Post: #51

(01-15-2019 07:55 AM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  It will be a good reminder for Asians and the remaining White countries to not repeat the mistake of "diversity being a greatest strength".

That's the desperate hope of a scholar. You can say the same thing about the Roman Empire or of modern day Venezuela. Nobody learned a fucking thing.

"Those who know history are doomed to watch others repeat its mistakes" and such.

Post: #52

(01-15-2019 09:07 AM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  

(01-15-2019 07:55 AM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  It will be a good reminder for Asians and the remaining White countries to not repeat the mistake of "diversity being a greatest strength".

That's the desperate hope of a scholar. You can say the same thing about the Roman Empire or of modern day Venezuela. Nobody learned a fucking thing.

"Those who know history are doomed to watch others repeat its mistakes" and such.

Sure - things can collapse for various reasons.

Currently Harvard noted that world IQ is dropping. It's now at 88 due to Africans reproducing at record rates. It was much higher when Europeans made up 25% of the world population.

Countries can now learn IF THEY HAVE STILL A POPULATION THAT IS SMART ENOUGH TO REACT. Even the docile Chinese rebelled against the Chinese communists in the 1990s. While the government clamped down hard, their sacrifice was not in vein. The rebels helped changing the government.

The Roman empire collapsed over centuries and it wasn't very stable anyway due to large slave populations, it never developed technologically also due to slavery (the practice suppresses development since it makes slaves worth less). So we should note that slavery holds back a nation. Islam does too for various reasons.
Communism does too for multiple reasons.

Input of highly different and especially far dumber and more violent tribes - that destroys not only your culture, but also economy later. That is why hundreds of thousands of Koreans and Korean women were demonstrating against 1000 Middle Eastern migrants arriving in Korea!



But I am sure - if their average IQ was in the 80s in Korea, then you could sell them on it somehow.

Venezuela only crashed when the white population dipped below 50% and the other tribes voted in the commies.

And guess what - average IQs in the USA is already dropping fast - that number here is already lower than reported:



Wait when the entire south is 90 and the rest is 95. 96 is reportedly necessary to uphold our advanced system. Below that you have dysfunction setting in at faster interval.

Post: #53

If that map is accurate and places like North Dakota are pushing 104, what's the real average IQ of white Americans(and non-diverse euros)? 104 is basically east Asian level, and ND isn't exactly full of global hubs that draw in high IQ people, in fact you'd expect the opposite.

Post: #54

SS, should there be a eugenics type program to reduce the number of people in the world who have an IQ below 96?

Post: #55

(01-15-2019 10:58 AM)iop890 Wrote:  If that map is accurate and places like North Dakota are pushing 104, what's the real average IQ of white Americans(and non-diverse euros)? 104 is basically east Asian level, and ND isn't exactly full of global hubs that draw in high IQ people, in fact you'd expect the opposite.

North Dakota is for example 90% White.

There is a certain uptick in the last decades due to far better prenatal care - we know that a few points per generation is possible by that factor alone - lack of toxins, supplements during pregnancy, better nutrition and care during pregnancy and early childhood. After that it's almost irrelevant, though the ability to read rewires the brain to some degree.

And I saw some recent not far publicized (because it would be White Supremacy) studies that gave native Germans, some Scandinavians IQs in the 107-108 range and the Poles came in at 106 - only young people under were tested.

Thus I would assume that European Americans are also testing higher at least in the 105 range if not higher. The Flynn effect is somewhat true, but not to the degree that old liberal wanted it to be. The majority is genetic and positive eugenics is the only way to go.

Post: #56

(01-15-2019 01:18 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  SS, should there be a eugenics type program to reduce the number of people in the world who have an IQ below 96?

Nah - it would be sufficient to sterilize guys like you.

That was certainly some clever Nazi fishing there.... jeez.

But seriously - eugenics is something that happened in the Northern hemisphere naturally. Some Greek tribes did it excessively by even killing weak Spartans early on.

In our system something benign would not be so bad. Offer higher IQ men and women financial incentives - in Africa immense financial incentives to impregnate as much as possible. If a 160IQ African guy gets paid 10.000$ per child and the mother gets paid for life, then the women would be lining up around the block in Botswana.

And if you pay lower intelligence men and women to stop having kids after 1-2 kids, then what is the big deal? You get paid for not having more kids and having an easier life.

Of course I am strictly against any austere measures of genocide, forced steriliziation. If incentives don't work, then so be it. But I do think that most populations would react to a sensible financial incentive system.

Muslims might be ones who won't budge, but their breeding pattern at 50% inbreeding should be banned anyway.

Post: #57

(01-15-2019 01:25 PM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  

(01-15-2019 01:18 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  SS, should there be a eugenics type program to reduce the number of people in the world who have an IQ below 96?

Nah - it would be sufficient to sterilize guys like you.

That was certainly some clever Nazi fishing there.... jeez.

But seriously - eugenics is something that happened in the Northern hemisphere naturally. Some Greek tribes did it excessively by even killing weak Spartans early on.

In our system something benign would not be so bad. Offer higher IQ men and women financial incentives - in Africa immense financial incentives to impregnate as much as possible. If a 160IQ African guy gets paid 10.000$ per child and the mother gets paid for life, then the women would be lining up around the block in Botswana.

And if you pay lower intelligence men and women to stop having kids after 1-2 kids, then what is the big deal? You get paid for not having more kids and having an easier life.

