Charles West Cope, A Life Well Spent
675 words
Even though I believe in eugenics, I really have no idea how it should be implemented. It seems so complicated, and it could be abused. What would a model eugenics program even look like?
When we envision launching a new eugenics program in the West, we need to consider what is effective, what is morally right, and what will be accepted by the public. We can make great strides towards helping future generations with no Draconian measures whatsoever, just a combination of incentives and disincentives. Numerous plans have been put forth, and volumes written about eugenics, but I will simply outline of a basic eugenics program for America and Europe.
1. Prisoners will be offered a reduction in their sentence and a cash bonus if they agree to be sterilized (with no conjugal visits allowed for men who are still fertile!). Felons not currently in jail will also be offered the same cash bonus.
2. Everyone on welfare will be given a cash bonus for having a tubal ligation or vasectomy.
3. A program will be started in conjunction with the schools in which girls are offered a cash bonus as soon as they reach puberty if they opt for free permanent or long-lasting contraception.
4. Contraception and abortion will be free and easily obtained by everyone so they will no longer act as selective agents to lower our genetic potential for intelligence and initiative (as they do today).
5. In America, AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) will be phased out. It can’t be stopped abruptly because many families have become totally dependent on it. But it will be broadcast far and wide that beginning on Such-and-such a date, if girls become pregnant and choose to keep their babies, the state will no longer support them. Currently, the government rewards them for having illegitimate babies by giving them food, housing, and a monthly stipend indefinitely. In addition to encouraging widespread sloth, this program imposes a huge burden on the taxpayer, and it is horribly dysgenic.
6. Tax breaks for parents with children will be increased. Paid maternity leave and paternity leave will be expanded greatly. “Mothers Benefits” will be paid to wives who choose to stay home with their children, and the amount will be proportionate to what they might be expected to earn from working based on their level of education.
7. College students with children will receive a wide array of subsidies and services designed to make parenthood easier, such as high-quality day care, and on-call nannies and housekeepers.
8. People with severe mental deficiency (retardation or mental illness) will be sterilized. Opponents of eugenics might want to call this “coercion,” but this word is inappropriate because by definition, these people are not capable of making rational decisions on their own, so we have no idea what they would want if they were able to understand their situation. The best thing we can do for them is to do what we would want for ourselves if we were in their place.
9. The field of genetic counseling will grow considerably, and its services will be widely utilized and free of charge. It will help prospective parents navigate the rapidly-changing world of genetics and reproductive biology so they can maximize their chances of having a bright and healthy child.
Many fear abuse with eugenics, and this is not an entirely bad thing. But, like any large program ever devised, there are bound to be a few abuses, or at least instances of unfairness. Our opponents will howl and carry on, “Hitler!” “Nazis!” and try to destroy us. Does this mean we throw up our hands and abandon the entire endeavor? No. It means we learn from our mistakes, prevent them from occurring again, and carry on with even greater resolve, confident in the rightness of our cause, with the knowledge that eugenics alone has the unique ability to empower our people, and to massively reduce their suffering by decreasing crime, boosting the economy, increasing intelligence, and improving health.
11 Comments
I have a problem with both #3 and #4 because I believe that the main women having these sterilizations and abortions will be white women of average and above average intelligence.
Also I don’t think that abortion is moral in any sense of the word in its present form. Ripping an unborn baby up inside its mothers womb in order to make it die is just evil pure and simple. If there were some way to implement a humane way to end the lives of the unborn who have severe mental retardation or physical deformity then it might be slightly more acceptable.
Eugenics is defined as: is the belief and practice of improving the genetic quality of the human population.
Therefore a eugenics policy would include:
1. state paid embryo services for any competent married couple that wants to side step genetic anomalies. This would allow mixed race people to have pure race child. It would also allow sterilized people to participate in the cycle of life.
2. state paid surrogate services
3. state paid insurance, prenatal care and delivery.
Very few women (girls) get pregnant in their teens so this program would only prevent a very small proportion of pregnancies. Depending on just how “long-lasting” long-lasting is, the program could be ripe for abuse by girls who have no intention of staying child-free. They’ll just take the money while they’re teens then get pregnant later anyway. To be truly effective it would have to subsidize women for staying child-free throughout the entirety of their reproductive years. This could therefore be a very costly program. (Back-of-the-envelope: 35 million females aged 15-40 by $3000 each per year costs over $100 billion annually.) That is fine by me. I’m willing to pay almost any (dollar) price to see eugenics instituted. But the public is unlikely to agree, at least not in the early stages.
A less costly option might be to give cash bonuses to females who abort their pregnancies, especially teen pregnancies. One could counter that this creates a perverse incentive, but the number of times a female might get pregnant each year is necessarily limited, and abuse could be prevented by a three-strikes-and-you’re-sterilized policy. Social shaming would mean only the most desperate women would abuse this system – precisely the ones we most want to abort – so this would be another brake on the practice.
I concur with most of the points made in the text, although I instinctively feel somewhat appalled by thinking of all the abortions already being done in todays society. To increase that number does not appeal to me. But that is my hardwired morals speaking, and I have no factual reasoning to argue against that point. Though that is not my main concern.
My biggest qualm about this strategy of implementing a large scale eugenics program, in todays western society, is that it will be completely useless. The main cause behind the current dysgenic trend in white nations is massive third world immigration. These peoples have inherently lower cognitive abilities than us, and no eugenics program will ever be efficient enough to erase that gap.
