Another Strong, Successful Single Mom!

Screen Shot 2020-01-11 at 15.35.45

Down below, our man Honeycomb nominates a wimminz named Celeste T. Christian as single mother of the year.

Why does this bitch deserve such an award? Let’s see how we can best honor skank-ho princess, based on the write-up in our dishonest feminist press…

A 21-year-old woman has been charged with trying to drown her 3-year-old son, days after posting on social media that he was dead.

Of course, wimminz’ intuition told the bitch that her baby was “already dead” days before she decided to drown him like a rat in the bathtub. Naturally, being a web-enabled skank, she had to post baby’s death notice on Tinder and Facebook and Snatch dot Com…

Chicago police said Celeste Christian left her son alone in the bathtub for 5 to 10 minutes on Sunday at her home in the South Shore neighborhood. When she returned, she found him floating limply on top of the water.

The boy was taken to Comer Children’s Hospital, where he remains in critical condition with water in his lungs.

Her baby is brain-dead, and will almost certainly have to be cared for, for the rest of his life, by social services workers, while his attacker gets all the sympathy she can handle.


What is most interesting (and what will come as absolutely no surprise to the readers of this blog) is the erasure of the man who originally ratted this bitch out. It was that little boy’s father, and he is curiously mentioned only as an afterthought in most of the mainstream press which carried the story.

Screen Shot 2020-01-11 at 15.23.09

Based on social trends and countless personal experiences, we can reconstruct a likely picture of what actually happened. This dog ugly bitch (miraculously) found some man to marry (or at least impregnate) her. As soon as he became inconvenient, she dumped him to cruise for strange dick in Chicago’s worst dive bars and nightclubs. I’m sure some faggot CONservative divorce court judge told him that he was only useful insofar as he kept paying bitch her monthly allowance.

Said father did all he could to keep track of his little boy, even if that was only to try and stalk her on the social media sites. The notice of baby’s death was probably as shocking as the news that his son wasn’t actually dead, and he wasn’t dead at all when the news broke.

The conservative/Christian inspired government has conspired with the liberal/feminist media to push the lie that men are violent, and wimminz are nurturing, and that children must always be awarded to their mothers in any separation. In fact, the opposite is often true.

Single mothers are the most dreadful plague ever to be visited on any society. They kill far more people than tuberculosis, gun violence, terrorism, ANTIFA, Nazi Skinheads, tornadoes, earthquakes, or military action. Single moms pose a direct threat to western civilization itself. Our misfortune will continue for as long as we allow these wimminz to continue their degenerate lifestyle.

Wimminz Get What They Deserve


A month ago, I updated this blog on my old friend LaQuan’da. I first met this beauty back in the late spring of this year, and by July I had devolved into becoming something of an orbiter. As I earlier reported, LaQuan’da made contact with a generic “I miss youuu” message which is typical of bed-hopping skanks, and which surprised me, since she did a great job convincing my dumb ass that she was the one-in-a-billion NAWALT “not that kinda gurllll” who might actually make someone a competent wife.

So, I went to dinner, and the predictable story unfolded. LaQuan’da copped to the fact that when she ghosted out on me, back in August, she had already been dating multiple men, of which I was the only one. She ended up settling in to fuck a gent who was:

  • married (but separated, really, fo’ sho’, and truly, ya right)
  • fired from his job as a school bus driver for being…
  • addicted to prescription painkillers
  • fucking any number of other hoez on the side.

I found her final complaint about this guy to be sorta silly, given that she’s been doing the same things, so I interrupted my date to chuckle and point out that

“this is the man you rejected me for, is that not so?”

at which point the poor dear began to shed tears and pose a scene in the restaurant, so I quit making jokes, and just sat and listened to her spill her tales of woe.

While all wimminz are more skillful liars and manipulators than we can ever be, this particular wimminz is such a cunning actress that she strikes me as downright dangerous. Her theatrics are imbued with a wonderful authenticity, and woe be it to the brother who marries her, only to find himself at the end of a divorce action, complete with all manner of phony allegations of marital misconduct, delivered to the courts in such a convincing manner.

