Dysgenics: A Beginner’s Guide.

Tags

Benefits Street, BNP, Breeding, Channel 4, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Dysgenics, Dysgenics definition, Dysgenics in Europe, dysgenics theory, Eugenics, Germans, Guide to Dysgenics, Idiocracy, IQ, Is Intelligence inherited?, Mike Judge, Miscegenation, Richard Lynn, Russell Brand, White people, Whites, Work

Do you ever lament that old songs seem to have more meaning than those produced today? Do you ever regard the success of books like the Da Vinci Code and the Hunger Games with sadness, comparing their lack of depth and nuance against the qualities of Brave New World, Sons and Lovers, and other bestsellers of yesteryear? Have you ever complained that the media in general is ‘dumbing down’ and that politics is becoming a reality TV competition?

What you may be describing are the effects of a phenomenon called ‘Dysgenics’, the process by which the human population (and thereby the culture) of a given area grows less intelligent with every new generation (needless to add, it is the opposite of Eugenics, a proposed system of discriminatory breeding intended to raise the general level of intelligence).

Out of all the burning scientific and sociological issues of our day, this is probably the most controversial, the one that people are really not supposed to talk about. This is because everyone is affected by dysgenics. It is not a process limited to a certain people, culture or nation. No-one can afford to laugh at it, shrug it off or deny it.

*I must emphasise before continuing that this is not an issue of ‘class’. Just because someone hasn’t gone to university doesn’t mean they are stupid. As a corollary, just because someone has been to university (even Oxford or Cambridge) doesn’t necessarily imply a superlative level of intelligence. In the latter case, people may just be privileged or have had superior or over-dedicated schooling.

When we talk about a new class of stupid people, we are talking about those who are incapable of philosophy and conviction, who shun the political and the cerebral in favour of the popular and facile, who cannot read and write, who are senselessly criminal and randomly aggressive, who have no sexual restraint and who fail to properly raise children.

These people, found in all classes and proliferating furiously up and down the United Kingdom, are something quite novel in British history. Of course, there has always been an idiot class, feckless and wild, unable to become part of the working majority, but they have never been so numerous or culturally influential as they are today.

The underclass is now a sub-culture, a sub-nation, with quirks of dress, language and even cuisine.

As to how the dysgenic process works, opinion is divided. Some blame the welfare state and its habit of paying people more welfare when they have large families, thereby encouraging the most incapable to have more children in order to live off said benefits. Frankly, I don’t think this is common enough to account for what is happening. I think it more likely that the dysgenic process has accelerated due to a longstanding imbalance of fertility and intelligence. In short, the smart people (those with jobs, political opinions and bookshelves) have smaller families than those who chew their toenails. Over time, that imbalance can completely transform the character of a nation, even one with such an illustrious history as ours.

While this is tolerable enough for now, one has to think about the future and how the nation will cope as the ratio leans ever more toward the negative.

Something particularly threatened by this process, I believe, is human liberty. After all, what becomes of a society when people no longer understand politics enough to  partake in it? What kind of government will assemble itself in that situation, and what extra powers will it take on?

The voter turn-out for national elections is frighteningly low in the West, frequently clocking in at less than 50%, and sinking as low as 20% in local contests.

You can be sure that the elite secretly approves of this. The progeny of Eton don’t care if the rest of the country begins to moan and dribble. On the contrary, popular degeneration only serves to elevate them to an even greater standing.

Indeed, this is partly why the class system exists at all. It was and is designed to segregate people according to ability, never having them intermix or interbreed with one another.

In reality, the growth of illiteracy and criminality affects all classes equally. You will have met people so afflicted on many occasions, I’m sure, no matter where you live or what company you aspire to keep.

The last time I wrote about dysgenics on this blog, I was accused of being fascistic. I suppose that’s inevitable. Hitler has forever tarnished the discussion of genetics with the stamp of extremism. Be that as it may, this is an important conversation that must be held sooner or later.

D, LDN.

Advertisement

Dyzgenicz: Wat Is Britain Loosing?

Tags

Africa, BBC, Boris Johnson, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Dysgenics, Eugenics, Flynn Effect, Gordon Gekko, Idiocracy, Intelligence quotient, Johnson, Margaret Thatcher, Mayor, Multiculturalism, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Wall Street

Have you ever seen the film ‘Idiocracy’? I haven’t, but I’m well-acquainted with its subject.

From what I’ve read about it, the plot of the film takes place in a (we hope) distant dystopian future, after the effects of the downward selection currently in progress has matured and taken over American society. To put the idea simply, because (in the film, as in reality) less intelligent people have reproduced more than the intelligent, society has become an ‘Idiocracy’, dominated by feral dullards, up to and including the President.

The scientific name for this process is ‘Dysgenics’, which (as any amateur etymologist will see) is the counterprocess to ‘Eugenics’. Dysgenics is the trend by which the intelligent fail to reproduce in sufficient numbers, or else are saturated by the greater fertility of the stupid.

But why am I mentioning this here?

Well, a few months ago, Boris Johnson, the mop-headed Mayor of my city, attracted a great deal of controversy by suggesting that some people are too stupid to get ahead in life.

In a speech to the Margaret Thatcher Centre, Johnson speculated that ‘natural differences’ in cognitive ability mean that economic equality is a dangerous pipe dream not to be pursued by politicians.

