You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
6

[–] Crikes 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

I've heard Molyneux, Peterson, Haier, Harris, and I'm forgetting someone..maybe Callen, all discuss how people with an IQ of ≤83 can't really function in a society. If this is the case, you can help a finite amount of dependents, like the ≤83 IQ people born in a society, but why on Earth would anyone think they could bring in ≤83 IQ dependents perpetually and help them, and not destroy their society? Why should they? It's not righteous, nor possible.

Take care of your own bedroom first, as JP says. Maybe a society does want to take care of the ≤83 IQ dependents already there, but don't encourage them to out reproduce anyone by the same rationale!

If you're going to allow someone in, they should benefit your society. An 85 IQ minimum would seem low. A 100 IQ would mean they could function with others, but again they're avg, so why would you (unless they bring some other benefit to the table)? A >100 IQ requirement makes sense to me.

By the way, the easiest way around all of this is to embrace freedom. To sell freedom. Then all you get is quality people trying to make it on their own. Those who survive succeeded. If you reject freedom, & want to have forced redistribution of wealth, then some min IQ requirement is in order.

There are plenty of brilliant people of all walks of life. You want them in your society. It's not about race. It's about independence, & an ability to assimilate into a community. Someone with 100IQ may try and fail, but someone with an ≤83 IQ cannot succeed.

Of course the reason no one does this is because our owners are using dysgenics to make better slaves. If somehow a nation would go their own way, have a min IQ req for immigrants, & parents. Incentivize the highest IQ to procreate.. it would easily become the most successful, desireable, place to live.

Until the owners invade to shut it down.

Again, either freedom & this happens organically, or forced redistribution of wealth, & further central planning. Freedom is by far the greater choice, but everyone seems to be rejecting it these days.

1
4

[–] ardvarcus 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

A >100 IQ requirement makes sense to me.

Immigration should improve the intelligence of our population, not degrade it. I agree, an IQ minimum requirement should be enforced for all immigrants, tests to be applied at point of entry. But it would do no good unless we controlled and stopped our illegal immigration, and put in prison those who are fostering it.

1
-1

[–] SomeDude64 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

No it doesn't matter if immigrants have 100+ IQ or not. It's accepted knowledge that Asians and Jews have higher IQ than whites yet their societies are still mostly worse compared to what white societies have been. There is more to race than just IQ. Europe isn't Europe without white people and people naturally act to promote their tribe when they aren't brainwashed into self hate. This in turn will lead to race conflict. Inviting a foreign race into a country is a classic divide and conquer tactic and is almost guaranteed to fail simply due to the fact that the foreigners do not have a heritage to tie them to the people and land. Research always shows that countries which are ethnically homogeneous are more united than those that are not. Regarding dysgenics I'm pretty much in agreement with Richard Lynn that democracies will never be able to seriously tackle the problem because it would be against the interest of a significant amount of the population and would raise concerns about ethics and morality.