PDA

View Full Version : In His Diary, Dr Josef Mengele Predicted 90% of Humans Would Die of Stupidity



Nachtengel
Wednesday, February 10th, 2010, 07:33 PM
A diary and a revealing letter written by notorious Auschwitz death camp Dr. Josef Mengele were put on auction in the United States last month. Mengele was the SS officer who supervised the selection of prisoner transports arriving at Auschwitz and performed bizarre medical experiments on camp inmates.

Alexander Autographs, one of the largest auction houses for rare historical documents and manuscripts, offered the rare diary and letter for a starting price of $60,000 on January 20 and 21. So far, nobody has shown an interest in the chilling documents, which are still on sale.

The Stamford, Connecticut based auctioneer is offering the rare, unpublished diary of the man known as "the angel of death." Mengele, who sent thousands to their death at Auschwitz, wrote the diary in the 1960s in South America, where he fled after WWII.

The auction house says it received the documents from a person who bought them from Mengele's son.

Asked if he had any qualms about selling such documents, Bill Panagopulos, Alexander Autographs' president, said: "Make no mistake about it - I have no sympathy for these monsters. My father's home town was wiped out by the Nazis in a reprisal action. But it is of vital importance that such documents remain available as tangible evidence of the evil deeds of the past, as well as to provide further pieces of history's puzzle."

The 180-page journal was written in German in a children's notebook titled Illustrated Zoology, decorated with animal drawings. Mengele penned his impressions and thoughts on subjects such as art, culture, religion, history and biology, as well as ideas based on the Nazi natural selection doctrine.

The diary begins in June 1960, in Argentina, 19 years before the world's most hunted Nazi war criminal drowned - or possibly suffered a stroke - while swimming off the shore of Bertioga, Brazil.

"I see how right my plans have been all along and I understand now that following people's advice mostly results in irreparable nonsense. But I refuse to pass guilt onto others: I was solely responsible for my decisions," writes Mengele, who was 49 when he started the journal.

Unless the world adopted breeding programs like those he pursued in Auschwitz, "mankind is doomed, even without war," he writes.

Referring to morality, aesthetics and genetics, Mengele writes: "The real problem is to define when human life is worth living and when it has to be eradicated."

"There's only one truth and one true beauty ... There's no 'good' or 'bad' in nature. There's only 'appropriate' or 'inappropriate' ... Both sides receive equal chances. Nevertheless, nature provides a strainer. Things that are 'inappropriate' fall through since they lose in the struggle for survival."

Discussing the Indian caste system, Mengele notes, "Brahmans are built nicely; some of them even have blue eyes. They have small, straight noses and they're in general high quality human beings. And this is because the Brahmans used the highest caste to preserve their noble blood. They are the descendants of Nordic peoples who once conquered and ruled India."

Mengele discusses how to create an upper class: "It can only be done by selecting the best."

"Everything will end in catastrophe if natural selection is altered to the point that gifted people are overwhelmed by billions of morons," he warns, predicting that 90 percent of humans will starve due to stupidity and the remaining 10 percent will survive "like reptiles survived. The rest will die, just like the dinosaurs did ... we have to prevent the rise of the idiot masses," he writes.

"The feeble-minded person ('village idiot') was separated from farmers because of his social status and low income," he writes.

"This separation is no longer the case in the age of technology. He is now on the same level with the farmer's son who went to the city.

"We know that selection rules all nature by choosing and exterminating ... Those who were unfit had to accept the rule of more accomplished human beings, or they were pushed out or exterminated. Weaker humans were excluded from reproducing. This is the only way for human beings to exist and to maintain themselves."

He says "inferior morons" should be exterminated, adding, "We have to make sure that nature's suspended eradication will continue through human arrangements ... birth control can be done by sterilizing those with deficient genes."

Mengele goes on to advise Germany to abandon feminist ideology and control childbirth. "Biology doesn't support equal rights. Women shouldn't be working in higher positions. Women's work must depend on filling a biological quota. Birth control can be done by sterilizing those with deficient genes. Those with good genes will be sterilized after the fifth child."

