« Disproving atheism | Main | Those entertaining Iranians »

February 15, 2012

Comments

Ownership of the capital that allows massive productivity, or owning the means of produciton for labor intensive luxury goods (better if you can quietly introduce some of the productivity increases without flooding the market).

Selling rip offs to the genetic junk of the world especially if it satiates the middle class social workers need to limit their indulgences (lottery payments on savings accounts, cheap and easy but organic sugary/startchy snacks, etc).

It does seem the lower classes are growing quite rapidly before my eyes. I currently live in a historically prole area that has become even trashier throughout the years. The high proportion of low-class trash around me makes me cringe. Even yuppie parts of town are full of low-class trash. These low-class trash have spread like roaches. Yes, this is coming from a prole with mid to upper bourgeois aesthetics and mannerism, but I can't stand low-class trash aesthetics and mannerism.

I'm definitely in support of subtle eugenic policies intended to prevent low-class trash from breeding. Having so many low-class trash while their economic opportunities are shrinking is a recipe for a crime epidemic and other societal ills. Most of these people just don't have the ability to earn much more than minimum wage.

The only way to prevent a social time bomb from exploding is to bring back jobs to America. That is if we are willing to live in cities choked with factor smoke, if we are willing to pay more for certain goods and we are willing to implement tariffs and other economic incentives to prevent companies from off-shoring jobs.

The route of hand outs to the idle lower IQ people may work too. Technology and off-shoring has made a large segment of the population economically obsolete. Perhaps fake gov't jobs would help to pacify this segment of the population. To allow this population to just lay idle would likely make their lives seem meaningless leading them to commit crimes.

"The question we should be asking ourselves is not how we can prevent the inevitable but how we can profit from it." - Siggy

Seek employment as a mercenary or buy stock in PMC firms when they go public. Since the Latin American model is our future security for the rich will provide a good living for many.

"America will decline as the world’s superpower, because all of our resources will go towards suppression of ever-increasing social problems, while China will take over."

Dude, do you think China doesn't have any poor, stupid and violent people that cause social problems? They sure as hell do. And one of their ever-growing social problems is that Chinese workers are increasingly NOT willing to work for peanuts in shitty conditions.

As an occasional reader of this blog I'm a little confused. You went through a phase of accusing the rich of being parasites on the backs of hard working people via "value transference" whilst not being any more worthy of their wealth. Now you seem to decry the poor as being the lazy ones and the rich as genetically superior?

I'm also not sure that it's true that liberals deny the existence of non privileged whites. Here in the UK much of the left wing doctrine is about making life better for normal "working class" people who are predominately white.

[HS: Yeah, I'm probably missing a class in there.

However, I've been consistent in saying that the low IQ is a better predictor poverty than high IQ is a predictor of wealth.]

Dear Half Sigma !
Quite possible your statements are correct. But:

Your post reminds me an old joke below.

--- Your Pavarotti is a loose singer:
he does not keep the tune,
he has a harsh voice, he burrs,
and from time to time, just stops singing.
--- Have you heard him singing ?
--- No, but yesterday my neighbor has imitated his singing for me by the telephone.

Couldn't you wait until you have actually read the book ?

Your truly, Florida resident.

Many of the trashy lower-IQ people must be treated like children, as they are mentally similar to children. If such people believe they too can achieve great economic success like Donald Trump if they'd attended a 2-day seminar at the convention center for $2000, it's a set up for great disappointment. To allow trashy lower-IQ people to be fleeced like that and taken advantage of will just lead to more crime and even more horrible attitudes stemming from economic envy. You have to make them feel comfortable and at peace at being lower class. If these lower-classes believe they can all climb up the economic ladder when the reality is that most can't, you're going to have a lot of disgruntled mofos.

"As an occasional reader of this blog I'm a little confused. You went through a phase of accusing the rich of being parasites on the backs of hard working people via "value transference" whilst not being any more worthy of their wealth. Now you seem to decry the poor as being the lazy ones and the rich as genetically superior?"

