16 June 2019

Being A Progressive, Yesterday: Embracing Eugenics

(We are offline due to a much-needed research period this winter/spring, so we've decided to re-publish some earlier pieces you might have missed the first time.)




[Re-post, original post here.]


It is one of our vanities to imagine that if we'd been born in centuries past, we alone would have stood up against the rampant injustices of the age (slavery, colonialism, religious persecution, etc.) instead of going with the flow like most people did.  Unlike others, we're in no way molded by our era--our righteousness is ageless. (The host's tut-tutting in this otherwise fascinating podcast on slavery is but one example.)

Another point of view is that those of a progressive bent in 2012, had they magically existed in 1912, would have likely followed the leftist causes du jour.  Ditto conservatives.  So what was the progressive doctrine in 1912 that today's liberal can be fairly sure he'd have fervently believed and agitated for?

Eugenics.




Darwin's 1859 work landed in the Western conscience like a rock heaved into a pond.  Nothing would ever be the same.  The idea that such social ills as insanity, mental retardation, and psychopathy were heritable began to seep into the popular mind.  One reason was Francis Galton (cousin of Darwin), who coined the term 'eugenics' and wrote tirelessly about it for decades.

Many in the late 19th century had an almost childlike faith that science could solve humanity's woes.  And it was thought then that some of humanity's woes were:

  • The retarded and insane, a burden on the private and public purse, were having retarded and insane children.
  • The stupid and dysfunctional poor were having many more children than the intelligent and functional rich.
  • (In the U.S:) South and East European immigrants, less intelligent and functional, were hurting the racial stock of the country.

The word 'dysgenics' was coined in 1915 by British physician Caleb Saleeby.  Biologist Julian Huxley, founding member of World Wildlife Fund and first director of UNESCO, described the threat thusly:

In the first of these [addresses to the British Eugenics Society] he reaffirmed that natural selection had become greatly relaxed in contemporary civilizations, noting that “the elimination of natural selection is largely, though of course by no means wholly, rendered inoperative by medicine, charity, and the social services” and that dysgenic fertility was leading to “the tendency to degradation of the germ plasm, ” the result of which will be that “humanity will gradually destroy itself from within, will decay in its very core and essence, if this slow but insidious relentless process is not checked.  (1)







1) Mainstream support

However they may ring in our ears today, these ideas once enjoyed mainstream legitimacy.  Eugenics' cast of supporters indicates it was even more widely accepted than man-made global warming is today.

The American Eugenics Society's members included scientific faculty from Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Columbia Universities as well as philanthropic heirs and heiresses of some of the biggest corporate dynasties of the day.  Eugenics research was supported by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institution and promoted by several Nobel Prize winning scientists (among them Linus Pauling and Joshua Lederberg).  Teddy Roosevelt, Alexander Graham Bell, and Margaret Sanger were supporters.

As for Britain, its Eugenics Society counted among its members John Maynard Keynes, Neville Chamberlain, Julian Huxley, Arthur Balfour, and Havelock Ellis.  H.G. Wells, Winston Churchill, and George Bernard Shaw were also famous proponents. (1)







2) A Progressive project

It's been noted that the social reformers of the late 19th century had a sort of missionary zeal.  The new factory system had led to a rural exodus, cities now swollen with poor families piled up in filthy conditions.  Crime was rampant.  Hygiene, public education, birth control were just a few of the remedies sought by Progressives.  Eugenics was one more tool in the reformer's kit.

