http://ncfmr.bgsu.edu/pdf/family_profiles/file131529.pdfGood current data.
Lowest rate of marriage in a century.
Oldest rate.
15% of divorced women stay that way. Mostly in the lower classes.
Numbers are worse than they sound. But my iphone battery is going. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2013-07-26 15:27:00 UTC
(Legal Equality is Necessary, Economic Equality is Unattainable, and Genetic Equality is Undesirable – Your Genes Matter) A friend posted an interestingly common white lament, that provides an excellent jumping off point for criticizing postmodern values.
Lee: I am in the top 1% economic class of the world. This is due purely to an accident of birth and nothing more. … Whatever intelligence or resolve I may have is due to the genetic lottery. … But these genetic endowments do not mean that I have been randomly placed in the economic hierarchy by the greedy powers that be. My limited intelligence and conscientiousness is actually worth something to my employer. Jeorg: Unless conscientiousness is also genetic. Lee: Yes… It is likely that we have some control. Setting an alarm clock requires forethought … François-René: “is genetic” and “we have some control” are not mutually incompatible. At all.
[W]e have many genetic predispositions that we override. We do this through incentives via habits, traditions, myths, norms, laws and institutions. But there is a very great difference between redirection, avoidance and suppression through incentives and changing or eliminating genetic dispositions. The statement that you have no right to advantage because of the accident of your birth, is logically interesting because its the down side of western individualist thought. You cannot exist without your familial relations.
[pullquote]You are a reflection of a long sequence of choices.[/pullquote]
Does it make sense to you that humans can instinctively identify those traits and reward them? Does it make sense that the evolutionary consequences of not doing so would be detrimental? Even suicidal for a species? It is important in disputes that law treat us equally because it is necessary for the preservation of suppressing violence by forcing all competition into voluntary exchange. Otherwise the institution cannot provide the incentive to suppress our instincts and redirect our efforts. But [pullquote] the western illusion that those values necessary to create incentives for us as an individual economic unit can insulate us from our family, and clan, and the necessary operation of our reproductive evolutionary system is a postmodernist, socialist fiction that assumes economic and legal equality can be extended to genetic equality[/pullquote] – contrary to all evidence and reason. The rawlsian veil of ignorance is a complex rhetorical device for the neurolinguistic programming of the masses precisely to confuse them into the illusion of biological equality and to divorce the individual from his ancestry so that his loyalties are to the state and rather than to his familial genetic heritage. The blank slate, likewise is a device for the same purpose. So are diversity and open immigration. Other civilizations do not make this error. Ours is in numeric decline partly because of it. So no you are not an individual comparable to other individuals except to the blindfolded statue of justice under the law and the gavel. Socially you are the representation of a sequence of choices embeded in genes and are the recipient of more opportunities for influence and reproduction because of it. And dysgenia, and even extinction would of necessity occur if humans acted otherwise. We are in a constant battle against the evolutionary red queen, and against reproductions regression toward the mean. The only solution is assortive mating and the concentration of influence, opportunity, capital and reproduction behind such genes. [O]ne more thing. Time preference, and ‘frustration budget’ are genetically determined. IQ is significantly heritable (it’s complex though), and social classes are organized almost entirely by IQ. Variation in social classes is determined by time preference, frustration budget, or what we tend to call the discipline-impulsiviness spectrum. Variation in the social classes is also determined by attractiveness: symmetry, height, thickness of skin, clarity of skin, and a variety of other factors that suggest genetic fitness. Economic classes vary from social classes because under consumer capitalism, a Watkins or Crick does not produce as many paying customers as the designer of velcro, or fast, consistent, cheeseburgers. Economic outliers are determined by lottery. But that is not to discount the value of lottery. If the lottery reward does not exist, then there is no motivation for high risk. So yes, discipline and looks matter in society because they matter to our genes, and they matter to humanity as a species.
VIRGINITY AND IQ
(For Fun)
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10882-005-3686-3
Source date (UTC): 2013-07-18 07:16:00 UTC
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….”
Source date (UTC): 2013-07-18 07:02:00 UTC
http://lb-stage.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/07/chinas-marriage-market?fsrc=rssHYPERGAMY AND OTHER TRAITS
We rarely are this honest about ourselves. And fail to grasp the role of property rights in reproduction. We were right, they copied us.
The other asian difference thats interesting is their concept of harmony vs our concept of equality. They are right. We used to be like them.
Their use of verbs and ours of nouns. Looks like science favors particularists and we are right.