Also included in the sale is a letter Mengele wrote to his wife during his Auschwitz tenure, expressing his love and plans for "our imaginary reunion." He writes that he hopes to be transferred to a "combat unit."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1146910.html

It would be really something if stupidity were a cause of death. Germanics having high enough IQs on average would still not go extinct then. :shrug

Bärin
Wednesday, February 10th, 2010, 07:44 PM
It won't happen, and it's very obvious why. In the world we live in today, stupidity has no consequences. It's even rewarded. :oanieyes People don't have to live according to their own merits. Some depend on others to feel sorry for them and build civilizations for them. They are allowed to leech off the effort of others.

Agrippa
Wednesday, February 10th, 2010, 08:57 PM
It won't happen, and it's very obvious why. In the world we live in today, stupidity has no consequences. It's even rewarded. :oanieyes People don't have to live according to their own merits. Some depend on others to feel sorry for them and build civilizations for them. They are allowed to leech off the effort of others.

That was always the case in a way, but it worked as long as those which made the greatest achievements were closely related and shared genes with those they supported, especially the valuable genes and many of the more successful and high-achievers had more children themselves.

Its very important to note that one cannot equate achievement with material success and especially not in a Capitalist environment, because obviously there are f.e. rare cases of great mothers which might live from welfare, but care in an exemplary way for their children and all their children have a high niveau, make their way through school, care for the society and finally will get jobs on their own. But thats exceptional of course...

So today, the dysgenic trend is as much a problem of the low birthrates of the higher standing, as well as the high birthrates of the lower standing people, both on an intra- and interpopulation/ethnic level.

This means worldwide the lowest people tend to have the highest birth rates and inside of the groups the same pattern occurs. Such a trend must naturally result in a decrease of overall niveau of all of mankind and in a way, what was built up in many generations, with great suffering and losses, on a genetic, racial and cultural level, being degraded.

The real problem of Western Civilisation in this regard is, that reproductive, biological success being no longer correlated to any kind of higher achievement and social status and material wealth being oftentimes even negatively related to career, social status and material wealth.

One would need to change society in a way in which, especially women, have the greatest success if having a great family and great children and the rewards must be so great, the losses of social status either if not, that the people are motivated to get children and raise them in a healthy and meaningful way.

In the past, many of todays career women would have been the most successful mothers, planners, aristocratic women which goal was to create a successful dynasty.

Its all a question of perspective and the West has a problem with bloodlines and family for quite some time:

The European core, the "Banana" and the Hajnal Line (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=40331)

Now all "Westernised" people have - even Brahmins of India in some regions etc., and the dysgenic pattern spreads around the world.

Also compare with "Progressive Eugenics":

Nordicism and "progressive" eugenics (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=40375)

Wolgadeutscher
Wednesday, February 10th, 2010, 09:01 PM
"Those with good genes will be sterilized after the fifth child."
IF they ever get to have that many children. Biologically fit people don't breed so much. Who has the most children in the world? Third world nations, especially those where birth control isn't known, affordable, effective, immigrants from third world nations, polygamists, Muslims, and so on. Germanics want less and less children, so it's out of the question to ponder what to do if they have too many.

Siebenbürgerin
Wednesday, February 10th, 2010, 09:06 PM
I'm thinking Mengele was a little bit stuck in the Nazi Germany ideals. It must have been a shock to him how South American society was like.

Measures like sterilisation of peoples with deficient genes will never happen nowadays, because the society is very changed. It's a charitable society. besides, idiocy isn't always inherited from the parents.

But I think nature will still have her say sooner or later. Because we can't keep overpopulating without effects, and if it becomes too much, it might happen as in China, with the child policies.

