I may be wrong but as far as I know the IQ rates increased dramatically do to education but now have been in decline.
Immigration can be a big factor, for example in Somalia the average IQ is 68. Even with hard core education that will not improve over 80, and 80 is a horrible IQ average to have.
I googled and did not double-checked this sources so take them with a grain of salt.
In the new study, the researchers observed IQ drops occurring within actual families, between brothers and sons – meaning the effect likely isn't due to shifting demographic factors as some have suggested, such as the dysgenic accumulation of disadvantageous genes across areas of society.
See, this quote makes me think that that source isn't super valid. We both agree that immigration from less developed countries will have an effect. My argument is just that western societies tend to promote increasing IQs even among low IQ immigrant groups, and I haven't seen much that would challenge that.
For some reason, this source is arguing that the average IQ drop isn't happening as a result of mass migration. Bullshit, obviously. That's like saying mass migration isn't effecting housing prices.
If the Flynn Effect is reversing, I would suspect it's not due to anything genetic, but due to the exposure of a population to authoritarianism, which basically conditions them not to think. It incentivizes obedience regardless of thought, and actively disencentivizes questioning and skepticism. It makes entire societies highly cynical and suspicious. I wonder if those teenagers had their early childhood development under the UK's "Winter of Discontent" or Sweeden's experiment with Socialism.
It's the same reason we think there was a 20% drop in IQ among young children due to mask wearing and lockdowns.
I'm not entirely convinced that we're seeing an overall average loss in IQ in the west, as these two studies are for two specific groups, in two specific places, at two specific times.
We are on the same page of sorts, there are more then one factor but immigration does account for a lot of it in my opinion.
The reason being the study of the 4 iq drop in France is before pandemic. And immigration was accelerated. While education clearly improves IQ I doubt it can increase very low IQs, especially when we are talking about first generation immigrants.
If immigration would stagnate then we would see an IQ increase do to education, but most likely it would still be lower then before immigration. We must also take in to account that mass immigration creates cultural groups inside a country that may not value education, this would lead to little to no IQ increase in those groups.
This not takin in to account other causes that would also lower the IQ. I have my own concerns with over-protecting children from negative emotions and allowing them to stay online for ridiculous amount of hours.
An authoritarian government that was highly meritocratic wouldn't be suffering from the IQ drop problem.
I agree, but you've missed the point, and in fairness, I didn't flesh it out fully like I have in other previous posts.
There is no authoritarian government that is highly meritocratic.
The very nature of an authoritarian system is to prevent meritocracy from supplanting the authority when the authority fails to be meritocratic. Meritocracy is wildly unstable at the highest echelons. Pick any sport for an example. It is exceedingly rare for someone who is so meritorious to win repeatedly and consistency at the highest possible position in any sport. They do, eventually, lose. Sometimes due to arrogance and overconfidence, sometimes because they pushed themselves to far to get where they are and can't endure, sometimes they lose down to sheer luck, but many times they lose because they were so successful at changing the game itself, that someone replicated their winning strategy and genuinely out-competed them.
Authoritarianism as a philosophy requires that you not challenge an authority that is dictating things in society, as it is asserted that they know best. A meritocratic philosophy assumes that the people at the top don't know best until they can prove it through competitive and constant displays of merit.
As such, the protectionism that Authoritarianism creates in society prevents authority from being challenged due to meritocratic challenges, and will even go so far as to disincentivize merit in order to protect the authority that is currently in place. Sometimes, this is simply referred to as "corruption", but typically, this is how an authoritarian system functions. Corruption and cronyism are an inherent aspect to Authoritarianism.
Leftism is a "Philosophy of War", (another thing I'm not going to expound too much on here) and as such, is inherently authoritarian when it seizes and maintains power. The 'corruption and cronyism' that come with it are not incidental, but are the primary method of maintaining that authority, and control over those institutions.
A non-Leftist Authoritarianism, let's say: a monarchy; is not exempt from this. In fact, it is highly likely that an absolute monarch will impose many highly authoritarian structures that disincentivize merit in order to protect themselves, so that the absolute power of their authority can't be challenged.
This type of authority is as you say literally training useless people.
They aren't totally useless, they are foot-soldiers to ensure the power of the authority. Their purpose is not towards generalized merit, but only into their service of the authority, regardless of whether the authority is right or wrong.
This is actually how Clown World develops. Everyone lies and participates in lies that maintain the power of the established order, no matter how far off from reality the established order is. That isn't relegated to Leftism alone, but all authoritarian systems that are in need of being torn down.