HS belongs to the outer party. He does most of the work that makes society run, but he is mostly exploited and controlled by the inner party. He both resents the proles tendencies and the inner parties cruelty and power. However, since he believes revolution impossible, he would settle for being welcomed into the inner party.

"That is if we are willing to live in cities choked with factor smoke,"

I don't remember air pollution being a huge problem in 1990 before all the offshoring started.

"I'm also not sure that it's true that liberals deny the existence of non privileged whites."

He didn't say the liberals denied the existence of poor whites, merely that liberals think that when whites are poor, it's their fault for being stupid and lazy, whereas when blacks are poor it's always someone else's fault.

I like Sigma's long view of the US. Feels about right. Kind of like the Brazilification of the US. It is very possible, but something will break before that point is reached. There's not enough 'soma' for the proles (unless we get immersive, haptic VR). The tea party and OWS stuff are the first signs of things breaking.

If I were to propose an alternate, it would be:

Standards of living decline as neither party deals with the wall st banks. we get gay marriage. this leads to polygamy 5-10 years after. Current divorce laws will not please men or "1st wives", so they will get divorce laws changed in regards to property division, alimony and custody. Lawyers will fight this, and if they do, polygamy is a non-starter as well as gay marriage (it could also bolster rgular marriage). Combined with a continued decline in living standards, this will lead to a russian/iranian set up as far as gender & economic splits. A worse Gini coefficient as well as fewer married males, but the ones who marry have a legally protected mini-harem if not outright harem.

It would take a revolution from the disgruntled young men to overthrow the system, as well as hard truth acceptance to allow us to mine, drill, farm and manufacture w/o the lib handcuffs that hold us back.

Why are modern people so against Eugenics programs?

Why are modern people so against Eugenics programs?

They got a bad name after WWII.

@Odds
Eugenics scares people because humans have a natural aversion to interference with their reproduction. Unfortunately, lack of any kind of genetic control leads to dysgenics instead.
@HS
The America of the future is going to look a lot like Mexico in more way than one. A small elite served (and resented) by an ever-multiplying mass.

"I don't remember air pollution being a huge problem in 1990 before all the offshoring started." - JP


Los Angeles was smog infested due to car pollution in the 1980's. Tough statewide environmental regulations really improved things. Federal pollution laws like the Clean Air Act also helped nationally.

"It would take a revolution from the disgruntled young men to overthrow the system..." - MRM

Revolution is brewing and young men will spearhead the change. MRA/PUA/HBD or the "alt-right" is mostly a 20 something movement. If a former leftist, mangina, SWPL idiot, such as myself came to end up here many others will as well.

"Los Angeles was smog infested due to car pollution in the 1980's. Tough statewide environmental regulations really improved things."

I lived in LA in the 1980s, and it didn't bother me.

Conquistador,

Yeah, because your average PUA is looking to grab a rifle at fuck shit up. Not getting drunk and chasing skirt each weekend.

>"The liberal worldview has been disastrous because it has allowed important social norms to be destroyed, such as the importance of not having children unless married, the importance of work and other responsible behaviors."


You are giving the liberal upper class far too much credit. In your telling they simply stopped telling the poor how to behave properly. In reality the upper-class has never been more busy telling the lower classes how to behave. The problem is what they are saying. The same upper class which retains marriage for itself has worked to destroy it in the lower classes. The self-destructive mindset of the poor in todays America is something they learned from movies, TV, music, even the schools.

@ davver

You don't need to change the course of history with violence. Simply a lifestyle choice is often enough. Just look at the hippies who later morphed into SWPL. They took over almost everything without a shot fired. They did this despite Republicans winning seven of the last eleven presidential elections. Political power means little compared to cultural power. The left is playing chess while the right plays checkers.

"The inevitable prediction is that the trends will continue."

Inevitable predictions are for assholes because no one has a clue what insignificant seeming thing will completely change the the slope of the graphs.

"But as I’ve pointed out in the past, the liberal elite actually has a very strict and conservative attitude towards poor whites; liberals excuse any bad black behavior as being the fault of racism, but they have no problem looking at poor whites and just thinking that their poverty is their own fault for being lazy and stupid."

