Link: Why we need eugenics

The founding stated purpose of the NHS was eugenic.
It isn’t what your history teacher brainwashed you.
Every celebrity sticking up for “healthcare” is into eugenics.
As long as the NHS pays for abortions and contraception.

Repeat abortions nursing article:

“there is a significant risk that the child would suffer physical or mental abnormalities leading to serious handicap”

Various conditions will disappear.

http://atavisionary.com/why-we-need-eugenics/

Important practical note:

Logically, you’d need proportionate eugenic policies to simply counterbalance the dysgenic ones, purely to even it out and start from neither. neutral position. Eugenic in this case is basically any policy that encourages healthy taxpayers to have more kids and raise them properly (that will also have better life outcomes and so on into prosperity via pursuit of individual happiness helped by the nation state they own, how terrible, right?). Dysgenic is whatever prevents this sustainable circle of life (holds aloft a lion cub) or more directly harmful, promotes ill-health and sterility in a population swayed by antisocial (punitive) policy changes. It’s technically dysgenic to promote the continuation of the “loser” lines of the outgroup too (keeping prisoners and slaves instead of killing them in war means eventually your kids will breed with them) but that’s also pathological altruism (classic empire suicide) and only formerly happened when a major war was lost and most of the healthy men were dead (conquest). Migration patterns is a PC way to say “conqueror boundaries”.

To promote continuation of another genetic line over one’s own isn’t merely genetic suicide and likely a form of madness (nothing in evolution accounts for this and it’s direct ingroup harm), it’s literally a spin on treason.

If the outgroup is so great, go live among them before “helping”.

Demographics matter. Biology matters. People’s personalities, including non-cognitive traits that affect life outcomes, are highly heritable. Specific pro-social temperaments conducive to civilization have been demonstrated to be genetically determined in animal studies with foxesand mice. In addition, all relevant identical twin studies have found that genetics accounts for at minimum 45% of the total variation in intelligence within populations. A significant portion of studies, notably including the most comprehensive ones, have estimated the genetic contribution to be between 70 and 80%. The heritability of intelligence has also been demonstrated in non-human primates.

IQ as a measure of intelligence and a predictor of positive outcomes has been demonstratedbeyond any shadow of doubt. Not only are those with high IQ more likely to have positive life outcomes on a personal level, but their efforts as a class contribute significantly more to the economic health and technological progress of civilization than the average or low IQ classes.

You want equal outcomes?
Start with equal contributions!

“They can’t”? Yeah, we know!

That is literally our point.

So who owes whom, considering the people who take more than they produce have the privilege of living off those other people already, purely for a coincidence of geography?
National socialism, right there. Producers enslaved to consumers, seems temporary.

They complain about The Rich but never want to kick the Russians out of London, do they?
Then it’s lachrymose Guardian pieces blithely bemoaning why property is so expensive.
Putin kicked those corrupt Russians out and you wanna keep them? WHY?

The only Russian collusion is with real estate agents.

IQ is so important to civilization, in fact, that the relative wealth of a country can be accurately predicted from average IQ*. Intriguingly gains that result from increasing intelligence do not suffer from the law of diminishing returns. Therefore, the relative fertility of high intelligence vs. low intelligence people has significant implications for the evolution of civilization and humanity…..

Evolution is ongoing remember.

Incentives make societies based on their priorities and values, punitive sanctions on health and markers of prosociality e.g. income tax paid, decay the society of envy.

The politics of envy end in death. I guess it’s the sociopath’s way to prevent ‘suffering’.

I feel like the only person to notice how America’s hand-wringing guilt over its “evil” supposedly ‘eugenic‘ sterilizations of the grossly dependent went without mention during the unusual boom times a generation plus afterward. The same prosperity occurs after the natural culling effect of major disease outbreaks. This happens everywhere.

Black Death > Boom, Renaissance

Everywhere.

Sexual dimorphism and health

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/270/Suppl_1/S93

“Incels” reee.

Evolutionary psychologists suggest that a preference for sexually dimorphic traits in human faces is an adaptation for mate choice, because such traits reflect health during development. For male faces, this claim rests on the immunocompetence-handicap hypothesis, which states that the increased testosterone levels needed to develop large masculine traits stress the immune system. We examined whether masculine traits in adolescent male faces are associated with health during development, and also whether feminine traits in adolescent female faces signal health. Feminine traits are attractive, but it is less clear whether they should signal health.

Being fertile = female health as a teen. More women are viable than men. Most men would die in crime, competition and war.

To be fair

Rated masculinity in adolescent male faces correlated modestly with actual health, and was perceived as healthy,

Duh.

but not as attractive.

Also obvious.

Gym rats and dudebros can’t make up for an ugly mug or low caste with bulked-up bitch tits.
Women aren’t stupid.

There are tons of Muslims gunning it down the gym, thinking they can magically interest white women.
Look at them on instagram.

This doesn’t work.

Rated femininity in adolescent female faces did not correlate with actual health, although it was perceived as healthy and attractive.

What is “attractive” now is just sexy, vis a vis quite masculine (big lips need a big jaw) and the old classic beauties with fine, smaller features in harmony were the fertile ones. Ideal:

These results support the immunocompetence-handicap hypothesis for male faces in that masculine traits signalled health during adolescence. However, they suggest that any health-related evolutionary benefits obtained from preferences for attractive facial traits may be weak.

Patriarchs don’t let their daughters marry pretty sluts, either.

Women do care about appearance, just genetic cues; not something easily faked with estrogenic wheatgrass powders and self-destructive vain exercise habits. Straight women are not attracted to men who look – sorry – gay.

The two options in modern life aren’t slob or effete but you wouldn’t know it looking.

A man is not measured by the size of his muscles or his notch counts.

Fitness is real masculinity, you earn real muscle by building something or fighting someone.

We could build orphanages and pave roads but no, that’s low status work-out, can’t do that! Might be patriotic and prosocial!

The hospitals and old manors crumble while men “slave” to look half-starved and wax their chest, history will deserve to mock your generation. The rich bastards on the Titanic had a gym.

Useful people got PAID to work out! I know! Crazy!

Many of history’s greatest men were slender virgins and they’ll matter more than any of these “Beautiful Ones” suiciding themselves out of the gene pool. Women want men, not some metrosexual who might come out as gay once they’ve pumped you for three kids. If you see a white woman, with an Asian, note he isn’t the gym type and was willing to propose and raise a family (what makes a man).

Polycystic ovary syndrome caused in utero

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2168705-cause-of-polycystic-ovary-syndrome-discovered-at-last/

I wonder if the mother’s history of Pill use or abortion has any effect?

http://sciencenordic.com/birth-control-pills-halve-size-women%E2%80%99s-ovaries
“Birth control pills can reduce women’s ovaries upward 50 per cent in size. However, it’s not dangerous, says lead scientist.”
“We noticed that a number of young women who took birth control pills had ovaries that looked like they were approaching the menopause,” she says.’
“Generally, the more eggs a woman has, the higher the AMH level in her blood.” So could it connect to r-selected women? Or something else?

Smear test risks not warned

I wonder why.

Why do an unnecessary procedure, even on virgins, misinform them that they must do it and charge for something physically damaging to the future reproductive health, that they can also charge for?

Why not study or publish the negative outcomes, which are hard to trace?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23831804-400-women-arent-being-told-real-risks-of-cervical-cancer-screening/

Almost like they want to hurt women and abort their babies.
I can’t find a way to link the whole thing, especially if the EU have their way.

Blood tests exist for cancer, like STDs, smear tests are outdated Victorian perversions and if you look up the law, plausibly a form of rape with an object, especially if misinformed.

https://www.steadyhealth.com/topics/miscarriage-after-a-pap-smear?page=4
If you damage the cervix, it can cause permanent harm.
Would men allow their balls to be scraped with a small serrated metal knife? oh, bleeding’s normal, it’ll heal, don’t worry!

“The overseas doctor said that was a big no’ no’ and that they never pap in the first tri-mester.” In a foreign country. If they know…

Racial realities, mixed race fertility and Neanderthals

Hope you poured a drink you could prop a spoon in.

