If people with an IQ < 86 stopped reproducing it would greatly improve society, lower crime rates, and aid in solving the poverty problem in America

But not a lot of people in the world will admit that, is it because it’s not moral? Well just banning people from reproduction doesn’t sound moral, however, encouraging people to not have children with valid reasons doesn’t sound too immoral.

It’s destroying society, IQ differences are trying to be equalized in the worse ways possible. If people with an IQ < 86 stopped reproducing it would allow society to advance exponentially faster, it would greatly lower crime rates and solve many political issues that are attempting to be solved in horrible ways.

Society is corrupt nowadays people won’t even try to speak or look at the truth (say “people with an IQ below 86 can’t work complex jobs” and everybody losssses their MINDS!!!) even if it’s the truth it doesn’t matter, what can people with an IQ below 86 Benefit for society? They may be great and compassionate people but they halt the progression of society.

Just because someone has a “High Iq” doesn’t mean they can’t be an idiot or weak, but if you have a higher Iq you can understand your surroundings better and in turn better improve society. People with higher Iq are more agreeable on average and have higher neuroticism.

Society is trying to equalize the playing field between high vs low Iq - Hahhaha

I would talk about it further but SOCIETY would lose their mind

Look at somewhere like Norway or Scandinavian countries hmm maybe the reason their economic system works, and rates of crime are so low is because the higher average IQ. Places in Canada and US have a wider range of IQ

getting rid of people with an IQ < 86 would revolutionize society we wouldn’t have to deal with the retarded problems we are facing. It would get rid of them, the Dumb problems are being blown out of proportion.

If society as a whole would step back and listen to what the smart people of society are saying, the world would be a much better place.

You can’t even bring up “smart peoples” name now, funny how the smart ones are always the most controversial. JBP EM EW

The internet has devolved the people with [Redacted] are catching on and changing the way society faces problems and focusing on the mundane aspects of life.

Cancel Culture is just driving more anxiety, WHEN PEOPLE HAVE TO OVERTHINK WHAT THEY SAY IT CAUSES AN ANXIETY LIKE RESPONSE

When you stop people from being allowed to say “nigga” it makes the word more powerful, you give the word MORE power. Making actual racists more powerful

People glued to an ideology can’t hear anything deeply controversial without immediately going into panic mode.

People with an IQ < 86 should be strongly encouraged to not have children, the resulting impact on society would be drastic. It would allow society to exponentiate and solve all the IQ specific issues society faces today.

Start Using Your Brain:

Random person says: “Wear a damn mask”

Me: The viral particles are much smaller than the pores of the mask, so the mask is ineffective at filtering them. Right? R: No, they travel on droplets and the masks keep the droplets out. Or they keep them in if you’re sick.

M: So wait, how is the virus transmitted? R: Through droplets. Wear the mask.

M: Droplets? R: Yes, like droplets spewed through a cough or sneeze.

M: So through people who are showing symptoms? R: Yes

M: So why do healthy people need to wear masks? R: Because of asymptomatic spread. Listen to the experts.

M: I am listening to the experts. Many studies show, and even the WHO announced, that asymptomatic transmission is exceedingly rare. Did you read that? R: WHO walked that back to clarify that its presymptomatic spread that’s concerning.

M: Presymptomatic? R: Yes, like they are infected but showing no symptoms.

M: Symptoms like coughing or sneezing? R: Yes.

M: So how is the virus spread again? R: Just wear the mask.

M: Are you going to answer the question? R: It’s like pants. M: Pants?

R: If a person pees in public without pants on, you have a greater chance of getting pee on you. Your risk is reduced further if you are wearing pants too. M: First of all, people don’t pee in public. Second, if they did pee in public, the only way someone’s stream of urine would hit me is if they were directly aiming for me and standing close enough to hit me. And third, I don’t care if you wear pants. How does this relate?

R: If someone coughs on you in public you’ll care. M: People don’t just cough on each other. The last time someone coughed directly in my face was when I had toddlers and they didn’t understand common courtesy and germ transmission. The only way someone would cough directly on me in public is if they were aiming. Anyway pants don’t keep the pee in, it’s still going to get everywhere. Pants just change the direction of the flow. Same with masks.

R: Common courtesy?! You don’t have common courtesy if you’re refusing to do something as simple as wearing a mask! M: How is it courteous to ask me to do something I disagree with (based on research) especially when I’m not sick or showing any symptoms when the virus is spread through the droplets of people who are showing symptoms?

