[Editor: I was going to write some more shit about Dalrock’s laughable entitlement complex, but Derek beat me to it. Because I’m a lazy fucker, I’ll just cut and paste his work into the front page. Take it away…]

So here we are again lads. Dalrock is complaining again. In light of the absurdity of it all, I’m going full snark on this review. You’ve been warned.

Dalrock states the following:

“Nathan’s edited version of the exchange leaves out our agreement to have a back and forth exchange, and it leaves out the part where Nathan wrote:”

Ah ha! Surely we have him here! The very best evidence so far of the Warhorn duplicity worth half a dozen posts! Pitchforks out boys!

“I’d like to sincerely understand and present your point of view, even where our camp diverges.”

Wow. Devastating.

Let’s put our learning hats on and do a little analysis, shall we? Let’s see what Nathan wanted to do:

1) To understand Dalrock’s point-of-view.
2) To present said point-of-view.

In other words, “I want to understand your point-of-view so I don’t misrepresent it.” Gah! My eyes!

Nathan made his best attempt at understanding Dalrock. The point of the discussion was to make a best-effort to get it right, but that didn’t mean he couldn’t have gotten it wrong. So, did Nathan present what he viewed Dalrock’s point-of-view to be? Yes, of course he did. He even presented what he thought Dalrock’s full point-of-view was by posting the transcript of the email exchange which he referenced in the podcast (!!).

What’s that you say? Nathan didn’t talk about every topic that was available from the email interview in full detail on a time-limited, tacky-humored podcast? Oh no!

Okay, so in all seriousness, Dalrock is upset that he didn’t get enough airtime on someone else’s show. He’s upset that the editorial discretion of the podcast edited out the majority of content of the interview. He can couch this in terms of “he lied to me” but that’s not a rational conclusion.

Lastly, consider now much time he has now spent not engaging in back-and-forth debate.

In “Hail Nereus!“, Boxer asked what difference giving up anonymity would make…

“Suppose I out myself tomorrow? What would the difference be?”

…to which I replied:

Authority and leadership are antithetical with anonymity. Formally stated, if A is “anonymous” and B is “has authority or is a leader”, then the following is true:

“A → ¬B”

However, the question above asks whether the inverse is true:

“¬A → B”

From the laws of logic, we know that the inverse is not a logical consequence of a proposition. For it to be true, the inverse’s contrapositive would also have to be true:

“¬B → A”

That is, “if you don’t have have authority and are not a leader, then you are anonymous.” This is plainly false, therefore ¬A → B is false, so expecting a difference outcome because you out yourself is not logically justified. Revealing your identity is only a prerequisite to leadership and authority.

If you are not a Christian (i.e. under additional obligations) and not seeking leadership/authority, then my argument does not preclude anonymity.

Boxer responded simply:

Since we are agreeing to cite this Wikipedia article for this casual formal argument, let’s consider the argument to see if it makes my argument logically unsound. The argument can be stated like this:

We can demonstrate historically (e.g. Federalist Papers) that anonymity is associated with authority and leadership, therefore they are not antithetical.

I have multiple responses to this claim. Let’s consider some selected quotes.

“At the time of publication, the authors of The Federalist Papers attempted to hide their identities for fear of prosecution. Astute observers, however, correctly discerned the identities of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay.”

First. The authors were not truly anonymous. They were at least understood to be the anonymous identities of a small group of known individuals. They were not random individuals. This association alone gave them implied authority through their implied group identity. Furthermore, some observers were even able to deduce who they were specifically, granting them explicit authority. Therefore, the Federalist Papers are not sufficient evidence to show that any authority wielded was derived from anonymous content rather than their presumed or deduced identities.

In anticipation of a counter-argument, consider the case where the real identity of the non-anonymous source wields leadership and authority (e.g. ghost written books by politicians; hoaxes; Texan family man persona). These have authority granted based off the strength of their perceived identity. That identity could be incorrect (or questioned), but it proves that identity is still required for authority. Mistaken identity is still identity. This is why authority is instantly lost if a hoax identity is revealed.

“The Federalist Papers were written to support the ratification of the Constitution, specifically in New York. Whether they succeeded in this mission is questionable.”

