View Single Post
Old August 6th, 2008 #42
Adi18
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Mazonnawar Citadel
Posts: 775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aistulf View Post
Dysgenic shitskin Coonuck, with the new policy in power you'll become a Tutsi outnumbered by Hutus soon...
Dysgenic, first time I've ever heard the word, I think you are an Uber geek, and suffer from a lack of basic communication skills so you come off as a douchebag, because you think that your the shit.
Quote:
Unwanted Births And Dysgenic Reproduction In The United States
by Marian Van Court
Originally published in The Eugenics Bulletin, Spring 1983


Most people are surprised to discover the prevalence of unwanted births in this country and the extent to which they are inversely related to intelligence and educational level. Approximately one-fifth of the births between 1960-1965 in a U.S. sample were said by the parents to have resulted from unplanned, unwanted pregnancies; two-fifths of the remainder were also accidental, but claimed to have been intended for some future time (Bumpass and Westoff, 1970). These figures tend to underestimate the total percentage of unwanted births because there is "considerable rationalization" in parents' reporting, and because illegitimate births are not counted.

In this same study, the incidence of unwanted births war negatively related to both educational level and income. The proportion was twice as high among wives with less than a high school education compared to that of wives with at least some college (26% vs. 13%). The proportion was twice as high for families with incomes under $3000 than for families with incomes over $10,000. For every category of education and income, the percentage was higher for blacks than for whites. For blacks as a whole, more than one-third of the births to married couples were unwanted (Bumpass and Westoff, 1970).

During the 1970's, there was a dramatic increase in usage of the most effective birth control methods-"the pill'', the IUD and sterilization (Westoff & Ryder, 1977). In 1976, unwanted marital fertility had declined to 12% (USDHEW, 1980). But the rate of illegitimate births (most of which could be presumed to be unwanted) had more than tripled since the early '60's. By 1979, 9% of white births and 49% of black and "other" births were out-ofwedlock (Bureau of the Census, 1979). Significant differences by education and income remained.

Part of the problem is that those of low educational level are less likely to use contraception. Yet even among a sample of women using the same highly-effective methods, those with lower IQs were found to have much higher failure rates. Percentages having unwanted births during a three-year interval were 3%, 8% and 11% for high, medium and low IQ women, respectively. For those not using one of these methods, the percentages were 15%, 23 and 31% (Udry, 1978). After an unwanted pregnancy has occurred, higher IQ couples are more likely to obtain abortions (Cohen, 1978). Unmarried teenage girls who become pregnant are more likely to carry and deliver a baby than to have an abortion if they are doing poorly in school (Olson, 1980). Thus each factor--from initially employing some form of contraception, to successful implementation of the method, to termination of an accidental pregnancy when it occurs--involves selection against intelligence.

A pathbreaking study by Vining (1982) has reported a negative correlation between fertility and intelligence for a large, representative sample in the U.S. aged 24-35 as of the late 1970's. My own research (Van Court, manuscript in preparation) has replicated Vining's results on a broader age range. Unwanted births undoubtedly make a contribution to this dysgenic trend, although no study (to my knowledge) has yet precisely quantified their impact.

Fertility studies usually include information about socio-economic status and educational level, which can be used as proxies for IQ, but are not ideal measures. As mentioned above, there are problems with reluctance of parents to admit to contraceptive failures, which introduce unreliability into calculations of unwanted births. Perhaps the main impediment has been the environmentalist milieu of the past several decades which has relegated vital research questions such as these to a not-entirely-benign neglect.

Despite the unfortunate lack of exact figures on the effect of unwanted births on the dysgenic trend in the U.S., inferences can be drawn from various data which indicate the impact is substantial. Several studies which reported the usual negative correlation between number of children and educational level and income found zero correlation, or even a tiny positive correlation, when only planned families were analyzed (Kiser and Whelpton, 1953; Freedman and Slesinger, 1961).

As an aside, it should be mentioned that while a great deal of attention has been paid to "excess fertility'' and its implications for the problem of overpopulation, very little attention has been paid to the opposite problem of "deficit fertility". It was first analyzed by Weller and Chi (1973), and again on a larger sample by Weller (1974), who found that 18% of American women said they desire more children than they expect to have. Highly educated women were more likely to fall into the "deficit fertility" category. The reasons for this definitely warrant closer examination. Weller also found the usual negative relationship between the wives education and unwanted births.

Prevention of unwanted births could well be considered a worthwhile humanitarian goal in itself, aside from its important eugenic consequences. A great deal of individual human misery could be alleviated for parents and for children if only planned births occurred. Unwanted children are reported to be more often subjected to neglect and physical abuse, and to suffer more frequently from emotional problems (Lebensohn, 1973). Prevention of unwanted births would yield collective economic benefits as well--the number one cause of dependence upon Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC, the largest category of welfare) is accidental, unwanted births (Bogue, 1975; "Unplanned Pregnancy...", 1981).

For many people, a major reluctance to confronting the crucial question of the current direction of human evolution stems from an uncomfortable suspicion that it might well be unfavorable, and from the allied conviction that if indeed the evidence proves we are deteriorating genetically, no morally and socially acceptable solutions exist. An almost primitive fatalism and superstition underly the assumption that as a society we are utterly powerless to alter our course, however disastrous a legacy we may be leaving future generations through our negligence, and the irrational fear that if we dare attempt to guide it (or even if we think about it too much!) we run a grave risk of being suddenly forced against our wills through some mysterious, outrageously implausible yet inexorable sequence of events culminating in genocide and World War III. I am pleased to report that this need not be the case!

