The Hits Just Keep On A-Coming


Do not conflate “Kim” here with the last chick, who finally took the hint at some point yesterday, and quit responding to my endless flaking. This is a new Tinder slut, desperate to land a chump in time for Christmas morning.


For the record, every woman I string along has a number of common qualities. I am only fucking with women who have already divorced a good man and stolen his children. Not that this makes me any more noble, but I do have some standards.

Older dogs who socialize with us, in the 45-60 range, should consider setting up a phony profile (you can easily get a pic here) and join me in trolling the 20-something divorcée crowd. It’s fun, you know you want to, and they deserve it.

My Blog Lives On…

2234083Derek Ramsey’s important work on dysgenesis is now categorized separately from the rest of the nonsense on tap here. His articles can be pulled up and read as a series by using this link.

Gunner Q is hosting a critical analysis of Derek’s dysgenesis series at his blog. You can read his exegesis and various comments using this link.

Remember to show respect for the host if you enter another man’s lair, for such is a timeless tenet of patriarchy.

For three full years now, I’ve entered the holiday season convinced that I’m going to let my subscription lapse. It irks me to keep funding WordPress — even more now that their parent company has merged with the feminist Tumblr platform. Even so, Derek’s middlebrow articles give me an excuse to kick in my paltry contribution to our deadly enemies, in return for the privilege of using their own infrastructure to lampoon them.

Intelligence and Dysgenics


Mouse Utopia showed that removing hardship in mice populations led to genetic mutation buildup and eventual extinction. We will now examine human intelligence to look for evidence of genetic decline in human populations.

The g factor is a person’s real general intelligence. IQ tests attempt to measure g. We would like to estimate how g has changed over time by how IQ scores have changed. The Flynn effect is the large, sustained increase in IQ scores over time3 points per decade. This creates an apparent paradox: if g increased 30 points in the 20th century, then the average ancestor from the 1800s would have been borderline mentally retarded. Flynn and others attribute the increases to environmental causes: education, specialization, health, and other social improvements.[1][8a]

Examining low-complexity indicators of gbackward digit span test, simple reaction time, working memory tests, color discrimination, audio pitch discrimination, weight discrimination, 3D rotational measures, high order (hard to learn) vocabulary usage frequency, cranial (a)symmetry, and measures of creativityshows secular declines over time.[7][8c][8d] The Woodley effect (i.e. co-occurrence model) states that g has declined over time1.5 points per decadesimultaneously with the Flynn effect.[2][3][8c]

“To put this in perspective, 15 points would be approximately the difference in average IQ between a low level security guard (85) and a police constable (100), or between a high school science teacher (115) and a biology professor at an elite university (130). In other words, in terms of intelligence, the average Englishman from about 1880-1900 would be in roughly the top 15 per cent of the population in 2000 – and the difference would be even larger if we extrapolated back further towards about 1800 when the Industrial Revolution began to initiate massive demographic changes in the British population”[6a]

Environment is leveraging huge gains (+30 IQ points) that mask the genetic decline (-15 g points)[8c], but an Anti-Flynn effect is beginning. Meta-analysis shows secular IQ decline in 66 different observations from 13 different countries over 87 years and total sampling of 300,000 persons.[4] The decline is most visible among those of higher socioeconomic status[8b], where potential is tapped out.[13]

In simple terms, humanity got stupider as it got much better at leveraging innate intelligence and learned skills, but the overall gains have started to plateau or decline.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, child mortality was fairly consistent at ~40%.[11] Mortality rates were highest among the poor, where disease, accidents, starvation, and poor living conditions resulted in very high mortality. In the middle class—the most intelligent group—high fertility rates and lower mortality rates led to a steady selection for intelligence.[6c][14] This changed in the mid-1800s in response to demographic and socioeconomic changes and declining child mortality. Selection pressure, driven by high mortality rates, ended as nearly all babies now survive to adulthood.[6d]

There are two primary drivers behind more than a century of general intelligence decline. The first is dysgenic breeding and the second is mutation accumulation.[12] Neither factor alone is sufficient to explain the secular decline in g.[6b]

Intelligence is negatively correlated with fertility. Those with low intelligence are breeding more than those with high intelligence. However, the Breeder’s Equation does not account for the magnitude of measured change because the most genetically fit reproduce not only less often, but also later in life (reflecting career-first feminism) Those with low g have a shorter gap between generations, effectively lapping those with high g—intensifying the dysgenic effect.[8c] This is illustrated in this humorous clip (H/T: chronoblip).

