>P-factor is not valuable because the more p-loaded illnesses are less clearly unfit while the clearly unfit ones are less p-loaded
The reason a lot of really bad mental disabilities are not p-loaded is because they have extremely discontinuous genetic causes. It's actually the same for intelligence. People with these discontinuous genetic causes for low intelligence, like downies, are far less functional than people who are simply at the left tail of the population distribution. A specific mutation, or in the case of downies the duplication of a chromosome, are causing it. Not a general low frequency of intelligence-causing alleles across the genome. For anxiety, autism, narcissism, neuroticism, schizophrenia, it is more an across-the-board set of alleles which increase the risk or severity of these afflictions.
>P-factor is not valuable because it is weak compared to g-factor
Of course it is, g-factor is kind of the gold standard of psychometrics. If you believe in ML theory there is technically a general factor for everything in the direction of recent selection.
>Mental illnesses x, y, and z can't be considered as such because they are adaptive in some cases
This is true for neuroticism, autism, and anxiety but only to a certain extent. Autism and anxiety have also been widened a lot in the past few decades though. Being a minor aspie could benefit someone in certain environments but being a major sperg could probably never benefit anyone in any realistic environment. Nonetheless, "does this boost fertility in the current historically unique environment" is probably a bad standard for mental illness. A lot of human evolution is based on group success. Would a society full of schizos, or narcissists, or autists bode well? Probably not. Which is why antisocial behavior is seen as a mental illness even if sociopaths get a lot of pussy.
>Noah was x, y, z
People of high status who saw visions in the past probably weren't schizos. I usually err on the side of "they really did see angels and gods" but even if you don't believe in that stuff, it was pretty common in the past for perfectly mentally healthy people to have ecstatic visions or bizarre very detailed dreams. For every crazy cult leader there are probably one hundred crazy aspiring cult leaders with the same psychological profile who didn't get extremely lucky.
>Regarding mutational load, it is conservatives who fight abortion and promote natalism for the poor.
Not really a lot of good evidence that abortion is eugenic. Conservatives usually promote natalism through tax cuts, which benefit the middle class more than the poor.
>Feminism/Wokeness is eugenic
Shithole countries aren't really representative of a fabled "traditional society" so much as they are representative of a society in an earlier stage of development. Western countries have less dysgenics because they are post-industrial. They don't have the poor having 7 kids.
1. Here's one argument for the benefit of low IQ: quicker maturation time, allowing for more R-selection. Other than that, with modern nutrition and medicine, there's not much of a benefit to low IQ. On the other hand, neuroticism and anxiety do confer benefits, as I will continue to argue in this 12 part series. These benefits actually increase with modern nutrition and medicine.
2. "being a sperg could never be beneficial" I suppose you've never studied how Neanderthals made tools. It was extremely autistic. The metaphor I use throughout this series is to sickle cell, where a trait can express adaptively and non-adaptively, but the allele complex is overall adaptive when taken together as a whole.
3. I don't argue that anxiety, depression, or neuroticism boost illness "in this historically unique environment." The evidence, as I provide, shows that in pre-modern populations, these traits boost fertility. It's actually the opposite now. You've got things backwards.
4. "Would a society full of schizos, or narcissists, or autists bode well? Probably not." I'm not arguing morally that we should have a single psychological type and wipe out all others. I'm stating that the liberal psychological type is adaptive.
5. "Noah wasn't schizophrenic... it was pretty common in the past for perfectly mentally healthy people to have ecstatic visions or bizarre very detailed dreams." I would describe dreaming as nocturnally confined schizophrenia, and in that sense, we are all schizophrenics. But there's still a spectrum here, because some people forget their dreams, but some people have perfect photographic recall.
6. "Not really a lot of good evidence that abortion is eugenic." A light joke: hereditarians will claim that everything is genetic, and then claim that abortions are statistically random with no genetic basis. Which is it?
7. "Conservatives usually promote natalism through tax cuts, which benefit the middle class more than the poor." There is no basis to the idea that tax cuts increase fertility. What does increase fertility is banning abortion.
8. Regarding whether Africa is "traditional" or not is irrelevant to my point. The facts as I have displayed them are clear, that more developed nations increase the correlation between fertility and education, while this correlation is inverted in the opposite direction in less developed nations. The difference is feminism, not wealth as such, and therefore, feminism has a positive effect on the correlation between fertility and education.