Their use of lies, deception, and delay, and our use of truth and conflict to resolve problems quickly. We are right because of the external consequences if deception.
They have no illusion about the nature of man. We have confused the ideal that we aspire to with the factual nature of man. Both of us have failed in this respect.
Source date (UTC): 2013-07-16 03:17:00 UTC
BRAVADO
Funny. Lots of posturing males in the States. Depends on class and area. Seattle always seemed so civilized to me compared to the rather barbaric east coast. But then, it never had the race and culture integration problems we did in the eastern cities.
Russian and Ukrainian men are really interesting. Not a lot of time for posturing. Low barrier to ‘punching in the face’. Happens absurdly fast. First hint of threat. None of this holding and wrestling and resisting thing. Just knuckles and jaws. Lots of knockouts. No beating while he’s down.
(I live above a pub.)
Very polite society really.
I love the men here. Life has such ‘clarity’. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2013-07-14 20:02:00 UTC
THE PROBLEMATIC QUESTION:
With the death of the nuclear family as an economically productive necessity, and reproduction under complete control of the female, and in a technological environment where survivability is high, life is long, and overpopulation places extraordinary stress on the planet, does a woman have the right to reproduce at the expense of others, and in particular at the reproductive sacrifice of others?
Like Camus’ first question of philosophy, this is the first question of redistributive government.
(The first question of politics is why don’t I kill you and take your stuff? The first question of philosophy is why don’t you commit suicide?)
Painful question. But one must answer it. Otherwise all redistributive questions are meaningless.
🙂
Source date (UTC): 2013-07-11 05:53:00 UTC
[C]lassical Liberalism cannot be restored with women in the voting pool. Property rights can’t be restored with women voting. It’s not possible. Marriage cannot be restored with high participation rates of women in the work force. Birth rates can’t be restored with women in high participation in the work place. Intergenerational saving can’t be restored because of social programs and tax rates for intergenerational redistribution – boomers spent their income and their grandchildren’s. Immigration can’t be reversed so cultural identity, and civic participation can’t be recreated. Growth can’t be restored with the globalization of the work force. We have consumed much of the low hanging fruit of industrialization and work force participation. Progressives are philosophically wrong, historically and empirically wrong, and conservatives and libertarians are living under the illusion of putting the genie back into the bottle. But, we have developed new institutions before. We’re going to have to do it again. But those institutions will not include universally homogenous property rights. They can’t. Because property rights correspond to the moral intuitions of those that make use of them, and males and females have competing reproductive strategies and corresponding moral codes. In male terms, women are immoral, and vice-versa. Marriage was a truce that worked during agrarianism. That truce is over. We’re back at war. And women have the numbers on their side. Property is the product of the organized application of violence by a minority willing to create it. Property isn’t a moral preference of the majority. The majority are free riders and rent seekers. It’s human nature writ large.
GENIES CAN’T BE PUT BACK INTO BOTTLES
Classical Liberalism cannot be restored with women in the voting pool. Property rights can’t be restored with women voting. It’s not possible. Marriage cannot be restored with high participation rates of women in the work force. Birth rates can’t be restored with women in high participation in the work place. Intergenerational saving can’t be restored because of social programs and tax rates for intergenerational redistribution – boomers spent their income and their grandchildren’s. Immigration can’t be reversed so cultural identity, and civic participation can’t be recreated. Growth can’t be restored with the globalization of the work force. We have consumed much of the low hanging fruit of industrialization and work force participation.
Progressives are philosophically wrong, historically and empirically wrong, and conservatives and libertarians are living under the illusion of putting the genie back into the bottle.
But, we have developed new institutions before. We’re going to have to do it again. But those institutions will not include universally homogenous property rights. They can’t. Because property rights correspond to the moral intuitions of those that make use of them, and males and females have competing reproductive strategies and corresponding moral codes. In male terms, women are immoral, and vice-versa.
Marriage was a truce that worked during agrarianism. That truce is over. We’re back at war. And women have the numbers on their side.
Property is the product of the organized application of violence by a minority willing to create it. Property isn’t a moral preference of the majority. The majority are free riders and rent seekers. It’s human nature writ large.
(Reposted with multiple typos fixed)
Source date (UTC): 2013-07-09 16:42:00 UTC
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/ww930/supplement-early-human-kinship-was-matrilinealREADABLE: CHICKS RULE UNLESS GUYS CREATE PRIVATE PROPERTY 😉
Source date (UTC): 2013-07-08 09:42:00 UTC