My son-in-law is a Danish citizen and is very proud of his socialism which he wears as a badge of honor and as an emblem of his Danish nationalism. Yet even he acknowledges that Denmark is paying low IQ unemployed Danish girls to have babies just as we in the U.S. are paying low IQ unemployed girls and women to have babies, even as the economic necessity of having married women work depresses birth rates among women of average and higher intelligence. He also agrees that the average IQ and educational attainment ranking of Denmark is falling, just as it is here in the U.S.
Think about the process. Men with jobs and incomes, and who are thus subject to child support requirements, are not about to impregnate a welfare mother. Thus, overwhelmingly, the children of these low IQ women will be the product of unions with the least intelligent and most shiftless males. And we now know that the transmission belt for IQ is genetic to a correlation of .6 to .8. You cannot sustain a modern civilization on the backs of a population with and average IQ of 80. Indeed the reason I bring up Denmark is that with relatively little immigration the problem is largely due to low IQ White girls. The welfare state can undo thousands of years of darwinian natural selection for high IQ in the Northern wastes in just a few generations.
For a long time, the support obligation for this rapidly expanding class of unemployable citizens was offset in the minds of our elites by the easy control of their voting power to counterbalance the voting power of the productive middle class who might otherwise get uppity and impose restrictions on the elites. But ultimately, the cost of support for this rapidly growing population, including food, shelter, medical care, policing and essentially worthless but very expensive education, will overwhelm the resources available to the central state and lead to economic collapse.
We now have 50 million receiving one or more forms of working age welfare in the U.S. Public discussion of transfer payments tends to focus on the cost of old age retirement benefits and assumes, sub silentio, that the metastasizing share of working age on welfare cannot be solved because unlike the aged, the working age welfare recipients are young and potentially violent. The assumption seems to be that the aged on Social Security and Medicare can become the obligation of their adult children without those adult children becoming at a minimum angry and motivated voters. The childless aged can presumably live on the streets and gather at free soup kitchens.
In the long run, the welfare state will be forced to cut back on rapidly rising expenditures for medical care, education and policing and perhaps end the subsidy for breeding millions of low IQ babies as ever more jobs are exported over seas or the export stops when U.S. wage rates approach the levels of Myanmar or Bangladesh. But given the economic entanglement of so much middle class employment in providing medical, education, and law enforcement services to that population, the downfall is more likely to be cataclysmic rather than long, drawn out and bumpy. There are no easy policy shifts that will contain the escalating damage.
In polite society we are not allowed to even discuss the problem as it seems so terribly heartless, unfeeling and un-PC. But without a solution in place, is the problem to be left in the hands of loosely organized bands of red state gun owners when an economic crisis provokes the starving low IQ masses to attack? Or is that what the now empty FEMA camps and the militarization of local police forces is for?
It seems to me that this is the type of clearly foreseeable problem that love for our fellow man compels us to ignore. But it is the welfare state itself which will cause the problem and not the people.