Agrippa
Wednesday, February 10th, 2010, 09:15 PM
We dont even know if this "diary" is authentic to begin with, but:


IF they ever get to have that many children. Biologically fit people don't breed so much. Who has the most children in the world? Third world nations, especially those where birth control isn't known, affordable, effective, immigrants from third world nations, polygamists, Muslims, and so on. Germanics want less and less children, so it's out of the question to ponder what to do if they have too many.

I know there are good women with more than 10 children around and they do often great - they are rare now, but they exist and there existed much more in the past.

Mother Earth
Wednesday, February 10th, 2010, 09:19 PM
Appalling. Thankfully we don't live in a world run by head cases like this Mengele. How can he say biology doesn't support equal rights and then promote sterilization of the so-called inferior and selecting the best? It's a contradiction. It's not letting nature do its job, is it? People with significant genetic defects won't have many children anyway. It sounds to me like he was obsessed with doing selections, since he couldn't do it in Auschwitz anymore.

Siebenbürgerin
Wednesday, February 10th, 2010, 09:32 PM
How can he say biology doesn't support equal rights and then promote sterilization of the so-called inferior and selecting the best? It's a contradiction. It's not letting nature do its job, is it?
But in human communities, there was hardly ever pure biology the way you mean it, without humans making some sort of selections. Long before the National Socialist campaign of sterilisation, as in Sparta, where unhealthy babies were thrown into pits and left to die. Even in the animal kingdom some species feed and protect only the strongest of the offspring and let the other to die. It's not a happy aspect, but it's one which happened and continues to happen, whether we like it or not. Because in China there is a one child policy or something like that.

Nachtengel
Wednesday, February 10th, 2010, 09:45 PM
We dont even know if this "diary" is authentic to begin with
I guess graphic analysts could certify it?

It was bought by a Jew:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/02/03/family-of-auschwitz-survivor-buys-mengele-diary.html

@Mother Earth, many retarded people do breed, just for the sake of getting the benefits having children entails or because they're too stupid to understand why they shouldn't. Some fight in court for the right to be parents.

And if you are such a humanist and equality lover, why are you insulting Dr. Mengele as a 'head case', when it's thanks to his selections that there are so many 'survivors' today?

Florian Geyer
Wednesday, February 10th, 2010, 09:54 PM
Appalling. Thankfully we don't live in a world run by head cases like this Mengele. How can he say biology doesn't support equal rights and then promote sterilization of the so-called inferior and selecting the best? It's a contradiction. It's not letting nature do its job, is it? People with significant genetic defects won't have many children anyway. It sounds to me like he was obsessed with doing selections, since he couldn't do it in Auschwitz anymore.

I disagree. I believe there is a place in the modern world for selection and eugenics. It can even be introduced humanely. It seems that everyone in the western world thinks that they have a right to have children. That includes gay and lesbian couples and single, career women without a man in sight. Take Nadya Denise Doud-Suleman Gutierrez (Octomom) - no partner, no job and already six children. Most people would agree that there would be a strong argument for denying her the right to have more children. It is hardly a great leap in ideology to prevent parents with anything other than mild learning difficulties from having children or drug addicts or those repeat offenders found in council estates all over the UK. There are families out there with no respect for the law or anyone else but themselves. Dysfunctional families like the parents of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, the killers of two year old Jamie Bulger. Or more recently the two boys in the British Edlington torture case. Their families had been a burden on social services for over twenty years, totally dysfunctional. What right have parents such as these got to have children. Children that the rest of us have to pay for to bring up, either in benefits and health care or in the costs involved in law and order, the court system and the prisons.

Surely there should be criteria to meet before one is permitted to have children. That can't be too much to ask.