Now the reasons I took a month to post this article are varied, but mostly because I wanted to keep waxing that ass for a while. In the interim, I wanted to see and study all the various ways in which I was fooled by this bitch. I’ve learned a great deal, but there are a number of observations I can make many of which I’ve probably made before, but which bear repeating:

  • Roissy’s tired maxim that orbiters never get the ass is not true, and this is a great example. The spirit of Roissy’s maxim, may be valuable all the same. It took me a great deal of effort to pluck this ripe fruit, and while I’ve had a very good time, the overall profit isn’t very large.
  • Wimminz do not love evil men, but they do love weak men, who they can control and manipulate. Who is more easily controlled than a jobless drug addict whose wife is on this wimminz’ speed dial? This is the reason a wimminz will ignore a decent fella, in favor of writing erotica and sending it to death-row prisoners.
  • The simp tendency is very powerful in a man, and it should never be underestimated. I have been regularly at war with myself for the past five weeks, resisting the temptation to let this unrepentant skank-ho bitch move in, just because the sex is so good, and because she says so many of the right things.

There are three things that help me keep things in context. The first is the fact that I’m presently fucking two other females. The second is the absolute knowledge that to her, I am a rebound, and this will end the minute she finds another weak man she can toy with. The last is the spectre of this blog, and the notion that I might have to be held accountable to all of you, my readers, for getting sucked beyond this woman’s fantastic, deplorable event-horizon, and going down to destruction.

I’ve fucked her, and the sex is absolutely as good as I ever dreamed it would be. I’ve kissed her thighs and sucked her nipples. I’ve licked her cunt and asshole. I can even say that I love her… in a way. She has that magical ability to morph into whatever I’ve always wished for in a lifelong mate, and to play the part to perfection. The red sun of desire (and decision) burns brightly, but it won’t burn forever.

Sexy Racist Statistics


Way back in The Virginity Fetish, Boxer made a few claims that relate to the recent series. His dislike of statistics notwithstanding, there are a number of points worth further consideration.

“If you take huge populations of people, there are bound to be differences. Those differences in character and attitude are notable only in aggregate.”

The first part of this statement is completely true, but feminism, bureaucracy, and gnu-atheist scientism[1] cannot abide the notion that there are visible group differences at the genetic level[2].

The second part is subtly incorrect.

In a normally distributed population, the average difference between random individuals is 2/√π, or ~1.13, standard deviations. For IQ, this is ~17 points. Even within families there is a high variability between siblings (~13 IQ points).[3a] Given this variability, does this mean we cannot make any individual predictions? No, it does not.

We all know this is true intuitively, but have been trained by feminist blank-slatists to deny this. For example, everyone knows that men have greater physical ability than women. We should not have been surprised when, in soccer, under-15 boys beat the U.S. Women’s National Team or when 15 year-old boys beat the Australian Women’s National Team[3b]:MaleFemaleStrength

Adult women simply cannot compete with 15 year-old boys at peak physicality.[4]

“Suppose I, as an anglophone Mormon, descended entirely from New England WASP types, meets one African bushman in the wild. What do the statistics tell me? The answer is, not a god damned thing. The best I can surmise is that I have a slight probability of being a little smarter than that fucker, but that is in no wise guaranteed.”

No, statistics tell you that if your IQ is at least average, you have a very high probability of having greater intelligence. This is why if Harvard didn’t discriminate against the best students, its demographic makeup might change dramatically[3c][3d][3e]:


When all of the seventy fastest marathoners of all time come from North and East African ancestry (2% of world population) and 97 out of 100 of the fastest sprinters of all time come from West African ancestry (5% of world population), you would be a fool to deny the predictive power of genetics.[3f] There should be no shame in pointing this out.

Even with the variability in a random sample, the genetic racial differences between Asians and Blacks (~20 points) is greater than the average difference between two random individuals (~17 points). This is why race[5] is highly predictive of factors strongly correlated with IQ, such as socioeconomic status, educational attainment, and likelihood of criminality.

Not everything is about genetics (“nature”) though:

“If I happen to meet him in Africa, then it’s in my interest to kiss his black behind in the hopes that he can teach me how to keep from becoming a lion’s dinner.”

You would be a fool to discount the importance of environment (“nurture”). No matter how intelligent your PhD-holding gender studies professor might be, she won’t help treat your cancer. This leads to the crux of the issue:

“Part of what I want to illustrate, with all this, is the absolute non-correlation between cognitive ability and wimminz’ well-established proclivity for whimsical self-destruction.”

