I remember a Cheerios commercial from the early 2000’s that had a black man / white woman with a mixed race baby.
General Mills got soooooooo much hate mail from BOTH sides saying that the races shouldn’t be mixing etc……
Personally, I see nothing wrong with people of different races falling in love and starting a family, but when it’s being forced upon people as “ the norm” and everyone should be doing it, that’s when the blowback from all sides begins.
Nobody likes being told what to do or how to live in “ the land of the free”, and it’s very obvious that our choices are being taken away from us.
From what I’ve been noticing, this is being done by 2 certain “ religious groups “ that both start with the letter “ J” …………..
"Jews were only 2% of Europe’s population during WWII, and the global Jewish population decreased by 50% between 1941 and 1944. Yet was global Jewish influence greater in 1940, or 1946? It is clear that a quantitative decrease in a population is not determinative of the power or influence of that population."
Ashkenazi Jews are a organized cohesive group that look after own interest. Whites are not, a decrease in the white population will decrease white influence and white interest.
Organization, cohesion, and identity are much more important than mere quantity. If organization, cohesion, and identity increase, but quantity decreases, the overall effect is an increase in power (in a certain proportion). Do you disagree?
Something is missing from this analysis. Based on its premises, we should be able to produce evidence that average IQ has in fact already increased in select groups. But it hasn't.
In fact, IQ scores have been steadily declining for decades. A 2023 Northwestern University study found that scores in three key intelligence testing categories declined, including verbal reasoning, matrix reasoning, and letter and number series. However, scores in spatial reasoning increased. The study used the Synthetic Aperture Personality Assessment (SAPA) Project, a free online survey-based personality test that provides feedback on 27 temperament traits and ability scores. The study examined survey responses from 394,378 Americans between 2006 and 2018.
A 2024 meta-analysis found that undergraduates' IQs have also been steadily declining, from roughly 119 in 1939 to a mean of 102 in 2022.
Everybody is getting dumber and regressing to their respective mean.
Testing 394,378 Americans is not the same as testing "select groups." You can have a general decline in intelligence, while selecting for intelligence among subgroups. Furthermore, the decline of undergraduate selection is not evidence of a lack of selection -- it is only evidence that undergraduate degrees have become less selective. The same thing happened to highschool degrees in 1950. You should be looking at data on PhDs and fertility. Still, I think there is a case to be made that generalized pollution (microplastics et al.) is having a negative impact on global average cognition, independent of selective factors.
That is deductively true, but only if the premises are true. If you would, please present your evidence that certain groups have seen a rise in IQ as a result of others' dysgenics.
My argument is not that dysgenics is causing some groups to increase in IQ -- this is not a seesaw where one group goes up and the other must go down. Theoretically, as you say, all groups could be going down, and I agree this is possible to an extent when we factor in the impact of pollution.
Mean regression has existed at all times throughout history. There's no point in history where you can say that children were not regressing to the mean. That's not a new phenomenon.
One of my arguments would be that the influx of women into PhD programs is creating a strong selective pressure for intelligence among this section of the population (top 1%). Women with PhDs often prefer to stay single rather than "marry down" the educational hierarchy. The result is that female intelligence is being selected for in a novel way. Whether or not this is "good" is not my point. I'm simply pointing out that for 3 million Americans, the expansion of PhD programs to women after 1977 has resulted in a new form of selection which includes intelligence. Women who enter PhD programs tend to either select similarly intelligent men, or they are going to go childless.
However, in fact, only 20% of women with PhDs are childless, as opposed to 22% of master's degrees, and 19% of Bachelor's degrees. 50% of women with PhDs have 2 children, and 27% have 3+ children. This is data from 2014, and the trendlines have been positive over the 20 years surveyed: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/women-with-ph-d-s-buck-the-trend-toward-a-baby-bust/
My conclusion is that PhD fertility (125 IQ) is competitive with Bachelor's fertility (102 IQ) and Master's fertility (117 IQ). PhDs are not "dying out" relative to the other 39% of Americans who go to college. Of course, there is higher fertility among dumb people (below 100 IQ) who don't go to college or even drop out of high school, and this is contributing to the overall decrease in IQ that you cite.
