatever.”
And you might genuinely believe that. And you can see how fast life history strategy women would have rape fantasies and things. And if it made them feel better that they had those, they would genuinely believe it happened:
“Yeah, I wasn’t dumped by this guy, because I’m ghastly. He dumped me but it was good that he dumped me, because he raped me.”
And all of this came out! And none of the allegations went to court, because they were for sure, they were all false. And so you get this in the wake of divorces, as well. I mean, women can concoct all kinds of things:
“He hit me!”
You know. And it turns out that she’s exaggerating, or whatever. And so, yeah, I think that’s the damage that some, a lot of modern feminists do. That’s why it’s so dangerous to have this idea in British courts, they should automatically be taken seriously. Automatically. No! I would say quite opposite!
Woes: Believe women, and so on. Yeah, it is very dangerous! I mean, obviously men are capable of all sorts of crimes, of course, they are. And they’re also capable of deluding themselves. But I think that women seem to have, especially when encouraged by society, women have an ability to believe whatever is necessary. Now obviously I’m not saying all women do this, or whatever. I just think it seems to be something that’s more, …
Ed Dutton: If you think about the kind of person that is high in empathy. We talk about multiculturalism and it being inconsistent. Of course, it’s inconsistent to say:
“Race is a social construct.”
And then to say:
“Oh! We need more black people to donate their organs, because black people are dying, because there’s no black donor organs.”
Well that shows that racism isn’t a social construct, clearly. That shows it maps onto something very important indeed. And they could hold together this, they’re like the Queen of Hearts from Alice. They can hold together two contradictory things! It doesn’t matter to them! Because there’s things that are more important. There’s power! Power is more important! So they can engage in practical nihilism. And they can:
“Oh yeah! Oh, when it’s race! Oh well there’s no clear borders!”
And whatever. Where’s anything else there is. Or when it’s race there’s no clear borders when I’m arguing with a racist. But when I want money, then:
“Yeah, race exists, it’s very real!”
Woes: Of course!
Ed Dutton: You can’t be racial! That’s a complete contradiction. But they don’t care about that, because what they care about is power, or empathy! That’s the other thing, you know, you give someone a logical reasonable argument, and the response of an extreme female type woman who traditionally would perhaps be quite patriarchal, would be:
“Oh, that’s just so mean! It’s so mean!”
Yeah, but it’s true. And it’s true! Woes is Scottish.:
“Yeah, but it’s so mean to say he’s Scottish! Scottish isn’t generous. It’s so mean to say he’s Scottish!”
“And the Scottish are run by Wee Jimmy Krankie*. And so, that’s fine! It’s fine.”
[*The Krankies are a Scottish comedy duo who enjoyed success as a cabaret act in the 1970s and on television in the 1980s. The joke is that SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon looks like Wee Jimmy Krankie – the pantomime, red-capped schoolboy figure played by the Glasgow comic Janette Tough — a female absurdly pretending to be male.]
And so you see what I mean? So that’s why it’s so dangerous in terms of academia, in terms of science, in terms of what I’m interested in, to allow women to overwhelm academia. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be any women in academia. But when they started it at Oxford they brought in women, and it was found that it interfered with the ability to have harsh academic disputation. And then they reduced the numbers. And they said there could only be one woman to every seven men. Because they took the view that it wasn’t working. And eventually, of course, they overturned that and they brought them in.
I remember talking to an academic, a British academic, who working in Finland. And they have a thing here called a “Phd defense”. Now, it’s meant to be a formality. And you’ve got them having a party arranged in the next room, I think called “karanka”, and whatever. But as far as he was concerned the thesis that he was presented with, was not very good. And it was the first time he’d done one of these. You’re meant to have an opponent. And the idea is the opponent, you know, pulls apart your thesis and you defend it.
Now that’s what happens in a British, … Well, if you’ve ever had a Phd viva*, it’s private though. But you’ve got your internal, I had one. You’ve got your internal examiner, your external examiner. And their purpose is to rip your thesis apart! And your purpose is to defend it.