"The correct liberal way of viewing the poor, especially poor minorities, is that they are just as smart and wise as the wealthy, and that they are merely victims of an unfair society."

What are you saying about poor whites and liberals?

Costs of labor are rising in China quickly, BUT the government is keeping their currency low. Globalization is working, and the balance would be tipping quickly back in our favor (at least to some extent) if the governments weren't meddling. But it's inevitable, China can't keep a tight lid on their people for ever.

Interesting post. And I agree that eugenics is the long-term solution to every nations problems. Fix the human capital problem and you fix almost every problem.

Well, we must be hard eyed realists. If China is going to be the dominant economic power over the next 50 years then we must begin orienting our skills and future plans around that fact. I suspect this will mean the end, culturally, of any cachet that might be lingering among the white working class (and the Latino class). So, among the middle and upper class in the United States, there will be even less desire to cater to the "parole" class. I suspect this means even less for them in terms of social and economic policy. They may be increasingly written all over the next generation or two.

For us as individuals, this made it easy imperative that you marry a high IQ woman or at the very least a decent IQ, if you intend to have children. Nothing else will have such a big impact on your future.

I don't think the decline is inevitable. I just finished Grover Norquist's book, "Leave Us Alone", and he makes the case that the Republicans will still be able to cobble together a big enough coalition to win elections for at least the next fifty years. He's not totally convincing but at least it's plausible. If you do accept the decline being inevitable as a premise and you want to profit from it, then I would bet against the dollar remaining strong. You could do this in various ways like buying gold. Also, some parts of the country will decline at a faster rate and people will be moving to where the decline is slower and that will increase property values in those areas. You might want to consider buying property in well run states with smaller minority populations and Republican governors. Third, as things get worse, for job security you'll want your job to be something involving producing or selling necessities because people won't have money for luxuries. I think even if things get bad, if you think ahead and prepare you can still do ok.

"Inevitable predictions are for assholes because no one has a clue what insignificant seeming thing will completely change the the slope of the graphs."

Life is about probabilities.

So, there isn't, indeed, a 100% probability that white trash will continue to breed more than white nerds in the future, but is is close to 99%, as reproductive behaviors are enormously linked to genes and intelligence.

"HS belongs to the outer party. He does most of the work that makes society run, but he is mostly exploited and controlled by the inner party. He both resents the proles tendencies and the inner parties cruelty and power. However, since he believes revolution impossible, he would settle for being welcomed into the inner party."

Half sigma is just trying to have it both ways. If he's richer than you, it's because he's genetically superior to you. But if you're richer than him, it's because you're a parasite transferring value off brilliant value creators like him. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

***The obvious solution is to have eugenic policies that discourages this class from giving birth, but that’s never going to happen. ***

I was interested to read on Steve Sailer's site the other day that the architect of the welfare state in the UK, William Beveridge, was in favor of contraception for welfare. In fact, he is quoted here stating:

"those men who through general defects are unable to fill such a whole place in industry are to be recognized as unemployable. They must become the acknowledged dependents of the State... but with complete and permanent loss of all citizen rights - including not only the franchise but civil freedom and fatherhood".

http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/12/british-eugenics-disabled

In the past, you had to worry about getting enough food/clothing /shelter to survive, so you either had to
1) work
2) get married
3) get help from your friends
4) get help from your church

Now that we live in a society where everybody's basic needs are met, surprise, surprise,
1) people work less
2) people marry less
3) people don't participate in the community as much
4) people are less religious

Getting rid of the welfare state would solve part of the problem, but not all, and forced eugenics is immoral. Fortunately, civilization will last long enough for some able people to escape to Mars.

"Many of the trashy lower-IQ people must be treated like children, as they are mentally similar to children. If such people believe they too can achieve great economic success like Donald Trump if they'd attended a 2-day seminar at the convention center for $2000, it's a set up for great disappointment. To allow trashy lower-IQ people to be fleeced like that and taken advantage of will just lead to more crime and even more horrible attitudes stemming from economic envy."

