This video is available on Rumble, Bitchute, Odysee, Telegram, and X.
Last week, I talked about the growing acceptance of what is called “liberal eugenics.” That’s when parents use various methods to improve the genetic chances for their children. An obvious example is the care with which infertile couples choose sperm or egg donors. Parents know traits are heritable, so they want a lot of information, including height, eye-color, race, education, etc.
Here’s a typical teaser sperm donor profile, including a childhood photo.
Establish an account and you get more photos and a lot more information, even profiles of grandparents.
If you want donor eggs, this website explains that women who donate usually get $5 to $10 thousand, but Ivy League graduates may get $20 to $50,000, or more.
People pay for what they think is better quality.
Genes matter. And if you care about emphasizing the good and avoiding the bad, like it or not, you’re a eugenicist. Part of what gives eugenics a bad name is the idea of government making decisions about reproduction. But it already does.
Brother/sister sexual intercourse is a crime in every American state—up to life in prison in some places—because inbreeding is bad. So that’s coerced eugenics. The government has an interest in preventing certain genetic outcomes. However, I know of no ban on intercourse between non-related people with dangerous genetic conditions, nor is there any limit on sex between low-IQ people, so long as both are thought to be capable of giving consent.
In the 20th century, many countries forcibly sterilized people to prevent deterioration of the nation’s population. In 1907, Indiana was the first American state to do so. Its sterilization law was “to prevent the procreation of confirmed criminals, idiots, imbeciles, and rapists.”
The US Supreme Court found these laws constitutional in the 1927 case of Buck v. Bell. Carrie Buck, her mother, and her daughter were all considered feebleminded.
It was an eight-to-one decision, and Oliver Wendel Holmes wrote the ruling:
“It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
That case, by the way, has never been overturned.
By 1931, 30 American states had eugenic sterilization laws. Nine European countries passed them, too, as did Canada, Mexico, Korea, China, and Australia. Sweden didn’t stop compulsory sterilization until 1976, and Japan didn’t repeal its eugenic sterilization law until 1996.
We are now expected to think these laws were barbaric. Many people associate them with the Holocaust. However, as this excellent article explains, the Nazis’ Jewish policy was entirely separate from eugenics, which was meant to improve Aryan Germans.
Intelligence evolved in humans, because it helped our ancestors survive and reproduce, but in Western countries today, smart people generally have fewer children than stupid people. This 2018 article about “parental general cognitive ability and number of offspring” found a negative correlation of 0.11 between parents’ IQ and family size. This works out to a decrease of a little over a half point of average IQ per generation.
There are stronger negative correlations for blacks and Hispanics than for whites, and the correlation is increasing as time goes on.
This is especially tragic for black women. They are twice as likely as black men to get college degrees, and many never find a suitable husband.
And even small declines in average IQ are associated with substantial rises in undesirable outcomes, such as poverty, crime, illegitimacy, etc.
Is this something we should care about or not? What’s your reaction to this headline: “Tennessee’s deadbeat dads: The three men who have fathered 78 children with 46 different women . . . and they’re not paying child support to any of them.”
Desmond Hatchett had 30 children with 11 different women.
“I had four kids in the same year,” he says. “Twice.”
If Dad can’t be made to pay child support, you do, and there is no legal way to prevent these people from having more children. Should there be?
I suspect that at the privacy of the voting booth, a lot of Americans would vote to require woman on welfare to take implantable contraceptives—and might even require vasectomies for men who had more than a certain number of children they don’t support. It’s not just a question of paying the bills. How much will the 78 children in that article contribute to society?
In the 1970s, William Shockley, who invented the transistor, proposed what he called the “voluntary sterilization bonus plan.” It would offer people $1,000 per IQ point below the average of 100, in exchange for voluntary sterilization.
A person with an IQ of 90—10 points below average—would have got $10,000—or 70,000 in today’s dollars. Some people might say that people with low IQs can’t be trusted to make decisions like that. Well, they vote.
Here is what appears to be a crowd-funded site to support voluntary sterilization.
Childfree by Choice has hundreds of profiles of people who don’t want to have children but can’t afford the procedure. You can make a general contribution to the site or choose specific people to help on the road to childlessness.
The world is getting more complicated, not simpler. Jobs that below-average people used to do are automated. The very least society should do is promote an understanding of the social and genetic consequences of child-bearing rather than pretend there aren’t any.
Julian Huxley, the brother of Aldous Huxley, was the first director of UNESCO, and he wrote its declaration of purpose and philosophy. He said it was “important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” He hoped there would someday be “radical eugenic policies.”
Too many people brush aside questions like these with nonsense like “all life is equally valuable.”
It’s not. Hillary Clinton gets Secret Service protection because the US government says her life is more valuable than yours or mine.
Our genetic future matters. I care about who will be alive 100 years from now – 500 years from now.
And don’t forget: It’s not up to us alone. The Chinese aren’t squeamish about improving people—assuming they can get them to have babies. The Beijing Genomics Institute or BGI is hard at work trying to find the genes that code for intelligence and won’t hesitate to use embryo screening for higher IQs.
What you just saw were rows and rows of sequencers at BGI’s China National Genebank.
Here are some of its specialists: Global Talent Recruitment, Precision Health, Bio-intelligence, Bio-informatics, Super Cells.