Agrippa
Thursday, February 11th, 2010, 08:59 PM
I disagree. I believe there is a place in the modern world for selection and eugenics. It can even be introduced humanely. It seems that everyone in the western world thinks that they have a right to have children. That includes gay and lesbian couples and single, career women without a man in sight. Take Nadya Denise Doud-Suleman Gutierrez (Octomom) - no partner, no job and already six children. Most people would agree that there would be a strong argument for denying her the right to have more children. It is hardly a great leap in ideology to prevent parents with anything other than mild learning difficulties from having children or drug addicts or those repeat offenders found in council estates all over the UK. There are families out there with no respect for the law or anyone else but themselves. Dysfunctional families like the parents of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, the killers of two year old Jamie Bulger. Or more recently the two boys in the British Edlington torture case. Their families had been a burden on social services for over twenty years, totally dysfunctional. What right have parents such as these got to have children. Children that the rest of us have to pay for to bring up, either in benefits and health care or in the costs involved in law and order, the court system and the prisons.

Surely there should be criteria to meet before one is permitted to have children. That can't be too much to ask.

You mention extreme cases, for which I agree mostly, though we have to look at every single case with care, but in the end its a mass problem. First of all, every couple can get a defect child, one with various genetically caused problems.

Now the only longer run humane and effective solution is happening before birth, its prenatal screening and selection - once we are able to, we might use correction through genetic engineering.

F.e. if an individual has problematic genetic trait, its not necessary to say this individual should get no children, especially not if it has otherwise good traits, but just to give it rewards for using the Eugenic program - which should be free for all people - and let the potential offspring being screened for the defect.

Just think about all the possible recombinations which can pop out from a simple, normal couples, from much above their level to lowest level or dying before having the 1st birthday - at least without massive medical interventions.

Obviously, the best thing and best Eugenic approach is to give the people the opportunity and rewards for combining "their best traits" and eliminating the bad ones.

The real problem cases are those which have a generally low level, because if its about single defects, those can be detected and eliminated, if not now, soon in the future.

Obviously in a more healthy society, people would want to have healthy children with good traits, they will get rewards for those and help to achieve this. So only the very extreme and overall negative cases can be discussed for a negative Eugenic measurement which doesnt allow them to get children at all, for the great majority it will be about combined technological-medical, social efforts, part of a great social program for a better society.

I always say that, because its important to note that you need both, Eugenic and Euphenic, the first means the elimination of the negative genetic, the latter of the negative social effects which cause diseases and defects (negative) or good, valuable and desirable traits (positive Eugenic/Euphenic).

What exactly is this or that can be discussed, f.e. in the threads linked above, but I just say we can reach much more than we could have in the past with humane, modern and effective methods, in a strictly scientific-rational manner.

Its not even necessary that all people participate in Eugenic programs, it should be just offered and being free for everyone. Those who dont want to participate dont matter as long as the great majority will and society has to reward those which work for it - the others must not be forced, but they must "feel" that their behaviour is irrational and asocial.

On the longer run all parents which want to "do good" for their children will surely participate and those who do, or better their children will outperform the others so significantly on the longer run, that everyone who wants to have a "successful" child will participate for sure.

Actually I could imagine a law which allows a child to sue the parents if they didnt use Eugenic means to prevent a defect. A lot of things are possible if the moral of the society will be more group, goal and collective oriented, for the better of the people and real progress, even if giving the individual as much freedom as today or actually even more of it, because the Capitalist exploitation would be tamed.

rainman
Friday, February 12th, 2010, 04:09 PM
It's simple: practice eugenics in your own group- those groups that don't will fall behind. Biology determines the unfit and we must select them because we are one biological unit as a society- just as your body should seek out and eradicate cancer cells. The cells arent feeding themselves but are rather parasites on the larger body. If the body does not maintain itself then yes biology will determine it to be unfit and die.

Yes people shouldn't leach off of other people's accomplishments. This goes for the white supremacists who think they are supremely intelligent because they are part of the white race rather than evaluating their own abilities and that of their immediate family.

Germanics do not have a high I.Q. on average. Maybe relative to most other races in this world, but most people I meet of all races are morons. Without being artificially propped up by the handful of geniuses in society they would be running around half naked with sticks and stones foraging for berries. A lot of them aren't even smart enough for that- without their welfare check they would starve. Yeah this includes a lot of "whites" and such I meet.

