Since the conditions that the author suggests produce a generally more intelligent populace no longer exist in the “West” or Europe, something I’m inclined to agree with, does he or any of you think that in the third world these conditions still exist? And is it possible that over time through traditional natural selection mechanisms, their [third world] genetic stock will become superior, generally, to that in socialized democracies?

Consider, that many third world countries have NO social safety net, NO programs for the poor – you survive by the whit accorded to you by your genes, family and, of course, luck. The truly downtrodden have few children, and the effect described by the author – of a higher correlation between high IQ and fertility – is far more in tact. In my view, having lived and traveled throughout Africa and Asia, the smart, definitely out reproduce the stupid. Over a long time period (perhaps a few hundred years?) this difference will be pronounced.

Thoughts (of the non stupid variety) appreciated.

Many people are now saying that western civilization is nearing the point of collapse. The entitlement programs are enormous as well as other types of government spending. They’re saying that the currencies and financial system will collapse. When that happens there will be no more entitlement programs. All those unfit people currently living off government aid will have to find ways to survive or die. I suppose many of them will die.

Ultimately I can’t spend too much of my time worrying about these things. I’m not one of the ruling elite who set the policies of the world. My life today is pretty good. All I can do is make my own life has happy and fulfilling as I can.

One more thing: I think giving women the vote was a big mistake. Most of them use their feelings to make decisions, whereas most men make cold, rational decisions. All the terrible governmental policies that are destroying western civilization were enacted after women got the vote. Western civilization thrived and was supreme over the world until women began voting. Now it’s a big mess. I think men need to rise up and reclaim their authority and dominance and take away the vote from women. Women should be restricted to the duty of having children and few if any should be allowed to go to college and pursue professional careers. Women with high IQ’s should dedicate their lives to having a large number of children instead. This would be good for society. We need to take things back to the way they should be, the way that is natural and makes good sense.

If the normal replacement level of births is 2.1, the lowest iq group may need a replacement level of 2.2 plus. This would greatly reduce the dysgenic trend & might even make it eugenic.

- Mark Ahern

One thing that I have seen as causing the low professional IQ is that the “industrial reversal” has left the more intelligent in the “enriched” world (roughly Europe, North Africa, North and West Asia, North America, Argentine, Chile, Uruguay and New Zealand) without any natural resources to support children. Being extremely short of land especially but also not producing themselves any valuable commodities, these people do not have anything to pass onto children as the rural population did before the “tropical” and “unenriched” (Australia, Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho, South Africa, Swaziland) worlds were fertilised and mechanised large-scale farming. A natural result is that fertility in the “enriched” world is far below replacement, and the few who do reproduce are of lower IQ and can sustain the crowding in the “enriched” world’s dense cities.

Interesting enough subject, with much statistical evidence to support enquiry into the subject. Though I don’t subscribe to Darwinism and have limited understanding of these matters I believe that some of your worries are misguided.

Success of a subspecies is categorised by the continuing survival and propagation through endless generations. “Monsters can not breed”

Our current situation in the ‘western’ and ‘developed’ world can only support itself for about four generations, we are probably in that fourth generation.

What happens next is the issue. Obviously the ‘status quo’ is only a snapshot in the turbulence of life. Ultimately only ‘the subspecies’/those which have a strong nuclear family will transmit successful values to the next generation without the support of the welfare state.

The welfare state we have to assume will discontinue, due to;
the greying of the populations,
the subsequent decline of the economy (no need to work, surplus cars and housing
from the graying population)
the diminishing conscientiousness of decadent generations

If looking at the long term multigenerational outcome, the less suited to survival self destruct, then our only hope is to give the few who can produce successful generations the freedom to multiply to their maximum ability.

By this I mean wholesome non selfish patriarchy and polygyny.

I am not a mormon

There is an urban legend that goes something like this;

Once upon a time several decades ago the Ford Motor Company toured the country buying broken cars from the car dumps. They then carefully transported these old cars back to their Research and Development facilities in Dearborn. Carefully and meticulously these cars were disassembled and all parts given a detailed examination and appraisal. The question hardly needs to asked “What were they looking for? what were they hoping to achieve?”.
Of course they were planning to improve the product.
The questions to ask however are;
From whose perspective are these improvements?
Who benefits from these improvements?
Think clearly, be rational, remove emotion from your reasoning.
The Ford Motor Company makes cars to make a profit, it is a business, an improved product is a more profitable product.
After carefully checking through all the component parts of these cars they were able to find all the parts that never or rarely broke, these they re-engineered to be lighter, cheaper, easier to make.

