"Pay my troops no mind; they're just on a fact-finding mission."

Tag Archives: dysgenics

Career Women and Dysgenics

With the rise of automation and AI, encouraging women to spend more time out of the job market to raise children could serve as another pressure release valve.

They could be incentivized to have more kids while politically correct subsidies on female employment are removed and laws hostile to fathers and blank-check rape and harassment laws are repealed.  As we all know, though, women love careers with a fierceness men have never known because it gives them the illusion of unlimited choice in the sexual market.  So where material incentives might fail to persuade women to be less involved in the labor market and have above replacement fertility we need to look at some cultural roots of the problem.

To begin with, women have always worked outside the home and on the farm, so the whole idea of barefoot and in the kitchen is the other side of a false dichotomy perpetuated by feminists.  Being a purely stay-at-home wife was a privilege of the middle classes and above.  Any history of the industrial revolution tells us of the huge role women played in manufacturing.  Though many women worked, they tended to work fewer hours and stuck to positions that could be plausibly returned to after extended leave of absence, or left behind altogether.

It is not reasonable, though, to leave a competitive career track and expect to easily come back a year later.  This kind of gender welfare is untenable.
The simple truth about women in serious careers is they are trading their fertility for more personal autonomy and mate choice.  Even if they manage to have an only child in their 30s, they’re left far behind in the genetic arms race.

A society that encourages female careerism has to consider the impact of female dysgenics as the brightest and most capable of each generation are wiped out as surely as male soldiers charging a machine gun bunker.  First world civilizations are remarkable in that women are experiencing almost male levels of selective pressure.  Typically, societies with high female attrition disappear.

One possibility is we accept that the human species needs to be more sexually dimorphic in a prosperous, high-information society and simply let all those who take the bait of feminism breed themselves out over the next couple generations.  The problem is everyone gets genes from their mothers so dysgenics for women might be dysgenic for everyone.

Not to mention, it is already hard enough for high IQ men to find compatible partners.  The only way for such a society to stay at modern levels would be to make sure smart men have many babies with concubines he doesn’t have to spend too much time around and perhaps eugenic qualities would get progressively more linked to the y chromosome.

If we look for a more moderate path, maybe some females, especially those plainly of a man-jawed aspect should be encouraged to enter into careers but everyone would understand they are to be regarded as nuns or honorary men.  They would have no special status in the general class of women and thereby be denied a podium to normalize tribally suicidal behaviors.
These cleverest, most socially dominant women would have to be prevented from poisoning the cultural well by making anti-natal behaviors appear high status to the female masses.  Feisty upper middle class Jewesses with chiseled chins who churn out tomes of gender vitriol would have to be either given sufficient outlets to keep them happy or else crushed down and bred out when they get out of line.  

The basic social contract for career women would be that they have to help society with cheerful good will rather than try to destroy it with subversion and activism.  They would have their place in the hierarchy they must respect like men do.  They wouldn’t be allowed to go completely wild in the workplace like they do now.

Those competent women sufficiently attractive and of not completely abrasive character might be encouraged to donate their eggs to wombs belonging to those of low intellect. The surrogates could be given special rewards for volunteering.

Also, there could be subsidized in-home nannies instead of daycare for high IQ women so lady scientists don’t have to spend a couple years changing diapers or nursing.  This would help reduce the basic conflict of female fertility with self-actualizing work.  
A setup like this was actually pretty normal for aristocratic women of past ages, leaving them free to continue participating in high-status social life while still producing heirs.

We need to consider alternatives because until we return to times of subsistence poverty and small farming, traditional marriages won’t be attractive to most people, especially not men.

As bitterly as red pillers complain about female sexual adventuresses, none of them want to go back to bringing home the bacon for a lifetime to a surly wife he’s chained to.  Most men enjoy the load taken off their shoulders by female economic independence.  When it comes to meeting girls nobody really wants to go back to asking the father’s permission to talk to her.

The popular imagination seems only capable of conceiving of either our present feminist dystopia or rigid traditionalism nobody really likes.  A solution might involve the creation of a new type of society that is functional in the modern environment.
A beginning requirement is to re-evaluate the balance of power between the sexes.  Otherwise we have our present dark age of soft harems and millions of incel basement dweller males.
Until we deal with fundamental contradictions in our present society, we will be locked in a dysgenic and social downward spiral until we go the way of Ancient Rome.