The more socialist policies that western countries implement the less people in western countries are forced to try to get ahead. This lack of trying will reduce IQs.
I 100% agree with this, and is what I would have said had I elaborated further about Leftism. Dependency systems propagate lower IQ. Socialism has additional effects like: hyper-sensitivity, magical thinking, poor nutrition, increased violence, and low-trust-societies that also promote low IQ's. Socialism is authoritarian, but it's also a slightly worse form of Authoritarianism.
Genetics are still a factor though but it's not the only factor. Why are many western countries becoming more like the above? Immigrants are a big reason for this.
Immigrants are only one tool in the kit of a Leftist. Remember that many Communist countries had strict bans on immigration or emigration. It was Socialism that founded the now discredited concept of "Autarkey" (a permanently and perfectly economically self-sufficient state that never requires outside trade).
Leftism itself is the actual core threat. I'd go a bit further and say Fabian Socialists specifically.
but the 100 iq is always adjusted to the average of the population, you notice iq dropping when there's a large influx of population, in couple years the population stabilizes and the lowered average iq becomes the new 100, unless they also keep track of the iq inflation over the years, you won't know if the population actually got smarter or just the new average dropped so low that people previously considered as midbrains are now considered as above average
It is posited that the trend may have a partially biological cause, stemming from dysgenic fertility and, to a lesser extent, replacement migration.
Replacement migration, they admitted it. Part of the population they're IQ testing are not French - they're africans living in France and they know it.
Genetics matter in all living things, humans are not an exception.
Germany split in two, and the East adopted communism, while the West had to mass import immigrants for labor. As bad as low-skill mass migration was, East Germans had a 1 SD deviance in IQ from West Germans, likely due to the effects of malnutrition and authoritarianism. As far as I can tell (30 years after German re-unification) that has recovered. Even with the current spate of mass migration.
I don't get how you guys don't see that the national average IQ is not, in and of itself, purely genetic. But is a statistical abstraction of something that is a measurement of other genetic factors. The fact that France's IQ has pushed lower is probably due to the fact that migrants are younger. Older populations have higher IQ, because your IQ plataeu's after it gets to it's peak, until you start facing slow cognitive decline after 40.
By aging alone, you would see an increase in France's average IQ.
The idea that 4 points can't be recovered in over 2,000 years is so ridiculous it defies any logical assessment.
I was actually not talking about IQ at all, but the genome as whole.
All the autism, all the allergies, all the other problems of the first world that only get worse with each generation. Some of it's going to be diet and physical inactivity. Some of it's going to be DNA.
I think that's still way over the top. I've got bad allergies too, but I have stuff for that, and I'm still working outside today. As for Autism, consider that they are still misdiagnosing boys literally being boys, as Autism.
I think there is an aspect of this "dysgenic fertility" thing that may stick for some time. Women in first-world countries (I will include immigrants here) have been given greater incentives to delay motherhood over time. If more women have kids later in life (say, after 35), you'll see more kids with developmental problems, which may impact IQ in the population.
What may take "millenia" is a global cultural shift to foster (intellectually) healthier offspring.
I have a larger argument about female sex selection being the primary driver of overall IQ based on what the females perceive as a specific need in society.
I honestly doubt that due to sex selection pressures, it could be reversed in one or two generations.
IQ is a threshold. If your population has an average IQ under “x”, then your nation is doomed to third world failure. If you import people from such nations, you are also importing their IQ. And if this causes your own average to fall below “x”, then your nation will fall.
That's not even sort of true. IQ is not a threshold. IQ is just an assessment of the ability for someone to understand complicated abstractions. Most human civilizations would never have even been close to the level of IQ the average American has today. Most Americans in previous centuries had lower IQ's than they do today. This would be more obvious if IQ wasn't constantly being inflated so that higher level abstract thought kept being given a lower scores so that the averages of the populations stayed relatively the same through time.
Adopting shit cultures that don't promotote literacy, saving, communal bonds, building families, and entrepreneurship will cause your society to fail regardless of your IQ, and overall the average IQ of an population will suffer as an effect of that.
Look at the US military. They have jobs for people across the entire IQ spectrum… except for sub 83 IQ retards. The US military discovered that there is no place for such people in the service because they literally cannot perform any task within the hierarchy without sabotaging its effectiveness.