As you would expect, the Guardian and other liberal papers quickly poured aggressive scorn on this idea, with Johnson even being compared to Gordon Gekko, the ruthless elitist from the movie ‘Wall Street’.

Johnson is of course correct to say that differences in ability exist and that these differences will usually oppose any attempt to impose ‘equality’. Where he is wrong is to think that politicians can ever get away with pointing this out.

Dysgenics is an open secret among the educated. Prospect magazine ran a terrifying story last year which claimed that (in contravention of the Flynn Effect) the average British IQ was going down.

As strange as this would seem to science, it would surprise very few people who converse with contemporary youth. Public literacy (a good test of intelligence) has never been in more dire straits, and little is being done to address the problem. In the title of this post, I have used what has fast become the standard social-network spelling of ‘losing’. The word ‘lose’ is now ‘loose’, whereas ‘loose’ is now ‘lose’ (or sometimes even ‘looce’). A similar mutation has afflicted the word ‘ridiculous’, which is almost always now spelt ‘rediculous’.

This is isn’t a small concern. When language degrades, cultures usually aren’t far behind.

Boris Johnson deserves credit for his bravery in speaking up on this, but his candor will likely go wasted on a public too afraid of dangerous ideas, and ignorant of the costs of ignoring them.

D, LDN.

Dysgenics, Onesies, and Kids getting Dumber.

Tags

Barack Obama, Defend the modern world, Dysgenics, Eugenics, Infant bodysuit, Jonestown, Justin Bieber, Onesie, Scotland, YouTube

It seems that the craze for adult babygrows – rebranded as ‘onesies’ –  has now stalled and will soon enter a period of red-faced decline. Those who fell victim to the ludicrous fad can now begin the work of stitching up the damage to their social credibility, probably by invoking the cards of ‘irony’, humour, or (if these fail) intoxication. Meanwhile, those of us who always were amazed at the herd insanity of such people, can glow with righteous satisfaction.

But why am I mentioning it here, on a political blog? Well, it’s known that fashion, like any other element of popular ‘culture’ acts as a kind of shadow government. It controls and governs the masses beneath the consent of electoral politics. More importantly (and worryingly) it also provides a barometer of national intelligence and mood. 

The craze for Onesies may be lessening, but much still has to be explained as to how such a strange trend could emerge in the first place. Who is to blame? What went wrong?

If anyone ever doubts the fallibility of the human mind to acquiesce in the most degrading kinds of behaviour, I point them in the direction of the harrowing documentary. Jonestown: The Life and Death of People’s Temple.

The story of Jonestown is well known. So well known that the (pretty insensitive) phrase “Don’t drink the kool-aid” has become common parlance. The phrase is designed to caution those who seem to be blindly following a herd, especially when that herd is itself blindly following a fallible authority. Whether or not it is unkind to use it, given the tragic nature of its source material, is irrelevant. What it gets right is more important than what it gets wrong.

The insinuation behind the phrase is that the lesson of Jonestown is not limited to freakish cults, but can be justly applied in other more everyday contexts.

And as the macro can be applied to the micro, so can the micro be applied to the macro. The fact that Onesies are so ridiculous, ugly and embarrassing for those forced by their weak minds to don them, coupled with the wildfire success of the fad itself, creates genuine cause for concern.

Where can fads go after adult babygrows? Perhaps some devious social scientist could deliberately create a fad for not wearing trousers. If it was endorsed by Justin Bieber, there’s no reason to think we wouldn’t see it become the norm….for a few weeks at least.

And then after the hypnosis of peer-pressure fell away, the affected consumers could look into mirrors, horrified at what they, and the human average is reduced to.

But it isn’t just fashion. This herd-madness is ruling the era. It elected President Obama. It motivates those vague, nihilistic protests against Capitalism which blight London streets every weekend. It is part of a pattern of general human degeneration known scientifically as ‘Dysgenics’. People are not just becoming more easy to round up and control. They are also becoming thicker.

Anyone over 25 who uses YouTube and is foolish enough to get into a debate with another user will immediately feel their generational distance from contemporary teenagers. ‘Text-speak’ is one thing. The sentences I’ve read on YouTube defy logic. They remind me of the “word salad” ramblings of patients suffering with Amphetamine Psychosis. 

And before the ‘age’ card is played against me, I’m in my twenties. I know and understand slang perfectly well. This is not and has never been the issue. People who notice that literacy is becoming worse with every new generation typically blame ‘slang’ and mobile phones because they are afraid of other explanations. But this is both rong and riddickoolus yeah? The words people cannot spell are not urban phrases but the basic mechanics of language. This can only lead to a less fluffy and digestible hypothesis.

A recent article in Prospect magazine drew attention to the alarming fact that the average British IQ appears to be falling. 

“A study in 2009…. compared IQ scores obtained by British teenagers in 1980 and 2008, using the same test. The average had declined by two points on average, but by as much as six points among teenagers in the top half of the IQ scale, a fall that wiped out the previous two decades of gains in that group.”

Does this matter? It might do. Especially as we prepare to go toe-to-toe with 1.4billion Chinese with an average IQ over 100. 

But that’s a long term issue. In the short term, we must confront the idiocracy forming at the base of British society and prevent it spreading further. That’s the best we can do for now, Innit?

D, LDN.