2. Neanderthals were a completely different species. More solitary. Autism was less maladaptive among them because they were less reliant on pack members. Human hunter gatherers were actually quite low in autism if we are to believe polygenic studies. I still doubt they were displaying actual genuine sperginess. Results in meltdowns and inability to act over sensory stuff, meanwhile hunter gatherer life was quite uncomfortable. Many bad senses. Albeit better in some areas than modernity ex: noise
3/4/5. Schizophrenia isn't just psychosis. It's less like dreaming, more like being in a nightmare. Extremely paranoid, lose feeling of emotion, low intelligence, lose socialization skills, suicide risk. And again, the "schizo narcissists" who succeed are the extreme minority, compared to the oceans who completely fail. Anxious/neurotic people in some environments, I won't deny, are actually selectively fit. But this is more of an R-selected environment where feeling negative emotions strongly is necessary because you are in a dangerous, high-stakes environment. In the west you end up with people whose main personality trait is that they think the world will end in a matter of decades due to whatever the bugaboo of the century is (plague, apocalypse, nuclear war, climate change, AI).
6. Abortion is an extremely ideologically loaded issue. The same people who think there is something gravely wrong about it can be convinced there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. There might be a plethora of genetic causes to abortion but some of them are canceling out others on the population-wide scale (ex: high income people can afford abortions, intelligent people are less religious)
7. I agree that tax cuts don't increase fertility
8. This would depend on whether or not fertility level is causal to the differences in degrees of dysgenics. From what I've heard, it's low current national IQ that causes higher dysgenics. But I guess I've never seen anyone try to correct for one or the other.
2. Me great great great granddad was a Neanderthal, and my Neanderthal ancestry impacts my likelihood of schizophrenia, so it's not implausible that they had similar brain structures to autistic people today. Repeating the sickle cell argument: autism is probably the "bad" version of an originally "good" complex of traits.
3. Have you ever had a waking hallucination? It's not as bad as you are describing. But shamans match the bad traits you describe. Same argument as autism: schizophrenia is a "bad" version of a "good" complex.
4. You really think that medieval Europeans, who were obsessed with the end of the world, we less adaptive somehow?
6. The income of abortionists is lower than the median income.
8. My belief is that dysgenics began in the 1700s and feminism began to decrease dysgenics around 1960. European genetic IQs declined from 1800 to 1960, but this genetic effect was masked by increases in nutrition and education. Now, since 1960, nutrition and education are maxed-out, so Dutton will claim that "dysgenics started in 1965," but this the opposite of the case. He's looking at accurate data but not using sufficient reasoning to tease out the underlying causal dynamics.
Shamans probably vary depending on the culture but in a lot of them they’re wise and trusted and prosocial and not crazy hermits, and people are trained to be shamans so it’s probably environmental. I could see autism being a bad version of something that was once good, but schizophrenia’s less severe equivalents are still very maladaptive in a way that being a bit of an aspie simply isn’t.
Medieval libtarded-equivalents were obsessed with the end of the world, medieval conservatives were nothing ever happens sayers
More people who have abortions are low income but so are more people getting pregnant. I don’t quite recall the abortion eugenics debates quite well but the issue may have been that abortion proportionally shrank upper income birth rates more than it did lower income birth rates.
I would say dysgenics started during the Industrial Revolution, around 1800, that’s when birth rates began being a bottom heavy thing. Dutton says dysgenics began ~1870
I heard Dutton say that IQs began to lower in 1960s at earliest, but 1990s at latest in his interview with Jared Taylor. But you probably know his position better than I do.
On schizophrenia: everyone is a nocturnal schizophrenic, I just see it as the behavior breaking out of nocturnal containment. The behavior is adaptive so long as it is nocturnally confined.
Yes, libtards in medieval time were going on the crusade, not conservatives. That's my point -- crusades are adaptive.
I'll have to just write an article on dysgenics but I'm beyond exhausted rn so that will have to wait.
I probably don't, I haven't watched Dutton since like last year. I got really into him for a while but then I stopped watching so much. He's kind of hit or miss
Again, schizophrenia and psychosis are quite different. Psychosis is a symptom of schizophrenia but schizophrenic psychosis follows a particular dark pattern and is accompanied by other negative feelings. I don't think schizophrenia is just "bad psychosis" as psychosis seems to be an extreme symptom of schizoid personality, instead of it being the other way around where the delerium comes first and the other stuff is an extreme variant
I wouldn't call the crusades apocalypse-focused, medieval libtards is moreso stuff like flagellants during the plague.