(1) Could you explain your definition of racism? The only notion of “biologically distinct groups” I can think of is groups that cannot interbreed, but obviously racists believe different races can interbreed: that seems to be one of the main things they’re worried about!
(2) You might consider how the racial identification of mixed-race people affects your analysis. This is salient to me: I’m mixed, but basically come off as White to people who see me, and more or less identify as such (of course I suddenly recall my non-White ancestry when applying to schools and jobs lol). Different mixes appear differently, and primary identification will affect the gene pool mixed kids enter, which will affect selection.
Also Whiteness itself is dynamic: the history of the Irish/Polish/Italians becoming White is well documented. Today, MENAs and Central Asians are often considered White. A lot of Hispanics identify as White, and I’ve heard terms like “White-adjacent” used to describe East Asians. I’m sure you’ve seen the memes about the surprising ethnic diversity of White Nationalist/Supremacist groups. All this to say, I wouldn’t be surprised if in the future, many more groups of people identify as “White”.
1. A. Definition of racism for the purposes of this article: a network of beliefs an attitudes, including ethnocentrism, xenophobia, ethnic pride, ethnic hatred, conflict, ethnic "consciousness," the self-reported importance of ethnicity to identity. A white person who says "my white identity is important" is more racist than someone who says "my white identity is not important." A mixed-race person who says "my mixed race identity is important" is more racist than someone who says "my mixed race identity is not important."
1. B. Groups can be biologically distinct and interbreed at the same time. However, whether or not ethnic groups are biologically distinct is not the point of this article, and the points I'm making can be valid even if there were 0% genetic differences between ethnic groups. It's a sociological point.
2. I agree, and probably should talk more about this.
3. A. Irish/Polish/Italians were legally defined as white persons for the purposes of American immigration, segregation, and marriage laws since 1790. But I agree that culturally, there was some disagreement and ambiguity about who was "more white" or "less white."
The long term trends of Latin America dont seem to support any rosy trends for your hypothesis. A long history there of anti colonial / white prejudice has lead to white minorities firmly entrenched in anti racism and the ugly inescapable mixed favela race blanketing the landscape in crime and corruption, who somehow end up being more violent and useless than the native civilizations who came before them despite being descendants .
It does not have active events like BLM that I know of. Instead the ambient levels of day to day violence are much higher. Seems like the life cycle for anti white stuff is white liberalism becomes violent anti white protests becomes favela like conditions.
I agree that Brazil has higher ambient violence than America. I would distinguish between conscious racial violence (BLM) from unconscious, chaotic violence, which is typically inter-communal. For example, in America, most black crime is directed toward blacks, not toward white. That maybe be a bit more difficult to quantify in Brazil, but that is my hypothesis.
“There is not a perfect link between behavior and genetics on an individual level.” Does there have to be, for eugenics to be a good idea? Supposing that there’s a strong, but not perfect, link between behavior and genetics on an individual level, eugenics policies could still *improve* (ie decrease) the rates of certain behaviors. This also ignores the other potential reasons for eugenics: ex reducing rates of heritable mental or physical illness, improving the overall health of a population, increasing beauty, etc.
The literal next sentence is "With that caveat, it is still possible that our genes influence our sexual choices." So no, the fact that eugenics is subject to "friction" says nothing about the morality or immorality of eugenics. I was just stating that I am aware of popular arguments against eugenics, while explaining that those arguments actually have no bearing on the point I am making. This wasn't an article against or in favor of eugenics.
I remember a Cheerios commercial from the early 2000’s that had a black man / white woman with a mixed race baby.
General Mills got soooooooo much hate mail from BOTH sides saying that the races shouldn’t be mixing etc……
Personally, I see nothing wrong with people of different races falling in love and starting a family, but when it’s being forced upon people as “ the norm” and everyone should be doing it, that’s when the blowback from all sides begins.