George Bernard Shaw:
'There is now no reasonable excuse for refusing to face the fact that nothing but a eugenic religion can save our civilisation from the fate that has overtaken all previous civilisations.' (1)

In Sweden, physician Herman Lundborg
began to preach eugenics as the salvation of the nation. ... he possessed the zeal of a popular educator and the conviction of a religious enthusiast. Eugenics, and hygienics, had become something of a secularized religion in these circles. (2)



During parliamentary debate in Sweden over the founding of a state eugenics institute, Social Democrat Arthur Engberg declared
"We are lucky to have a race which is as yet fairly unspoiled," he said, "a race which is the bearer of very high and very good qualities." Not surprisingly, therefore, he found it "odd that while we are so very particular about registering the pedigree of our dogs and horses, we are not at all particular when it comes to trying to preserve our own Swedish stock." (2)

I.R. Dowbiggin on the U.S. Progressive connection:
The eugenics movement in the United States drew much of its energy and leadership from Progressivism, which was an unprecedented attempt on the part of Americans--usually affluent, well educated, and professionally trained--to solve the country's social, political, and economic problems in the early decades of the twentieth century.  Progressives tended to argue that these problems were due to the failure to apply scientific expertise and techniques to the management of society.  Significantly they also contended that as voluntary, informal approaches to charity had proved inadequate, it was necessary for the state to assume the responsibility for administering reform policies. (3)



What type of responsibility? Mark Largent:
The call for compulsory sterilization laws was part of the progressive movement that swept the nation shortly after the turn of the century, and it included efforts to limit the marriages of certain citizens, which, it was believed, would likewise control who had children. ...  
Compulsory sterilization laws were very popular among the states in which the progressive movement was especially strong, which explains why the states in the Midwest and West practiced coerced sterilization so often and for so long.  These were also the states that had the highest per capita number of total sterilization, with California having by far the most. (4)

Laws against certain types of marriage existed already, such as anti-miscegenation statutes, but turn-of-the-century progressives wanted to prevent the 'mentally unfit' from procreating. Connecticut in 1895 passed such a prohibition, which was supported by the president of the American Bar Association, James C. Carter, who described the law as

"a novel one, designed apparently to prevent unhealthy progeny," and punishable by at least three years' imprisonment.  Carter supported the legislation, calling it a "practical deterrent" and celebrating its ability to protect "future generations from the evil operation of the laws of heredity" that heretofore required "the perpetual imprisonment of habitual criminals."  (4)


In Wisconsin, the progressive governor as well as the Wisconsin Board of Charities and Corrections, state Medical Society and the director of the state Hospital for the Insane all worked for the passage of a mandatory sterilization bill. Director Gorst:

It is "wicked that the persons suffering from periodical insanity should be allowed to return to their homes to propagate and scatter their children about the state as dependents.  Several states have passed the sterilization law and Wisconsin should wake up and be equally as progressive..." (3)

The first coercive sterilization law in the U.S. was famously passed in Indiana in 1907, whose goal was “to prevent the procreation of confirmed criminals, idiots, imbeciles, and rapists” by sterilizing them.



Between 1907 and 1937, two-thirds of the states passed compulsory sterilization laws, and the majority of them had prior laws that regulated the marriage of citizens declared feebleminded or diseased.  Of the thirty-two states that passed a law compelling the sterilization of prisoners and inmates of state institutions, 87.5 percent of them had a preexisting law that prevented some citizens, depending on their mental or physical status, from marrying. ...at least 63,000 Americans were sterilized under the authority of a series of laws passed in nearly two-thirds of the nation's states. (4)



In other western countries, eugenics was associated with progressivism as well.  Gunnar Broberg, describing Danish eugenicists' admiration for eugenics theory, says:

Virtually all of the authors that used or referred to these ideas were regarded, and regarded themselves, as liberals or progressives.  (2)

In Britain, a 1931 bill proposing voluntary sterilization of mental defectives drew Labour support because

... it appeared to be a 'progressive' policy: it showed how the latest medical technology could be directly applied to solving a social problem, ... the prominence of religious moralists in opposition added to the impression that this was an issue of progress against taboo. (5)




3) Women's crucial support

Under the progressive umbrella, women in particular were strong eugenics activists.  Birth control champion Margaret Sanger famously so, as well as her British counterpart Marie Stopes, who summarized her objective as

“more children from the fit, less from the unfit—that is the chief issue of birth control.”  (1)