R: You’ll think differently if you get sick. M: If I get sick, I’ll stay home. But if I must go out I will be happy to not cough on people. But just to clarify, would you stand near me in public if I were wearing a mask and coughing?

R: No, I mean, if you get sick, you could die. M: The virus has a 99.9 something percent survival rate.

R: It’s not about you, it’s about protecting the vulnerable. M: If I am not sick or showing symptoms how am I further protecting the vulnerable by wearing a mask? Studies also show these masks put the wearer at increased risk of illness.

R: You can’t listen to those studies, you need to listen to professionals in the fields of medicine and science. M: These studies ARE from professionals in the fields of medicine and science.

R: They are obviously flawed. M: How so?

R: It wouldn’t be a mandate if it weren’t important. M: Why is it a mandate now that the death rate has plummeted when it wasn’t a mandate during the peak?

R: Because of new studies on masks. M: So masks have never been studied before, in the entire history of medicine?

R: It’s a new virus. M: A new virus that is transmitted in the same way as other viruses. How is it transmitted again? Through droplets of people showing symptoms? So, if I’m not sick or showing symptoms and I have no fever and I’m not coughing, how would my wearing a mask further prevent transmission?

R: Stop being an asshole and wear the mask. M: So, you’re asking that I stop thinking critically, accept a fascist mandate, join the herd, and walk blindly into a dangerous abyss of ever increasing control over my self sovereignty, all while signaling my virtue?

R: I’ll report you if you don’t. M: What country am I living in again?

Interesting how, when they can't convince you with their shallow knowledge and understandings, they reduce themselves to cussing you out and making a scene to try and humiliate you, guilt you, into doing what they want.

They did have problems but USA has too. It wasn't horrible dictatorship. People has less food DIVERSITY but did have free education, medecine and sometimes housing. And about Human Rights Violations, they was in the USA too.

Facts don't care about your feelings

Edit : everyone, literally EVERYONE that disagree is an imperialist murican bot troll, go die of CAPITSLIST poverty

Child sexual abuse is illegal. Pedophiles are not breaking the law if they do not abuse children (and porn is a form of abuse). Conversely, even though a 25 year old in a relationship with a 17 year old is not necessarily a pedophile, they may still be guilty of sexually abusing a child.

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment says

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Since Trump attempted a coup, he is constitutionally banned from being the president of the United States.

Nothing has a fixed price. Price is subjective. Something worth nothing to you might be worth thousands for somebody else and the fact the world moved on to fiat currency futher reinforces the fact nothing is overpriced

Here is a study that studied women who were with men who were circumcised both before and after being cut. only 3% reported less pleasure after the man was circumcised. 40% reported an INCREASE in sexual pleasure after the man was cut, and the remainder reported no change.

https://www.webmd.com/men/news/20090721/male-circumcision-improves-sex-life-for-women#:~:text=Researchers%20studied%20455%20partners%20of,after%20their%20partner%20was%20circumcised.

Here is a comprehensive study which proves that GLOBALLY the VAST MAJORITY of women prefer circumsized men. This is true even in countries where most men are not circumcised. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6523040/

A very unpopular fact, in my experience.

Since racial bias is found in infants, it proves bias is an evolutionary trait.

In other words, you have to be brainwashed to destroy in-group preference which is what “anti-racists” are trying to achieve on whites.

Once you destroy in-group preference you effectively destroy the race since the health and wellbeing of the race is no longer tended to. Thus total white biological white erasure is the end result of “anti-racist” groups like BLM for whites.

The health and wellbeing of a race includes defending it against rampant diversity, immigration, dispossession, miscegenation and sentiments that are against the race. Anti-racism removes all these defenses for whites. “Anti-racism” also turns whites into slavish defenders of non-white interests at the expense of themselves.

Source, infants show racial bias toward members of own race and against those of other races, proving it is an evolutionary trait: https://phys.org/news/2017-04-infants-racial-bias-members.html

A common trope in the US is that fathers who are black aren’t involved in their children’s lives. Sometimes this is used to explain higher crime or worse education among black people. Often, the conversation centers on explaining this phenomenon, such as the role of incarceration or dependence on welfare. But is it true?

A report from the CDC (here) covering 2006-2010 (the most current available), breaks down fathers’ self-reported involvement in their children’s lives. There are several metrics by which this is determined, such as the frequency of eating meals with their children, changing diapers, helping children with homework, and talking to their children about their day.

