What's new
  • As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.

‘Idiocracy’ Come True: Even Pentagon Says Morons Are Inheriting the Earth!

Gypsy Nirvana

Recalcitrant Reprobate -
Administrator
Veteran
Are we getting dumber as the world gets more populated?

Here is an interesting article from The Observer:

picture.php


As a candidate for president of the United States, Donald Trump once proclaimed, ‘I love the poorly educated,’ and that, unlike many of his assertions, may actually be true.


In a couple of weeks, Idiocracy the movie (not to be confused with: Idiocracy the American President) will celebrate twelve years since its release. Only, nobody will be celebrating, because the film appeared with zero fanfare back in 2006. The dark comedy’s edgy message—that America was doomed to a future of dystopian idiocy—was deemed too controversial for a major release a dozen years ago, and its distributor, 20th Century Fox, pretty much buried it, showing the film in only a handful of cities.

Over the past dozen years, however, Idiocracy has become a cult classic, its inevitably weak performance in cinemas notwithstanding. Its creator, Mike Judge, who has given us such pop-culture classics as King of the Hill and Office Space, now looks like a prophet without honor back in 2006. Judge’s essential message, that idiocy was taking over the country, seems to have been borne out by recent events, above all the election of Donald J. Trump as president in 2016.

It’s difficult to expunge the whiff of Idiocracy surrounding our 45th president, with his error-filled tweets betraying a shaky command of the English language, contrary to his claim of possessing “a very good brain.” As candidate, Trump proclaimed, “I love the poorly educated,” and that, unlike many of his assertions, may actually be true. This, after all, is a commander-in-chief who belligerently can’t tell the difference between napalm and Agent Orange.

Not long before Trump’s election, Mike Judge noted the similarities between his controversial movie and real-life America, pronouncing them “scary.” In the time of Trump, Idiocracy looks more like a documentary than a dark satire, and it may have only been wrong about the timescale, predicting an America mired in intractable stupidity a half-millennium out. We did not have that long to wait. As Judge himself noted, “I’m no prophet. I was off by 490 years.”

It’s therefore worth considering why such a deeply insightful film disappeared more or less without a trace upon its release. Perhaps its message was just too pessimistic for happy-go-lucky Americans, who like their optimism sunny and perennial. Judge has frequently highlighted the darker aspects of our culture, with his caustic and insightful wit. Maybe Idiocracy just went too far.

There are also political factors to be considered. The Right was not happy with the film’s hilariously ugly depiction of a privatized future where corporations seem to run everything, at the expense of any sense of commonwealth, and Costco is so pervasive that it includes a law school. This Ayn Rand-on-meth vision was not edifying for corporate interests and may have played a role in the limited backing Idiocracy got when it appeared in 2006.

Neither was the Left pleased with the film—particularly with its forthright depiction of what stupid people outbreeding smart ones over generations, then centuries, produces. This is properly termed dysgenics, and it’s something progressives don’t want discussed. The Left loves science, except when it challenges its worldview, and nothing gets them more animated than any whiff of IQ and its real-world implications. Idiocracy is about that problem, which polite people never discuss.

Over the last dozen years, evidence has mounted that Judge’s argument was grounded in a painful degree of reality. The dumb do seem to be inheriting the earth with distressing frequency of late. President Trump himself seems like a near-parody of psychology’s Dunning-Kruger effect, which in lay terms is dumb people thinking they are smarter than they actually are. Indeed, Trumpism itself may be a collective manifestation of Dunning-Kruger in action, with masses intentionally, gleefully spurning the counsel of experts.

Then there’s the painful fact that the average IQ in America and across the West is clearly dropping. In the first half of the last century, average IQs rose in the developed world, what social scientists term the Flynn effect, but over the last few decades that trend has visibly reversed. What is causing this IQ drop is debatable—Negative lifestyle factors? Dysgenic reproduction as satirized in Idiocracy? Demographic changes?—but its reality is no longer. If you’re imagining that the population around you is getting dumber, you’re right.

