Sometimes we are reminded of the fact that not all people have yet become oblivious about the situation in the West. Louisiana's State Representative John LaBruzzo recently proved that he's one of them when he suggested that we cut down on welfare benefits for cluess people in poverty and offer them money in return for making sure they don't reproduce. Instead he wants the government to spend more resources on the smart and educated people in society, namely those who keep the ball rolling in America:

That heartbreaking scenario inspired Louisiana Republican State Rep. John LaBruzzo to start thinking about ways to stem generational welfare, in which many welfare recipients have children who also end up dependent on government assistance, according to the representative.

His idea -- giving $1,000 to poor women to undergo reproductive sterilization by Fallopian tube ligation -- is stirring up controversy among some medical professionals, who say that the proposal is offensive and smacks of long-discredited eugenics programs.

LaBruzzo has also suggested other controversial ideas: paying poor men to get vasectomies and giving tax incentives for college-educated wealthy couples to have more children.

LaBruzzo is a realist. He realizes that in times when the government is running low on monetary resources and stupid people more and more are living off of welfare programs, the intelligent and educated citizens need to separate themselves from people who want to enact revenge on anyone and anything they pursue as successful, and take whatever they can get their hands on. By reducing the number of system parasites and instead paying attention to productive members of society, LaBruzzo's policy proposals are nothing short of insight--a blow of fresh air in the political climate in America, and really all of the West.

Pointing out that government should not be responsible for people who get themselves into self-destructive situations and then figure someone else should pay for their neurotic behavior, LaBruzzo explains why takers will destroy our society unless we stop supporting them: "'After this recent storm, we had some issues where these people were going into shelters and taking their cigarettes and welfare but didn't have diapers or insulin for diabetic kids, and they felt they were entitled to say, 'Give me, give me.' None of them didn't want to set up cots or do anything.'" Stupid people don't have an attention span lasting longer than one day ahead. They will leave their children unattended and finish smoking the last cigarette, before they figure out what must be done. Why do we need them? LaBruzzo, being the realist he is, already knows the answer: We don't.

If we look at the hard facts of what happens when a society fails to curb stupid people to reign over smart people, we see an idiocratic trend slowly turning the West into a third world city dump:

Recently Charles Murray has promoted the idea that too many people are seeking 4 year degrees: "Let's stop this business of the B.A., this meaningless credential". Last year he wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

If you want to do well [in college], you should have an IQ of 115 or higher. Put another way, it makes sense for only about 15% of the population, 25% if one stretches it, to get a college education. And yet more than ... 40% of all persons in their late teens are trying to go to a four-year college--enough people to absorb everyone down through an IQ of 104.

Several months ago, the Inductivist found this to be a canny estimate: in the 1960s the average college graduate had an IQ very close to 115, and today the average college graduate has an IQ of 105.

The more low-IQ people we absorb into academia and support via welfare policies, the closer we are to conintue bullying intelligence out of the public until it gets wiped out and replaced by commerce, manipulated by the few "smart" people who own the businesses. Idiocracy leads to corporate totalitarianism. Seeing this forthcoming crisis in America, LaBruzzo asks rhetorically:

"How can we get more people who rely on government to have fewer children who rely on government?" he asked Tuesday. "If there's fewer of them, we can do more for them."

Despite the backfire in the media from sentimental people who believe it's more important to appear moral than to do what's pragmatic, LaBruzzo leads the way for a new way of thinking about welfare. By suspending social and economic support, government forces people to rely upon their own ability and intelligence, which means neurotic and parasitic behavior will go unrewarded and instead lead to self-destruction, effectively enabling more governmental resources to be spent at environmental protection and culture building. Realism wins again.