The fact that some substantial portion of current dysgenic reproduction is attributable to unwanted births points squarely to a set of remedies which would be acceptable to most people, both morally and socially: 1. greater efforts in the area of sex education for adolescents, 2. increased availability of permanent birth control methods for couples who have achieved their desired family size, and 3. most important, more equal access to abortion as a safety net when other methods fail. "More equal access" necessarily means liberalization of abortion laws and government support for those who want abortions but can't afford to pay for them. It seems most improbable that the vociferous "Pro-Life" faction will ever succeed in totally banning all abortions against the desires of the majority of Americans. Therefore, abortions must be equally obtained by all segments of society unless they are to act as a selective agent. At present, abortions are more readily obtained by those with money, education, intelligence and initiative. Thus the effect is to decrease our genetic potential for these and associated positive traits. Ideally abortions would act automatically as a selective agent in a eugenic rather than a dysgenic way. Since women of low IQ fail more often with birth control and thus have more unwanted pregnancies, if all women with unwanted pregnancies had abortions, this would neutralize the dysgenic effect of birth control failure. Few political conservatives (or liberals, for that matter) are actively searching for more government programs on which to spend taxpayers' dollars. But the alternative in this case--even viewed solely from a short-term standpoint--is even worse. It is obviously far more expensive for a woman on welfare to deliver a baby than to have an abortion, not to mention the costs of supporting the child for 18 years.

In Japan, where eugenic considerations are written into law, abortions are easily obtained and are very inexpensive (Muramatsu, 1967). As a consequence, obtaining one does not present an insurmountable obstacle to the unintelligent, the uneducated, the extremely passive or the indigent. If this became the situation in the United States, if the slogan "Every child a planned child" became a reality, it could go a long way towards eliminating the unhealthy negative relationship between intelligence and fertility which now exists.
I'm not Dysgenic, Uberfag, I was a planned birth, I would even take the Waffen SS measurements to prove that I was Aryan, only having brown hair blue eyes, I might just be a Michling Aryan.... I've even produced Aryan stock, have you bred dipshit? Do you have proof or your genetic superiority from already breeding? My genetics bootfucked the mothers and you can tell it's my child.
God damn you are one delusional nigger lover, I don't think most people know what the fuck your talking about, it sounds like nigger tribes or something. This here is what douchestulf left for his negative rep comment for me, can someone explain it? You obsess over the stupidest things like someone spelling uber without the two dots on top because they aren't lost to the internet. I'm not worried about the new policy, as you seem to be a little nigger lover attention whore who doesn't have shit to say, and I'd say in all honesty is a clown.


Don't worry, Ronald McAryan still thinks your cool dipshit.


Quote:
uber geek
An uber geek is a prominent or extreme example of the common geek . Uber, the German word for above or over, has been adopted by English-speakers as a prefix meaning super or ultra; thus, the uber geek is one whose preoccupation with technology goes above and beyond that of the average geek
There you go Uberdork!
From Wikipedia's English speaking definition of Uber, UberFag!!
Quote:
Über or ueber (German pronunciation (help·info)) comes from the German language. It is a cognate of both Latin super and Greek ὑπέρ (hyper), as well as English over (as in "overkill"). During the 2000s, über also became known as a synonym for super due to gamers' excessively using the word incorrectly; e.g. über-bright = "super bright," generally with a slightly intensified meaning. Über is commonly written as uber in English, though with slightly different meaning.

One of the first popular modern uses of the word as a synonym in English for super was a Saturday Night Live TV sketch in 1979. The sketch, What if?, pondered the notion of what if the comic book hero Superman had landed in Nazi Germany when he first came from Krypton. Rather than being called Superman, he took the name of Uberman.[1]

An expression like "über cool" sounds rather awkward in the ears of a German. They would rather use "obercool", where "ober" means "upper", "higher" or "superior". For example the German word for "first lieutenant" is "Oberleutnant" (as opposed to just "Leutnant" for "second lieutenant").

The normal transliteration of the "ü" ('u' with an umlaut) when used in writing systems without diacritics (such as airport arrival boards, older computer systems, etc.) is "ue", not just "u"; however, it could be argued that the English language use of the word uber is a new word distinct from ueber. This is because English is defined by common use of words, which dictionaries and academia record, not the reverse. The use of 'ü', 'u', and 'ue' in the word is an emerging trend in common usage in English with no clear consensus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cber
So Uberdouchebag, as you can see according to the english meaning and usage of the word Uber, nobody really gives a shit about the Ue or U double dot, so your just being a bitch, and now on my ignore list!
Do you realize for all your lame ass flaming about the gayest shit like two dots and asking Alex if he saw your post makes you look like a little child asking for their parents to watch them do something? You are one of the UBER-FAGGOTS that are infesting this board with your pseudo-crypto-judaic language that nobody but you seems to understand, so I think maybe you should just talk to yourself, as you seem to be a total homo that most people would probably curbstomp after a 2 minute conversation. Go sit in the gas chamber now, it's homo's like you and others that are insanely obsessed about the gayest things that are talked about in the New Policy, so do everyone a favour, and


P.s.






Thank you douche bag, I'm now ignoring you. P.s. Believe or not douchebag, the 3K has operated in my own province for a good 25 years at least, I know this for a fact, yet I've never come across a story in the jewspaper, the internet, or anywhere else for that matter. As in Masonry which is what the Klan is modeled on, you don't tell everyone, HEY, I'M A MASON, ARE YOU COMING TO THE LODGE???? So just because you haven't heard of the Russian KKK, doesn't mean it's not there. Half of Russia doesn't have the internet or even a phone dumbfuck. You are an UBER BITCH, so




Now you see what you've created?

Last edited by Adi18; August 8th, 2008 at 08:17 PM. Reason: UberGood!!