I found stuff by accident again.

http://www.academia.edu/542911/Neanderthal-human_hybrids

Neanderthal women couldn’t conceive with humans.

Different species.

It would be interesting to see if there are fertility problems between races…

I thought.
Google autocompletes “are mixed race less fertile”
Interesting.

Rumours that Asians and Africans have more trouble with IVF, even among those who already need IVF.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/business-transparency/freedom-of-information/what-can-i-request/previous-foi-requests/health-and-social-care/information-regarding-mixed-race-parentage/index.html

Infertility information isn’t gathered, which sounds weird for a data-mining project???
They collect the differing types of data but somehow can’t put them together? I call BS.

http://sociobiologicalmusings.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/problems-with-mixed-race-marriages-and.html
Cavalli-Sforza’s genetic distances.
I knew HBD would have the answer.

“It is almost the equivalent to having twice the number of children… Thus assortative mating by ethnicity can have large fitness benefits, the largest derived from choosing mates within geographic races.”

they pass on more of themselves, less genetic death per carrier (child)
May increase the values for Ks in parental investment theory.

“In other words and general terms, a white mother will be almost as twice as closely related to a child with a white father versus a child with a black father.”

Bear in mind, this isn’t opinion. It’s genetic.

“But when I turn to the mirror in my bedroom to admire us together, I am shocked. She seems so alien.”
LOL
The non-white always benefits far in excess due to dominating the white phenotypes.
They’re hoping to reduce their mutation load/disease risk. The white party loses.

“But still, I can’t shake off the feeling of unease. I didn’t realise how much her looking different would matter… When she was born, pale but with lots of dark hair, I asked the midwife if her eyes would stay blue. ‘Asian genes are very strong,’ she said in what I took to be an ominous tone. No more Brady Bunch kids for me. The midwife has been proved right and every day my baby’s eyes get a little darker.””

Wow so Nazi to insist your daughter look like you. /s
WTF do these r-types expect?

“Since parents share fewer genes with mixed-race children, people involved in interracial marriages are short-changing their own genes, which might explain why people engaged in mixed-race relationships often tend to have lower mate value.”

oh yeah
they signal how they can’t get one of their own so they settled
we all know how attractive desperation is, socially and sexually

“In general, mixed-race people have more health problems.”
The hybrid vigour thing was always a lie, it’s reduced fitness.
According to the field of medicine.

In other words, an argument could be made that mixed-race families are maladaptive — both for the parents and the children — and undermine one’s genetic interests. As noted by various commenters, multiracial families often do not possess the harmony, cooperation and purposefulness of same-race families, because mixed-race families lack the focus of genetic investment and returns that same-race families possess.”

Like a kind of …selection…

White British genes best at IVF *hums national anthem*

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160818212907.htm
“The study also found that some groups of women including South Asian Bangladeshi, Black African, Middle Eastern, have a significantly lower number of eggs collected than White British women.”
weeaboos lament
“Furthermore, the increased prevalence of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) in south Asian women may have an impact on egg quality and lower implantation rates.”
“The data suggests that ethnicity is a major independent factor determining the chances of IVF or ICSI treatment success.”
No shit Sherlock. Could it be something of a biological thing going on here…?
“While the reason for this association is difficult to explain, the potential factors could be the observed differences in cause of infertility, ovarian response, fertilisation rates and implantation rates, which are all independent predictors of IVF success.”
Difficult? Awkward.
“”Infertility affects 10-15% of the population and more people are seeking fertility treatment.”
Isn’t that approaching the rate of mixed race couples? Coincidence, I’m sure. I’d like to check but nobody gives enough of a damn about them to collect the data.
“The reasons behind the variation need to be looked at in more detail but in the future could potentially help improve success rates amongst all groups of women.””
Not if it’s genetic.

Another study!
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131029220758.htm
“live birth rates of ethnic women were significantly lower”

White women healthiest post-birth
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130211102222.htm
almost like an evolved advantage…

Disgust toward mixed-race couples at biological level
https://phys.org/news/2016-08-bias-disgust-mixed-race-couples.html
“”That indicates that viewing images of interracial couples evokes disgust at a neural level,” Skinner said.”
“Participants were quicker to associate interracial couples with non-human animals and same-race couples with humans.”
lol
do you ‘fucking love science’ now?

Mixed race babies weaker babies
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2867623/
“contribute to the substantially higher demonstrated risk for stillbirth”
it’s healthy! they tell you
only because they aren’t collecting the data to argue otherwise
I would sue because that’s academic neglect and actual systemic racism.

You really have to search even for data on successful births, then there’s NO fitness advantage by rate.
http://paa2012.princeton.edu/papers/122287
“This paper investigates whether mixed race couples have different or same fertility level than same race couples”
“Same race couples have on average 1.93 children while mixed couples have 2.05 children. Same race couples have lower fertility because the majority of those couples are white. This data shows that homo and heterogamous unions do not have the same fertility level”
“Mixed race couples have fertility levels that fall in between same race couples; not as high as black or brown couples but not as low as the white couple.”
Regression to the mean, my old friend.

Ya gotta really LOOK.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/obgyn/pregnancy/11111
Oh look, mutation load.

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-harder-for-interracial-couples-to-conceive
“I can’t find any studies on this at all.”
Red flag to ANYONE else?
“I heard from student of medicine that interracial couples could have problem conceiving child because of their racial differences.”
Why not study it?
They’re screwing over the mixed-race kids.
Possibly killing them, in the long run. That’s just sick, not to study it. Parents deserve to know.

The manosphere dudes with Yellow Fever won’t be pleased.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2008/10/the-prenatal-wages-of-interracial-relationships/
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-10/sumc-acf092508.php
“In both of these cases there isn’t something mystical going on; God is not smiting those who are sinning by crossing racial lines. Human spontaneous abortion rates are high. Much of this might be due to mother-child immune system responses. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that people from very genetically distinct populations have very different immune profiles. …”
It does if they grow up hearing everyone is biologically equal.
There is some data which might suggest that genetic relatedness increases reproductive fitness, possibly because of reduced risk of immune incompatibilities between mother and fetus when the father is more closely related to the mother. It stands to reason then that as the father becomes more genetically distant the likelihood of incompatibilities might increase. All of this means that genes matter, and they matter in ways we can possibly predict.”

Then predict.

Do the science.

Your JOB.

http://brembs.net/hamilton/
Irony, the name.
K-selected cooperation in a formula.

Inbreeding is generally better than outbreeding due to inclusive fitness.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1088844/
applies to other species too
As long as you don’t screw close relations and over many generations, you’re fine.

Wasps! That’s the depth of the barrel I scrape for data on this. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear!
https://academic.oup.com/beheco/article/22/2/337/208104/Reproductive-skew-is-highly-variable-and
Because for some reason nobody takes the data in humans.
Some strange, open-minded reason.
They find cooperation. In insects.

Needs more genetics, more studies. Generally correct.

Legs are marker of femininity

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/201605/why-do-men-find-women-s-legs-so-alluring

It’s a sign of fertility, healthy growth and good genes.

Plenty of thriving conservative societies allowed the legs to be shown while the other areas remained covered because it’s subtle without being sexual.

A leg man is always a classy man. I have observed this to be an upper class behaviour. (Lower class, A, middle class T).

Naturally, I would say that, having an A+ pair of legs myself.

Dean Winchester is a legend

Age at first intercourse and number of children linked to genes

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/04/18/genes-help-determine-when-you-will-lose-your-virginity-say-scien/

Nope, those are choices. It’s like handedness, there may be a tendency either way, but culture can overcome it (and I rarely credit nurture with anything).

Taking the choice out of people’s hands with this excuse, absolving them of responsibility for their own sex lives, is not a good idea.

superman drinking give up nope

Next up, pedophiles can’t help it, the age of consent is abolished because apparently some 3 year olds are programmed to want it and a MENA family with 8 children claim the State should support them all because it wasn’t their fault.

Muh DNA, man.

This is a correlation among the r-selected and K-selected, nothing more.