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

Russell Brand’s Childish Utopianism.

Tags

Bill o'reilly, Christianity, Civilisation, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Irish, Leftism, Lefty, london, politics, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Robin Williams, Russell Brand, Terrorism, Thomas Carlyle, Trews, YouTube

How far a society has degenerated can be gauged by looking at those it chooses to venerate. The country which in loftier times boasted of John Stuart Mill, Thomas Carlyle and Charles Dickens in its pulpit of social commentary, now has markedly lesser standards, and this descent corresponds necessarily to a decline in popular acuity.

That one of the most popular political thinkers of our day is a comedian should itself communicate the point. More disquieting still is the light load carried by the man in question. 

Once a lowly television presenter, Brand, 39, now communicates daily on his YouTube channel in the manner of an Eastern prophet. He calls this broadcast the ‘Trews’ (a portmanteau of Truth and News). At their peak, episodes can reach an audience of over 500,000 people. The other day I took to watching a few of these myself and so here are some thoughts.

Politically, Brand’s point of orientation seems to be an extreme form of universalism. He repeatedly calls nation-states ‘meaningless concepts’ and ‘arbitrary lines on a map’. All cultures are apparently equal to him, including those which violently condemn this very worldview. Immigration is never a crisis meanwhile, but simply a means the rich use to distract the poor from the imperatives of class warfare.

These are old ideas indeed, many of them soaked in old blood.

From Stalin’s nation-destroying grip on Eastern-Europe, through Mao’s war on China’s ancient diversity, universalism has been roundly discredited by every possible moral measure. ‘Cultural equality’ meanwhile is a plague of illogic directly responsible for the tensions of the modern world.

On economic affairs, Brand’s anti-corporatism is absolute. No enterprise can be successful without simultaneously ‘oppressing’ or ‘keeping down’ other elements. He communicates a kind of ‘socialism without the details’, knocking the system whilst refusing to endorse a specific party or movement and often calling into question the very notion of voting.

Of course, wherever there is Leftism of this potency, one will also find hypocrisy, and Brand provides no exception to this rule. span>

In a video boldly examining the ‘hidden’ agenda behind television commercials, Brand mocks the inclusion of Native Americans in Coca Cola’s notorious multi-lingual Star-Spangled Banner ad. “Don’t take the piss.” he barks “You stole their fucking country.”

But what is that strange word he uses here – ‘country’? It seems to me a euphemism for ‘nation’, something which – as Brand has already informed us – is nothing more than a ‘construct’ of the mind. By the same stroke then, no ill truly befell the Native Americans, and if the notion of a ‘border’ has always been a nefarious restriction on human liberty, Sitting Bull was simply being xenophobic in resisting the path of the Yankees.

Brand repeats the same mistake on the subject of Israel. During the Gaza war, Brand consistently sided with the distinctly un-universalistic claims of Palestinian nationalism; a tendency of thought quite obsessed with ‘borders’ and the ownership of land.

But this freewheeling hypocrisy is part of the warp and weft of utopian thinking. And utopian Brand decidedly is. In the course of his pontifications, he has gone so far as to call for ‘revolution’. He doesn’t explain exactly for what end this rebellion would be, but perhaps he doesn’t need to.  

A more sensible British comic, Robert Webb, bravely took issue with Russell’s childish incitement in the New Statesman. In a letter addressed to Brand, Webb wrote the following:

“I understand your ache for the luminous, for a connection beyond yourself. Russell, we all feel like that. Some find it in music or literature, some in the wonders of science and others in religion. But it isn’t available any more in revolution. We tried that again and again, and we know that it ends in death camps, gulags, repression and murder. In brief, and I say this with the greatest respect, please read some fucking Orwell.”

A drug addict for most of his youth, Brand ascribes his newfound sobriety to the positive influence of Transcendental Meditation – a dippy, new-age excuse for light-headedness that became a hot product in Hollywood during the 1980s.

Perhaps political sobriety is a more difficult concept to master. Give him time.

D, LDN.