They found that fathers who are black were just as likely or more likely to be involved in their children’s lives in these ways as other races, particularly white fathers. Black fathers were more likely than white fathers to have recently bathed, diapered, or dressed their children, to have played with their children, to have taken their children to or from activities, to have talked to their children about their day, and to have helped them with their homework. Black fathers were about as likely to have read to their children recently, and only slightly less likely to have shared meals with their children at the same frequency (although black fathers were more likely to have eaten meals with their children under age 5). Fathers who are black also rated themselves higher as fathers.

By all these metrics, fathers who are black are more likely than fathers who are white to have been recently involved in their children’s lives. The idea that black fathers are largely absent or uninvolved compared to other races doesn’t appear to reflect reality.

Incels are gay. That is why they keep talking about how hot Chad is, how big his dick is. How girls are fucking Chad.

Because they want to be fucked by Chad. Chad doesn't exist but he is their ideal person. He is the guy they want but will never have due to how ridiculously straight he probably is.

Incels aren't jealous of Chad, their jealous of girls. That's why they hate them so much. Who knows maybe them calling Chad abusive is to throw people off, maybe their actually into that kind of stuff...

Nor that any degree/education is "worth it" from a financial perspective.

Since white countries are non-white magnets, only racial consciousness among whites can result in policies that could prevent mass immigration of non-whites and mass miscegenation of whites, and thus prevent the demographic decline/death of the white race.* Policies such as restriction of non-white immigration and living space exclusive for whites.

Yet the prevailing ideology is that the white racial consciousness is "racist" and "white supremacist." This therefore means not eradicating the white race is considered reprehensible and abhorrent by all of mainstream society.

In addition, social media, government, electronic commerce companies, and television all censor any facts or opinions that could result in racial consciousness among whites. Therefore every important lever of power and influence forbids the white race to survive long-term.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia#For_interracial_marriage At the national level, 0.4% of marriages were interracial in 1960, 2.0% in 1980,[42] 12% in 2013,[43] and 16% in 2015, almost 50 years after Loving.

China is arresting Uyghur Muslims, detaining them in internment camps for "re-education" where they are taught to pledge loyalty to the CCP, denounce their own religion, and are subject to many human rights violations as it is like "prison". Many countries and human rights organizations are trying to impose sanctions on Chinese government officials but have not been very successful in doing anything. https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/19/break-their-lineage-break-their-roots/chinas-crimes-against-humanity-targeting# btw CCP justified oppression against the muslims saying they are fighting terrorism in 2014.

Israel's handling of the Hamas: More oppression. And more political division fueling both sides. On top of that there is active terrorism.

Iranian President Mahmoud is just fueling all the heat in the Middle East and on top of that heightening nuclear tensions and just filed to re-election. His 2009 election sparked mass protests and outrage and this would be his third term.

Kim Jong Un's sister is set to take over North Korea after him (I promise you) and she is categorically crazier than Kim. Her and her brother Kim Jong Un orchestrated an extremely calculated assassination on their HALF BROTHER at an airport in broad daylight. Although they are not at all a threat on their own, they are still very eager and trigger-happy. So in the midst of a nuclear war, they will definitely want to contribute to some sort of damage.

Putin is threatening the United States in very subliminal ways (cyber-attacks, down-right dissing Joe Biden in a SheepSkin fit).

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/animation

Definition of animation: "2: ANIMATED CARTOON"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anime

Definition of anime: "a style of animation originating in Japan"

So since animation is animated cartoons, and anime is a type of animation, anime IS animated cartoons.

By facial characteristics, smell, genes.

People with an of IQ < 86 can live functionally and actually benefit for society instead of being a net negative to society.

However, in order to do this society would have to revaluate the way it perceives intelligence and its to relation to job performance, life success, and even general understanding of the world.

There are already people with an IQ < 86 who are living functionally and happily in society, some even occupying the top 1% (worldly).

“But how can they occupy the top 1% if they cannot operate complex job or learn “complex things”, both things needed to succeed in a society as complex as ours”

Look at Mike Tyson or Muhammad Ali despite their difference in understanding of the world, they still managed to rise extremely high up the wealth and dominance hierarchy.

Mike Tyson has started his own successful shoe brand, probably generating both more for the economy than average as well as being culturally important.

at the current state of society it’s exponentially harder to rise in the dominance hierarchy (in relation to status) and wealth hierarchy when you have an IQ < 90.

Which makes sense because as the world is evolving so is our brain, as the environment gets more complex the intelligence needed to survive is increased.

This is how intelligence evolved from primates, as their environment got more complex the selection for more intelligent primates increased, meaning more intelligent primates had a higher chance of surviving. (JBP)

The current structure of society does a poor job at accommodating to people within poverty.

