Categories
alt-right antifeminism bad history bad science evo psych fairy tales f. roger devlin great replacement misogyny white genocide white supremacy women's suffrage

White Nationalist gurus declare war on witches, and feminists, and feminist witches, and maybe just women in general

Short of throwing her in a pond to see if she floats, how exactly does one go about spotting a real live witch? It’s easy, according to wannabe Witchfinder General F. Roger Devlin. All you really need to know is that witches tend to be two-bag ugly.

Witch hunting, irrational as it may appear, is no random phenomenon. Abundant evidence makes clear that a specific sort of woman was most likely to be accused: a childless spinster living apart from men, usually older and physically unattractive … Most were ill-tempered, unpleasant, and lived on the margins of society.

Apparently, some of these women “did indeed practice superstitious arts disapproved by the Church, such as magical healing or casting curses upon their neighbors,” but apparently actual witchery is not necessary for one to be a witch in Devlin’s world.

Witches thrive in easy times, Devlin suggests, like “the Medieval Warm period” (900 AD to 1300 AD), a time of “mild weather [in Europe that] allowed rapid demographic increase and relaxed Darwinian selection.”

But when the “little ice age” hit around 1300, life got tougher and society could no longer tolerate cranky, ugly, uncooperative women, as “[s]uch women, like homosexuals and heretics, tended to weaken rather than strengthen group fitness.” And so the witch-hunting, and witch burning, began.

The true cause of the witch craze, then, was heightened group selection under conditions of scarcity. Note that convictions for witchcraft peaked around the 1640s, as the Little Ice Age entered its harshest phase. Within Great Britain, convictions for witchcraft were most common in Scotland, perhaps due to the country’s poverty and colder climate.

Where is Devlin getting all this? From a new book by the reactionary racist Edward Dutton called Witches, Feminism and the Fall of the West, which, Devlin notes in a review essay posted on the racist web publication VDare, is an attempt to “to bring the best in evolutionary theory to bear on the question.”

But Devlin and Dutton aren’t just creepy evo-psychers; they’re both huge racists and misogynists as well.

Devlin, the reviewer, is an alt-right grandpappy and men’s rights activist who’s most famous for redefining the word “hypergamy” into the stupid misogynistic concept adored by Red Pill idiots. Edward Dutton, the author, is, as RationalWiki sums him up, “an alt-right eccentric English Youtuber, terrorist-sympathizer, anti-feminist, race and intelligence pseudoscientist, Islamophobe, sexist, anti-semite and white supremacist.” He is also the author of numerous books, including one called How to Judge People By What They Look Like.

This, by the way, is what Dutton looks like (in a wig). (Thanks, RationalWiki!)

So how do feminists fit in this whole, er, analysis? Well, they’re basically modern witches, even if they’re not all literally modern witches. (But some are.) Here’s how Devlin describes them, in terms not that different than the ones he used to describe witches.

Like seventeenth-century witches, feminists tend to be childless spinsters: now they are zealots for unrestricted abortion as well. Also like witches, they are disproportionally homely, particularly in a masculinized direction. Having higher than average mutational load, they are more likely to suffer from depression, narcissism, and other disorders which make them unpleasant to be around. The most committed feminists are lesbian to a wildly disproportionate degree.

The existence of feminists today is, Devlin suggests, is due to the same sort of “relaxed” Darwinism that brought about their witchy ancestors.

Again, we must begin by looking at the evolutionary background. Around 1800, childhood mortality began sinking from 50 percent to below one percent, while people also began living longer. Declining mortality salience meant declining stress levels, which led in turn to a decline in religiosity (for religion is in part a means of coping with stress). Lowered child mortality meant that persons with high mutational load were not eliminated from the gene pool, so levels of serious physical and psychological disorders began to increase.

Is he suggesting that we’d be better off if more babies (and mothers) died in childbirth? Sure seems like it.

These witchy feminists are also helping to bring about that “great replacement” (aka white genocide) that all the fashy types are talking about these days. Devlin quotes Dutton:

Females score considerably lower, on average, on measures of negative ethnocentrism than do males, likely because of their high levels of generalized empathy.

This, in his mind, is a bad thing.