Britain's 1931 voluntary sterilization bill drew much female support:
Although only three women MPs voted on the issue, they all supported sterilization. ...Their support cannot be dismissed as merely coincidental, for it was matched by strong female support for the issue throughout the decade: of twenty-eight major organizations supporting sterilization, nine were women's groups; and of 335 smaller groups, over half were women's organizations.  (5)

Why was this demographic so pro-eugenic?
Women tended to be strong supporters of the extension of medical and social welfare services, and saw sterilization as part of this broader welfare platform. Many women (and some men) supported sterilization as part of their campaign to make birth control freely available to all women .... 
Women tended to be particularly concerned about the strain and suffering which could be placed on mothers who bore mentally defective children, and felt that it was sensible and humane to try to prevent this. They also tended to feel strongly that it was socially irresponsible to allow feeble-minded women to become mothers--not necessarily on eugenic grounds, but because they would be bad mothers, breeding large families who would never receive proper care.  (5)







4) Eugenics law proposals

Besides birth control, voluntary and coercive sterilization, and reduced immigration, a variety of legislative proposals were made to stop the dysgenic spiral. Biologist R.A. Fisher (of 'Genetical Theory of Natural Selection' fame) argued that
...child allowances should be paid as a proportion of the earnings of the fathers. Thus the high earning genetic elite would receive higher child allowances than the average earners and much higher allowances than the genetically impoverished low earners. (1)

In 1945 eugenicist William Beveridge did end up getting such a law passed, but with a flat rate paid to all families--rendering it non-eugenic. (This program still exists in the U.K. today.)

Co-father of DNA structure Francis Crick had some ideas on the subject:
He suggested that a possible solution would be to levy a tax on children, payable by their parents, which would deter the reproduction of the poor more than that of the rich. This suggestion was premised on the assumption that the rich were in general better endowed with the genetically desirable qualities of intelligence and character than the poor were. 
He also suggested that it was time to challenge the belief that everyone has a right to have children; he suggested that some people are not fit to be parents, and that a system of licensing procreation might be introduced so that “if the parents were genetically unfavorable, they might be allowed to have only one child, or possibly two under certain special circumstances.” (1)



Psychologist Charles Spearman, creator of the concept of 'g' (general intelligence), went even further:
...in 1912 he wrote a paper in which he proposed that only those individuals who scored reasonably highly on g should be permitted to vote and to have children. (1)

Decidedly, the notion of the heritability of character traits led to some interesting policy notions on the part of our forebears.







5) The end of Eugenics?


Where did the Eugenics Movement go?  Contrary to popular belief, no WWII-era association with Germany led to its immediate end.  Mark Largent:
From the end of World War II through the 1960s, there was no popular recognition of a link between the American eugenics movement and the Holocaust; this connection emerged in the 1970s. ... The wave of high school and college textbooks published in the 1970s at first omitted any discussion of eugenics and coerced sterilization; by the end of the decade...many of these authors demonized American eugenicists by directly linking them to the Nazis. (4)

This narrative culminated in Edwin Black's 2003 work War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race(Black's background here.)

Richard Lynn surmises that
Eugenics is premised on the assertion of social rights and in particular the right of the state to curtail reproductive liberties in the interests of preserving and promoting the genetic quality of the population. It was this change in values toward according greater precedence to individual rights at the expense of social rights that was the fundamental reason for the rejection of eugenics in the Western democracies in the closing decades of the twentieth century.  (1)

He adds:
A critical year was 1969, in which the American Eugenics Society ended publication of its journal Eugenics Quarterly and replaced it with Social Biology, ... In 1972 the American Eugenics Society changed its name to The Society for the Study of Social Biology and dissociated itself from eugenics. 
Two years later the president of the new society, Frederick Osborn (1974), wrote of this change, “The society was groping for a wholly new definition of purpose. It was no longer thinking in terms of ‘superior’ individuals, ‘superior’ family stocks, or even of social conditions that would bring about a ‘better’ distribution of births. It was thinking in terms of diversity, in terms of the genetic attributes appropriate to different kinds of physical and social environments.” (1)

