Counter-Currents
2,883 words
Many white racialists are eugenics enthusiasts. But despite a shared, underlying genetic and hereditarian orientation, there is less of a connection between these two ideas than meets the eye. Certainly, eugenics and white racialism are not coextensive. The two ideas can even be squarely at odds.
It is indeed true that eugenics and “racism” (pro-white views) have been inextricably linked together in post-WWII myth and dogma. Political Correctness decrees: “Eugenics is bad. Evil White People advocate eugenics. Nazis advocated eugenics. Eugenicists are Nazis.”
Here, for example, is Microsoft’s Encarta World English Dictionary‘s complete definition of the term: “Selective breeding as proposed human improvement: the proposed improvement of the human species by encouraging or permitting reproduction of only those individuals with genetic characteristics judged desirable. It has been regarded with disfavor since the Nazi period.”
Eugenics Contra Race
However, eugenics does not necessarily advance white racial interests. In the wrong hands, it can even destroy a race. Eugenics is fundamentally an ideology of (supposed) human and social betterment through genetics, heredity, and rationally-planned reproduction.
Writing in 1940, American racialist Lothrop Stoddard mistakenly assumed that eugenics was inherently racial in nature. Commendably, he felt that it was vitally important to maintain the purity of our race. He called this racialism.
In contrast, “improvements within the racial stock are recognized everywhere as constituting the modern science of eugenics, or race betterment.”
But it is incorrect to assume (never mind to baldly assert) that eugenics is fundamentally a right-wing phenomenon. Historically, it has been just as much a movement of the anti-white, philo-Semitic, totalitarian Left.
Eugenics beliefs were formerly widespread among Left-wing elites. Hermann J. Muller, who will be discussed momentarily, epitomizes such views.
Even when viewed from a less sinister perspective than Muller’s, we can readily see that IQ is more important than race to many eugenicists. To a large number of scientists and social planners, “eugenics” does not signify improvement within our racial stock, as Stoddard believed, but interracial, or species, maximization of IQ.
Jewish-Communist eugenicist Hermann J. Muller teaching at Indiana University
Muller, for example, at an early date proposed using frozen semen from outstanding men to artificially inseminate selected women. He was convinced that no woman would refuse to bear a child of the fiend Lenin; later he nominated Jewish Stalinist Albert Einstein, Pasteur, Descartes, Leonardo, and Lincoln as ideal donors.
Later, Robert Klark Graham, the millionaire inventor of shatter-proof plastic eyeglass lenses, attempted to implement Muller’s non-racialist vision by founding the Repository for Germinal Choice (1980–1999), a sperm bank for geniuses commonly known as the “Nobel Prize Sperm Bank,” even though only one Nobel laureate (William Shockley) actually donated—once. (Thank journalistic hysteria for the false hype.)
In fact, Graham first named his enterprise the Hermann J. Muller Repository for Germinal Choice. Nevertheless, he was universally reviled and viciously assaulted as a “racist” and “Nazi” by Jews, neo-communist elites, and those curiously ubiquitous Left-wing thugs who have all of their expenses paid and invariably enjoy a free ride from the police, FBI, Homeland Security, Joint Terrorism Task Forces, prosecutors, judges, and the controlled media.
Quarter-Jew Arthur Jensen, “something of a demi-god” in scientific IQ circles, “very conscious of dysgenic trends” and “worried that the great achievements of Western civilization were going to be lost,” was likewise indifferent to race. Jensen told American Renaissance’s Jared Taylor:
I’m merely interested in the preservation of civilization, regardless of where it is. Some people are so afraid, of say, the Asians taking over in this country. Well if they can take over and do a better job than the rest of us, if they preserve the great things of both Western and Asian civilization, I don’t think the world will be worse off. Race and color and national origin and that sort of thing, don’t really matter much to me at all.
Richard Lynn, the ostensibly “racist” author of Dysgenics: Deterioration in Modern Populations (1996) and Eugenics: A Reassessment (2001) has made similar comments about Asians in connection with the impending demise of Western civilization.
In sum, concern with IQ overshadows concern for white survival and betterment for many eugenicists. It is imperative to be clear about this. Lothrop Stoddard was badly mistaken when he assumed—as many people still do—that eugenic activism or concern for IQ necessarily has anything to do with white racial betterment.
As in Stoddard’s case, it might, but all too often it does not.
A Unique Sin of the Right?
Eugenics represents belief in the efficacy and morality of centralized, top-down social planning by an authoritarian elite. Selfishness and lust for power play a role as well.
Eugenics implies, indeed demands, state interference in the family and reproduction.
As Hitler stated in his discussion of eugenics in Mein Kampf, “The State must come forward as the trustee of a millennial future, in face of which the egotistic desires of individuals count for nothing. Such individuals will have to bow to the State in such matters.”
The deep similarity here with Jewish and Left-wing beliefs can scarcely be missed. Therefore, it is not surprising to find so many Communist and Fabian Socialist advocates of eugenics before WWII. “Bolshevik Eugenics” flourished in both Britain and the US.