The difficulty separating the genetic from the environmental makes it hard to evaluate this claim. It is highly complex. What the series endeavored to do was tease out feminism’s relationship to other factors, such as cognitive ability. While we can’t exactly determine the causal factors behind feminism, we can undoubtedly determine correlations.

So, we are not surprised to learn that valuing virginity is negatively correlated with destructive feminist-favored outcomes (e.g. divorce). We are also not surprised that, over time, general intelligence is negatively correlated with those same outcomes. Lastly, we are not surprised that, over time, devout religious observance is similarly negative correlated.

It is simply not true that “differences in character and attitude are notable only in aggregate.” Thus, if you select a random working-age man and woman from the population, you will be quite surprised if she beats him in arm wrestling. You will be even more shocked when he is overcome by emotion and bursts into tears. These defy your quite reasonable expectations.

Similarly, if you randomly select an Asian person and a Black person and the Asian person has higher intelligence and socioeconomic status or the Black person has a criminal record, these differences are largely predicted by genetic differences.[7] If instead you get an Asian with a criminal record and a Black Fellow of economics, this is the reason:


The group differences are notable in the aggregate precisely because they represent real differences at the individual level. The existence of exceptions is both expected and irrelevant. More importantly, if you remove random selection, the individual differences often become even more notable.

Racist, white supremacist[6] Henry Harpending of the University of Utah caught fire for stating that educational gaps were not closing, despite decades of attempts to do so. This is because the heritability of IQ is 0.8 to 0.9.[3g] It is simply mathematically impossible for the gap to close through environmental intervention. Closing the gap could only be simulated by artificially lowering the opportunities and outcomes of the more successful groups, that is, enacting inequalities.[3h] This is the feminist agenda.

Be warned: by reading this stuff, commenting on it, or worse agreeing with it, you become a racist, white supremacist yourself (regardless of your actual race or ethnic group, of course). It’s much better to embrace feminism, where you will be nice, safe, always have good feelings, and get a trophy.

The feminist imperative is to conflate amoral facts with moral (in)equality. If you have the rational ability to differentiate between facts and morality, you are, by social definition, a white supremacist.[7]

Christianity has long taught that all persons are created in the image of God. No matter one’s race or socioeconomic status, all have value before God. At the same time, Christianity has never shied away from the notions that persons have differences and that certain ways of life (holy living) are superior to others (living in sin). Christianity balances amoral facts with human moral worth. Feminism cannot do this.

[1] Of the Richard Dawkins school.

[2] Group differences are okay, as long as they are caused by environmental factors that support identity politics.

[3] Twitter

[a] @Scientific_Bird (2019). (link)
[b] @Scientific_Bird (2019). (link)
[c] @a_centrism (2019). (link)
[d] @Steve_Sailer (2019). (link)
[e] @epidomgoly (2019). (link)
[f] @a_centrism (2019). (link)
[g] @KirkegaardEmil (2019). (link)
[h] @ThyRamMan (2019). (link)

[4] They have a good chance of losing to a team of physically average 15 year-old boys.

[5] Race here means genetically related groups, not specific traits like skin color. For example, African bushman, East Africans, and West Africans are all racially different each other in meaningful ways. Skin color is sometimes an okay approximation for race, but it’s not a perfect correlate: races have traits, traits do not have races.

[6] That is, a typical anthropologist that studies intelligence and group genetic differences.

[7] Pay no attention to the fact that average Asians and Jews have higher IQ and socioeconomic status than average Whites. Accusations of white supremacy don’t have to be logical or evidence-based. Feminism has no use for facts.

Beyond Nature vs Nurture


This series portrays a bleak picture of societal decline—attributed to (1) declining general intelligence (from fertility changes and high mutational load), (2) bureaucracy, (3) feminism (e.g. The Pill), and (4) cultural changes (e.g. anti-Christianity, anti-patriarchy, anti-excellence). These factors converged around the 1960s and have since strengthened through joint causation and feedback.[1]

Research suggests that humans—a social species—are losing general intelligence and increasing mutational load. The Mouse Utopia experiment suggests that—in a social species—critical increases in mutational load can doom a population. By utilizing social contagions, a relatively small percentage of mutants are sufficient.[2][3a][4] There are many examples contrary to historical adaptive norms. The effect is notable in homosexual and transgender activism, as well as the refusal to reproduce—seen in both mice and men (e.g. Japan and China).

What, if anything, can be done about these things?