This has become a legitimate crisis for the U.S. military, which is having a devil of a time finding sufficient numbers of recruits who are not stupid, obese, and/or convicted criminals. Less than 50 years ago, America’s military was the employer of last resort for some citizens; indeed judges might send you to the local recruiting station as an alternative to prison. The 21st century military is a very different place, professional and high-tech, and even raw recruits need to be literate and somewhat trustworthy, not to mention physically fit enough to get through basic training.

According to the Pentagon’s own numbers, a staggering 71 percent of young Americans are ineligible to join the armed forces, when you subtract out the too-dumb, the too-fat, and the too-criminal. In practical terms, this means that 24 million of the 34 million Americans in the 17-to-24-year-old cohort, the Pentagon’s main recruiting demographic, cannot enlist. At present, there are grave doubts whether the U.S. military can get enough even marginally qualified recruits to maintain current force levels, despite lucrative incentives for recruits on the right-side of the notorious IQ Bell Curve.

As one analyst recently summed up the Pentagon’s crisis acidly, “The problem, it seems, isn’t that young people don’t want to join the Army—or any of the services—it’s that they can’t. And therein lies a paradox: for while the U.S. military represents the best in America (as its most senior officers claim), it doesn’t actually represent America. For that to be true, two thirds of our military would have to consist of obese, under-educated former drug users and convicted criminals.”

There are serious, and potentially grave, implications when the military becomes so unlike the society it serves, in fundamental ways. None of this bodes well for the future of America’s civil-military relations. But there’s a bigger issue here, namely that Idiocracy exposed a problem which needs public discussion, but which neither the Right nor the Left want a serious discussion of. All we can say for certain is that America is, in fact, getting dumber, and the future belongs to those who show up for it.

Author of above article:
John R. Schindler

John Schindler is a security expert and former National Security Agency analyst and counterintelligence officer. A specialist in espionage and terrorism, he's also been a Navy officer and a War College professor. He's published four books and is on Twitter at @20committee.

https://observer.com/2018/08/pentag...too-fat-stupid-to-enlist-in-the-military/amp/

*Link to 'Idiocracy' the trailer : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXSz0bA9CiE
 
Last edited:

yesum

Well-known member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
The writer of that 'article' is a case in point. Third world immigrants of peasant background, subsidized family care for the incapable or uncaring. I see it all around me.

Not that I consider myself bright, I guess above average in IQ, but anyways. The dumb used to die of hunger or injury more than the smart. No longer in the US. Some dumb people are nice and smart does not equal nice.

Schools here in the US are now socialist programming centers. That does not help either. Uneducated can now equal unprogrammed, so there is that too.
 

Gypsy Nirvana

Recalcitrant Reprobate -
Administrator
Veteran
Yeah....I don't think that people should judged as to whether they are good or bad just by their intelligence. Because there are real bad smart people and real nice/good less intelligent people...

The problem lies (I think) in how people can be employed to do jobs/work into the future that requires a certain level of mental competence that fewer and fewer have in this every growing technological world where more intelligence is sorely needed for us to continue to develop in such a way that is beneficial to us all, for progress....Don't we need more rather than less intelligent/capable people?

What happens to all the millions (or even billions) of people that just cannot hold down a basic job because they just don't have the intelligence to do it?....Do we just all pay for them to languish on the welfare state indefinitely because they are 'special?'.....

As our national intelligence drops, does that mean we will get more and more that are dependent on the state rather than less because of this happening? What with most jobs these days requiring some sort of technical know-how to operate properly, even if it is just entering data into a computer or ringing up a till, it makes me wonder if robots and A.I. (artificial intelligence) will be our only saving grace....with the smart guys/gals controlling them.
 
Last edited:

dogbite1

Member
Great post, I happened to just be telling this story to a family member today that had not seen the movie.