We have a choice. Degenerate or improve. Whatever we do, some people won’t be leaving things to chance.
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
English
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Dangerous Idea
Women become pregnant and gestate children and men do not. Women maintain
that, for this reason, they are the proper arbiters of the decisions about baby-having. The elephant in the room is that this is not a contention that is derived from ethics or fairness , but rather from a
position of power conferred by women’s biological attributes. An illustration of why we should recognize that this is wrong is that fact that our society has sanctions against men using their biological attribute of superior physical strength to gain an advantage against women..
On the other side of the issue, though, it’s also obviously neither
fair nor ethical for anyone to try to co-opt control of women’s bodies and tell them whether or
not they’re going to become pregnant or bring a given pregnancy to term.
So, what are we to do to try to increase fairness to men, women and children? Continue with the assumption that men are to be treated as worker drones and the decision if and when to have children remains the province of women’s judgement alone? Continue to hold men responsible for ‘raising’ and ‘supporting’ children whose production was in large part the result of decision-making arrived at via the inherent power of their
mothers’ physical, gender-based advantage? This seems neither equitable or desirable.
Is it any wonder that battles of the sexes, brokering of women’s favors in exchange for men’s financial support, and less than healthy childhoods are so common?
i posit the following as an outline of a solution.
Since most people in America now agree that it’s wrong for people to own other people, suppose that we explicitly recognize that mothers and their children are not exempt form this principle, and
that in our society, no one should be allowed to raise a child unless,
before the birth, both the mother and father have signed a contract
stating that they are each financially responsible for one half of the
child’s support to age of majority. (These contracts would actually be
enforced). The contract would hold irrespective of whether the man and
woman remain together. Because of the inherent pain and risks of pregnancy
and childbirth, the contract would require a standardized amount to be paid by the
father to the mother in consideration of this work/risk. That amount would
be deemed full compensation to the mother in lieu of, and would negate,
any claim of other special rights by the mother in relation to the child and the
father. Children born outside of this type of birth agreement contract would, the desires of either
parent notwithstanding, be taken into the custody of a public agency and raised by the most caring and qualified professionals, applying the best possible practices, in well run and funded institutions set up expressly for that purpose.
Contrasting with the life experience of unwanted kids in our current disfunctional system, very little if any stigma should, nor as it became established, would, accrue to one’s being raised in an institution of the sort described above – rather it would, increasingly over time, simply be accepted as an indication that prior to one’s birth one’s parents were not in agreement about having a child – a lack of accord between them before one even entered the world and a part of their life stories rather than one’s own – and thus a fact devoid of personal rejection or negative implications about one’s intrinsic worth.
If well implemented, the result would be far less of some things we’d be well rid of: welfare moms – with unhealthy, poorly raised kids born as income-generating tools, bad marriages, unhappy/unhealthy people, and the ancillary costs to our society..
Obviously, the gods want it this way.
Evolution of the ” fittest”.
Someone has to do something, quick.
Or not. It is here…
Overriding context: complete destruction of humans
https://christopherjonbjerknes.podia.com/beware-the-world-to-come
Jared Taylor is an ignorant buffoon. He doesn’t understand evolution, but pretends he does. What he calls “chance” is in fact evolution in action. All he is saying in this article is ‘don’t let Nature — who has done a good job through millions of years of patient work — alone: let Jared Taylor decide what’s best for America and the world’. Utterly ridiculous.
First off, nobody knows exactly what intelligence is. Secondly, intelligence is not the only thing that matters. Who’s going to collect garbage if everyone is a Feynman? And last but not least, intelligence is not a purely positive trait. Intelligent people can be overly egotistic; they are more prone to anxiety disorders too.
In short, a garbage article. This site needs a garbage collector.
Well OK now I’m working on a new budget to see how much money I can set aside each month to sterilize black people.
Dear @anon[420]:
I actually smirked at your proposal:
“Children born outside of this type of birth agreement contract would, the desires of either parent notwithstanding, be taken into the custody of a public agency and raised by the most caring and qualified professionals, applying the best possible practices, in well run and funded institutions set up expressly for that purpose.”
I felt as if I were reading a His Majesty’s Government White Paper written by Mahmoud Abdul al-Shabazz, Deputy Minister for Eugenics [aka Labour Party DEI dumbbell].
My personal jinn Muammar just brought me this holographic projection of the lead article in the Daily Mirror for 17 April 2055:
SCANDAL IN THE TONY BLAIR INSTITUTE
“A Reform MP has called for an official inquiry into the Tony Blair Institute after seven children were found dying of starvation there. Mumbonga Tafawa-Balewa, a nurse’s aide, was taken into custody on charges of child neglect and falsification of records. This comes as many MP’s are claiming the State Eugenics Program had ‘gone off the rails’. Shlomo Saperstein, MP (East Birmingham) called the situation ‘a Holocaust’.”
Those Unz readers without a personal jinn have the option of using their brains, an excellent alternative.
A large percentage of the purchasers of sperm or eggs are homosexual same sex couples. The child may have some good genetic inheritance but their upbringing is in an environment of deviance and weirdness. That does not augur well for the child. Regarding the sperm donor’s writeup shown in the article, who would pick that guy? There’s nothing outstanding about him.