Approximate populations of non-European origin in Europe (about 20 - 30+ millions, or 3 - 4% (depending on the definition of non-European origin), out of a total population of approx. 831 million):
Black Africans (including Afro-Caribbeans and others by descent): approx. 9 to 10 million in the European Union and around 12.5 in Europe as a whole.[184] Between 5 and 6 million Sub-Saharan and Afro-Caribbeans live in France [185] but also 2.5 million in the United Kingdom,[186] Italy, Germany, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and Portugal. (in Spain and Portugal Afro-Caribbean and Afro-Latin American are included in Latin Americans)[187]
Turks (including Turks from Turkey and Northern Cyprus): approx. 9 million (this estimate does not include the 10 million Turks within the European portion of Turkey);[188] of whom 3[189] to over 7[190][191] million in Germany but also the rest in France and the Netherlands with over 2 million Turks in France[192] and Turks in the Netherlands,[193][194][195] Austria, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, Italy, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Greece, Romania, Finland, Serbia and Norway. (see Turks in Europe)
Arabs (including North African and Middle Eastern Arabs): approx. 6 to 7 million Arabs live in France[185] but also Spain with 1.6 to 1.8 million Arabs,[196][197] 1.2 million Arabs in Germany,[198] the United Kingdom, Italy, Greece, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Norway, Switzerland, Finland and Russia (see Arabs in Europe).
Indians: approx. 2.5 million; 1.9 million mostly in the United Kingdom[199] but also 473,520[199] in France including the overseas territories, 240,000 in the Netherlands,[199] 203,052 in Italy,[199] 185,085 in Germany,[199] Ireland and Portugal.
Pakistanis: approx. 1.1 million in the United Kingdom, but also 120,000 in France,[200] 118,181 in Italy,[201] Spain, and Norway.
Bengali: approx. 600,000 mostly in United Kingdom, but also 85,000 in Italy, 35,000 in France, Spain, Sweden, Finland and Greece.
Latin Americans (includes Afro-Latin Americans, Afro-Caribbeans, Native Americans, White Latin Americans, Latin American Mestizos and other mixed-race peoples, etc.): approx. 5.0 million; mostly in Spain[202] (c. 2.9 million) but also 1.3 million in France,[203][204] 354,180 in Italy,[205] +100,000 in Portugal,[206] 245,000 in the United Kingdom[207] and some in Germany.[208]
Armenians: approx. 2 million; mostly in Russia but also 800,000 in France,[209] Ukraine, Greece, Bulgaria, Spain, Germany, Poland, the United Kingdom and Belgium.
Berbers: approx. 2 million live in France[210] but also Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain.
Kurds: approx. 2 million; mostly in Germany, France, Sweden, Russia, the Netherlands, Belgium and the United Kingdom.
Making far ranging inferences from fertility differences which are insignificant in absolute terms. The difference between 1.5 children per woman and 1.2 is huge in relative terms, but nothing in practice.
Not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me -- I think low liberal fertility is not as catastrophic for the political left as conservative imagine, but I would expect you to disagree with that.
The Finland study you linked shows a fertility rate of 1.5 for women with a master's degree, and 1 for women with a basic education. The relative distance is huge, the absolute distance is nothing. They are both catastrophic and bound for extinction.
Finnish people with master's degrees are also going extinct.
You can posit that in six generations, the descendants of today's uneducated Finns will be 100 times fewer, while the descendants of today's Master's degree holding Finns will only be 12 times fewer, and that this represents eugenic improvement. In reality, either their society will collapse long before that or they will both be replaced by Finnish Amish or Noahides or something with a normal fertility rate (6 kids per woman.)
So over a single generation you might raise your national IQ by half a point. Except that your insane shitlibs just imported a few million 80 IQ violent erectuses from North Africa, dropping it right back down. Whoops, hahaha.
(2) Is under-theorised. In practice, white conservatives are usually just white liberals from 30 years ago (often less), and if they make a serious attempt to transcend this they usually end up advocating for changes to make white countries more like brown countries.
This rebuttal to that page on the "P-factor" was a long time coming. Excellent article.
Nobody seems to have ever given me an example of what a non-mentally ill person looks like. This only strengthens your argument.