Preventing Dysgenics in a Society With Basic Guaranteed Living

A system of guaranteed basic living above all must avoid encouraging dysgenic outcomes.  Otherwise good intentions make a bad situation worse until within a couple generations the lifeboat of society is destroyed and most everyone drowns.
I’ve already proposed that low IQ people who refuse to perform labor on state aid be sterilized and those who are useful enough incentivized to breed below replacement levels.
I’ve figured that could be done in many different ways including:
-anti-natal religion, propaganda, entertainment
-small living spaces given them
-food rations that don’t completely meet the needs of a kid, making it difficult to feed more than 1 without going hungry themselves.
-free contraceptives.
-free abortions

The more difficult question is how to deal with high IQ people receiving a state living.
If they are pursuing their passions but have little access to the mating market because of their lack of money and conventional status all we’ve done is reconstruct monasteries with celibate priests where we systematically kill off many of the brightest and most curious every generation.

On the other hand, we don’t necessarily want a group that contains many smart but lazy stoners to overrun society with their progeny.
So I figure it would be a sufficient goal for society to try to at least preserve its monastic leisure caste at replacement levels.  Perhaps those without kids would have the option to donate their sperm and have up to 2 kids to be raised by parents who volunteer for it.
Perhaps lower proles on BGL would be allowed to have more kids and with full rations and other goodies if the woman agrees to get impregnated with sperm/embryos from the leisure caste.

Of course, the most successful leisured creatives should be assured reproduction well above replacement.
Looking back on history, one of the greatest examples for me of elites’ lack of imagination is they did not seize men like Michelangelo, Newton, or Tesla and set them to stud.  None of the kids could be expected to be like the parent but simply propagating those traits would spread the tendencies that formed them.

J.S. Bach, for example, had something like 18 kids.  As it happens, some of his kids and even grandkids were also notable composers.  We can assume his favorable tendencies then got diffused into the general population.  If that’s the general practice rather than an exception, it perhaps starts to have observable effects.

I have wondered often if Confucian examination systems actually bred people to the test in East Asian countries.  After all, the mandarin classes to this day are well known for keeping multiple mistresses.  Their stereotypical study style of memorizing lots of precise information but not necessarily understanding fundamentals seems to me at first glance to support this hypothesis.
I think certain, though, that long-term social policies and customs must affect the gene pool through incentives.  Every system selects for something.

Naturally, a guiding principle for a system with a basic guaranteed living is having kids cannot be more attractive on state living than it is in the market economy.  Or else, like now, you select against the base of people who actually work hard to keep things running smoothly.

One of the main things this society needs to get straightened out is working cooperators need to be treated by the state kind of how a business treats its customers.  They should feel like they are valued every time they show up and put in effort and care.

When most people are just toiling on pain of starvation while they watch their money feed multiple welfare kids and pick up the slack for parasitic feminist and affirmative action hires, they feel like suckers who are being used.  This breeds resentment and sends them the message they are on the absolute bottom of the hierarchy, undeserving of basic security and unfit to breed.

The higher proles and up feel these pressures especially strongly because they are terrified of falling behind in the rat race and eager to get ahead no matter the odds.
The intense competition makes them insecure in having offspring who they produce in low numbers and instinctually hyper-invest in.  Some of that hyper-investment might be an inherited reproductive strategy amongst striver types but its intensity of expression could be alleviated if stressors were reduced.  Just a couple generations ago we see large families were normal.  Helicopter parenting of only children should be seen as a behavior of shell-shocked troops cowering in foxholes under perpetual machine fire rather than normal behaviors in a healthy society.  The same behaviors in lab rats would be noted as a response to extreme stress.

One of the key stressors is lack of time.  Relatively prosperous career couples often say they can’t afford kids.  What they’re really saying is they can’t afford kids if one of them were to stop working and they don’t have the time and emotional energy to raise a kid as it is.  For that matter, careers are so competitive, you can’t just waltz back into one after taking months off—there’s always a whole assembly line of pod people waiting to replace you.  They’re also saying they doubt their abilities to sufficiently hyper-invest in their offspring.  Most of all, perhaps, the scarcity of time and disconnection from supportive communities means the parents must sacrifice leisure, hobbies, and friends to have just one kid.

This complex problem has to be approached through gradually removing stressors and thereby giving working people a sense of stability, reasonable amounts of free time, and participation in something bigger than themselves.  They have to feel that by simply earning money in the market economy they have unquestionably higher status than proles taking out BGL.  Literal-minded enlightenment shills, never seem to understand that low status alone instigates fight-or-flight adrenaline-pumping crisis in humans.  Until we try to make inviting habitats for productive humans as we would do for the lowliest terrarium pets, we cannot go far.