The genetic factors behind societal problems naturally suggest potential eugenic solutions. This leads to obvious objections:

You’re arguing nature over nurture here [..] Evolution in every form teaches survival of the fittest, culling the weak so the strong can succeed. There’s no way to reconcile that with Christian notions of justice and mercy.

Christianity thrived specifically because we’re kind to those who aren’t winners, genetic or otherwise. As Christ put it, “it’s the sick that need a doctor, not the healthy”[5]

These objections can be given simply as follows:

“Claims of races having different intelligence were used to justify colonialism, slavery, racism, social Darwinism, and racial eugenics.”[6]

This is, pardon the pun, the genetic fallacy. Population group IQ differences are real.


By using fallacious reasoning and denying reality, we risk the very thing we abhor:

“But it is a dangerous mistake to premise the moral equality of human beings on biological similarity because dissimilarity, once revealed, then becomes an argument for moral inequality.”[7]

Eugenics (“good breeding”) and dysgenics (“bad breeding”) are morally neutral descriptive terms.[3b] What matters is how we use the information they represent.[8] Society mandated blank-slatism (environmental ‘eugenics’) is just as dangerous as innatism (‘behavior determinism’). Both multiculturalism and feminism argue for moral inequality, enforcing it with the lethal force of law.

The level to which the ‘social contagions’ are genetic—rather than environmental—is secondary to their effectiveness and growing influence. The social changes are too intertwined with genetic influences to be viewed separately.[4] Therefore, we must consider—without shame—the moral context[9] alongside the genetic (eugenic and dysgenic) and environmental factors. When we do so, we find that there are no acceptable workable solutions to be found in eugenics….

 “The only way, if we follow Galton, to reverse dysgenics would be (at minimum) the monstrous policy of allowing to die, to sterilize, or (most effectively) inflict death upon, about half of the children born in each generation.”[10]

…yet ‘eugenic’ policies are already here and growing: abortion and infanticide (e.g. sex and disability deselection), euthanasia, assisted and coerced suicide, socialized medicine (e.g. rationing), whole population gene sequencing, genetic modifications (e.g. CRISPR), and executions.

Nations will increasingly utilize these as means of population control. The bureaucrats utilizing these policies are not interested in solving the problems raised in this series. Bureaucracy, being inherently evil, will inevitably cause such policies to further damage, not repair, society.


There are two groups that still breed: the religious and those with low intelligence.

“Even under modern conditions, traditional patriarchal religions often have above replacement fertility – sometimes very high rates of fertility – so religion can be an antidote to subfertility, but it is one which that is seldom used by the most intelligent.”[10b]

Combined with a cultural restoration of traditional Christian sexual ethics and a rejection of feminism, the religious could peacefully outbreed the competition.[12]

Consider the historical rise of Roman Catholicism during an extended period of relatively low individualism and intelligence. In the presence of low-individualism, you need a strong cultural identity. The Roman Catholic Church served society well in this role for a millennium. Then—with increased individualism and intelligence—the Protestant Reformation (and eventually the Industrial Revolution) came.

You would think that the recent secular decline in individualism and intelligence would make the RCC more attractive again. But it isn’t. Why? Bureaucracy. The RCC, like every other major Western institution, is converged.

Genius and Innovation

By examining the rates of innovation using lists of historical events in science and technology as well as the U.S. patent history, the estimate of peak of innovation was in 1873.[15] We are currently at around 1650-1700 levels of per capita innovation rates. Following the trend line, we’ll have declined to 1400s levels by the start of the next century.[3e] Further, we will hit 95% of the economic limit of technology by 2038 (we are about 90% now).[15]

The financial benefit of new technology is suffering from both diminishing returns and falling innovation rates. If the worldwide demographic crisis hits fully when we nearly max out the ability to harness economic returns from technology, there is going to be a serious economic crisis in a few decades from which we may not recover for a long time. That’s the risk.

If society could learn to value and harness the rare geniuses, it could increase innovations that support societal and economic progress.[10] This should be done in combination with the restoration of Christianity, as most geniuses are religiously motivated and aligned with objective truth.[3c] Again, this would require dismantling the bureaucratic system that makes the formation of geniuses nearly impossible.[11]

Moving Forward

A popular sentiment in the manosphere is that society will—or should—collapse and that a new society will be built by patriarchal men (like them). This view considers it unlikely that (1) society recovers (e.g. Christian patriarchy reasserts dominance), (2) societal problems continue indefinitely, or (3) patriarchal men fail to take over.