*       *       *





Are we creatures of our era?  Or purveyors of universal values transcending time and space?  A little of both?  Dowbiggin:
In early twentieth-century America,...among educated and professional men and women who prided themselves on having a social conscience, there were few who entirely rejected the observations and recommendations of eugenicists.   (3)


Today 'priding oneself on having a social conscience' seems to entail exactly the opposite.  It has become fashionable to impute the shortfallings of the lower classes to the prejudice, callousness, lack of understanding on the part of the upper classes.  All 'educated and professional men and women' seem to think so.  So who is right?  To what era belongs the moral high ground?




REFERENCES
(1) Lynn, Richard. Eugenics: A Reassessment. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2001.
(2) Broberg, Gunnar.  Eugenics and the Welfare State: Sterilization Policy in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1996.
(3) Dowbiggin, I.R.  Keeping America Sane: Psychiatry and Eugenics in the United States and Canada, 1880-1940. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003.
(4) Largent, Mark A.  Breeding Contempt: The History of Coerced Sterilization in the United States. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2008.
(5) Thomson, Mathew.  The Problem of Mental Deficiency: Eugenics, Democracy, and Social Policy in Britain C.1870-1959.  Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.

20 comments:

WITCH PHD said...

Thanks again for your work, I must have previously missed this article. Again thanks.

Ivan said...

Nice article as well as whole site.Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Actually, eugenics was a reactionary approach advocated by progressives and conservatives. It was considered a method of preserving and improving the dominant groups in the population; it is was then and it is now generally associated with nativism, as the movement was in response to the massive influx of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe. Today, the Alt Right, led by Steve Sailer, are its most strident proponents.

europeasant said...

"(In the U.S:) South and East European immigrants, less intelligent and functional, were hurting the racial stock of the country"

That statement is debate-able. A nation still needs people who can repair cars, roofs, sidewalks etc.,etc. A person with an IQ of 90 can still contribute to society. In Aldous Huxely's book "Brave New World" a question was posed as to why can't we create a society where all individuals have high IQ's. The answer as I recall was that that experiment was tried. No one wanted to pick up the garbage. What I should do menial work? How about you do menial work.

Some people today are advocating for vocational work schools, programs etc. These are people with very successful children working in white collar jobs but want your children to do the dirty work.

The English and Germanic stocks created a lot of stuff but wow they sure screwed up Europe. World War one and World War two sure destroyed and killed millions and millions.

Yes Eastern Europeans may not be up to par with Germanic types but we are not Sheeple like they are. And we kicked German ass in WWII.

Communism is not an Slavic invention but created by ((THEY)Live).

Anonymous said...

"That statement is debate-able. A nation still needs people who can repair cars, roofs, sidewalks etc.,etc. "

Except nativists believed we had those workers at their disposal, rather than import cretins from Italy, Poland, or Serbia.

"A person with an IQ of 90 can still contribute to society"

So it doesn't matter if the person is European or non-European, so long as they fall a little bit above or below that score, right?

"How about you do menial work".

I do those types of jobs all of the time.

"The English and Germanic stocks created a lot of stuff but wow they sure screwed up Europe. World War one and World War two sure destroyed and killed millions and millions.

"Yes Eastern Europeans may not be up to par with Germanic types..."

Actually, don't believe the Alt Right hype or nativist tropes. Eastern Europeans WERE on par with their Germanic or English counterparts, in a similar fashion that non-Europeans are similar to Europeans.

europeasant said...


"Except nativists believed we had those workers at their disposal, rather than import cretins from Italy, Poland, or Serbia"

Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians but USA for all! How delusional is that?

"So it doesn't matter if the person is European or non-European, so long as they fall a little bit above or below that score, right?"

Europe and USA will and must remain dominated by Europeans. This is not debatable. We will not be ruled by MUDZ(blacks & so called Hispanics).

"I do those types of jobs all of the time"

So do I. I just replaced a 50 gal water heater. How about the muds do the menial work, which is all that 90% of them can do.