The only significant exception is a group with relatively high fertility that has good genetic fitness associated with health and prosperity: the religious. Unfortunately, this group has been experiencing significant declines, right alongside the decline in g.

Bad genes are being passed on much faster than good genes, the bad overwhelming the good. But even eight human generations is not enough time to account for the entire drop in g. The remainder comes from mutation accumulation:

…until about 1800 only the minority of people with (on average) the ‘best genes’ (i.e. the lowest mutation load) would be able to survive and reproduce; and among the great majority of the population only a very small proportion of their offspring (averaging much less than two, probably less than one, per woman) would survive to a healthy adulthood, reproduce and raise children of their own. In this context, which was for almost all of human history until about two hundred years ago; both new and inherited deleterious mutations were filtered-out, or purged, from the population every generation by this very harsh form of natural selection.[6c]

Many persons with deleterious mutations do not die, but go on to reproduce. Compounding this problem, social changes (reflecting career-first feminism) have increased the average age of parents. The older parents are at conception, the greater number of genetic mutations they will pass.[5] Not only do mutations not get purged, but they are added at higher than historical rates.

Evolutionary theory requires both natural selection and random mutations. Since mutations are almost never beneficial[15], selection is the only way to prevent increased mutational load.[16] Accordingly, absent major societal changes, the decline in g is expected to continue.[17]

Why worry about falling g, when we have those huge IQ gains? We live in a society where those leveraged IQ gains are essential to many professions. A significantly higher percentage of our population must work in more complex professions than could have ever been expected of our agrarian ancestors, yet our ancestors had much higher innate potential. Consider this timely tweet:


No one in 1850 (or even 1950) would have said something so inane as that slide. Heather asserts that those science teachers who cannot posit alternative hypotheses have a dangerous amount of power and should not be teaching it. But who else could do it? There are just not enough people to replace our leaders and teachers with those who have the requisite general intelligence. Our average teacher can do science (high IQ), but they can’t fully understand it (low general intelligence).

In the same vein, after universally recognizing the worth of the Bill of Rights, society is now debating the merits of its previously established concepts, such as free speech or the right to defend oneself from tyranny. In many ways we have vastly exceeded our ancestors, but in other ways, we are just…stupid.

The next part in the series will examine what happens when a population lowers ability (general intelligence) and improves environments and raises skills (high IQ).

[1] Dickens WT, Flynn JR (2001). “Heritability estimates versus large environmental effects: The IQ paradox resolved”. Psychological Review. 108 (2): 346–369. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.346.

[2] Figueredo, AJ; Sarraff, M. (2018). “Michael A. Woodley of Menie, Yr“. Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science: 1–9. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3838-2.

[3] Woodley, Michael A et al. “By their words ye shall know them: Evidence of genetic selection against general intelligence and concurrent environmental enrichment in vocabulary usage since the mid 19th century.” Frontiers in psychology vol. 6 361. 21 Apr. 2015, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00361

[4] Woodley of Menie, Michael A., Peñaherrera-Aguirre, Mateo, Fernandes, Heitor B. F., Figueredo, Aurelio-José. “What causes the anti-Flynn effect? A data synthesis and analysis of predictors.” Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, Vol 12(4), Oct 2018, 276-295

[5] Woodley, Michael A. “How fragile is our intellect? Estimating losses in general intelligence due to both selection and mutation accumulation.” Personality and Individual Differences vol 75 80-84. Oct. 2014, doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.047

[6] Dutton E, Charlton B (2016) The Genius Famine

[a] Chapter 12, section “Measuring the decline of intelligence”
[b] Chapter 15: “What to do”
[c] Chapter 2, section “The evolution of higher intelligence”
[d] Chapter 12, section “High-IQ genes versus low-IQ genes”

[7] See: Deary et al, 2004 and Deary’s analysis of Action & Schroeder, 2001.