Blacks in all public education systems are overrepresented in Special Ed classes. They go on to have children, sometimes quite a few. This, of course, makes any approach to the subject a political minefield. Not much can be done about that. Just avoid DEI shoehorning unsuitable people into being your doctor. The childless by choice people are just a drop in the bucket, no overall genetic impact. People make their choices according to their level of need and what is available to them. The wisdom of the experts has always changed and yesterday’s accepted wisdom is today’s quack nonsense. Lobotomies were considered the latest science at one time and we just got past the ‘follow the science’ Covid clampdown hysteria.
Jared Taylor: “Hillary Clinton gets Secret Service protection because the US government says her life is more valuable than yours or mine.”
LOL Taylor scores an own goal!
What could better show the capability of the government to decide what is good than this? Personally, I’d value the life of a cockroach over Hillary Clinton’s.
Eugenics is a good idea. But who will implement it and how? And how incompetent will they be?
No-one ever takes into account the incompetence factor.
Everybody talks about everything in the abstract. Like as if we lived in an ideal world.
Every bright idea like this has to take into account massive fucking up. The natural state of things in this benighted world.
Well, Jared Taylor’s spoken of his mother’s support for so-called “gay rights.”
The very grave danger of enabling someone with Jared’s background to be a spokesman “for racial realism” is that there is a willful or even congenital blindness to the nature of the enemy. Has Jared Taylor ever uttered any criticism of the vaccination mandate? Has he ever acknowledged the damage it has caused? Do you want a thousand people at Harvard or Yale deciding who gets to reproduce, or who should “encouraged” or “discouraged” to reproduce, or how it should be done?
The notion that the state should be involved in “eugenics” can be held only by those who don’t understand the sort of people who control our society or who are WITH THOSE PEOPLE. (like Charles Murray – why do you think they’ve trotted his books out over the years?) We should understand that much of the “Right-wing” on the internet is stage-managed and astro-turfed.
Just think of all these people around here, who think John Shakespeare was illiterate because of a silly article by Ron Unz. What I’m driving at, is that the sort of people who persecuted the Shakespeares are more or less genetically/ideologically the same people who would like to run a eugenics program.
This is not to say there are not important considerations that should be taken into account with respect to the conception of unborn generations. Of course there are. We do not deny the importance of race and heredity.
However, if you really understood the psychology of these people in this Darwin/Wedgewood/Galton cult, you’d understand that these people aren’t just interested in ameliorating social conditions and “improving genetic stock.” Take the notions of these people to the most crazy conclusions, and ask yourself if they want YOU to reproduce.
Alan Watt (NOT Alan Watts), a conspiracy radio host who is now deceased, had a lot more about the crazed ambitions these people really have. Aldous Huxley was writing about the actual thinking of these people in Brave New World. They are not playing with a full deck, they are quite mad.
Understand that the British (and of course they have their fellow “Anglos” in America – at places like Yale!) incubated all of these ideological pestilences of the modern world. Look at what the Left is doing to our society. If you think Jared Taylor is really against that, ask yourself if you’ve ever heard him use the term Communist to refer to all these Leftists.
Agreed. However, it will only be implemented when AI’s take over, which is not that far into the future at this time, perhaps 20-40 years out as my best guess.
This sounded hokey, so I checked with my favorite an AI and it confirms that this made-up statistic is false.
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/what-percentage-of-the-purchas-B_uhoIOvTyiUjq3RTM59Lw#0
This being said, given that homosexuality has no benefit for human society in general (although some may argue that homosexuality may be beneficial in fields such as acting, interior design, fashion, art, etc.) and that homosexuality is caused by mis-wiring in the brain during development, it seems logical that homosexuals should be prevented from contributing sperm or eggs, so as not to assist in propagating this problem into future generations.
However, this would be difficult to police unless a blood test could be developed that would be able to show who were homosexuals.
EVERYONE should get implantable contraceptives when they hit puberty.
This is actually something that all humans must submit to in an SF series of books that is run by an authoritative alien race who holds the human population under its thumb.
When two people want to have kids, they need to pass some tests first and only then can be married and have children.
At the outset, we should only sterilise (voluntarily, of course) those whose IQs are 85 and below.
(Applied to White Nations: regarding other races, not up to us to decide.)
Efforts to make “everyone 120-IQ or above”, you’re right, could very well backfire.
We should, yes (!), look at other traits (Personality, Behaviour, Temperament etc.) and not just Intelligence. Right.
Surely. After all, Intelligence didn’t evolve exactly in Zulus like it did in Jews. Why? Evolution!
BTW, there is evidence Islam decreases IQ as part of its own strategy! And, naturally, religions are products of, again (!), Evolution.
Your “Who’s going to collect garbage?”, on the other hand, is terrible.
Don’t worry about that. We will find a way: probably, robots.
Yes. Given the State such power is very, very dangerous.
That is why, except for some categories of criminals, the Eugenics Programme should be TOTALLY voluntary.
I don’t mind Homosexuals; I don’t mind Trans Persons.
If it is dependent on Jared Taylor or me:
Our Whites-only Country will be Conservatism-free and filled to the brim with atheistic blue-haired lesbians with septum piercings.
What a Paradise!
Blacks sure got Jigabutzpah.
.
Beware of the astro-turf Right. Unfortunately, your typical conservative news junky wants an easily digested, brief and decently packaged presentation that has attracted a little crowd, is liked by the algorithm, and isn’t too “far out.”
Understand who it is who wants to control reproduction. It’s not someone who wants to summarily execute everyone connected to Planned Parenthood and the promoters of the death vax. If it was such a person, you could trust them ALOT more.
Video Link
Project much ???
Let me remind you people about pointing your finger. It’s always 3 back at your self.
Notice the sliver in their eyes, but never the plank in thy own. Consider more, imho.
So the trends are dysgenics, but on the bright side, this rate of decrease means we have quite a few generations to play with in order to get it right (assuming the rate doesn’t drastically decrease in the mean time, which is hardly a safe assumption).
If cost savings are a concern, you’d have to also pay a bonus for each point above 100 to people who, say, go on to have children. Otherwise even very stupid people could figure out that maximizing their sterilization bonus only requires deliberately answering the test questions incorrectly.
Nobody said it is. But in my experience, people who make a big fuss when pointing this out tend to disregard its importance altogether. Not a good idea.
That isn’t the objective. If mean IQ were raised to 110, there would no end of people who are very far from Feynmans – but we’d all be a lot better off.
Exactly. Intelligent people are mix of good bad, just like everybody else. We’d simply be better off if that mix of good and bad that characterizes the human species had a higher mean IQ. It’s not rocket science.
Eek, you’re right. That world would be truly horrible. Totally unlike the world we live in today.
On the contrary, it is. Or worse. There is nothing more complex than social engineering. Every attempt from the State at controlling people’s lives turns out to be a disaster in the long (or not so long) run. Take communism, for example.
Racial separation is the way to go.
Once primitive stone age people are given rights in white Christian societies, it’s too late to do eugenics.
Young whites who want to avoid this nightmare should look into migrating to Hungary, Belarus and Russia.
” justiceforkarmeloanthony “.
That’s the last thing they really want.
You’re evading the point. I said intelligent people are mix of good and bad, like everyone else; but given that humans are mix of good and bad, it’s better if that mix is more intelligent than less intelligent. This is straightforward. Complexity only surrounds the question of how to get there.
Well, no: Eugenics can benefit any population. Unless you meant that once the mean IQ of a population sinks too low, there will be proportionally too few people in that population who are capable of understanding the benefits of eugenics and will thus make no attempt to employ it, which is indeed a valid concern.
But what’s the use of discussing the matter if it’s unfeasible?
I was thinking of things like sterilizing blacks who father 30 low IQ children with multiple women. It’s not possible in a society that gives them rights.
As for eugenics benefiting a purely white population, most of the interest seems to be in raising average IQs.
Is that really necessary?
In terms of actual achievements in the arts, sciences, etc., (not just IQ scores) whites have already proven themselves superior.
“Who’s going to collect garbage if everyone is a Feynman?”
Why, Feynman, of course.
And well he should. After all, his Lectures on Physics book series was trash. Or unsuitable as a freshman college physics text anyway.
There. I said it aloud. Now everybody dogpile me. Tell me what a great man he was.
(I had the misfortune of taking an Honors Physics course (not of my choosing, my counselor put me there) from one of Feynman’s Caltech students. Four years later when I retook physics at a different college, using a standard textbook, I learned and understood what physics was all about—well, to be honest, not all about, but I did grasp the basics.)
Maybe he was great, I dunno. But to argue that if one were incapable of understanding physics through his textbooks then one was simply not worthy of a career in the natural sciences seemed to me then–and now–as a bit harsh.
Color me, “not a fan” of Feynman, his books or his loyal followers.
Thanks for your opinion, but, to be honest, I was just using an antonomasia for ‘genius’, without much knowledge of Feynman or his books.
I would rather have a society built around common sense eugenics than one built around a policy of deliberate dysgenics where smart and productive people are forced to pay for the offspring of the lazy and mentally unfit.
Who said it’s unfeasible? I said that the implementation is where complexity enters the picture. I didn’t throw my hands up in despair that “there’s no way to do it.”
And anyway, there’s really no neutral position on this; the minute we incentivize the breeding of one social group over another, we are, in effect, already ‘playing God’. Any given set of social policies will contribute to ‘breeding incentives’ of one sort or another. Today’s set of policies contribute to dysgenic breeding incentives. I consider it completely plausible that a different set of social policies could contribute to eugenic breeding incentives.
Don’t worry about that. ThreeCranes is seldom able to suppress the temptation to impress upon others how learned he is.
This assumes that the purpose behind raising mean IQ would be to “prove Whites are superior.” You are mistaken. The purpose would be to improve the quality of life. It is not just that a given individual will, all else equal, have an improved life with a higher IQ; it’s that the lives of less intelligent people are also improved – often greatly improved – when surrounded by a higher proportion of more intelligent people.
It’s like ghetto life. You’re not miserable simply because you, personally, are a down-and-outer, but because you’re surrounded on all sides by other down-and-outers, which multiplies the misery. If the proportion of people in that geographic area who are not down-and-outers were to start rising, there would be a consequent alleviation of at least some degree of misery, the degree of alleviation generally rising in lockstep with the reduction in the proportion of down-and-outers. (Note: low IQ is hardly the sole explanation of why or how someone becomes a down-and-outer, but it does play a significant role.)
