Civilization and dysgenesis

We may reasonably suppose that the first six civilizations were founded by high IQ peoples. Their homelands are now all occupied by low IQ peoples, as for example Egypt and the Indus Valley. And any smart people currently in the vicinity of the Indus valley are descended from foreign invaders who conquered a low IQ population that had lost or was losing the capability to operate cities and irrigation.

The Maya created writing and the positional number system, and used it to accurately predict the motions of the moon and sun. Their descendents were for the most part homeless nomads, their largest city being two hundred mud huts. Their great cities were abandoned, even when they commanded key resources. The descendants of the Maya are obviously incapable of operating a great civilization, indeed, without white rule, could not even have cities, or political units larger than tiny tribes with poorly defined territories. They wound up running naked through the jungle with pointy sticks to the extent that they had any jungle.

You would think that positive eugenics is natural in a civilization. The smartest people get to the top, command and effectively utilize all the good stuff, so have more surviving children. And sometimes it does work like that.

But if the smart people are the ruling and fertile people, they will proceed to ensure that their smart children get all the top jobs. This will disturb the topmost rulers, who would like to have limitless freedom to appoint obedient people to the good jobs, regardless of ability, and more importantly, regardless of family. In particular, they would like the freedom to not appoint the sons of powerful rival families. If you have a bunch of fertile smart industrious men inserting their kids into the top jobs, then you wind up with aristocratic or semi aristocratic system. The Bishop is succeeded by the Bishop’s son, which bothers the pope no end. The colonel is succeeded by the colonel’s son, which bothers the general, which bothers the King. One drastic solution, popular in China, is to give the top jobs to eunuchs. You want a top job, have to give up your man parts. Note the striking similarity with today’s political correctness, which requires metaphorical castration of males, and prefers literal castration of males.

Affirmative action for women makes a lot more sense when we recall that working women, unlike working males, do not reproduce, therefore will not be succeeded by their children. If you are a ruler, able (aristos) fertile patriarchal families are a problem, working women and eunuchs are the solution. And if the very smartest women are not all that bright, all the better, will be less capable of plotting against you. So the smartest females do not reproduce. Even if working women are substantially less productive than working men, working men are threat, working women are not a threat. Similarly any measures to prevent the affluent white male children of affluent white males from getting ahead. Such measures are rationalized in the name of social justice, but such measures give the most powerful more power.

From the point of view of the emperor, eunuchs are a better solution than working women, since eunuchs are substantially smarter than women, and have zero offspring, not merely near zero offspring.

A system of rule by the best (aristos) will, if the best are fertile, tend to become hereditary or semi hereditary. Thus patriarchy plus meritocracy will give rise to aristocracy, because affluent patriarchs have numerous sons, the meritocrats start running the system as a job placement program for their numerous sons, and the Pope will not be happy. Conversely, when the King tries to do stuff to make it less hereditary, he is apt to make the best less fertile.

One would suppose the mandarinate to be eugenic, and indeed China, unlike other civilizations, has not become a low IQ wasteland. But mandarin exam was corrupted to select for grinds rather than smarts. Any test can be gamed. The more that scoring high in the test matters, the less predictive of accomplishment it is. Thus selecting people on the accomplishments of their family and recent ancestors is apt to produce more accurate predictions than over reliance on an examination system. If the outcome of an IQ test has little direct effect on your career, it will accurately predict accomplishment. If you hand out nice jobs on the basis of an IQ test, considerably less so. If nice jobs are handed out on the basis of the test, the test is apt to become a marathon of rote memorization, which is what happened with the Chinese mandarinate exam. But for obvious reasons, emperors were unenthusiastic about handing out nice jobs on the basis of family accomplishment, for accomplished families are rivals.

Fertility in our civilization is of course massively dysgenic, because women are artificially placed in the workforce and education, with the most able women being most forcefully helicoptered into courses and jobs far beyond their ability.

As “Smart and Sexy” demonstrates, our mandarinate exam (the SAT and LSAT) has been jiggered to avoid selecting too heavily for ability. If, however, our mandarinate exam was fixed as proposed in “Smart and Sexy”, and if we had patriarchy, our civilization, like the Chinese, could avoid becoming a desolate wasteland of low IQ savages running through the woods with sharp sticks. And it would not be hard to make our mandarinate exam better than the traditional Chinese mandarinate exam.

The Chinese communist party currently selects on test results, on family accomplishment, and on individual accomplishment. This is likely to give substantially better results than the traditional Chinese mandarinate exam. Unfortunately they also are affirmative actioning women, probably for the same reasons we are, and this is producing significant dysgenesis in China.

174 Responses to “Civilization and dysgenesis”

  1. Salger says:

    So, hereditary monarchy for America?

    • jim says:

      I favor a hereditary monarchy ruling over a semi hereditary aristocracy and semi hereditary priesthood. The prince marries the daughter of the aristocrat or priest best placed to make a coup against the King, usually at a very early age. He is also allowed to have a harem, but is required to do the duties of a husband and father to his legitimate wife and legitimate sons. Failure to do so being legitimate grounds for a coup.

      Or maybe if we lucked out and got a competent King we could clone him.

      • Salger says:

        Would such a situation be doable after a Trump presidency?

        • jim says:

          Inadvisable to further discuss such a question before the election.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Would such a situation be doable after a Trump presidency?”

            No. That ship has sailed long ago.

            Americans overall are not going to give up their liberties to Jim’s fantasy tyrannical government predicated unnamed “kings” and “aristocrats”.

            It’s amazing how anyone would even buy into his vision.

            • peppermint says:

              …but they are going to give up their liberties to Corvinus’ New Left liberalism, voluntarily renouncing the freedom to call a spade a spade in order that spades can be given the same opportunity to The American Dream as humans.

              Liberals against freedom of speech. Socialists filled with contempt for the White working class. Social conservatives who love cuckoldry and hate abortion. Fiscal conservatives who stole 20T$ from their own children while babbling about the debt:GDP ratio or various UBI fantasies. It will be hard for the people of the future to believe that any of these 20th century ideologies existed.

      • Eugine_Nier says:

        How do you keep the king from destroying the semi-hereditary nature of the society for the reasons you discus in your article?

        • jim says:

          Well, recent history suggests that if the King destroys the semi hereditary nature of the society, he, or his grandson, is likely to lose his head.

          If the colonel was not born to be a colonel, and the priest was not born to be a priest, people are apt to denounce the King’s claim to be born to be King.

          • viking says:

            yeah but Peter Thiel’s a fag and most millenial would eat their children if it would get them out of a days work. I really dont understand this monarchy idea yeah i get MM formalism but kings have not had a good record. westerners do not exhibit a propensity to be ruled absolutely. I think a more possible alignment of power would be no representation without taxation; not a net tax payer not a voter.That and a balanced budget law it would be pretty hard to fund equalism

  2. Salger says:

    I see you bringing up that Smart and Sexy book again. Would you recommend it?

  3. Eugine_Nier says:

    On the other hand, most of China’s dynasties since the fall of the Han, certainly the Sui, Tang, Yau, and Qing were founded by steppe nomads or steppe nomads who intermarried with Han Chinese.

  4. Greg says:

    So the Emperor blew the dust of his trusty old mind control ray gun and reprogrammed his North American subjects into ardent feminists, presumably because if he’d just hired actual eunuchs like the old Chinese dudes, we might have attracted some attention. He’s kinda shy, the US Emperor, you know? But he’s got a mighty fine mind control ray gun.

  5. Spandrell says:

    China underwent a huge conservative revolution after the Song Dynasty. Chinese women used to be able to divorce a day slut it up, but then the Song intellectuals came up with pretty strict morality theory, and next thing you know women had their feet bent and couldn’t even walk to the market.

    • jim says:

      My understanding is that this happened immediately following the defeat and conquest of the Song Dynasty, not during the Song Dynasty – that the collapse of the Song Dynasty resulted in the immediate mass enslavement of the women. So what is the role of Song intellectuals, as distinct from the role of enemy soldiers and disorderly anarchy?

      • spandrell says:

        What do you mean by collapse? The Jurchen invasion? Or the Mongol one?

        Neo-Confucianism was invented by Zhu Xi and his friends during the Southern Song. And it was an instant hit.

        Zhu Xi was born after the Jurchen conquest of the north, and I’ve never seen the argument that it was the invasion that provoked the conservative turn, but it’s a worthy topic of research.

        The Mongol invasion if anything resulted in pretty laissez-faire morality. There’s a very funny book of a Mongol-empire era Chinese writer complaining how all women are whores and how everything sucks. He’d be a reader of this blog today. I’ll try to fetch you a link if you’re interested.

        • jim says:

          Jurchen invasion.

          The Jurchen pillaged rather than ruled Northern China, and the Chinese army and rebels confronting them were bandits, rather than soldiers. The Jurchen routinely reduced Chinese women to slavery, rounding them up and transporting them long distances, as one might round up cattle. Thus every woman wound up being enslaved and sold multiple times.

          This is in no way inconsistent with Kong Qi’s complaint about female power.

          Gynarchy is the natural state of mankind in the sense that Hobbes’ war of all against war is the natural state of mankind. It is what you wind up with, radically undermining military and economic capability, if you don’t make major effort to avoid it, even if on paper, women are slaves and absolutely property. The Jurchen avoided it by enforcing property rights in woman on their soldiers, so that captive women could not play one soldier off against another, and I suppose that the Chinese bandit/rebels/soldiers took similar measures, eventually, for without such measures they would have been helpless against the Jurchen.