[*The PhD viva examination, or thesis defence, represents the culmination of the PhD examination process, and how you perform at it can determine whether or not you are successful overall.].
And this is being criticized increasingly because, of course, you end up with, if a girl has presented a thesis that only just passes, or whatever, or it’s not very good, then they’ll end up in tears! Because the people are being mean. And this is what happened at this defense.
The guy was expecting — he’d never done it before — he was expecting an academic disputation. It was a female Phd student and he basically just pulled it apart. And she was almost crying! And he couldn’t believe it! And people said to him afterwards:
“I think you were maybe a little bit too much, too harsh.”
And he’s like:
“What do you mean, a little bit too harsh? I was presenting her with the problems with her thesis. And I was asking for her response. What do you mean?”
Woes: And, of course, if it was a person who was committed to the truth no matter what, they wouldn’t really care about their own, they would separate their own feelings from the matter at hand, from the mission, as it were.
Ed Dutton: That’s right! But a lot of women I think like Jill Biden, or whatever they don’t get PhDs as a means of knowing more about the nature of the world. They get PhDs, because it’s a tick on the good girl picture on the fridge. [Woes laughs]
Woes: All right. Somebody makes the comment — this is when we were talking about society, stability, women, witches, and so on — and someone said:
“So it’s all women’s fault then?”
What would you say about that?
Ed Dutton: No. Maybe you could argue that it’s men’s fault for not standing up against this nonsense. And a lot of the spiteful mutants that have undermined the patriarchy and have undermined the traditional system have been men! So it’s not “all” women’s fault. No. But I’m just showing you the parallel is very, very clear, as far as I can see, between the witches of yore and the feminists now.
Woes: Okay. We have some Superchats:
“We’d love to know Ed’s thoughts on Gnosticism. Would it be a preferable Christian alternative for us well?”
Ed Dutton: Well, in the early church, so Gnosticism was this sort of esoteric belief system where you sort of gain greater knowledge through your own esoteric belief, you get closer to Christ. And I think that in the early church they were very unhappy about Gnosticism, because it was so subjective and whatever. And so it would break down into all kinds of infighting and things like this. And so then eventually the Gnostics were sort of wiped out. They were considered an element that, as it were, didn’t help in the matter of group selection.
So I’m not sure, … I was writing about Gnosticism quite recently. I’m just trying to find the document. Here it is. So I’m just trying to remember what it was they were unhappy about with Gnosticism. But they had these various Gnostic sects, but they didn’t get the balance right.
So one of the things was that they were extremely sort of generally pro-social, rather than ethnocentric. And so that was potentially a problem. Or they believed in all kinds of weird stuff which meant, which wasn’t in line with the broader church. And so that meant there was splitting and disagreement. And so that was a problem.
For example, Marcion — the blasphemous heretic Marcion — preached that the jewish god had created the world, but that a higher god had sent Jesus to the world. And there were some of them that believed that the Sethians, that Seth in Genesis was the receiver of crucial revelations and was kind of a divine savior.
The Ophites believed that Jesus instructed them to worship the serpent from Genesis, because he was the genuine source of knowledge. And so a lot of these things weren’t even particularly Christian at all. They involve sexual rituals and stuff like that.
So, no. I’m not sure that there would be a great deal of future. A lot of these Gnostic sects were not particularly ethnocentric. And I think that was why they got rid of them in the end. They weren’t ethnocentric enough!
They were promoting a “brotherhood of man” to a greater extent. And so they were selected out! There was basically an evolutionary battle of different ideas that were expressed in religious terms. And it was the Gnostic ones that were selected out. So I suppose not then.
Woes: All rights another Superchat. I don’t know what this is referring to, but he says:
“Ed, I had a fat Norwegian Forest Cat that lived to be 18.”
I’m not sure if this is a reference, …
Ed Dutton: He’s referring to my cat, Margaret the cat.