Nobody likes being told what to do or how to live in “ the land of the free”, and it’s very obvious that our choices are being taken away from us.
From what I’ve been noticing, this is being done by 2 certain “ religious groups “ that both start with the letter “ J” …………..
Jehovah's Witnesses and Jupiterians?
"Jews were only 2% of Europe’s population during WWII, and the global Jewish population decreased by 50% between 1941 and 1944. Yet was global Jewish influence greater in 1940, or 1946? It is clear that a quantitative decrease in a population is not determinative of the power or influence of that population."
Ashkenazi Jews are a organized cohesive group that look after own interest. Whites are not, a decrease in the white population will decrease white influence and white interest.
Organization, cohesion, and identity are much more important than mere quantity. If organization, cohesion, and identity increase, but quantity decreases, the overall effect is an increase in power (in a certain proportion). Do you disagree?
Something is missing from this analysis. Based on its premises, we should be able to produce evidence that average IQ has in fact already increased in select groups. But it hasn't.
In fact, IQ scores have been steadily declining for decades. A 2023 Northwestern University study found that scores in three key intelligence testing categories declined, including verbal reasoning, matrix reasoning, and letter and number series. However, scores in spatial reasoning increased. The study used the Synthetic Aperture Personality Assessment (SAPA) Project, a free online survey-based personality test that provides feedback on 27 temperament traits and ability scores. The study examined survey responses from 394,378 Americans between 2006 and 2018.
A 2024 meta-analysis found that undergraduates' IQs have also been steadily declining, from roughly 119 in 1939 to a mean of 102 in 2022.
Everybody is getting dumber and regressing to their respective mean.
Testing 394,378 Americans is not the same as testing "select groups." You can have a general decline in intelligence, while selecting for intelligence among subgroups. Furthermore, the decline of undergraduate selection is not evidence of a lack of selection -- it is only evidence that undergraduate degrees have become less selective. The same thing happened to highschool degrees in 1950. You should be looking at data on PhDs and fertility. Still, I think there is a case to be made that generalized pollution (microplastics et al.) is having a negative impact on global average cognition, independent of selective factors.
That is deductively true, but only if the premises are true. If you would, please present your evidence that certain groups have seen a rise in IQ as a result of others' dysgenics.
My argument is not that dysgenics is causing some groups to increase in IQ -- this is not a seesaw where one group goes up and the other must go down. Theoretically, as you say, all groups could be going down, and I agree this is possible to an extent when we factor in the impact of pollution.
Mean regression has existed at all times throughout history. There's no point in history where you can say that children were not regressing to the mean. That's not a new phenomenon.
One of my arguments would be that the influx of women into PhD programs is creating a strong selective pressure for intelligence among this section of the population (top 1%). Women with PhDs often prefer to stay single rather than "marry down" the educational hierarchy. The result is that female intelligence is being selected for in a novel way. Whether or not this is "good" is not my point. I'm simply pointing out that for 3 million Americans, the expansion of PhD programs to women after 1977 has resulted in a new form of selection which includes intelligence. Women who enter PhD programs tend to either select similarly intelligent men, or they are going to go childless.
However, in fact, only 20% of women with PhDs are childless, as opposed to 22% of master's degrees, and 19% of Bachelor's degrees. 50% of women with PhDs have 2 children, and 27% have 3+ children. This is data from 2014, and the trendlines have been positive over the 20 years surveyed: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/women-with-ph-d-s-buck-the-trend-toward-a-baby-bust/
My conclusion is that PhD fertility (125 IQ) is competitive with Bachelor's fertility (102 IQ) and Master's fertility (117 IQ). PhDs are not "dying out" relative to the other 39% of Americans who go to college. Of course, there is higher fertility among dumb people (below 100 IQ) who don't go to college or even drop out of high school, and this is contributing to the overall decrease in IQ that you cite.
(1) Could you explain your definition of racism? The only notion of “biologically distinct groups” I can think of is groups that cannot interbreed, but obviously racists believe different races can interbreed: that seems to be one of the main things they’re worried about!