If recovery or stagnation do not occur, as society declines[13] and economic momentum wanes over the next century, a collapse of society and mass death—war, starvation, genocide, criminalization and execution, and disease and epidemic—become more likely. Darwinian selection will return and most people will die.[14][3d][3e]

Individual societies have a number of group interaction strategies they can choose from. If we mix all four combinations of cooperation vs non-cooperation with in-group and out-group, we land on the following strategies:

Social Interactions

Of these, the most successful are the ethnocentric approaches, while the least successful are the ones that are non-cooperative within a group.[16] If ethnocentric populations will eventually win out, the question will be which one? It may be patriarchal men, but not necessarily Christian ones.[17]

Having covered the potential social solutions and found them largely wanting, the next part will discuss possible individual responses along with other conclusions and observations.

[1] No single causal factor could be identified, nor could any factor be identified as a primary cause of any other factor. Trying to piece together a clearer causal picture among these factors would require a deep historical examination.

[2] Woodley, M. et al. (2017). “Social Epistasis Amplifies the Fitness Costs of Deleterious Mutations, Engendering Rapid Fitness Decline Among Modernized Populations.” Evolutionary Psychological Science. doi:10.1007/s40806-017-0084-x.

[3] YouTube Videos

[a] Woodley, Michael A. (2019) “The social epistasis amplification model in mice and men
[b] Woodley, Michael A. (2019) “The co-occurence nexus: A general theory of secular trends
[c] Woodley, Michael A. (2019) “The Need for View Point Diversity in Academia
[d] YouTube censored this source.
[e] Dutton, Ed. (2019) “The Middle Class and the Decline of Civilization

[4] Adding mutant mice to a population of wild mice caused measurable changes to the brains of the non-mutant mice. The impact of mutant mice on non-mutant mice was not merely behavioral, but resulted in physiological changes in normal mice.

[5] Gunner Q. (2019) “The Evolutionist Snake In The Church.”

[6]Race and intelligence“, 2019. Wikipedia.

[7] Edwards, A. W. F. (2003). “Human genetic diversity: Lewontin’s fallacy“. BioEssays25 (8): 798–801. doi:10.1002/bies.10315.

[8] Biological determinism can be used both to reject personal responsibility for behavior (“born that way”) and to prejudge people on the basis of their genetics. Sometimes this is valid (e.g. “insanity defense”) and sometimes it is not.

[9] It is Christianity upon which the inherent moral worth of a person is based. Morally relative systems (e.g. atheistic materialism) must be rejected.

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

[a] Chapter 15: “What to do”
[b] Chapter 12: “The Rise and Fall of Genius”. Section “Decline of intelligence due to the most intelligent having the fewest children”

[11] Bureaucratic thinking has infected mathematics. It is no longer important that you get the correct answer, rather it is the process you used to arrive at your answer that matters.

[12] Split by political leaning, those on the far right dramatically outbreed those on the left and center. The right will outbreed the left, but on its current trend it will also lose intelligence in the process.

[13] We are already at a ~1600s level of general intelligence and it is declining.

[14] Christians may wonder if these are the end days. Historians may wonder if this is the end of a cycle of civilization and the beginning of a new one.

[15] Huebner, Jonathan. (2005). “A Possible Declining Trend for Worldwide Innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change” – TECHNOL FORECAST SOC CHANGE. 72. 10.1016/j.techfore.2005.01.003.

[16] Hartshorn, M., Katnatcheev, A. & Shultz, T. (2013). “The evolutionary dominance of ethnocentric cooperation.” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 16: 7.

[17] Trends in Europe suggest that Islam will prevail, but it’s very hard to predict.

Analyzing the Sexual Revolution

“Feminist in her natural habitat”

Intelligence and Dysgenics showed that a secular decline in general intelligence g (“Nature”) started with the Industrial Revolution.[1] For a time, increasing IQ from environmental changes (“Nurture”) prevented many negative effects from the decline in g. Then in the 1960s, feminism gave us the Sexual Revolution which unleashed sudden key and detrimental social changes (“Nurture”)—anti-Christianity, anti-patriarchy, rejection of excellence, and the dominance of bureaucracy.[2][3a]

To establish sexual liberation, feminism had to throw off Christianity’s moral dominance over sexuality. Prior to the sexual revolution, Christianity had a huge moderating effect on group behavior. Research done on the 70s and 80s shows that advanced paternal age[4] is inversely correlated with religiosity. Advanced paternal age is opposed to religiosity because it is directly correlated with higher levels of de novo mutations and inversely correlated with higher g.[1a] However, no correlation was found in the 30s and 40s when cultural and societal pressures forced most to embrace Christianity—whether true believers or cultural Christians.[3b][3c] Christianity had been holding back the floodgate on effects from declining g and mutation accumulation.

