Democracy’s Triumph: Idiocracy

Why is it that, thousands of years after the collapse of the two most promising human societies, ancient Greece and Rome, the civilizations that have taken their place are essentially third-world ruins? These are populated with racially-mixed people who have moments of insight, but seem to achieve very little that requires long-term concentration.

The answer is that the people in these civilizations went insane, chasing the illusion of a universal truth, and in the process, because they were seeking equality, eliminated themselves genetically. Universalism creates an illusion that demands sacrifice of all functional things for the new god of equality, and this god is only happy when he leaves behind a mediocre, confused audience.

Universalism centers on the idea that all people are “equal,” or that, with the right external influences, we can make an idiot into a genius and a criminal into a noble. Comical, when you think about it, but it makes the majority of people feel good, and so it wins out wherever there are elections and popularity contests.

As it takes over, however, it suspends the need to demonstrate utility; after all, people are accepted whether they are retarded or genius. This makes it advantageous to be stupid, because one does not need to spend any effort in doing that. The intelligent, who are marginalized by their smaller numbers, are then tasked with babysitting the rest and somehow convincing them to do the right thing.

Obviously, this fails, and over the time the herd runs away with the narrative as usual. They gain the upper hand and demonize any of the ideas that intelligent people tend to have, which means that only stupidity wins. If you wonder why formerly great empires consist mostly of idiotic mixed-race opportunists and a small number of intelligent life drop-outs, this is what you are seeing: entropy consumes a population by steadily eroding the value of intelligence.

For example, look at Italy. In theory it has a high average IQ, around 107. The usual Italian one encounters however is not all that bright. What this means is that all of the intelligence was concentrated in relatively few people, and these are not the people one sees on the street. Maybe they are professionals, or hiding in small towns. But they are avoiding public life, because there, they cannot win.

The entire West is heading to an Italy-like duopoly. There will be a few really smart people, mainly because they have been refined by business, academia and having to live by their wits in a society where most people exist in a dysfunctional neurotic delirium. Everyone else will be dumb as rocks, essentially identical to our hominid ancestors but with cell phones.

We can see the first stages of this process through the drop in average IQ across the world:

“We tested the hypothesis that the Victorians were cleverer than modern populations using high-quality instruments, namely measures of simple visual reaction time in a meta-analytic study,” the researchers wrote in the study, which was published online in the journal Intelligence on Thursday. “Simple reaction time measures correlate substantially with measures of general intelligence and are considered elementary measures of cognition.”

…As UPI notes, previous research studies have found that women of higher intelligence tend to have fewer children on average, meaning that population growth may be driven by those with a lower IQ. And over time, the abundance of less intelligent offspring would affect the overall IQ average.

On average, the general intelligence of those populations measured dropped by 1.23 points per decade.

“These findings strongly indicate that with respect to general intelligence the Victorians were substantially cleverer than modern Western populations,” the study says.

So despite the “Flynn effect,” which was an 0.3 point increase per decade in average IQ that has reversed itself over the last decade, our intelligence is in freefall owing to dysgenic factors, the most interesting of which are education and careers. Smarter people spend more time in education, then invest another decade in their careers, leaving them to have fewer children on average, while those who take society less seriously keep on breeding and lower the average IQ.

This provides a sense of the futility of life in the modern West and why the population is committing suicide through dysgenics. To be intelligent is to be saddled with the obligation to take care of the rest of the herd of idiot monkeys, knowing that they cannot and will not care for themselves, so “someone” had better step up and be the “bigger man” and make everything work. That means that among the intelligent, there is fierce competition for jobs and simultaneously, zero support network because in an egalitarian society, there is no pity for someone from an affluent or high-IQ background. As a result, they work themselves to death, have trouble finding mates, have few children when they do, screw up those children with divorce or by trying to control them like their idiot monkey employees, and then only at age 65 do they have a “waking up” moment where they realize that they wasted their entire life on some stupid job, at which point they become miserable and a high percentage of them commit suicide.

The West is not dying because “the wealthy” are destroying it; it is dying because we are destroying “the wealthy,” which means the upper half of middle class people who are cleverer than most, usually of 125 IQ points or above.

And as a result, we have created an Idiocracy where the thoughtless freeload on the leadership of the thoughtful, and because we are all cordycepted by egalitarian ideals, the latter feel obligated to support the former. As a result, they face two cognitive options: first, admit that this is all a failure and that they want a way out, but cannot see one, or second, accept that this situation is failing and rationalize it as either consistent with history or necessary, at which point they feel better about themselves, which is the equivalent of being sure to run hot bath water before you get in the tub and slit your wrists, as that way you will not feel the spine-chilling cold as your vitality drains away.

Across all of the West, as we have gone into a society which is hostile to intelligent people, average IQ rose but now is dropping as intelligent people check out of society and fail to breed, or take it seriously and fail to breed much or well because they are too busy focused on careers and personal drama.

