4 Reasons The New World Order is Destroying Western Civilization
Globalist can't do World War 3 so they have another plan:
1. The Welfare State
Government dependency programs reduces the biological inventive for a father and lower overall population happiness.
2. Decrease High IQ Birth Rates
Increase in the welfare state makes it too expensive for the most competent genes to reproduce.
3. Import Low IQ
With the vulnerability of the family, Globalist import lower IQ (mostly males & "r" selected behavior) in exchange for votes. Because the welfare state has destroyed birth rates of the native high IQ population by force, lower IQ with r selected reproductive strategy will replace the high IQ groups overtime.
4. Brave New World
End Game: Lower IQ demographics are incapable of democracy and liberal republics.
Nice work, i hope you grow fast on steemit :)
Thank you xoxo
You are more than welcome
Hello! I just upvoted you! I help new Steemit members! Upvote this comment and follow me! i will upvote your future posts! To any other visitor, upvote this post also to receive free UpVotes from me! Happy SteemIt!
Given that the vast majority of globalists, libertarians and neo-liberals advocate for, and actively engage in, the destruction of welfare-state economies, your entire hypothesis falls down at the first stage, meaning your claims of state sponsored eugenics are baseless. Some evidence supporting the first point would be a good place to start a discussion. For example, show us some states where this is happening right now. I can't think of any in the developed world. Throughout the developed world, which is the home of most of the people you speak of, governments are routinely ignoring the best interests of their populations, and rational economics, and dismantling the state support that took so many years to establish. And they're doing it in the name of free movement of capital and globalisation...
Regarding my first point; Men and women have evolutionary roles. Men acquire resources and women nurture and distribute those resources. If the state can take and distribute resources then fathers become less relevant and men become more feminized. Do you have kids?
Yes. And as a single parent with equally shared custody of both kids, I find your question vaguely insulting and misogynistic. In certain societies, yes, men acquire resources and women do not, but in most pre-religious societies of the past (and the post-religious present), both men and women acquired resources, though in different ways suited to the different physique of the sexes. This allowed early humans to maximise resource gathering, by harnessing the strengths of all humans and not merely relying on the larger, more aggressive males alone. This in itself, one could argue, is the historical nature of your alleged emasculation of men, and it long pre-dates the very concept of the nation state. I points rather to the massive evolutionary advantage of co-operation within the species. And hence the evolutionary advantage of co-operation on a national and supra-national scale now.
Men and women have evolutionary roles, this is true no matter what differences you are confirming with my argument. You sure as hell know that I'm not saying 100% of evolutionary roles are essential and that's even more so with the welfare state. This has nothing to do with religion, men and women have evolutionary roles because they're scientifically better at certain things so you can cry me a river with your feelings. Anyways, as a father I know parents can be defensive with their kids because they want the best for them, but that's not an argument to cut boy dicks or hit children for discipline. That leads to the next topic, if someone suggested that a mother and father being together to raise their children is better then you'd be as defense as the parent's who spank their kids. Obviously it's not everyone, but parents who become separated generally wished things were different or worked out.
Because you're calling me misogynist... Blacks can't have certain blood thinners due to genes (science) : Women can't lift as much as men due to their bone structure and lack of building muscle mass. If you think I'm saying 100% feel free to over react.
OK, I'll try again. You're right, in that men and women have evolved differently for different roles, if we take averages of weight, height, strength etc. As a matter of interest, I'm male but smaller than the average female in my part of the world. I'm still stronger, faster etc though, so I don't disprove your argument. The problem with your argument is that you then make several invalid leaps with no logical basis. Women have, throughout history, gathered as many resources as men. Different resources, yes, but still just as vital. Women also have brains that seem to be better adapted for long-term planning than men, whereas us men are better at instant decision-making. These are complimentary to one another, one is not superior to the other. This is one of the underlying factors in the success of our species. Add this to the obvious evolutionary advantages of complex communication and co-operation and it becomes fairly clear why humans dominate the globe. We work together, to achieve collective objectives, like a pride of lions or a troop of monkeys. Lone monkeys don't do as well as those in a troop. Nor do lone humans. To give a modern example - look at a football team. The goalkeeper is tall, it is more-or-less essential to be tall in that position. Then the central defenders, also usually tall, but with some exceptions (Gary Medel, for example). But as you get closer to the attacking part of the team, height becomes less important, and speed and agility are as valuable, if not more so, than height and strength. The most successful teams have a mix of physical types, as this strengthens the collective. Same applies, broadly speaking, to all of human society, including the nation state. We work better when we work together than when we compete in a simplistic manner. And that competition is not natural to our species, in any case, as I hope I have already demonstrated.
On your other prejudices - I referred to "pre-religious society" in order to make it clear I was referring to humans prior to the invention of religion as a means of social control. So religion is not the driver of human behaviour, rather a means to control it.
On single parents - prior to the development of state healthcare, for example, it was common for one parent or the other to die during the period of child-rearing. The collective, the tribe, especially the older members of it, would then support the growing orphan. In fact, the elders would often undertake childcare for perfectly normal families, so that the younger parents could go and gather food. Again, early collective behaviour. In Celtic society, couples married for one year, and then had to either marry again, or marry someone else, or go unmarried for a year. This event occurred every Beltane (roughly when Easter now occurs). So your prejudice against single parenting is also unfounded. Modern studies that show improved outcomes for the children of married parents routinely ignore subtleties such as outcomes for the children of happily separated and still co-operating parents. When such outcomes have been studied, they have been found to be far closer to the married norm, and better than the outcomes for the children of unhappily-married, "staying together for the kids" couples.
Hope I haven't upset you further with my reply. I don't cry a river of feelings, I look for evidence. I hope you can follow the thread of evidential argument I have provided.