It would follow that the empowerment of females, such as permitting them to vote or work in high-status and influential professions, would push society in a less negatively ethnocentric direction (that is, make it less hostile to outsiders).

Devlin makes the point crystal clear, as if we haven’t gotten the hint yet.

Feminism has thus contributed to the fostering of replacement-level immigration to Western countries by outsiders who may themselves be extremely hostile both to Europeans generally and to unpatriarchal women in particular.

He then quotes, seemingly approvingly, a tweet suggesting that women holding “refugees welcome” signs deserve to be raped.

But there’s a silver lining to all these clouds of doom: Eventually the lefty feminist witches will collapse under the weight of their own maladaptivity.

As Dutton assures his readers:

Feminism creates a new “Crucible of Evolution” by spreading dysphoria and brainwashing people to behave maladaptively. Only the carriers of genes that are resistant to this, which is, in part, extreme conservatives and the extremely religious, survive: the anti-feminists will inherit the Earth . . . eventually.

Sorry, fellas. I don’t think it’s going to work out that way. I’m putting a hex on you right now.

Follow me on Twitter.

Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.

We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

59 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gaebolga
Gaebolga
1 month ago

Devlin wrote;

Again, we must begin by looking at the evolutionary background. Around 1800, childhood mortality began sinking from 50 percent to below one percent, while people also began living longer. Declining mortality salience meant declining stress levels, which led in turn to a decline in religiosity (for religion is in part a means of coping with stress).

[Emphasis mine]

Ah yes, 19th Century America was well known for its decline in religiosity; that’s what the various Great Awakenings were all about, don’chaknow…

/s

Last edited 1 month ago by Gaebolga
Threp (formerly Shadowplay)
Threp (formerly Shadowplay)
1 month ago

@RedSilkPhoenix

Pretty sure the bible isn’t too happy with divination. There’s a few verses (about 50, and surprisingly not all from Leviticus) that dislike seers and oracles and those who consult them. There’s a particular down on necromancers and mediums.

fannyfae
1 month ago

We should be past this misogynistic, racist, classist, colonizer mentality, but sadly, thanks to the former guy, the piercing dog whistle has brought it to the fore once again. One look at the sheer numbers of missing and murdered women, girls and LGBTQ people who are not white (MMIWG2S) particularly near the fracking man camps, mostly populated by white men should show us that the war on women has been going on for a long time. Being a witch has little if anything to do with it.

GSS ex-noob
GSS ex-noob
1 month ago

@Gaebolga: I know! And it’s not like a major American religion was invented in the 1800s either.

@FM Ox: Excellent. There are two single-digit girls next door to me…

In general — who’s more likely to survive hard times, the people who know how to forage and grow their own, plus make do and mend, and/or come from places where you don’t get to overstuff your gaping maw every day and you walk everywhere, OR the SWM who have to get into their giant pickup trucks to drive a block to the all you can eat place?

Between Bubba who can’t walk to the fridge without getting winded and can’t cook or sew vs. Rosalita who’s walked from El Salvador to the US with her kids, I know who my money’s on.

Jenora Feuer
Jenora Feuer
1 month ago

GSS ex-noob:

I know! And it’s not like a major American religion was invented in the 1800s either.

Well, ‘a’ major American religion wasn’t invented then, because multiple were… the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is probably the best known (founded in 1830, over 16 million members), but the Seventh Day Adventist Church was formed in 1863 in Michigan and are over 20 million now, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses started in the 1870s in Pittsburgh and are still over 8 million.

The only other place that really comes close to the U.S. in terms of ‘number of various splinter religions started there’ is probably Germany, and for a lot of the same reasons… dissatisfaction with the main church(es), and no officially enforced religion.

Full Metal Ox
29 days ago

So does this qualify as Christian poppet magic? Discuss.

http://i.redd.it/96fogd4q06121.jpg

John D
John D
28 days ago

I think the most ironic thing about this whole argument is that King James kicked off a massive wave of witch burnings in Scotland because of his latent homosexual urges. His closest advisers suggested that such unnatural desires must of course be witchcraft.

Wem
Wem
27 days ago

I’m putting a spell on these idiots.