Dysgenic Fertility Trends in Generation X

Q. Is the generation of White children that has been, and is being born, to White Generation-X mothers in the USA of significantly lower quality than its parent generation? (i.e., is dysgenics occurring more sharply now than it has in previous generations?). I will try to answer that question below.

This post builds upon the previous one, “Childlessness Among Generation-X Women“).

To summarize that post:

  • ~20% of American White women now entering their mid-40s (born in the late 1960s, i.e. early Generation-Xers) have never had a child. They are ending their reproductive lives childless.
  • ~9% of American White women have had child(ren) to a Nonwhite father.
  • Thus, 29% of White women fail to pass on their genetic material to the next generation’s White-genepool. (In U.S. culture, mixed children are almost exclusively socialized towards cultural loyalty to their Nonwhite side).
  • There is evidence to suggest that increased childlessness is dysgenic, as the smarter the woman, the less her likelihood is to reproduce:

    Fertility and Education, U.S. women

.
How Dysgenic are White Generation-Xers’ Fertility Patterns?
— — —
There are two groups of women removing their genes from the White-American genepool: The Childless (a), and the Outbreeders (b).

(a) The Childless
In the recent past, under normal conditions, ~10-15% of European women would remain childless for life. Take the UK:

% of British Women Childless at Age 45,
By Woman’s Year of Birth [source]
1923: 16%
1943: 11%
1953: 16%
1973: 23% [expected]

(Note that the 1923-cohort is more-childless than could be expected, because Britain’s 300,000 WWII battle deaths would have impacted that cohort of men [born early 1920s] hardest of all. Simply put: There were not enough men.)

Lifelong childlessness looks to be the fate of 20% of White-American women born in the late 1960s. Thus, as much as double the number of women will remain barren as ‘normally’ would (i.e., an extra 10% of the whole population). As seen above, this “extra” 10% is drawn mostly from the more-educated/smarter half of the population. Verdict: Dysgenic.

(b) Miscegenators (‘Outbreeders’)

About 9% of the American White-female population is now having children with a Nonwhite mate. This is based on 2005 data, and will probably be less for late-1960s-born White women, most of whom had already had children by 2005.

What is the character of White women who mate with Nonwhites? I draw on the research of the excellent Racehist blog, to produce the following:

Education of New White Mothers by Race of Baby's Father

— The highest educational achievement of the typical White woman with a mixed-race baby is a high-school diploma, and an astonishing one-in-five don’t even have that.

— The typical White woman with a White baby is a college graduate.

So: Outbreeding, in this case, tends to be eugenic, if we assume educational attainment to be a proxy for IQ, work ethic, and so on. (In a word, ‘quality’). Lower elements of the White-female population are removing their genes from the White genepool. (Remember that mixed-race children will, almost unanimously, feel cultural loyalty to their Nonwhite side, and that some even go so far as to find solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against their White side). Verdict: Eugenic.

— — —

Numbers: Declining. Quality: Steady

Considering that both (a), the “extra childless”, and (b) the outbreeders, are about the same share of the White population, I think it’s a fair conjecture to say that the dysgenic effects of (a) are “cancelled-out” by the eugenic effects of (b).

With the caveat that this is all, admittedly, difficult to quantify, we can thus say with some degree of confidence that the generation of White children being born to Generation-X White women is probably not substantially lower in quality than are White Gen-Xers themselves.

Though not of particularly lower quality, the new generation of Whites now being born is smaller, because of the higher rate of childlessness, the loss to miscegenation, and lower-TFRs generally. The ‘White-White’ TFR in the USA is now only 1.65, implying that a child-population will be ~80% as large as its parent population, given First-World medicine. See USA’s Total Fertility Rates By Race, 1980-2010 for more on that.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Dysgenic Fertility Trends in Generation X

  1. rightsaidfred says:

    Okay, but we are still getting lower numbers of “quality” White births, both in absolute numbers and in numbers relative to other contestants in the demographic game.

    Can Whites maintain a distinct and appealing culture while in minority status?

    • Hail says:

      Decline in absolute numbers is another issue entirely. There is no doubt whatsoever that American-whites will have sharply negative natural growth during the present century, at the present 1.65 white-TFR (the approximate ‘white-father–white-mother’ TFR in the USA today).