"Actually, don't believe the Alt Right hype or nativist tropes. Eastern Europeans WERE on par with their Germanic or English counterparts, in a similar fashion that non-Europeans are similar to Europeans"

My Eastern European people as are all White people are being discriminated against. You have not heard about Affirmative Action or Quotas? How long have you been around?

Anonymous said...

Hate to break it to you, europeasant, but the USA is not Africa or Asia. The USA was created by several races and ethnic groups. And, as human history has shown, groups come and go.

"Muds do the menial work".

You mean anyone can do it.

"My Eastern European people"....

Were not considered Americans by WASPs. You stole their land and culture. You have to go back.

Coyote said...

Good post!

Anyway, I do want to make a clarification here:

"Laws against certain types of marriage existed already, such as anti-miscegenation statutes,"

After 1887, anti-miscegenation statutes almost exclusively existed in the South and West. After 1887, no Northern US state other than Indiana actually had such laws. This does not mean, of course, that such marriages were necessarily accepted by most of Northern society--but it was nevertheless generally not illegal in the North to do this after 1887. (Heck, even before 1887, some US states--including in the North--largely refused to enforce their anti-miscegenation laws due to a belief that these laws conflicted with the Fourteenth Amendment. Of course, it is worth noting that the draftsmen of the 14th Amendment were not unanimously of the belief that the 14th Amendment would nullify anti-miscegenation laws nationwide; US Senators Lyman Trumbull and Waitman Willey--possibly among others--had a contrary opinion on this.)

Also, as a side note, one would think that a genetic determinist would have been in favor of miscegenation since it would have allowed blacks to have children that would likely have more "superior" genes than would have been the case had they reproduced with other blacks. In other words, a child of a black parent and a white parent would likely be located further away from the black mean in regards to traits such as intelligence, criminality, et cetera than a child of two black parents. (Granted, assortative mating would change this to some degree, but just how widespread was this back in 1900?)

Coyote said...

@europeasant: A society where everyone is super-smart will simply build robots to do all of the menial work. This would actually be a good thing since no people are actually going to have to continue engaging in back-breaking labor--sort of similar to how automation significantly improved many coal miners' lives by taking over their jobs and thus allowing them to get better, safer, and healthier jobs.

Hunchbacked luser said...

To the peasant: Russians brutally raped many German women. My ancestors. No need to be proud of that. Apart from the fact that Germans fought against multiple powerful nations at once.

"On par" No. As Gómez Dávila writes:

"Countries with an impoverished literature have an insipid history."

Many Eastern European nations are less interesting than Ancient Greece or Rome, or England, Germany, France. The Russians stand out, great literature comparable to Western Europe.

Don Colacho again:

'National histories are interesting until the country “modernizes”
After that statistics are enough.'

Further, eugenics is not about only IQ. It is an important factor, but certain character traits as well as temperament are important too.

Also, do you want to have a ninety IQ? I don't. I suffer from my low or at best average intelligence. One of the reason I hanged myself at 23 (but was too dumb and incompetent even for that. I am worthless.)
Besides being mentally ill and an ugly hunchback.

Keyword: mental illness. I don't need that, I hate that I am sick in my mind. It got passed on, just as my hunchback runs in my father's and his father's family


Note that Chris Langan has an IQ of 195-210 and did a lot of menial work and simple jobs.

I am now a Christian. I could and do suffer through my worthless existence, otherwise I'd kill myself (this time I'd make sure I succeed.)

Re. robot/automation: forget it. The world's IQ is dropping. Around 2030, what Volkmar Weiss calls the "Great Chaos" will begin. Vox Day speculates that around 2033 the US will break up. Dr. Weiss writes in his magnum opus "Die Intelligenz und ihre Feinde" that we will return to riding horses.

So, please implement eugenics, so that awful loser existences like mine are prevented. I hate my life, I live due to my faith. Langan is an eugenicist too.

Anonymous said...