>P-factor is not valuable because the more p-loaded illnesses are less clearly unfit while the clearly unfit ones are less p-loaded
The reason a lot of really bad mental disabilities are not p-loaded is because they have extremely discontinuous genetic causes. It's actually the same for intelligence. People with these discontinuous genetic causes for low intelligence, like downies, are far less functional than people who are simply at the left tail of the population distribution. A specific mutation, or in the case of downies the duplication of a chromosome, are causing it. Not a general low frequency of intelligence-causing alleles across the genome. For anxiety, autism, narcissism, neuroticism, schizophrenia, it is more an across-the-board set of alleles which increase the risk or severity of these afflictions.
>P-factor is not valuable because it is weak compared to g-factor
Of course it is, g-factor is kind of the gold standard of psychometrics. If you believe in ML theory there is technically a general factor for everything in the direction of recent selection.
>Mental illnesses x, y, and z can't be considered as such because they are adaptive in some cases
This is true for neuroticism, autism, and anxiety but only to a certain extent. Autism and anxiety have also been widened a lot in the past few decades though. Being a minor aspie could benefit someone in certain environments but being a major sperg could probably never benefit anyone in any realistic environment. Nonetheless, "does this boost fertility in the current historically unique environment" is probably a bad standard for mental illness. A lot of human evolution is based on group success. Would a society full of schizos, or narcissists, or autists bode well? Probably not. Which is why antisocial behavior is seen as a mental illness even if sociopaths get a lot of pussy.
>Noah was x, y, z
People of high status who saw visions in the past probably weren't schizos. I usually err on the side of "they really did see angels and gods" but even if you don't believe in that stuff, it was pretty common in the past for perfectly mentally healthy people to have ecstatic visions or bizarre very detailed dreams. For every crazy cult leader there are probably one hundred crazy aspiring cult leaders with the same psychological profile who didn't get extremely lucky.
>Regarding mutational load, it is conservatives who fight abortion and promote natalism for the poor.
Not really a lot of good evidence that abortion is eugenic. Conservatives usually promote natalism through tax cuts, which benefit the middle class more than the poor.
>Feminism/Wokeness is eugenic
Shithole countries aren't really representative of a fabled "traditional society" so much as they are representative of a society in an earlier stage of development. Western countries have less dysgenics because they are post-industrial. They don't have the poor having 7 kids.
1. Here's one argument for the benefit of low IQ: quicker maturation time, allowing for more R-selection. Other than that, with modern nutrition and medicine, there's not much of a benefit to low IQ. On the other hand, neuroticism and anxiety do confer benefits, as I will continue to argue in this 12 part series. These benefits actually increase with modern nutrition and medicine.
2. "being a sperg could never be beneficial" I suppose you've never studied how Neanderthals made tools. It was extremely autistic. The metaphor I use throughout this series is to sickle cell, where a trait can express adaptively and non-adaptively, but the allele complex is overall adaptive when taken together as a whole.
3. I don't argue that anxiety, depression, or neuroticism boost illness "in this historically unique environment." The evidence, as I provide, shows that in pre-modern populations, these traits boost fertility. It's actually the opposite now. You've got things backwards.
4. "Would a society full of schizos, or narcissists, or autists bode well? Probably not." I'm not arguing morally that we should have a single psychological type and wipe out all others. I'm stating that the liberal psychological type is adaptive.
5. "Noah wasn't schizophrenic... it was pretty common in the past for perfectly mentally healthy people to have ecstatic visions or bizarre very detailed dreams." I would describe dreaming as nocturnally confined schizophrenia, and in that sense, we are all schizophrenics. But there's still a spectrum here, because some people forget their dreams, but some people have perfect photographic recall.
6. "Not really a lot of good evidence that abortion is eugenic." A light joke: hereditarians will claim that everything is genetic, and then claim that abortions are statistically random with no genetic basis. Which is it?
7. "Conservatives usually promote natalism through tax cuts, which benefit the middle class more than the poor." There is no basis to the idea that tax cuts increase fertility. What does increase fertility is banning abortion.
8. Regarding whether Africa is "traditional" or not is irrelevant to my point. The facts as I have displayed them are clear, that more developed nations increase the correlation between fertility and education, while this correlation is inverted in the opposite direction in less developed nations. The difference is feminism, not wealth as such, and therefore, feminism has a positive effect on the correlation between fertility and education.