As best I can gather it's not the poor who fall for scams of that sort. In part that's because they can't afford to get involved, and in part it's because the poor tend to be cynical and/or suspicious of others. Greedy, status-conscious middle class people are the prime target for pyramid schemes, investment scams, MLM "opportunities," and so on.

***Getting rid of the welfare state would solve part of the problem, but not all, and forced eugenics is immoral.***

You could offer welfare but on the condition you use contraception (or have birth control shots/implants) while accepting it.

So why exactly do we want these people not to use birth control again?

I suspect that the social mobility of smarter poor people and the social problems in poor neighborhoods are connected. Nobody with above average intelligence lives in poor neighborhoods any more, so the social problems in those neighborhoods are far worse.

Kiwiguy's suggestion of contraception as a requirement for birth control is a good one in theory.

In practice no.

Instead of SWPL paradise , assuming you could avoid a civil war you'd end up with Euro-Sclerosis writ large with too few consumers, too much savings, too much caution and too few babies.

The last is important children aren't cheap to raise and in such a society, where poverty means extinction the smart people would be terrified to fall into poverty.

Also the assumption that in the age of birth control, women will roll back to "being Mom" for free instead of working especially with labor shortages is chancy at best.

This means they put off child rearing or have less children and save and save and save.

Nothing wrong with a bit of sub-replacement fertility of course but it cannot continue indefinitely if that society is too survive.

Sounds pretty grim. I'll be stocking up on gasoline, sawed-off shotguns, and assless leather chaps -- fellow Half Sigma commentators are urged to join me (after proving their mettle in Thunderdome).

***Kiwiguy's suggestion of contraception as a requirement for birth control is a good one in theory.

In practice no.

Instead of SWPL paradise , assuming you could avoid a civil war you'd end up with Euro-Sclerosis writ large with too few consumers, too much savings, too much caution and too few babies.***

What I had in mind was people who are long term welfare beneficiaries, or people who have children and receive a benefit (in New Zealand there is a domestic purposes benefit for women in this position). In NZ you get a lot of women in the low socioeconomic group who get pregnant early, go on welfare and then have further children and get more welfare.

My suggestion is that people in that situation would get birth control shots/implants for ongoing entitlements.

The moral guidance provided by the old, rich, bourgeois seems overstated. They saw the poor as of sources of exploitable labor and middle classes as sources of profit. They wanted compliant economic cogs, not moral individuals. The the entire concept of the "American Dream" relies on this fact, i.e. work your underpaid ass off for some rich guy long enough to earn a nice house filled with said rich guy's products. Ethical considerations come second or as window dressing, if that. Maybe if they were genuinely benevolent instead nakedly self-interested, society would not have changed to the degree it did.

'"Los Angeles was smog infested due to car pollution in the 1980's. Tough statewide environmental regulations really improved things."

I lived in LA in the 1980s, and it didn't bother me.'

You're one tough mofo. I was a child in the LA area in the '80s and I got terrible smog lung and smog eye almost daily. It's hard to say, though, whether Cali's environmental regulations accomplished much more than scaring away manufacturing and, thus, the pollution that it created. It is true, though, that the smog problem was much reduced by the early '90s.

The correct liberal way of viewing the poor, especially poor minorities, is that they are just as smart and wise as the wealthy, and that they are merely victims of an unfair society. The liberal worldview has been disastrous because it has allowed important social norms to be destroyed, such as the importance of not having children unless married, the importance of work and other responsible behaviors."

As a liberal I disagree slightly. Liberals believe that certain inhumane laws/social norms which are racist ie against interracial marriage should be done away with. Women should have the right to have sex when she wants ie birth control.

Then there are other topics were liberals have the HS stance-that people need to be restrained because of biological reasons. The ban on cigarette smoking and junk food is mainly a liberal idea. And liberals believe in restraining the consumption of cigarettes and junk food because people are simply incapable of consuming it wisely. Or that they're too impulsive or stupid or lazy to quit eating fast food or to stop smoking.

The comments to this entry are closed.