Look at the nations of the world. Do you see any prosperous and functional nations with average IQs below that threshold? Black countries have lower average IQs than Hispanic countries, hispanic countries have lower average IQ than whites countries, white countries have lower average IQ than Asian countries, but they are all capable of producing functional nations - unless the population has an average IQ below a certain threshold.
IQ is not only a threshold, but its importance to society is primarily as a lower boundary to indicate who can function within the system versus who must be tabulated purely as a liability. And when the percentage of the population that qualifies as a liability exceeds a certain number, society is threatened.
Look at the US military. They have jobs for people across the entire IQ spectrum… except for sub 83 IQ retards. The US military discovered that there is no place for such people in the service because they literally cannot perform any task within the hierarchy without sabotaging its effectiveness.
Oh, buddy, let me tell you something about the military.
They don't fucking test people's IQ. If they did, they'd lose too many people. They use the ASVAB. Infantrymen get the lowest allowable scores. When I was in, it was a score of 32. That means your score was above the 32 percentile of all people tested. During The Surge for getting people into Iraq and Afghanistan while the war was generally unpopular, that bitch dropped down to 28.
If you get a 28 on the ASVAB, it means you can't even fucking do fractions. Literally: 1/2 + 1/3 = ??? is going to put you in that range.
Just trust me on this, that dude with the 83 IQ is probably working in the Motor T lot or is a fucking SAW gunner.
Do you see any prosperous and functional nations with average IQs below that threshold?
Pretty much all of them prior to the modern era. Before the modern era, the majority of people were barely even literate.
IQ was basically invented to measure what could be a level of intelligence in a developed western country that could guarantee prosperity. Hence the focus on abstraction. It was invented by the progressive intelligentsia of the early 20th century, and then was slowly reformed into something with actual scientific backing. You don't actually need high levels of abstraction to form a healthy family/community unit that feeds itself and passes traditions down as imparted knowledge. If you think that the people who named their city "Ur" had an IQ anywhere near 100, you're crazy. The massive capitalization of knowledge into institutions is what allows low IQ people to prosper without having to solve extremely elaborate problems. This is the value of working institutions and good traditions.
The danger is that if those institutions or traditions are corrupted, people with lower IQ's will suffer and won't have any way of fighting out of it. They'll just continue operating knowing that something is wrong, but won't know how to solve it themselves. This is, frankly, where we are getting the midwit and "low IQ & high IQ conservatives" phenomenons from. The high IQ's are recognizing the institutions are broken because they are operating illogically, the midwits are refusing to recognize the institutions are broken because it secured them social status, and the low IQ's are recognizing the institutions are broken because "things don't seem right".
To answer your question: Almost all of Classical Greece, Egypt, Rome, China, and Sumer. Also including basically every country in the European Middle Ages. All of them were able to function, mostly because their institutions helped to maintain their vast population of what we would consider low IQ retards. When those institutions failed, the whole civilization collapsed. We happen to be benefiting from a moment in human history where IQ's are so high that even though the institutions are on fire, the civilization hasn't utterly imploded.
I was not referring to either the “frontline bodies needed” wartime military of, say, the Vietnam era, nor was I talking about the “diversity, inclusion, equity” leftist military of the modern era. The degree to which the US military has respected and implemented its own IQ findings is a function of both politics and the availability of personnel. If 83 IQ retards are all you’ve got, so be it. If you have to install those retards in leadership positions in order to meet DIE quotas imposed by Marxists, so be it.
The chickens are coming home to roost for the French oligarchs who opened the borders for cheap labor. Now their Estates are overflowing with North African assholes who are bent on taking over. Their spokesentities explicitly say they are coming from Africa to colonize Europe, and every last leftist on the continent is fine with it, even encourages it because anything native to Europe is evil in their benighted view.
Fucking hell, I hope LePen gets some power there or they are more fucked than they already are. Get ready for more church/cathedral arson, more rapes, more riots.
As far as degrading the French IQ aggregate, sure, but that's the least of their problems.
It can all be explained by pointing to the white leftists’ outgroup bias. This is a dysgenic behavior that leads to the eradication of your tribe. At least half of whites still have a healthy, normal, universal in-group bias, but our interests are reliably thwarted by the traitors among us as well as the competing racial cohorts who gladly join in. And all of it is made worse by the “whites” who champion our tribal extinction without even being members of the white tribe.
Also, dysgenic behavior on the level of leftism must, necessarily, be learned. A tribe doesn’t spontaneously decide to self-delete for no reason. So who taught us this? Who enforce it?