Woes: Oh yeah and he says:
“How is Margaret doing?”
Ed Dutton: I’ll just see if Margaret’s around. Just a minute.
Ed Dutton: She’s been she’s been great, because the kids have been in northern Lapland, at a place called Keviarde [sp] for the last few days. And so they haven’t been here to stress Margaret out! And so she’s been a completely different cat. I mean, she’s been sociable. She’s been upstairs with us and just like not the anti-social cow that she normally is! And she’s been spayed, which I believe extends their life expectancy. And she’s 12, she’s 13, I think it is now. She’s 13. So yeah, so I think she could live quite a lot. She’s a moggy, but to the extent that she’s anything, she does look a bit like a Norwegian Forest Cat, that is true.
Woes: All right they look very nice and fluffy, and cuddly.
Ed Dutton: Very fluffy very, very furry! Very luxurious looking!
Woes: Okay [chuckling]. All right:
“Hi Ed! Why are the Ulster Scots so fiercely loyalist and pro-Britain, while Scots in Scotland seem to be slowly edging in the direction of abolishing the union, Great Britain? Why are people who are so similar ethnically beginning to diverge so drastically in their political expressions?”
Ed Dutton: So I think that there’s two reasons.
One is that it’s just the basic political reason, that the Ulster Scots are Protestant. And therefore they see themselves they are different from the Catholics religiously. And they are different from the Catholics ethnically, genetically.
And so they want to remain, obviously that it’s a choice between being part of a Catholic — and they’re deeply committed religious people — and that it’s a choice between being part of a Catholic Ireland, or a religious Catholic Ireland, or historically it was, and a choice of being part of Britain. And so it would be humiliation for them to be part of Ireland. And so therefore they are very, very pro, being part of Britain.
Secondly I think you’ve got to understand that the Ulster Scots are not representative of the Scots. Any more than the English people of Virginia, or the English people of Massachusetts are representative of the English. These immigrants tend to be more religious. And immigration is correlated with religiousness. They were very religious people they are under group selection more harshly, because of violence, or whatever in Ulster. So they’re highly, highly, highly, highly religious! They’re a fundamentalist community. And therefore they tend to be very conservative against change, and whatever. And therefore you would expect them to want to stay part of Britain.
Whereas the Scots, they’ve not been subject to that. So they’re going to be the religiousness and traditionalism and whatever is going to be less of an issue. And the nationalism element as well is going to be higher.
What is it that’s holding, used to hold things together? What held nations together? Group selection, the threat of destruction. Well that’s gone. There’s no Russia. There’s not gonna be a nuclear war. That’s under check. So we’d expect things to fall apart. We’d expect the European Union to fall apart. We’d expect Britain to fall apart.
Britain came together, because of war with other European countries, and stayed together, because there was something in it for the Scots. The Scots were dominant in the Empire. They were hugely overrepresented in the Empire, and indeed in geniuses, in British geniuses. I mean, pretty much a tiny population. I suspect they were more intelligent than us until quite recently, because they were under harsh Darwinian selection pressures. They were better at killing their witches, and so on. So they had every reason to be part of the union.
Whereas then you have this moving apart. And so therefore you have this rise in Scottish nationalism which has happened in Scotland. Their sense of national identity becomes wrapped up in their religiousness in a way:
“We’re better than the British, because we’re more left-wing!”
And that’s kind of what their Scottish nationalism is:
“We’re better than the English, because we’re more the sanats [?]. Because we’re more woke than them. Even though we can afford to be more woke, because we’re like 98% White!”
And so, that’s why those are the reasons why I think there’s a difference.
And also you should remember that the Ulster Scots and Scots diverged a very long time ago. I mean, we’re talking the 1600s here, early 1700s at the latest. And the people that emigrate they’re always more conservative.
The Afrikaans are more, even the language is more conservative. I suspect that the way the northern Irish speak is probably how the Scots spoke in the 1600s. And it’s just been preserved. Like we know that the way that the Cornish spoke in the 1600s is the way Virginians speak now. And the way that the Dutch spoke in the 1600s is the way Afrikaans speak now.