Second. It is not established that the Federalist Papers were treated with the level of leadership and authority claimed. Indeed, it is likely that the anonymity is the reason why the success of the goal is questionable. In other words, anonymity impeded authority and leadership. Therefore, this is evidence in favor of my proposition, not evidence against it.

Third. I’ve noted a difference between pure anonymity and pseudonymity in our previous discussions. The Federalist Papers qualify as pure anonymity in that their content is divorced from personal anecdotes and appeals to personal authority. Compare this to someone, like Dalrock, with a carefully crafted personal persona that may or may not be real and is referenced in the content. The perceived identity is use to legitimize authority, but it’s necessarily shaky and thus ineffective. If there is a possible counter to my argument it is pure anonymity, but there are still significant hurdles against this view.

Fourth. Let’s ignore everything above and say that the Federalist Papers are a rare exception to the rule, aberrations of the norm. This changes the formal deductive argument into an inductive logic / probability argument. If you go back and assign probabilities to the propositions, perhaps you could make a claim like this:

”Authority and leadership are antithetical with anonymity 99.9% of the time.”

I’d be comfortable with this inductive inference. It adds some nuance to the argument, rather than being pure black and white, but it doesn’t really change the practical outcome much. Taking it into the probability realm favors my argument, as…

…the overwhelming historical standard for authority and leadership is identity.

There are very few cases where anonymous works were granted permanent authority based solely on their content.

[Editor: This is another hard-hitting, subversive article by Brother Derek. Visit his blog to say thanks, or show him some love in the comments section.]

My book critique mentioned the evolutionary consequences of feminism from the historical perspective. Now, in light of this article series on Fabius Maximus (with commentary by Dalrock), it’s worth asking what the future holds.

Women have successfully decoupled sex and career from procreation and family. Some men have reacted by using Game to acquire casual sex without commitment. MGTOW are signing out completely. The common thread? Decreased fertility, both male and female. Yet, the sexual revolution that took hold in the 1960’s that seems so entrenched is going to unseat itself. These parties are headed toward evolutionary extinction because they fail to reproduce. Slowly but surely the natural consequence of feminism is the extinction of its proponents and those that participate in it (either willingly or unwillingly). It is an evolutionary inevitability. The result is (1) economic chaos and (2) genetic replacement.

We see the trouble brewing as the population pyramids invert in the world’s most prosperous nations. A population pyramid that isn’t a pyramid means that there are too few young supporting too many old. The tax base is shrinking (relatively) because there are not enough babies. It’s an impending economic nightmare. But the economic chaos caused by feminism gets worse. Dalrock writes:

“I think we will see a creeping panic from our ruling class as they realize that by replacing the marriage based family model with one founded on child support they have removed the incentive for men to produce the kinds of excess wealth that our progressive tax structure requires. Even worse, fatherless children are (on average) far more expensive to society than fathered children are, and this is true for life. So the income stream is at risk, and the expenses are going up.”

It’s a toxic mix of a shrinking tax base, ballooning demand for social services (and government debt), expensive fatherless children, and lower per-capita wealth generation. Expect ever-lowering standards of living as this process accelerates. Eventually feminism will die. The only question is how much economic damage will it do before it dies?

Among all the doom and gloom, most people are surprised to hear that by most quality-of-life metrics, humanity is in a golden age. Never before has their been so much health, wealth, and prosperity. Indeed, were in not for feminism we would likely be able to maintain it. Instead, we stand at an inflection point wondering “What is to come?”

Feminism is taking us down a dangerous path towards economic ruin. At Fabius Maximus, Larry Kummer rejects calls for traditional marriage and family as a response to feminism, claiming it is too late. Yet, if we want any say in our future, we must do this. It will be far more painful to do nothing. Inaction will lead to genetic replacement.

Babies will be born to somebody. If one subset of the population refuses to breed, and there is no indication that this is going to change, then they will be removed from the gene pool. Those that still breed and/or immigrate will be the new masters. You don’t need a crystal ball to see where this is going. Look to the effects of immigration as it collides with feminism in Europe. Unfortunately, a timely reversal of society’s downward trajectory through replacement is unlikely, even if it manages to bring the end of feminism.

The only other option is to clamor for a return to traditional marriage and family. Overthrowing feminism and restoring our path of prosperity requires changes. We can either be a participant in the process or, through genetic replacement, have those decisions made without us.