It's scary how close we seem to be heading toward a future that would look so similar.

Was not aware it was considered a cult classic, as I thought it should be. Was just always impressed on how smart of a film it was.

Thanks for sharing the link
 

blackone

Active member
Veteran
That movie is in fact one of the scariest movies I've ever seen. Or rather the intro is, where the simple premise is presented. The rest of the movie is pretty average slapstick humor.
And it's scary because it really is believable - that there is simply no genetic selection for intelligence any more, and perhaps even selection against intelligence. I don't think what we're seeing is a major genetic shift because that would take several generations but I'm certain it will happen...
What I do think we're seeing is the effect of not learning to think, not getting a chance to ever be bored to death and forced to think for yourself because the smartphone is always at your side, Google and Wikipedia is just a click away and whatever you want to know and more is instantly at your disposal. There is simply less of a need to use our brain in our everyday lives
When I was a kid my parents wouldn't let me have a digital watch until I knew how to use a "real" watch. Now I know they were right.
 

igrowone

Well-known member
Veteran
a fine topic, have wondered about where we're heading as a species
here's a counter view i see over in cnn, just saying there's plenty to discuss on this topic


IQ scores are falling and have been for decades, new study finds

By Rory Smith, CNN

(CNN)IQ scores have been steadily falling for the past few decades, and environmental factors are to blame, a new study says.
The research suggests that genes aren't what's driving the decline in IQ scores, according to the study, published Monday.
Norwegian researchers analyzed the IQ scores of Norwegian men born between 1962 and 1991 and found that scores increased by almost 3 percentage points each decade for those born between 1962 to 1975 -- but then saw a steady decline among those born after 1975.

Similar studies in Denmark, Britain, France, the Netherlands, Finland and Estonia have demonstrated a similar downward trend in IQ scores, said Ole Rogeberg, a senior research fellow at the Ragnar Frisch Center for Economic Research in Norway and co-author of the new study.
"The causes in IQ increases over time and now the decline is due to environmental factors," said Rogeburg, who believes the change is not due to genetics.
"It's not that dumb people are having more kids than smart people, to put it crudely. It's something to do with the environment, because we're seeing the same differences within families," he said.
These environmental factors could include changes in the education system and media environment, nutrition, reading less and being online more, Rogeberg said.
The earlier rise in IQ scores follows the "Flynn effect," a term for the long-term increase in intelligence levels that occurred during the 20th century, arguably the result of better access to education, according to Stuart Ritchie, a postdoctoral fellow in cognitive ageing at the University of Edinburgh whose research explores IQ scores and intelligence and who was not involved in the new study.
Researchers have long preferred to use genes to explain variations in intelligence over environmental factors. However, the new study turns this thinking on its head.
Intelligence is heritable, and for a long time, researchers assumed that people with high IQ scores would have kids who also scored above average. Moreover, it was thought that people with lower scores would have more kids than people with high IQ scores, which would contribute to a decline in IQ scores over time and a "dumbing down" of the general population, according to Rogeberg.
Anyone who has seen the film "Idiocracy" might already be familiar with these ideas. In the scientific community, the idea of unintelligent parents having more kids and dumbing-down the population is known as the dysgenic fertility theory, according to Ritchie.
The study looked at the IQ scores of brothers who were born in different years. Researchers found that, instead of being similar as suggested by a genetic explanation, IQ scores often differed significantly between the siblings.
"The main exciting finding isn't that there was a decline in IQ," Ritchie said. "The interesting thing about this paper is that they were able to show a difference in IQ scores within the same families."
The study not only showed IQ variance between children the same parents, but because the authors had the IQ scores of various parents, it demonstrated that parents with higher IQs tended to have more kids, ruling out the dysgenic fertility theory as a driver of falling IQ scores and highlighting the role of environmental factors instead.
What specific environmental factors cause changes in intelligence remains relatively unexplored.
Access to education is currently the most conclusive factor explaining disparities in intelligence, according to Ritchie. In a separate study that has not been released, he and his colleagues looked at existing research in an effort to demonstrate that staying in school longer directly equates to higher IQ scores.
But more research is needed to better understand other environmental factors thought to be linked to intelligence. Robin Morris, a professor of psychology at Kings College in London who was not involved in Ritchie's research, suggests that traditional measures of intelligence, such as the IQ test, might be outmoded in today's fast-paced world of constant technological change.
"In my view, we need to recognize that as time changes and people are exposed to different intellectual experiences, such as changes in the use of technology, for example social media, the way intelligence is expressed also changes. Educational methods need to adapt to such changes," Morris said.
 

