A hypothetical model of IQ decline

Abstract

Explicitly egalitarian, communist societies held to the view that ability was largely the product of environment and upbringing and justified violence targeted at persons of ability on the grounds that such victims were easily replaceable. The theory and practice of Soviet violence are presented, followed by a mathematical model of the possible dysgenic consequences of such negative artificial selection. Key Words: IQ decline, emigration, egalitarian violence, dysgenics, aristocide, USSR, mathematical modelling Egalitarianism and Political Violence Although Western society considers itself tolerant, pluralistic, and even permissive, the very word government presupposes what its supporters view as management and its detractors as coercion. And as relationships within the State grow more complex, the greater are the demands put upon the system. Nominally at least, this system must claim to be based on some form of ideology to survive, for the moment it forfeits that inner logic, it can no longer call for social cohesiveness and is thus doomed; blatant coercion is effective only in the short term. Thus, for a society to function, its members should actively believe in and support the purportedly underlying credo, even when its leaders do not. No exception to the general rule, Western society is dominated by its own unified ideology. Freudianism, Marxism, B. S. Skinner's behaviorism, Franz Boaz's cultural history, and Margaret Mead's anthropology all have stressed the marvelous plasticity and even programmability of Homo sapiens. Human minds, we are told, differ little in their innate qualities; it is upbringing and education which explain the differences between us. Software is everything; hardware is identical and thus meaningless. As for evolution, although it created all the plants and the beasts, including us, somehow we are the only species whose current and future development has been permanently arrested. The road to utopia lies through improved nurture alone. But towering as the Goliath of radical egalitarianism may be, its cracked clay feet are daily being hammered away at by a new David - modern genetics - and with every day the chasm between scientific facts and popular opinion widens. The nature/nurture debate now turns out to have been a false dichotomy insidiously erected to distract from the real issue: can we afford to maintain a laissez-faire attitude toward ongoing human evolution or can interventionism be successfully implemented? This is the truly forbidden topic, for politics is a cynical quarrel of the currently living, who are greedy to pillage the heritage of their children. On Arnold's darkling plain, ignorant armies need no longer clash by night, they can be manipulated by money and modern media in paroxysms of democracy. It's all a repeat of the deterministic paradox: we are free to do what we want, but not to determine what we want. As for those individuals who have not been persuaded by our current social ethos and its trivial permitted dichotomies, censorship has been installed that is at least as efficient as those of traditional dictatorships, and perhaps even more so by virtue of its grass-roots nature. The overwhelming majority of people are believers, and the doubters are under constant attack: every two weeks a new book appears denouncing eugenics, a movement that has supposedly been dead for a half century. Herrnstein's and Murray's Bell Curve caught readers by surprise, but in point of fact, it is classical eugenics. The twentieth century is now coming to a bloody close, and the creature who sees himself as molded in the image of God has used improved technology to vastly raise the efficiency of his violence, not only toward his environment, but toward himself. And it has been the egalitarians, not the hereditarians, who have been the least squeamish about murder and exile, be it in Russia, China, or Cambodia. …