Every bright idea like this has to take into account massive fucking up. The natural state of things in this benighted world.
Which is why we have such wonderful planetary benefits such as GMOs, MRNA, Glyphosate, Prions, Nuclear Waste, dying oceans, a disrupted food chain, increasing honeybee extinction, microplastics, the advent of hostile thinking machines, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
When the rebel angels lived with humans during the pre-flood era, they taught human men and women useless knowledge that came with the mother of all strings attached:
-Beautification (cosmetics and jewelry, be a slut and steal your neighbors husband)
-Witchcraft (summon up infernal other-dimensionals for fun and profit)
-Weapons making (kill, kill then kill some more)
-Astrology (slit your kid’s throat because Cancer is in Saturn)
-Currency (collect enough seashells, loan them out, and take your neighbors first born as interest)
-Abortion (Hey humans, this will come in handy with the whole eugenics thing)
The above is only the short list. Humans fell for it and are still paying the price. The angels breeding with women was a eugenics ploy as satan wanted to thwart the birth of Christ so humans could not be redeemed in God’s eyes.
(Noah’s sons actually brought wives tainted with nephilim DNA onboard the ark, so billions of humans today are actually from the demoniac seed of the serpent, which would explain the 1% elite and idiots who serve them or give them a free pass)
Everybody talks about everything in the abstract. Like as if we lived in an ideal world.
The world is not ideal because the majority of people insist on embracing sheer stupidity and self-destructive idiocy, while thinking their actions are actually the reverse.
Who is going to be satisfied doing “lesser” jobs if everyone has a high IQ? Robots won’t be able to do everything that’s needed. Girl boss culture has already impaired white fertility. Raising women’s IQs would only make that worse. And how have the high IQ elites been doing who have been leading this country – I’d say they’ve made a mess of it. We’d be better off randomly selecting people to fill political leadership positions.
If you want to raise IQs, do it where it’s most needed – in sub-Saharan Africa and other low-IQ regions.
But not everyone will have high IQ. It’s seriously doubtful such a thing would be possible, but more importantly, it simply isn’t the objective. The objective of raising mean (ie average) IQ accepts that the population will remain divided into “low”, “average” and “high” IQ segments, just as is today, only that the average intelligence of the population will be higher (and that population will enjoy the consequent benefits). Presumably then, the same segments carrying out what you term “lesser” work will be the same segments carrying it out today. My personal opinion on so-called menial labor is that it’s not all bad news. It carries less responsibility, causes less stress and affords more free time. People doing these jobs, as I see it, are hardly condemned to lives of misery.
Those things are the consequence of beliefs and values, not intelligence per se. If faulty beliefs and values were replaced by accurate beliefs and values you approve of, would you object to more intelligent people holding them?
Ultimately, I just don’t see eugenics as either requiring or resulting in as complete a transformation of society as you fear, not even close. In fact, in a society that practiced eugenics, I imagine most people would pay about as much attention to intelligence as they do today (not very much), which is good, because it’s not something most people need to obsess over. Eugenics only makes such a big deal about intelligence because contemporary thinking about it is so wrongheaded. So, my apologies if I have come across as some kind of IQ fetishist. In reality, I can’t think of a single instance in my life in which someone’s intelligence has been the deciding factor in whether I like them or want to spend more time around them.
They’re not my priority. But if they want to improve their countries, they would do well to embrace eugenic principles, certainly.
” The purpose would be to improve the quality of life. It is not just that a given individual will, all else equal, have an improved life with a higher IQ; it’s that the lives of less intelligent people are also improved – often greatly improved – when surrounded by a higher proportion of more intelligent people.”
Indeed! That is why IQ 100 Americans are not lined up at the airport to fly to sub-Sahara Africa where they would instantly be part of Africa’s cognitive elite. It is better to be mediocre in a more intelligent country than to be mentally gifted in a country of dullards. IQ is in fact a far more powerful predictor of success for large groups of persons, such as nations or ethnic groups (assuming they are not held back by the Communist Party), than it is for individuals whose life outcomes can also be affected by many other factors. Those “other factors” that vary from person to person largely cancel each other out in a large group, allowing the powerful impact of the mean IQ difference to become strikingly obvious.(Also, there are synergies.)
That does not mean we should be concerned only with intelligence. There are many other valuable traits that should probably be selected for as well, but not every trait should receive equal weighting. The big two that would provide a disproportionate number of benefits are intelligence and health (physical, mental, and psycho-sexual).
“Unless you meant that once the mean IQ of a population sinks too low, there will be proportionally too few people in that population who are capable of understanding the benefits of eugenics and will thus make no attempt to employ it”
This is, in fact, my fear, that we never quite breached the necessary threshold of intelligence and social cohesion to implement an effective eugenics plan. We were smart enough to reduce natural selection to almost nothing, but not quite smart enough, or not cohesive enough, to replace missing natural selection with artificial selection.
BTW, I have occasionally suggested, while lurking on African-American forums, that the secret to catching up with whitey is black eugenics. However, my suggestion has never been well received. That is too bad, since it would be very interesting to observe the reaction of white egalitarians to a serious black eugenics movement. Perhaps the egalitarians would reconsider their previous assumptions about biological reality.