MJPassion

Observer
ICMag Donor
Veteran
I saw Idiocracy fairly recently (within the last couple years) for the first timeMan is it an excellent expose on the consequences of what is currently the trend...


My perspective:
The major portion of the population having children are fat, ignorant, welfare collecting, morons that have zero direction in life. The only thing they know how to do well is fuck. and what are the results idiots of fucking... more ignorant, fat, unhealthy children.


The only hope we have is that some of those children see WTF is going on with their lives and that they choose to be completely different from their parents.
 

Gypsy Nirvana

Recalcitrant Reprobate -
Administrator
Veteran
picture.php


May 2, 2017
The future belongs to the stupid
Dysgenics

Dysgenics is the study of factors that contribute to changes to the genes of the present generation that will cause the next generation to have a lower IQ (Flynn, 2013). For instance, the decrease in genotypic intelligence is assumed to be the result of dysgenic fertility – a negative correlation between intelligence and the number of children (Lynn and Harvey, 2008). The figure below shows national IQs (left side, the darker the higher the national IQ) compared with national fertility rates (right side, reddish/purple 6-7 children; blue/green 1-2 children).

Such claims and predictions have provoked a lot of discussion. For example, Herrnstein and Murray (1994) in their controversial book “The Bell Curve” showed that in the US, women with an average IQ of 111 had 1.6 children, while women with an average IQ of 81 had 2.6 children. They further argued that a loss of three IQ points means an increase in welfare dependency by 7%; illegitimacy by 8%; men interned in jail by 12%; and the number of permanent high school dropouts by nearly 15%.

Yet another interesting line of reasoning was put forward by Cattell (1987), proposing that Western societies are breeding for pacifism and pleasure rather than aggression and that only warlike societies will transform humankind into a higher species. This was disputed by Flynn (2013), providing the example of Pol Pot who between 1973 and 1976 killed millions of Cambodians. Although his criteria were just political they to some extent discriminated those with superior IQ (the main criterion was occupation/education – people wearing spectacles and possessing a bicycle). If he would have used IQ tests the decrease in intelligence would be about 6.5 points, whereas the educational criteria used in a semirural society would mean a drop of only one IQ point. Sunic (2009) provides another instance from history accusing the former Yugoslav communists of killing Croatian intellectuals and by that lowering the national IQ of Croatia to 90 points. A provocative question: Did Hitler lose the war because he killed or expelled so many Jews?

Setting the holocausts of world history aside, there is concern that ordinary patterns of reproduction will lower genotypic IQ. The estimates are about half IQ point per familial generation (about 25 – 30 years) for the US and UK (Lynn and Vanhanen, 2012). Meisenberg (2010) analyzing the NLSY79 survey[1], concluded: “Assuming an indefinite continuation of current fertility patterns, an unchanging environment and a generation time of 28 years, the IQ will decline by about 2.9 points/century as a result of genetic selection. The proportion of highly gifted people with an IQ higher than 130 will decline by 11.5% in one generation and by 37.7% in one century.”