The study is old so the IQ decline is probably higher now
Honestly, I doubt it. normally IQ rates go up in the west in general, even among immigrant groups.
I may be wrong but as far as I know the IQ rates increased dramatically do to education but now have been in decline.
Immigration can be a big factor, for example in Somalia the average IQ is 68. Even with hard core education that will not improve over 80, and 80 is a horrible IQ average to have.
I googled and did not double-checked this sources so take them with a grain of salt.
Decreasing IQ rates in developed countries: https://archive.ph/G70Dl
IQ of somalia that has a map of IQ distribution: https://brainstats.com/en/average-iq/somalia
See, this quote makes me think that that source isn't super valid. We both agree that immigration from less developed countries will have an effect. My argument is just that western societies tend to promote increasing IQs even among low IQ immigrant groups, and I haven't seen much that would challenge that.
For some reason, this source is arguing that the average IQ drop isn't happening as a result of mass migration. Bullshit, obviously. That's like saying mass migration isn't effecting housing prices.
If the Flynn Effect is reversing, I would suspect it's not due to anything genetic, but due to the exposure of a population to authoritarianism, which basically conditions them not to think. It incentivizes obedience regardless of thought, and actively disencentivizes questioning and skepticism. It makes entire societies highly cynical and suspicious. I wonder if those teenagers had their early childhood development under the UK's "Winter of Discontent" or Sweeden's experiment with Socialism.
It's the same reason we think there was a 20% drop in IQ among young children due to mask wearing and lockdowns.
I'm not entirely convinced that we're seeing an overall average loss in IQ in the west, as these two studies are for two specific groups, in two specific places, at two specific times.
We are on the same page of sorts, there are more then one factor but immigration does account for a lot of it in my opinion. The reason being the study of the 4 iq drop in France is before pandemic. And immigration was accelerated. While education clearly improves IQ I doubt it can increase very low IQs, especially when we are talking about first generation immigrants.
If immigration would stagnate then we would see an IQ increase do to education, but most likely it would still be lower then before immigration. We must also take in to account that mass immigration creates cultural groups inside a country that may not value education, this would lead to little to no IQ increase in those groups.
This not takin in to account other causes that would also lower the IQ. I have my own concerns with over-protecting children from negative emotions and allowing them to stay online for ridiculous amount of hours.
I agree, but you've missed the point, and in fairness, I didn't flesh it out fully like I have in other previous posts.
There is no authoritarian government that is highly meritocratic.
The very nature of an authoritarian system is to prevent meritocracy from supplanting the authority when the authority fails to be meritocratic. Meritocracy is wildly unstable at the highest echelons. Pick any sport for an example. It is exceedingly rare for someone who is so meritorious to win repeatedly and consistency at the highest possible position in any sport. They do, eventually, lose. Sometimes due to arrogance and overconfidence, sometimes because they pushed themselves to far to get where they are and can't endure, sometimes they lose down to sheer luck, but many times they lose because they were so successful at changing the game itself, that someone replicated their winning strategy and genuinely out-competed them.
Authoritarianism as a philosophy requires that you not challenge an authority that is dictating things in society, as it is asserted that they know best. A meritocratic philosophy assumes that the people at the top don't know best until they can prove it through competitive and constant displays of merit.
As such, the protectionism that Authoritarianism creates in society prevents authority from being challenged due to meritocratic challenges, and will even go so far as to disincentivize merit in order to protect the authority that is currently in place. Sometimes, this is simply referred to as "corruption", but typically, this is how an authoritarian system functions. Corruption and cronyism are an inherent aspect to Authoritarianism.
Leftism is a "Philosophy of War", (another thing I'm not going to expound too much on here) and as such, is inherently authoritarian when it seizes and maintains power. The 'corruption and cronyism' that come with it are not incidental, but are the primary method of maintaining that authority, and control over those institutions.
A non-Leftist Authoritarianism, let's say: a monarchy; is not exempt from this. In fact, it is highly likely that an absolute monarch will impose many highly authoritarian structures that disincentivize merit in order to protect themselves, so that the absolute power of their authority can't be challenged.
They aren't totally useless, they are foot-soldiers to ensure the power of the authority. Their purpose is not towards generalized merit, but only into their service of the authority, regardless of whether the authority is right or wrong.
This is actually how Clown World develops. Everyone lies and participates in lies that maintain the power of the established order, no matter how far off from reality the established order is. That isn't relegated to Leftism alone, but all authoritarian systems that are in need of being torn down.