Of course I am strictly against any austere measures of genocide, forced steriliziation. If incentives don't work, then so be it. But I do think that most populations would react to a sensible financial incentive system.

Muslims might be ones who won't budge, but their breeding pattern at 50% inbreeding should be banned anyway.

This is a really dumb concept, the notion that you're going to rebuild a nation with mutts whose father was smart, as if having a massive number of kids growing up fatherless would somehow improve a society... Absent fathers is what actually destroyed Black America, which moved from K to r-selection in the 20th century as a result of social engineering plans. as opposed to the retarded 1900-era eugenic notions of racial IQ.

Those kind of borderline sociopathic 1900s era eugenic notions of racial IQ belong in vintage Bond flicks and sci-fi books that you seem fond of, not in the real world. It's all about culture.

Jews aren't successful because of an innate high racial IQ, they are successful because they have doting mothers, strong racial identities and very tight communities that are completely dedicated to their progeny's success. Same with East Asians.

Speaking of Asians, about the worst insult you can level on a Chinese man is to call him turtle egg or turtle son, I think that's very telling. All successful cultures are built on strong traditional family structures, nothing good is going to come out of a r-selection scheme.

Post: #58

< Africa has been and is beset by societies where one Alpha/leader father sires multiple babies with multiple women. Mistress is a legit job in Africa!

The matriarchal nature of child-rearing was just being re-created in the West after the 1950s.

I know that the left claims that it's the "lack of fathers" which is causing all those problems. Strangely enough the lack of fathers in Germany after WWII did not cause the same issues. Millions of mostly German men died. In the US after WWII there was a lack of men in the vicinity of 6 mio.! There were 6 mio. more young women than men in the country.

Germany did not become an African republic due to lack of hundreds of thousands of men growing up fatherless.

Obviously the better more natural metric would be to just subsidize children of high-IQ men and women in stable relationships while negatively subsidizing/stopping children born in the lower groups. However many African countries have such a long way to go, that it would likely be necessary for their geniuses to sire best 100+ kids - you can even do this in a more scientific manner by sending out sperm samples and impregnating the women in doctor's offices. It's not an ideal solution, but not the worst.

But hey - the globalist solution is indeed much better by destroying the West with their mass migration, telling everyone that you are equal and the reason they are doing worse is only due to racism, then settling their home-continent with aggressive Chinese who will make them underlings in Africa. Yup - much much better.

Post: #59

Simeon, there is an enormous difference between widowhood and single motherhood.

Losing a father to war, sickness or a workplace accident is, ironically, much easier for a child and family to cope with than losing a father to an unnatural event such as eat-pray-love divorce or never having had one in the first place.

Both family outcome studies and my personal experience strongly support this.

Post: #60

< Look - I don't disagree with that.

The discussion is moot anyway.

It's moot because a system where such a plan as described above can be implemented would already have the globalists de-throned. Then you sit down together with African leaders, tell them how things are. Help them elect smart and ethical men, implement a long-term plan of positive eugenics, maybe aid them financially, but their finances would be fine, because the state-owned central banks could print money with demurrage interest-free and you only need some aid for them to not overdo it. Smarter African families would be having 5-10 kids while less gifted parents would be having 1-2. After 100-200 years those countries would look very different in a stable environment.

And no - I don't accept the fatherhood example for the West either. Currently the divorce rate is 50% in the West. The fathers are often ineffective soys or removed by aggro-bitches. And Whites still don't go on the same rampages as other tribes.

And Jews were effective partly because of IQ, but 99% because of getting a head-start in the usury business and then working together well - policing their own. David Cole got a fucking hit by the JDL - publicly! They would have murdered him if he hadn't recanted his concentration camp findings. That is internal policing on top of strong tribal affiliation on top of higher intelligence and usury banking head-start. None of that apply for Africa.

Post: #61

(01-15-2019 01:18 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  SS, should there be a eugenics type program to reduce the number of people in the world who have an IQ below 96?

Right now there is a dysgenics type program to sponsor morons to reproduce - why don't we simply stop this first ?

It's not like the state already intervenes on way too many subjects which are none of its fucking business .. of course not, that would never happen

Post: #62

(01-16-2019 07:33 AM)Oberrheiner Wrote:  

(01-15-2019 01:18 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  SS, should there be a eugenics type program to reduce the number of people in the world who have an IQ below 96?

Right now there is a dysgenics type program to sponsor morons to reproduce - why don't we simply stop this first ?

It's not like the state already intervenes on way too many subjects which are none of its fucking business .. of course not, that would never happen

Indeed - the West is currently funding a massive population boom in Africa by sending in food aid - food aid that also bankrupts the local farmers by the way.

Then in addition countries like Britain are literally giving third worlders across the world banking cards so that families in shitholistan can withdraw cash - so that they don't come over to the West. Plus in the West it's highly subsidized to have low-IQ families reproducing.

While financial aid for poor families was normal also in the West, it's a difference whether 95-105 lower class families do or whether it's 75-85 IQ immigrants doing it. Neither is beneficial. In the West it was standard fare that upper middle class families had 10+ kids - the poor families did not reproduce and the rich did not feel like having so many legitimate kids at least. Though I am sure that elite men sired countless kids on the side. All of that raised IQs in the West between 1700 and 1900.



No kidding - it's idiocracy happening, though the effects if only Whites were concerned would be ridiculously low. Not so much, when other tribes come in.