[8] YouTube Videos

[a] Flynn, James. (2013) “Why our IQ levels are higher than our grandparents
[b] Woodley, Michael A. (2019) “The Scarr-Row Effect
[c] Woodley, Michael A. (2019) “Why Are We Getting Less Intelligent
[d] Woodley, Michael A. (2019) “Secular Declines in Colour Acuity

[11] Gapminder. “Sources: Child Morality

[12] Studies do not show a correlation between abortion and intelligence decline.

[13] Studies do not show a correlation between declining g and black and white IQ gaps.

[14] This selection is why almost all descendants of Western Europeans can trace their ancestry—by the 16th century—to the wealthy or aristocrats

[15] It is the claim of various proponents of Intelligent Design that beneficial mutations are nearly impossible to combine into macro-level improvements.

[16] Most mutations have no noticeable effect and are considered benign. However, mutations are not truly random. Previously mutated sites are more likely to experience mutations in the future, increasing the odds of a harmful change.

[17] This is not an argument in favor of eugenics. This would be pretty inconsistent considering that I have adopted three children with significant genetic abnormalities.

The Creepy Male Feminist


Some men foolishly believe that a marginal chance to tap some fat, smelly ass is worth the humiliation of publicly declaring your own allegiance to feminism. Take a lesson from old Bob, here. Standing up for feminists will not serve your interests.

Screen Shot 2019-11-17 at 22.09.06

Feminists hate men and want them ruined. Getting their attention will only make you a target.

Read and learn, boys…

The Problem With Male Feminists

Beware The Creepy Male Feminist

Seekers Of The Ring

Screen Shot 2019-11-11 at 16.12.12

I’ve taken to playing a game which is simultaneously fun and effective with the holiday hoez on the internet dating sites.

Her: 26, one kid, recently divorced after a 2 year marriage.

Me: y’r pal Boxer, hardcore misogynist.

Setting: text messaging, after matching on one of the silly phone apps.

I always ask the question what are you actually looking for within the first five minutes.


What she says she’s looking for is someone who could “start as friends” and “see where things go…” She lied. She says that she wants an LJBFrather than the regular sexual encounter that she pretended to want on the banging site.

What she’s actually looking for are a large group of men who endlessly chase her, in hopes that she will choose one or more of them. The manosphere will clue you in to this, and it’s true. Unfortunately, the manosphere will then immediately lie to you, and tell you that if you accept this lowly position, you will never, ever get that ass.

Back when I was a young and naïve lad, I took the offer to become a slut’s LJBF quite frequently. I almost always got some mediocre sex, but only after an endless series of encounters punctuated by lies, flaking, demands, wasting money, etc.

When I got clued in (thanks to AfOR and Roosh V.) I began nexting wimminz like this immediately. That changed recently, as you can see above.

What I’ve started doing is reflexively messing with these bitches, by calling their hand and telling them I’m looking for someone to marry. I could excuse this descent into dishonesty with a series of good for the goose rationalizations, but I won’t. I’ll just tell you that it amuses me to do so. It has the effect of flipping the script, as I see the thirsty bitch immediately take the bait and begin kissing my ass in an attempt to take her seriously.

Of course, as she drops ever more frequent and transparent hints about meeting in the real world, I drop ever more ambiguous hints about looking for a wife, and not a friend, and wishing her well in her search for a celibate groveler.


Mouse Utopia

charles-darwin-portrait-vector-file (1)
“Our brother, Charles Darwin”

The purpose of this series is to examine the—potentially causal—role that feminism plays in society’s ills. Part 1 discussed how the birth control pill biochemically alters a woman to act contrary to the evolutionary imperative: to optimally reproduce. Part 2 will introduce the Mouse Utopia experiment and some societal implications.

Darwin’s theory of evolution has led to two main mechanisms: random genetic mutation and natural selection. It’s a matter of established science that mutations occur as a normal course of life and that these are passed to children during reproduction. Natural selection means that those with mostly beneficial mutations survive and pass their genes to their children and those with mostly negative mutations do not. Populations that operate this way are under Darwinian-selection.

In the 1960s and 1970s, researcher John Calhoun performed experiments on mice to find out what would happen to populations where Darwinian-selection mechanisms were removed. He set up utopian environments: spacious with unlimited food and water, clean bedding, and no predation. He seeded the experiment with eight of the best and healthiest stock mice he could acquire. His goal was to test population overcrowding.