So really they were trying
(from the car owners point of view)
to make the cars
worse.

Bearing that in mind

There is an almost mythical family called the Jukes, they lived on the edge of civilized society, many members of this family had been through the prison system. A prison bureaucrat (Dugdale) in 1870 started to study the family going back through the generations to 1745, assessing that they required more help. In 1915 a further study was undertaken at the behest of the Carnegie institute (Estabrook). The study is detailed and depressing, fully one quarter of all children died before adulthood. Their subsequent adulthood was barely better and paints a bleak picture of short miserable lives ruined by selfishness, ignorance, immorality, alcohol, drugs and violence. Eight generations and over 150 years with hardly a ray of sunshine.

Now fast forward from the 1700s, 1800s and the early 1900s to our enlightened 21st century.

Look carefully at the people-molding forces in our society, look at films, TV, books, newspapers, video games, political spin and most importantly the state education of our precious future generation.

Think clearly, be rational, remove emotion from your reasoning.

And you will find the masses are being conditioned to be Jukes.
Cannon fodder, factory workers and consumers.

Breeding the better human the family friendly way!

Forget eugenics, what about polygamy?

Breeding programs involve selection of breeding partners.
There are some families that for whatever reason can be classified as more successful.
There are come families that for whatever reason can be classified as less successful.
(As a classic contrast the Jukes/Edwards families study)

Eugenics suggests interfering with peoples’ freedom to breed and live as they wish, which is bad, however giving a bit more freedom can’t be bad and yet could have positive results.

Studying the Jukes family would suggest that Jukes fertility was not limited by the social norm of monogamy.

However most Edwards’ family members would have balked at the idea of multiple wives, and yet could have successfully raised a larger number of children and instilled their ‘successful’ values.

What about giving the successful breeders the advantage and remove this one sided monogamy handicap!

No more marital socialism, let us bring the free market economy to the marriage market place.

Not ‘he is king who can’ but ‘he is patriarch who can’, evil flourishes when good men do nothing.

Compulsory monogamy is a false and society destroying concept. It is not that there must be polygamy, but just that there shouldn’t be enforced monogamy on those who could support more than one wife and the relevant number of extra children.

These days there are very few men who would volunteer for this burdensome contribution to society because the hearts of men have grown cold. We live in a time of societal destruction and yet good patriarchal polygamy is condemned.
Let us get rid of taxes, welfare and easy credit and let the best husband win!

Ultimately surely the families that raise more healthy educated working children should be free to prosper over the drunkard selfish self-destructive fractured families. Just give a good patriarchal polygamist a dozen generations, and see what happens.

The fall of the Persians, Greeks and Romans can be linked with woman’s rights, monogamy and the decline of the family.

Last year a music video out of Québec became the most-downloaded video in Canada—although it was in French (one version with English subtitles). The second stanza said:

“Your great-great grandmother had 15 children;
your great-grandmother had about the same.
Your grandmother had three, that was enough;
your mother didn’t want any—you were an accident.
And you, little lady, you go from boyfriend to boyfriend;
and when you mess up, you get an abortion.
And at night you dream of a big table, surrounded by children
And you wake up crying.”

The two parables of; the wise and foolish virgins and the talents.

The wise virgins waited steadfastly and were prepared, when the opportunity for marriage came they took it. The foolish virgins missed the opportunity and were left on the shelf.

In the parable of the talents three men were given an opportunity two were faithful and were fruitful with what they were given. One was passive and fearful and there was no fruit, thus what had been given to him was taken away and given to the faithful man.

So many women these days miss good marriage opportunities because they are not prepared (too immature) or selfish.

We have men who take a woman and yet out of passivity, selfishness and fear will not make her a wife or mother. We have other men who take a woman make her a wife and mother, but do not tend or keep her. They then carelessly loose her or worse abandon her. Surely it must be correct that he that cares for a wife, tends her and makes her blossom should be given those that are abandoned?

To say that all men must at the most only have one wife, is like saying that all women at the most must only have three children. Obviously some women are very good mothers and if they had more children then that is only a greater good. Some women are very bad mothers and their children are taken from them and given to those who can look after them. Some husbands are good, some are not. Should we prevent responsible husbands from taking care of more than one wife? Why should they have the same limit as the bad husband? Of course bad husbands don’t play by the matrimonial laws anyway, only the good ones.