Agrippa
Friday, February 12th, 2010, 06:02 PM
Germanics do not have a high I.Q. on average. Maybe relative to most other races in this world

IQ is a strictly relative thing, so if they have on average a higher IQ than most non-Germanic people, they have indeed a high IQ on average. Which is a fact...

But fact is also, that most progressive Eurasian racial forms are not that far apart and a large part of the present differences seem to be environmental.

So the largest gap in this world, speaking about measurable general intelligence, is between these progressive Eurasians + related people and the rest of the world.

rainman
Friday, February 12th, 2010, 06:39 PM
I'm talking about minimal standards. Let's say you live in a cave somewhere and you aren't smart enough to make arrow heads or use a bow and arrow. You are "unfit". Let's take modern society: you need the intelligence to be able to read and write. You need to be able to make simple decisions so you can have a productive job. You also need to not be a criminal type person.

I guess if you consider poverty, crime, and failure normal then most people are fit but by my own standards- that is people I could trust to run a business, or run a farm on their own without supervision, or to even live next to me without making irrational decisions that cause conflict etc. Then across all races the majority are low intelligence. Every year it gets worse. I think if modern whites had to go back 100 years and live with their ancestors a great number of them wouldn't even be fit for that.

Jäger
Friday, February 12th, 2010, 06:57 PM
"Gute Tiere, spricht der Weise,
mußt du züchten, mußt du kaufen,
doch die Ratten und die Mäuse,
kommen ganz von selbst gelaufen." (Wilhelm Busch)

:)

Agrippa
Friday, February 12th, 2010, 07:02 PM
I'm talking about minimal standards. Let's say you live in a cave somewhere and you aren't smart enough to make arrow heads or use a bow and arrow. You are "unfit". Let's take modern society: you need the intelligence to be able to read and write. You need to be able to make simple decisions so you can have a productive job. You also need to not be a criminal type person.

I guess if you consider poverty, crime, and failure normal then most people are fit but by my own standards- that is people I could trust to run a business, or run a farm on their own without supervision, or to even live next to me without making irrational decisions that cause conflict etc. Then across all races the majority are low intelligence. Every year it gets worse. I think if modern whites had to go back 100 years and live with their ancestors a great number of them wouldn't even be fit for that.

Well, but thats mostly modification, if talking about genetic differences, 2000 + years and in many (then already "Civilised") regions even much longer.

As for "criminal" behaviour and disputes, one has to distinguish between different kinds of motivation. F.e. a criminal person in 19th century England might be even a high level individual, above average in most respects etc., whereas in some countries and systems, a criminal person is a rule dysfunctional in one way or another, be it a genetic or environmental cause.

Thats why I'm careful with such conclusions and even if its statistically correct to state that nowadays f.e. most poor or criminal people are lower level, its not true for all individuals and wasnt true throughout time, one has to look at every single case.

In the same way many law abiding and hard working people are lowest level and would in a slightly different situation be lowest level, highly dangerous criminals etc.

A criminal is just a person which breaks a law, the laws might not always be perfect or just themselves, so...

I define a criminal in a negative and important sense as a person doing destructive things for no good reason, because if someone kills or robbs for a good reason, he's still criminal and might be still punished by every good system, but obviously he isn't worse, if acting in a rational frame and by considering his effects, trying to prevent unnecessary harm etc.

The best example would be a father making a bank robbery to finance a child's operation in a corrupted and asocial system, in which the basic medical treatment being not financed by the group. Such a father is obviously very different from a person which does the same thing, just for being able to buy some prostitutes, making a big party and having fun humiliating or harming other people etc.

SpearBrave
Friday, February 12th, 2010, 07:04 PM
Germanics do not have a high I.Q. on average. Maybe relative to most other races in this world, but most people I meet of all races are morons. Without being artificially propped up by the handful of geniuses in society they would be running around half naked with sticks and stones foraging for berries. A lot of them aren't even smart enough for that- without their welfare check they would starve. Yeah this includes a lot of "whites" and such I meet.