(2) You might consider how the racial identification of mixed-race people affects your analysis. This is salient to me: I’m mixed, but basically come off as White to people who see me, and more or less identify as such (of course I suddenly recall my non-White ancestry when applying to schools and jobs lol). Different mixes appear differently, and primary identification will affect the gene pool mixed kids enter, which will affect selection.
Also Whiteness itself is dynamic: the history of the Irish/Polish/Italians becoming White is well documented. Today, MENAs and Central Asians are often considered White. A lot of Hispanics identify as White, and I’ve heard terms like “White-adjacent” used to describe East Asians. I’m sure you’ve seen the memes about the surprising ethnic diversity of White Nationalist/Supremacist groups. All this to say, I wouldn’t be surprised if in the future, many more groups of people identify as “White”.
1. A. Definition of racism for the purposes of this article: a network of beliefs an attitudes, including ethnocentrism, xenophobia, ethnic pride, ethnic hatred, conflict, ethnic "consciousness," the self-reported importance of ethnicity to identity. A white person who says "my white identity is important" is more racist than someone who says "my white identity is not important." A mixed-race person who says "my mixed race identity is important" is more racist than someone who says "my mixed race identity is not important."
1. B. Groups can be biologically distinct and interbreed at the same time. However, whether or not ethnic groups are biologically distinct is not the point of this article, and the points I'm making can be valid even if there were 0% genetic differences between ethnic groups. It's a sociological point.
2. I agree, and probably should talk more about this.
3. A. Irish/Polish/Italians were legally defined as white persons for the purposes of American immigration, segregation, and marriage laws since 1790. But I agree that culturally, there was some disagreement and ambiguity about who was "more white" or "less white."
3. B. I actually have an article specifically addressing white nationalists/supremacists who have non-white members or non-white allies: https://deepleft.substack.com/p/mischling-vs-mongrel
The long term trends of Latin America dont seem to support any rosy trends for your hypothesis. A long history there of anti colonial / white prejudice has lead to white minorities firmly entrenched in anti racism and the ugly inescapable mixed favela race blanketing the landscape in crime and corruption, who somehow end up being more violent and useless than the native civilizations who came before them despite being descendants .
Does Brazil have anything approaching BLM? For example, blacks going into Sao Paulo and burning the entire city to the ground?
It does not have active events like BLM that I know of. Instead the ambient levels of day to day violence are much higher. Seems like the life cycle for anti white stuff is white liberalism becomes violent anti white protests becomes favela like conditions.
I agree that Brazil has higher ambient violence than America. I would distinguish between conscious racial violence (BLM) from unconscious, chaotic violence, which is typically inter-communal. For example, in America, most black crime is directed toward blacks, not toward white. That maybe be a bit more difficult to quantify in Brazil, but that is my hypothesis.
“There is not a perfect link between behavior and genetics on an individual level.” Does there have to be, for eugenics to be a good idea? Supposing that there’s a strong, but not perfect, link between behavior and genetics on an individual level, eugenics policies could still *improve* (ie decrease) the rates of certain behaviors. This also ignores the other potential reasons for eugenics: ex reducing rates of heritable mental or physical illness, improving the overall health of a population, increasing beauty, etc.
The literal next sentence is "With that caveat, it is still possible that our genes influence our sexual choices." So no, the fact that eugenics is subject to "friction" says nothing about the morality or immorality of eugenics. I was just stating that I am aware of popular arguments against eugenics, while explaining that those arguments actually have no bearing on the point I am making. This wasn't an article against or in favor of eugenics.
When one deduces oneself to just ethnicity or race or color, ones own individuality is erased and someone else’s’ identity is created.
Yes, death also erases individuality. Becoming a parent subjugates one's individuality for the sake of the children.
you ignored white asian mixes, which probably skew higher iq. The future belongs to the haparrenvolk.
I use the term Asian 14 times in this article. "Haparrenvolk" historically regress to Russian Siberia, Kazakhstan, etc.
The scientific term is Finnish.