I also worry that, even if implemented, the state could not sustain an effective eugenics project through many changes of government and fashion that inevitably occur during a run of centuries. Since humans have long generation intervals, this would have to be a long term project.
If it is ever to happen, it might require a private sector initiative. A group modeled on the Hutterites, who have been a going concern for 400 years, might be able to sustain it if they made it an integral part of their culture and education.
The tiny island of Tikopia in the SW Pacific maintained population stability for many hundreds of years, sometimes through cruel means to limit family size since they lacked today’s knowledge of contraception. It allowed them to live in peace and plenty, unlike some other islands such as Easter Island which were ravaged by overexploitation of the environment, soil erosion and civil wars. However, my main point is that they showed fertility was controllable over a long period in a self governing community. It would require only a small additional step to allow, or require, some members to reproduce at higher rates than others, OR simply to reproduce at younger ages than others (thus shorter generation lengths, a powerful factor).
The drawback of a private eugenics movement by a voluntary community is that it would eventually result in a territory in which there coexisted two impermeable communities, the Ubermenschen and the Untermenschen, the Eloi and the Morlocks.
That would of course be a problem for a future and distant generation to deal with, but perhaps not so future as one might assume. Relatively tiny populations of Yids in America and of Chinese in SE Asia wield wealth and influence that are wildly disproportionate to their numbers, and that is with a mean IQ advantage of about 1 SD above the general population (although the Yiddish advantage is declining as they increasingly intermarry, and so are their achievement statistics).
Now imagine that you had a homogeneous minority that was 2 or 3 SD in intelligence above the surrounding population, and higher in work ethic (“Big 5” Conscientiousness) and creativity (measured with the Creative Activities inventory), and lower in sleep requirements (each SD=1 hour) and with fewer health problems. And maybe they are better looking too, and more athletic. Imagine the social friction. And if they were also blue-eyed blonds with good tanning ability, well, the world would just go berserk, LOL! It is just a fantasy, but is it the impossible dream? No. There is no theoretical or practical reason why it should not be achievable.
She’s protected BECAUSE SHE’S UNDER GREATER THREAT. And hardly without reason.
But unless I die soon, I fear they WILL come for me. They’d have to hurry – I’m 80, and frail.
Whatever your reasoning, any such program is guaranteed to wind up under the control of sadistic psychopaths.
During WW2, there was a french psychopath who was a former prisoner in a Nazi camp and was freed by the Allies and who later, somehow, gained a leadership position in the post-liberated french resistance even though he never had any history in the french resistance at any time during the war.
Well, his new minions could not see him for the demonic lunatic he was, and he had his own french countrymen and women wrongfully accused on flimsy accusations of being nazi collaborators, whom he then had beaten and tortured to death. Completely innocent were his victims.
What happened to this bastard? Nothing. He was never punished, and even went on to become a local politician in a small french town. (No telling what horrors he began there undetected)
Psychopaths specialize in identifying opportunities to gain access to as much power and prey as possible. Something as potentially devastating to billions of prey such as eugenics programs would be impossible to resist, even if a truly well-meaning wanna-be God was in control, it would not be long before he was supplanted by some twisted maniac looking to cause a hell on earth that would make the Spartans throwing children off a cliff look like godly acts of mercy.
Nearly two decades ago, around the time I was first struck by the glum realization that the case for hereditary influences on life outcomes was all but sealed, I was very quickly struck by an even glummer apprehension: that we may have already passed, or will soon pass, the point of eugenic no return. Learning of the disheartening history of earlier failed efforts to inject some realism back into social thought by far better (and better positioned) men made me resign myself to the possibility that it could all very well be quite hopeless.
Still, I’m not one to despair. Although the opportunity to sew a vital stitch in time is probably closing, it may not be the case that it turns on mean IQ alone. If elite thought could be swung towards genetic realism (‘demographic realism’? probably plenty of other choices too), a way could perhaps (even likely) be found to make the necessary policies agreeable to the masses. If this were to happen, surely the supremacy-tinged spin WN types put on the issue would have to be completely done away with (and for those opposed to anything WN-ish, with the happy consequence that one of WN’s best issues is taken away from them). The material covered by Jared Taylor here is one indication this may be taking place.
But sigh, HitlerNazisWWII happened, and overnight it became radioactive. So close yet so far! (Mind you, I consider this totally understandable, if lamentable. When even fellow ‘racists’ – indeed, fellow nordicists, Americans, Brits etc – are appalled by you, that says something.)
Good on you for trying, but it was hardly surprising. Blacks face twin hurdles: the individual and the collective. All people, unfortunately, experience the issue being broached as individually threatening. “Where do I stand?” “What does it mean for me?” “Am I good enough?” Overcoming that hurdle is hard enough. But for blacks it requires confronting the implications for the present status of their group; in effect, acknowledging that the damned ‘racists’ were right about them along, which is an all but insurmountable obstacle.
No doubt, it’s the unspoken fear that spontaneously leaps out at people and expresses itself in the typical obfuscations I’m sure you’re familiar with. Indeed, some fifteen years ago when something touching on ‘designer babies’ came up, an Australian ‘morning show’ TV host blurted out, “But then everyone would choose blue-eyed blonds!!” (For the record, she was brunette.) But I’ll make two points about why it needn’t be so horrific.