  6. viking says:

    Ive said in objection to the hitler and king arthur crowds a good fascist is hard to find, meaning strong leaders are great when they occasionally appear but are a rarity so strong man or aristocratic systems are not optimal.
    because of the post human NRX crowd which seems to equate the average white with a nigger and dream of a day when even geniuses will be replaced by AI and men put out of the universe.
    I asked Jayman to figure out what percent of each year high IQ >130 were the result of white prole,s he came up with 50% and did not include a few things i thought should make it even higher. The sheer greater numbers of proles allows them to inject new blood into the cog elite pool now its true they are a less stabilized population but they will never the less be absorbed into the stabilized high IQ tranche if they go to university etc, some will of course find high IQ partners at home to help them found their plumbing empires and their children or grandchildren.will enter the elites pre stabilized.
    Meritocracy like this is a good system in that it ensures the very best are selected to rule and that they do not become inbred genetically or intellectually, and that elites spend their efforts maximizing their child’s potential rather than scheming for privileges .Also because it works excellently on monkey brains that are attuned to justice but assuaged by hope, as long as joe sixpack believes the game is not rigged that he has a dignified supporting role and that his child has a shot hes not going to pick up the musket and seek redress. I would add it is not clear that euro man is evolved for kings and warlords on a permanent basis euro man is known for his high degree of individuality going back thousands of years forms of democracy have always been part of tribal custom he has only temporarily accepted sovereign kings this brief period we look at was not the norm and did not last long.
    That is not to say democracy doesn’t have its problems or that moldbug have his points but a philosophy to a large part based on HBD ought not gloss over the bits that dont fit. I actually think the cathedral solves the problem it effectively neutralizes democracy for all but the most dedicated allowing elites to do what they please while maintaining the front of democracy required for euro mans acquiescence.Now it is true as Cochran has pointed out if you are selecting a whelp for promise that shows good form you can increase your chances of succes by looking at its family.I think we would be naive to think this doesnt have unofficial ways of happening if nothing elese they will inherit both property and conections

    • peppermint says:

      The building block of civilization is the White family which is based on White marriage. White men choose governments in order to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity, and when a government becomes inimical to these ends, they have a sacred duty to overthrow it. Heil Hitler.

    • jim says:

      I asked Jayman to figure out what percent of each year high IQ >130 were the result of white prole,s he came up with 50%

      If this number is realistic, it is because our elite is not very smart and getting less smart every day, and because there are an awful lot of IQ 130 proles watching porn in Mum’s basement. In a meritocratic society, the proportion of high IQ people coming from proles would be quite small, resulting in high meritocracy being only marginally distinct from high aristocracy.

      • viking says:

        Between 40-50% of the white population falls between 100-130, but only 2% over 130. the 2% would need to have aa LOT of children to make up for the numerical advantage.
        In fact what happens is many of the 2% marry new cog elites not stabilized cog elites and cog elites generally have fewer children.Why lament? do you really want to have to live next door to Nick Land? Cog elites need a holistic civilization to survive it provides not only the IQ demographics but the military capability, the market for labor and goods a more diverse and rich culture. and in turn cog elites owe a noblesse oblige to their fellows. The better way to increase average IQ is to start chopping the tail.and of course deporting non whites

        • jim says:

          For simplicity, assume two blocks. Aristos, normally distributed around IQ 130, plebians, normally distributed around IQ 99. Two percent of the population are aristos, three percent of the children are the children of aristos. Because we assume aristos are in large part descended from aristos, we ignore regression to the mean, and assume three percent of of the children are children of aristos, also normally distributed around 130. That is to say, we assume aristos have a fifty percent fertility advantage over plebs. (Because we have deflated educational degrees, aristo children do not cost markedly more than pleb children)

          Then the total number of IQ 130+ children born to aristos is pretty similar to the total number of IQ 130+ children born to plebs. Assuming a quite moderate degree of favoritism in favor of aristo children, and that the aristo culture is more conducive to success than pleb culture, that having aristo friends and parents is an advantage, the majority of new aristos will be children of aristos – not the overwhelming majority, but the majority.

          • Ansible says:

            So the new money becomes the old money, without crowding out the old money. This way the aristocracy can be continuously renewed while still selecting for that which makes for a good aristocracy. This is part of what Curt Doolittle calls aristocratic egalitarianism. Jim, when you say that we (NRx) are open to including men like George Zimmerman in our civilization you are espousing something close to propertarianism.

            https://propertarianforum.wordpress.com/2016/07/21/aristocratic-egalitarianism/

            We know altright memes are downhill of NRx memes, are NRx memes downhill of propertarian memes?

        • Spandrell says:

          Nick Land is a completely adequate and pleasant neighbor to have. I’d love to have many neighbors like him.

          • viking says:

            Id be worried he might decide i wasnt as smart as his AI siri and decide he could make better use of my home for his servers

            • Anon says:

              I get the idea that Land’s observational skills cause people to see him as the schemer who smiles to your face and then sics the robots on you when your back is turned, but I feel that’s completely unwarranted. Making an observation about how something works doesn’t necessarily equal real world exploitation or praxis.

              • viking says:

                No its definitely more than that i thought that for a year or so , its hard to know what he really thinks, hes pretty careful to not get pinned always with that isnt what i meant at all that isnt it at all routine.
                At first i thought it might be concern for his real life rep but thats not it he cant go home again.

                My impression is he would like to live as the last human on elysium flipping on the AI as he dies with a hideous laugh because monkees like Flashman raped him in some english public school.

        • Corvinus says:

          Viking…

          Are you part of the 40-50% or the 2%?

          Are you having plenty of white children and preparing them for a life of leading the masses as an aristocrat?

          If not, you are on the chopping block.

          • viking says:

            I am and i throw a consistent 130 but I am wondering how to keep them safe Idaho and stacks of cash and NY real estate seemed good enough 25 years ago today i donrt think a billion and a russian passport would save them

        • peppermint says:

          still doubting the intelligence of prole trolls in their mothers’ basements in the age of chans

          you make the same mistake the left does

          not every intelligent person works in an office and can be fired under CRA, but even if they don’t aspire to that, they don’t necessarily want to tell the commies their name and address

  7. Alf says:

    So who is doing the reproducing? Mitt Romney?

    • jim says:

      I have elsewhere repeatedly written what is needed to get our fertility up to seven or eight, three or four times replacement.

      Deflate academic degrees.

      Deflate housing costs by restoring order, so that people no longer need to buy expensive housing to avoid danger.

      Deflate health care by health care on the Singaporean system.

      Legally and socially enforce patriarchal marriage.

      • Alf says:

        I understand that part. Question vague because my understanding is still a bit vague.

        Re fertility: I imagine that the progressive topmost elite are not having many children because their belief system does not really care about children. At the same time leftists are chronic hypocrites with regards to their belief system. Eg preach love but bang fertile girls when you have the chance. Seems to me that r-selected procreation is based on hedonistic ‘happy accidents’. With the introduction of the pill this strategy has taken a big hit because women can now partake in sexytime with much lower chances of becoming pregnant.

        So are there people in modernity who come out ahead of the game? My current answer is:
        – K-selected whites no because they are sabotaged to have children.
        – r-selected whites no because they have sabotaged themselves.
        – minorities yes as long as there is a functioning state support system

      • viking says:

        while its true niggerization and immigration degrade the levels of physical and economic security and dignity whites require for family formation.There’s more going on than that see japan and many parts europe.
        contraception is probably main culprit of major shift and cant be changed,though feminism generally family law particularly culture which shames elite women for not working and doesnt shame prole women for single motherhood
        Low class women can breed like rabbits but middle class women often get taken out of the game by one bastard what decent mans wants that.
        I dont think we really want a big uptick in babies but we want to shift who is having them. a baby war with black and brown niggers is crazy just get rid of them.

        • Corvinus says:

          Again, Viking (and Alf), how many white children do you each have? You better have five per family at minimum. If not, BOTH of you are r-selected whites.

          Speaking of this “theory”, how do you propose informing your fellow whites of their inferiority, of their outright failure to reproduce? I mean, besides shaming them, what sure-fire methods do you have in the hopper that will convince white people to start breeding like rabbits? What is your plan of implementation? Theories don’t mean shit, I want the practical application…

          Moreover, how do even propose getting rid of “black and brown niggers” in this day and age? What is your specific courses of action? How do you plan to carry it out? What resistance do you expect? How will you deal with it?

          Next time, think before you speak.

          • viking says:

            Not clear on where you are coming from what your solution you propose or perhaps you think we are doing fine?
            To answer your questions;so far two.I think I have been clear Im skeptical whites even need to reproduce.But for arguments sake I would like to see more elite reproduction and less bottom end. providing of course elites were not utter faggots. The tax code would be a good place to start encouraging high end reproduction, and the welfare rules the low end. I would start by requiring any welfare recipient to name the father then go after him at the same time offer cash incentives for neutering.
            Immigration I would do exactly the way the left does treat the law fast and loose. First deport all 40 million illegals and build a wall. next declare birthright citizenship unconstitutional deport all those, next begin review of all citizenships from past amnesties and find most to be fraudulent which they are, next find the amnesty itself fraudulent since the terms were not honored,next offer buyouts for emigration or sterilization. Its not like the left actually followed the law or asked the citizens if they wanted to become minority white, and honestly even liberals go out of their way to live away from niggers so truth is no one wants them.