First, abortion must end. Over 500,000 babies die a year. Ending abortion would drive a stake into the heart of feminism and simultaneously end the population pyramid inversion. This is the greatest issue of our lifetime. Without abortion, women would be much more likely to have children. Society needs both “Man up and get married” and “Woman up and get pregnant.”

Second, men must refuse to have sex unless it can lead to procreation and birth. It can only do this by embracing monogamous marriage or celibacy as the only valid options for sexuality. Feminists cannot be enabled. They must, instead, be sexually ignored and bred out of existence.

Third, embrace Christianity. This is the only way we can restore fatherhood and prevent cohabitation, single-motherhood, and no-fault divorce. The promotion of traditional marriage, absent Christian sexual morality, is not enough. Not everyone who hates feminism is a Christian. This is a mistake. Christianity is the greatest enemy of feminism: consider good and evil by the fruit it bears (and who its enemies are).

In short, we need more fathers, more marriages, more babies, and more Christians.

[Editor: This is a critical review of Simon Sheppard’s “All About Women” by Brother Derek (a/k/a Ram-Man). Show him some love in the comments section.]

Per our host’s suggestion, I read Simon Sheppard’s “All About Women.” Sheppard develops his central theses around (quasi-)Darwinian evolutionary theory. It has a science-explains-everything foundation with no room for Christianity’s explanations. It mistakes approximations of truth with reality^[1], and is thus doomed to failure. In this it does not disappoint. It fails because he, ironically, embraces the primary ideal of feminism (and leftism): moral inversion.^{[See Footnote]} But rather than refuting with Christianity, I’ll show how his points are self-defeating.

Sheppard associates low population density with males and high density with females. Overpopulation, the alleged fault of women, is the ultimate cause of most modern-day problems.^[2] He defends this with various Darwinian arguments centered around control of sex. Yet for all the talk of evolution, he does not understand it.

Evolution claims that the fittest women will try to find the fittest mates and reproduce. For all his harping on sex, it is irrelevant; just a means to an end. Reproduction is the only Darwinian goal. To do this, men use the power to offer sex and women use the power to refuse sex. Women cannot find the fittest mate by whoring. They must find a fit mate through tightly controlled selection. Indeed this very thing he condemns through his evolutionary arguments is the very thing evolution says must occur. It’s a hopeless contradiction.

Sheppard does not understand what drives population. The increase in population has been driven by medical, economic, scientific, technological, and social innovations. By most metrics the world is the best it has ever been. Population growth is strongly correlated with mostly positive outcomes. The exception, of course, is feminism.

Modern sexual liberation is enabled by birth control and abortion, not evolutionary factors.^[3] When we look at the evidence, what is the primary symptom of feminism and sexual liberation? Low birth rates, stagnant or decreasing population, and increased mutational accumulation and its corresponding risk of mutational meltdown. Many of the ills he blames on overpopulation are the result of sexual liberation and feminism. His conclusion is almost a complete inversion of reality.

Women who are not reproducing are removing themselves from the gene pool. So are the MGTOW. Both are acting genetically defective and unfit. Deselection is inevitable. The book, and perhaps much of the sphere, suffers from selection bias. For example, none of the “Female Stereotypes” (Chapter 5) even remotely describe many wives, just like it didn’t for this Amazon reviewer.

Sheppard associates the Old Reverse with feminism: reversing cause and effect.^[4] Ironically, his argument suffers from this same inversion. The Dynamical Laws^[5] are self-defeating: If women only have power given to them by males, then males are to blame. All men have the free option to engage in at least one of the following: Marriage (myself) and celibacy (Brother Earl), ideally in their proper Christian forms. Any other choice enables feminism.

Footnote

Sheppard correctly notes the reversal of cause and effect^[4], or perhaps more generally, mistaking correlation for causation. The inevitable result of these mistakes is moral inversion: claiming that good is bad and bad is good. By making various errors of the former, his conclusions suffer from the latter. These mistakes are easy for him to make because he has only science to guide him. Just like feminism (and leftism), he lacks the objective moral grounding required to avoid these mistakes.

Selected eBook References

^[1] location 371-372

^[2] location 334-336

^[3] location 842: Bizarrely, he blames abortion (bad?) on women failing their birth control (good?) duties.

^[4] location 399

^[5] location 588