Firstly, a sizeable majority of people already know – even if they dislike dwelling on it – that there are people ‘better’ than themselves in all sorts of ways: in accomplishments, talents, smarts, looks etc. For the most part, we are quite fine with it – unless it’s somehow used against us. The ethic is something like “okay, you may be ‘better’ than me, but that doesn’t mean you’re better than me!” As long as both the ‘superior’ and ‘inferiority’ parties to an interaction respect this rule, it seems we can rub along well enough.
Secondly, I like to invite people to take part in a simple thought experiment. Imagine all the ‘superior’ people you’re aware of today (in whatever makes them seem ‘superior’ specimens to you). Then imagine that, unbeknownst to you, all these people had come into being via ‘eugenic means’. (The details of how are unimportant.) Then ask yourself if that would really be so awful. That star sportsball player, that Hollywood actress, that Nobel prize winner – they weren’t born quite the same way you or I were, but if their existence on this earth hasn’t been a problem to you in the four, five, six decades they’ve been alive, why it would it become a burden to you now that you know the truth of their origins?
“But not everyone will have a high IQ.”
I wasn’t thinking that they would. But the average IQ would be higher, which would mean fewer low-IQ people.
“My personal opinion on so-called menial labor is that it’s not all bad news. It carries less responsibility, causes less stress and affords more free time. People doing these jobs, as I see it, are hardly condemned to lives of misery.”
If you don’t count having to stop working or retire early (before you qualify for Medicare or Social Security) due to disability or the long-term effects of strenuous physical labor, and if you don’t count the snotty attitude so many people have towards people who do such jobs, then you are right.
Unfortunately, you do have to count those things if you want to assess the situation accurately. Now, just throw in the bitterness of “almost being good enough” for the limited number of creative and executive positions which would come with having a higher average IQ.
Ever since we decided that everyone should go to college, we have legions of overqualified (on paper) but underemployed people who cannot get the executive and professional jobs they hoped going to college would provide for them. We also have the problem of working and middle-class wage depression that has resulted from encouraging women to work, importing cheap labor, and exporting good jobs to Third World countries.
You might not mean to, but you come off as someone who sees eugenics as a one stop solution for all these problems. I don’t think it is, and I think practicing it in the way you seem to want to do could make them worse.
“Those things are the consequence of beliefs and values, not intelligence per se.”
If high intelligence can do little to counter false beliefs and bad values even among the intelligent (some such as myself would say especially among them), then why should anyone make it a priority to increase average intelligence in a group that, on average, is already intelligent?
I certainly wouldn’t want everyone to be stupid. But I don’t see going in the opposite direction for white people (who — historically — were intelligent enough to create most of civilization and its highest achievements) as being needed or desirable. What is needed is removing the obstacles that prevent them from utilizing the talents they already have.
Given that it was white males who created most of civilization, they should not be hampered by females competing with them in the workplace. The discrimination that has been practiced against them for the last sixty years – both as whites and as males – should be ended. They should no longer have to bear the burden in taxes (or foregone government services) of providing for blacks and other nonwhites who don’t support themselves. And they should not have to put up with the presence of racial aliens who will want to seize a piece of the pie created by whitey.
This is why I say forget eugenics; instead, strive for racial separation. Of course, that in itself could be considered a form of eugenics. But it would not require whites to do or be subjected to anything. They could simply be themselves.
Gene Poole talks about Jews being significantly smarter than non-Jewish whites. But Jews are parasites and can’t survive without being parasites. They comprise a group that cannot create a country of its own without depending on outsiders to defend it. They, as a body, have managed to offend almost every host nation, kingdom or principality they have inhabited to the point of being expelled or massacred.
He also talks about Asians being smart. But if being smarter was such an advantage to them, why did they have to adopt Western inventions and technology instead of coming up with their own?
“I can’t think of a single instance in which someone’s intelligence has been the deciding factor in whether I like them or want to spend more time around them.”
I’m glad to hear that. I feel the same way.
How’s genetics coming along in recognizing psychopaths?
I think we would all agree to force cure/crispR psychopaths. Particularly if it both completed their development as human beings and altered their germline.
Well said. Something’s got to give.
Government policy now is actively dysgenic: it subsidises the procreation of the sexually irresponsible. Was it Bismarck who said that war is too important to be left to the generals? In any case, procreation is too important to be left to the women: the Ancients understood that very well.
Right now, Ty’shawnda has the whip hand. She can have unlimited progeny by unlimited “sperm donors” who make her “feel special” for one night or more. Maybe one will be a physician. Maybe one will be an engineer. Maybe.
It’s more likely that one will be an “aspiring rapper”/woman abuser or petty criminal or dope addict, costing tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to crime victims, or tens or hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars for police, courts, jails, and prisons. Ty’shawnda is destroying the United States of America.
God bless the Stupid Black Women: #1 Victim of Black Males. But no Christian should condemn them, caught, like all the rest of us, in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendor and travail of the Earth.
Well, if your reasoning is correct and eugenics is feasible, then the same reasoning makes Communism feasible. In fact, a lot more feasible, since the objectives are simpler and have little definitional complexity (it’s just a power transfer).