In contrast, actual measurements of intelligence (phenotypic intelligence) show that IQ is increasing which was dubbed the Flynn effect (Flynn, 2013). We will discuss the Flynn effect in more detail in our next blog, at this point just a brief summary will be presented for better understanding. The effect, although still not well understood, is often explained as favorable environment enhancement of human intelligence, which enables people to create favorable environments. Hence, small rises in IQ caused by education were translated into even greater environmental improvements, which raised the intelligence of the next generation even higher. But as the pessimists fear, this compensation cannot be expected to continue indefinitely. On the contrary, the environmental improvements are likely to stop giving positive returns. When their impact is exhausted, and if dysgenic fertility continues, phenotypic intelligence will begin to decline and worsening environments will further reduce intelligence. Another point put forward by Lynn (2011) was that although the soil is continually enriched, this does not make insignificant the fact that the seeds have deteriorated.

https://increasingintelligence.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-future-belongs-to-stupid.html

Jordan Peterson | The Most Terrifying IQ Statistic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Ur71ZnNVk


*so what Peterson (Professor of Clinical Psychology) is saying is that anyone with an 83-IQ or below is not easy to employ in just about any job. Even the US Military will not employ anyone below 83-IQ. Makes me wonder how many millions/billions of people in the world are at 83 or below.
 

seeded

Active member
There's no real issue in being an idiot provided you're a self sustaining and functional member of society. In fact we need idiots to do the shit tier manual labor that makes society function in the first place. Factory workers, cleaners, farm hands, garbage/recycling workers, etc. all have very simple jobs that the most brain dead of person can do and are vital to the survival of our societies as we know them.

The real issue is that we've got too many dumb people today and not enough jobs for them to do. What we really need is a new plague so we don't have to deal with it but short of that the best option is forced sterilization at birth of both parents and the child once they're old enough. If you do that you limit the rate of births substantially which the Earth greatly needs and then when the child grows up you can decide to only reverse the procedure once certain criteria are met in a similar way to how the adoption process is treated today but with a few bonuses like a standard intelligence test to make sure that desired traits are passed along.

The only real issue apart from the government controlling who can breed would be that certain races would dominate such standardized testing which would call into question the methodology used, racism, slow genocide, etc. To be honest though with our population skyrocketing and traits like intelligence plummeting it would be a risk I'd be willing to force on the population should I be god emperor of the Earth.
 

MJPassion

Observer
ICMag Donor
Veteran
a fine topic, have wondered about where we're heading as a species
here's a counter view i see over in cnn, just saying there's plenty to discuss on this topic


IQ scores are falling and have been for decades, new study finds

By Rory Smith, CNN

(CNN)IQ scores have been steadily falling for the past few decades, and environmental factors are to blame, a new study says.
The research suggests that genes aren't what's driving the decline in IQ scores, according to the study, published Monday.
Norwegian researchers analyzed the IQ scores of Norwegian men born between 1962 and 1991 and found that scores increased by almost 3 percentage points each decade for those born between 1962 to 1975 -- but then saw a steady decline among those born after 1975.

Similar studies in Denmark, Britain, France, the Netherlands, Finland and Estonia have demonstrated a similar downward trend in IQ scores, said Ole Rogeberg, a senior research fellow at the Ragnar Frisch Center for Economic Research in Norway and co-author of the new study.
"The causes in IQ increases over time and now the decline is due to environmental factors," said Rogeburg, who believes the change is not due to genetics.
"It's not that dumb people are having more kids than smart people, to put it crudely. It's something to do with the environment, because we're seeing the same differences within families," he said.
These environmental factors could include changes in the education system and media environment, nutrition, reading less and being online more, Rogeberg said.
The earlier rise in IQ scores follows the "Flynn effect," a term for the long-term increase in intelligence levels that occurred during the 20th century, arguably the result of better access to education, according to Stuart Ritchie, a postdoctoral fellow in cognitive ageing at the University of Edinburgh whose research explores IQ scores and intelligence and who was not involved in the new study.
Researchers have long preferred to use genes to explain variations in intelligence over environmental factors. However, the new study turns this thinking on its head.
Intelligence is heritable, and for a long time, researchers assumed that people with high IQ scores would have kids who also scored above average. Moreover, it was thought that people with lower scores would have more kids than people with high IQ scores, which would contribute to a decline in IQ scores over time and a "dumbing down" of the general population, according to Rogeberg.
Anyone who has seen the film "Idiocracy" might already be familiar with these ideas. In the scientific community, the idea of unintelligent parents having more kids and dumbing-down the population is known as the dysgenic fertility theory, according to Ritchie.
The study looked at the IQ scores of brothers who were born in different years. Researchers found that, instead of being similar as suggested by a genetic explanation, IQ scores often differed significantly between the siblings.
"The main exciting finding isn't that there was a decline in IQ," Ritchie said. "The interesting thing about this paper is that they were able to show a difference in IQ scores within the same families."
The study not only showed IQ variance between children the same parents, but because the authors had the IQ scores of various parents, it demonstrated that parents with higher IQs tended to have more kids, ruling out the dysgenic fertility theory as a driver of falling IQ scores and highlighting the role of environmental factors instead.
What specific environmental factors cause changes in intelligence remains relatively unexplored.
Access to education is currently the most conclusive factor explaining disparities in intelligence, according to Ritchie. In a separate study that has not been released, he and his colleagues looked at existing research in an effort to demonstrate that staying in school longer directly equates to higher IQ scores.
But more research is needed to better understand other environmental factors thought to be linked to intelligence. Robin Morris, a professor of psychology at Kings College in London who was not involved in Ritchie's research, suggests that traditional measures of intelligence, such as the IQ test, might be outmoded in today's fast-paced world of constant technological change.
"In my view, we need to recognize that as time changes and people are exposed to different intellectual experiences, such as changes in the use of technology, for example social media, the way intelligence is expressed also changes. Educational methods need to adapt to such changes," Morris said.


There are several "environmental changes" I can think of that I can think of...
First, and already mentioned in this article, is the education system. It has made several changes since the mid 1900's, the most significant being that it provides less and less education as time progresses.
Want proof? Go see how well you score on your own grandfathers High School senior exams. I can say that I was not taught, in high school, what my grandfather had to know to get through the 8th grade. There are two generations of educational decline between us and that is a really fast drop off in the system, as far as I'm concerned.


I think the second most significant event that leads to this decline in IQ is that BOTH parents nearly always have to work to make the household work. Previous to the mid 70's this was not necessarily the case. One parent could support the financial needs of the household & that left one parent at home to tend to the children.
Because of this, parents have to find suitable care for their children while they're out working. Because of this, children in daycare do not get the education they deserve. They are essentially being "socialized" but not educated. So goes the Idiocracy story.


Another facet is food quality. Food quality has diminished hugely in this world and that impacts our ability, as a whole, to focus on learning. 'nuff said
 

Dog Star

Active member
Veteran
Maybe this is like some natural pre-mass extinction event...

people get stupid and choose mental ill leaders for who will be lot more easier
to press buttons for activation of nuclear weapons..

society seats on nuclear bomb threat and just need to go in little bit of wrong
direction and people will start annihilate each other thru nuclear holocaust..

also today threat from artificial inteligence and real project of "Therminator"
doesnt look so futuristic like Therminator 1 movie was in 80ies...
 

Gypsy Nirvana

Recalcitrant Reprobate -
Administrator
Veteran
Here is an interesting take on why IQ levels in the west are falling. Could it be due to the mass immigration we have seen recently from nations with much lower average IQ's?

"Not Sending Their Best": World Map of IQ Drop Due to Immigration

ANATOLY KARLIN • DECEMBER 14, 2016

picture.php


Well, apart from the Gulf states – thanks in large part to coming from such a low base that even subcontinental coolies are an improvement over the natives.

