Did eugenics policies contribute to the American prosperity

of the Fifties?

I think it must have.

https://aeon.co/essays/the-dream-of-designing-humans-has-a-long-and-peculiar-history

Generally, it takes a generation for such effects to become apparent. This would tie in with the 40s and 50s.

A galaxy of English genius, that is. Galton feared that the English race was degenerating, declining in both mental and physical ability. (It remains a common fear; the French thought they were degenerating, too.)

Lestat laughter lol lmao haha IWTV film

I will never not find this funny.

Not all Americans who supported eugenics were racist and nativist. To a first approximation, everyone was a eugenicist in the early 20th-century US. But for the core of the movement, the eugenic tenet that any disability was all in the genes also put scientific teeth into laws setting racial quotas for immigrants. Reformers pressed for mandated sexual sterilisation of those deemed unfit, including the feebleminded, the criminal, the deaf, the crippled, those with venereal disease and other conditions.

so, r-types

promiscuous low-lifes

In 1922, Harry Laughlin, superintendent of the Eugenics Record Office on New York’s Long Island, drafted a ‘model sterilisation law’, designed to withstand Constitutional challenge. It did. By the start of the Second World War, more than 30 states had eugenic laws on the books, and tens of thousands of criminals, prostitutes, epileptics, syphilitics and people deemed mentally handicapped had been surgically sterilised.

Until the Pill replaced it. Now they sterilize themselves.

Sorry, not PC enough? Shall we gloss over the true purpose of the Pill? It has a permanent impact on fertility.

“Where are the real men?” Where are the ‘good’ men? Dead, mostly

This has applications for men but it’s mostly women I’m reaching here. Quick n dirty explanation.

The most common complaint from redpill women is about the lack of real men. Even in movies, they’re rare. Now, SMV-wise, women have more to complain about in this century than men, because women aren’t the leading sex in general, we rely on men to lead the way and we support them in this. If they can’t lead, they won’t lead and everyone is aimless. I believe this is the other reason real women can’t stand whining MGTOWers – they still don’t get it, they still don’t step up to the plate (even exclusively, selfishly for themselves) and expect women to act like Mommy with the apron strings and do his bloody laundry or something. To a woman, a man is either a lover or a son. We have a natural disgust, visceral disgust, for men who act like boys. Evobio could fill in the blanks on that one. Genetic fitness, parental investment and just being straight up pathetic etc.

Let’s get this out of the way: age group. Let’s assume young for sperm quality but adults. Immediately, a minority of men in an aging population. Basic education, more still. Can support themselves, getting slimmer. Not damaged/perverts/crazy, tiny group. Of this group, some will be gay, others will be already married or unavailable.

No! Some of you say reading this, There are more men than ever before!

And you’re right. It’s all about demographics. 

I am at one with the Miranda.

Go to any major city and it seems like there are more men than women. This is accurate. The crybabies are responding to a simple fact: the sexual marketplace is elastic. We know this from social disasters like easy contraception and abortion (about a quarter of UK deaths recently). The average woman has a bigger bargaining chip for what She Wants, than the average man. We can get jobs. We don’t need male support to have a basic living. This is new. So when you walk up to Ms Average, she probably isn’t being arrogant, she simply knows her value (which you hate) and your chip isn’t high value enough (because another man’s IS). You’re competing with the Invisible Man, who is at least her social equal. Women are social beings. She’s looking for a net contributor to her life. It’s the socio-sexual hierarchy. You need to be worth the effort, since women give up more (youth, fertility, beauty) by choosing to swim in the SMV. PUAs try to lie about their value which is no long term strategy and means you have to keep leaving like a con artist skipping town. Pretend you’re Miss Average. Let’s assume you’re a 5, nice, basic education, support yourself. Middle of the road on everything. When a man approaches you, why is he doing it? He doesn’t move in your social circle. Why not? He’s lower class. He’s even lower on the scale than you. This is literally the only way he can meet women. How should you respond? (Pity leads to clingers and stalkers). What if he’s fake, cocky and half-sneering at you, clearly thinking you’re beneath him, despite how you’re average, know you are, and he is no oil painting himself to need to be doing this?

Oh God I made eye contact with the social fuckwit losers.

This response.
It’s trying to avoid the mantrum of insults when you reject the fucker.