--
Matt Ridley (from
Genome, p. 297):

This brief history of eugenics
leads me to one firm conclusion.
What is wrong with eugenics is not
the science, but the coercion.
Eugenics is like any other
programme that puts the social
benefit before the individual’s
rights. It is a humanitarian, not a
scientific crime. There is little
doubt that eugenic breeding would
“work” for human beings just as
works for dogs and dairy cattle. It
would be possible to reduce the
incidence of many mental disorders
and improve the health of the
population by selective breeding.
But there is also little doubt that
it could only be done very slowly
at a gigantic cost in cruelty,
injustice and oppression. Karl
Pearson once said, in an answer to
Wedgewood: “What is social is right
and there is no definition of right
beyond that.” That dreadful
statement should be the epitaph of
eugenics.

--

--
Dawkins (The Greatest
Show on Eearth):

Political opposition to eugenic
breeding of humans sometimes spills
over into the almost certainly
false assertion that it is
impossible. Not only is it immoral,
you may hear it said, it wouldn’t
work. Unfortunately, to say that
something is morally wrong, or
politically undesirable, is not to
say that it wouldn’t work. I have
no doubt that, if you set your mind
to it and had enough time and
enough political power, you could
breed a race of superior
body-builders, or high-jumpers, or
shot-putters; pearl fishers, sumo
wrestlers, or sprinters; or (I
suspect, although now with less
confidence because there are no
animal precedents) superior
musicians, poets, mathematicians or
wine-tasters. The reason I am
confident about selective breeding
for athletic prowess is that the
qualities needed are so similar to
those that demonstrably work in the
breeding of racehorses and
carthorses, of greyhounds and
sledge dogs. The reason I am still
pretty confident about the
practical feasibility (though not
the moral or political
desirability) of selective breeding
for mental or otherwise uniquely
human traits is that there are so
few examples where an attempt at
selective breeding in animals has
ever failed, even for traits that
might have been thought surprising.
Who would have thought, for
example, that dogs could be bred
for sheep-herding skills, or
“pointing”, or bull-baiting?

The great Catholic Nicolás Gómez Dávila:


Geneva, the Geneva that Calvin reigns from his sickbed, the Geneva whose shadow extends from the pulpit of Knox to the hallways of the Vatican, the Geneva where a world was formed, had about 12.000 inhabitants in 1560.
The huge modern human masses are not only a problem, but superfluous.

Population growth disquiets the demographer only when he fears that it will impede economic progress or make it harder to feed the masses.
But that man needs solitude, that human proliferation produces cruel societies, that distance is required between men so that the spirit might breathe, does not interest him.
The quality of a man does not matter to him.

Marx may win battles, but Malthus will win the war.

Eugenics appals those who fear its judgment.

No beneficiary of slaves is supporter of birth control.

Depopulate and reforest -- first civilizing rule.

The two most pressing problems of the contemporary world: demographic expansion and genetic deterioration are unsolvable.
Liberal principles prevent the solution of the first, egalitarian ones that of the second.

The racist errs when he believes that there are pure races, the anti-racist when he believes that the ingredients of a beverage are of no importance.

Once he settles down in the country he admires, the foreigner bastardizes exactly that which he admires.

(some of the escolios I translated from the German due to being too dumb to learn and read Spanish.)

Anonymous said...

"Eugenics appalls those who fear its judgment."
En how. And hatred follows on the heels of envy.

Anyone who desires children and who marries without regard to the quality of their mate is a complete moron. Much of the loose system of courting boils down to at least some degree of interest in the QUALITY OF THE INGREDIENTS. People are ignorant of biology, but not generally THAT ignorant. (Exceptions include the most animal-like people among us, who exhibit zero standards over whom they'll bed.)