I 100% agree with this, and is what I would have said had I elaborated further about Leftism. Dependency systems propagate lower IQ. Socialism has additional effects like: hyper-sensitivity, magical thinking, poor nutrition, increased violence, and low-trust-societies that also promote low IQ's. Socialism is authoritarian, but it's also a slightly worse form of Authoritarianism.
Immigrants are only one tool in the kit of a Leftist. Remember that many Communist countries had strict bans on immigration or emigration. It was Socialism that founded the now discredited concept of "Autarkey" (a permanently and perfectly economically self-sufficient state that never requires outside trade).
Leftism itself is the actual core threat. I'd go a bit further and say Fabian Socialists specifically.
but the 100 iq is always adjusted to the average of the population, you notice iq dropping when there's a large influx of population, in couple years the population stabilizes and the lowered average iq becomes the new 100, unless they also keep track of the iq inflation over the years, you won't know if the population actually got smarter or just the new average dropped so low that people previously considered as midbrains are now considered as above average
It's definitely worse now, just look at how many more "refugees" they've brought in from the middle east and how incredibly inbred they are there.
I like this part,
Replacement migration, they admitted it. Part of the population they're IQ testing are not French - they're africans living in France and they know it.
Genetics matter in all living things, humans are not an exception.
Read: Women waiting til 35 to push out a kid.
The most disturbing thought is that it could take generations to repair the genetic damage that has been done. It could take millennia.
Europe's population will never be the same again. The damage is already done. I weep.
Older the eggs are, the more likely there will be issues with the baby. Higher miscarriage and higher cogenital defects.
That's absolutely ridiculous nonsense.
Germany split in two, and the East adopted communism, while the West had to mass import immigrants for labor. As bad as low-skill mass migration was, East Germans had a 1 SD deviance in IQ from West Germans, likely due to the effects of malnutrition and authoritarianism. As far as I can tell (30 years after German re-unification) that has recovered. Even with the current spate of mass migration.
I don't get how you guys don't see that the national average IQ is not, in and of itself, purely genetic. But is a statistical abstraction of something that is a measurement of other genetic factors. The fact that France's IQ has pushed lower is probably due to the fact that migrants are younger. Older populations have higher IQ, because your IQ plataeu's after it gets to it's peak, until you start facing slow cognitive decline after 40.
By aging alone, you would see an increase in France's average IQ.
The idea that 4 points can't be recovered in over 2,000 years is so ridiculous it defies any logical assessment.
I was actually not talking about IQ at all, but the genome as whole.
All the autism, all the allergies, all the other problems of the first world that only get worse with each generation. Some of it's going to be diet and physical inactivity. Some of it's going to be DNA.
I think that's still way over the top. I've got bad allergies too, but I have stuff for that, and I'm still working outside today. As for Autism, consider that they are still misdiagnosing boys literally being boys, as Autism.
I think there is an aspect of this "dysgenic fertility" thing that may stick for some time. Women in first-world countries (I will include immigrants here) have been given greater incentives to delay motherhood over time. If more women have kids later in life (say, after 35), you'll see more kids with developmental problems, which may impact IQ in the population.
What may take "millenia" is a global cultural shift to foster (intellectually) healthier offspring.
I have a larger argument about female sex selection being the primary driver of overall IQ based on what the females perceive as a specific need in society.
I honestly doubt that due to sex selection pressures, it could be reversed in one or two generations.
IQ is a threshold. If your population has an average IQ under “x”, then your nation is doomed to third world failure. If you import people from such nations, you are also importing their IQ. And if this causes your own average to fall below “x”, then your nation will fall.
correct. this is the plan. a ruling council of elites and a mass of human cattle too stupid to realize who rules them. this is the global plan.
That's not even sort of true. IQ is not a threshold. IQ is just an assessment of the ability for someone to understand complicated abstractions. Most human civilizations would never have even been close to the level of IQ the average American has today. Most Americans in previous centuries had lower IQ's than they do today. This would be more obvious if IQ wasn't constantly being inflated so that higher level abstract thought kept being given a lower scores so that the averages of the populations stayed relatively the same through time.
Adopting shit cultures that don't promotote literacy, saving, communal bonds, building families, and entrepreneurship will cause your society to fail regardless of your IQ, and overall the average IQ of an population will suffer as an effect of that.