Otherwise, the cognitive impact of immigration – at least as proxied by the differences in performance on the PISA tests between the national average, which includes immigrant children, versus only native children – is almost entirely negative for its supposed beneficiaries across the entire world.

Even those few countries with expressly “cognitively elitist” immigration policies see only the most modest of benefits: Singapore: +0.7; Canada: -0.1; Australia: -0.2.

Otherwise, the only countries not to be significantly affected are those which see little immigration in general, such as Japan and Korea. So perhaps the best way of “winning” the game to attract quality immigrants is to avoid playing it in the first place.

Western Europe is a complete disaster zone, getting a harder cognitive hit even though the immigrant share of their population is considerably smaller than the US, where they constitute almost a quarter of the PISA-taking population. The German national average takes an astounding 2.4 IQ point hit due to immigrants. Moreover, there is no full convergence between first and second generation immigrants. Although one can hope the children of all those Syrian “doctors and engineers” will go on to become productive and loyal citizens, past experience suggests that they will merely bolster the sullen ranks of a permanent, growing, ethnically distinct, and highly criminalized underclass.

The situation in the US is actually considerably better than in Europe – the low-IQ Central Americans, who are not sending their best, are counterbalanced by the millions of talented East Asians, Indians, and other intelligent and highly motivated people who still want to make America their home. Thanks to that the world’s biggest immigrant nation only loses 1.3 IQ points due to all the newcomers. Donald Trump is promising a big beautiful wall to stem the rising tide of color from the south, but even if he fails to come through, at least the mestizos have better tempers and aren’t wont to blow up like the Mohammedans. The choice between Eurabian dhimmitude or fusing with La Raza Cosmica isn’t exactly hard.

Russia only loses 0.4 IQ points due to immigration, which sounds surprising low, given that Central Asia appears to be a cognitive black hole – Kyrgyzstan, by far not the worst state in the region, came dead last in PISA 2012, and Lynn and Grigoriev have estimated the IQs of Kazakhs and Uzbeks in Kazakhstan to lie in the 80s (very comparable to the chasm between European America and Central America).

I suspect this is down to the following three big factors.

First, for all the nationalist rhetoric, in comparative terms the demographic inflow into Russia from the “Global South” is still rather modest; (official) annual immigration runs at about 300,000 souls per year, and a big part of that now accrues to Ukraine (in contrast, about 500,000 people immigrate to the UK every year, despite its population being more than twice lower than Russia’s). This is backed up by the PISA 2015 statistics, according to which only 7% of the Russian schoolchildren who sat the test have an immigrant background, versus 17% in both the UK and Germany, and 23% in the US.

Second, I assume that the children of the ethnic Russians who repatriated to Russia in the 1990s – in absolute numbers, they would still easily outnumber the Central Asians and Caucasians who came in the 2000s – are also counted as immigrants, and thus “dilute” the negative influence of the Uzbeks and Tajiks. Finally, it is also quite likely that the Central Asian “immigrant” Russians are brighter than the average Russian who never left: First, it was typically (genuine) doctors, engineers, and other specialists who were sent to develop Central Asia under the Soviet Union, and second, getting out of the place after the Soviet collapse was kind of an IQ test of its own. Both of these points may have served to artificially raise the quality of statistically-defined immigrants to Russia and to thus dilute the size of its hit on Russian national IQ.

The UK doesn’t do too badly – only a 0.9 IQ point hit – because the Anjem Choudarys are partially canceled out by talented and ambitious Europeans. Many of the finance and technological firms in the City of London are majority staffed by talented foreigners. There are 200,000 French citizens in London.

Given the strong dependence between national IQ and economic prosperity, the globalist open borders project presents a serious challenge to the long-term viability of the First World cognitive engines that drive the vast bulk of technological progress – progress that is already threatened by the dysgenic trends embedded in post-Malthusian society and the banal fact that problems tend to get harder, not easier, as you ascend the technological ladder. This is not to even mention the risk of “institutional contagion” from newcomers who are culturally and perhaps biologically incompatible with that unique blend of individualism and commitment to the commonweal that facilitated the rise of European civilization.