The other exception to this are high-on-the-herding-spectrum people. When I see a reasonably intelligent woman of mostly NW European ancestry produce kids with an African of likely Bantu ancestry, I figure her odds of having tattoos or other earmarks of high-spectrum herd behavior are astronomical. "Those who can see" generally grasp that intelligence is mostly inherited, and people often have a vague sense of "reversion to the mean" even without noticing that children of American black couples who have advanced university degrees score no better on the SAT than do the children of American whites having no more than a high school diploma. Mean reversion, baby. It was why, until its members caught the diversity pathogen, American Episcopalians were reported to have a mean IQ in the 120 range, massively higher than the Ashkenazim. Don't ask for the source, it was memory-holed.

But people who get their behavioral cues entirely from "what's fashionable" will rationalize self-destructive acts the same as does any person trapped in a vice like alcoholism or gambling addiction. Herding behavior is genetic, and like most such elements, what is a feature in moderation is a bug when expressed too highly.

The issue with genetic degradation of a population has far less to do with political-policy coercion over reproductive rights than it does damming the river of Nature's normal culling of the species. The extension of proper sewage handling and provision of clean water to all (including those who couldn't produce it on their own) is the real reason that that, demographically, humanity is destined to experience a collapse in mean intelligence. Idiocracy is neither fiction nor comedy.

Until Nature resumes Darwin Awarding massive numbers of high-time-preference stupid people (a prospect I don't welcome because Nature is quite indiscriminate), the fraction of smart people will continue to decline and the actual, function intelligence of even that fraction will decline, too. IQ tests are normed and re-normed, but today's bright people aren't as smart (or as tough, disease resistant or physically strong and resilient) as our ancestors.

---The Determinist Naturalist (M.S. Biology, IQ >140 [qualifications that I aver will buy me a cup of coffee at McDonald's only if I also have the $1 price in hand. I will note however that my kids all bat in the Big Leagues of STEM and exhibit 1 in 1000 to 1 in 5000 levels of life-success performance, so being bright does have its non-financial rewards.]

Anonymous said...

"Anyone who desires children and who marries without regard to the quality of their mate is a complete moron."

Depends upon what metrics are employed regarding "quality". To each their own.

"When I see a reasonably intelligent woman of mostly NW European ancestry produce kids with an African of likely Bantu ancestry, I figure her odds of having tattoos or other earmarks of high-spectrum herd behavior are astronomical."

That would be a wild generalization on your part.

"It was why, until its members caught the diversity pathogen, American Episcopalians were reported to have a mean IQ in the 120 range, massively higher than the Ashkenazim. Don't ask for the source, it was memory-holed."

Reported by who? How was it measured? We are simply to believe you?

"The issue with genetic degradation of a population has far less to do with political-policy coercion over reproductive rights than it does damming the river of Nature's normal culling of the species."

We have the liberty to help our species live. You can hold these opinions, but they will not become policy.

"humanity is destined to experience a collapse in mean intelligence."

Except we are advancing in multiple areas as a race exponentially. Try again.

"Until Nature resumes Darwin Awarding massive numbers of high-time-preference stupid people..."

Fatalism is your flaw.

"IQ tests are normed and re-normed, but today's bright people aren't as smart (or as tough, disease resistant or physically strong and resilient) as our ancestors."

More or less, an opinion.

"I will note however that my kids all bat in the Big Leagues of STEM and exhibit 1 in 1000 to 1 in 5000 levels of life-success performance, so being bright does have its non-financial rewards"

Anyone can say anything on the Internet.

Rakesh chandra said...

This makes the sales process easier for the whole team. SalezShark CRM software in Dubai increases revenue because it schedules emails so you can reach more prospects. The best thing about this tool is its ability to help you secure more business opportunities.

racesiteinfo said...

I can read all the opinions of others as well as i gained information to each and everyone here on your site. Just keep on going dude. Check over here: 온라인경마

totopickpro said...

Searching for a great site. I was so impressed to yours. This will probably give me ideas for my work. Thank you 토토

casinosite777top.JDS said...

Attractive portion of content.

casinositeguidecom.JDS said...

I am glad that you shared this useful information with us.

casinositerank said...


Your website is really cool and this is a great inspiring article.

gostopsite said...

If you have some questions in your mind like me, you must choose