In Denmark, the most rapid rises in IQ, of about 3 points per decade, occurred from the 1950s to the 1980s. Scores peaked in 1998 and have actually declined by 1.5 points since then. Something similar seems to be happening in a few other developed countries, too, including the UK and Australia.

Equality made all of us nothing without our jobs, stuff and social status, which is the opposite of actual social rank because it is based on who is presumed to be “important” for economic reasons. That makes us manic for work, and oblivious to everything else, which then means those areas — family, soul, intellect, body, sanity — atrophy, resulting in people who are fundamentally unstable and not reproducing, a condition which afflicts the most sensitive (in the sense of sensitive instrument more than precious snowflake) people the worst, effecting killing off the next future generation of smarter people.

Naturally, some are going to have trouble with the concept of intelligence as relates to IQ testing itself. New Scientist is a perfect example after pasting this bumble into an article:

Poor performance by immigrants on IQ tests had nothing to do with ethnicity and everything to do with poverty. Malnutrition, poor health and lack of education all depress IQ. As social conditions have improved, IQ scores have shot up in country after country, in what is called the Flynn effect. In the US, they rose by 3 points per decade between 1932 and 1978.

…In some countries, the long rise in IQ scores has come to a halt, and there are even signs of a decline. The reason, according to a few researchers, is that improving social conditions have obscured an underlying decline in our genetic potential. Perhaps we are evolving to be stupid after all.

Their argument inverts itself. If IQ scores can rise but do not rise to the same level, then IQ scores have everything to do with ethnicity. However, these scores can be damaged by malnutrition and general uncertainty regarding tests. When scores go up, and then that effect stalls, it means that IQ was not increased, but there was a momentary advantage because of nutrition or other conditions, but now, that effect is decreasing which means that the overall pressure is downward. This suggests that world average IQ is falling.

Looking at another source, we can see a nuanced pattern:

IQ is rising in some countries, mainly those where nutrition was most depressed, and so those losses are being recaptured; at the same time, it is falling in the West, where there was not as wide a gap between average nutrition and ideal nutrition. It is also falling worldwide, which shows us the Italian pattern: after civilization falls, the average person becomes dumber, and a few smart people cluster at the other end of the scale, raising the average IQ but powerless (apparently) to fix their fallen civilization.

We fear the coming of idiocracy because it means that we will be powerless in such a way. We are dependent on civilization, but that means that it exerts power over us and determines whether the results of our actions will be appreciated or ignored. If we lose control of it, the rise of the dumb means oppression of the smart.

This is one of the reasons why the IQ debate becomes so threatening to modern people. It shows that our future is doom, and that we did it to ourselves by following illusions instead of looking at the hard reality that intelligence is unequal:

The functional importance of general mental ability in everyday life, however, means that without onerous restrictions on individual liberty, differences in mental competence are likely to result in social inequality. This gulf between equal opportunity and equal outcomes is perhaps what pains Americans most about the subject of intelligence. The public intuitively knows what is at stake: when asked to rank personal qualities in order of desirability, people put intelligence second only to good health.

Let’s translate that:

  1. Unless you live in a Communist state, smart people are going to naturally dominate the others.
  2. This means that even with equality and meritocracy laws, we will not have equality of outcomes.
  3. The intelligent will always be healthier, happier and more successful than others.

As parents tell small children, “Life isn’t fair.”

Personally, I would have preferred to have been born movie star handsome with a John Holmes style organ. It would have been great to have flawless vision and teeth, be good at sports, and maybe even naturally smooth with the ladies, instead of just blurting out Lord of the Rings references.

But, nothing is equal, because equality is entropy. If you created a society where everyone had the same IQ and abilities, no choice would be meaningful, and there would be no successes because nothing would change. Eventually, people would like prisoners in solitary confinement just stop trying and go catatonic.

Denial of reality and the mathematical and logical need for inequality has reduced us to this state. This seems to be how all great civilizations destroy themselves: once they are established, people take them for granted, and then those who are not successful demand that success itself be abolished, so that everyone can feel important.

At that point, the entire gig goes insane. Any amount of focus on “equality” is a denial of reality, and it becomes a powerful mental virus which quickly takes over and crowds out everything else. People cannot stop themselves from pursuing it because it makes them feel good to think that competition is over, everyone is important and therefore, they as individuals do not have to struggle for social rank, a process in which “being wrong” in even a small incident can cost them greatly.

Paradoxically, the solution to this is to lessen social competition by assigning people both vertical and horizontal rank. Vertical rank is caste, generally divided by layers reflecting the intersection of intelligence, moral character and creativity. Horizontal rank is localization, so that someone can be the blacksmith for his small town and be proud of that association.

Since we are natural lottery players, the human simians opted for the chance that an individual could rise above his station in the natural order and hierarchy of humans, and in so doing, have made all of our society into a struggle and obligation to demonstrate that rising above. This does not work for most people because, even if they rise in rank, their abilities remain unchanged, and so they make a mess of whatever is assigned to them, and their self-esteem can only survive by going into denial.

Tags: , ,


Recommended Reading