NAIL IN THE POSTMODERNIST COFFIN : BREEDING (Profound) People are mammals. Breed

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ejhg2013155a.htmlANOTHER NAIL IN THE POSTMODERNIST COFFIN : BREEDING

(Profound)

People are mammals.

Breeding people is no different from breeding dogs. We inherit our traits. Positive and negative.

Assortive mating (breeding) reinforces traits good and bad and prevents natural regression toward the mean.

Inbreeding (cousin marriage in pakistanis, inbreeding in ashkenazi jews) prevents genetic cure of diseases and defects, and instead replicates those traits. Likewise excessive outbreeding regresses the gene pool toward the mean again.

Assortive mating, intra-class breeding, and natural rotation of elites, produce concentrations of talents while supressing undesirable traits.

Our races are analogous to breeds. Our classes also.

The distribution of traits matters because status signals, selection, and cooperation, as well as genetic preference, are higher in group than out group. This is a near universal human bias. Humans act this way no matter what we do.

The market is society. We are all the same value as customers. We must all have the same value before the law.

But we are not all the same value as coworkers, family members or mates. And we are not the same value to humanity either in contribution or genes.

Humans began speciating upon exit of Africa. We were so successful that the speciation was incomplete. We are merely exaggerated breeds. Under mobile populations, industrialization, and consumer capitalism we have, as have the hindus, begun the process of speciating by class.

This matters because it requires a sufficient percentage of any population to both possess an iq greater than 105 in order for a division of knowledge and labor to form under contractual complexity, and for corruption to diminish sufficiently. It also appears that the Pareto rule is not possible to alter, because the majority of assets must be under the control of this more talented group.

A free society then, in the libertarian sense, can only exist in a population of males where 80% of the resources are in hands of those 20% with iq over 105 and there is no opportunity to overturn the allocation of property rights by political means. (Natural Aristocracy).

Or, egalitarian freedom can exist only where the numerical majority’s iq is over 105. (Enlightenment England, 20th century ashkenazim, east asia), And where that majority has political control, and that majority is prohibited from cousin marriage long enough that private property becomes a normative and trust evolves into the extra familial. It also means states must be small, homogenous nation states.

Freedom then is a ‘perfect storm’. Thats why its unique to the west, and high trust society is unique to the Small Arc from England to Switzerland.

POSITION

this doesn’t mean we return to the past. It does mean that we cannot have any future we choose because it is constrained by these necessities.

It means:

Redistribution as calculated by income, without constraining reproduction forces genetic, legal, and normative regression toward the mean.

Immigration outside of culture and gene pool is limited to that which integrates successfully.

The goal for any society should not be downward reproduction but encouragement and funding of reproduction in the middle and upper middle classes. And improvement in the quality of life of the lower classes as long as they adhere to a one child policy.

Time will take care of the rest.

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ejhg2013155a.html

QUOTE:

“Another difference between inbreeding and assortative mating is that the effects of inbreeding are expected to be negative, lowering cognitive ability, whereas the effects of assortative mating affect the high, as well as the low end of the ability distribution, thus increasing genetic bariance, that is, when high-ability parents mate assortatively, their children are more likely to be homozygous for variants for high ability, just as offspring of low-ability parents are more likely to be homozygous for variants for low ability….”