Initially everything went great. The mice reproduced as mice do and the population grew exponentially. But then something surprising happened. Long before the colony ran out of space, the population growth slowed, plateaued, and then began to fall as reproduction eventually ceased entirely. This led to complete colony extinction.

During the decline, a number of strange behaviors were noted.

Females became more aggressive and male-like. They kicked their young out of the nest before they learned proper social behaviors. Males became disinterested in having sex. Females had to pressure the males for sex. Some homosexual behavior was witnessed.

Mice in the colony ceased to engage in normal, complex mice behaviors. They started clustering together into large groups in areas designed to hold smaller numbers. They would randomly attack each other. Cannibalism began, despite the unlimited food availability.

The most interesting were male effeminate mice who isolated themselves from the rest of the group and never had sex. They spent their entire day standing with others like them, eating, drinking, sleeping, and grooming themselves and each other. Calhoun described them as autistic creatures capable of only the most basic physiological behaviors. He called these the “Beautiful Ones” as their grooming led to clean, attractive, smooth fur coats.

When the social bonds of the colony ceased to function, Calhoun noted:

“Their spirit has died (the first death). They are no longer capable of executing the more complex behaviors compatible with species survival. The species in such settings die”

At the end of the experiment all that were left were the Beautiful Ones, females not interested in males, and social outcasts who did not perform normal mouse behaviors.

The Mouse Utopia experiments raise interesting questions about human populations. Prior to the industrial revolution, Western child mortality was around 40%, but this is now at 1%. Like Mouse Utopia, human populations have broken free of Darwinian selection. In Does Marriage Keep Society Afloat?, I noted that humanity’s population pyramids are inverting. This is most advanced in Japan:

Pyramid Japan 2017

Japan’s population is falling. Women are not interested in children. Men have lost interest in sex. Many don’t even bother to masturbate. Evolutionary maladaptive behaviors are entrenched. There is no end in sight. Other countries, like China, are following close behind. In America immigrants are replacing the native population, masking the same trends. Across the world fertility rates continue to decline.[1]

What is happening to humanity?

Due to modern innovations in genetics, researchers have been able to identify a genetic mutation for autistic behavior (like the Beautiful Ones) in rodents to NLGN3 (paper 1paper 2). Researcher Michael Woodley and his colleagues ran an experiment where sufficient numbers of captive-bred NLGN3 knockout mice were mixed with a population of wild mice. As in the Mouse Utopia experiment, the genetically-damaged mice caused social damage to the entire population. However, if the defective ones were removed, then the colony would begin to recover within as little as a week.

To explain these results, Michael Woodley formulated a general theory of Social Epistasis Amplification. The notion is that genetic mutations of a few can still have deleterious effect on the population of social species as a whole through genetic interactions at the social level (i.e. ‘interorganismal gene-gene interactions’).[2]

Human populations are experiencing the effects of social epistasis. Feminism is one example. Feminists, who often have high mutational load, routinely promote genetically maladaptive behaviors (e.g. the birth control pill; forced assent of homosexuality and transgenderism; delayed marriage) on those with low mutational load. Doing what they suggests literally harms society. Nearly every article on this site serves to highlight these points. Moreover, it is not sufficient to reject feminism: nearly everyone is influenced. MGTOW is one example of resulting maladaptive behavior.[3]

Future parts of this series will explore how we got to this point and expand upon these concepts in greater detail.

[1] And, unlike the mice, humans do not have unlimited resources.

[2] This bears similarity to the social contagion concept.

[3] The “Beautiful Ones” were the mice analog of MGTOW: socially isolated and asexual. In Mouse Utopia, mice going their own way ended up destroying the colony.

Alpha, Beta, and Reproduction


In response to The Pill Causes Bad Mate Selection, Gunner Q objected to the alpha/beta terminology used.

“…you are trying to use non-Vox Day/Heartiste definitions of Alpha and Beta. I missed that footnote on the first reading and it makes your arguments disingenuous at best. An Alpha man is the specific man that a specific woman SHOULD want? That’s a hopelessly moving goalpost.”