Prominent names included Marxist Karl Pearson, Beatrice and Sidney Webb, George Bernard Shaw, Havelock Ellis, British Communists Eden and Cedar Paul, H. J. Laski (Jewish), Graham Wallas, Emma Goldman (Jewish), H. G. Wells, communist Edward Aveling (the common law husband of Karl Marx’s Jewish daughter, Eleanor Marx), J. B. S. Haldane (a member of the Executive Committee of the Communist Party of Great Britain who in 1962 described Stalin as “a very great man who did a very good job”; an aristocratic Scotsman who married a Jew), Julian Huxley, Joseph Needham, C. P. Snow, and communist biologist Paul Kammerer (Jewish).
Of special note in this regard is Jewish Nobel Prize-winning Stalinist geneticist Hermann J. Muller, whose ideas have been praised by present-day Jewish eugenics advocate John Glad.
It has been conveniently forgotten that Muller’s beloved Communism—beloved as well by most of the people listed above—was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people, and the enslavement, impoverishment, and dehumanization of millions more. But virtually all of the victims were white, and Left-wing totalitarianism, of which Communism is a variant, is still the religion of the earth’s cosmopolitan elite.
That is why the technical downfall of Communism lacked an equivalent to de-Nazification. The same people stayed in power everywhere: Russia’s Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin, Germany’s Angela Merkel, academics, journalists, and leaders of the European Union and the United Nations.
A final fact that cannot (honestly) be denied is that the largest eugenics program in the postwar era is the purposive, systematic screening and counseling for Tay-Sachs and other genetically-transmitted diseases within Jewish populations.
Israel vigorously pursues a wide range of eugenic initiatives, as do Jewish communal organizations in the United States and elsewhere, despite the fact that most institutes in all locations are probably subsidized directly or indirectly by non-Jewish taxpayers.
Utopianism Run Amuck
Hermann J. Muller is the scientist most prominently associated with the development of Communist genetics. His eugenics manifesto, Out of the Night: A Biologist’s View of the Future (1935), was published by New York City’s neo-communist Vanguard Press, distributed in England by the Left Book Club, and translated into Russian expressly for dictator Joseph Stalin.
Muller was Senior Geneticist at the Institute of Genetics of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences under Stalin. He also aided the Communists in Spain against that country’s embattled Christian defenders.
An ardent feminist, Muller demanded that women work outside the home and have access to birth control, including abortions. Doctors, he charged, ignored the pain of childbirth because they were mostly men who regarded it as obligatory, “or even sadistically look upon [it] as desirable.” (Possibly he was thinking of Jewish doctors.)
Muller railed against “the vicious doctrine of ‘Race Purity’ employed by the Nazis.” With the exception of Jews (we must assume), he opposed the use of eugenics to better any race, particularly whites’.
Muller’s blueprint, he explained in his 1936 Letter to Stalin, “represents quite the antithesis of the ‘Race Purification’ and so-called ‘Eugenics’ of the Nazis and their Kin . . .” Communist eugenics “works for a surplus [population] reproduction that combines the highest endowments of every race, as found in a classless society.” (Emphases added.)
The fact that there is no such thing as a classless society, never has been, and never will be, hardly mattered.
“As a scientist with confidence in the ultimate Bolshevik triumph throughout all possible spheres of human endeavor,” Muller informed Stalin, “I come to you with a matter of vital importance . . . The matter is none less than that of the conscious control of human biological evolution . . .”
Muller wanted the Communist State to use its unparalleled power over the captive population to conduct a gigantic genetic experiment on the Russian people in ways deemed beneficial to the Party and the worldwide Communist movement.
Muller gave free rein to the utopian fantasies of the true zealot:
[I]t will be possible within only a few generations to bestow the gift even of so-called “genius” upon practically every individual in the population—in fact, to raise all the masses to the level at which now stand our most gifted individuals . . . And even this need be only the beginning.
Looking at the matter with a longer time view, it can be the beginning of a biological progression of hitherto unparalleled speed and sureness of objective, that passes from height to height. Such a progression will come as a result of the substitutions of conscious socialized control, founded on intelligent theory, in place of the accidental, wavering and painful processes of natural selection prevalent in the distant past, and in place of the shortsighted, blundering, and often deleterious interference with nature practiced by men in their pre-socialized [pre-Communist] stages.
Muller even envisioned a human form of cuckoo parasitism, in which many wives would be artificially inseminated not with the sperm of their husbands, but with donor sperm containing “unusually high genetic equipment.” The couples would then raise the half-alien children as their own. “There is no natural law,” Muller asserted, “which rules that a person instinctively wants and loves exactly the product of his own sperm and egg.”
One can imagine the consequences of such a policy in the hands of Left-wing zealots determined to destroy races via intermixture—or even of people like Arthur Jensen and Robert Klark Graham who are indifferent to the fate of the white race and care only about “intelligence.”
IQ Fetishism
Theoretically, there are numerous phenotypes and behavioral traits that could be eugenically selected for: height, weight, strength, relative freedom from cardiovascular disease (but prone—unintentionally—to what else?), different skin, hair, and eye colors, and so on.
Or one might breed for outstanding athletic prowess in tennis, baseball, or football. Society could breed a new John Elway, or an athlete superior to John Elway.
Alternatively, it could breed for exceptional artistic, musical, or mathematical skills.
Artificial selection for individual traits such as these appears to be feasible. But is it desirable? Ethical? Should these or other highly specific outcomes be State-mandated—selected, prioritized, and imposed by society’s ruling class, whoever it happens to be?
