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.
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 Mastodon.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies on support from you, its readers, to survive. So please donate here if you can, or at David-Futrelle-1 on Venmo.