Look at the US military. They have jobs for people across the entire IQ spectrum… except for sub 83 IQ retards. The US military discovered that there is no place for such people in the service because they literally cannot perform any task within the hierarchy without sabotaging its effectiveness.
Look at the nations of the world. Do you see any prosperous and functional nations with average IQs below that threshold? Black countries have lower average IQs than Hispanic countries, hispanic countries have lower average IQ than whites countries, white countries have lower average IQ than Asian countries, but they are all capable of producing functional nations - unless the population has an average IQ below a certain threshold.
IQ is not only a threshold, but its importance to society is primarily as a lower boundary to indicate who can function within the system versus who must be tabulated purely as a liability. And when the percentage of the population that qualifies as a liability exceeds a certain number, society is threatened.
Oh, buddy, let me tell you something about the military.
They don't fucking test people's IQ. If they did, they'd lose too many people. They use the ASVAB. Infantrymen get the lowest allowable scores. When I was in, it was a score of 32. That means your score was above the 32 percentile of all people tested. During The Surge for getting people into Iraq and Afghanistan while the war was generally unpopular, that bitch dropped down to 28.
If you get a 28 on the ASVAB, it means you can't even fucking do fractions. Literally: 1/2 + 1/3 = ??? is going to put you in that range.
Just trust me on this, that dude with the 83 IQ is probably working in the Motor T lot or is a fucking SAW gunner.
Pretty much all of them prior to the modern era. Before the modern era, the majority of people were barely even literate.
IQ was basically invented to measure what could be a level of intelligence in a developed western country that could guarantee prosperity. Hence the focus on abstraction. It was invented by the progressive intelligentsia of the early 20th century, and then was slowly reformed into something with actual scientific backing. You don't actually need high levels of abstraction to form a healthy family/community unit that feeds itself and passes traditions down as imparted knowledge. If you think that the people who named their city "Ur" had an IQ anywhere near 100, you're crazy. The massive capitalization of knowledge into institutions is what allows low IQ people to prosper without having to solve extremely elaborate problems. This is the value of working institutions and good traditions.
The danger is that if those institutions or traditions are corrupted, people with lower IQ's will suffer and won't have any way of fighting out of it. They'll just continue operating knowing that something is wrong, but won't know how to solve it themselves. This is, frankly, where we are getting the midwit and "low IQ & high IQ conservatives" phenomenons from. The high IQ's are recognizing the institutions are broken because they are operating illogically, the midwits are refusing to recognize the institutions are broken because it secured them social status, and the low IQ's are recognizing the institutions are broken because "things don't seem right".
To answer your question: Almost all of Classical Greece, Egypt, Rome, China, and Sumer. Also including basically every country in the European Middle Ages. All of them were able to function, mostly because their institutions helped to maintain their vast population of what we would consider low IQ retards. When those institutions failed, the whole civilization collapsed. We happen to be benefiting from a moment in human history where IQ's are so high that even though the institutions are on fire, the civilization hasn't utterly imploded.
I was not referring to either the “frontline bodies needed” wartime military of, say, the Vietnam era, nor was I talking about the “diversity, inclusion, equity” leftist military of the modern era. The degree to which the US military has respected and implemented its own IQ findings is a function of both politics and the availability of personnel. If 83 IQ retards are all you’ve got, so be it. If you have to install those retards in leadership positions in order to meet DIE quotas imposed by Marxists, so be it.
bon exemple?
Excellente
Sacré bleu!
The chickens are coming home to roost for the French oligarchs who opened the borders for cheap labor. Now their Estates are overflowing with North African assholes who are bent on taking over. Their spokesentities explicitly say they are coming from Africa to colonize Europe, and every last leftist on the continent is fine with it, even encourages it because anything native to Europe is evil in their benighted view.
Fucking hell, I hope LePen gets some power there or they are more fucked than they already are. Get ready for more church/cathedral arson, more rapes, more riots.
As far as degrading the French IQ aggregate, sure, but that's the least of their problems.
It can all be explained by pointing to the white leftists’ outgroup bias. This is a dysgenic behavior that leads to the eradication of your tribe. At least half of whites still have a healthy, normal, universal in-group bias, but our interests are reliably thwarted by the traitors among us as well as the competing racial cohorts who gladly join in. And all of it is made worse by the “whites” who champion our tribal extinction without even being members of the white tribe.
Also, dysgenic behavior on the level of leftism must, necessarily, be learned. A tribe doesn’t spontaneously decide to self-delete for no reason. So who taught us this? Who enforce it?