Overpopulation Altruism Is Misguided

The composition of a population matters more than population size.
In ancient times we see a world that was far less populous yet far more violent with lower standards of living.  Over time people have been selected to be more productive and less violent even at much higher population densities.
The most casual glance tells us at once that how people are bred, organized, and educated is far more important than numbers alone.  A million humans bred for aggression, with no civic organization, and who are illiterate will be far more miserable and short-lived than a billion who can work together in peace.

This is why people who want to help overpopulation by not having kids are misguided.
If they, with their altruistic and cooperative tendencies choose not to procreate, they merely select for those who will reproduce recklessly.  Any “slack” that they free up for the species quickly disappears and further breeding is even more reckless.
If anything those who altruistically sit out of the game actually make the Malthusian trap even worse as even the capacity for restraint and long-term planning gets bred out, dooming the race to an eventual precipitous crash of famines, plagues, and wars.

A solution to the problem is to engineer societies to encourage conscientious cooperators to have babies and limit the fecundity of those who are short-sighted and vicious.
It may seem far-flung, but the inability of short-sighted people to plan makes them easily manipulated.  Their need for instant gratification means for small gains, more drugs and cash, they’d willingly get sterilized.  Thus the traits that make them fit under present circumstances would again, with such a correction, make them less fit.

It requires a certain conviction to make objective value judgments about populations of human beings, yet it must be done because avoiding the responsibility of judging leads to even worse outcomes.
Those who disavow children because of overpopulation are taking the easy way out, assuaging their guilt superficially while avoiding a higher responsibility to oversee the herd.

Of course, anti-natalist beliefs are also a convenient excuse for people to avoid children that will just be drains on their lives, so arguing the point matters little. We all contrive a facade to justify what we want to believe anyway.
In which case, it may simply be that in a world with abundant contraceptives, those who do not have an urgent drive to reproduce independent of sexual lust will simply go extinct, since it isn’t rational for an individual to beget the burden of offspring. Strictly rationally speaking, we live and die one life only, so the fate of a family, tribe, or species ought not to matter to us. Yet just one look at how the universe works shows us rejection of this sort of selfish nihilism is required to thrive and live well. Those who live for their brief day and stand outside the circle of life always lose to those who cooperate with the intent of nature. Anti-natalists, overpopulationists, selfish nihilists struggle against the laws of physics while those who work with ways of this universe succeed without effort.
Even the unusual breed of altruists who wish to reduce suffering by not continuing the cycle any further fail in their goals. By abstaining out of compassion and empathy, they merely select for those without compunction.

British Pakistanis constitute 1.5 per cent of the population, yet a third of all children born in this country with rare recessive genetic diseases come from this community.

In the UK more than 50 per cent of British Pakistanis marry their cousins – in Bradford that figure is 75 per cent – and across the country the practice is on the rise and also common among East African, Middle-Eastern  and Bangladeshi communities.

We know British Pakistanis constitute 1.5 per cent of the population, yet a third of all children born in this country with rare recessive genetic diseases come from this community.

Despite overwhelming evidence, in the time I spent filming Dispatches: When Cousins Marry, I felt as if I was breaking a taboo rather than addressing a reality. Pakistanis have been marrying cousins for generations.

She relented and lives in a deeply unhappy marriage. But others told me of the great benefits of first cousin marriage – love, support and understanding. To them, questioning it is an attack on the community or, worse, Islam.

On average, a children’s hospital will see 20 to 30 recessive gene disorders a decade, but one hospital in Bradford has seen 165, while British Pakistani children are three times more likely to have learning difficulties, with care costing about £75,000 a year per child. Link

Increased group cohesiveness at the cost of intelligence. In the modern economy this means you guarantee that your children are unable to compete, being entirely at the mercy of handouts. Fixing this will do a lot more for counter-terror operations than blowing up goat herders in Yemen.

Pre-Politically Correct History: Dysgenics, Immigration, and the Fall of the Assyrian Empire

“The Assyrian armies…were weakened by the very victories that they won; in each victory it was the strongest and bravest wo died, while the infirm and cautious survived to multiply their kind; it was a dysgenic process that perhaps made for civilization by weeding out the more brutal types, but undermined the biological basis upon which Assyria had risen to power…

They had brought into Assyria, as captives, millions of destitute aliens who bred with the fertility of the hopeless, destroyed all national unity of character and blood, and became by their growing numbers a hostile and disintegrating force in the very midst of their conquerors.”

-Will Durant, Our Oriental Heritage, 1935

How often do we see this kind of deeper analysis in modern day scholarship?

%d bloggers like this: