To be or not to be – or to be smart?

A society that no longer has children is dying out. You don’t have to look for the culprit among Muslims, feminists, socialists or postmodernists, you just have to look in the mirror. Of course, the three latter ideologies contribute significantly to increasing childlessness. And the former ideology, Islam in its invasive European form, is exacerbating the pressure by depriving Europeans (whites) ready to have children of their means through taxes and levies. I see the main reason for childlessness in the combination of massive technological advances and the welfare state. This has plagued us since the French Revolution and since Marx, and we cannot get over this alleged dichotomy that we continue to have poverty despite our ever-increasing wealth.

Uncritical re-distributive socialism usually makes sense within a family. You don’t have to teach that anyone or are in need of theoretical groundwork; families who want their children to survive do it all by themselves. But even there are restrictions. When there is a surplus of resources, the family members who never make a contribution, whether they cannot or do not want to, are also fed. However, when resources are scarce, the (potential) non-performers are usually the first to starve to death. Even in a small tribe this all makes sense, with the restriction mentioned above, because more people give the tribe greater security when it has to prevail against a competing tribe. All of this applies until a purely accidental technological innovation step occurs that makes a society significantly richer.

In an average intelligent society we expect the average citizen (+2/-1 sigma in the bell curve, no matter how high the mean value is) not to make major technical improvements but only to maintain the status quo. The approx. 2%, who are born with above-average intelligence, were not “bred” in this way, but are the result of pure chance in the gene lottery. One or a few of them then invent a new hunting method, the plough, the iron sword or the atom bomb. The average citizen of this society benefits because the invention increases the ability to defend himself. Ideally, the wealth of the society as a whole is increased. The surpluses in a tribal society (or a socialist-oriented people) then again lead to the issue that the losers are further supported.

Considering the “out of Africa” theory, then with the migration to the north not only the skin color of the people has adapted to the environmental conditions, but also the average intelligence. The need arose to adapt to agriculture, to assert oneself against hunters and gatherers, to adapt to murderous environmental conditions (such as the long winter), thus only those who were intelligent enough were able to survive and reproduce. When there is a lack of food, the first to die are those who have nothing to contribute. From this point of view, one should also rethink the world food programs. What is more humanitarian: to let the stupid and the incapable die in Africa so that an averagely smarter society can arise there, or to feed these people permanently, who are thus constantly on food support of the first world, continue to multiply and then move north to Europe because of insurmountable poverty? The world food programs prevent the evolution of the African peoples.

That sounds ruthlessly brutal now, but we have “fathered” every single “refugee” through our boundlessly stupid goodness. Every “Bread for the World” Euro, every tax dollar that went into so-called development aid has led to a mother giving birth to another child in Africa and the Middle East, feeding it for 18 years and finally sending it to Europe. Without this decade-long good-samaritanism this giant surplus of people, who are unable to survive on their own, would never have developed there. Yes, surplus of people; as I said, relentlessly brutal.

Again: It all started with the fact that we have been generating exponentially increasing wealth in the northern societies with high average IQ’s, for approx. 2-300 years. This abundance was first used to support the stupid and incapable in our own societies. After colonialism was abandoned, the surpluses were still pumped into the former colonies. Both of these factors mean that people who are barely able to survive on their own are multiplying rapidly and are placing an increasing burden on top performers and the middle class. The system has been toppling itself for the last 2-3 generations. The northern societies are not increasing their average IQ any further, as they are spending the wealth-gains on their own fools. What is even worse, however, is that the birth rate is falling in all northern regions, because the surpluses are also distributed to the third world. It makes no difference whether this happens for Christian motives, due to “humanitarian” reasons, for socialist motives, to enable the “dictatorship of the proletariat” or for purely capitalist reasons, because more solvent consumers generate more profit.

This development will correct itself as soon as resources become scarce again. This can be caused by wars and civil wars, by the considerable increase in the cost of energy (oil, gas) on which highly industrialized mass production depends, or by political measures. The latter seems to me to be the consensus of the northern societies. A large majority want a somehow warmed up but new socialism. We already know that such socialisms lead not only to brutal gulags and concentration camps, but also to a scarcity of resources, because the able and intelligent don’t want to work productively if they themselves don’t benefit much.

There would also be another political measure. I would call it an almost unlimited national capitalism. If the stupid and incapable are no longer eased into or financially encouraged to have children, and the successful and intelligent are left with their earned money with which they can comfortably raise their children, then the average IQ would increase by itself. It’s crazy that the people who act in and sit in front of the lower class TV shows in the afternoon can afford two to three children, because “the state” pays for everything. At the same time, the academic couple or the successful managing director postpones the wish to have a child until his/her late 30s (or abandons it completely), because they have to hand over about 70% of their earnings to “the state”. See also Idiocracy.

Just one billionaire wants to make it possible for humanity to colonize Mars soon. Can you imagine what a society with an average IQ of 130 rather than 100 could achieve? Wouldn’t we have a spaceship Enterprise not only in the movies, but in reality? Would we then become an interplanetary species? How about not repeatedly deciding between extinction, wars, and faith in God, Allah, or socialism? How about we decide to survive in the smartest society? Colonialism in recent centuries has shown us that the birth-rate surplus only leads to dominance and expansion if the new country is largely uninhabited or if their society there simply dies on closer contact (measles, influenza, etc.). The British, French and Spanish colonized and settled America this way. As the Muslims are currently colonizing Europe – we Europeans are simply dying out. As the Hispanics are colonizing the USA, the European stock of the US (the whites) are simply dying out. We are dying out, because we don’t have kids anymore. And the few we have became dumber and dumber.

Translated with the help of

Watch out for a very special post tomorrow…


2 thoughts on “To be or not to be – or to be smart?

Comments are closed.