Trait selection: wild mustard
It is unclear why anyone, apart from absolute conformists or the blindly obedient, would feel confident that their particular values would reign supreme, or remain so.
But, anyway, traits such as these do not appear to rank high on intellectuals’ and planners’ priority lists. Virtually everyone assumes that eugenic policies should select for high intelligence, possibly as measured by the g factor or some similar criterion. It seems that everyone fixates on it, pro or con.
This is probably also why intelligence, or IQ, is the only reasonably well-studied (though still rudimentarily understood) topic in behavioral genetics.
Thus, it is taken for granted by eugenics enthusiasts that human beings can and should be bred for intelligence in a systematic, planned way by an elite corps of intellectuals backed by the power of the state.
Considering the relatively limited achievements of artificial selection among animals, and the blithe approach most advocates take toward the problem of breeding for intelligence, its feasibility seems highly doubtful.
Intelligence is a complex trait involving the unknown interactions of many genes which also serve other functions. Assuming a fixed, explicit, operational definition of intelligence could be agreed upon, what else might go wrong in the total organism—mental, spiritual, and physical? The Jews serve as a salutary, if foreboding, warning. Who would want to create such an abortion?
Long ago Arthur Jensen persuasively argued that academics — who, as a class, are repulsive — are high IQ individuals. This points up a problem that Revilo Oliver identified long ago: Intelligence is not enough.
He termed Left-wing intellectuals “mattoids”—men and women possessed of an unbalanced mentality. He noted with puzzlement that those who urge us to foster “superior intellect” or “genius” through eugenics completely ignore the mattoid phenomenon.
Mattoids exhibit extreme talent, often genius, in one kind of mental activity — mathematics, say, or social science — while other parts of their minds reside at the level of imbecility or insanity.
Objectively, liberal intellectuals have very high IQs. But they also harbor organic feelings of resentment and loathing against Western civilization. They exhibit a strain of atavism or degeneracy, hatred of mankind, a lust for evil for its own sake.
These “superannuated children,” according to Oliver, possess a combination of “lachrymose sentimentality and thoughtless cruelty that one so often finds in children before they become capable of the rational morality of adults.”
Indeed, academia is a hotbed of anti-white racism, narrow-minded bigotry, neo-communist extremism, and fanatical commitment to pure evil.
Respecting Limits
Despite obvious limitations, artificial selection in plants and animals should provide many valuable real-world insights, though eugenics advocates rarely seem to know anything about the subject.
In what sense does experience with artificial selection supply strong support for its application to human beings?
Dogs, horses, cattle, and many other plants and animals have undergone intensive artificial selection by man. Phenotype is most obviously shaped in this way (e.g., dog breeds). But, behaviorally, foxes have been bred to be tame, and dogs imbued with highly developed instincts for hunting, retrieving, herding, and so forth. But how does this apply to the human world? The results do not seem particularly promising.
Famed Yankee geneticist Sewall Wright, though not opposed to eugenics in principle, was dubious about its ability to achieve hoped-for real-world results. Unlike most eugenicists, Wright possessed extensive knowledge of, and actual experience with, animal breeding. Wright willingly supplied detailed, multi-page scientific notes about the genetics of race crossing to former University of Wisconsin biology and heredity extension lecturer and eugenics popularizer Albert E. Wiggam.
But, again, based on his sophisticated knowledge of theoretical genetics and experience with animal breeding, he did not believe eugenics would achieve the intended results. (William B. Provine, Sewall Wright and Evolutionary Biology [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986], p. 110)
![Selection conundrum [cartoon]](https://cdn.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Selection-conundrum-cartoon.gif)
Initially a eugenics enthusiast, Left-wing geneticist J. B. S. Haldane became disillusioned with sweeping proposals, including Muller’s high-IQ sperm bank idea, to massively reshape humanity through eugenic means. Shortly before his death in 1964 he expressed skepticism that any scheme “we can devise at present would greatly improve the genetical make-up of our species. . . . I do not think we know much more about how to bring it about than Galileo or Newton knew about how to fly.” (Quoted by Jewish author Diane B. Paul in “Eugenics and the Left,” Journal of the History of Ideas [Oct.-Dec. 1984], p. 575, n. 21.)
Another check on unrestrained enthusiasm over eugenics is posed by the phenomenon of the Jews.
If, as some experts maintain, Jews are indeed the product of eugenic practices that molded them over the millennia into what they are today, that is an almost overwhelming argument against applying eugenics to the human realm.
Apart from their heavy load of genetic diseases, the possible result of excessive inbreeding, who in his right mind would want any human population to resemble, even remotely, the Jews?
Summary
Too often eugenics is conceived of as a sweeping program of alleged “improvement” rooted in utopian impulses shared by intellectuals and ambitious, power-hungry elites, when it should be a cautious, studiously empirical, feedback-sensitive, realistic, piecemeal approach to human betterment.
One might question on moral, social, religious, or political grounds whether such a program ought to be implemented at all. Given widely-varying value systems among individuals, groups, and races, you must be pretty confident that your particular value system will be the one that is ultimately adopted, and maintained, by present or future elites. Any realist must be hesitant on this score.
There is also the question of whether such a program is truly feasible, whether the genetic mechanisms involved are well enough understood, and sufficiently malleable, to achieve the sweeping results enthusiasts expect.
