A major flaw in the theory that the Cоvіd jabs involve a depopulation agenda is that there is no apparent structure in place to select who will survive. The eugenicists of a century ago were pretty explicit. They wanted to sterilize the poor, or at least not subsidize those who could not feed themselves to the point where they could reproduce. They wanted to encourage the more capable members of society – people like themselves – to have more children.
The British upper-class had a number of institutions in place to perpetuate itself. They married among each other, perpetuating successful bloodlines as noted by Gregory Clark in The Son Also Rises. Their children attended elite boarding schools of the kind despised by Roald Dahl, George Orwell and Winston Churchill. Cruel as these schools undoubtedly were, they taught discipline and hard work. They produced generation after generation of men who led the British Empire.
Aristocrats throughout the ages have engaged private tutors for their children. Aristotle tutored Alexander the great. Exceptionally bright children respond best to bright teachers. Ordinary teachers bore them.
Back in the day when an aristocracy was considered part of God's natural order of things, the members of the aristocracy unselfconsciously did what they could to perpetuate it.
America was an exception from the outset. Capable people crossed the Atlantic to escape a class-centered society. The United States is always extolled the virtue of the common man. This worked, ironically, because the early settlers in America were uncommon men. Crossing the broad ocean in a wooden boat to establish oneself in a new continent inhabited by hostile aborigines took intelligence and self-confidence.
My ancestors, predominantly British and German, had neither titles nor pedigrees. The evidence is that each generation was successful by the criteria of their time. They certainly succeeded in perpetuating themselves – having children to carry on their genetic endowment and their culture.
I surmise that the median level of talent of entire American gene pool was something above the world average. It certainly impressed Alexander de Tocqueville. Marrying among themselves would have perpetuated intelligence among colonial Americans in the same way that intermarriage among Jews, Sikhs, parties and Northeast Asians has perpetuated intelligence in those populations.
Intelligence is a funny thing. As I relate in this video, intelligence researchers Stephen Hsu and James Flynn project that intelligence regresses to the mean by 40% per generation. The implications are huge. Two parents each with an IQ of 150 – a couple, each of whom is one in a thousand – can expect children with an average intelligence of 130 – one in twenty. That is not the kind of stuff that dynasties are made of.
But, at least back in the day when intelligent people were still getting married and having children, the average level of intelligence in the population did not fall. How could that be? Simple. That 40% works the other way. The average intelligence of parents of people with an IQ of 150 is only 130. Since there are lots of people at the 130 level, the law of averages indicates that enough of them will produce smart offspring that genius will be represented in the next generation.
If you have a population with high average intelligence – such as 115 among the Ashkenazi Jews – the number of geniuses who randomly appear will be markedly greater than among other populations. I posit that early America was seeded with smart people. While I have no certified genius in my pedigree, I conjecture that my ancestors, and all those of their generations, did a fairly good job of passing on what they received.
These would be the bloodlines that have spawned the geniuses of this generation, among whom I include Cоvіd era heroes Robert Malоne, Peter McСullough, Jessica Rоse, James Martin, Michael Yеadon, and Edward Dutton.
There were great debates in the early 20th century about the role of public education. See John Gatto's "An Underground History of American Education," and Diane Ravitch "Left Back – a Century of Field School Reform." The question was whether its goal was to form average people into productive workers, taxpayers and soldiers or to prepare the intellectual elite for leadership. The former won the day. It appears to have degenerated to the point where the focus of American education is merely to prepare the least capable elements of society to stay out of jail. Even that doesn't work.
In the early 20th century intelligence tests came into use. Schools used them to identify the most capable students so they could be prepared for academic work. My parents, growing up in California in the 1920s, not only took IQ tests but were told the scores. Though I was also tested, the schools were smart enough by the 1950s not to tell us children about how we did. Nevertheless, the more capable among us did receive special attention, especially after Sputnik went up in 1957. America was going to need all the brainpower it could get to fight the Soviet Union.
Things went into reverse with the civil rights movement of the 1960s. The emphasis shifted to closing the black-white achievement gap, where it has stayed. Massive immigration has compounded the problem, adding Latin American immigrants whose culture does not greatly value education and who do not speak English at home.
The upshot is that intelligent children have been subjected to increasingly lower expectations as attention has been focused on everybody else. Compounding the problem, there has been a constant, increasingly loud refrain to the effect that people who are any combination of white, male, and heterosexual have been systematically oppressing the rest., Such students have been sidelined as accommodations are made for everybody else.
At the same time expectations were lowered, the curriculum was changed to promote progressive dogmas such as global warming, gender fluidity, feminism, atheism, environmental issues, multiculturalism and the like. The new curricula do not demand intellectual rigor. Quite the opposite, they discourage intellectual curiosity in favor of the acceptance of a web of anodyne dogmas, lacking evidential backing but crafted to please every minority.
The quality of education has declined in every American institution, from kindergartens through the Ivy League. Curiously, the children of the elite have been as affected as everybody else. The super rich could obviously hire private tutors for their children and encourage intellectual independence. There is not much evidence that this has happened.