Note: mantrum = male tantrum, usually when you say no to anything he wants. It’s entitled, it’s like a little boy (see above disgust) and it’s inappropriate behaviour for an adult. Boundaries are normal and healthy and nobody owes you anything.

The demographics skew toward Asian men (globally and in cities like London), so white men are at a premium and have automatically higher value. Genophilia and human nature means the white women want white men. Nobody should be more pissed off about multiculturalism than the manosphere, specifically the EU ‘refugee’ migrant Crisis. Let’s ignore the violent possibilities. You see all those military age men? Millions of them? Which women do you think they’re gonna go after? What will happen to the SMV of Europe now, where all the white women at?

sex with actual women mgtow infight

Pro: Our value will skyrocket. Con: As will rape rates.

There are lots of socio-sexual issues of our time, I’m not downplaying that. One of them is delusions of grandeur from men raised on supermodels and porn who actually think they have a chance playing pro out of their league (forever, on a consistent basis, despite the rarity of those women IRL for similar reasons to marriageable men above). Yes, there are leagues. In Europe, we call those classes. It isn’t based on money or your passport, stop embarrassing yourselves bragging about being American or something like it’s exotic.

How many beautiful women are there in your country? How rare are they? How rare are you? The difference is the odds you have of getting one.

Women are suddenly responding to market demands in our favour for the first time ever. However, intersexual competition is ferocious, because the worthiest men are like 0.0001% or another ridiculous number. It’s like chasing a unicorn (at least men don’t have it as bad because they’re the sex that can make offers, imagine if you had to wait for that model to ask you out).

However, most women don’t want SMV. We want MMV. You don’t wanna be that dumb bitch who wasted her best decade ‘waiting’ for her ‘boyfriend’ to propose, she bought a lemon, it’s a sunk cost. It used to be that MMV skewed male (see video Economics of Sex), because men were rare, thanks to all those pesky things called wars culling the populations. Wars used to be eugenic. Let’s take a closer look.

Prior to World War, there were no exemptions. If you were young, you didn’t stay home. They threw you out there. Sink or swim. Then exemptions crept in with rich cowards, liars and people faking injuries. I heard that the bravest men who ever lived died on the battlefield, blown to bits by grenades or gored on barbwire and this is true, we’ve all heard the stories, their family got the accolades and Victoria crosses to prove it. What does that mean genetically? What happened to their line? What happened to the line of the men who stayed home while the others cats were away, surrounded by lonely wives? I’m guessing a lot of cuckoldry for the brave men who did make it home. It’s like the people who ask Where did the British Empire go? The men who made it died protecting it. When they died, nobody wanted to fight anymore by default, so it failed. It just stopped.

It’s faster for me to quote myself for a moment;

He’s right that the quality of men dropped before the quality of women. I feel the manosphere forgets there is another half to the equation. Post-WW, the few surviving men lived it up. Then the Sexual Revolution just happened on by shortly thereafter because women felt left out and wanted some of the attention. Men lost their motivation because sex is practically all they want from women and…. yup, that’s pretty much it.

Men gave up first. They gave up on the white picket fence for a few easy lays. They made their bed. They ruined women (and themselves) for marriage. They continue to ruin women’s MMV. If you contribute to the problems caused by sleeping around, by sleeping around, you don’t get to complain about the karmic consequences that affect you later. You ate the cake. Cake is gone.

The manosphere mocks women for saying “Where have all the good men gone“? Answer: They’re Peter Pans at home playing video games and watching porn, the Lost Boys, which hardly reflects well on men as they think it does, while all the time most of their discussions feature “Where have all the good women gone“? without a trace of self-awareness.

Either Husband Material doesn’t exist (statistically unlikely) like a unicorn or he does exist, he’s incredibly rare but he expects his social equal at minimum. In socioeconomic terms, the assortative mating of Upper Class to Upper Class.

These whiners who acknowledge their value in their troubles never have a high value. They can’t swim in those waters. Can you imagine them at a formal dinner? For an hour? They’d probably get drunk and ask how much the host makes. They have no class. They think James Bond is made by the cut of his suit or his bloody watch. You could put James Bond in sackcloth and he’d work it into social graces (with men too). How many of these losers could, while going on about insane confidence? How popular are they with other men?