As the neoreactionaries have argued, to cultivate a garden, you first need to build a wall. We needed to have started building it yesterday, but late is better than never.

Sources: OECD PISA Data Explorer; PISA 2015 Results (Volume I) Excellence and Equity in Education.

http://www.unz.com/akarlin/not-sending-their-best/
 

Nexus7

Well-known member
Modern man was ignorant. The Anunnaki came to the Earth. Moden man became intelligent. The Anunnaki left. Man's intelligence has declined ever since and will continue to do so until they return.

The Anunnaki succesfully bred a Homo Sapien x Neanderthal hybrid. Skeletal remains have been found in Israel dating immediately prior to the birth of civilization.

The Israelites, the Anunnaki's chosen people, descend from that Neanderthal x Homo Sapien hybrid. The Ashkenazi people descent from those Israelites.
 

420somewhere

Hi ho here we go
Veteran
I saw this coming..

I saw this coming..

Grammar school was a good learning experience for me. I learned reading, writing and arithmetic. Especially arithmetic where I learned (memorized) my multiplication tables, learned old school division which was the foundation of advanced math.

I learned geography of the U.S. and world geography. I still know where states are and most of the countries of the day.

I learned civics and about politics and mostly American history. This was all in grammar school.

You were graded 90-80-70-60% not a curve. Nobody wanted to be in the 50th percentile, so we worked to get better grades. It was also important to my mom and dad and grandparents. They made me study and do my homework.

I then went to junior high where they reenforced my earlier learning. I learned a lot more.

When I went to high school, grades and accomplishments were a competition. Everyone could read, write and do mathematics, including geometry.

I saw things changing. After the war in Vietnam they scored on curve. Everyone was a winner, even if they scored 60% on a test they got a gold star. We let the Liberals ruin our education system.

Then we put the Liberals in charge. Now we have a bunch of idiots in charge.

They make uninformed decisions because they don’t know science or math or history.

Remember?

If you remember, good for you and congratulations!

If you don’t, remember this.

Stupid people don’t know they’re stupid.... :tiphat: it’s not the weed.
 

prune

Active member
Veteran
Is it just coincidental that the measured drop in intelligence coincided with the introduction of a popular industrial foodstuff? Hmmm, canola oil was introduced right about that time... and then there's this:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171207141624.htm

and then you look at those expensive Back to Nature crackers that are all copies of triskets and cheesits, what's the difference from the Nabisco versions? (No Canola!)

So if the cheap industrial lubricant you've been eating for over 40yrs hasn't completely rotted out your good consumer brain, cease and desist! Don't feed, or let anyone else feed your children that Canadian poison.

Oh wait, this is America, that can't happen - can it? Well ya, they just mostly banned Transfats (Crisco) and the early adopters are suffering 15% less heart attacks and strokes... (who needs scary regulations anyway, right?)
 
U

Ununionized

https://www.netflix.com/title/80238655

Everybody please watch this movie.


Is it just coincidental that the measured drop in intelligence coincided with the introduction of a popular industrial foodstuff? Hmmm, canola oil was introduced right about that time... and then there's this:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171207141624.htm

and then you look at those expensive Back to Nature crackers that are all copies of triskets and cheesits, what's the difference from the Nabisco versions? (No Canola!)

So if the cheap industrial lubricant you've been eating for over 40yrs hasn't completely rotted out your good consumer brain, cease and desist! Don't feed, or let anyone else feed your children that Canadian poison.

Oh wait, this is America, that can't happen - can it? Well ya, they just mostly banned Transfats (Crisco) and the early adopters are suffering 15% less heart attacks and strokes... (who needs scary regulations anyway, right?)
 
Top