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]:

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:

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.