What women are bemoaning is the number of decent men on their social level. They know the competition is too fierce for the few clustered around the top that remain. They pine for the Olden Days when there were a larger pool of decent men, likelier for them to snag one, who actually made an effort and men for whom their private life was not also their public life. They had class.

It’s all about class.

You watch a romcom and look at the most popular. What is their class level? By apartment? By income? By lifestyle (not debt)? They’re always beautiful people (high SMV already), youngish (fertile), educated (not stupid), who are well-travelled and well-spoken. It screams good taste. It’s lifestyle porn. The romance is just the plot. How many of those films would succeed if the guy was a dropout doing drugs and playing video games? Do you think she’d be swooning to a swell of orchestral music then? Really? 

Likely, he’s already hit the Wall. Bitching about the drop-off in attention – to younger men. What have they got? Hustle? Women value class over experience. Especially when that experience is self-destructive binge-drinking and game marathons. Who wants to marry that? Can you imagine them as a patriarch? 

The Disney Princesses don’t marry the manservant, do they? The clownish side kick, does he get respect? All these manboys are discussing their Princess, which is sweet in a clueless way, failing to realize that even if she exists, even if they met her, she would be well within her rights to reject him, because he ain’t no Prince Charming. 

Hell, he can’t even manage the charming part.

p.s. Charming is a trait that applies to all. If you are a man who cannot charm your fellow man, you cannot be charming. It’s grace, it’s etiquette and breeding. It has nothing to do with being nice or a pushover. Their social prowess alone is intimidating.

People age at variable speeds (biological age)

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/07/01/1506264112

Antiaging interventions are needed to reduce the burden of disease and protect population productivity.

Translation: they want to work you like a dog until you die.

Young people are the most attractive targets for therapies to extend healthspan

How is that NOT eugenics? You can bet it would be enforced.
Covered here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-33409604

…The analysis showed that at the age of 38, the people’s biological ages ranged from the late-20s to those who were nearly 60.

Pretty huge variance.

“They look rough, they look lacking in vitality,” said Prof Terrie Moffitt from Duke University in the US.

The study said some people had almost stopped ageing during the period of the study, while others were gaining nearly three years of biological age for every twelve months that passed….

Wouldn’t it make more empirical sense to study the verifiable Dorian Grays of the group?
Could this be genetic load?
Epigenetics with environment?

Taken with other studies, such as caloric restriction, might the body have an optimum stressor rate, beyond which it begins to break down? What could affect this? Processed food, particulate matter (air pollution), toxins processed or physical exertions?

“Any area of life where we currently use chronological age is faulty, if we knew more about biological age we could be more fair and egalitarian.”

I don’t see how. Unless you shoot people for being too young.

She argued the retirement age may be unfair for those “working at their peak” who then had to retire.

Oh, the government wants another excuse not to pay your pension. Fantastic.
It’s also ironic I was writing today about how men have a Wall too. Deny this. We’ve all seen people from school who were late bloomers, as well as people who peaked at age 15.

The breeder’s equation

West Hunter

R = h2 S.

R is the response to selection, S is the selection differential, and h2 is the narrow-sense heritability. This is the workhorse equation for quantitative genetics. The selective differential S, is the difference between the population mean and the mean of the parental population (some subset of the total population).

For example, imagine a set of parents with IQs of 120, drawn from a population with an average IQ of 100. Suppose that the narrow-sense heritability (in that population, in that environment) is 0.5 . The average IQ of their children will be 110. That’s what is usually called regression to the mean.

Do the same thing with a population whose average IQ is 85. We again choose parents with IQs of 120, and the narrow-sense heritability is still 0.5. The average IQ of their children will be 102.5 – they regress to a lower…

View original post 704 more words

Beauty and Intelligence incredibly linked (same level as education)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201012/beautiful-people-really-are-more-intelligent

In a previous post, I show, using an American sample from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, that physically more attractive people are more intelligent. As I explain in a subsequent post, the association between physical attractiveness and intelligence may be due to one of two reasons. Genetic quality may be a common cause for both (such that genetically healthier people are simultaneously more beautiful and more intelligent). Alternatively, the association may result from a cross-trait assortative mating, where more intelligent and higher status men of greater resources marry more beautiful women….