I would never place any merit on IQ scores, You have to first take a look at who comes up with the test. I have taken several IQ test over the years and always scored very high, but in the end I still have to pay the same price for a cup of coffee as the next guy. Who goes to say that the simple farmer or carpenter is not smarter than the college professor. Most proclaimed college professors lack the common sense to make a everyday living. I know this first hand as I was one for a short period of time until I realized how unreal it all is. Not that I'm knocking a education I'm just saying don't downplay the common man or his abilities.

As far as Germanics being duller than these people with high I.Q.s does not hold water either. The fact that Germanics have more inventions throughout history than any other races is a testament to that fact.

Agrippa
Friday, February 12th, 2010, 07:12 PM
Actually one can see the intelligence of a people as a whole not necessary in such things like inventions or higher culture, but rather the effectiveness of organising their way of life in a specific environment.

F.e. there are culturally primitive people which never made great inventions which can be counted in the study of world history, but show a great potential in their spirit, attitude, basic culture and organisation.

I mean if visiting the Germanics 2000 years ago, surely they would have been much more primitive in some regards than other people then or moderns, but they would have shown a great potential, same goes for many others.

Oftentimes one has to look more for the details.

As for the IQ, I consider it being an imperfect mean, because its nothing but a mean, but if you want to measure the intellectual ability of an individual or a people, I dont know much better means available so far.

From my personal observation, people with a mean IQ might still have a great potential, at least in some areas, while high IQ people have strength in most intellectual fields, but those with a low and very low IQ lack it all and are at best in a primitive way capable.

So I wouldnt exaggerate the importance of IQ, nor minor differences, but people below a certain IQ level are usually real problem cases in many respects. This means to me I dont look that much for somebody being a genius by IQ or not, but having certain minimal requirements, which even an uneducated or rather manual individual should have - below that level we talk about people incapable of making reasonable decisions which need the human intellect.

Aasta
Friday, February 12th, 2010, 07:20 PM
Germanics do not have a high I.Q. on average. Maybe relative to most other races in this world, but most people I meet of all races are morons. Without being artificially propped up by the handful of geniuses in society they would be running around half naked with sticks and stones foraging for berries. A lot of them aren't even smart enough for that- without their welfare check they would starve. Yeah this includes a lot of "whites" and such I meet.

Do you have a study you could link me to that shows that Germanics don't have a high I.Q. on average?

I consider all of these modern inventions and countries founded, and that are living on, to be proof of our accomplishments that would say that we are an intelligent race/sub-race.

Reader
Friday, February 12th, 2010, 07:37 PM
I suppose it's worth making some comments vis-a-vis r/K selection theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory).



Typically, r-selected species exploit less-crowded ecological niches, and produce many offspring, each of which has a relatively low probability of surviving to adulthood. In contrast, K-selected species are strong competitors in crowded niches, and invest more heavily in fewer offspring, each of which has a relatively high probability of surviving to adulthood.



Traits that are thought to be characteristic of K-selection include: large body size, long life expectancy, and the production of fewer offspring that require extensive parental care until they mature.



Traits that are thought to be characteristic of r-selection include: high fecundity, small body size, early maturity onset, short generation time, and the ability to disperse offspring widely.


Humans are considered K-selected, but are there degrees of r/K selection within the human contiuum? Do certain subraces lean in the r-selection direction, in relative terms?

Also, high IQ would seem to be an example of a K-selected characteristic, because a relatively high amount of resources (especially good nutrition and a mentally stimulating environment) is required to develop someone born with the genetic potential for high IQ. According to r/K selection theory, a high IQ could be a negative in an environment that favors r-selection.

Agrippa
Friday, February 12th, 2010, 08:56 PM
Humans are considered K-selected, but are there degrees of r/K selection within the human contiuum? Do certain subraces lean in the r-selection direction, in relative terms?