It’s important to note that the Manosphere did not invent these terms and the way it uses them need not be scientific nor consistent. In the context of scientific research on hormonal contraception, we need to consider how the terms are used in the scientific fields (e.g. evolutionary biology and psychology; anthropology).

It’s also important to note that the definitions are inherently fluid as a function of selection and adaptation. Different traits will be selected in different times, places, and situations (e.g. socioeconomic differences). Nevertheless, certain genetic expressions are fairly consistent and non-variable.

Alpha traits are (merely?) proxiesor indicators—of genetic fitness. Good looks (e.g. facial symmetry; tall height), good physical fitness, no deformities, masculinity[1], wealth, and high social status all suggest good underlying genetics. It is fairly uncontroversial that most fertile women are attracted to men with these kinds of traits.[2]

Beta traits are those traits that are not alpha traits, that is, those traits that do not correlate stronglyat the population level—with genetic fitness. Such traits may include being fun, nice, woman-like (e.g. emotional; caring and nurturing; empathetic), physically sub-optimal, and unattractive.

“The most sexually attractive men are very often terrible choices for fathering children. The Pill is not driving such behavior. Women have always gone for the bad boys.”

Simply put, ‘alpha‘ implies genetic fitness and ‘beta‘ does not. Both sets can include both positive and negative traits. This is a very important point. While alpha traits indicate good fitness for reproduction, beta traits indicate long-term relationship stability and good child-rearing skills. A woman can mate with someone with any combination of traits, desirable or not. Butcriticallyreproductive choice is permanent and thus the more important consideration. It’s possible to influence and change her mate’s traits over time[3], but she can’t change her children’s genes after the fact.

“Women SHOULD want healthy, emotionally stable, productive men. Women DO want sociopaths, drug dealers and starving musicians. The Pill doesn’t change that.”

Not all such good men are beta men, nor are all alpha men sociopaths. Women do want these positive things and can find them in men of all types. Regardless, the alpha/beta distinctions are not about what any individual woman explicitly wants or should do. Choosing a mate in this context is amoral. It is her evolutionary imperative to find the best genetic match she is able to. Any given individual may fail at this task (either intentionally or unintentionally), but the pill lessens the desire for genetic (and sexual!) compatibility.

Hypergamy states that women will try to marry up. We know that there are upper bounds to this, for many different reasons (competition, limited selection, personal fitness, socioeconomic status, etc.). The most genetically fit man that an obese, low-intelligence, chain-smoking, tattooed, debt-ridden, short, blue-haired woman can mate with is going to be her ‘alpha’. He probably won’t have many (any?) really good alpha traits, but it’s the best that she can do personally.

In modern society there is now a disconnect between having sex and reproducing (and marrying). Abortion, contraception (e.g. the pill), social acceptance of fornication, and the rejection of patriarchy have all contributed to separating sex from the evolutionary imperative to reproduce. Historical societies, almost universally patriarchal, had structures in place to ensure that negative traits were suppressed socially and positive ones expressed. A modern woman can have it all: consequence-free sex, children with anyone (including bad boys), and having the State or a beta-male raise her children (e.g. society sanctioned cuckoldry).

Statistics on virginity show that women are almost universally promiscuous in their youth. Who they have sex with need not be who they end up choosing to mate or marry. There is really no question that women today are having sex with alpha men, but they are not necessarily staying with them. Not even Brad Pitt can keep a woman.

While on the pill women can have as much sex as she wants, but she won’t have children with anyone, alpha or beta. What matters is what she does when she goes off the pill. There are a number of possibilities. Is she giving an alpha children, but marrying a beta man? Or is she now denying her husband sex or frivorcing him?

So what we see is that the very structure of society has changed and the pill’s effects fit right into it. Whether this is causal or merely correlative is unclear.

[1] Another term that should probably be defined, if possible, more specifically.

[2] One well-known example is a woman laughing at a not-funny joke that a tall, attractive, muscular, wealthy man says while otherwise mocking a short, unattractive, fat man who does the same thing. Or how some men are praised for “getting in touch with their feminine side” while other men are rejected for the same.

[3] This almost certainly happens in almost all real marriages, but research on this topic is outside the scope of this post.