            Now im sure this is no easy task it would take the US becoming fed up enough to elect a smart trump type and let him do his thing.Thats obviously not too remote a possibility since half would settle for a dumbass like trump .
            Now compare that to…
            AI takes command of the world?
            We exit to outer space the sea arctic whatever?
            The cathedral lets neckbeards declare autonomy because theyre so scared they might what strike?
            We declare democracy over and peter thiel king but since hes a fag then what?
            WN reinstate the fourth Reich?

            • jim says:

              The tax code would be a good place to start encouraging high end reproduction, and the welfare rules the low end. I would start by requiring any welfare recipient to name the father then go after him at the same time offer cash incentives for neutering.

              Experiment has repeatedly proved that economic forces, such as war and depression, poverty and wealth, have very little effect on reproduction, short of actual starvation or mass murder.

              What causes reproduction is that men are guaranteed respect and obedience from their families, and wives and children are guaranteed care from husbands and fathers.

              People do not decide to have children because they can afford them. They decide to have children and then do whatever it takes to afford them.

              Observe, for example Japan. Brutal war, mass starvation, mass conscription, they just went on having kids at approximately double replacement, a little less during widespread starvation, a little more when starvation stopped, a little less when young men went off to war, a little more when they came back and got married but nothing made much difference until MacArthur emancipated women.

              Similarly, the depression had almost no effect on reproduction in the US.

              • viking says:

                I dont know jim I dont disagree that women need to be re feminized but thats a tall order from this point in history. I found motherhood does a lot towards this and im pretty sure we all on the right agree you get more of what you subsidize and less of what you dont.I would say making it easier to afford children will encourage more women to have them and make them more feminine if its done in a way that strengthens men as well so much the better My guess it will be more expedient to make it more expensive nigh impossible for women to go it alone. By attacking welfare from the bottom you also weaken the middle class single mother tranche.Thus they require the man and his position strengthens.

                Heres the thing Im not interested in theoreticals no matter how perfect they might be.like monarchy and AI Im interested only its what within the realm of possibility today because we dont have much time.the short place is a race or civil war and right takeover, the long play is continue to speak well supported truth to lying irational commies hoping by some miracle enough get the hbd msg that policies change without war.at some point if niether happens then some of us will just have to do a yukio mashima

                • jim says:

                  Whites are being reduced to apes, both by miscegenation and dysgenic breeding, and our population is collapsing. We are going to be overrun and vanish from the earth. If you are not interested in “theoretical” solutions, you are not interested in solutions. We have long passed the point where politics as normal is consistent with our continued existence.

                • jim says:

                  The only things within the realm of possibility today are slow suicide and fast suicide. Politics, they say, is the art of the possible, but we have to fundamentally change what is possible.

            • Corvinus says:

              viking…

              “I think I have been clear Im skeptical whites even need to reproduce.”

              Then your fellow neoreactionaries would label you as being complicit to the destruction of the white race.

              “But for arguments sake I would like to see more elite reproduction and less bottom end. providing of course elites were not utter faggots.”

              How do you define “elites”? How would you define “bottom end”? And if “elites” are having children, then they are not “faggots”.

              “The tax code would be a good place to start encouraging high end reproduction, and the welfare rules the low end. I would start by requiring any welfare recipient to name the father then go after him at the same time offer cash incentives for neutering.”

              [Sigh] I’ve heard these arguments before. So you have a course of action. Again, how does one convince the general public to implement it, especially when one demands voluntary neutering for “lower class peoples”? Wreaks of individual importance.

              “I would do exactly the way the left does treat the law fast and loose. First deport all 40 million illegals and build a wall. next declare birthright citizenship unconstitutional deport all those, next begin review of all citizenships from past amnesties and find most to be fraudulent which they are, next find the amnesty itself fraudulent since the terms were not honored,next offer buyouts for emigration or sterilization.”

              Yes, yes, yes, I’ve heard these solutions, too. Again, how do you propose to put them into actual practice? Moreover, these buyouts are socialist in nature. Is that not contradictory to neoreactionary thought?

              “Its not like the left actually followed the law or asked the citizens if they wanted to become minority white…”

              As opposed to ordering citizens if the want to have their liberties stripped in Jim’s fantasy-land system of government, right?

              “…and honestly even liberals go out of their way to live away from niggers so truth is no one wants them.”

              I’m sure you use niggers frequently among your children, right? You inform them that its nothing more than “truth telling”. Furthermore, liberals live alongside and among different races and ethnic groups of their own social class standing.

              “Now compare that to…”

              Another Jim flavored diatribe. No thanks, I’ll pass.

              Alf…

              Such verbosity on your part. I didn’t realize that you were expanding your vocabulary in night school. Trying combining more expletives for added affect. Maybe your teacher has yet to cover that chapter.

              • Alf says:

                Corvinus you are a lot better at pressing buttons than you are at writing anything useful. Do you just like to belittle people online or are you a troll? Since this is the internet I guess I’ll never find out.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “Do you just like to belittle people online or are you a troll?”

                  I’m a Dark Triad. You shouldn’t mess with me.

                • jim says:

                  You are obviously unfamiliar with women. Therefore, not Dark Triad.

                • jon dough says:

                  gamma, w/a smidgen of omega…

                • Corvinus says:

                  “You are obviously unfamiliar with women.”

                  I am completely in tune with women. You, not so much.

                  And, Jon Dough, you are on the money in describing Alf. Surprising, because you generally lack any semblance of making accurate assessments of a person’s character.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  “I am completely in tune with women.”

                  Transitioned yet?

                • Corvinus says:

                  “Transitioned yet?”

                  Long ago, from a single man to a married man. With white children to boot.

                  How about yourself?

          • Alf says:

            > Next time, think before you speak.

            Asshole.

  8. Lalit says:

    Sorry, Jim! There is no clinching evidence that the Indus valley civilization was by invaders from the caucasus miuntains. The evidence in fact points more in the direction that it was indigenous. Races do degenerate over time. What is happening to whites now happened to Hindus earlier though for sifferent reasons. For the Hindus, the cause is a prolonged war with Islam leaving only rabble with the brave dead in war.. For the whites, it is the white top-elite that is doing it to their own people.

    • peppermint says:

      So what’s up with the Indo-European language?

      • Jack Highlands says:

        See my longer comment, peppermint. Note too Lalit’s cheap ‘Caucasus mountains’ diversion. Sure, the Aryans had a Caucasus component. But that is not where they developed genetically into the greatest warriors the planet has ever seen. That occurred on the European steppe. That is their homeland.

      • Lalit says:

        The Indians believe that it was they who migrated to Europe from India at the end of the ice ages. Genetic diversity meets a local maxima in the Punjab region if India. It’s called the Out of India theory. As popular in India as Aryan invasion is in the west. Since academics lie to serve the power structure, their conclusions are not considered. So one cannot use academic consensus in support of Aryan invasion theory. Besides these are western academics in consensus and Indians widely believe them to frauds just as you do.

        • Hidden Author says:

          OK, so what we have here are high-caste off-whites/light-tans with linguistic similarities to the whites of Europe. They live in a land where the masses are brown, if not black.

          So supposing an Out of India theory, Europeans should be white, off-white, brown and black in similar proportions to the people of India. Well, there is ONE European sub-population of which this is true–the Gypsies. Interestingly, the Gypsies were, if anything high-caste–just note how their word for non-Gypsies (“gadje”) stems from a medieval Indian term for civilian. And of course Gypsy language in general seems to stem from medieval North Indian military jargon. But these certifibly Out of India Europeans are clearly similar to Indians whereas Europeans are certifibly different–after all, even naturally, high-caste Indians do not have natural redheads and blondes (or even brunettes!).

          Or we can look at India from another angle. The castes are distinct ethnicities like you would expect of a land ruled by a foreign-origin aristocracy. The high-caste Indians are off-whites. The exception in the South where the high-caste Indians seem to share a Drividian ethnicity with the masses is far from the Hindu Kush compared to the north India of high-caste off-whites. The Drividians are themselves interesting as they have the dark skin color typical of non-whites while other bodily features are similar enough to whites for Drividians to be classified as Caucasians.

          But look! Cross the mountains forming India’s spine, as you leave Drividian lands and go even farther from the Hindu Kush and you enter the lands of “tribals”. Some were egalitarian hunter-gatherers. Some had strict hierarchies of their own, based on their own tribal customs rather than Hindu theology. And that’s the thing: these tribals were the one set of peoples in India even more outside the caste system than the official out-castes. And they were black, not in the African sense but in the sense of isolated tribes living in remote regions stretching from east India to Southeast Asia and then down through the island archipelagos all the way to the Australian continent with its tens of thousands of years old population of Aboriginals. What does this all imply for the demographic history of the land of India and beyond?

          • Lalit says:

            The gypsies migrated out of India after the Islamic invasions which began around the 7th century. The Out of India theory claims Indian migration into Europe around the end of the ice ages (20000 years ago) with lighter skinned Indians being better suited to thrive in Europe. A case of natural selection. Also you will find in India not a lot if correlation between caste and skin tone. More than 0.5 but Not much more. This is like Sailer’s theory where the elite always become fair skinned over time

            • jim says:

              Twenty thousand years ago, India was not occupied by Indians of any modern day race. There has been a whole lot of volks wandering since then. The white race is only ten thousand years old and the East Asian race not much older. It is highly unlikely that any of the ancestors of today’s Indians were in India twenty thousand years ago. In twenty thousand years you get a whole lot of genocides and race replacements. In twenty thousand years, the inhabitants of India must have been wiped out and entirely replaced many times.