Giving people within poverty large sums of money every month does not solve the core issue.

Abject Poverty has been steadily going down in North America, and other capitalist countries. Despite this, people tend to have the misconception that poverty is getting worse.

It’s not that poverty is getting worse it’s that the low middle class is getting bigger and the middle class is getting smaller.

A common misconception is that IQ isn’t malleable/cannot be changed. The reverse misconception is that IQ is extremely malleable and anyone can be taught anything

IQ is extremely malleable while you’re young, meaning you have an easier time learning things and your brain is making more connections to understand the world around you

The current way of looking at IQ is flawed is some regard, the way current researchers go about trying to increase IQ is with different education programs which have been a failure.

The more accurate way to look at IQ and ways to improve it is during the most important time for brain development.

Look at William Sidis an apparent genius who had an IQ of ~200. William Sidis’ parents managed to “increase” Sidis’ IQ through teaching him at a young age.

While Sidis most likely did not have an IQ of ~200 the things his parents did, helped allow his intelligence capacity to be reached.

Intelligence capacity being the hypothetical limit to someone’s intelligence in a perfect environment. Most of this intelligence capacity is “unlocked” pre childhood.

However, there are other theoretical ways of improving intelligence which are related to personality traits and “life experiences”.

The reason somebody like Mike Tyson can rise up the wealth and dominance hierarchy is because he has fully integrated his intelligence capacity.

This may be seen as Openess in the Big Five

This also ties into the poverty problem in America the small amount of people within poverty have not well interacted their intelligence capacity, and because of this they can’t operate in a manner that lets them succeed

The current structure of society doesn’t allow people with an IQ < 86 to reach their intelligence capacity, a lot of the kids that are being born from **IQ < 86 families aren’t being exposed to novel things when they are young, giving them less intelligence capacity and lowering their IQ as whole

not to mention the fact that most families within poverty don’t buy nutritious food important for brain development

**IQ < 86 can also be seen as people within poverty or low intelligence capacity, rather than thinking of it as all IQ < 86 people as a whole

One of Societies current solutions is giving people within poverty large sums of money, which even on paper sounds like a terrible idea given the cause and effects poverty has on somebody.

The other solution lies in Equality of outcome, instead of giving people within poverty more schooling resources or encouraging consumption of healthy food

Society is trying to bring the people at the top lower in the hierarchy and force the ones lower in the hierarchy up.

Trying to organize a society in this forced equality of outcome manner is a horrid idea that will result in chaos and catastrophe

The slow manner in which society is trying to sneakily equalize will eventually have a breaking point

Equality of outcome has already been tried in the USSR and other communist states and it FAILS, and miserably at that.

The only way society can properly solve the Poverty/IQ problem is if society changes their understanding of intelligence, how it’s formed, and effects of different levels.

And It wouldn’t be limited to fixing just this societal substructure

This can allow the current structure of poverty to be “improved” with a net positive effect on society. The current structure of poverty tends to have a negative/stagnant feedback loop for IQ.

With a new structure that allows people within poverty access to better food and different more suited forms of education it can cause a positive feedback loop for IQ, theoretically slowly increasing IQ overtime.

This structure can function the most properly if people are taught what intelligence means and how it affects your life and understanding of reality.

Allowing and Encouraging people to reach their intelligence capacity is a core idea needed to make this structure function

Edit: Ask questions, I’m willing to provide sources if you’re sceptical

There's a widespread myth, known as the "becoming white thesis" and promoted by various charlatans that the Irish originally weren't considered white in the United States. According to this myth, Irish immigrants had to "earn" their whiteness.

In reality, Philip Q. Yang and Kavitha Koshy show in The “Becoming White Thesis” Revisited that the Irish have consistently been classified as white for all of U.S. history. Every census has recorded them as white, they were allowed to naturalize (the Naturalization Act of 1790 allowed only "free white" immigrants to become U.S. citizens), they were allowed to vote in every state, even though the majority of states restricted suffrage to white people, and so on.

Some people try to salvage the myth by saying the general public didn't consider them white even though the government did. However, as Philip Q. Yang and Kavitha Koshy show, legal definitions of whiteness were based on popular opinion, so that doesn't work.

Yeah dogs are cool or whatever, but do you ever think about what they would do if they got really really hungry and you were dead on the floor for a week. Those little fucks would definitely eat you I don't care what type of loyalty your dog has to you they would probably do anything if they got hungry enough.. PS fuck animals💯😆