“Dutton’s Rule” is that when people from two ethnic groups intermarry the male will be from the higher status, more dominant ethnic group […].
In a livestream with Richard Spencer, Dutton claimed that if our society allowed men who are bachelors—he meant incels—to live the life of a monk as in India, they would not need to shoot people. Implying that every man who is not married—rather, in our vulgar times, “with a woman” or “hooked up”—is a potential murderer, a ticking time bomb.
(I don’t recall if he meant modern-day India, most likely not. For it would easily prove the opposite, their high rates of rape alone are disgusting.)
This is not acceptable. This would not get broadcasted in a civilized society; such people would have been thrown into a penitentiary long ago. Augustus already taxed unmarried men and women older than thirty-eight years if they were capable of having children. In the 19th century, a similar discussion took place in Germany. Because the number of bachelors grew, the state discussed taxing unmarried men. It did not succeed. One argument was that we didn’t want everyone to have children, for there are enough troublemakers already, and that such a private matter cannot be enforced (or so).
He defends “religion”, which on the one hand may be laudable. However, he does so only because of the greater number of children religious people have and their better personalities. Though I am not sure how he wants to explain atheists becoming Christians. Are they then no longer “spiteful mutants”?
And it’s not just women going to university who have children later, this also goes for women who work average jobs (nurses etc.) The only difference being that they are not on welfare—though they do rely on the state and taxes in case they live as single mothers. In Germany, twenty per cent of children are growing up in one parent households, of which ninety per cent live with their mothers. How many of them are working I do not know, but more and more children are being raised by the state because of working (single) parents.
His idea of Christianity is rather shallow, even though he at least once alluded to the fact that it was more nuanced than teaching that everyone has to have children. Well, even evangelicals like William MacDonald write that the New Testament actually advises to stay single.
Regarding depression and being weary of life, the Bible even has a whole book about it—the Book of Job. Paul, too, wanted to leave this world, as he writes in Philippians 1:21-23. So I am not sure why this should have much to do with mutational load.
Further, high civilizations and cultures are not defined by technology only. One sometimes has the feeling as if for Dutton, what counts is only technology, which is a view I reject. I’d even argue that modern day technology makes life more and more unlivable. Certainly, works of art are important, too. Dante, Shakespeare, Goethe were part of Christendom and superior to what the Greeks and Romans had achieved in this regard, despite their genius.
I think his research is interesting and “At Our Wits’ End” a worthwhile read; however, apart from rather shallow views about life in general, some of it simply seems to be pretty subjective, bordering on mere speculation even. Certainly, I do not have to defend industrial society; we may have become too used to its comforts.
At least Dutton acknowledges—referencing Raymond Cattell—that a society where the mean IQ diminishes is one where everything will be about money and sex, because that’s what low IQ people think about. “Base things”, as he says in The Decline & Fall of General Intelligence | with Edward Dutton. Benjamin A Boyce (around the 11-12 minute mark.)
Which shows what kind of imbeciles those are who only write about women, especially on the Right.
However, at the end of the above video, Dutton says that because it is so-called religious fundamentalism that predicts having children among intelligent people, this would not be much better: imagine the fifties—don’t laugh!—where illigetimate children were shunned. (As if the fifties were very religious…)
To which I reply: who cares? Don’t have ’em then, idiot. No need to act on base animal desires without thinking. You have no right to force such a life upon me, growing up in a chaotic environment because my father’s an imbecile. Further, the history of Europe, of Christendom, shows that the way such children were treated varied; what is important is that marriage was enforced. There is no need to allow anything else.
As if you’d lie on your deathbed at age eighty, thinking back sixty years when you copulated with some broad you did not have much in common with anyway, having a child you never saw much, if at all.
No, such a person would be mentally insane.
However, that he is married to a Lutheran pastor is ridiculous. This cannot be taken seriously; he married someone destroying the Church, even though he accepts that religiousness has societal benefits—which I don’t care about that much, since I believe Christ is the truth and would otherwise kill myself due to life being horrible nonsense. The way we enter the world is curse enough.
Regarding Dutton’s claim that IQ correlates positively with wealth, I have linked to two comments by Christopher Langan and a book (and article) by Nils M. Holm (member of the Triple Nine Society.)
On his website, Dutton proudly claims that one of his “insights” had been dubbed “Dutton’s Rule”. A quick search only revealed one paper and a tweet from his (own!) twitter channel! Which reads:
“Dutton’s Rule” is that when people from two ethnic groups intermarry the male will be from the higher status, more dominant ethnic group […].
This can easily be verified to be wrong, since black or Arab men in Europe are not part of the more dominant ethnic group—they do not make more money, for example, if you use this as metric.
Any metric is subjective anyway, and dysgenics a reality. Even if you accept hypergamy to be true, it does not mean that this results in selecting men of high moral character or high intelligence necessarily; nay, not even physical health. I am a hunchback and my paternal grandfather was one himself.
In ImperiumCast XVII, Dutton claimed, regarding pornography, that this could be a natural process (to weed out bad genes or whatever.) The problem with this is that this kind of addiction is increasing, married men, too, are affected. Even secular authors (like Gary Wilson) have written about the negative effects of pornography.
Many of these theories can simply be dismissed with a shrug of the shoulders, as Don Colacho rightly said himself:
In the modern world the number of theories is increasing that are not worth the trouble to refute except with a shrug of the shoulders.
Relevant escolios out of Santa Fé de Bogotá:
A motto for the young leftist: revolution and pussy.
Sex does not solve even sexual problems.
Why deceive ourselves? Science has not answered a single important question.
The problem is not sexual repression, nor sexual liberation, but sex.
Sensibility is a compass less susceptible of going crazy or misleading than is “reason.”
The people were spiritually rich until the semi-educated decided to educate them.
One could object to science that it easily falls into the hands of imbeciles, if religion’s case were not just as serious.
The man who wants to avoid grotesque collapses should not look for anything to fulfill him in space and time.
That Christianity cures social diseases, as some say, or that, on the contrary, it poisons the society that adopts it, as others assert, are theses that interest the sociologist but are of no interest for a Christian.
A convert to Christianity has converted because he believes it is true.
Face it: life sucks.
PS: They also seem to ignore that we are living in a world with around eight billion people. They did not materialize out of thin air. They are the result of a repugnant act. It is not a great feat at all, and it is not any better if you have a child with a “top model”—which the lewd “Right” is obsessed with—for it remains the same repulsive drive.