For now, the best approach would be to establish a clear demarcation between whites and non-whites, and to begin seriously reproducing our own kind. This requires the re-establishment of conscious, sustainable, long-lasting marriages, families, and child-rearing practices, together with the removal of anti-family laws and cultural practices, and the ideologies that maintain them.
At the very least, evidence and common sense suggest that eugenics is not the road to Utopia. Too often, proponents of Utopia end up creating dystopia.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
31 comments
For now, the best approach would be to establish a clear demarcation between whites and non-whites, and to begin seriously reproducing our own kind. This requires the re-establishment of conscious, sustainable, long-lasting marriages, families, and child-rearing practices, together with the removal of anti-family laws and cultural practices, and the ideologies that maintain them.
Of course.
I think that will lead to eugenic practices for whites, eventually (which I am in favor of).
A more homogenous population has greater trust, especially if it has a strong awareness of its group identity and interests, and institutions that implement the pursuit of group interests effectively.
Everyone has an interests in the reproduction of their own genes, but eugenics requires that some thrive and some lose out. That means there is a call for altruism, which is a lot more palatable within a highly trusting strong in-group.
Moreover in a highly homogenous population the sacrifices required by eugenics are less. Suppose I am living in a multi-racial society, and the state tells me, in effect, that I will not have a son, but high-IQ Patil from the Punjab will. That is a disaster for my genetic interests. Now suppose instead that I am a Spartan “similar” among others, all very similar genetically and part of a strong in-group, and that I have a harmful trait that I think is hereditary and may even lead to the deaths of some of my children. I can have a very highly related, very similar man without my negative hereditary condition impregnate my wife instead. It’s not as accurate as a modern medical treatment to pass on exactly my genes without the flaw, but it’s still a good deal. I may wind up passing on more of my genes this way (or what amounts to the same thing, more genes identical to mine).
State-controlled mandatory eugenic practices are likely to be tyrannical, multi-racial, exploitative (with privileged people and groups favoring themselves at the expense of those with less power) and horrible for families and individuals. But voluntary eugenics, encouraged by (an all-white) society and undertaken freely by families within highly homogenous (at least all-white) communities are a good thing. They were good for Sparta, on the whole. They would be good for us.
The more we build good white communities, the less mistrust there will be about this, and the more attractive it will seem.
I think we should see eugenics as the capstone of a good white society, something that certifies we’ve made it, rather than something that should come first.
Eugenics do not necessarily lead to positive white racial consciousness, but positive white racial consciousness must lead to eugenics. (And that’s a good thing.)
White people are under attack as a race. The taboos on the discussion of white interests (but not the interests of all other races) which we suffer have been implanted to make us helpless, and in our state of helplessness we are being attacked with cultural degradation, financial exploitation, mass immigration and forced integration, which is white genocide.
A people that is not aware of itself as having a collective identity and collective interests cannot defend itself. If we don’t defend ourselves, we are going to be genocided.
There are two options: a future without white people, or a future in which the remaining white people have a strong racial awareness as having a collective identity and interests, in competition with other groups that have proven unfriendly.
In particular, whites have to be racially conscious enough to insist on white not Jewish leadership. I agree with Kevin MacDonald: “Given this record of Jews as a hostile but very successful elite, I doubt that the continued demographic and cultural dominance of Western European peoples will be retained either in Europe or the United States and other Western societies without a decline in Jewish influence.” And that specifically means a decline in the influence of Jews on whites, who must be racially conscious and Jew-wise.
Is there ever going to be a time when whites are not going to be attacked racially any more, culturally and in other ways, and when therefore we won’t need to be racially conscious any more? No. The demons have been let loose. We are coming up to a hundred years of continuous anti-white propaganda, including sneaky anti-white messages in film, literature, art and everything else. That’s a gift that will go on giving. We will always have to be racially conscious, because we will always be racially attacked. (Besides which, Jews and other anti-white groups will come up with new attacks. It’s inevitable.)
Is a technically creative race, conscious of its own existence, convinced of its right to live and determined to survive but under constant, pervasive racial attack, including from people who do use highly eugenic practices and boast of their superiority as a result, not going to think, “we can do that too”?
Jewish eugenic practices have led to high ethnocentricity, emotional intensity, verbal intelligence and aggressiveness. I suspect that the commendable Jewish propensity to high investment parenting is genetically influenced. And the result is that Jews have a very strong and apparently genetic tendency to get to the top of the economic and cultural pyramid, and collectively monopolize power there, to our very great hurt.
What’s fun about being less articulate, less team-minded, more passive, less educated and generally a loser compared to people who hate you and all your kind, and will harm you if they wind up on top, which they strongly tend to?
White parents, conscious that their kids will have to fight for a future, will want their kids to be winners.
It’s inevitable. And it won’t require government programs. (But they’ll exist anyway.) A small government subsidy for families using genetic technology will send a message that this is a good thing, and white parents who want to be proud of their children will do the rest.
Just as I believe fascism is a loser because I think that white people, descended from the race that invented democracy, will sooner or later demand a vote, I think a bar on eugenics has no chance, because the only future in which there are white people is one in white people are racially conscious and genetically competitive on a group level, and I can’t imagine white parents in that situation not demanding the best for their kids. The theoretical merits of contrary views will go for nothing; the nature of whites (when not being propagandized to their ruin) will dictate the result.