Also, high IQ would seem to be an example of a K-selected characteristic, because a relatively high amount of resources (especially good nutrition and a mentally stimulating environment) is required to develop someone born with the genetic potential for high IQ. According to r/K selection theory, a high IQ could be a negative in an environment that favors r-selection.

Progressive races are more K-selected, infantile ones more oriented on r-selection.

This can be very directly related to the fact, that herder-warriors are more often progressive lepto-mesomorphs, rather unreduced and high bred, farmers, especially tillers less so.

There was this study in the Ukraine: Long Bones Growth Variation (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=10538)

Herders have a limited ressource (their herds and potential slaves, subjugated people), while farmers are more often able to boost their production with "helping hands".

This "helping hands" (namely in most cases their children) dont need to be too tall, strong, rangy, intelligent, attractive etc., but just "function" in the context of the agriculture.

That explains why herders where both by biological and cultural characteristics highly superior in competition to early, not large-state organised farmers. They had to control wide areas, defend their herds, used high investment in their offspring and had to be more intelligent and aware of the environment. If they were not high quality, they were simply lost to the hard competition between herder-warriors.

The farmer on the other hand could exist even on a low level, as a dependent person, f.e. in many areas the leading elements of priests and warriors came mainly from conquering herders and the common workforce being that of older farmers.

Obviously there are many options in between, herder-farmers, people with a mixed economy which were not as mobile, but had usually still a large lifestock. F.e. Germanics were most of the time warlike, mixed farmers with a very strong animal husbandry.

The success of the K-selection, of progressive and high-investment forms with great potential relies on all this investments coming back in the form of biological success.

That is the case as long as those which achieve or sacrifice themselves or at least their kin has higher reproductive rates - f.e. in regions dominated by clan structures and kinship. This is not the case in a civilisation, in which the achievement might not pay off in the form of biological success and under the virtual protection of higher level elements, lower level elements can not just survive, but spread themselves.

Modern warfare f.e. is highly contraselective: Modern War: a racial tragedy. The German example
(http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=38300)
F.e. in many cases a very progressive racial form conquered less progressive tillers, made them their bondslaves in one way or another. Usually, in the more distant past, the male took the females, while keeping pure bloodlines (polygamy or at least mistresses, female slaves), that way, they spread, even without fully eliminating the subjugated people, their genes.

This is probably one of the reasons why the y-DNA is a better indicator for migrations and has a lower variation in many regions.

But in a civilisation, especially the Christian one, what happened next was, that these elements, no matter how low their numbers were at that time, began to rise by reproductive success in the absense of higher level individual and group selection, but strong one sided pressures.

Infantile types mature earlier, they need less energy and can store it, are not as vulnerable by a lack of nutrients, vitamins and minerals. Were able to withstand cold and diseases better on a lower level, for example in a situation with poor hygiene, bad nutrition and great stress.

Tend to be less risk taking, less principled etc.

This being evident in the look already:
http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=989663&postcount=2

Also compare with:

Racially progressive tendencies in Homo sapiens
(http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=43471)
On "Progressiveness" - Active and Passive Adaptation (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=44767)

Comparing archemorphic, paedomorphic and neomorphic types
(http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=44712)

Usually, without "the civilisation case", infantile types are most common in areas of retreat, those places where more dominant types dont want to go so to say. Particularly forests.

One of the most infantile racial forms, which combines these Infantilism with archaic-primitive traits, is the Bambutid (African Pygmy) racial type, here compared with a progressive Europids maturation:
http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=103667&stc=1&d=1266008025

As a tendency, Negroids might be generally more r-selected, thats what Rushton said, but inside all great races and mankind overall, this tendency being the most significant in my opinion, if its about real K- vs. r-selection.

Most importantly, unlike some comparisons of Rushton, not just in the more recent times, but throughout history.

Obviously some archemorphic-primitive variants tend also more towards K-selection than the progressive ones, thats clear for various reasons, but in any case, the most progressive racial forms tend to be the most K-selected ones.