1. True
2. Neanderthals were a completely different species. More solitary. Autism was less maladaptive among them because they were less reliant on pack members. Human hunter gatherers were actually quite low in autism if we are to believe polygenic studies. I still doubt they were displaying actual genuine sperginess. Results in meltdowns and inability to act over sensory stuff, meanwhile hunter gatherer life was quite uncomfortable. Many bad senses. Albeit better in some areas than modernity ex: noise
3/4/5. Schizophrenia isn't just psychosis. It's less like dreaming, more like being in a nightmare. Extremely paranoid, lose feeling of emotion, low intelligence, lose socialization skills, suicide risk. And again, the "schizo narcissists" who succeed are the extreme minority, compared to the oceans who completely fail. Anxious/neurotic people in some environments, I won't deny, are actually selectively fit. But this is more of an R-selected environment where feeling negative emotions strongly is necessary because you are in a dangerous, high-stakes environment. In the west you end up with people whose main personality trait is that they think the world will end in a matter of decades due to whatever the bugaboo of the century is (plague, apocalypse, nuclear war, climate change, AI).
6. Abortion is an extremely ideologically loaded issue. The same people who think there is something gravely wrong about it can be convinced there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. There might be a plethora of genetic causes to abortion but some of them are canceling out others on the population-wide scale (ex: high income people can afford abortions, intelligent people are less religious)
7. I agree that tax cuts don't increase fertility
8. This would depend on whether or not fertility level is causal to the differences in degrees of dysgenics. From what I've heard, it's low current national IQ that causes higher dysgenics. But I guess I've never seen anyone try to correct for one or the other.
2. Me great great great granddad was a Neanderthal, and my Neanderthal ancestry impacts my likelihood of schizophrenia, so it's not implausible that they had similar brain structures to autistic people today. Repeating the sickle cell argument: autism is probably the "bad" version of an originally "good" complex of traits.
3. Have you ever had a waking hallucination? It's not as bad as you are describing. But shamans match the bad traits you describe. Same argument as autism: schizophrenia is a "bad" version of a "good" complex.
4. You really think that medieval Europeans, who were obsessed with the end of the world, we less adaptive somehow?
6. The income of abortionists is lower than the median income.
8. My belief is that dysgenics began in the 1700s and feminism began to decrease dysgenics around 1960. European genetic IQs declined from 1800 to 1960, but this genetic effect was masked by increases in nutrition and education. Now, since 1960, nutrition and education are maxed-out, so Dutton will claim that "dysgenics started in 1965," but this the opposite of the case. He's looking at accurate data but not using sufficient reasoning to tease out the underlying causal dynamics.
Shamans probably vary depending on the culture but in a lot of them they’re wise and trusted and prosocial and not crazy hermits, and people are trained to be shamans so it’s probably environmental. I could see autism being a bad version of something that was once good, but schizophrenia’s less severe equivalents are still very maladaptive in a way that being a bit of an aspie simply isn’t.
Medieval libtarded-equivalents were obsessed with the end of the world, medieval conservatives were nothing ever happens sayers
More people who have abortions are low income but so are more people getting pregnant. I don’t quite recall the abortion eugenics debates quite well but the issue may have been that abortion proportionally shrank upper income birth rates more than it did lower income birth rates.
I would say dysgenics started during the Industrial Revolution, around 1800, that’s when birth rates began being a bottom heavy thing. Dutton says dysgenics began ~1870
I heard Dutton say that IQs began to lower in 1960s at earliest, but 1990s at latest in his interview with Jared Taylor. But you probably know his position better than I do.
On schizophrenia: everyone is a nocturnal schizophrenic, I just see it as the behavior breaking out of nocturnal containment. The behavior is adaptive so long as it is nocturnally confined.
Yes, libtards in medieval time were going on the crusade, not conservatives. That's my point -- crusades are adaptive.
I'll have to just write an article on dysgenics but I'm beyond exhausted rn so that will have to wait.
I probably don't, I haven't watched Dutton since like last year. I got really into him for a while but then I stopped watching so much. He's kind of hit or miss
Again, schizophrenia and psychosis are quite different. Psychosis is a symptom of schizophrenia but schizophrenic psychosis follows a particular dark pattern and is accompanied by other negative feelings. I don't think schizophrenia is just "bad psychosis" as psychosis seems to be an extreme symptom of schizoid personality, instead of it being the other way around where the delerium comes first and the other stuff is an extreme variant
I wouldn't call the crusades apocalypse-focused, medieval libtards is moreso stuff like flagellants during the plague.
There are almost as many immigrants in Finland as there are people with graduate degrees, LMFAO
And Finland is not a representative case. Check out Sweden, France, Germany...
Immigration is a distinct issue from endogamous dysgenics as described by Lynn.