              The most recent conquest being white bronze age chariot riders, with wagons following them, the Aryans, who conquered India just at the dawn of written history, near the end of the bronze age, about four thousand years ago.

              What happened twenty thousand years ago is entirely unrelated, and very difficult to know. History, or at least legends that immediately precede history, start immediately after the Aryan conquests, so they are almost knowable.

              • Lalit says:

                Ok, let me try a different tack. What is the proof you are pointing to support if you claim for there having been an Aryan invasion.

                • jim says:

                  Language, genes, physical appearance, evidence of similar invasions over much of the world at about the same time.

                  See Wikipedia for a suprisingly fair account of what is known of the Aryans:

                  According to the linguistic center of gravity principle, the most likely point of origin of a language family is in the area of its greatest diversity.[66][note 11] By this criterion, Northern India, home to only a single branch of the Indo-European language family (i. e., Indo-Aryan), is an exceedingly unlikely candidate for the Indo-European homeland, compared to Central-Eastern Europe, for example, which is home to the Italic, Venetic, Illyrian, Albanian, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Thracian and Greek branches of Indo-European.[68]

                  Both mainstream Urheimat solutions locate the Proto-Indo-European homeland in the vicinity of the Black Sea.[69]

                • Lalit says:

                  And where exactly us wikipedia getting it’s information from? As I recall, you are not a dan if wikipedia yourself. However, it seems you are not above quoting them when it suits your purposes.

                • jim says:

                  I don’t care where Wikipedia is getting its information from. I know where I am getting my information from. Every Indian software engineer that is any good looks mighty white. Most Indians don’t look very white at all. That tells me recent Aryan invasion. If an Indian Software engineer is dark skinned, he sucks. I suppose there must be some exceptions, but I have not run into them. Maybe if you look at the middle, the correlation is not that high, but if you look at the top end, the correlation is very high.

                  There are elements of the white race that are not aryan, and they still look white. So Aryans are a branch of the white race. The white race is not a branch of Aryans.

                • lalit says:

                  I actually live here in India, I work in Integrated Circuit design and signal processing and I haven’t noticed this co-relation you talk about. I generally deal with Engineers from the Indian Institutes of Technology, where the best Indian Engineers in the U.S. come from and I have not seen this at all. Some of their good Engineers even look Darker than African Americans. Your sample space is too small I’m afraid, as I admit mine must be too.

                  Now let’s get to the usage of the workd “Aryan”. The word Aryan comes from “Arya” in Sanskrit and Pali means a Noble person who practices a very high level of virtue. It has nothing to do with one’s caste, skin color, birth, wealth, looks etc. This is the only context that the word “Arya is used in any of the Vedic or Buddhist Scriptures. If you know of any other context where this word has been used in ancient Indian literature, I am all eyes.

                  I am not sure who first originated this term, “Aryan Race”. Is there even such a thing in Reality or is it more like The Yeti and the Lochness monster or more like progressive Dogma that “God created all men and women to be equal to each other in all ways.”

                • peppermint says:

                  your country has a billion people and very limited admission to those universities. If affirmative action would work anywhere, it’s there.

                • Lalit says:

                  Talk about confirmation bias, Peppermint. What makes you so sure these competent dark skinned Engineers were affirmative action candidates? Read my earlier comment about there being plenty of dark Beahmins and not a few light skinned lower castes.

                • jim says:

                  Indian engineers in the US are substantially whiter than the average Indian. Maybe my subjective impression that good competence among Indian engineers in the US is overwhelmingly correlated with skin color (that the best Indian engineers in the US are substantially whiter than the average Indian engineer in the US) is racist bias, but I am pretty sure that the relative whiteness of Indian engineers in the US is not my racist bias.

                • lalit says:

                  I’m not interested in labels such as “Racist”. We are here to discuss the truth. If it so happens that competence in engineering and IQ is co-rrelated to skin color, then that is the way it is and I’ll be satisfied.

                  But what I’m saying is that I have not seen this correlation between Skin color and competence among Indians. In Indian Families, it is common to find brothers with substantially different Skin Tones. Having worked in the U.S. when younger, I have not observed this correlation between skin tone and competence there as well. There well might be a different Gene for IQ and a different one from Skin Tone. Perhaps the White race has both these Genes. But I can’t agree that these Genes are tightly coupled to one another the way heads and tails are two sides of the same coin.

                  This is in fact a raging topic in India today with commentators weighing in on both sides. Here is one such article talking about the Genetic evidence or the lack of it for an Aryan Invasion theory

                  http://yugaparivartan.com/2016/01/23/aryan-invasion-theory-the-genetics-part-ii/

                  It’s a three part article with other parts talking about the politics behind the theory and other evidences.

                • jim says:

                  Y-DNA Haplogroup P1 (P-M45) – the now-rare “grandparent” of R2 and R1 shows that India was invaded, it did not invade.

                  The original probably lived in North Asia, a very very long time ago, and among his distant and numerous descendents were the first Aryans, and among their distant and numerous descendants were those that invaded India.

                  If the original lived in India, his descendents would have to leave India, conquer most of the world in a really short time. Hard to do that and still precede recorded history.

                  If that chromosome came out of India, so would a whole lot of other Indian Y chromosomes. They did not.

                • lalit says:

                  Let me in fact present one more argument

                  You will note that South Indians have a noticeably darker skin tone than the North Indians.

                  You will also notice that South India is noticeably more prosperous and advanced than North India.

                  Does this mean that South Indians are smarter than North Indians? I mention this because this misapprehension regarding relative intelligence is shared by both North Indians and South Indians. The reality however is different.

                  The Muslim proportion of population in North India is far greater than the one in South India. This keeps North India in a continuous low level religious civil war with predictable economic results. You will in fact notice that the prosperity of any state in India is strongly co-rrelated with the proportion of Muslims there. This fact is so politically incorrect to the power apparatus that they prefer to believe that North Indians are not as smart as South Indians.

                  The point I am Trying to make is this. There are other reasonable explanations for the present state of civilizations around the world apart from Skin Tone.

                • jim says:

                  The most compelling evidence for an invasion is that upper caste Y chromosome genes, the male line, are european, while mitochondrial genes are indian in all castes.

                  If your female lineage resembles population B, and your male lineage resembles population A, that is a pretty good indication that a bunch of invaders of population A conquered a bunch of population B.

                • jim says:

                  Haplogroup R1a1 over time marks the a population whose expansion and movement corresponds to the Aryans and their ancestors.

                  High caste groups from India cannot be responsible for r1a1 in Europe, because Europe contains lots of genes of haplogroups closely related to R1a1, and India does not – as one would expect if a very tiny subset of Europeans invaded India and imposed their language and religion on an enormously larger population.

                • lalit says:

                  Jim, Did you read the Link I sent you?

                  Read the part about the distribution part of the R1a1 haplogroup which is a major clade of Y-Chromosomal Haplogroups. If academic papers are more your thing

                  http://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-major-ychromosome-haplotype-xi–haplogroup-r1a-in-eurasia-2161-1041-1000150.pdf

                  The link references the paper.

                • jim says:

                  The paper you cite is compelling evidence that haplogroup R1a1 arose somewhere in what is now Russia and was carried around the world by waves of male migrants or conquerors.

                • lalit says:

                  Did you consider this fact? The data from Lucotte’s study provides evidence that the R1a1 found in Punjab is the oldest while the central European haplotype is in the middle and Northern European R1a haplotype is the youngest. This pretty much buries the Aryan invasion/migration theories to the ground because if AIT/AMT was true, we would have seen from the genetic results that the Eastern European haplotype being the oldest and Indian haplotype being the youngest since AIT claims that Europeans (the parent population) came as invaders/migrants to North India as Aryans. It is also important to note the age of different population groups in the study. The study states that Central/Eastern European population is 12.5k years old while Northern Population is 6.9K years old. And the Punjabi/North Indian population is at least 15.5k years old.

                  This study seems to indicate that India was the home of R1a1.

                  R1A1 conquered the whole world including India. This pretty much reconciles the fact that Higher caste Indians have similar Y-Chromosomal markers to Europeans since it is the same tribe that conquered India as well as Europe. And the study indicates that this same tribe originated in the Punjab.

                • lalit says:

                  The Russian Paper you referenced does not seem to talk about the Punjab which seems to have the oldest R1A1 haplogroup. Further, they seem to have looked at South India but not North India which seems strange. This in light of the fact that Lucotte specifically talks about Punjab as ground zero for R1A1. I’m not sure how to reconcile their conclusions with those of Lucotte.

                • jim says:

                  The Punjab does not have the oldest R1A1 haplogroup, and anyone who says it does is just plain lying.

                • lalit says:

                  Here is another study purporting to show that R1A1 Originated in India. In Nature no less. Now neither of us in a big fan of nature or Wikipedia, but still. http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v54/n1/full/jhg20082a.html

                  It seems that without examining the evidence and methodology of these papers, it is hard to get to the truth. Apparently you can prove anything you want by pointing to selected papers.

                • jim says:

                  I have examined the evidence and methodology in at least some of these papers and have concluded that the authors of some of them are just barefaced liars, and if one lie, all lies.

                  If R1A1 arose in India, then the parent and relatives of R1A1 would be in India. The relatives of R1A1 are in Europe. R1A1 in India is a subset of the diversity of related clades in Europe.

                  R1a1 and related clades form a family, which family approximates the Indo European languages, indicating patrilineal descent on approximately the same pattern, indicating a geographical origin in roughly the same area, indicating a culture and language carried by white males originating somewhere in what is now Russia/Eastern Europe.

                • jim says:

                  The title says”The Indian origin of paternal haplogroup R1a1* substantiates the autochthonous origin of Brahmins and the caste system”

                  However buried deep within the paper is the statement: “The known subgroups (R1a1a, R1a1b and R1a1c), which are defined by binary markers M56, M157 or M87, respectively (Supplementary Figure 1), were not observed.”

                  This situation can only occur if R1a1 originated outside India, and some of its descendents, but not others entered India – that only some clans of Indo Europeans went to India, but pretty much all clans of Indo Europeans conquered Europe.

                • lalit says:

                  And How may I ask have you concluded that the authors claiming R1A1 origin in India are liars?

                • lalit says:

                  How do you reconcile that with Lucotte’s conclusion that the R1A1 found in the Indian subcontinent is the oldest?

                • lalit says:

                  The highest concentration of the R1A1 haplogroup is in North India, Ukraine and South Russia. But the ancestor or R1A1, the R1A has it’s highest concentration in India and Southern Russia again. Sure Russia shows up, but so does India. The absence of some Euro Subgroups in India does not indicate European Origin. These could well be mutations after the migrations. There might well be R1A1 subgroups found in India not found in Europe.

                  Still, the fact that the oldest R1A1 is found in India as per Lucotte might just clinch it for the Out of India theory and Indian origin of R1A1

                • lalit says:

                  The Clinching evidence is that the Vedas which are the scriptures of the Hindus and believed to be the oldest in the world make no mention that they migrated to India from another Homeland. None whatsoever.

                  This and Lucotte’s findings regarding the oldest R1A1 found in India might just clinch it for Out of India

                • jim says:

                  The invasion occurred in prehistory. By the time they discovered writing, probably from the remnants of the Indus Valley Civilization, they no longer remembered their origins. Everyone else figures they were conquered by Aryans, but no one has any historical records of it, at most a few legends that require a lot of stretching to fit.

                • lalit says:

                  The problem with the AIT is that the dates keep changing. First they said 1500 B.C. Later when the ruins at Harappa were discovered, they said that the Aryans conquered the Indus valley dravidians. Later when they realized that the Indus valley civilzation was more advanced, they moved the dates further back. Later when they realized that the Vedas make no mention whatsoever of the migration, they moved it to pre-history and before writing. Somehow, they keep changing the theory to fit their initial premise that an Aryan invasion indeed did occur and that the higher castes are the Aryans. This in spite of the fact that the scriptures themselves are explicit about the meaning of the word Aryan meaning one who practices a very high level of virtue.

                  Looking at this state of affairs, any neo-reactionary will be moved to ask, “Isn’t this exactly like the leftists being against hmosexual marriages in the 90s and then when the winds change they are all for gay-marriage and also claim that they had always been for it.”

                • jim says:

                  That just is not true.

                  Indus Valley Civilization declined in a slow and undramatic fashion. We don’t really have a definite date for the end of the Indus Valley Civilization for much the same reasons we do not have a definite date for the end of the Roman Empire.

                  Estimates of the age of Indus Valley Civilization have been consistent from the beginning – from the first archaeological expedition in 1920, when they first realized that there had been an Indus Valley Civilization. Indeed, given the long history and slow decline, it would be hard to get the dates wrong.

                  Indus Valley Civilization did indeed give up its last gasp around 1500 BC, at roughly the same time as the Aryan invasion, which is exactly the date initially estimated. The only change in dating has been that we now know that if the Aryans finished it off, there was not a whole lot left for them to finish off. Which is a story not very different to the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, which fell to barbarian nomads only after it had declined a long way.

                  Which was most people’s first guess when the Indus Valley Civilization was first discovered, that its fall paralleled the much later fall of the Roman Empire in the West.

                • lalit says:

                  Wait, it now seems you are saying that the Indus Valley civilization was not Aryan. Do I read you correctly?

                • jim says:

                  Nobody sane thinks the Indus Valley Civilization was Aryan, except that in its very last days it probably had Aryan Kings presiding over the ruins.

                  As soon as scholars realized that the Indus Valley ruins were ancient, everyone assumed that the fall of the Indus Valley Civilization to the Aryans resembled the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the Germans. And the more that people dig up, the more obvious it is that this initial assumption was correct.

                  The only people who think that the Indus Valley Civilization was Aryan are the Out-of-India cranks.

                  That is the scenario in the fictional histories of Conan: Decadent dark skinned civilized folk, vigorous barbarians. Conan runs into fictional versions of every failing civilization in the last several thousand years.

                • lalit says:

                  Okay, Good! So the Indus valley civilization was not Aryan.

                  Then I assume you mean it to be Dravidian or the native to the Indians.

                  This means that the Indus valley civilization was explicitly non-white.

                  This means that the non-white Dravidians were culturally and civilizationally more advanced than the White Aryans that came and destroyed it.

                  Do you understand the implications here? The implication is that from the view point of 1500 B.C. Indian non whites were superior to whites when it came to civilization. This means white superiority is a not an eternal phenomena, merely a current phenomena. And being non-eternal, subject to change.

                • jim says:

                  Sure, everyone agrees it was black (excluding the out of India cranks)

                  This means that the non-white Dravidians were culturally and civilizationally more advanced than the White Aryans that came and destroyed it.

                  Not necessarily at the time of the collapse. Obviously the Aryans had chariots, iron spears, wagons, and all that, while the Dravidians, like today’s South Africans, were conspicuously failing to maintain their sewage and irrigation systems. The Dravidians had writings, and the Aryans did not, but this does not show that the Dravidians could still read their own books. The absence of inscriptions from the time of the Aryan invasions suggests that the Dravidians could no longer read what their ancestors had written.

                  At approximately the same time as Aryans invaded the Indus Valley Civilization, bronze age civilizations across globe collapsed to patriarchal invaders with iron weapons. Bronze age civilization collapsed in Britain, Egypt, Greece, and so on and so forth at about the same time as it collapsed in India. Pretty sure they were all done in by patriarchal aristocratic people with chariots, ships, wagons, and iron weapons, many of those invading peoples considering themselves Aryan and speaking some version of the Aryan tongue, others of them refugees fleeing these invaders.

                  While Bronze age civilization was decadent to a greater or lesser degree throughout the world, pretty sure it would not have collapsed everywhere at the same time unless a struck by a single cause. Like Rome, internal decadence provoked external attack.

                  Since the 1920s, everyone who believes in the Aryan invasions agrees that the 1500BC-1300BC invaders were Conan the Conqueror style barbarians conquering decadent civilizations, like the Germans conquering the Roman Empire in the west. That was everyone’s first guess, and what has come to light since then generally supports that first guess.

                • lalit says:

                  First, Military superiority and civilizational superiority are two separate things as the Mongol conquest of Song China prove. So the Aryans can claim military superiority, but not Cultural superiority. At any rate, let us put this aside for the moment and focus on the second point.

                  Second, You accept that the Indus valley civilization was Black. Even if you believe that they were unable to maintain their sewage and irrigation systems by 1500 B.C., you still accept that they were the ones who built it in the first place. This means, there existed a time when they were capable at maintaining those systems. Then, even by your argument, they were certainly a capable civilization at some point. Thus, they were civilizationally superior to the White Aryans if you went pre- 1500 B.C. Aren’t you accepting this?

                • jim says:

                  Read the article to which you are replying. I claim that today’s Dravidians are obviously incapable of building or maintaining the civilization their ancestors built. That is kind of the whole point of the article. That they were and are decadent and degenerate.

                  The point of the article is that the same horrible thing is likely to happen to whites, as happened to Dravidians. To prevent it, we have to fix white civilization to make it eugenic, rather than disgenic.

                • lalit says:

                  Ok Fine, point taken. At least you do not maintain that blacks were always inferior to whites. Now let us get to another issue. The Aryan invasion Theory itself

                  You commented earlier that Aryan invasion happened much earlier than writing was developed and it is for that reason that the Vedas do not mention any other homeland for the Aryans apart from India. According to western scholars themselves, the Vedas were composed around 1500 B.C. which is also the accepted date for the Aryan invasion as per the theory. So this non-inclusion of descriptions of the previous homeland of the Aryans is most curious. Isn’t this an inconsistency in the Aryan Invasion theory? The more you examine this Theory, the more and more it looks like the commandments of modern progressivism. Mutually contradictory and inconsistent. Hence rejected by educated and thinking Indians of the day.

                  I will not go into the dating of the Vedas done by Indian scholars at this time as I’d like to deal with one issue at a time.

                • jim says:

                  The oldest Vedas are about hymns and sacrifices, and give no indication of whether or not those that composed them were in what is now India, what is now Eastern Europe, or what is now Russia, or traveling between them. The stuff where kings and princes beat up on kings and princes with the assistance of gods and goddesses, the stuff that might be expected to describe migrations, is of considerably later composition, about tenth century Christian era, after the Aryans had already been in India two and half thousand years.

                • lalit says:

                  The Vedas do mention the topography of the land. Notable are the rivers which they describe in detail along with the lay of the land. All this around 1500 B.C.

                  Now if they came from a foreign land and they were composing these things around the time of their migration/invasion, don’t you think they would have mentioned that somewhere?

                  Don’t you think they would have mentioned some Caucasian Rivers or at least the rivers they encountered along the way to India. Perhaps some Central Asian rivers, some Iranian rivers. What we find is descriptions (and praises) of only Indian Rivers and nothing outside India.

                  Don’t you think this is curious indeed?