Mostly the former, as it explains female bequeath too it should be genetic. Assortative mating usually applies to objective attractiveness (the famed 10-scale) for both sexes, skewed relationships rarely last long without something else to make up for the gap.

Regardless of the reason for the association, the new evidence suggests that the association between physical attractiveness and general intelligence may be much stronger than we previously thought.

… Attractive NCDS respondents have the mean IQ of 104.23, whereas unattractive NCDS respondents have the mean IQ of 91.81.  The difference between them is 12.42. This mean difference implies a correlation coefficient of r = .381, which is reasonably large in any survey data…..

Huge IQ bridge, on par with eugenic/dysgenic effects? I’d love to see expanded profiles (marital status at 30, for example).

By pure coincidence, the correlation between physical attractiveness and intelligence in NCDS is exactly the same, down to the third decimal point, as the correlation between intelligence and education. Both correlations are .381. Everybody knows that intelligence and education are very highly correlated. What they don’t know is that physical attractiveness is equally highly correlated with intelligence as education is. 

In other words,

If you want to estimate someone’s intelligence without giving them an IQ test, you would do just as well to base your estimate on their physical attractiveness as you would to base it on their years of education.

oh damn wow ah

I’ll leave these here:
http://thisisattractiveprivilege.tumblr.com/
http://thisisbeautyprivilege.tumblr.com/
http://thisisthinprivilege.org/

“Privilege” has statistical backing!
The stereotypes, again, are true!

Maybe humans will branch into an Eloi and Morlock scenario? The IQ difference is huge, the SD I calculated for the summary result (both sexes) is 8.78227, population SD is 6.21 with population variance of 38.5641 in IQ. Huge values.

Eugenic history: Russian domestication of foxes

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/mans-new-best-friend-a-forgotten-russian-experiment-in-fox-domestication/

Belyaev hypothesized that the anatomical and physiological changes seen in domesticated animals could have been the result of selection on the basis of behavioral traits. More specifically, he believed that tameness was the critical factor. How amenable was an animal to interacting with humans?

Belyaev wondered if selecting for tameness and against aggression would result in hormonal and neurochemical changes, since behavior ultimately emerged from biology. Those hormonal and chemical changes could then be implicated in anatomy and physiology. It could be that the anatomical differences in domesticated dogs were related to the genetic changes underlying the behavioral temperament for which they selected (tameness and low aggression). He believed that he could investigate these questions about domestication by attempting to domesticate wild foxes. Belyaev and his colleagues took wild silver foxes (a variant of the red fox) and bred them, with a strong selection criteria for inherent tameness.

…The domesticated foxes were more eager to hang out with humans, whimpered to attract attention, and sniffed and licked their caretakers. They wagged their tails when they were happy or excited. (Does that sound at all like your pet dog?) Further, their fear response to new people or objects was reduced, and they were more eager to explore new situations. Many of the domesticated foxes had floppy ears, short or curly tails, extended reproductive seasons, changes in fur coloration, and changes in the shape of their skulls, jaws, and teeth. They also lost their “musky fox smell.”

Essentially, you can’t isolate one “trait” in breeding from its pairs, the behaviour emerges from certain genetic clusters. Even eye-colour is heavily complicated (Mendelian genetic squares are outmoded beyond genetic diseases).  Same applies to people – the appearance seems to betray the character.

e.g. off the top of my head, testosterone manjaw and interpersonal aggression – the connection is real and cannot be broken, they are mutual outcomes of the same genetic material cluster, you cannot have one without the other

The people worrying about eugenics “deleting” “undesirables”  aka The Hitler Problem least understand it. The undesirable quantities, if ethically selected, would be universal human preferences. How practical is this?

Easiest of the changes is to reduce dysgenics (less disease, mental illness, ugliness, premature death and suffering) et cetera and I have never met anybody against THAT. This would raise the genetic quality, eugenic by default.

FI FYI: anti-racism “consensus” http://www.unz.com/pfrost/sometimes-the-consensus-is-phony/

Video: Thought germs

Tries to explain memes for people too dumb to know the word. Also assumes emotions are a weakness in the brain (they are not, unless you’re applying them as a cogent form of argument, which isn’t a weakness of emotion but a logical fallacy in context).