In practice, leftists mean immigration of the worst kind
In practice, most immigration to Europe is Turkish, not African, and Turks have a higher IQ than Romanians.
Wrong: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Europe
"Among the 5.3 million foreign-born immigrants, 38% are from Europe, 30% from Maghreb, 12.5% from Sub-Saharan Africa"
Approximate populations of non-European origin in Europe (about 20 - 30+ millions, or 3 - 4% (depending on the definition of non-European origin), out of a total population of approx. 831 million):
Black Africans (including Afro-Caribbeans and others by descent): approx. 9 to 10 million in the European Union and around 12.5 in Europe as a whole.[184] Between 5 and 6 million Sub-Saharan and Afro-Caribbeans live in France [185] but also 2.5 million in the United Kingdom,[186] Italy, Germany, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and Portugal. (in Spain and Portugal Afro-Caribbean and Afro-Latin American are included in Latin Americans)[187]
Turks (including Turks from Turkey and Northern Cyprus): approx. 9 million (this estimate does not include the 10 million Turks within the European portion of Turkey);[188] of whom 3[189] to over 7[190][191] million in Germany but also the rest in France and the Netherlands with over 2 million Turks in France[192] and Turks in the Netherlands,[193][194][195] Austria, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, Italy, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Greece, Romania, Finland, Serbia and Norway. (see Turks in Europe)
Arabs (including North African and Middle Eastern Arabs): approx. 6 to 7 million Arabs live in France[185] but also Spain with 1.6 to 1.8 million Arabs,[196][197] 1.2 million Arabs in Germany,[198] the United Kingdom, Italy, Greece, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Norway, Switzerland, Finland and Russia (see Arabs in Europe).
Indians: approx. 2.5 million; 1.9 million mostly in the United Kingdom[199] but also 473,520[199] in France including the overseas territories, 240,000 in the Netherlands,[199] 203,052 in Italy,[199] 185,085 in Germany,[199] Ireland and Portugal.
Pakistanis: approx. 1.1 million in the United Kingdom, but also 120,000 in France,[200] 118,181 in Italy,[201] Spain, and Norway.
Bengali: approx. 600,000 mostly in United Kingdom, but also 85,000 in Italy, 35,000 in France, Spain, Sweden, Finland and Greece.
Latin Americans (includes Afro-Latin Americans, Afro-Caribbeans, Native Americans, White Latin Americans, Latin American Mestizos and other mixed-race peoples, etc.): approx. 5.0 million; mostly in Spain[202] (c. 2.9 million) but also 1.3 million in France,[203][204] 354,180 in Italy,[205] +100,000 in Portugal,[206] 245,000 in the United Kingdom[207] and some in Germany.[208]
Armenians: approx. 2 million; mostly in Russia but also 800,000 in France,[209] Ukraine, Greece, Bulgaria, Spain, Germany, Poland, the United Kingdom and Belgium.
Berbers: approx. 2 million live in France[210] but also Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain.
Kurds: approx. 2 million; mostly in Germany, France, Sweden, Russia, the Netherlands, Belgium and the United Kingdom.
Making far ranging inferences from fertility differences which are insignificant in absolute terms. The difference between 1.5 children per woman and 1.2 is huge in relative terms, but nothing in practice.
Not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me -- I think low liberal fertility is not as catastrophic for the political left as conservative imagine, but I would expect you to disagree with that.
The Finland study you linked shows a fertility rate of 1.5 for women with a master's degree, and 1 for women with a basic education. The relative distance is huge, the absolute distance is nothing. They are both catastrophic and bound for extinction.
The point is regarding dysgenics.
Yes, it's a bad point.
Finnish people with master's degrees are also going extinct.
You can posit that in six generations, the descendants of today's uneducated Finns will be 100 times fewer, while the descendants of today's Master's degree holding Finns will only be 12 times fewer, and that this represents eugenic improvement. In reality, either their society will collapse long before that or they will both be replaced by Finnish Amish or Noahides or something with a normal fertility rate (6 kids per woman.)
I'm talking about dysgenics over a single generation. In 6 generations, a lot can change.
So over a single generation you might raise your national IQ by half a point. Except that your insane shitlibs just imported a few million 80 IQ violent erectuses from North Africa, dropping it right back down. Whoops, hahaha.
It's healthier compared with mass breeding.
(2) Is under-theorised. In practice, white conservatives are usually just white liberals from 30 years ago (often less), and if they make a serious attempt to transcend this they usually end up advocating for changes to make white countries more like brown countries.