So before the massive influx of low-IQ peoples have stopped, and their kin already living in the west has been repatriated, implementing a eugenics program will be as succesful as treating a shotgun wound with band-aids.
That’s not strictly true. Cognitive overlap exists among races so a eugenics program could theoretically be rigged up to promote a comparative increase in births among the cognitively gifted portion of a lower race such that, over time, the (mean) gap is eliminated. Whites would still have a greater proportion of geniuses but the street crime, mindless hostility and everyday idiocy that characterizes low-IQ communities would be vastly reduced.
That is very unlikely to happen, of course, because a eugenics program can only receive approval if it is perceived as compatible with existing notions of what life is ‘all about.’ A program that is perceived as only tinkering with existing patterns of social life – a few more abortions in this portion of the population, a few more births in that portion – is far more likely to meet with approval than one that requires a complete revolution in social behaviors and social understanding. In this sense you’re correct that racial problems in themselves will require other solutions than eugenics, but then that would have been the case even had all races been cognitively identical.
None of this will ever be done in our collapsing society. It is rather planning for the Next Civilization – a worthy task. Obviously minorities and Leftists are going to have to be dealt with politically or otherwise before any of this has a chance in hell of happening.
Non-whites stand to benefit from eugenics just as much as whites. Indeed, because non-whites suffer from pathologies associated with low IQ to a significantly greater degree than do whites they stand to benefit more, because those pathologies have a greater or more immediate impact on quality of life than would an increase in the proportion of, say, brilliant painters or mathematicians which may result from eugenic practices applied to the other end of the spectrum.
This is a great conversation. Fist of all, April Gade , about abortion. I personally think that religious objections to abortion are misguided, especially in light of the fact that about 80% of conceptions are spontaneously aborted, but still your views must be respected. The problem is that low-IQ women have far, far more accidental pregnancies, which is why they have more children, often many many more children, than they would ideally like to have. That is the major reason we are deteriorating genetically. Smart, resourceful women have no trouble getting an abortion these days, but low-IQ women do. So if everyone had EQUAL ACCESS to abortion, the dysgenic trend would be almost wiped out. Studies of planned children even show a slight positive correlation between fertility and IQ. People who oppose abortion could spend their time and energy getting better contraception to low IQ women, because this would result in fewer abortions.
Refocus – everything you say I agree with! Not just now, but for weeks.
To HiFi about immigration – I agree it’s a total disaster. But they mostly breed among themselves, and we will probably separate from them eventually. And even if immigration were worse for our gene pool than dysgenics, that’s hardly a reason to abandon eugenics!
A while back, there was a woman in Seattle who put up fliers offering women addicted to drugs $300 to be sterilized. http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2010/11/03/paying-drugaddicted-women-sterilized/ Of course there were howls of protest, “racist!” “eugenics!” etc, but I thought this was a brave, highly original, and enlightened thing to do. People donated to her cause, and she gave women the money one by one. I wish there were something we could do along the same lines, because there are people with money who agree with us. Something in the private sector that could have at least some small positive effect, instead of sitting around waiting for the hopeless gub-mint. For a long time I’ve wanted to start a eugenics organization. Before Bob Graham died from throat cancer, he was drawing up papers with his lawyers to leave me a great, humongous gob of cash so I could start a eugenics organization, but then he suddenly died of a heart attack. It’s depressing to think of what might have been done, but there’s nothing for us to do but “forge bravely ahead.” Does anyone have any ideas at all of what we could do on our own, with very limited resources???
Verlis writes: A program that is perceived as only tinkering with existing patterns of social life – a few more abortions in this portion of the population, a few more births in that portion – is far more likely to meet with approval than one that requires a complete revolution in social behaviors and social understanding.
Yes, I agree. But every little thing we can do to help is worthwhile.
Thanks, everybody!
It certainly can be depressing to ponder the what ifs. Most perplexing for me is the question of how something so scientifically estimable, so humanistically beneficial and so morally plausible should at once be considered so utterly unthinkable. Alas, I’m forced to conclude that eugenicists have yet to make a sufficiently emotionally compelling case for our cause – as often happens, our appeals have the opposite of the intended effect.
Complicity must be the first key. One way to bargain up men into a eugenic program would be to make all children be paternity tested at the hospital. Depending on the result so would go the entitlement or not.
Make the woman clearly write out who she thinks the father is on the birth certificate. Then a paternity test would fill in the the father’s signature. He would NOT be allowed to self-cuckold, even if he wanted to. Special circumstances could exist for the non-virile men and infertile women.
What would this do? First, it makes sure eugenics is working correctly. Cuckolding is a problem. Whether 1% or 15% doesn’t matter. The ideal rate is 0%. With today’s 99.9% accuracy it should be MANDATORY.
Men would feel more safe in their familial investments with their spouse and it would also save the state the dysgenic offspring of a spouse’s infidelity. Few men (in gender and in thought) would be against such moral measures.
Alas, I’m forced to conclude that eugenicists have yet to make a sufficiently emotionally compelling case for our cause – as often happens, our appeals have the opposite of the intended effect.
I agree it can be depressing, but I think the reason for our lack of progress lies outside ourselves. Richard Lynn has written far more on eugenics than anyone else has, and he’s made a very compelling case. But the public newer hears about it. The problem is Jewish anti-eugenicists + Jewish media. They’re trying to destroy us, and so far they’re doing a good job of it. If nobody reads Lynn’s books, it doesn’t matter what kind of case he makes — the public is never informed — the media see to that.