I mean, they like your “I”. The Scots people saying “aye” for “yes”. That’s a very old word. It’s died out in England. There’s some people say in Scotland. In Northern Ireland they love it! They can’t get enough of it! “Ayeee” all the time! And so on. So I think that’s my answer.
Woes: All right. Thank you. Okay. So Mr Dutton, Professor Dutton:
“Is removing female equality that was established into Western law in 1920 for most Anglo nations, the Right solution for a nationalist and traditionalist to aim to achieve? Removing female equality that was established in law in 1920?”
Ed Dutton: Who asked this?
Woes: Someone who’s constantly asking questions about women. [laughing] He says he’s not a MGTOW! But yeah:
“It’s time to grow and learn.”
Ed Dutton: I don’t see what, I don’t know what he’s talking about. Female equality was put into law in 1920? I’d dispute that. What do you mean?
I mean, in England, for example, women were allowed to become priests in 1992. Women weren’t allowed to engage in boxing until the late 90s. Women couldn’t be bishops in England until relatively recently.
Woes: I think he meant, I think he means a more legal level.
Ed Dutton: Does he mean, in America women got the Right to vote in 1920. Is that what he means?
Woes: I’m guessing, so yeah.
Ed Dutton: Right. So interestingly there was a very interesting book by a chap called Simon Webb, who I interviewed on my channel, and he showed that these women that wanted the vote, when the women’s social and political union broke down, a lot of them joined the British Union of Fascists.
So they were attracted to these, … Again this is what we talked about earlier, borderline personality disorder. They were just attracted to these extreme things. And Emmeline Pankhurst argued at a trial that 80 percent of English men had syphilis, and would go mad! And in order to save the English race from destruction women had to be allowed to take over England!
Anyway, that aside, what the vote for women initially brought about was greater conservatism, because in that time we lived in a conservative society, women were more religious than men. And so women were more inclined to vote for Right-wing parties than men.
And this flipped in the generation born in the 50s, and 60s, because this is when the religious society broke down. If you want to think a year it was probably 1963.
“Sex came rather late for me in 1963.”
Somewhere between the end of the Chatterly ban*, the Beatles first LP, and Kennedy, and all that.
[In 1960 Lady Chatterley’s Lover sold out all over England. Penguin’s first run of the controversial novel by DH Lawrence — a total of 200,000 copies — sold out on the first day of publication. The sexually explicit novel was published in Italy in 1928 and in Paris the following year. It was banned in the UK].
And so then women start to become more liberal than men. And now women are more inclined to vote for the Left than men.
So yeah! If you want to restore order then there has to be less female influence.
I mean, the damage! Think about the damage to children, as well. When I was at school, at my infant school, it was a hundred percent female. Okay, that’s fair enough. What kind of man would want to work at infant school other than a nonce? But at my junior school it was only two male teachers. And at my secondary school, okay that was probably majority male. But this is decreasingly the case.
Now about 60% even of secondary school teachers of women. And so it’s turning schools into female spaces! Where you have these different values like harm avoidance and equality. That’s female values. And male values, authority, and structure, and loyalty, and things like that. And that means you aspire for something. And it means that you see life as a struggle, which it is.
And so I think women dominating education doesn’t prepare people for life! And you just get these people that aren’t properly brought up.
I mean, I had a paper published recently on corporal punishment. We found that controlling for other factors like genetics, and whatever, corporal punishment has positive outcomes. But the feminization of education means it’s gone, no punishment anymore. And so you have a generation now that has no corporal punishment at school, no fear at school basically. Like we had in the 80s.
And so, yeah. I think the influence is ultimately too much, it’s too strong, it’s destroying academia, it’s destroying education. You’re getting boys that aren’t being taught with boys. That are being taught it’s bad to be a boy! You shouldn’t be a boy. So they’re going to become depressed, and maladapted, and developed sub-optimally.