Democracy per se was and is a disaster – the lowest form of Goverment as Plato said. Until all people are qualified to vote via Eugenics, it must be limited to those who are qualified. Owning property and being a White Male are hardly strict enough, although a good begining.
Good piece. It’s extremely important to recognize the characteristics of the eugenical system that Europeans were in for many centuries or longer. The aristocracy selected not for intelligence directly, but for intelligence via a suite of traits including musical and artistic talent, writing ability, courage in battle and beauty. The intellect therefore of the European mind exhibits those traits and through them, IQ.
The Jewish approach was to select for IQ via a different suite of traits, and that has resulted in an entirely different mind. In their case some of the traits were explicit, such as ability to navigate the depths of Torah and Talmud, while other traits were implicit such as the ability to compartmentalize the truth that was being told to the Gentiles away from what was being said and taught amongst themselves.
While ingroup-outgroup attitudes may be a universal, but actually selecting right on top of those already inherent traits, the Jewish created a huge magnification of the influence of those traits over them.
One of the results – I believe – was the origination of the sociopathic/psychopathic suite of traits in individuals. These traits originally sat at the group level, or in that part of the mind of individuals that dealt with ingroup-outgroup conceptualization. Groups have always exploited eachother, and the relationships between groups have always been a function of relative power and double standards, and deviousness.
However by actually selecting for traits that implicitly included these ingroup-outgroup instincts simply by the fact the relationship with Jews and their host populations were intrinsically hostile and two faced, by actually doing eugenics over the top of that, those group level instincts took on a new form…a new concept such that an individual actually behaves as it is a group unto itself, and actually treats other individuals the way his instincts originally had him conceptualizing only how outsider groups should be perceied in only very abstract terms.
So athough IQ may be measureable as a universal, it does not mean the components – or traits – through which that IQ was evolved are necessarily the same. And it is those traits that decide the race – and the man.
In connection with Communism and eugenics, the following passage appears at the end of Literature and Revolution, a well-known book by Leon Trotsky, whom many leftist intellectuals, for instance, Irving Howe, have considered a humanist:
“Communist life will not be formed blindly, like coral islands, but will be built up consciously, will be erected and corrected…Even purely physiologic life will become subject to collective experiments. The human species, the coagulated Homo sapiens, will once more enter into a state of radical transformation, and in his own hands, will become an object of the most complicated methods of artificial selection and psycho-physical training…The human race will not have ceased to crawl on all fours before God, kings and capital, in order to submit humbly before the laws of heredity and sexual selection!…Man will make it his purpose…to create a higher social biological type, or, if you please a superman. The average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx. And above this ridge new peaks will rise.”
I think the topic of Eugenics is one that is seriously under-discussed in our culture. After WWII, this topic became political suicide – and not many are brave enough to broach this political dynamite.
It is acceptable to breed animals and plants to a specific purpose. Yet doing so for human beings is blasphemy – because all human life is “so important.” This extends into perpetuating the lives of people who are too old, in constant pain, and have severe genetic problems that require daily medical assistance. We are living in “the cult of life” where ANY and EVERY individual human life is more important than any other organism on the planet. These individual human lives are even more important than whole societies. Much of this ideology is because of Judeo/Christian ideals.
Most civilizations throughout time practiced some form of primitive eugenics. This involved killing infants who were too sick, weak or deformed to live for long anyways. The modern man may see this as an act of barbaric cruelty. But the reality is that this action was a sacrifice that benefited the whole (society) by removing weak and sick individuals. This action was also a kindness for the killed individual, because it saved them from a life of constant pain and ostracism.
I think today it is possible to practice a humane form of eugenics, if people are willing to open their eyes to the possibilities.
This humane eugenic system would value multiple traits (not only intelligence). We’re talking about physical fitness, moral values, health, artistic genius AND intelligence.
Perhaps one day we’ll have the technology that allows mothers to alter the genetics of their children in the womb. We’re getting close to this being a technological reality. Such technology could be a counter-balance to the trend of (the idiocracy), the inferior out-breeding the superior.
Another simple solution is to have more sperm banks that organize the sperm by intellectual, physical and artistic specimens.
We could have governments that pay the criminally insane to get sterilized. These same governments could also pay artists, geniuses and athletes for sperm samples.
THE MISANTHROPIC NATURE OF INTELLECTUALS: In your article, you mention the hatred of mankind that many intellectuals exhibit. My belief is that there is a very practical reason for this hatred. Most intellectuals do not grow up in an environment with their own peers. Most intellectuals struggle to relate to the less intelligent cretins surrounding them, they feel ostracized and they end up hating their peers, and the whole of mankind by proxy. Many of the mass shooters for example have been very intelligent young men. Yet if geniuses were raised in an environment with their own peers, I believe there would be much less hatred and misanthropic sentiment – and more feelings of belonging and patriotism.
Thus, the governments that focus on creating a superior race of individuals with a mutual sense of belonging and fellowship, will end up outperforming and ultimately conquering those who do not subscribe to the same ideology. The governments that succeed in this attempt will find a way to implement their eugenics agenda will not call it “eugenics.” They will call it something else. They will implement this agenda in a way that looks friendly and humane (so that Western, Humanitarian nations do not attack them).
And thus, they will create the Übermensch.