          • Jack Highlands says:

            Out-of-India is largely irrelevant to European man even it did happen, because human races before the Industrial Revolution can be defined as geographic adaptations with specific strategies.

            Neolithic Farmers, whether in Europe, Anatolia or the Indian subcontinent, were literally not the races their forager ancestors were. The adaptation to farming required certain behavioral and physiological adaptations that made them significantly different men.

            Similarly, the Aryans were literally not the men their mixed strategy farmer/forager ancestors were. The adaption to warfare created a race that was behaviorally new, starting with widespread herding.

            A few simple geographic principles are enough to establish that around 4,000 BC, the Western Steppe was the optimal place on the planet for an intelligent, ferocious race of barbarians to evolve.

        • jim says:

          The Indians believe that it was they who migrated to Europe from India

          That is nuts. Caste structure is obviously a product of whites conquering blacks.

          • Lalit says:

            Actually, you will find in India a significant minority of Brahmins who are dark skinned and a noticeable minority of low castes that are light skinned

    • Jack Highlands says:

      That’s not the implication of Jim’s opening paragraph, which rather is in agreement with what you wrote and the general academic consensus on the Indus Valley civilization: the Aryans conquered it when it was already in decline. So the smart people Jim assumes built it were smart indigenous aristos, just as smart indigenous aristos built the Mayan civilization.

      What he is saying is that the smart Indians who are there now are smart because they are the descendants of Aryans, not because they are the descendants of the smart indigenous founders of IVC – without the Aryans they too would be running through the jungle with pointy sticks, like the Maya.

      Personally, I don’t entirely agree with that, but it could well be true and is consistent with what you and many authorities believe.

      At the level of civilization, it’s obviously true, since post-IVC civilization in the subcontinent is what it is: gradually watered-down Aryan civilization, just like Persian, Anatolian, Mycenaean, Hellenic, Roman and now Western civilization. We can hypothesize that even without the Aryan infusion, modern sub-continentals would be above running through the jungle with pointy sticks and would’ve developed something else, but since an Aryan-founded civilization is the one they’ve got, that’s just speculation.

      However, there is a line of evidence that preservation of Aryan genes in high-caste Indians is not the only reason they are smart. It probably is one reason, because we know that the Aryan component of the Indian genome does vary directly with caste status. However, we also know it’s not huge, even in high castes. We furthermore know from the Ashkenazim that a millennium is plenty of time to breed a high-IQ reproductive isolate, and the Indian caste system has had four millennia to do so. My guess is that the higher castes today would be smart without or without an Aryan component, because of assortative mating. Still, as much as anything, it was probably haughtiness over skin color – varna – that maintained the system as well as it did, without degenerating to pointy sticks. We’re back to it is what it is: Aryan based.

      • Lalit says:

        Well, Indians believe that had they not migrated to the west after the ice ages, modern day westerners would still be eating their meat raw. Go figure

  9. peppermint says:

    Easy times allow soft men to exist and substitute feel-good ideologies for the duties of men, soft men create hard times, hard times create hard men (we are here), hard men create easy times.

    Even if Hillary wins, she can’t govern for eight years. Not because she’s going to die, but because the US dollar will. Her generation stole 20 trillion dollars in “federal” debt despite living in the greatest prosperity the world had ever seen, and the weight of that liability as well as their fat asses will crash the “federal” budget while there aren’t enough jobs in the US to pay for it.

    The 20th century is over and everywhere you look 20th century ideologies are losing and 20th century ideologues are scared like never before. The longer they refuse to negotiate, the more certain it is that their fate is to be beaten to death and their bodies sold for fertilizer.

    • peppermint says:

      And there will be no future cuckoldry because we understand it now.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        “And there will be no future cuckoldry because we understand it now.”

        Basically what happened to command economics in the 1980s.

      • viking says:

        we being a handful of internet racists yeah Im one who gets it but trumps anti cuck and hes losing

      • ron says:

        That’s not the problem. The problem is many men don’t WANT to understand it.

        This is an integrity problem, not an intelligence problem.

        • peppermint says:

          Maybe the soft men have to die for the hard men to restore good times. Maybe the hard men will lose – fascism has lost as many times as it won, but primarily because things weren’t bad enough for a fascist party to gain support. That’s a black pill, sure.

          But here’s a white pill. The soft men will lose regardless of what happens to the hard men. The spending is unsustainable and the military force is unsustainable and the ideologies are mocked increasingly openly and unable to be spread to the soft men’s own children when they have them. Maybe they will crush us by killing every White on this continent and thereby slash their own throats.

        • viking says:

          and why is that?
          Partly they think its true. there is cradle to grave disinformation so many men think they are not only being rational but signaling being smart.while pleasing girls with their sensitivity.Break that dynamic and they change their minds.
          Women are probably more feeling about their choice but part of that feeling is wanting to feel well socialized let them know nigger loving is unfashionable and few will continue.Change the men the women follow.

    • >The 20th century is over and everywhere you look 20th century ideologies are losing

      The interesting part is that this statement is not even far-right. This is something even a moderate could say as well. It is a pretty obvious perception of reality. Ideologies like white working-class leftism, libertarianism, secular liberal nonethnic nationalism, and even the Christian Right (due to its cuckedness) are SO 20the century now.

      What we have is 1) openly elitist transfeminist university leftism, openly upper middle class and up 2) the kind of leftism that rouses the worst ghetto rabble 3) HBD inspired post-libertarianism 4) ethnic nationalism, race consciousness that is a bit miffed at Christianity being too friendly with third worlders 5) obligatory anime nazis with pepe and kek because will someone please think of the autists.

      • peppermint says:

        The fact that we can make a case without seriously violating the taboos is, of course, further proof that the 20th century is dead. People do say these things on normiebook, I see it all the time (not from officejobfags, though).

    • pdimov says:

      She’s probably going to die in four years. Although it’s hard to say from here.

      • Dave says:

        Trump’s health matters; Hillary’s does not. There are thousands of other no-talent leftists in Washington ready to take her place if she dies or becomes a vegetable.

        • pdimov says:

          If Hillary didn’t matter, the Democrats would have chosen a better candidate.

          • Dave says:

            There is no “better” anything on the Left; use of that word is tantamount to discrimination, which is always wrong. Everyone in the world is equal except those evil racist Rethuglicans. Harvard probably gets 600 equally qualified candidates every time a non-STEM professorship opens up; Elizabeth Warren only got the job by claiming Indian ancestry.

            • pdimov says:

              There’s no need to use the word. The people at the wheel are not terminally stupid yet (as evidenced by the masterful Khizr Khan trap they set and into which Trump fell.) They would have chosen a candidate that had better chances of winning if the actual identity of the candidate really didn’t matter – without bothering to explain themselves to anyone.

              • Dave says:

                So why Hillary? Because she loves Wall Street? Because she suicides anyone who gets in her way? Because it’s very hard for a diverse coalition of perfidious parasites to find a new Schelling Point?

                • jim says:

                  Diverse coalition of parasites and fear of being suicided. The Cathedral is acephalic, incapable of planning and acting it is own long term interest.

                  The Clinton habit of murdering anyone inconvenient is what is called a creeping coup. Instead of troops marching into the television station on one shocking day, the people in television station just get gradually more and more nervous that they might be found mysteriously dead.

                  This is similar to Japan in the 1930s. The kind of people who thought it my be a bad idea to go to war with the US somehow seemed to wind up dead in mysterious circumstances.

                • Dave says:

                  I just had a radical idea: Maybe the Clinton-related “suicides” really were suicides. Consider that (a) liberals by their nature have weak amygdalae that do not handle adversity well, (b) Hillary is an insanely bad boss who treats her employees worse than dog shit, and (c) being required to cheat and lie every day leads to paranoia and self-hatred.

                  You can’t just walk away and get a job somewhere else — your career in D.C. would be dead, and the private sector never hires ex-government unless they have influence to peddle. You can’t sell a memoir because liberals would just say you’re lying and conservatives already know what scum the Clintons are.

              • Salger says:

                “as evidenced by the masterful Khizr Khan trap they set and into which Trump fell.”

                A Kebab durka durking while waving a Constitution is a masterful trap?

    • viking says:

      dont count on it Pep they have made the entire world party to the scam so they have lots of help keeping the balls in the air The jewish banker you love so much know full well they are done if a crash were to happen, yeah sure something will happen probably nationalize retirement accounts but any unrest will only be used as homeland security moment, millennials will have to find a pair of balls and fight or be enslaved probably they wont see the truth until those of us who were raised as men are gone because we are mid fifties now

      • peppermint says:

        Nationalize retirement accounts? You mean gas the boomers dollar war now, and the dollar will be lost, and without the dollar Millennial soldierfags aren’t going to fight for the government and a future of no chance at a family and death from nursing home niggers. If it comes to it, it will be brutal, but the government has every tactical advantage and no logistics or morale, and can’t possibly win.

        • viking says:

          being a boomer and one who is going to get a shit return on my contributions both to SS and pensions I hate to agree but They already have in place through the BIS laws to exchange bank balances for shares in worthless banks as well as plans and laws for converting retirement accounts into social security credit. Unfortunately millennial soldiers are likely to be niggers if they keep up their plans and niggers will work for looting and raping and elites will be fine if they are protected probably by the few white soldiers. This is why its all about demographics and its end stage they dont really need too many more niggers as they have fagged so many whites.Its why i stand with the alt right its the only feasible strategy and its practically hopeless.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          As long as OPEC continues to sell oil only in american dollars, and as long as the US retains the ability to punish oil producing countries that leave the petrodollar system (like kaddafi), which is effectively a tax by america on the result of the oil using world, the USD will, probably, remain bubbled.