And the only people that are going to be resistant to this barrage of maladaptive, environmental, pressure are those that are strongly genetically resistant to it, i.e., the remnant normal population! That would have survived, that would have been around in the 1600s, or whatever, before Darwinian conditions broke down. I think that’s what quite a few of us are! We’re the remnant normal population.
And so what I suspect is going to happen is that eventually all those people that aren’t the remnant normal population will die out. They’ll just won’t pass on their genes. And what you’ll be left with — and the data is consistent with this — is the people that we now call the “far-Right”, that’s who’s breeding, that’s what predicts breeding. A hundred years from now that’s what will be left, or less than a hundred years from now. And so things will change radically.
But yeah, the one way you could check it would be the abolition of higher education for women. That’s one thing that’s been suggested, or the limiting of it, or something like that. I mean, like this thing Jill Biden with a Phd, you know, education, it just undermines the value of it, because it becomes “woman’s work”. It’s like being a secretary.
Woes: Yeah, okay. Somebody’s asked:
“You explained earlier about the psychology of people who have rape fantasies. Do you have any insight into the increasing prevalence of incest porn in society?”
Yeah, what I would suspect is that what you get if you have no Darwinian, very, very limited Darwinian selection pressure, so lots of mutants, who will have maladaptive sexual desires that would have been selected out under harsh Darwinian conditions.
And so people who would want to bang their brother, or something, that those kind of people would be selected out. And people did. I mean, Egyptian royalty, ancient Egyptian royalty used to used to have sex with their siblings. They would be selected out, because of the consequences of that in terms of dysgenics. And so you would expect therefore this to spread.
Secondly at the environmental level you would traditionally have had a conservative religious system, which would make all this taboo, to the point of unthinkable! But now that is gone. And so you have free access to pornography, and free access to like increasingly aberrant taboo, or formally taboo practices. And so once you’ve moved away from “vanilla”, and once you’ve gone, … You can see how if you’re particularly into porn:
“Let’s go on to the next revolting thing! And the next revolting!”
And eventually you need some, … And there was research on this as well. That a lot of the zoomer generation that have had access to porn all their lives, they can’t get it up to the “vanilla” porn.
But we British perhaps, to a society where people are covered up. And so you would expect us to be easily aroused by nudity. Now people that are fast like history strategists, of course, they’re involved with society doing any aberrant stuff. And so they would need more, and more, extreme things. Nudity’s not good enough in these fast life history societies. Women walk around naked, who cares with nudity. So you need more, and more, and more! And you eventually end up with more, and more, sick stuff. And incest porn would potentially be one.
I mean, it should also be noted there’s something called the “Westermark Effect”. Finnish anthropologist Edward Westermark. And he found that, … Kibbutz’s have shown this. That if people are separated at birth, you know, let’s say twins, a brother and a sister, or father and a daughter, and they’re not raised together in early life, then they will meet later and be deeply sexually attracted to each other. Because we tend to be sexually attracted to genetic similarity.
And so if someone’s 50% the same as you, and you haven’t been brought up with them in early life. And then you meet them later, then you’ll be very attracted to them. And this is a serious problem.
So yeah, that’s how I would explain the rise of incest porn. And there’s things that are much more. I mean, there’s sex with animals.
* Total words = 6,768
* Total images = 5
* Total A4 pages =
Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):
Version 5: Jan 18, 2021 — Added 19 more mins of transcript. Total transcript complete = 80/103 mins.
Version 4: Jan 17, 2021 — Added 9 more mins of transcript. Total transcript complete = 61/103 mins.
Version 3: Jan 15, 2021 — Added 8 more mins of transcript. Total transcript complete = 52/103 mins.
Version 2: Jan 14, 2021 — Added 9 more mins of transcript. Total transcript complete = 46/103 mins.
Version 1: Jan 11, 2021 — Published post. Total transcript complete = 37/103 mins.