Nothing about factual evidence because this should be obvious. Nothing about how anger is a primal trigger (an instinct triggered beyond the brain, not truly an emotion) for good evolutionary reasons. It sounds neutral, except it isn’t. Let’s apply it to something worth talking about: science. At some point, one group wins. Forever. The process of angered debate is fertile, instead of futile. They vye for power. That is not a symbiosis. This video confuses ideological familiarity with merit as a position of (factual) argument. No one debates their opinion because it’s self-evident.

Mental hygiene is an old Christian and feminist idea (avoiding thoughts of sin) and purifying the body. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_health#History

Click to access 211-236.pdf

Note how the video doesn’t question itself? Yes, we agree with “good mental health” as a goal, nice try buddy.

What everyone is missing about that Feminazi

I am sorry to say I have encountered this woman and her opinions before. They are not uncommon among academics.

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/is-reducing-the-male-population-by-90-percent-the-solution-to-all-our-problems

They are focusing on the wrong section in commentary, the 90% dead. Those 90% would be the ones without value. For clues as to why offing the 90% seems like a good idea to her, think of her as a serial killer.
The question moves from Why kill them? to Why not kill them? and the 9:1 ratio is a good enough basis for the serial assertion.

Why spare 10% (suspiciously round number alert) of men at all? What do these men provide?

The most suitable men would simply be those who are fit in both body and mind. This is also related to genetic modification.

Society already uses eugenics with medicine, but okay…

Which is more important to her, in this utopia? (Nothing about goodness btw)

Healthy and fit men will always be ideal, but not “brutes”, which has more to do with mental attributes than physical. Anyone can lift weights.

Physically attractive, with no effort, with the docility of low testosterone.

Suddenly the suspiciously round number makes sense when you realize she is subconsciously quoting the 10-scale. 

translation: The top 10% of hot men are allowed to live. 

he's so beautiful eric ariel staring ogling

Women keeping physically attractive men as pets… or sex slaves.

It’s a new model of Communism where women are magically exempt. Nothing about ugly women, or women working or pulling our weight as a sex. What about old men who outlived their use?

Doesn’t all this dismiss the notion of companionship and the family unit?
Heterosexual companionship and the nuclear family model, yes.

What do you propose as alternatives?
Children should be raised communally and by the state. The nuclear family model is a breeding ground of deceptions, mediocrities, treacheries, hypocrisy and violence. It needs to be abolished.

There is too much wrong there to bother, I’m sorry.

If children are made wards of the state with assigned caretakers, not only will it be easier to undo the constraints of bigotry and the other archaic beliefs that are passed down from parents to their children, but children can be used to monitor the older generations [Hitler Youth] in regard to the propagation of bigoted and antediluvian values. It is about creating a unified perception.

I mean –

Then you think sexual orientation can be designed?
Absolutely. I believe sexual orientation, like most but not all things, comes from socialisation as well as genetics – with a heavier influence from genetics. Anyone who contends that sexual orientation is purely genetic is either disingenuous or foolish. Eventually, we will be able to engineer people to a greater preference for their own sex. It seems to me that a lot of women are far more open to homosexuality than men, or at least are more willing to experiment, and why is that?

I’m not sure, you think it’s genetic?
Perhaps it’s partially genetic, but it’s also due to an ingrained fear that men have of appearing homosexual because that isn’t what a “man” is supposed to be. With the combined forces of social and genetic engineering, we can easily reshape and mold human sexuality into whatever we desire.

She is jealous of lesbians.

Heartiste is correct, the low fertility of these nutjobs is a feature, not a bug.
There is a hidden aspect of this arrangement. These Communes require enforced lesbianism, women cannot be allowed to rely on men, even for sex. She hints the hold-outs, demanding to keep their heterosexuality (!!!) are the damaged, degenerate ones.

Idiocracy is happening: dysgenics is making our brains shrink

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking

“Which brings us to an unpleasant possibility. “You may not want to hear this,” says cognitive scientist David Geary of the University of Missouri, “but I think the best explanation for the decline in our brain size is the idiocracy theory.” Geary is referring to the eponymous 2006 film by Mike Judge about an ordinary guy who becomes involved in a hibernation experiment at the dawn of the 21st century. When he wakes up 500 years later, he is easily the smartest person on the dumbed-down planet. “I think something a little bit like that happened to us,” Geary says. In other words, idiocracy is where we are now.”

Reminds me of something