(You’re thinking of propaganda).
(You’re thinking of propaganda).
The low IQ Americans: MUH ANCESTORS
-died. Mostly died. STFU with the snowflaking outrage.
Although the human germline mutation rate is higher than that in any other well-studied species, the rate is not exceptional once the effective genome size and effective population size are taken into consideration. Human somatic mutation rates are substantially elevated above those in the germline, but this is also seen in other species.
What is exceptional about humans is the recent detachment from the challenges of the natural environment and the ability to modify phenotypic traits in ways that mitigate the fitness effects of mutations, e.g., precision and personalized medicine. This results in a relaxation of selection against mildly deleterious mutations, including those magnifying the mutation rate itself.
Actually, it’s anti-selection aka dysgenics. There is always a pressure in some direction, read Darwin?
You can’t have dystopia without dysgenics. That’s all a dystopia is.
The long-term consequence of such effects is an expected genetic deterioration in the baseline human condition,
By race and subrace.
potentially measurable on the timescale of a few generations in westernized societies,
Technically you only need one truly fuck-up generation (say Boomers) to install those social policies up to 3 (living memory). This is without external group effects i.e. invasion on a genetic level, rape. So it isn’t fair to say immigration caused this, it compounds it severely. The Boomers and their outsized ingroup-gene infanticide will go down in history as mass murderers, if there’s anyone left.
and because the brain is a particularly large mutational target, this is of particular concern. Ultimately, the price will have to be covered by further investment in various forms of medical intervention.
Medicine isn’t magic. It cannot do that. We already cannot afford the current population with the present and dwindling useful tax base, let alone Japan levels of old coots living to infinity and China levels of population size.
You can’t fuck your way out of this, r-types. You can’t immigrate it either, those new entries have a lower IQ, higher overall group fertility and represent a smaller usable tax base. Debt doesn’t exist to cover this medical cost, even digital money typing. You can’t even type your way out of it. Hyperinflation would occur first, long before actually. Try running the numbers, see if you’re as smart as me. The cost of quality food is the anchor point. Of all living expenses, that one actually keeps you alive?
Don’t become a doctor, kids. Medicine bubble, heard it here first.
Hell, NHS GPs are already quitting now. Retention will only get worse. The ones who stay have lower IQ and can’t find gainful employment anywhere else. This is how socialism degrades infrastructure, the first generation the NHS seemed fine but the second, it attracted parasites to become GPs for the money and by the third, the original talented ones (by private sector standards) had retired and died, leaving training downhill from there.
Other people have explained that before. That one isn’t me.
Resolving the uncertainties of the magnitude and timescale of these effects will require the establishment of stable, standardized, multigenerational measurement procedures for various human traits.
Measurement? We’re lower IQ than ingroup Victorian ancestors by reaction time.
No relevant barriers to entry? Say, for breeding? At least on state funding?
Shows what they think of the producers, dunnit?
Leave the leech alone! The parasites are fine!
Yeah wait a few generations, maybe a century and hope the metrics are correctly chosen to matter!
Long after the researchers are dead so you can’t kill them for being wrong.
This is Idiocracy, even academia is full of nitwits.
We used to have a breeding license, it’s called a marriage certificate.
Below a certain IQ, you can’t actually consent to get married or breed. Maybe study that first?
No, that would be both logical and responsible.
See, I don’t just sit here bitching. I have solutions but nobody listens.
nb Historians and real scientists say European, liars typically say Caucasian.
For example, among European populations in the year 1600 AD the average individual had around a 25-40 % chance of dying in infancy, a 50 % chance of dying during childhood (Volk and Atkinson 2008), and only around a 40 % chance of fully participating in reproduction (Rühli and Henneberg 2013). The average family size was close to five in 1600s England (Arkell & Whiteman, 1998) -given the high rates of pre- term, infant, and child mortality, the numbers ever conceived would likely have been considerably higher. These historical Western infant and child mortality statistics are similar to those observed in contemporary hunter-gatherer populations (Volk and Atkinson 2008)
I’ll list the maths since there’s always that one idiot who “disagrees”.
Of those born, low ball:
100 – 25% = 75
75 – 50% = 37.5
37.5 – 40% = 15
15 of 100 births eventually reproduced, at best.
Your ancestors in 1600 weren’t entitled to breed either. STFU, stupid sections of America.
Natural selection is important.
RITES OF PASSAGE. TOUGH ONES.
Assuming you aren’t tradlarping?
Bear in mind, that wasn’t sex-specific and those estimates are the population i.e. they have to breed with one another.*
Less conservative estimate:
100 – 40% = 60
60 – 50% = 30
30 – 40% = 12
12 of 100 births eventually reproduced, by academic estimate. The more realistic one.
Again, stop being so entitled. Considering the odds, five kids average is actually pretty low.
The entitled brats, appealing to a tradition that’s totally ignorant and imaginary, are the spiteful mutants. In any other time period, you’d probably be dead by now. Male infant mortality is higher than female overall for humans, which hasn’t been factored in.
And WWs 1 and 2 culled the bravest genes of that millennia selection by machine gun and sniper.
At least the bankers made mo- wait, they’ve already “run out” of fake money. Less than a century later.
What was it all for?
or 7.5/100 births eventually reproduced as a couple TOPS
down to, more reasonably
6% of MEN* (or women, maybe**) compared to the grandfather’s generation.
[Father 50% reproduction as male, Grandfather 100% comparison, since all grandfathers would have bred logically.]
or 6/100 births from the total population, coupled.
Assuming 50/50 male/female birth split and flat survival, which doesn’t exist.**
Since breeding requires TWO people, America.
3 generations tops, with a 6% male survival in 1600 Europe.
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.
This doesn’t further subdivide by health, wealth, religion or attractiveness.
If one surviving guy in that 100 births total was infertile or refused marriage, you can kinda see why it was a big deal.
This is why inheritance was always conditional on religion, approved choice of spouse and vitally, children.
If the Boomers wanna do some good, write into your will your kids get nothing unless actively Christian, married, with at least one child with a spouse you approve of. They won’t do it. They’ll complain about no grandkids though. That never gets old.
In the will of A. A. Springs was the list of his property. it went into detail to whom the property was to be dispersed and it included his children. Mr. Christopher, and others, were looking to find what railroads and banks this man might have owned and had left to his son, Leroy Springs. He didn’t find anything like that, but he did find the prize of the century. On the bottom of page three of four pages was a paragraph where the father, A. A. Springs, left to his son an enormous amount of land in the state of Alabama which amounted to the land that is today known as Huntsville, Alabama and then he went into detail to name the son and at first Mr. Christopher and the others with him couldn’t believe what they were seeing, but there it was the name of the son and it was “ABRAHAM LINCOLN!”
“In the late spring of the year of 1808 Nancy Hanks, who was of the family lineage of the McAdden family was visiting some of her family in the community of Lincolnton, North Carolina. While on her stay with family in the Carolina’, she visited with many of the neighboring families that she had known for many years; one such visit was the Springs family. The sordid details had been omitted but obviously the young Nancy Hanks had found herself in a compromised position and was forced to succumb to the lust of A.A. Springs. She became pregnant as a result. There were no details of a love affair or an act of violence on a helpless female. Abraham Lincoln was the result of that act, which leads one to wonder if the name ‘Lincoln’ was real or a fabricated name for the are of conception was ‘Lincolnton.’ Was there really a Thomas Lincoln? Since the ‘Spring’ were of the race that called themselves Jewish, that made Lincoln part Jewish and as part of the Springs family, he also became a relative of the Rothschild family by blood.”
Explains the gay (circumcised men prefer unnatural sex) and so the syphilis (which his wife went mad from). Another reason they had to off him. Syphilitics talk. Look how much Henry VIII rebelled after getting it from Anne Boleyn’s sister (at least he got his own back by murdering the sister, a tad unfair but there you go). No wonder Elizabeth wanted nothing to do with the diseased, literally mad men.
No excuse to throw her in a loony bin after catching it from an adulterous husband. Great revenge against a degenerate father pathologically obsessed with descendants (the fruit of his loins, no coincidence). He probably couldn’t conceive a healthy son because of the STDs, ironically. You think they didn’t know this? It also messes with impulse control like say…. over-eating. Exercise encourages its progression.
Amazing how many Presidents are actually related. And you don’t have a monarchy, huh? Why is everything so shit?
Yeah, the evil English must be oppressing you, your fellow white rulers are fine.
Things are so much better demographically since you abandoned the motherland.
If you’re a Jew.
Putin’s a smart man.
An honor culture can only function in a society in which there is a shared code — clear rules, standards, and expectations for interaction and engagement — and within a closed community of equals. But as the Roman Republic transformed into a sprawling, porous, far-flung empire, its society became increasingly large, complex, and diverse, and “The citizen of Rome became a citizen of the world,” this common, level playing field disintegrated.
In an honor culture, you can only be insulted by someone you consider an equal. But in Roman society, discerning who deserved this level of respect, and whose slights to take seriously, became increasing difficult and unclear. If someone possessed a different set of values, was a citizen still honor-bound to care what they thought?
Early Romans had shared rules of engagement — boundaries that checked their competitions and kept them civil. In the greater chaos of the empire, in the absence of shared norms, citizens made the rules up as they went. It was every man for himself. In fact, the less a man cared about honor, the more unable he was to be shamed, the more strategic advantage he gained. Early Romans had not played to win, but for the sake of engaging in a good fight; now, citizens were prepared to win at any cost.
the noble loser
political gain > spiritual
Romans thus came to see contests as unequal and destructive. Those who engaged in competitions under the old assumption of participating on a level playing field, found instead that the odds were stacked, and this gap between expectation and reality engendered great bitterness. As did the fact that it seemed more and more men began receiving commendations, laurels of honor, who hadn’t actually earned them.
no meritocracy or scant
As a result, Romans became disillusioned and began to withdraw from the contest, from active engagement with their fellow citizens and civic life. “When competition was insupportable, then paralysis, the desire to hide, and the desire to be insensitive and autonomous became widespread cultural phenomena. With the loss of the good contest and the rules that framed it, cold, callous, brazen shamelessness became a cure for shame.”
hopelesssness (a sin if you check with Catholics, despair)
“individualism” ego rationalisation, vanity (good for self and appearance’s sake, not for thede)
“Shamelessness” for the Romans did not necessarily mean, as it does for us, to be unvirtuous, but rather to literally be incapable of being shamed. That is, the shameless care nothing for what others think of them.
spiritually vapid celebrities or role models
It always starts with the men doesn’t it?
Weak personal morals/actions of men, appeal to exception and excuses, weak moral authority > no honour > loss of respect to other men and all women, no social power, nobody listens. The levy breaks, the dam bursts. “If it’s okay when they do, why not me?” Monkey see, monkey do. Children don’t listen what you say, they witness you.
A hierarchy of modern men would rank far below late Romans, but how often do they virtue signal against men who’d at least risked death in battle? Like, STFU. They could build houses and fires. They were useful. Women hate gammas for the fake signals like that. The snarky “I’m so much better” – then DO something, DO anything useful!
Fathers should stick around to tell their sons this, it isn’t women’s business and we resent this novel pressure to kinda ‘mansplain’ to boys what they should already know as adults – STANDARDS.
Women who complain about the manchild are 100% right, there shouldn’t be a word! Nor mantrum! We shouldn’t understand what it means nor see it!
While today we tend to admire this kind of radical indifference to public opinion, to the Romans unbounded autonomy was the mark of a man whose energy had been drained, whose being had been destroyed;
libertarians are lazy, in practice
excuses to do less, altogether
as Cicero put it: “To take no heed of what other people think of you is the part not only of an arrogant man but, to be sure, of a dissolutus.” How could someone who remained unmoved even in the face of legitimate criticism, who refused to be ashamed even when confronted with their culpability, ever be trusted?
the shameless man, the attention-seeking psychopaths as role models based on short-term results
high time pref parasitism on society
[see Hare’s work]
Still, even Cicero, though himself a political leader, was sympathetic to the impulse to become callously disengaged, rhetorically asking, “what spirit trained in these times, ought not to become insensitive?” Elsewhere he quotes a line of Euripides: “If this mournful day were the first to dawn for me, had I not long sailed in such a sea of troubles, then there would be reason for anguish like that felt by a colt when the reins are first imposed and he bridles at the first touch of the bit. But now, broken by miseries, I am numb.”
it isn’t an excuse
it’s egocentric to assume the world must care about your trivial problems or bow to your whims, princess
Social media has even made men princesses who “need” their coffee and “need” a chest wax and “need” to take a selfie. Is all that really a need or are you an entitled brat?
Hollywood tells us stuff magically happens. That’s why people pay – to see the FICTION.
Reality doesn’t allow escapism but genetic suicide comes close. Moral self-destruction.
The Bible warns about disconnection of the spirit, it’s the ideal condition the Devil wants, all you have left is the animal body, hedonism. There’s no judgement or conscience or sense of higher things, basically Nietzsche’s abyss wasn’t death, it was hedonism. It leads to excuses for oneself – a form of moral relativism.
In this self-imposed withdrawal and “the collapse of conditions for healthy competition in ancient Rome . . . various strategies [had to be] devised by the Romans for creating a new emotional economy and redefining their spirit.” Said another way, “With the loss of the rules and conditions of the good contest, the entire language of honor ‘imploded’ and had to be ‘reconstructed.’”
oh yay critical theory
This reconstruction process would involve nothing less than a complete inversion of values, and produce multiple radiating effects on Roman society.
pride from shame
free from diseased
individual from alone
Honor centered around control, constraint, consistency; the ideal man becomes he who is poised, tranquil, disengaged. The passive values were elevated above the active.
Good for a society of strong defences, death for a society of weak ones, permitting invasion for shekels.
Virtue < Virtue signal
I can be a slut, if I criticize sluts.
Moral hypocrisy, hallmark of degeneracy. The bottom of honour’s barrel. Drunken chambering.
Soldier becomes selfish slutty peacock, basically. It’s Calhoun but IRL. Needn’t be slutty with the opposite sex either, people forget that. The homosexuality rates are an outcrop of this noxious social weed where we don’t expect successful men to marry faithfully.
Shame is GOOD and JUST and NECESSARY for civilization.
“judge not lest ye be judged” refers to using the same societal standard for the entire society i.e. NO exceptions based on class, wealth, sob story etc etc
It does NOT say “never judge” – notice that?
Double standards are the first weakness e.g. cheating in sports.
Read the rest yourself, it’s jarring.
Fifth, as Romans collectively withdrew from participating in a contest culture, they ironically began to lionize the individual who continued to play the game, and did so with a “winner-take-all” disregard for the old rules. The “man not prepared to lose” was idolized.
Instead of competition being something in which every average citizen took part, the masses mounted the bleachers, to cheer on, and live vicariously through, the few “gladiators” still in the arena. As spectators, they both worried over and felt excited by the rise of would-be tyrants who were willing to crush anyone who stood in their way; the thrill of the cult of victory,
infantilising the criminal
siding with the anti-hero
sports substitute for war
idolatry cult – celebrity role models
Cult of voyeurism, we even have that with fucking now.
There was a rarely mentioned line in Fight Club, “this isn’t love, it’s sports-fucking”.
That’s it, right there. That is the essence of the degenerate. The sick men who look up to the unreal Tyler ignore the fact it’s satire, it’s mocking them. But they are shameless. They make all sacred things worldly.
Teenagers are brainwashed but anyone older who views it feels a little disgust, if their conscience, moral compass functions. Tyler says “God hates us”, he means himself. His God is the Narrator, and does hate the impossible fake* ideal. Tyler is Ikea Model Man, a product of society and NOT a person. Americans in particular miss all this subtle irony, since it’s like an ego play. He remodels his kitchen, then his reputation. It’s ridiculous, a morality play. If you could be transplanted into the “perfect” body of a warrior, you’d still be a coward. It’s your soul, your character.
How many buff gym dudes with tatts nowadays would refuse the draft more than the scrawniest Boomer?
Some Boomer-bashing comes from weaker men. Would Tyler go to war? But he runs a military cult.
Tyler knew he was a character, from wall breaks, and would be destroyed in the end like a Devil on the shoulder.
A mannequin of postmodern immoral “manliness”. A man with the appearance of a God and the low morals of a Devil.
*worldly, hedonistic, materialistic, VAPID, Tyler is all-looks
Vapid: I don’t need women ….but here’s Marla, fuck capitalism ….but start a business, I have depression and no purpose ….except I’m energetic and obsessed**, who cares about appearances but punch my face, he’s basically a bloody thot, come on. Well ‘ard, he call them here, like a chav. Can you imagine what he’d do alone? Nothing, he has nothing. It’s like James Bond, if he can’t shoot it or seduce it, he isn’t interested.
Edgy McEdgelord, Puncheyface Champion.
Shocked he didn’t get Marla to strangle him during sex with apron-strings.
Print it, Hollywood!
A chav with better threads.
Modern men are sports-fucking civilization to death. No love, totally sterile of meaning. All about the cult of victory and selfies. Muh “men invented civilization” bullshit is proof, number 1 white men (and women) and 2 get off your arse then and at least maintain it!
It’s like the son of a famous gardener standing before a pile of weeds and bracken, pontificating how it’s HIS garden and it won awards and it’s HIS HIS ALL HIS.
Be Spartan with your words, please.
** fucking uwu lad
I’d usually quote but it’s short.
I’m sure the cultural disconnect has nothing to do with other demographics…. /s
You can literally die for certain people and they’ll think you’re stupid* for the sacrifice (and they’d be right, heal your own world).
*narcissists know anyone who believes their fake tears is stupid