Unfettered from Christianity, feminism was free to cause social chaos using the now-familiar tools: fornication and adultery, divorce, the child support model, abortion, contraception, anti-patriarchy, and women pursuing anti-maternal, career-focused lives.

The goal of this series has been to examine the potential causal role that feminism plays in society’s fundamental problems. Consider Boxer’s claim:

“Feminism as a social movement is not coherent, until it’s appreciated as a consequence of late-stage capitalism, where most of the people in such an unfortunate society are hopelessly atomized, living as cogs in a giant machine they neither like nor understand. In context, feminism is a symptom, rather than a cause, of fundamental problems”

The series so far has largely been concerned with the genetic g decline (“Nature”), but the sexual revolution’s changes were highly social and environmental (“Nurture”). The rise of feminism was certainly influenced by declining g, but it seems implausible to treat feminism as merely a symptom. It is one principle cause. The combination of declining general intelligence and the rise in feminism are inextricably linked to fundamental problems.[4] The ‘cogs in a giant machine’ society—and failing capitalism—is a consequence of bureaucracy brought on by these factors.

The sexual revolution’s feminist goal was to destroy patriarchal systems, which it has done quite effectively. Feminist economist Victoria Bateman credits the destruction of patriarchy for modern economic prosperity.[5] By contrast, Gunner Q notes:

“The level of patriarchy/matriarchy used in a society is the most controlling factor in its overall success–reproductive, financial and otherwise. Systems that come close to God’s ideal, even if they do not acknowledge God, still get the patriarchal benefit.”

Both cannot be true.

Over thousands of years, patriarchal systems have utilized ‘mate guarding’—controls of female reproduction—to prevent cuckoldry.[6] One such example is the set of Christian sexual ethics and norms thrown off by the sexual revolution.

When men are confident that their wives are faithful, this creates male-to-male trust. In high trust societies, men spend less time guarding their mate, so more time can be spent on group cooperative activities—lowering conflict and violence and increasing economic output.[3d][6] Society—including Christian churches—is still in the process of noticing that we no longer have this high trust. MGTOW is one consequence of this.

High trust societies are also conducive to producing geniuses and innovations.[3d] By suppressing patriarchy, feminism has ensured—in the face of declining g—that these become even rarer. Research has found that religion and Victorian-like cultural sexual taboos promote greater creativity and accomplishments.[7][8] By rejecting Christianity and endorsing sexual excesses, feminism further decreases creative output.

Studying the fall of civilizations, societal collapse follows sexual excesses. High civilization leads to low stress, followed by rejection of religion, liberalized sexuality (including contraception), decreasing intelligence, and inevitable decline.[3e][8][9]

In asserting that the unequal are equal, feminism is fundamentally logically incoherent. Attempts to enforce equality of unequal things must necessarily involve the rejection of that which makes those things special. Excellent things like healthy marriages or boys getting top grades are threats to feminists. The ‘everyone gets a trophy’ mentality is the logical consequence.

At the same time, the growth of bureaucracy replaces truth and excellence with rules and procedures. When a bureaucratic drone is faced with a contradiction between their rules and procedures and some opposing but truthful fact, they will deny the truth and promote its opposite. Eventually society becomes unable to pursue truth, as expedient lies dominate.[10]

As a result of the sexual revolution, the incoherence of feminism, the growth of bureaucracy, and the rejection of Christianity combined with the decline in g, lead to the rejection of excellence and the promotion of mediocrity (or worse).

One example of this is the corruption of peer review. What should be a process that improves the quality of scientific research and conclusions does the opposite.[11][12][13] Rather than focus filtering out poor research, peer review is now used to filter out politically disfavored conclusions.[3f][14] The result is the loss of faith in scientific research.