“Genetic influences explained 69% of the variance in the latent psychopathic personality factor, while nonshared [ie, outside the home] environmental influences explained 31%.”
https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2014-16286-001
So parental influence was zero, no doubt a disappointment to Freudians, but a not uncommon finding in psychological research.
Communism is simple enough to implement, but that does not make it “feasible.” There is the coordination problem, the free rider problem, the innovation problem, the valuation or pricing problem, and the transaction costs problem which are the likely reasons why Communist economies have consistently underperformed market based economies among populations at approximately the same IQ level. Could these problems be solved? Maybe, but no one has done it yet. Isn’t it simpler to just adopt a market based system? Especially for higher IQ populations which are likely to benefit the most from decentralized systems that allow the greatest scope in individual ability and initiative.
“We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals. Remote from universal nature and living by complicated artifice, man in civilization surveys the creature through the glass of his knowledge and sees thereby a feather magnified and the whole image in distortion. We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate for having taken form so far below ourselves. And therein do we err.
For the animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours, they move finished and complete, gifted with the extension of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings: they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth.”
Thank you for Henry Beston’s words, even though you are talking about black women and not the godforsaken animals on this planet. I read this quote many times going back to teen years; it never failed to move me and I never forgot his words.
PS. I prefer the animals. I just can’t help it.
“How’s genetics coming along in recognizing psychopaths?”
It occurs to me that I may have misunderstood your question in my previous reply. Psychopathy and other polygenic traits appear to be affected by many genes with small effects on multiple traits, so there is unlikely ever to be a CRISPR solution. CRISPR might be worth utilizing for genes of large effect, but for polygenic traits, there will probably never be anything equal to arranging matings based on estimated breeding value. Too many genes with weak individual effects and multiple effects. Even if we could obtain large enough study samples to ascertain every effect of every allele, and the magnitude of each effect, how do you do the math on that for multiple traits each influenced by thousands of genes (the omnigenic theory of inheritance)? It’s mind boggling. But merely breeding high scorers to high scorers for measurable, heritable traits (not directly for individual alleles) is effective and relatively simple.
The hard part would be persuading the bulk of the population to agree to be individually measured and rated for individual genetic merit/breeding value, and then telling the higher scoring specimens told that they must produce more offspring than they perhaps intended, or at least produce them at younger ages than the lower scorers. Even before the end of the 19th century, Galton discovered that England’s growing middle class had begun to bristle at being compared with cattle. Still, if one country or well organized sub-population solved the problem of getting its members’ consent, the rest of the world would be behooved either to compete or to fall behind. (Of course, genocide is also a possible if perverse option, but a state that is too queasy for eugenics is also likely to be too queasy for genocide.)
Hmmm, https://pathwhisperer.info/2018/04/06/2-more-for-the-mix-the-ruthlessness-gene-and-the-wanderer-gene-that-genetic-psychopathy-cocktail/
“DRD2 A1, DRD4 7-repeat, 5HTTLPR/rs25531, COMPT (or COMT) Met108/158, MAOA-L (corrections welcome).
So, . . .which one, if any of these, is the no fellow-human-feeling, no empathy, no guilt gene, . . .where do full-genetic-dose psychopaths such as Stacey Castor or Michael Swango fall on this (actually they are not full spectrum full dose psychopaths — they did have the capacity to exercise restraint and to strategize, but on the other-humans-are-just-bugs continuum they are full dose,)”
In a related vein, would Great Danes believing they are small be a polygenic or simple trait?
If you want incrowd human mating matches, simply bring such young adults into general proximity and get out of the way. For example Catskills orthodox J bungalow colonies. Beats arranged marriages. (Though at least the earlier J generations gave us chocolate rugulach, babka, etc. as a response to lack of romantic passion.)
So are the jobs that more skilled people used to do (for example automobile assembly). And on the menu also professional jobs (for example accountants, lawyers, actuaries, engineers). And A.I. is only in its early days.
Are you going to sterilize everybody or just accept that IQ is not the true measure of human wellbeing and ability to contribute to society.
Speaking of eugenics, I have noticed Western thinkers have all sorts of ideas for how they succeeded.
The invention of the steam engine by Thomas Savery, and then the Watt Engine by, you guessed it, James Watt. As necessitated by Britain’s island status, and supported by masses of high-quality, low-cost and proximal Welsh coal.
The pioneering of ship cannons by Britain who lacked sufficient men to fight France, Spain, Portugal or any other rivals.
The moral framework provided by Christianity, which I point towards as a truly significant contender.
I point to eugenics/religion (Christianity) because for all the political incorrectness we face for attributing one, if not both of these factors for Western success. If you have led a life like mine, you will know, Indians are absolutely inept at working together. They truly are uncivilised peoples. And I speak that, being of Indian origin myself.
It was the ability for Brits to work together, when certain peoples (Indians/Africans) are simply incapable of doing so. I believe good manners, gentlemanly behaviour, emphasis on civility over barbarianism, religious piety and enlightened forms of dispute arbitration, allowed Britain to flourish.
Point I’m making is, and labouring also is, even human civility may (likely does) have strong genetic origins.
I have seen English children behave far more civilised and respectfully, than 99% of Indians I have encountered as grown adults and even elderly men.