          • viking says:

            and dont forget as long as the dollar backed by the worlds largest nuclear arsenal its likely to be perceived as the most stable.Military defeats tend to crash currencies

  10. Mycroft Jones says:

    Related article about bullying among monkeys and other species. Sounds like humans.

    http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160822-why-bullying-is-such-a-successful-evolutionary-strategy

  11. JRM says:

    “From the point of view of the emperor, eunuchs are a better solution than working women, since eunuchs are substantially smarter than women, and have zero offspring, not merely near zero offspring.”

    The modern American corporation has a nearly endless supply of both. The eunuchs in today’s workforce being the cucks and feminized men.

    Corporations (as well as the Government, if there is any difference between them) seem to have come down solidly on the side of cucks, homosexuals and women. We see this in their advertising, their internal propaganda, and their funding of “charities”.

    Putting aside for the moment the classic argument that Jews are engineering the demise of the White family (I will not abandon this model permanently, but here for the sake of argument), what is the real goal of this corporate ideology?

    We can’t be so naïve as to believe they think “it’s the right thing to do”.

    Perhaps a few companies have a homosexual at the helm, making the rationale obvious. But what about all the myriad others? Are straight White men inherently counter-productive for a board of directors? That seems doubtful, based on the last few hundred years.

    Are women and homosexuals better drones in the corporate hive? Productivity seems adversely affected, at least by the women. If Carly Fiorina is the “poster child”, then this must be rejected as an argument for unleashing previous only dreamed of “synergies” by putting women at the top.

    So, what is it? Suicide by political correctness? I tend to believe the corporate entity still values survival and profits above holiness signaling.

    I am in the habit of looking at cui bono to explain most behavior in a system. Who profits, and how, by displacing straight White men and favoring homosexuals and women?

    Is it the fear of competitive clans emerging as per main article? If so, why was the model of mentoring and training the best men the model for so long in corporate boardrooms? Are mere “yes men” no longer sufficient for global aims?

    • viking says:

      youde be right maybe 30 years ago today most ceo are cucks have been for a while go to NRO look how cucked so called professional conservatives are, these are not capitalists they are corporatists.

    • Anon says:

      >I tend to believe the corporate entity still values survival and profits above holiness signaling.

      In the current environment, holiness signaling is profitable.

      • JRM says:

        Anon said: “In the current environment, holiness signaling is profitable.”

        An interesting assessment; you may be right, but can you elucidate further?

        Profits, the putative reason-for-being of the corporation, is enhanced by holiness signaling *how*?

        In bottom-line terms. I can see FEDGOV tax breaks being part of the picture; supplier contracts with the FEDGOV being another obvious avenue.

        But how much profitability can be attributed to having the “correct” corporate ethics, which are pro-nigger, pro-woman, and pro-homosexual?

        Especially if we bear in mind Jim’s notion that women are counter-productive in the workplace? I also believe most AA hires are a drag on efficiency; the gays and cucks can probably be counted on for some contribution to the bottom line though.

        The issue of how corporate entities became a single, seemingly coordinated force for potentially disruptive Leftward social causes while maintaining their intended function as wealth generators is the area in which I see possible, if not certain friction. Seeking to understand it.

        • Anon says:

          >I also believe most AA hires are a drag on efficiency

          They are, but when your client consumer base is composed of the ever-growing demographic that loves being holiness-pandered-to there are a lot of opportunities for short term profit. I should have clarified profitable in the short term, unsustainable long.

          A great example is Hollywood. Even market areas that we like to pretend are important like programming are by and large just shitting out useless apps for people to play around with on their welfarephones. Facebook keeps on chugging away, mostly by the sheer market force of people status signaling to one another on the activity feed. You can make all kinds of things profitable by exploiting the stupidity of large groups of people, and large groups of people are reliably stupid.

          • jim says:

            I don’t think so.

            They are not pandering to consumers, they are pandering to the department of justice, which frequently sues them for a hundred million or so.

            • viking says:

              I think post sov collapse the marxists went cult marx, and made deal with capital who wanted globa,l wanted poly pass, and wanted no competition, they love expensive regulation its a barrier to new entrants, yeah sure this all had to evolve to present state. This is why joe plumber and zuckfag disagree.[[bankers]] think they will outsmart [[commies]] but [[commies]]] have nigger army bankers have monopoly money.so [[bankers]] will do as told and do.it always comes down to superior violence whites have it just dont know it and cant agree

          • pdimov says:

            This is largely true but it doesn’t seem to explain everything. In this case the optimal strategy would have been to project the appearance of holiness while avoiding the downsides of actually implementing holiness internally. This may or may not have been true for a while, but today we’re seeing companies going full SJW retard inside, not merely posturing, and signaling above and beyond what’s needed for profitability (and perhaps even beyond what’s needed for keeping the .gov off their backs).

            • jim says:

              There is a startup pattern where you grown as big as you can without hiring women, and then when the time comes that you have to be pc, cash out the company. This pattern indicates full SJW retard is in fact required.

              • pdimov says:

                My alternative explanation is that women are required, and the full SJW retard is a (non-required) consequence. WRE.

                • jim says:

                  That makes sense.

                  On the other hand, Beverly Hills Bank was destroyed not for failure to make mortgage loans to cat eating wetbacks with no income, no job, and no assets, but for failure to believe that this was a good idea. The regulators felt that the bankers were merely obeying, not obeying out of sincere faith and executing the commands of the regulators with missionary zeal – destroyed for failure to sincere believe in social justice.

                  The regulators condemned them, not for failure to obey, but for lack of holy faith.

                  You are not only required to hire women, but also to believe that this is a good idea, and if there are any bad things happening that might make it look like a bad idea, such bad things are the fault of evil men.

                  I am not aware of any similarly regulatory finding about lack of faith in female accomplishment, but there are a lot of court cases along those lines, where the court is clearly applying multimillion dollar fines for failure to believe that women were equal, rather than failure to treat women as equals.

              • viking says:

                it wasnt meant as a theory of everything or even a complete explanation of itself. But the short answer is over time they have made successive generations less rational and more progressive. This means a lot of doublethink muddy think ahistorical think and and a liberal version of principles over success- dont be evil.Its also survival when every one of your employees is empowered to destroy your company for being evil you dont even think about being evil. women are SJWs if you have ever worked in an all male environment faggotry is squashed quickly

      • jim says:

        Only profitable in the sense that it gives you some protection from being sued into the ground by the Department of Justice.

  12. ron says:

    So what it all comes down to is integrity. If the society has integrity, they advance, if they do not, then either the lower classes start ruining it by nepotism, or the upper classes ruin it by castrating the lower classes.

    Ultimately the real contest between civilizational structures is whose system can maintain their integrity in all circumstances, in war, peace, plenty and famine.

    If a homogenous civilization can come up with such a model, all we will know is that they have come up with a model that works for that unique genotype.

    However if a non-homgenous civilization with some genetic commonalities could do such a thing, a civilization with similar yet diverse cultural values, of differing IQs and a variety of values, composed of nervous yet energetic people. Who could not only achieve a peace, but achieve it with shining colors, then humanity would have the necessary model to set up the optimum balance between freedom/license and control/obligation for all other homogenous family groupings.

  13. Eddie Willers says:

    Eunuchs at the top of the hierarchy eh?

    Obviously, Anthony Burgess, when writing “The Wanting Seed” in 1962, was more than a little prescient.

  14. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    Ironically, you could say that the essential problem is that most aristocracies lack class consciousness, and hence so failing on the aggregate level to work in their collective class interest, dissipate, so then also goes the civilization of which they were exponent.

    Caste system is the answer.

  15. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    Ironically, you could say that the essential problem is that most aristocracies lack class consciousness.

    And hence, so failing on the aggregate level to work in their collective class interest, dissipate, and so also the civilization in which they were exponent.

    Caste systems appear to be an effective prophylactic.

    • pdimov says:

      Class consciousness doesn’t exist, but even if it existed, it wouldn’t help. The problem is differential fertility and the solution is not group opposition.

    • Corvinus says:

      “Ironically, you could say that the essential problem is that most aristocracies lack class consciousness.”

      That’s a ridiculous assertion. Aristocracies were acutely aware of their rank in society, the structure of their class, and their interests. Their policies decidedly reflect their awareness of their fellow competitors and their underlings.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        >That’s a ridiculous assertion. Aristocracies were acutely aware of their rank in society, the structure of their class, and their interests.

        Thats what makes it funny; because evidently given present circumstances, they *still* were not conscious *enough*.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        >That’s a ridiculous assertion. Aristocracies were acutely aware of their rank in society, the structure of their class, and their interests.

        Thats what makes it funny; because in the end it looks like they *still* weren’t conscious enough.

  16. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    I think you are misunderstanding me, i found it humorous to appropriate terms traditionally used in marxian analysis in the context of cementing elite hegemony.

    Rather, I am observing how localized choices that might have seemed individually beneficial and rational in the short term (like rousing up lumpenproles with ideology as a tactical weapon against a competitor, or replacing political appointees from rival families with eunuchs), ultimately contribute to undermining the whole edifice all together in the long term.

    To extend it in an analogous manner, you could say that Britain, for instance, in engaging in the ‘great games’ of the 19th century often lacked ‘european’ consciousness, such as their unfortunate habit of supporting ottoman sand niggers against closer powers like Russia or Austria. It is a grave sin to support the further against the nearer, or the lower against the higher.