On the contrary, the world of the elite is populated with people who wholeheartedly believe and spread the dogmas of our day. Their children adopt them without thinking. As noted above, they are on average not as smart as their parents. Most don't have the tools to question the dogmas if they wanted to.
Between 1983 and 2005 I was a private school parent, a school trustee, a substitute and classroom teacher in elite private schools, and then a student in the University of Maryland College of Education. My children hobnobbed with those of Ariana Huffington, Bob Bennett and various senators and congressmen. All our children imbibed the same toxic Marxist ideas.
Though some of them have become successful adults, the fallout rate has been dramatic. I doubt that any of these schools would welcome a comprehensive survey of the outcomes of the pricey education they delivered. I have tried to contact my grown children's teachers, tutors, psychologists, psychiatrists and other therapists about how they turned out. They are resolutely uninterested in talking to me.
I conclude that there isn't any royal joy jelly among the American royalty. There isn't any special sauce that makes their children grow up better, in any sense that will carry on from generation to generation, than anybody else. The American aristocracy does not seem set up to perpetuate itself as well as the Athenian, Roman or British aristocracy. I attribute it as much as anything else to a dysfunctional educational system.
It there is a demоcide, if the elites are really trying to kill us, they appear to be doing little to separate their own offspring from the common herd. They make no special provisions to carry on their own family lines.
The sons and daughters of the of the American nobility go to Harvard, Yale and Stanford where they are awash in all of the social justice nonsense that permeates American society. They choose to be gay or transsexual at the same rate as all the rest. They accept the toxic gene therapy injections alongside everybody else. They prepare themselves for careers in nonproductive sectors such as gender studies, environmental studies, philosophy and the like just as often as everybody else.
To me the above argues against the demоcide being a eugenics exercise. The sons and daughters of the people perpetrating it don't make out any better than anybody else's. The best explanation appears to be that it is a kind of suicide. Search on "Dеmоnіс nіhіlіsm Rоbеrt Маlоnе". NB: You cannot cut and paste. You have to retype it.
The fittest members of this generation might be assumed to be the richest. In Darwinian terms, fitness is measured by one's progeny, one's representation in the gene pool. By that measure the richest are far from the fittest. Bill Gates has one grandchild. The father is an equestrian with an Arabic name. Larry Page, Sergei Brin and Jeff Bezos appear to have none. Nor Larry Ellison. Elon Musk has ten children, but his chaotic family life would not seem to be a cradle of stability. It seems safe to say there are no dynasties forming in Silicon Valley. The billionaires pass on what they can, which is money and (at a 40% discount) their genetic endowment of brains. They do not pass on a civilization that can be perpetuated.
I take comfort in this. If I'm able to pass on a modicum of intelligence, an even temperament, a viable culture and a model of marital stability in some form to my children, they will be ahead of the game. The fact that they remain "purebloods," not having been vаxxеd, means that their ability to have their own children has not been abnormally impaired. Having been spared the immersion in cultural Marxism that goes with American education, their minds may be sufficiently uncluttered to navigate a landscape of confusing dogmas. Preparing them gives me a purpose in life.
That's the further musing from Lake WeBeGone, where the strong man has to get back to household affairs after two days of deep blogging. Meanwhile, the distaff members of the family are at the beach. Why am I not?
Graham
Thanks for the article. Very nice.
With respect to your comments on education, I hope you might consider an article proposing some reforms for post-secondary education. Here are a few of my own.
I think university should be limited to three years of study (two years might be better?). When I attended university in Ontario, Canada in the 1970s, many people who attended university got a three year ordinary degree (a four year degree was called an honors degree). Let's face it, if you can't teach students something useful in three years, you should give your head a shake.
Later when I studied for a MBA at Syracuse University, I found they were able to teach people from a variety of backgrounds all they needed to know about business in two years. If they could do that with a business degree, they can surely do that with any other undergraduate discipline. But two-year undergraduate degrees are probably too much to ask for. Three years would be an acceptable compromise.
When I studied to become a Chartered Accountant (CPA in the U.S.A.), their final exams assumed that my undergraduate studies were unlikely to have covered every area of knowledge that a Chartered Accountant would need to practice. They provided a syllabus of required knowledge and you were expected to bone up on areas where you were weak. The final exams covered all areas of practice, and if you wanted to pass, you made sure you knew the syllabus backwards and forwards. Universities should consider similar exit examinations to ensure excellence.
Quite agree that the depopulation crowd might enjoy the results of the pandemic but did not have much to do with the responses. I see it more as officials doing group think because they are simply incompetent. Fauci wanted his pandemic as did Gates, so they got one, allowing themselves wealth gains. Nothing to do with the "altruistic" depopulation. And the WEF globalists relished amassing more central control as a side effect. Again, as a byproduct of greed. They were all convinced they were "saving lives" to justify their greed. Given the current valuations of Pfizer and Moderna, they managed to kill off their best customers - not wise at all if greed was the convective.