Another example is the school system. For many years programs have been designed to give minorities (mostly blacks) additional supports. These were based on the notion that everyone is a blank slate and will have equal outcomes if given equal opportunities. Given that there are actually group differences (e.g. blacks on average have 15 IQ points less than whites) and that blank-slatism is pseudoscience, this was doomed to failure. Rather than accept reality, the only remaining options were to apply standards unevenly and to lower the standards. Harvard applied standards unevenly by discriminating against high-IQ ‘white-adjacent’ Asians. The University of California is supporting dropping the SAT and ACT from admission requirements, effectively lowering admission standards.

A society that crushes excellence is a society that will be mediocre. As this series has shown, it is also a society that will experience inevitable decline.

In examining the sexual revolution, we’ve seen how sexual excesses and socially maladaptive behaviors (e.g. rejection of patriarchy; rejection of excellence) combined with declining general intelligence and increased bureaucracy. In the next part of the series, we’ll examine how it all ties together and see where to go from here.

[1] Woodley, Michael A. (2014) “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

[a] The age of parents (along with selection changes) account for a .84 points per decade loss in g.

[2] The relationship between the rise in feminism—including women’s suffrage—in the 1800s and early 1900s and the decline in g is unclear, but the 1960’s cultural changes were too fast to be purely genetic.

[3] YouTube Videos

[a] Charlton, B., Dutton, E. (2019) “Genius Famine and Albion Awakes
[b] Dutton, E. Woodley, M. (2019), “The Rise of the Mutants
[c] Dutton, E. (2019) “Why’s it so Difficult for Liberals and Conservatives to be Friends?
[d] Dutton, E. (2019) “Why Civilizations Need Patriarchy and Feminism Destroys Them
[e] Dutton, E. (2019) “Why Having Less Sex Might Save Civilization
[f] Pierre de Tiremont interview of Michael A. Woodley of Menie (link).

[4] Feminism can be understood to be both symptom and cause. There is likely a synergistic effect between different causes, such that no cause is truly independent.

[5] Bateman, V. (2019). The Sex Factor. Polity Press.

[6] Mate Guarding: Grant, R. & Montrose, V.T. (2018). “It’s a Man’s World: Mate Guarding and the Evolution of Patriarchy” Mankind Quarterly, 58: 384-418.

[7] Kim, E. et al. (2013). “Sublimation, Culture and Creativity.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

[8] Unwin, J.D. (1934). Sex and Culture.

[9] Cattell, R. (1938). “Some Changes in Social life in a Community With Fall Intelligence Quotient

[10] Charles Murray (2003) “Human Accomplishment”

[11] Charlton, B. (2010) “The cancer of bureaucracy: How it will destroy science, medicine, education; and eventually everything elseMed Hypotheses, 74(6):961-5. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2009.11.038

[12] Charlton, B. (2013) “Not even trying: the corruption of real science

[13] Anonymous (2018) “Against Peer Review” Free Northerner.

[14] Cofnas, N., Carl, N. & Woodley of Menie, “Does Activism in Social Science Explain Conservatives’ Distrust of Scientists?” M.A. Am Soc (2018) 49: 135.



Fables about beautiful women who will become good wives are regularly debunked here, and in the interest of complete honesty and self-criticism, I’m prepared to tell my readers about one of the clever wimminz who came disturbingly close to catching ya boy in her fishtrap.

Back in July, I talked about her briefly, in a comment, here:

I met a woman recently (may or may not be a wimminz, but she’s doing a good job luring me with the illusion that she is decent). Long legs, very nice figure, keeps fit, African-American, great bubble ass, hair is not weaved out, but is not butch cut either – six inch braids in her fro. She speaks nicely, dresses modestly, no skank-ho tatts, claims to be a virgin (and for once, I think I believe her), Catholic and wants Boxer to do RCIA and quit being a male skank-ho slut if he’s serious about dating her…

In August, said hot black chick suddenly disappeared after much doting. Such is the way things always go… until two weeks ago, when she suddenly reappeared. She has been desperate to meet up with my ass for several days, and has been sending fawning texts nearly every morning to that effect.

While I had assumed that she got bored of waiting for me to commit, her immediate eruption into the status-quo suggests something much more interesting, and carnal.

I’m meeting her in a few hours for lunch. In the interim, can anyone predict the future-past and tell me what Shaniqua has been up to? I’m sure one of you boys can divine it. My guess is encoded in the title to this article. Either way, I look forward to a very entertaining afternoon.