When Hamilton wrote that Leftist intellectuals have “a commitment to pure evil” and a “hatred of mankind,” I doubt he meant these things literally. The truth is that hardly anyone has such characteristics, because Marxist and other Left-wing intellectuals think they are fighting for something “good and beautiful.” However, misguided these people are, it would be absurd to think that they consciously regard their own cause as “evil.” Hamilton should probably restrain himself a little more when he writes, because those kinds of exaggerated statements do not really help an author’s credibility to skeptical readers (of course, despite this defect the article makes a lot of valid points).
because all human life is “so important.”
If you don’t believe that it is, then throw your mother, grandmother, or yourself over the nearest cliff. Pentti Linkola has yet to do it. He doesn’t believe human life is particularly special either, but like everyone who takes this position he has yet to practice what he preaches.
I expect that a great many whites (perhaps even the majority) have an innate aversion to negative eugenics: both because of our empathetic nature and because we fear that bureaucrats might declare us the unfit. I myself am absolutely opposed to negative eugenics on principle.
Therefore, I think that any practice of eugenics should focus only on positive eugenics.
The implementation of this positive eugenics policy could be very, very simple: just invert the modern American welfare system. Here, lazy people are artificially encouraged to have children (via countless welfare checks) whereas the industrious people are discouraged from having people (because of the financial burden and because of Family Court Hell should divorce happen or child abuse be alleged).
But I would also like to echo Daybreaker’s repeat of this critical portion of the article:
For now, the best approach would be to establish a clear demarcation between whites and non-whites, and to begin seriously reproducing our own kind. This requires the re-establishment of conscious, sustainable, long-lasting marriages, families, and child-rearing practices, together with the removal of anti-family laws and cultural practices, and the ideologies that maintain them.
How about voluntary negative Eugenics – such as bribing semi-retards to submit to serilization? I can imagine anything more moral than that. But the involuntary stuff is too much I agree. If we combine the incentives with a denial of welfare benefits to repeat offenders (having children they can’t support), that should do the trick over time.
This is something I have thought would be a good idea. How about offering a monetary reward for welfare mom’s with 2 or more children to be sterilized? Say $5000. Most people at this level of intelligence and without much long term planning would love getting that amount of money, they would be ” nigger rich” and we wouldnt have to support any more unwantd and unplanned kids. The nonWhites would jump at the chance.
What if a “semi-retard” is actually an industrious man with heightened intelligence in a specified field? I have a close family member who many would deem retarded, but he is supremely competent with virtually any mechanical task requiring his hands, and will work days on end without complaint.
Such a man is far more valuable to civilization than the current crop of high IQ “intellectuals” with useless (or even harmful) jobs in government, academia, the media, and business.
And then there is the far more complex areas of epigenetics, where some traits skip a generation, so a stupid man could have smart kids, etc.
My point isn’t to nitpick as a means of diminishing the whole concept of eugenics, but just to try to illustrate that it should be implemented with extreme conservatism and humility. I think financial incentives for a white society’s industrious to have large familes and disincentives for its laggards to have large families (again, the exact opposite of what the Jews have arranged in America) is a practical and moral form of eugenics. More risky or sophisticated eugenic systems could be tested out on a local level should people choose to live in such a region. For the eugenics enthusiasts with their own unique theories for breeding their master race, they could implement those on a local level rather than forcing all whites to be guinea pigs in what could be a disastrously failed experiment.
“IQ is more important than race to many eugenicists. To a large number of scientists and social planners, ‘eugenics’ does not signify improvement within our racial stock, as Stoddard believed, but interracial, or species, maximization of IQ.”
This reminds me of Alex Kurtagic’s article at “The Occidental Observer” in reaction to the news of the discovery of a pill that cures “racism.” Implicitly, he criticized those on our side who think that the day we prove the inequality of races, the multicultural Left will instantly crumble down. For now most leftists are in denial, but there are more and more young liberals who are aware of these realities, it’s just that they want to “correct” them. Showing them bell curves by race will only reinforce their will to correct it:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/03/egalitarian-eugenics-prospects-and-perspectives
Thank you Mr. Hamilton for this nuanced post. Yes indeed, who wants to be like the Jews. Assuming that someone on the New Right is all for eugenics as in killing off undesirables is a bit rich. After all someone has to use the broom. While I do believe that science has a role, I would not let a scientist decide a moral issue. He is too invested with his knife and his own opinions. As far as I know science can detect some hereditary diseases that would call for a decision for abortion or not, but it is speculation still whether the gene is always passed on or not. They need that in the womb test. The one thing science cannot do is create Spirit and it is the Spirit of the White Race that is different from all other races.
Eugenics is to White Nationalism as Homosexuality is to White Nationalism, some of us think the two are interlinked and some of us don’t.
The truth is they are separate issues. But unlike homosexuality, eugenics is important because if we dont take measures to correct our current racial decline ( within the White race) we will end up with a bunch of trailer trash hicks, who currently are the ones breeding the most kids.
People already are being told what to do by our government and media . They are brainwashed into thinking what is politically correct and what is not, telling them to breed for the good of society will easily be accepted.
Just because an idea was supported by the left doesnt mean that it is wrong. Environmentalism for instance is something that would be an important part of any good racial state, even though right now the left owns that topic.
Just curious, how many of you here have any experience in farming or animal breeding?