      A simplified scheme for population change in an advanced society with a TFR of 1.65:

      [Generation] Population
      …… [0] ……… 1,000
      …… [1] ………… 782
      …… [2] ………… 612
      …… [3] ………… 478
      …… [4] ………… 374
      …… [5] ………… 292

      In 125 years (at 28-year-long generations), the population falls to one-third its original level.

  2. Justin says:

    This is interesting, but I think we should resist the tendency to be overly biologically reductionist here. The upper end of the educational spectrum is also heavily liberal, and presumably, anti-White racialism. A lower fertility rate among THEM might be a good thing overall.

    • Hail says:

      Justin,
      I’ve heard Steve Sailer and others make this point again and again.

      Although it makes some sense, there is a good counter: If it’s valid, why do “liberals” exist at all?

      Since time immemorial, I’d presume, but certainly over the past 150+ years in the West, what could be called the more-traditionally-minded have outbred what could be called the more-liberal-minded. Yet we still had near 4-in-10 White-Christians vote for Obama in 2008.

      Now consider the implications for the past: If 150 years of the “breeding gap” has yielded only a 6-to-4 edge by conservatives over the types who would back B.H.O., wouldn’t that imply that 200 years ago and earlier, nearly every white was a liberal? That is clearly absurd.

      It’s still a fascinating field of inquiry, though: What share of people -do- have “inherent”-politics? I’d presume that the great majority of people (especially women) simply follow trends, obey what their socialization commands them to believe, and obey what the state-media apparatus in their life tells them to believe.

      • MFH says:

        Steve Sailer is a white, [trolling removed] negro-worshiping football fan.

      • Justin says:

        Great questions, Hail. You are going to facepalm as soon as you read this, because the answer is quite plain. Consider that, historically, females did not have the ability to vote. Even today, if we subtracted the female vote, social policy would be heavily conservative. I would posit that the female gene pool has been a vast untapped resevior of liberalism and general political stupidity since time immemorial. It was only after the foolish men of the early 20th century allowed the fems to vote that our society started its retarded leftward lurch.

        However, due to the Feminist Freedoms they unleashed, we now have a selective bias towards conservative-inclined females. The over-intellectual and non-maternal females (large overlap there) are removing themselves from the gene pool.

        Interestingly, the same process might be at work among post-modern males as well, as Fag Liberation means that every feminine-inclined male gets diverted into the evolutionary dead end of the Homosexual Lifestyle.

        In the past, correct me if I’m wrong here, strong socio-cultural norms, not to mention the lack of effective birth control, guaranteed the propagation of all types of men and women. Today, due to open Homosexualism, abortion, and birth control, we are undergoing selective pressures that are absolutely unique in human history, all biased against those who are inclined towards Liberalism.

        In short, thanks to Feminism, we are Breeding a Better Female. The irony is rich.

      • rightsaidfred says:

        Yeah, what Justin said.

        That changes the chart above, where over time “real breeders” increase their share of the population and increase TFR.

        I’m still wondering if the surviving White/European/Christian minority will have to mojo to carry on. The Kurds seem to survive as a non-homeland minority, but I don’t know if Whites can do this — so many self destructive inclinations.

  3. Pingback: Randoms « Foseti

  4. Pingback: USA: White Fertility and Intelligence (or, Dysgenics Quantified) | Hail To You

  5. Pingback: Some things just need repeating « Commonwealth Contrarian

  6. Anonymous says:

    i hope you are going to hell, because i,m black and i have money, and i study in harvard,so you can be proud of this if you are a stadistic, si and i,m too latino asi que whats the problem…..0_0

  7. miraculous mum says:

    hi, i would love to tell you about how i got pregnant and gave birth to a bouncing baby boy, it all happened through a tradomedicaldoctor from malaysia.. he made some portions for me, said some incantations and spell , then told me to make passionate love to my spouse on a particular date, i did and weeks later, i was doing pregnancy tests.. POSITIVE… Thanks to him. check malaysiafertilitydoctor.webs.com or mail him on doctorfertilitymalaysia yahoo.com… GodBless

  8. Anonymous says:

    harvard apparently has very low standards ….[trolling removed].

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s