The progressive racial tendency and full maturation, leptomorphic-mesomorphic body type means also more K-selection, because of higher failure rates. Even if its about attractiveness, the typical picture is that of progressive races and leptomorphic/mature types being more often very attractive or unattractive.

This means, the infantile variant is more of a "secure path", because the are more about average, both in character and appearance, yet they rarely if ever reach the peak types of the progressive forms.

Like Kretschmer said, pyknomorphs have more often harmonious, but leptomorphs more interesting faces, with the latter having both more very beautiful, highest level variants, as well as very unattractive and disharminious ones.

The growth tendency itself determines that even minor aberration lead to a greater negative effect, as can be seen in all examples of larger leptomorphic samples. The pyknomorphs and even more the infantile ones group all around a childlike average, without anything being "sticking out", so they are almost never great, but also less often "bad" in the end result.

So a progressive form, both in body and psyche, is more of a risk, but the possible result justifies that risk and the failure rate. But for that to pay off, the selective regime has to work for high level variants, with great effectiveness vs. simple "functioning on a medium to low level".

Thats practically never the case, biologically, in a civilisation, only for very specific families with a great tradition, but those became very rare in the last centuries.

This means that the dysgenic trends will never favour the more intelligent, more progressive etc. variants in the current Capitalist Western society, only a changed, reformed system can guarantee that, at best with Eugenic programs.

rainman
Friday, February 12th, 2010, 09:27 PM
I don't understand that ratt and mouse thing in German, anyway

Most inventions, most leaders, most great people have high I.Q.s like 120+. Most college graduates are 120+. The average white is around 100 or slightly above. No race scores near 120, not even 115. Anyway I can just speak from personal experience.

About highly educated people being dumb- I wrote an essay on this. When you learn useless facts it pushes out room for other things. This makes you lack practical knowledge and such. Also many people I work with think I'm stupid. I might forget what I was just doing or some thing like that, but I know a group of people like me would out perform a group of people like them any day. I know I can go to college and do well whereas they aren't smart enough, I can score high on I.Q. tests and figure things out that they couldn't. It generally takes me less time to master a skill than it does them, in the least the same amount of time. Yet they would take me to be stupid beause of certain behavior. They just aren't good at evaulating intelligence, whereas an I.Q. test has been proven to evaluate it. It always correlates to a person's ability to succeed (though self control actually has a higher correlation).

But most I.Q. tests don't measure learning anyway- they (mostly) measure g- which is basially something you are born with. So the absent minded college professor who lacks common sense would score high on an I.Q. test. Had he not filled his mind with all that high minded college stuff he would have made a superior mechanic or tile smith (which also has been confirmed- people with higher I.Q.s perform even simple tasks more effectively). I think Lynn's The Bell Curve is a one stop source for I.Q. statistics and data if anyone is interested in further research.

About the criminal thing: I have to agree to an extent. But most people around me who do crimes do it because they are selfish, stupid, and don't care about others. A lot of times they are drug addicts as well. At least from what I see it is very rare for someone to do a logical crime. Usually crime isn't punished anyway whether logical or not- yet we have absurd incarceration rates.

Agrippa
Friday, February 12th, 2010, 09:40 PM
I don't understand that ratt and mouse thing in German, anyway

Most inventions, most leaders, most great people have high I.Q.s like 120+. Most college graduates are 120+. The average white is around 100 or slightly above. No race scores near 120, not even 115.

But many populations score lower and this lower average also means - usually, lower percentages for the 115+ segment of a group. That way, a population with 100+ is definitely intelligent for world standards, regardless of the causes for that, genetic and environment or which proportions these factors have...

Jäger
Friday, February 12th, 2010, 09:53 PM
I don't understand that ratt and mouse thing in German, anyway
It means that to get the best kinds of animals one needs much effort (breeding) or wealth to buy them, but the lower animals, rats and mice, come without even being asked. A translation wouldn't do Herr Busch justice, it rings so nicely in German :)