    Suction draws things in; when civilizations start creating vacuums by engaging in internecine power struggles, you probably won’t like the mystery meat that gets pulled in from outside as a result.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      @pdimov obv.

    • Corvinus says:

      “Rather, I am observing how localized choices that might have seemed individually beneficial and rational in the short term (like rousing up lumpenproles with ideology as a tactical weapon against a competitor, or replacing political appointees from rival families with eunuchs), ultimately contribute to undermining the whole edifice all together in the long term.”

      You are able to make this analysis with the benefit of hindsight. However, you have to individual peal off the layers and clearly label to what extent each localized choice contributed to this “undermining”.

      “To extend it in an analogous manner, you could say that Britain, for instance, in engaging in the ‘great games’ of the 19th century often lacked ‘european’ consciousness.”

      Assuming that at that particular point in time there was a definitive “European consciousness” that required Britain to be regularly cognizant of its importance and to develop foreign policies reflective of it. There was no “grave sin” at that point in time; rather, British decisions were based on what was best for the mother country. In retrospect, one might be able to state with reasonable certainty that those decisions were poorly made or executed in the long run. Britain supported peoples of the Middle East–not sand niggers–as a wedge against their European competitors for global economic dominance.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        >Britain supported peoples of the Middle East

        Ie, sandniggers.

        >as a wedge against their European competitors for global economic dominance.

        To their ultimate detriment.

        Hitler often talked about taking Lebensraum from the surrounding countries for the excess population living in germany at the time. A smarter move would have been instead to send them off as colonists to make Neuerdeustchland in some corner of the world and push out/oven any dindus who might be in the way (A strategy proximately observed by China today in their approach to africa, as a solution to their own foreveralones).

        The history of humanity is a history of genocide. The humans that exist today exist because they killed off every other variety of human (and ‘human’) that they encountered, and there were lots of them.

        The british colonies of Australia and America succeeded because they brought women with them, and drove out the natives. Most European colonies in africa failed because they didnt bring enough women with them, and didnt drive the heathens out of their space (sudacas are a wash since they mongrelized).

        If you cant bring women with you on your military adventure, your empire is probably overstepping its bounds. Military adventures of conquest that dont bring women with them to your new territory serve no purpose but to drain your coffers and to deplete the stock of your best men. Despite their best efforts, our alchemists have yet to figure out how to transmute gold or oil into perfect husbandos or waifus that will pass on virtuous traits to your patrimony.

        Skipping steps in the ladder is bad form dont you know. Its a bad idea to have civil wars when you’re still surrounded by competitors. Once celts and teutons have cleansed the globe of other races in the march for glory, then you can start talking about WWs.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        >Britain supported peoples of the Middle East

        Ie, sandniggers.

        >as a wedge against their European competitors for global economic dominance.

        To their ultimate detriment.

        Hitler often talked about taking Lebensraum from the surrounding countries for the excess population living in germany at the time. A smarter move would have been instead to send them off as colonists to make Neuerdeustchland in some corner of the world and push out/oven any dindus who might be in the way (A strategy proximately observed by China today in their approach to africa, as a solution to their own foreveralones).

        The history of humanity is a history of genocide. The humans that exist today exist because they killed off every other variety of human (and ‘human’) that they encountered, and there were lots of them.

        The british colonies of Australia and America succeeded because they brought women with them, and drove out the natives. Most European colonies in africa failed because they didnt bring enough women with them, and didnt drive the heathens out of their space (sudacas are a wash since they mongrelized).

        If you cant bring women with you on your military adventure, your empire is probably overstepping its bounds. Military adventures of conquest that dont bring women with them to your new territory serve no purpose but to drain your coffers and to deplete the stock of your best men. Despite their best efforts, our alchemists have yet to figure out how to transmute gold or oil into perfect husbandos or waifus that will pass on virtuous traits to your patrimony.

        Skipping steps in the ladder is bad form dont you know. Its a bad idea to have civil wars when you’re still surrounded by competitors. Once celts and teutons have cleansed the globe of other races in the march for glory, then you can start talking about WWs.

  17. vxxc2014 says:

    Jim,

    Several IF’s on what society is best.

    Is the THEN Aristocracy?

    BTW a democracy where only soldiers vote is essentially the same thing.
    Add cops, FF and anyone who risks their life for the community.
    That’s also democracy until the 20th century when Western Civ men failed the shit test of all time. *We in America will have to make some kind of peace with it come what may. In present context it would in effect constitute Aristocracy de facto absent conscription.* Absenting conscription wouldn’t be hard as it’s not militarily necessary given nukes and politically unacceptable.
    By the time the rest realized they’d just given up gimmedats power would be consolidated. Jez saying.

  18. Learner says:

    The idea that “spanking” societies have higher fertility seems reasonable. I would like to read your take on why, then, did Saudi Arabia’s fertility rate fall from 7.3 in the 70s to approx. 2.70 now? I mean, Saudi Arabia seems pretty patriarchal.

    • jim says:

      That is just the left whining because they have not got 110% of their demands for female emancipation.

      Saudi Arabia has 60% female university enrollment. At university they are taught that marriage and children is degrading and low status. Saudi men are as terrified of Saudi women as Scott Alexander is terrified of American women.

      • Learner says:

        Is this some kind of joke? Saudi Arabia has 20% female employment rate, and that’s because of foreigners. The female university enrollment is not 60%, but rather 60% of undergraduates are female. That’s because you have, e.g. the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, where all female students were previously educated in foreign countries (thus, these women were probably foreign).
        .
        Saudi women don’t work (don’t count foreign female slave maids). There are lots of restrictions to female employment. Saudi women can’t drive. Saudi women must wear a burqa (an abaya, to be precise, and a headscarf). Saudi women can’t use public swimming pools nor compete in sports (but for a few negligible exceptions). It is forbidden for them to interact with men (but for relatives). They cannot even try on clothes at shops!!!!
        .
        Saudi Arabia must be one of the most anti-female countries to be born at. And there you put the blame for their demographics on Western feminism!

        • jim says:

          A woman enters the room, Saudi men stand up. Saudis cannot beat their wives for misbehavior, etc.

          Yes, I put the blame on Western Feminism. Saudi men go looking for chaste obedient wives in other countries like westerners checking out eastern Europe and parts of Asia.

          • Learner says:

            Why would you need to beat your wife? If she speaks to any other man, the punishment will include public lashings. Wifebeating is outsourced to an efficient islamofascist State.

            • jim says:

              The interests of the state are unlikely to align with the interests of the family or the husband.

            • peppermint says:

              » the government should do things that are unpleasant for individuals to do themselves

              this is how you start on the road to tyranny. Look at how everyone casually assumes government police would be so much better than Pinkertons even though everyone knows government police lie in court while Pinkertons famously refused to lie for Leo Frank. Pinkertons were too trusted and couldn’t be required to do politically correct things, so they had to be eliminated as a precondition for today’s anarcho-tyranny. The restoration of private detective work is, conversely, a possible safeguard against government tyranny that should be examined after we execute the entire DoJ.

  19. Joe Soap says:

    “We may reasonably suppose that the first six civilizations were founded by high IQ peoples.”

    What do you base this supposition on? We don’t even know what the first six civilisations were. Why don’t you give us a list of what you think the first six civilisations were and we’ll see if we agree.

    • jim says:

      On their accomplishments, as for example the accomplishments of the Maya which I specifically listed.

      • Joe Soap says:

        The Mayans had a great civilisation but that doesn’t mean their IQ’s were any greater than the Inca’s, the Romans, The Greeks, The Egyptians, The Minoans, the Chinese. In fact all the pre Christian civilisations.

        Maybe you should consider that. All the ancient civilisations were pre christian. As soon as Christianity starts there appears to have been a global decline in IQ’s as one civilisation after another collapses after being infected with christian ignorance.

        • peppermint says:

          There were no christcucks in America when the Mayans were doing their thing. There were no christcucks during the decline of India, but there were buddhacucks listening to another faith healer telling them that faith alone matters and to have lots of interracial sex to prove their commitment to equality. Egypt was destroyed by Jews long before Jews figured out the christcuckoldry routine.

        • jim says:

          The Mayans had a great civilisation but that doesn’t mean their IQ’s were any greater than the Inca’s, the Romans, The Greeks, The Egyptians, The Minoans, the Chinese. In fact all the pre Christian civilisations.

          Maybe, but it means that their IQs were a lot greater than those of today’s Mayans, Incas, Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, and Minoans.

          “As soon as Christianity appears”

          Most of these civilizations collapsed, in some cases all the way to jungle bunnies running naked through the jungle with pointy sticks, long before Christianity.

          • Learner says:

            In fact, you would only need a higher variance o a higher proportion of genius-IQ levels for the Mayans to get there. I think average IQ is so overrated. Most inventions, scientific progress, companies, etc. are done by an extremely small part of the population. It could be possible, at least in a mathematical sense, to have an 85-IQ civilization with a higher number of geniuses and more technological progress than now. In fact, after having seen first-hand how education and research are organized in the West, I think such a civilization would rather easily overtake us. By the way, I completely agree with your post on the need to supress formal education for the masses:
            http://blog.jim.com/economics/fixing-housing-health-and-education/

            • pdimov says:

              “I think average IQ is so overrated.”

              Average IQ is underrated. A one point drop in average IQ from 100 to 99 (stddev 15) decreases the number of 160+ IQ individuals from 3.167 per 10^5 to 2.384 per 10^5. That’s a 25% drop.

              One point.

Leave a Reply