I live in ranch country April and there are a hell of alot of culls. They usually quietly get rid of them.
I was raised on a cattle ranch, and a bred horses for over 25 years. We had few “culls” ( animals that we killed) but we did have horses and cattle that we didnt breed due to certain characteristics.
I honestly dont understand anyone reasonable having ANY issues with preventing retards and the deformed from reproducing. It just seems common sense.
Well, April, what seems common sense runs up against Christian ethics and the sanctity of life. Are you willing to make the decision who should be sterilized or killed?
Living ” in ranch country” and being a rancher or a farmer are two totally different things. Just because I have visited a hospital doesn’t make me a doctor.
Rhondda, I am not a Christian. I am a racial realist and I believe in Natural Law. I dont want to have to attack Christianity or it’s ” ethics” to defend my position but the bible is full of murder and killing. The people who have been killed in the name of Christianity, or any organized religion is huge. Because of that I dont believe that Christians have cornered the market on morality or ethics and I dont think they have the right to point fingers. I stand and hold signs at the abortion clinic just like my Christian comrades because killing unborn babies who are perfectly healthy is not moral, I dont need a book or a magic sky daddy to teach me that.
I also don’t see how preventing the birth of low IQ or deformed or sickly children is against the sanctity of life. In my mind it seems like it actually promotes life, or lives. As for “killing people”. I dont think I said anything about that yet. I am talking prevention not euthanasia.
My husband has taught in special ed classes where the students had no arms or legs, such low IQ that they could not communicate and were fed through tubes. Nevertheless the system gives these children one teacher for ever 2 or 3 students. These children will never even be average no matter how much money and time is pumped into them. It is a waste. Should they be sterilized, yes, they can easily become victims of sexual predators.
Would I be willing to make the call on who would be sterilized? Yeah I would, not because I am some hateful mean person, but because I understand that the future of our race is important and that in the long run it is the kindest thing to do for all involved . I know though that I am just a high school educated stay at home mom and there are people much more qualified for that task. I believe it is absolutely the moral thing to do.
84% of genes are expressed in the brain. Because of the complexity of the brain and the high number of genes involved in producing it, it is very vulnerable to random mutations. Random mutations produce deleterious effects in the vast majority of cases. Consequently, in the absence of selection for intelligence, humans get less intelligent even if breeding patterns are not dysgenic. Some experts suggest that human intelligence has been declining for at least 20,000 years, as intelligence is rarely subject to strong selection pressures in agricultural societies.
A white ethnostate will probably be a safe environment that is rich in resources like food and shelter. The rulers will need to be careful to avoid a situation where low IQ, low impulse control, low conscientiousness whites take advantage of these easily living conditions to outbreed their more intelligent counterparts who are more focused on giving their few children the very best.
Some form of eugenics will be vital to a healthy white ethnostate. Without eugenics their intelligence will gradually decline.
But it’s not a very important issue for us. These processes take a long time and they won’t have major effects in our lifetimes. Our task is to get that ethnostate going. Because there is one way to change a population’s IQ rapidly; hybridization with another, lower IQ population. That could make IQs drop half a standard deviation (or more) within a single generation.
Do you have a source for your 84%?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120919135318.htm
“…some experts suggest that human intelligence has been declining for about at least 20,000 years, as intelligence is rarely subject to strong selection pressures in agricultural societies…”
This only shows the inadequacy of the crude Darwinian theory to explain the evolution of human intelligence. When we are talking about 20,000 years ago, we are of course talking about hunting and gathering societies (agriculture began 10,000 years ago in the Middle East). In such societies hunting skills have indeed a survival value and thus are evolutionary selective. But what kind of intelligence are we talking about with regard to hunting? Only a kind of animal predator’s intelligence plus the skill to use some elementary weaponry (mostly spears). This kind of “intelligence” is indeed selected for in hunting and gathering societies. After the neolithic revolution ( the invention of agriculture and cattle-breeding ) no such intelligence was necessary anymore for survival. A dumb person with a low reaction time can still survive as a farmer or at least as a farmhand. Agricultural societies can produce a surplus of food and thus cause a population explosion. All of this without the selective processes of a hunting-gathering culture. So one would expect humans to have become dumber than their primitive forebears. Yet, it is these agricultural societies that developed into higher civilizations, with cities, stone buildings, temples, palaces, script, art and technology. This could only be possible with a higher intelligence. We can of course not know what the average IQ of hunter-gatherers 20,000 years ago was, but we know that the average IQ of present hunter-gatherer peoples are the lowest of the planet (According to Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen’s IQ and Global Inequality, the IQ of Australian Aborigines is 62, while that of Pygmies and Bushmen is 54). The crude Darwinian theory cannot explain the development of higher intelligence in man since the neolithic revolution, and yet it happened.
Franklin Ryckaert said:
“Yet, it is these agricultural societies that developed into higher civilizations, with cities, stone buildings, temples, palaces, script, art and technology. This could only be possible with a higher intelligence. We can of course not know what the average IQ of hunter-gatherers 20,000 years ago was, but we know that the average IQ of present hunter-gatherer peoples are the lowest of the planet (According to Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen’s IQ and Global Inequality, the IQ of Australian Aborigines is 62, while that of Pygmies and Bushmen is 54). The crude Darwinian theory cannot explain the development of higher intelligence in man since the neolithic revolution, and yet it happened.”
