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.

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


Philosophy Phoenix Arises to Annihilate deGrasse Tyson

He should’ve been laughed out the room for that “whether you believe it or not” line. It should’ve disgraced him, because science is the method, not the result. The arrogance of a bloke who fiddles with telescopes.
“philosophers believe they are actually asking deep questions about nature” Clearly he doesn’t understand science is a philosophical tradition, without the philosophy of science he wouldn’t have a job.

Idiocracy dysgenics beginning in Europe and West

I wonder if they controlled for the factor of lower immigrant IQ? Their higher fertility? Bet not. The original study included social class, so as many factors as possible is the scientific thing to do.
backup from;

Yet Woodley thinks his team has found clear evidence of a decline in our genetic potential–and he claims it is happening much faster than Lynn’s calculation suggests. Instead of relying on fertility estimates, Woodley looked at a simple measure: reaction time. Quick-witted people, it turns out, are exactly that: smarter people tend to have quicker reaction times, probably because they process information more quickly.

Back in the 1880s, the polymath Francis Galton measured the reaction times of several hundred people of diverse social classes in London. A few years ago, Irwin Silverman of Bowling Green State University in Ohio noticed that the reaction times Galton recorded–an average of about 185 milliseconds between seeing a signal and pushing a button–were quite a bit quicker than the average of more than 250 milliseconds in modern tests, which began in the 1940s.

Woodley’s team reanalysed Silverman’s data, factoring in the known link between reaction time and intelligence. When they did this, they found that reaction times had indeed slowed over the century, by an amount corresponding to the loss of one full IQ point per decade, or more than 13 points since the Victorian era.

Critics have been quick to attack Woodley’s analysis, arguing that Galton may not have measured reaction times in the same way as later investigators. If Galton’s apparatus had a button with a shorter range of motion, for instance, then he would have measured shorter reaction times. What’s more, Silverman points out that there is no obvious downward trend in the post-1940 data, as there should be if Woodley is right.

In a detailed response published in June, Woodley maintains that today’s brains remain slower even after accounting for all these other explanations. But even if he’s right about reaction times, the correlation between IQ and reaction time is not an especially strong one: reaction time explains only about 10 per cent of the variation in IQ.

Why Europe and the West then? Only those places?
Nothing to do with the demographic changes brought on by multiculturalism, eh?
I can hear the sound of academics panicking about exposure.

The Flynn effect is fake. Standards are dropped lower and lower each time the test is re-written to be “inclusive” for the incoming hordes. It is a sham.

Idiocracy will make people uglier, too

Thought-provoking article.

The result of this confluence of factors is simple:  The current amount of beauty is a bubble, it will pop, and the world will get uglier.  There are cynics who would say that with our government subsidized high carbohydrate diets and sluts with short hairdos and tattoos aplenty, the peak of our beauty bubble is already in our rearview mirror.  They may have a point.

Facts: beauty is rare (minority) and proportionately esteemed, beauty is based in fertility cues and lead to objectively better outcomes on all good measures, European fertility is infamously sub-replacement thanks to feminism. We acquired the term “good-looking” from the association between handsomeness and civilized behaviour.

As earlier;

But not so fast.  Blue-eyed blondes with heart shaped asses are not an infinite largesse bestowed upon us by a higher power.  We are all of woman borne, and if you understand heredity you understand that beautiful girls must, on average, have mothers that were also beautiful.  That is to say, to keep this current beauty spigot flowing the world needs beautiful women to have daughters.

Nature is self-correcting. The slappers, as we call them here, likely gained those looks by genetic randomness their improper behaviour doesn’t support, since the most beautiful women tend to be least promiscuous, as they can demand commitment from men and need not lure them in with sex as an easy bait. However, they are smart enough to use this value to lock down a good man while in low notch numbers. Sluts hate them for this, they get the big prize, so the sluts try to argue their experiences of being used up like a sex toy were positive.

I know it’s anecdotal, but I’ve seen most sluts are 4-6, tops. I am being kind with that estimate.

The article is correct, there will be far fewer beautiful people in the future, male and female. Good-looking men are cautious with contraception and are putting off conceiving too, perhaps indefinitely. There are no rewards for the old family model. On an infinite timeline? A recursion.

Thousands of winters of scarce, sparse prey and harsh terrain culled a significant percentage of men.

This would probably be a few recessions without welfare keeping the r-type brats in iPhones. More and more people, competing against fewer and fewer beautiful people (and notice the right-wing tends to be hotter than the left? no coincidence). The effect is threefold: 1. ugly women try to promote ugliness as a new standard. 2. most men go without and stay at home with porn. 3. beautiful people interbreed, creating an aristocracy, as they make more money, keeping child N small because they’re usually k-types. Or as point three is known now “growing income inequality”.

The ugly women went barren and beauty flourished.

Notice these strong, independent women aren’t going to sperm banks en masse? Seems men aren’t so replaceable. They can’t chase the Government if their welfare check stops. Children are a burden to them.

By decoupling sex and reproduction, it is selecting for those who really want kids.  Will beauty survive?  We’ll have to wait and see.

I believe it will, but it will take a long time to recover and lessons will be learnt e.g. feminism is for ugly women to drag down pretty ones, while faking the signs of the pretty and denying the very existence of pretty.

And what of designer babies? No one, and I mean, NO ONE, will choose ugly ones. We’ll soon find there’s a beauty standard to white, blue-eyed and physically fit. The Viking marauders chose to rape the best and stab the rest, what we see in modernity is the fruit of their eugenic process, and extremes of cold in Northern Europe are a great survival test for good genes.

Idiocracy is happening: dysgenics is making our brains shrink

“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