It’s really not surprising that Bushmen are unintelligent. There was little need for them to evolve high intelligence, as food supplies are extremely plentiful in their environment. Bushmen only have to work around 12 to 19 hours per week in order to find enough food to survive (mostly by gathering) and they have little need to plan for the future because of the climate. Selection would have favored other factors, not intelligence.
Our ancestors lived in much harsher ice age climates which required more hunting of large mammals and less gathering, with changing seasons that required more planning. Their cognitive requirements would have been very different from those of modern Bushmen. Selection pressures would have been extremely harsh.
These ancestors also had bigger brains than we do. Human intelligence is strongly correlated with brain size. For millions of years human brains increased in size. But human brains eventually plateaued in size and began shrinking approximately 20,000 years ago, as the climate began to get warmer and human population density began to increase. This trend accelerated as societies became more complex and life became less cognitively demanding for the average person. Human remains of only 4,000 years ago have noticeably bigger brains than those of modern humans.
But the decline in intelligence was still quite gradual, so early agriculturalists still had a lot of excess cognitive ability hanging around, which was no longer needed for survival. They were able to re-purpose this general intelligence and use it for other things, like building amazing megalithic structures.
As long as we have even a handful of men like Andrew Hamilton and Daybreaker, there is hope.
Dear Francis, that is not data. That is as Albert Camus would say scientific poetry. It also says this poetry, that brains are more similar than different. That would prove the egalitarian ideology. Oh dear. We are screwed.
Leftists love to mock the White Race by pointing at our generous crop of idiots. But if there is the slightest whispering of improving ourselves they go ballistic with indignation and rage. Thus their utter malice is revealed. And there is no objection to Chinese or Jewish eugenics nor would these groups listen to any. Nor should we. And it is the simple desperate Truth that no People on Earth would benefit more from Eugenics than the White Race would. We have practiced Dysgenics for so very long. For millenia, many of our best men became celibate Priests. And others had few or no children. This has gotten much worse over the last century. In the early 20th Century, a study was done of graduates from a group of elite Women’s Colleges known as the Seven Sisters. Many of these Women never married. Those that did had either had no children or only one or two. This way of Life (Death) spread to the Middle Class as a whole after the Baby Boom and with the rise of Feminism.
It’s a summary of a peer reviewed journal article.
Here is the journal article:
http://genetics.bwh.harvard.edu/llama/courses/Biophysics205/Papers/All_papers/Hawrylycz2012.pdf
————————————————————————————–
In each brain independently,
84% of unique transcripts on the microarrays (29,412, referred to as
genes for this manuscript) were found to be expressed in at least one
structure (91.4% overlap in expressed gene sets between brains), con-
sistent with the percentage of genes expressed in mouse brain by ISH
(80%; ref. 1) and fetal human brain by microarrays (76%; ref. 11).
——————————————————————————
It’s not surprising that brains would be mostly similar, but it is clear that some of those small differences are very important in terms of cognitive function. The brains of a genius and an idiot are mostly similar, but the differences matter.
Anyway, whether you quibble with the 84% figure or accept it, the point remains; it is easy for the brain’s function to be degraded by random mutations, because of the large number of genes involved in producing it. Random mutation hits one of them and the brain probably stops working quite as well as it should. Selection for intelligence is essential to (at minimum) counter this gradual degradation.
This is a provocative article. While I’ve noted that that various HBD proponents (1) are Jewish or part-Jewish (e.g., Richard J. Herrnstein, Seymour W. Itzkoff, Arthur R. Jensen), (2) are indifferent to White racial survival, regarding IQ as more important than race, and (3) have married outside of their race (e.g., A. James Gregor, Charles Murray), I hadn’t given much thought to these things.
It seems that the text of William Pierce’s article, “Whither America: Elitism or Racism?” isn’t online. I should prepare it for republication later this month. Pierce opposed the “elitism” of those who judge people by their socioeconomic status rather than race. Such “elitists” seem to prefer Brazilian-style social stratification (provided that they’re in the upper classes) to an organic White society. These parvenus may think that they’re clever — they may pride themselves on the cleverness with which they acquire and use money and power — but they are Nietzsche’s “Last Men” rather than Yockey’s “men of race.” The mere vision of a Judaized, multi-racial cesspool in which one sinks or swims according to the amount of money one can make is disgusting.
From memory, I think that the evolutionary geneticist W. D. Hamilton expressed skepticism about eugenics in the first volume of The Narrow Roads of Gene Land, which I examined about a decade ago.
Although I’m sympathetic to eugenics, I think Andrew Hamilton is right to warn against scientism and utopianism in such matters, and to emphasize and prioritize the importance of racial separation and pro-family policies and practices.
Two things are needed for successful eugenics. First is a goal. What is your ideal? Even using simple technology hundreds of years old we can, with patience reach those goals.
Second, you need the long term institution to achieve that goal. Such an institution would require ideological support, belief by at least a majority of the participants in the goals, resources, and a fixed purpose. A way to “bleed off” unsuitable or those how reject the program would provide a relief valve while concentrating the desirable traits in the remainder. Religious like institution with a seperation from the general pop and a fully reactional response to internal and external challenges is the way to go. Forget scientists in labcoats and think Amish with a gooal of human as well as animal husbandry.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment