This video is available on Rumble, Bitchute, Odysee, Telegram, and X.
When people who hate me get tired of calling me a fascist or a white supremacist, they let fly with “eugenicist.” But “eugenicist” may be losing its sting. Just last week, the New York Times astonished me by publishing an article called “Should Human Life be Optimized?” It included moving pictures of cute babies who had, in some respects, been optimized.
It even used the term “liberal eugenics,” to refer to the latest techniques to ensure children get the best genetic start in life by using a method called embryo selection. It works like this: You harvest eggs from the mother, fertilize them with sperm from the father, and after about 5 or 6 days, you sequence the genomes of all the embryos and then implant the ones that have the most promising traits.
This is a company that does embryo selection for complex traits. It advertises only screening against undesirable conditions, but it collects genetic data that could be used to predict which embryos are likely to grow into taller, more athletic, smarter people. It is widely reported that if you can pick from 10 embryos, you are likely to have a child with six more IQ points than a child conceived by chance.
The Times article noted only that it was “controversial” when it included the following statement from someone who thinks higher IQs are good for the country: “Societies that have more intelligent people will have lower rates of crime, of rape, of violence, because intelligence correlates negatively with those societal blights.”
It’s a great, long article, but the Times never once mentioned Adolph Hitler or forced sterilization.
Maybe even more significant was a survey from Harvard Medical School called “Public Opinion on Polygenic Embryo Screening for IVF,” or in-vitro fertilization. A poll in 2023 of 1,400 people found a lot of them liked the idea of screening embryos. People generally think it’s OK to screen out conditions such as Schizophrenia or Alzheimer’s, but they think twice about selecting for brains or height. Here are all the traits the survey asked about, with medical conditions on the left and other traits on the right.
It’s pretty non-controversial to screen out genetic conditions associated with cancer or heart disease. What’s more interesting is what people thought about screening for positive traits such as intelligence, the top item on this graph.
Here, the top two bars — the red and the brown — are strong disapproval and disapproval. And, sure enough, they account for about 40 percent of responses. But 23 percent have no opinion, 24 percent approve, and 13 percent strongly approve. There is even more support for screening out neuroticism or obesity. This is not the ferocious opposition to eugenics that you might expect.
Christian writers tend not to like embryo selection. They warn against “technologies that objectify early human life and rob it of its moral standing.” Furthermore, anyone who believes that life begins at conception will oppose selecting embryos because the ones not chosen are often destroyed.
However, there may soon be ways dramatically to increase the chances of having a genius baby or an Olympic gold medalist. It’s called in-vitro gametogenesis.
You take basically any animal cell, reprogram it into a stem cell, and turn that into an egg. In 2016, Japanese biologists did this with cells from a mouse’s tail. They fertilized the eggs in vitro, put them into a mouse womb and got 10 pups. Some of the pups went on to have pups of their own.
It would be a huge breakthrough to do that with people. The biggest bother with in-vitro fertilization is getting the eggs from the mother. You can get only about a dozen eggs each cycle, and the whole procedure is pretty awful. Sperm are plentiful. So, if you could just take a woman’s skin cells and turn them into eggs, parents might have hundreds of embryos to choose from.
There’s no telling what you might end up with.
And this could be possible in 10 or 15 years. [link] Two years ago, a Brown University doctor was already saying, “It’s time for the public to get a sense of the possible.” NO IMAGE
It’s also time for the country to return to common sense. Eugenics improves people, just as selective breeding improves plants and animals. Its why cows give more milk, ears of corn are bigger and taste better, and turkeys are fatter and more tender.
Fast race horses produce fast colts. That’s why when Triple-Crown Winner American Pharaoh retired and started his breeding career, his stud fee was $200,000.
In the early part of the 20th century, we understood that these principles apply to us. It was common for people to attend free public lectures on eugenics.
There were “fitter families contests,” in which experts judged families on their desirable qualities.
Here are three generations of winners, with their trophies.
Laugh at these quaint pictures if you like, but they reflected an understanding of reality.
After the Second World War, a kind of insanity took over that is only now beginning to fade. The title of the Times article I started with is a question: Should we optimize human life? Of course we should. That’s what education, health care, culture, and technology are all about. You could argue that if we have the means to improve our species, we have a duty to improve it.
What has held us back for decades is the fear that if we start taking human genetics seriously again, we can no longer pretend there aren’t genetic differences between races. We’ve even gone through a period when we’re supposed to pretend that race has nothing to do with genes or biology — that it’s a “social construct.”
When’s the last time professors and journalists tried to make us believe anything so colossally stupid?
And even now, we’re supposed to worry that only rich white people can afford embryo selection, so our intolerable racial gaps will get even more intolerable. The Times article calls this prospect “dystopian.”
Even so, after decades of deliberate ignorance, I see signs of light.
Next week, I’ll talk about what could happen if we finally stepped out into the full sun.
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
English
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
The greatest racehorse of all time Secretariat sired 663 foals. He stood at stud from 1974 till 1989. Total earnings from his stud fees were over 100 million dollars. Out of the 663 horses he sired only 57 went on to be stakes winners. Hopefully this “optimizing” will work better on people.
At this point, there are very few ways in which the chosen people fail to resemble their actual idols — the national socialists. If eugenics is permitted, what leaf from the nazi playbook will remain untouched? You’d have to call it irony, but it’s been basic policy for so long that we have to admit the only reason the jews wanted to win WW2 is because they wanted the whip hand for their own.
“There’s no telling what you might end up with ”
We’re already there. Husbandry has been around and around. Is there anything left ?
” It’s not that we’re stupid, it’s that we know so much that isn’t so”.
Remember, we’re made in god’s image , and it is his will being done , the kingdom , the temple and paradise in the next life . Rejoice…
What might “you ” end up with ? Are you blind?
It’s here. Isn’t it rich ? Prey$ Be sinners.
The best eugenics program is for the races to separate. Tinkering with the human genome might have unintended – and irreversible – long-term consequences. I wouldn’t recommend it.
Thanks for this scientific update, Mr. Taylor.
I think that, like Moses and “Dr.” Mike King, I can now catch a glimpse of the Promised Land. You hinted at it when you mentioned dairy cows and turkeys. They are not engineered for their benefit! Why would the state engineer men for the benefit of your sacred “White Race”?
In the future, if current trends continue, everything will be controlled by the state. The Ideal Citizen will be “encouraged” to come into existence one way or another: Ubermensch the Turkey. He will be genetically engineered to be a genius at STEM subjects and take no interest in history, philosophy, and political science. He will breeze through a book by Richard P. Feynman on Quantum Electrodynamics and be uninterested in Machiavelli or John Stuart Mill. (Not that he will be aware of either having existed.)
He will not be at all interested in being a “free man”. After a day at the East is Red Technical Institute, he will enjoy his supper of noodles and genetically-engineered dolphin, then sit down at his computer for his True Interest: his game of Level 17 Go with his friendly rival in Greater Budapest or Great Sapporo.
Aldous Huxley was a better prophet than George Orwell. No need for the Two Minutes’ Hate: no reason to hate.
Once DNA is available, people will take advantage of it. Of course, like most things in our world, the wealthy will get first crack.
Good video, thanks. I think that resumption of a positive evolutionary trend, which always used to be enforced by natural selection before the Industrial and Scientific Revolutions, is the only hope for humanity.
Advanced genetic tech holds the possibility of a consensual eugenic trend, which is by far the easiest way forward, I’d say. I’m glad to see that support for positive selection is fairly strong.
The hard way is for civilisation to disintegrate to the point where youth mortality rises towards 50% or more like in the old days, which is, of course, where we’re heading at the moment.
Incidentally, ears of corn may be significantly larger than their wild ancestors (maybe even 100 times larger), but they are also effectively sterile – the seeds cannot spread without human intervention. Perhaps maybe a lesson in the laws of unintended consequences.
“…a consensual eugenic trend…”
Your “consent” will not be requested, any more than it was requested for the Manhattan Project, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, the JFK Assassination, 9/11, or the Covid-19 virus gain-of-function research.
Evolution is simply a long eugenics project. For a billion yrs, each generation has selected those individuals with the best genes the to survive and reproduce, while individuals with “inferior” genes died. This is how Earth’s incredible adaptive diversity was created.
Thank God that humans also practiced eugenics, for it’s given us all the amazing fruits, grains and vegetables that we eat, not to mention the domesticated animals we eat. The multitude of dog, cat and horse breeds are the results of eugenics, as are all the beautiful varieties of roses, tulips, and other ornamental flowers.
Without purposeful planned eugenics by humans, there would be no dogs — only wolves . No sweet oranges — only bitter ones. No giant strawberries or super grains.
Anyone against eugenics is an idiot. Leftists despise eugenics because it would force them to admit that there are “bad” and “good” genes, and that destroys the fallacy that “we are all the same”.
But it is obvious that we are not all the same. Some horses and humans are faster and more athletic. Some humans and dogs are more intelligent. Some breeds of animals and humans races have better immune systems against certain specific diseases. These differences are all GENETIC.
We now have the ability to remove unwanted genetic traits from our future offspring. I’m totally in favor of that.
If you are a Leftist or Marxist and want to gamble with the future health, happiness and success of your children, then go for it. You will be able to smugly say, “Sure, my children are short, fat, unathletic, mentally ill have defective hearts and bad teeth, and died young, but at least we’re not RACISTS.
Tall, good looking, athletic, extremely intelligent and yada yada, just some fantasy about being someone who just stepped out of a movie. Why tall, what’s that got to do with survivability or health? How many 6’6″ 80 yr olds do you see walking around? The Japanese seem to get by all right on their island without much of that trait. Olympic gold medal athleticism? That’s just entertainment. You think guys who slogged to the North Pole or Conquistadores that sailed across the ocean in wooden ships and conquered hundreds of thousands of natives were people who hung around gyms displaying their six-packs? Intelligence? There’s reversion to the mean. Children of famous or accomplished people are often undistinguished or even dysfunctional. Einstein’s own son was mentally incapacitated and had to be institutionalized. Good looks? That seems to happen anyway as good lookers find each other. It all sounds good in theory but in practice there’s always some bug that pops up. Eugenics takes place unspoken, intuitively, as people sort themselves out and gravitate towards those they find appealing or at least acceptable. What’s not needed are some know-it-alls who overestimate themselves and try to push things.
No problem, but we should at least keep a viable control group of natural humans in case we fuck it up.
Well said, @anonymous[328].
“Patriot” was so impressed with the “beautiful varieties of roses” and “giant strawberries” created by breeders who could see a strawberry’s size but not its resistance to different diseases. Roses from garden stores have eye appeal, but few are strongly fragrant. They are like a childless feminist with silicone boobs and botoxed lips.
God Bless our dear, sincere Race Patriot Jared Taylor! He will be the last White Man to worship the god of 🎆 Science 🎆! He still hasn’t seen the price of tradeoffs and blowback effects. 👉 SCIENCE MAKES LIFE EASY. THAT IS NOT WHAT WHITES SHOULD BE STRIVING FOR. 👈
“Patriot” prefers sweet oranges; I prefer bitter oranges. Hegseth prefers ultrasonic missiles and laser-guided bombs; Musashi preferred the two-handed sword. It is ceaseless striving that made Europeans stronger than the grab-a-banana savages of “more hospitable” climes.
Take a very close look at the masterpiece “The Garden of Earthly Delights” by the great (White!) painter Hieronymus Bosch. 🍓
I’d be fine if we can just retard the high speed path to dysgenics.
Good ol’ Ed Dutton tracks this fairly well, and paint a pretty good picture of why we should be paying attention and do some things to arrest it…now.
Your statement is spot-on – the cows and turkeys are not engineered for their benefit; neither will be the future man. The implications of that point are where I believe you are partially mistaken.
The people who have power – i.e., money – obviously have access to life-engineering processes. They do not want competition outside of their control, but they certainly want progeny whom they can shape “in their own image”. That is why there will never be uncontrolled eugenics, but – just as a more useful animal can be begotten – there most certainly will be focused eugenics; that is, focused upon creating populations which are of benefit to the powerful. Ultimately there will be large populations created which will pick up the trash, clean toilets, and perform drudge labor – and they will be entirely satisfied, just as is true right now. There will be much, much smaller populations which will be STEM geniuses, and they too will serve the powerful.
Leftists detest Inequality; they either have to lie or to remain Willful Ignorant of the facts uncovered by Evolutionary Psychology.
What will they do when we can at last screen people for Intelligence, amongst other traits that translate to power, status and money, at least, in The West‽
Will they make it illegal? Impossible!
That’s like saying, “There shouldn’t exist Tax Havens” – in short, cannot make illegal everywhere, in the World.
And, BTW, if they make it illegal in, say, Canada and Sweden: the ultra-rich of these countries only need to go to other countries.
…Which, ironically, would make the Wealth Gap wider than just “leaving it to the Invisible Hand”!
Of course, initially only the rich will be able to afford it at all, anyway…
Funny thing is, Left-Wingers don’t believe in races: in the sense that there are DIFFERENCES in ’em in so-called “important” things, like Intelligence.
But with an “X portion” of the population having, say, an IQ of 150 due to Embryo Selection, whilst the other “Y portions” being “average Joes” due to either not able to afford it or totally refusing it due to silly things like God.
…it is like X and Y are different species! Ha!
Articles like this never take account of incompetence and corruption. They float in an airy world of universalized abstraction.
Just wait till the boneheads and the monsters get their hands on it. Watch what huge horrible messes they make.
Who cares if it is right or wrong if no one will ever do it right?
You say that only 57 of 663 sired by Secretariat became stakes winners. That’s actually very good and supports eugenics.
How many offspring would become stakes winners if the father had been a random horse off the farm or local riding stable?
Genes and heredity don’t always produce optimal results, but instead increase the odds. Breeding with Secretariat is like having a deck of cards with a couple of extra aces and kings, and no 2s or 3s.
It increases the chance that you will be dealt a good hand, but doesn’t guarantee it.
Those “ know-it-alls who overestimate themselves and try to push things” are the same guys that gave the world drinkable hot and cold water to your bathroom, the airplane, space ships, computers, modern medicines, not to mention today’s 2,000 varieties of apple, high yield, pest resistant grain, 400 breeds of dog, and on and on.
Go to the produce dept of any supermarket and see what agricultural eugenics has brought us.
Have some vision for what’s possible.
“It’s here. Isn’t it rich ? Prey$ Be sinners.”
English please?
I have long held to the conviction that those who choose to procreate should be quietly conducting their own eugenics program. I don’t see any reason for anyone to wait until such motives become fashionable. Those aren’t the kind of people we want going forward anyway. You all know what I mean. I don’t have to go into detail. Just get ahead of the game, friends.
Evolution is simply a long eugenics project.
Evolution is just a theory but ‘scientists’ and laypeople throw the term around as if it’s a proven fact, and then ridicule people who believe in ufos and ghosts when evolution falls into the same category of what is considered make believe by those same evolution proponents.
Anyone against eugenics is an idiot
As with everything else, psychopaths would be allowed to gain control of eugenics and turn it into a diabolical nightmare.
Your kid has asymmetric ears! Snip his junk off! No breeding for him!
We now have the ability to remove unwanted genetic traits from our future offspring. I’m totally in favor of that.
With know-it-alls ‘high IQ’ humans who think they can outdo God, the result would be the following
Video Link
Video Link
Humans are too stupid and short-sighted to go fucking around with genetic engineering, selective breeding or any other kind of tinkering.
Such a thing was even tried by fallen angels who with idiot women, produced giants that terrorized pre-flood man and devoured them after exhausting human food supplies.
Taking a page from satan’s playbook is never a good idea.
All that is left is to isolate those genes for honesty, integrity and hard work and we’re off to the races.
Spot-on!
That’s why Huxley has a caste system, from the Elon Musk-esque Alpha Plusses down to the lowly Delta Minuses (a bit closer to me, some commenters here would say.)
I can’t forget the scene when some Alphas are taking a lift to the roof of their building to board a helicopter (only the elites traveled that way; some things never change).
The Delta Minus Semi-moron who operates the lift struggles to find the right button, does, and takes the lift to the roof, where he rarely goes. The door opens and the lift is flooded with bright sunlight. “Roof; roof!” says the Delta, almost swooning in ecstacy. He has met the challenge.
What makes the Brave New World frightening is that everyone is perfectly engineered for his role in life; none are frustrated. None are unhappy. There will be no more Van Goghs or Dostoyevskys or Kafkas either.
Maybe it’s just me but the chart which depicts total support or disapproval for screening out conditions strikes me, in some way, as delivering contradictory results.
Most people are fine with screening out obesity, yet are against BMI screens. Yet, obesity is solely defined as having a BMI above 30.
Simiarly, many people are against screening out neuroticism and agreeableness, yet would support screening for depression or OCD which are often thought of as just extreme variants of the very same behavioral traits (neuroticism, openness etc.) I would suppose that most people are completely fine with screening out intellectual disability (we already know they are), but yet they are ambivalent towards screening for intelligence more generally?
Roughly 40-50 % support for screening out neuroticism and screening for life satisfaction as well as the overwhelming support for screening out ADHD and autism further suggests a general trend towards homogenization of thought and emotion. I don’t think this will end up well. Once this Gattaca scenario is implemented, I can’t wait for the surge of parents filing in damage claims because they didn’t get the kids they were promised as well as a government using genetic engineering to make their subjects more docile and open to “suggestions”.
“In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic? … Scientists working in this field might say — as indeed I have said — that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks.” — Dr. Anthony Fauci, speaking at the American Society for Microbiology, October 2012
” … Coronaviruses are pretty good … You can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily … the spike proteins drive a lot of what happens. You can get the sequence. You can build the protein. We work with Ralph Baric at UNC to do this: insert into the backbone of another virus and do some work in a lab.” – Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance, Nipah Virus International Conference, Singapore, December 9, 2019.
“What’s next for our foundation? I’m particularly excited about what the next year could mean for one of the best buys in global health: vaccines.” — Bill Gates, Twitter, December 19, 2019.
” … The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome, less than 0.1%, so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features potentially look engineered.” – Dr. Kristian G. Andersen of the Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, California, in an email to Dr. Fauci, January 31, 2020
“Judicial Watch obtains records detailing NIH purchases of aborted fetal parts for ‘humanized mice’ testing.” – Judicial Watch press release, February 13, 2020.
**********************************
Yeah, let these people muck around with DNA. I mean, what could go wrong?!?
It’s too bad we don’t have IQ test results for people who have made great contributions to literature, art, music, philosophy, science, invention, exploration, sports, etc., and at the same time have been exemplary human beings going all the way back to the ancient Greeks. If we overly emphasize IQ, might we not end up with a bunch of conscienceless nerds? What about selecting for looks? Does Hollywood set the standard? (shudder) Mental health? Who determines what’s mentally healthy? Goodness? Who determines what’s good? Nature has given us a tapestry. Let’s leave it alone.
We know what people are like who can’t accept and deal with reality on its own terms and insist on radically changing it. You can find them at BLM/Antifa riots. You can find them ordering porn to put in children’s libraries. You can find them at Davos. Thanks, but no thanks.
You may be the smartest Deacon ever to have served in the Parker’s Corners Full-Bible Gospel Light Miracle Deliverance Tabernacle, but you don’t understand what them there sy-un-tists mean when they speak of a “theory”.
Hint: the Theory of General Relativity has been 👉 proved 👈.
You picked the wrong street corner, Reverend.
You may be the smartest Deacon ever to have served in the Parker’s Corners Full-Bible Gospel Light Miracle Deliverance Tabernacle
Well aren’t you a blasphemous SOB? LOL, it’s a good thing for you that there is no afterlife according to your god sy-un-tists. Don’t forget to take their ‘MRNA shot of immortality’
but you don’t understand what them there sy-un-tists mean when they speak of a “theory”.
Theory of General Relativity has been 👉 proved 👈
Ummm, no, we’re talking about ‘evolution’, evolution has not been proven at all. Darwin was an egotistical fossil from a primitive era of Western culture who s-p-e-c-u-l-a-t-e-d (as in made up) while he was most likely taking a shit. (‘random mutations’ indeed)
He had no knowledge of DNA or Intelligent Design for instance, hell thanks to Darwin and his cousin’s ‘contributions’, America was given the miracle of the eugenics movement where his high IQ know-it-all racial brethren selflessly took it upon themselves to arbitrarily decide who was fit to breed or not.
But by your statement, I certainly know now what George Orwell meant by ‘doublethink’ and ‘doublespeak’ which is exactly why whites will outsmart themselves into a permanent dystopia where they can continue to be ‘high IQ’ smartasses’ arguing with the slave factory water cooler filled with liquid fluoride. *tiny violin playing*
I don’t particularly want drinkable hot water in my bathroom.
Take a poll in Gaza City about the popularity of airplanes; there are two sides to that coin.
2,000 varieties of apple, Mr. Burbank? And yet I can’t get a “Seek no Further” at my supermarket.
Ah…computers! Which include cell phones. There is some dispute over whether or not they will benefit humanity.
Helicopters are good! 😊
Jared Taylor: “The Times article noted only that it was “controversial” when it included the following statement from someone who thinks higher IQs are good for the country: “Societies that have more intelligent people will have lower rates of crime, of rape, of violence, because intelligence correlates negatively with those societal blights.””
Correlation isn’t causation. It’s possible you could just end up with more intelligent criminals. Ted Kaczynski was highly intelligent.
Jared Taylor: “You take basically any animal cell, reprogram it into a stem cell, and turn that into an egg.”
So Taylor admits this technique works with any cells, even male (XY) ones.
Jared Taylor: “… if you could just take a woman’s skin cells and turn them into eggs, parents might have hundreds of embryos to choose from.”
The skin cells wouldn’t necessarily have to be from a woman. The technique would break the female monopoly on motherhood. For the first time in history, men could be mothers too! In fact, a man could be both mother and father of his own child!
Jared Taylor: “There’s no telling what you might end up with.”
LOL! Indeed.
Such people permeate TUR also, which you neglected to mention.
But just as you and so many others here inability to accept the reality of Israel and Jewish world power, you will similarly have no ability to dictate the choices parents will make for their progeny.
I’m sure you must have noticed how parents tend to name their kids the same based on whatever names are currently in vogue due to, mainly, celebrity worship. The same thing will happen when parents are able to choose attributes for their kids.
A large majority will be tall, handsome/beautiful, athletic with high IQ’s.
But there will also be a subset that will do weird things, such as have 4 arms or add a tail or add eyes in the back of their heads or choose Ferengi ears. Some men might ask for a womb so they can carry a child to birth. SF is ripe with possible futures like this.
Regardless and as always, the first to take advantage of such technology will be the wealthy.
You say, “ evolution has not been proven”.
You are either a troll, an idiot, or extremely ignorant. Please don’t pontificate about things of which you know nothing. You only embarrass yourself to educated people.
Evolution in nature is ongoing and all around us. Evolution can be both exceedingly fast and local. Scientists have now documented thousands of cases of evolution in nature.
Examples of evolution influencing humans include rapid evolution in viruses. In fact, viruses evolve so fast that scientists can’t keep up with them in real time
We see Evolution of drug resistance in pathogens, resistance to insecticides in insects and to herbicides in weeds.
In the laboratory scientists can easily create evolution over many generations and then reverse it by simply changing the growing conditions of organisms.
You probably also think the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the Earth, and that the moon landings are fake.
Evolution was proven about 75 yrs ago due to the tsunami of convincing evidence and careful experiments. In fact Biology doesn’t make sense, without evolution.
“Such people permeate TUR also.”
I agree.
“But just as your and so many others here inability to accept the reality of Israel and Jewish world power …”
I acknowledge that reality. But I consider myself duty-bound not to accept anyone being above my people.
My position is that the Jews need to be disempowered, just as your position is that they need to be powerful — if not all-powerful.
I admire you for defending your people and I am disgusted by those among my own people who won’t make it their first priority to defend themselves and each other.
You are either a troll, an idiot, or extremely ignorant. Please don’t pontificate about things of which you know nothing. You only embarrass yourself to educated people.
How about you ‘pontificate’ your thumb from your ass and shove it in your mouth G.I. Joke?
Evolution in nature is ongoing and all around us. Evolution can be both exceedingly fast and local. Scientists have now documented thousands of cases of evolution in nature.
Such a statement is what’s called ‘broad-brushed verbal bullshit’ You say a lot without actually saying anything of value at all.
Examples of evolution influencing humans include rapid evolution in viruses. In fact, viruses evolve so fast that scientists can’t keep up with them in real time
Too bad for instance, they were not smart enough to realize that that multiple hominid species existed at the exact-same-time. Never read that in the theory of evolution did you smartass? You must have one of those shitty ‘G.I. bill’ educations for enlisted cretins.
Yes, your genius scientists, who one month say “Butter is healthier than margarine” and ‘Margarine is healthier than butter’ the next month are experts at tweaking, altering and redefining their theories or fit previously unknown facts they take credit for into newly made up paradigms which they then proudly push into some halfassed whitepaper.
We see Evolution of drug resistance in pathogens, resistance to insecticides in insects and to herbicides in weeds.
Well, I can’t argue with that, as you are clearly resistant to ‘Prickacide’, ‘Incelicide’, and ‘dropdeaddouchbagocide’
In the laboratory scientists can easily create evolution over many generations and then reverse it by simply changing the growing conditions of organisms.
Oh gee golly, I guess I should do as you and go purchase a cardboard cutout of the god Darwin and masturbate to it daily.
You probably also think the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the Earth, and that the moon landings are fake.
And you probably are some shill collegiate ‘educator’ who falsifies his ‘scientific findings’ in order to swindle grant money over to his CCP whore mistress while funneling research to the same.
In fact Biology doesn’t make sense, without evolution.
You certainly make sense, as you are the stereotypical white asshole (which unz is infested with) who would actually be asinine enough (in true ‘high IQ’ know it all fashion) to correct aliens who were 50,000yrs above you. (hell 1 yr above you would be a milestone in advancement)
If eugenics does take off, to absolutely create some kind of engineered nightmares, turds such as you will be the ones responsible because you have everything figured out and know more than God Himself just like your 1% Elite white and white jew counterparts, who, by the way, have you slated for extinction despite your mammoth intellect as despite your brilliance, your are still only a 99%’er peon POS.
Enjoy trying to correct God in the afterlife Slappy:
patriot; ‘Well Lord, here’s where You messed up in making Adam & Eve’
God: ‘Moving Almighty finger over to button marked ‘Hell for this shithead’
Kike we have an absolute natural right to defend ourselves from the likes of you and your ilk and since you and your shit kind is not from most parts of the World putz but from one small particular part that means your an alien invader into other people’s domains. So you and your kind must be dealt with ruthlessly.
Everything makes sense when you consider the following :
i) Nature created homosexuality to divert the most defective genes out of the gene pool.
ii) White Trashionalists tend to be almost 100% male and absolute bottom of the barrel ne’er do wells. Yet the fat, bluehaired feminists are entirely white and equal in number to the White Trashionalists.
iii) There is an unusually high variance in white quality. Much more than in other races.
iv) Most White Trashionalists say that they would rather have sex with a white man ahead of a famously pretty mulatto/quatroon woman like 1970s Pam Grier or 1990s Halle Berry.
Ergo, the white race has a unique quarantine and filtration mechanism for unwanted genetic waste matter. The upper 90% of white people have no flaws, while all the flaws neatly concentrate into the bottom 10% for continuous, efficient removal from the gene pool. This is why the white race keeps improving, we have a special feature where the wastematter gets eliminated from the gene pool via a defective subrace that comprises the bottom 10% of whites.
The males of this defective subrace become the White Trashionalists, while the women become the fat bluehaired feminists. This is why there are no women in White Trashionalism, but fat bluehaired feminists are both equal in number and defective IQ/appearance to the male White Trashionalists.
This explanation is both robust and elegant, and really does explain everything.
Thanks,
– Mordecai Velvel Rabinowitz
Why do very smart people do and say such very stupid things?
Video Link
Absolutely right!
Somebody tell Jared that every coin has two sides. It is embarrassing that he does not know this.
Leftist?
The clue is in the timeframe.
A rapid bottleneck of genetic engineering within one generation obviously carries risks for the human genome.
We have evolved and mutated for millions of years.
Radical engineering at the level of human DNA itself could trigger catastrophe. Not unlike the Potato Blight or the Black Death.
From mid 1980s reposed March 4th 2025 (along with all other poens) as Last Polsci.com, Crying Havoc or Restraining the Dogs of war…
Babies in the Wastebasket
As biologists grow less moral
to appease their massive egos
they now use humans as guinea pigs
only the call them embryos
They say they are not babies
because they have not yet been born
Though they know this is untrue,
those who admit it they scorn
“You stand against progress.” they say
“You try to keep us from saving lives!”
but of the thousands they’ve maken and taken
they will tell you only half-truths and lies
To protect our helpless young children
we have made for them special laws
but the youngest and most helpless
are killed by ambiguity or a loophole clause
People cry out against cruelty to animals,
don’t they know humans suffer the same fate
Yet about this, their voices are not heard
though here the inhumanity is far more great
It is amazing that we can permit
such horrible mass homicide to occur
How can people stay so detached
when what the embryos are we all once were
How far we have come! In the wrong direction. Time to do a Baerbock 360?
I wonder if they did anything like that back before the Civil War when they were breeding slaves in Virginia?
Not all are beautiful.
Don’t/won’t they gamble with everyone/everyone’s children? It doesn’t just affect them/their children.
Cuts both ways.
But do their utmost to mix races?
I couldn’t agree more and couldn’t have said it better. Thank you.
Damn, Taylor wants to breed out us Craica Ass Mofos.
Always knew I couldn’t trust that Yankee.
He’s out of the closet now as a Technocrat. No wonder he slobbers all over the Jews who he falsely believes to be intelligent.
Kids, never trust a self-anointed so called high IQ nerd like Taylor.
We have the medical tech to manipulate human embryos and no doubt optimize genes. But what if the Buddhists are right about reincarnation and karma? If so then souls are born into faulty bodies for a reason, likewise so with good or bad parents. We may be able to maximize the physical body to perfection but parents can’t choose what souls will be incarnated, as such there is always going to be room for an unpleasant surprise.
Or from a Christian perspective, why did God choose to have so many born into second rate bodies, being God it can’t be an accident. Are we interfering with His plan? Just a thought.
GMO: Beware the World to Come
https://cjbbooks.com/
There is ONE race-the human race.
Sowell is just a House Negro Uncle Tom. A nonentity.
China already figured it out.
https://theconversation.com/did-he-jiankui-make-people-better-documentary-spurs-a-new-look-at-the-case-of-the-first-gene-edited-babies-196714
Video Link
Jared Taylor must recognize the spiritual impoverishment of his way of thinking, and generally he’s tried to mask it, given the composition of his audience.
Mother nature is pretty good at matching people up, the problem comes with these women on contraception.
“We’re All Eugenicists” is a daft title, almost intended to make people angry, (are you irritated with us Jared?) but let’s suppose this selection of embryos becomes normal for Yale alumni. I foresee a future of small groups of genetically bred freaks (some may still be white, who knows?) being surrounded and killed by packs of attack negroes sicced on them by Orthodox Jews riding donkeys.
Astute observation. The ceaseless striving of Europeans also made them history’s leading mass murderers, incessant genocidal maniacs and robbers of continental magnitude. It is that striving that also gave us the European Renaissance that was purportedly exclusive to the race and one that went hand in hand with unprecedented European cruelty.
Regardless, the grab-a-banana savages of “more hospitable” climes must not forget the miracles of modern medicine that have dramatically reduced their infant mortalities along with the attendant population explosion and the migration horrors plaguing America and their European, Canadian and Australian vassals.
The era of reverse colonialism and imperial madness is now upon us. They can only be neutralized by nuclear extermination. The nuclear clock is steadily moving in that direction.
Ah, Secretariat. I had a problem as a teenager mounting Phillies just like that handsome horse but I became a stud just like him. Thankfully no unwanted sires knocked on my door years later. 😅
The End of Days is coming.
Holy fuck. Is THIS the understatement of the century, or what?
You don’t need anything fancy. Just pay sub-85 IQ women 2000 dollars per month up until the day they give birth.
“Should human life be optimized” 🤡 You mean shrinking of the brain volume do not get fast enough for the cattle owners? Its the MOST intelligent and sensitive that are removed in such as witch burning. The same will happen with a humanity that are not free, whatever it does or believe.
I saw that magnificent creature cross the finish line the way ahead of the rest of the field at the Pimlico Race Track in Baltimore Preakness. Don Schaffer was the mayor and city was great…It’s too bad 50 plus years later that famous park isn’t the same, just as the city has gone down steadily with the decline in White population.
As an anti-anti-semite I am resolutely against eugenic methods that would select to exclude congenital diseases
(e.g., Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis, Gaucher’s disease, familial dysautonomia, breast cancer in women and men (BRCA1 and BRCA2), Canavan disease, Fanconi anemia, mucolipidosis, Niaman-Pick, Usher syndrome, schizophrenia, paranoia•)
because that would reduce the population of the Jews, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, without whom it would not be possible to ‘heal the world.’
————
•The list is a lot longer; see the tables provided by wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_genetics_of_Jews
If you don’t believe in God, then the only reasonable position is that you support eugenics.
This is why you should believe in God.
“When people who hate me get tired of calling me a fascist or a white supremacist, they let fly with “eugenicist.”
Neah, I think a lot more people would call you a farceur, a limited-hangout seller of hasbara.
Agree. Rather than improving humanity, TPTB will use this technology to create dumbed-down slave labor. Anyone familiar with the term “replicant?”
Right, except the article has nothing to do with ‘tinkering’ with the human genome.
The idea is to sequence the genomes of multiple embryos and then choose the most promising ones.
At any rate, make no mistake…eventually we’ll be ‘tinkering’ with the human genome in order to generically engineer specific human traits, but until then this looks like a promising development.
July 14, 2014 Truth Over Comfort: The Truth About American Eugenics
From its ideological origins in the 19th century British gentry to its adoption and application in the United States in the sterilization laws of the 20th century, we discuss the past, present and future of the eugenics-obsessed elite.
http://www.corbettreport.com/interview-917-truth-over-comfort-the-truth-about-american-eugenics/
Jan 13, 2014 Mad Science: Eugenics and Selective Breeding
Human beings have tinkered with the genetic traits of animals and plants alike, placing artificial pressure on the process of natural selection. So what happens when humanity practices selective breeding on itself?
Video Link
Funny, it sure seems like the kikes are the ones dealing with your kind ruthlessly.
That’s why you keep losing. The Jews are not only smarter than you, but more ruthless as well.
Longer comment below more tab. Summary:
Jared Taylor claims eugenics is making a Western comeback under the guise of “liberal embryo selection,” but this is just a LARP compared to China’s full-spectrum genetic enhancement program, which includes government-backed IQ genomics, normalized embryo testing, and a strategic vision of national improvement. While the West dithers in ethical self-flagellation, China has quietly operationalized eugenics as a national survival mechanism, making Jared’s celebration not only premature, but pathetically provincial.
We’re Not All Eugenicists, Jared: Just the Chinese Are
1. “We’re All Eugenicists Now”? No, Jared. Just the Winners Are
Jared opens with his trademark faux-naïve provocation: “We’re all eugenicists now.” No, we’re not. The New York Times publishing a milquetoast op-ed that dares to ask whether we should “optimize life” doesn’t signal a eugenics revival in the West. Rather, it signals that the Overton Window has shifted just enough to let some brave intern write about baby IQ under editorial supervision.
Meanwhile, in China, eugenics is more than mere timid op-ed. It has reached government policy status. Jared chuckles about “six extra IQ points” from picking embryos. But BGI’s Cognitive Genomics Project isn’t interested in marginal gains: it’s sequencing high-IQ genomes by the thousands, with state funding. The Chinese are engaged in civilization-scale planning.
2. Eugenics as National Strategy: While Jared is Still Talking Cows and Corn
You compare modern eugenics to breeding better cows and fatter turkeys. The Chinese are comparing it to geopolitical survival. They’re running prenatal tests at scale. They’ve normalized embryo selection as a path to national rejuvenation. Their 1994 Maternal Health Law mandates genetic counseling, and public surveys show mass approval of genetic screening, not just to eliminate disease, but to “enhance” future generations.
While Western nations grovel in the shadow of Holocaust trauma and dodge the word “eugenics” like it’s radioactive, China moved on decades ago. You see a cultural shift. But, in reality, it’s a power shift.
3. “Liberal Eugenics” Is a Euphemism for Terminal Decay
You celebrate the rise of “liberal eugenics” (the consumer) choice version, where parents pick smarter embryos like they’d choose a college major. But Jared, there’s no strategy behind that. It seems more like lifestyle branding.
In China, genetic enhancement is a national infrastructure project. In the US, it’s a biotech startup trying not to get canceled on X. While the West is still issuing institutional “guidelines,” China is making superbabies and policy in the same breath.
The He Jiankui affair? Yes, China jailed him — but not before he proved the concept. The lesson wasn’t “don’t do it.” The lesson was “don’t get caught doing it alone”.
4. The Future: One Race to Rule Them All?
You wonder if race is the reason eugenics was taboo. You’re not wrong. The dirty secret is that genetics inevitably leads to group differences, and that terrifies Western egalitarians. But the Chinese don’t care. Their approach is unapologetically nationalist, implicitly racial, and strategically cohesive.
They’re not worried about “equity.” They’re building a high-IQ future, guided by state-engineered demographics and selective science. And the West? We’re still stuck in bioethics seminars, fretting about consent forms and whether designer babies might “harm diversity.”
Jared, if this is a race, we’ve already lost the first lap. And we’re arguing about what shoes to wear.
5. Final Thoughts: The Genetic Arms Race Is Already On
You end your piece with a call to “common sense.” But forget that and concentrate on speed. And the Chinese are moving fast. They have fewer scruples, more cash, and no “diversity, equity, and inclusion” speed bumps.
If this century’s superpower is the one that cracks the genome, it won’t be a “liberal eugenicist” society of boutique baby pickers. It’ll be a technocratic megastate with CRISPR factories and national pride.
In other words, it’ll be China.
So no, Jared — we’re not all eugenicists. Only the serious players are. And the West, tragically, isn’t one of them.
Read the closing lines of Richard Lynn’s Eugenics, Jared:
And the only thing I would add is that it’s not just inevitable. It’s already happening.
====================
Grok support for comment above:
Since 2018, China has advanced in genetic enhancement research, with BGI leading projects like the NIFTY Test and Cognitive Genomics Project to explore IQ genetics, though embryo selection for IQ remains speculative (Scientific American). The 2018 He Jiankui case, involving CRISPR-edited babies, prompted global condemnation and stricter Chinese regulations (Wikipedia). State support, reflected in laws like the 1994 Maternal and Infant Health Care Law, and cultural acceptance drive these efforts, contrasting with Western restrictions (MPIWG). Ethical concerns include global inequality and safety risks, with calls for international oversight (PMC). Compared to tightly regulated Western nations, China’s permissive environment may offer a competitive edge, raising biopolitical concerns (BBC Future).
https://x.com/i/grok/share/bsXBoYvJoPcYJMGdGl0yAHDGK
From the book Sapiens, by world famous Gay Jewish Israeli academic Yuval Noah Harari:
Only someone fitting Yuval’s profile could get away with writing something like that and not be blacklisted/cancelled. But a good job at avoiding hysteria and attempting to reintroduce objectivity into historical-social analysis, though the book as a whole is kind of a mess.
There is no proof of the large discontinuous changes required by the theory.
Thoroughbreds have become too inbred, partly because of descent from a tiny pool of founders and partly because of the popular sire syndrome, so they have exhausted their genetic potential for racing speed (which is only 25% heritable) pending a gradual process of new mutations, or an opening up of the gene pool. This would not be an issue if breeding from a large population base. Also, most traits that we value in man have higher heritabilities than racing speed in horses.
Among those who will never be able to understand this are the people who adopt Pit Bulls. I was at the local expat bar once and and an off-duty female bartender had a Pit Bull puppy sitting in her lap for 30 minutes. The puppy was supernaturally calm and barely moved the entire time. Very unusual for a young puppy and I wondered if there was a link between this kind of behavior and selective breeding for hyper-agressivity and relentless combat. No real-life mammal can act like a Warner Bros. cartoon Tasmanian Devil in a constant state of agitation.
If Jews attempt to weed out their hunchbacks make sure you short the padded shirt makers.
Maybe so. But modern technological medicine is still keeping inferior children alive long enough to reproduce before they’ve had a chance to be exposed to the sexual abuse in adolescence which causes some of them to go heaumeau. Maybe it isn’t all about “defective genes” all the time.
Maybe they could splice the ‘argumentative gene’ out whilst they’re about it.
While in the short term it will absolutely cause cognitive dissonance with the anti-white establishment that yes in fact race is real, there is a longer term consequence. Once this technology gets going you will basically be able to build a baby, and at that point why wouldn’t you just make them blonde haired and blue eyed? When all the talk about CRISPR babies was going around and people were saying the Chinese were going to make 300 IQ people, I had a thought. So if they do start producing designer people they will probably want them to look different than “natural” Chinese so you can tell who is who. They won’t choose Africans as a template to avoid accusations of genetically grown slaves and also let’s face it, aesthetics. The real fun will be when orthodox Jews lose their shit because all the wealthy liberal Jews start ordering third Reich poster children.
China’s eugenic policy may be true, still it will not make China to “inherit the world”. Its TFR is 1,18 children per woman, and the government cannot do anything about it.
Meanwhile the TFR of sub-Saharan Africa is estimated between 4,3 – 4,6 children per woman. Guess who will “inherit the world”? Sometimes being low-IQ is an advantage.
“…Only someone fitting Yuval’s profile could get away with writing something like that and not be blacklisted/cancelled…”
Indeed, in his case being Jewish and homosexual does the trick.
“There’s no telling what you might end up with.”
https://www.globalresearch.ca/gene-edited-cows-humans/5686682
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Island_of_Dr._Moreau_(1996_film)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116654/
You are stupid.
Be quiet 🤫
Reading through these comments, I understand why there is as much opposition to eugenics as there is:
1. People don’t understand quantitative genetics, because it is not taught in secondary schools or even to most college students. The ignorance of this subject is profound (as is obvious in many of the comments), and most people’s beliefs about the subject come from watching movies and TV episodes, most of them made by liberal or Marxist Jews. This is why so many people in the comments think they are making clever or insightful comments when they are only revealing their ignorance of the subject matter.
2. In addition, many people in the general population are below a threshold of intelligence necessary to intuitively grasp elementary statistical concepts. To understand eugenics (and dysgenics), you have to learn to think in terms of the entire endogamous population, not just think of individuals or particular families. (And this is also why an effective eugenics program requires closing the gene pool, or at least keeping introgression from outside populations very infrequent.)
3. People are unfamiliar with the huge advances made in psychology and psychometry since the advent of the micro-computer which has made it possible to accurately and quickly calculate large quantities of data. These calculations would not have been feasible prior to computer math apps. Thus, we are currently living through the golden age of psychological research, and most people have no idea it is happening. Almost any human behavior or predisposition (all of which are heritable – that is the “First Law of Behavioral Genetics”) can now be measured and, potentially, bred for (or bred against).
4. People are opposed to the managerial state, apparently unaware that we are stuck with it already. So why not use it for something beneficial?
5. People are opposed to “tinkering with the genome” because they don’t understand that we have been massively re-engineering the human genome for about 200 years now, but re-engineering it for the worse. Almost everyone who claims to oppose re-engineering the human genome is a liar because to be sincere one would have to oppose basic sanitation, any knowledge of the germ theory of disease, modern medicine, birth control (including Natural Family Planning), and female education beyond age 16. These are the technologies and practices we have been using very effectively to massively re-engineer the human genome for most of the last 200 years, and for the worse. I will not listen to any “anti-tinkering” hypocrite who does not endorse the immediate and total repeal of all these human innovations. Only then would such individuals be logically or morally consistent.
6. “Humans can’t do anything right. Just look at Frankenstein.” (I am serious: Mary Shelley’s novel has profoundly affected the way many people view technology and science, reinforced endlessly by ridiculous Hollywood movies that are not based on real science.) But this objection is just an article of faith, not reality. Sure, we may be terrible at designing good plans of government, but when it comes to science, technology, and engineering, we are amazing! The very areas of which the general public is most skeptical of human competence are the very areas where we have demonstrated the most competence!
7. Theological objections. I can’t speak for every religion, but for religions that accept the Book of Genesis, eugenics is implicitly authorized by Genesis 1:28 — “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the land.”
(Land and earth are the same word in Biblical Hebrew, and also in Koine Greek.)
This command is sufficient authorization for plant and animal breeding, and surely man himself is one of the living things that move upon the land.
Jewish Nazis. Shocking.
Selective breeding eugenics has been part of their cult forever.
Used to see very tall, very built, young Chinamen where I lived. I mean like 2 meters tall, giants. Yet, their parents were the normal tiny Chinamen and women.
Pretty sure GMO humans are already a thing in China. And since these young men were around 20, it has been going on a long time. Plus probably giving them synthetic growth hormones as children.
Harari’s book is crappy. HG Wells’ 1919 _Outline of History_ is still the best single volume history of humanity I know of, although a bit dated now. I know Bill Gates was very enthusiastic about Harari’s book, but just look at the other books on Gates’ book lists: his choice of reading material is very shallow. Okay, now let’s look at your quote from Harari:
“In contrast to other humanists, the Nazis believed that humankind is not something universal and eternal, but rather a mutable species that can evolve or degenerate. Man can evolve into superman, or degenerate into a subhuman.”
Harari is just wrong. This view of human heredity as evolvable over time was already widely accepted, especially among Anglo-Saxons. The National Socialists had hardly a unique or original idea among them. Everything was borrowed, including this idea. Not a criticism, nothing wrong with borrowing useful or truthful ideas, I’m just pointing out that there was nothing in Nazism that was not already popular among many people in the Western world of that era, and, contra Harari, this point is no exception. For example, it was frequently emphasized in the writings of American eugenicists in the 1920’s (speaking as someone who has read a number of those old books which are now in the public domain and often available on the internet as PDF’s or other readable text files).
The CCP (or maybe just the Army) certainly seemed to have an avid interest in eugenics in the 1990s, and while they continue to do DNA research (along with many other endeavors), it is not clear to me that eugenics per se has continued as a policy goal under Xi Jinping. This is the biggest weakness of state sponsored eugenics: it is inherently a very long term project, yet leaders change, fashions change, regimes change, and often policy changes follow.
If they had kept their eugenics policy going for the last thirty years, I would by now expect to see the Party classifying people by genetic quality, promoting assortative mating, and eliciting differential fertility by genetic quality, yet I don’t see any of this. Right now, the CCP is trying to raise birth rates (without success it seems), but without regard to genetic quality.
One problem eugenics faces in China is that both Marxism and Confucianism favor exclusively environmental explanations for human differences (“by nature near together, by training far apart” as Confucius said), and I have not heard of any concerted effort to correct this misunderstanding through either the educational system or the media. I suspect that China’s incipient eugenics project, which cannot work without unMarxian differences in reproductive success that favor the genetically advantaged, has faltered.
Thank you. That about sums it up for me as well. There is a saying attributed to the Arabs: “I against my brother; my brother and I against our cousin; my brother, our cousin and I against the world”. The essence of clannishness one might think upon first glance, but looking a bit more closely, one realizes that what it also tacitly says is “I before all, my own blood included”. We all have a trace of that sentiment, but it’s best to keep it to oneself.
The people who didn’t take the vaccine were told that they were stupid and ignorant for not taking it. And there are doubtless still fools lying to themselves about it. We see no general concession from the people who did it that they were wrong. The “managerial state” as you call it is a failure, it is going to be removed. The controversies at the elite universities already show that support for these “elites” is starting to fragment even at the high levels.
Since the vaccination campaign a few people I know developed ALS. Now I know I’m getting older, but that is too many to be a coincidence.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2025/03/als-outbreak-montchavin-mystery/682096/
Addressing this issue of embryo selection. If “eugenics” worked for human populations then it would already have been demonstrated by selective breeding. Selective breeding always involved inbreeding, of course. You end up with Don Carlos. It always involves culling. So they think than do the culling at the embryonic stage and predict just what the genes will express!
These people who believe the algorithms can reject all but “the optimal” or the “ideal” are going to find out the hard way.
Fortunately, the judeophile dissemblers like Jared Taylor are on their way out, as are the Yalies, like “Rubbers” Bush. Their day is past, they haven’t even been able to reproduce themselves. They aren’t really so-hardheaded, just hardhearted. For every retard they wish didn’t live, there is a feminist whore they want to enable. Even the poor Icelanders are liable to disappear because they’ve been taken over by this racially-suicidal mindset.
The Darwin-Wedgewood-Galton school should be called “Race Suicide with Eugenics” school.
When the last of these “supermen” disappear it will doubtless be in some Planet of the Apes scenario.
Those who with large families who reject the judeo-masonic education tract, the very few, can develop new methods of home education which will enable them to survive reproduce, if we can keep these psychotic kikes from getting their wasp moron collaborators to murder us.
The fundamentals aren’t that hard to grasp. Intuitively, most people seem to grasp them. Modern-day eugenics, if you want to call it that way, has long given up on solely pursuing a simplistic gene-based approach (via selective breeding or modification). Now, developmental psychology is all the rage and the many ways how you can “improve” your kid’s (epi-)genetically determined development.
Alfred Huxley might disagree. A global eugenic measure would also not theoretically involve any active closing of a gene pool.
What might be called the first law of “historical literacy”. If a state gains more than it losses from brutalizing its or somebody else’s population, it will do just that.
Sanitation, germ theory, vaccination, education etc. don’t involve modifications of the body or the mind. For that matter, the only somewhat logical consequence you could derive is that those who oppose eugenics should also oppose to all kinds of body modifications. For that matter, even assuming that you would allow for any kind of physical intervention, the primary target of eugenic measures is the mind and if you subscribe to the notion that mind and body are two categorically different things (which I do but pretty much most scientists don’t) then you can also oppose it for other reasons.
You know trad Catholic girl, pro-life activist from this city married a Habsburg, and the nephew of a reigning monarch. They have a bunch of blond children.
The solution to our problem has always been at hand, right in front of our nose, but if the WASP found such a solution he would lose approval of the Jews! And there is nothing more important than that.
… and what happens to the rest? Hmm. Personally I don’t care, I’m all in favour of abortions – I’m just surprised that those passionate pro-lifers usually fond of claiming that life begins at conception are nowhere to be found in this thread.
Hmm, I’m not sure. Height, IQ, beauty, etc, sounds like a race to a world without souls. How about screening for empathy, introspection, reason, common sense, and of course an ability to love. How many nice people do you know who are athletic, book smart, tall? Were your parents atheletes? Did that determine whether or not you loved them, or they you? I think this is a slippery slope that will be done by the ptb behind our backs. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of “people” I loathe and wish didn’t exist. But…
The Nazis believed in evolution? How absolutely dare they!
So like what do the other humanists believe in, if not evolution? I like how this basic fact of biology which effects every living thing on earth, this jew acts like it’s a secret enigma code he deciphered from ancient racists texts.
You’re a sick woman–get some help!
Zionists = Nazis.
Tiresome History Channel argument.
Consider these passages from
Arthur Ruppin and the Production of the Modern Hebrew Culture
by Etan Bloom, TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY (2008)
For Ruppin, eugenics was not just an academic study at which he excelled: Ruppin viewed “racial purity” as an essential element of Jewishness:
And he applied eugenic principles to the selection of migrants to be formed into the “new Jew” to populate the new Jewish state —
Recommendations, reservations, and legislation are all irrelevant. This WILL happen – and probably already is well underway in Israel and China as you read this – so the question is: Will it be a tech only available to the rich?
Go rent GATTACA for a great sci-fi take on the subject
A society like this, say the movie “Gattaca”, seems inevitable and obviously has been visited often in science fiction.
One example is “The Forever War” where the perfect human form has been found for women and for men.
The interesting part is that other planets besides Earth simply carry on in the old-fashioned manner.
Unfortunately for the neuv0-eugenecists, they will be deprived of that very random natural tendency for genius to be born to the unsuspecting – for example the IQ of the parents has little to do with the margins of the IQ bell curve. Real genius often pops up in the 3rd world shitholes and not where the IQ median is fattest. That is, it is evenly distributed across the entire population and NOT among the “most intelligent.”
The rest of us will be fine. I wish them luck.
Eugenicists were right to try to sterilize blacks. But they didn’t receive enough support, and it would have made more sense to just deport them all back to Africa. But plainly allowing these orcs to breed is a problem. At the very least all black men should be fully castrated. Otherwise, send them all back to Africa.
the 150 year protestant obsession with eugenics has made the world worse in every possible way.
If jews have zionism or communism, protestants have eugenics: jewish racism for whites.
Fortunately protestantism and zionism both are in their death throes. We can pray for the return of human dignity.
Gene Poole: “4. People are opposed to the managerial state, apparently unaware that we are stuck with it already. So why not use it for something beneficial?”
Beneficial to whom?
Those who rule the herd no doubt would like to have their animals even tamer and more obedient. We could breed for that, and who could possibly be against it? Rebellion is a crime, and you’re not in favor of crime, are you? In the name of fighting crime and white supremacy, we could breed for obedience and a racially-mixed populace. Surely, all good eugenicists would agree with these laudable goals. Then too, there’s the perennial societal plague of anti-semitism. If we breed for conformity and tolerance, we could breed that out of existence too.
When we consider what the managerial state would think is good, the opportunities for perfecting the human mind and body are almost endless. Orwell had it right: If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — for ever.
” … the article has nothing to do with ‘tinkering’ with the human genome.”
Deciding who will be born and who will not by sequencing the genomes of different embryos affects the human genome as a whole.
It results in a net increase in certain genes in the human population and a net decrease in others.
We have no more of an idea of what the unintended consequences might be of doing this on a large scale than Joe Bob had when he got hitched with his first cousin Sally Sue.
Don’t/won’t they gamble with everyone/everyone’s children? It doesn’t just affect them/their children.
That’s correct and you only need to see the husbands and wives of wealthy liberals. They certainly aren’t random picks which should be the case if they truly rejected genetics. Anyone who has been around liberal women knows that they will not allow themselves to be impregnated by a random hook-up from a lesser class of people. That means an immediate trip to the abortion clinic and not a spin of the genetic wheel. They want high quality sperm when they finally decide to have kids.
Wealthy liberals also don’t support gender confusion for their own children. Not the upper class liberals anyways. They put their kids in private schools and shield them from the bullshit of liberal teachers. That’s for your children, not ours is the unspoken belief.
Our liberal 1% plays by their own rules. They see everyone else’s children as open to state experimentation. Their own children go to private schools and are not confused on gender. The girls will be sent to ballet or finishing school if there is any hint of liberal toxification of their own offspring. Boys are given extra sports and private lessons from masculine role models.
I actually used to live near one of these private schools for secular wealthy liberals. The kids were shuttled in by private car like protected hens. Walking your kids to school was for the middle class I guess. Upper class liberals fear street people and keep their kids away from them.
“People don’t understand quantitative genetics.”
So, what is so great about quantitative genetics? You don’t say.
“Many people … are below a threshold of intelligence necessary to intuitively grasp elementary statistical concepts.”
So, what elementary statistical concepts are those people missing out on? You don’t say.
“People are unfamiliar with the huge advances made in psychology and psychometry.”
So, what is it about people’s lack of understanding of quantitative genetics, elementary statistical concepts, and huge advances in psychology and psychometry that causes them to be opposed to eugenics?
“We have been massively reengineering the human genome for about 200 years now but reengineering it for the worse.”
You say such things as improved sanitation are the same as reengineering the human genome. But improved sanitation has improved people’s health and longevity. How is that making things worse?
“Sure, we may be terrible at designing good plans of government, but when it comes to science, technology and engineering, we are amazing!”
Yes, our response to Covid was sure amazing. Amazingly stupid.
“[Large scale eugenics] WILL happen – and is probably already well underway in Israel and China … so the question is: Will it be a tech only available to the rich?”
The best thing to do from a scientific standpoint is to establish a control group in which it doesn’t happen and then compare that group to the group in which it does happen.
Which group has better outcomes?
My suspicion is that we’ll know rather quickly because rapid and large-scale radical changes are likely to have rapid and large-scale radical consequences.
Let China, Israel and the rich do as they please. But leave the rest of us alone. Better to be a little late to the party than to regret having gone there at all.
the 150 year protestant obsession with eugenics has made the world worse in every possible way.
Oh give me a break.
As if the rest of the world doesn’t think about genetics in human reproduction. If anything the current third world nations are more in touch with genetics than the West. The West is currently trying to believe that race just ain’t so.
Even in the most primitive tribes you can find women that speak openly about selecting for specific traits that they want in their children.
But wasn’t NS the West’s first pro-animal rights (anti-vivisection) and environmentalist regime? That element seems authentic to the nature-loving German tradition. I’ve been told some of the NS environmental laws remain on the books in Germnay to this day. It makes me think AH possibly never wanted a *major * war-if only because he loved animals so much. Strange thing to say for such a lover of talk and such a talented verbalist-politician.
Historians John Lukacs and Adam Tooze said AH had to conquer SU to have any chance of winning the war after the Brits rejected his peace proposals and his Nov. 1940 meeting with Molotov was a last attempt avoid the seemingly inevitable.
What’s your point? Do you believe the results would have been better if those mares had been bred with random horses?
So, what is it about people’s lack of understanding of quantitative genetics, elementary statistical concepts, and huge advances in psychology and psychometry that causes them to be opposed to eugenics?
White women deciding that human genetics is “not fair” and then convincing submissive White men to support a lie.
That’s pretty much the current academic system. They lie to the public about what “the science” actually says.
They know. They’re not that stupid. In fact it takes a high level of intelligence to maintain and teach what is basically scientific fiction. Most students are not capable of remembering all the contradictions and nuances of liberal creationism.
My thoughts exactly. The only thing ‘eugenics’ need to do is tilt the odds.
Even allowing for that possibility, what makes you so sure it would be worse than the dysgenic near-term (being optimistic) future that’s already baked into the cake?
A legitimate concern. Prob still worth taking our chances though.
Gattaca was about the dumbest take on eugenics possible. There is zero need to prevent anybody from breeding to effect eugenics. All that’s necessary is a eugenic fertility differential, which simply means that people with traits deemed relatively more desirable are outbreeding people with traits deemed relatively less desirable. Today, we have the opposite, but make no mistake, that equally counts as “tinkering” with the genome.
This happens anyway as a consequence of natural selection.
Every day, millions of pregnancies are terminated as a result of miscarriage. This is nature’s way of removing undesirable genes from the gene pool.
Dog breeding is an example of unnatural or artificial selection. Desirable traits are bred in, while undesirable traits are bred out. This is fundamentally the same proposition as sequencing genomes and selecting for desirable traits. It’s just faster and more efficient, not to mention more ethically palatable.
‘Tinkering’ with the genome, i.e. genetic engineering, is an entirely different and infinitely more ethically fraught matter.
“Every day, millions of pregnancies are terminated as a result of miscarriage.”
Congratulations! You have just joined meamjojo on the exclusive Eustace Tilley (not) Commenters to Ignore List.
Even allowing for that possibility, what makes you so sure it would be worse than the dysgenic near-term (being optimistic) future that’s already baked into the cake?
I never said my scenario would be worse than what we have now, especially considering that psychopaths are in full control of the ‘dysgenic near-term future’
Video Link
A legitimate concern. Prob still worth taking our chances though.
You missed the part of my comment where I warned against ‘taking a page from satan’s playbook’ Humans are an extraordinarily flawed species. That is the primary reason why a utopian society is not possible.
Flawed, mortal humanity would only create something even worse than humanity.
AI will probably be the first Frankenstein out of the chaos gate.
https://mysteriousuniverse.org/tag/killer-robot
It’s not talked about much, but factory robots have actually killed quite a few humans by performing actions they were never programmed to do, such as switching on by themselves or performing lethal movements (like swinging an arm into a technician)
“wasn’t NS the West’s first pro-animal rights (anti-vivisection) and environmentalist regime?” — REGIME, yes, but the regime was implementing ideas that were already fashionable in certain circles (both in and out of Germany), including animal rights and a desire to preserve the natural world.
I agree that Germany had to strike the USSR first, because their war factories could not keep up with those of the Soviets and if they waited much longer they would have no chance at all of surviving Stalin’s planned conquest of Europe. This is an aspect of the war that the victors do not want to talk about. It puzzled me for the longest time why the Germans attacked first, but the pieces fall into place once you learn the key facts of the situation.
There appears to be a striking contrast between Hitler’s reportedly maudlin sentimentality toward domesticated animals and his frequent (if often exaggerated) indifference toward human suffering in some contexts, although I am not at all convinced that Hitler was any more callous than Churchill, and less so than Stalin who was just a psychopathic murderer, as were many of the first generation Communist revolutionaries, another historical reality that received some attention in the years immediately following the Revolution but was later swept under the rug.
So, what is so great about quantitative genetics? You don’t say.
GP: It allows people to understand how heritability works, and why eugenics (and dysgenics!) are important. The fact that you even ask the question shows how much it is needed as part of the standard public school curriculum. Few people will bother to learn this stuff on their own, unfortunately.
“Many people … are below a threshold of intelligence necessary to intuitively grasp elementary statistical concepts.”
So, what elementary statistical concepts are those people missing out on? You don’t say.
GP: almost all of them. basic probability (higher versus lower odds), standard deviations, effect sizes, correlations, even the mean (average). I once tried telling random coworkers, “I heard recently that one half of all medical doctors graduated in the bottom half of their medical school class.” A few people (dismayingly few) immediately got the joke, but others were startled, one found this news disturbing, and one woman simply refused to believe me!
“People are unfamiliar with the huge advances made in psychology and psychometry.”
So, what is it about people’s lack of understanding of quantitative genetics, elementary statistical concepts, and huge advances in psychology and psychometry that causes them to be opposed to eugenics?
GP: It is their unfamiliarity (ignorance, lack of knowledge) ITSELF which prevents people from recognizing the importance of changes in heritable characteristics. Simple education would change a lot of people’s minds. Do you remember a few years ago when Richard Dawkins’ own admirers turned on him rabidly when he merely admitted that eugenics would work if applied? This is the biological counterpart of flat earthism in astronomy.
“We have been massively reengineering the human genome for about 200 years now but reengineering it for the worse.”
You say such things as improved sanitation are the same as reengineering the human genome. But improved sanitation has improved people’s health and longevity. How is that making things worse?
GP: First, you would not even ask this question if you had previously been exposed to quantitative genetics (which also requires a grasp of basic statistical concepts). Second, improving health and longevity through environmental interventions allows harmful mutations which used to be kept in check through high childhood mortality to accumulate in the genome with each generation (legacy load). Eventually, environmental interventions will no longer be able to compensate for the consequences of accumulating mutational load.
“Sure, we may be terrible at designing good plans of government, but when it comes to science, technology and engineering, we are amazing!”
Yes, our response to Covid was sure amazing. Amazingly stupid.
GP: It was stupid because of our bad governments and corporate greed, not because of mainstream science which was ignored by almost all governments, so your comment PROVES MY POINT: our science works, our political systems do not. This is why we fear dealing with our legal systems but not driving heavy vehicles over our bridges.
Gene Poole: “4. People are opposed to the managerial state, apparently unaware that we are stuck with it already. So why not use it for something beneficial?”
Beneficial to whom?
GP: To all of us.
Those who rule the herd no doubt would like to have their animals even tamer and more obedient.
GP: which would also make “those who rule” tamer and more obedient. Theirs is not an isolated gene pool, so they would have to favor traits that they wanted to increase in themselves as well. And honestly, if “those who rule” really wanted to use eugenics so solidify their rule, then they would apply eugenics only to themselves and leave the rest of us alone. Several generations down the the road, their descendants would be unchallengeable Ubermenschen. Right now, they need to absorb talented individuals from the much larger lower part of the pyramid into their ranks, but if they were producing all the talent they needed, then they could isolate themselves without consequences.
” When we consider what the managerial state would think is good, the opportunities for perfecting the human mind and body are almost endless.”
GP: If you think in terms of “perfection,” then you don’t understand basic biological theory. However, a vast improvement in traits that are inherently adaptive is certainly possible. We have seen this in breeding experiments with crops and livestock.
A society like this, say the movie “Gattaca”, seems inevitable
GP: No, _Gattaca_ is about as unrealistic as it is possible to get! CRISPR can make useful contributions where a relatively few genes of large effect are concerned, but any effective eugenics project would have to rely primarily on selection at the phenotypic level, just as nature does.
Unfortunately for the neuv0-eugenecists, they will be deprived of that very random natural tendency for genius to be born to the unsuspecting – for example the IQ of the parents has little to do with the margins of the IQ bell curve.
GP: This is completely untrue, and well documented to be untrue.
Real genius often pops up in the 3rd world shitholes
GP: This assertion will be true only if you substitute “rarely” for “often.”
and not where the IQ median is fattest. That is, it is evenly distributed across the entire population and NOT among the “most intelligent.”
GP: Again, completely untrue and you have no idea what you are talking about. Genius is more common in some lineages than others, and in some ethnic groups than others, and the differences are large. See, for example, Charles Murray’s book _Human Accomplishment_ and also Lothrop Stoddard’s _The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under Man_.
Gene Poole: To all of us.
You’re just evading the question. Who is “us”? What’s beneficial to the white race, for example, isn’t necessarily going to be beneficial to other races. In fact, by the basic principles of evolution, to advantage one group is to place its competitors at a disadvantage. Life is war.
Gene Poole: ” … which would also make “those who rule” tamer and more obedient. Theirs is not an isolated gene pool, so they would have to favor traits that they wanted to increase in themselves as well.”
A response such as this makes me think you haven’t interacted much with the Jew-obsessed commentariat here at Unz. Whether you consider them an ethnic group or a biological race, the Jews are largely endogamous. Jews are worldwide in distribution, and have been so for centuries, but still are closer genetically to each other than their various host populations.
Gene Poole: “And honestly, if “those who rule” really wanted to use eugenics so solidify their rule, then they would apply eugenics only to themselves and leave the rest of us alone. Several generations down the the road, their descendants would be unchallengeable Ubermenschen.”
Some of the anti-semites here at Unz appear to think this is already true. They think “the Jews” are in control of world politics, world culture, and the world financial system.
Gene Poole: “Right now, they need to absorb talented individuals from the much larger lower part of the pyramid into their ranks, but if they were producing all the talent they needed, then they could isolate themselves without consequences.”
Nothing is without consequences. Isolating themselves has had a downside. Jews found out about this in WWII.
Gene Poole: “If you think in terms of “perfection,” then you don’t understand basic biological theory.”
Evidently your sarcasm detector is broken.
Gene Poole: “However, a vast improvement in traits that are inherently adaptive is certainly possible. We have seen this in breeding experiments with crops and livestock. ”
You can optimize anything for a given environment. However, the environment isn’t completely under human control, and it will never be. For example, the nigger is a species of subhumanity that is, from all the evidence, incompatible with technological civilization — either establishing it himself or maintaining it if it’s given to him by others. Should some disaster strike technological civilization and cause it to collapse, it’s entirely conceivable that in such an environment the nigger might possess survival advantages over more “advanced” types. Likewise with “superior” strains of crops and livestock. Many, perhaps most, of these strains are so dependent upon humans that they’d die out without humans to perpetuate them. They’ve become symbiotes with technological civilization. If it collapses and humans disappear, they’d lose out in the struggle for survival to their wild ancestors.
Quantitative genetics has to do with genetic traits that change over time such as height. How is that relevant to this discussion of eugenics?
You haven’t shown that psychometrics (which you call psychometry) is relevant either. People already know about IQ tests.
” … improving health and longevity through environmental interventions [such as improved sanitation] allows harmful mutations, which used to be kept in check through childhood mortality, to accumulate in the genome with each generation (legacy load).”
So, we should be like India? Just let the shit flow?
Do you realize how absurd you’re sounding?
“[The response to Covid] was stupid because of our bad governments and corporate greed, not because of mainstream science.”
Mainstream “science” swallowed the nonsense hook, line and sinker, with doctors and scientists rushing out to get tested and vaccinated along with everyone else. You can say I can’t prove this, but the alternative would be doctors and scientists being totally evil (treating their patients but not themselves as guinea pigs) as well as amazingly good actors.
Either way (or a mixture of both), mainstream science hasn’t been looking very good lately.
That there are no guarantees in life is as true for any course of action as it for eugenics. Hardly a revelation.
silviosilver: “That there are no guarantees in life is as true for any course of action as it for eugenics. Hardly a revelation. ”
The point you’ve missed is that nothing is “inherently” adaptive; only relatively so, for a given environment.
More, I would say it IS guaranteed that in the current social environment, any “eugenic” tampering with the human genome done by government won’t be beneficial to the white race. Discussions such as these often presuppose “we” have already “taken power”, and eugenics will inevitably tend toward creating a race of handsome, blond, six foot six, 200 IQ Hitlerian supermen. But that course of action has already been decisively rejected. In fact, for reasons of sustainability, the opposite seems more likely. A race of smaller, uglier, stupider, human beings may well be in the cards. Smaller because smaller humans would require less food and resources and reduce the strain on the world’s ecosystems; uglier because given Christian morality, which is encoded in the social technology at a very deep level and seems impossible to simply discard, there’s no way to get rid of the niggers or other blights on the landscape; and stupider, because making people stupider arguably would aid social cohesion. In other words, if you want a movie about the future, think Idiocracy, not Gattaca.
Besides this, despite my best efforts, none of you “eugenicists” seem to have yet got the message. It’s becoming more clear every day: THE FUTURE DOESN’T NEED US. Technological “progress” in AI and robotics is quickly rendering flesh and blood bodies obsolete. Why fiddle around with genetics when what you really want is a mechanical body — one many times stronger and faster than a flesh and blood one could ever be; one immune to decay and disease, and virtually indestructible? This is the “merger with machines” anticipated by the real futurists. Nothing could be more clear than that “Progress” will result in the extinction of humanity, not its hoped-for “perfection”. And from the standpoint of the system, that will be considered a good thing.
The self infatuation in this article is glaringly obscene. ‘When people who hate me’ me, me, me, I’m so fucking important, no one gives a shit about you dude. The premise of eugenics being a means to end the iniquities of society lingers briefly in a mind still capable of serious thought. These societal blights which are spoken of are the machinations of those very people that you would consider to be of a ‘good batch’. Genetics plays a minor role in the making of a righteous person in this strange and modern world it is predominantly the environment and agents of his raising. Eugenics disincentivises proper parenting leading man only deeper into depravity and degeneration as would be the only expected result when man attempts to sieze the domains of the divine. It’s a world twice dead and plucked up by the roots whose only saviour is destruction to clear the way for something new.
Surely you are not saying you are pro-semitism (the bad behaviour of some Jews)?
If you believe in God, you have no reasonable position.
Gene Poole: To all of us.
Dr.RM: You’re just evading the question. Who is “us”?
GP: Ultimately, the whole human species, although the benefits would initially accrue to the early adopters. Of course, this assumes the changes made would be adaptive. Some traits are consistently adaptive, but there are a few, such as intelligence, conscientiousness, and openness to experience that sometimes become maladaptive when an advanced civilization makes survival “too easy.” However, this could be corrected, although an effective fix might not be popular. However, the population that solved the problems involved would inherit the earth. And this is closely related to the problem of population control, a challenge mastered centuries ago on the little Melanesian island of Tikopia, so this should not be an insurmountable problem.
Dr. RM: What’s beneficial to the white race, for example, isn’t necessarily going to be beneficial to other races.
GP: Short run, no. Long run, the most adaptive alleles would seep into other populations. Of course, it is possible the spread of the better alleles would be so slow that some populations would get entirely displaced; and it is also possible that the more advanced populations would decide there are certain parts of the world where they would rather just not live because of a difficult climate, so they would be left to the more primitive populations. Remote desert oases, severe Arctic climes, extreme elevations, humid jungles, isolated little atolls in the middle of the vast ocean, how many people really want to live in these places?
Gene Poole: ” … which would also make “those who rule” tamer and more obedient. Theirs is not an isolated gene pool, so they would have to favor traits that they wanted to increase in themselves as well.”
Dr.RM: A response such as this makes me think you haven’t interacted much with the Jew-obsessed commentariat here at Unz. Whether you consider them an ethnic group or a biological race, the Jews are largely endogamous.
GP: No, they aren’t. Jewish outmarriage rates have skyrocketed since the 1960s, and even in earlier times there was enough gene flow that Jews inevitably began to resemble the populations they lived among. That is why the Yids in Israel have the second highest rate of skin cancer after the white Australians: they are maladapted to a sunny desert climate. Furthermore, the breeding regulations of observant Askenazis produced a sex ratio between 120 and 130. Where did all those surplus males go? Sure, some died without issue, but I am sure some of them defected to the Christian community, or in some cases obtained foreign wives. Many of the FSU Jews who migrated to Israel were up to three quarters Slav, and some perhaps more than that but lying about it.
Dr. RM: Jews are worldwide in distribution, and have been so for centuries, but still are closer genetically to each other than their various host populations.
GP: This may have been true at one time (although the research on non Ashkenaz populations impresses me as being rather scanty); however, it is certainly not true today, and even in the past was less true than many people, Jews and Gentiles alike, assume. I think there are sampling issues, and also issues with using Ashkenazis as the Jewish standard while disregarding that many of their female ancestors were converts from their pagan neighbors.
Gene Poole: “And honestly, if “those who rule” really wanted to use eugenics so solidify their rule, then they would apply eugenics only to themselves and leave the rest of us alone. Several generations down the the road, their descendants would be unchallengeable Ubermenschen.”
Dr.RM: Some of the anti-semites here at Unz appear to think this is already true. They think “the Jews” are in control of world politics, world culture, and the world financial system.
GP: This is less true than many antiSemites believe, but more true than many anti-antiSemites want to admit. And with such high rates of outmarriage today, which is already showing up as rapid declines in Jewish achievement, it will become even less true in the future. In any free market economy, ethnic groups that are 10 to 15 IQ points above the general population become dominant economically and sometimes in other ways. Not only the Jews.
GP: what strikes me as especially remarkable is that only a small shift to the right is needed in the group mean for it to arise to a dominant position, even in SE Asia where the Chinese minority is actively and legally discriminated against since it is still perceived as “foreign.” Imagine the consequences if a truly large gulf were to open up between two populations.
Gene Poole: “Right now, they need to absorb talented individuals from the much larger lower part of the pyramid into their ranks, but if they were producing all the talent they needed, then they could isolate themselves without consequences.”
Dr. RM: Nothing is without consequences. Isolating themselves has had a downside. Jews found out about this in WWII.
GP: First, I meant without genetic consequences since they could finally ignore talented individuals from lower down the social pyramid. Today, talent is scarce, so it tends to rise up the ranks.
GP: And second, Jews in Weimar Germany were NOT isolated. Not socially, linguistically, or genetically. Jews in Poland, Lithuania, and Russia were more separated than in Germany, but still their community was far from impermeable.
Gene Poole: “If you think in terms of “perfection,” then you don’t understand basic biological theory.”
Dr. RM: Evidently your sarcasm detector is broken.
GP: Without voice inflection, body language, or facial expression, conveying sarcasm in written communication is a literary art that few master perfectly. Don’t feel bad.
Gene Poole: “However, a vast improvement in traits that are inherently adaptive is certainly possible. We have seen this in breeding experiments with crops and livestock. ”
DrRM: You can optimize anything for a given environment. However, the environment isn’t completely under human control, and it will never be.
GP: That is true with or without eugenics. For example, the optimized IQ level for modern civilization is probably 70 or lower – not optimized for maintaining the environment, of course, but optimized in the Darwinian sense, for reproductive success. This is equally true for Conscientiousness which is probably our best predictor for years of education. In both cases, it is female education that links the industrial age with declining levels of these two important traits. We still have a ways to go before we reach the most adaptive level of intelligence and Conscientiousness for the industrial age environment, but it is likely that we are “progressing” rapidly. And this is another reason we need eugenics: because without it, we will not stand still, but rather deteriorate.
GP: Sure, the environment is never COMPLETELY under human control, but if the environment shifts in unfavorable ways, a well regulated eugenic society could shift the traits or weights in its selection index.
DrRM: For example, the nigger is a species of subhumanity that is, from all the evidence, incompatible with technological civilization — either establishing it himself or maintaining it if it’s given to him by others.
GP: True, yet in the environment that we have created he possesses a higher degree of adaptive fitness than we do! How far would civilization have to decline for adaptation to favor our race over his? Probably quite a bit. However, artificial selection can shift fitness to favor the creators and maintainers of civilization much faster than waiting for natural selection to finally shift in our favor.
Dr RM: Should some disaster strike technological civilization and cause it to collapse, it’s entirely conceivable that in such an environment the nigger might possess survival advantages over more “advanced” types.
GP: No! He has survival advantages NOW! And he had them even before we instituted our welfare state. Our race has the edge only when survival is harder, driving up the childhood mortality rates of the less K-selected groups.
DrRM: Likewise with “superior” strains of crops and livestock. Many, perhaps most, of these strains are so dependent upon humans that they’d die out without humans to perpetuate them.
GP: Some do, some don’t. For ex., horses, pigs, and house cats seem to go feral very successfully. I suspect many heirloom cattle breeds could as well. Wasn’t the Longhorn derived from Spanish cattle that had gone feral?
GP: Now I grant there are some domesticated animals that could not make a go of it alone, but that is not an accident. It is breeder’s choice. Breeders sometime choose to tolerate some debilitating traits to accelerate development of other traits that are more financially profitable, or even because some genetic anomaly that would never last long in the wild happens to tickle his fancy. This particular drawback is not an inherent or unobservable OR IRREVERSIBLE consequence of artificial selection, and presumably man would not choose to be bred in ways that would leave him disabled under rigorous conditions. After all, we cannot breed a race of delicate human “orchids” as long as we must wage occasional but inevitable wars. People who say we don’t know how to do this, that we don’t sufficiently understand the genetics, that we will irreversibly screw up our genome are just genetically illiterate.
RM: The point you’ve missed is that nothing is “inherently” adaptive; only relatively so, for a given environment.
GP: Good health is inherently adaptive in any environment. In a competitive market economy, intelligence improves resource acquisition, but we have created this weird world where more resources translate into fewer offspring. However, I can think of ways this could be compensated for. While it is true man cannot control his environment “completely,” that is a bogus argument. We can control it well enough, just like ants, honey bees, termites, and naked mole rates. Even better in fact. Would you ever argue that “natural selection is futile, because the environment will change someday?” It is a frivolous argument.
RM: “in the current social environment, any “eugenic” tampering with the human genome done by government won’t be beneficial to the white race.”
GP: Any traits under universal selection will benefit all races. Smarter helps us all, harder working helps us all, healthier helps us all, it is not that some traits benefit some races but not others. A rising tide lifts all boats.
RM: for reasons of sustainability, the opposite seems more likely. A race of smaller, uglier, stupider, human beings may well be in the cards. Smaller because smaller humans would require less food and resources and reduce the strain on the world’s ecosystems;
GP: while true, the public will simply not accept being bred for smaller size, nor will the elites. To have any chance of acceptance, you have to breed people for traits they admire or there will be a backlash.
RM: uglier because given Christian morality, which is encoded in the social technology at a very deep level and seems impossible to simply discard, there’s no way to get rid of the niggers or other blights on the landscape;
GP: eugenics does not require racial amalgamation. Also there is a standard of beauty that is universally recognized and admired in all human cultures, including primitive ones (research, not opinion), so IF we chose to expend part of our selective pressure on increasing beauty (not the most important trait, but it would certainly increase the odds of public acceptance), all races would become better looking over time.
RM: and stupider, because making people stupider arguably would aid social cohesion.
GP: First, I see NO evidence that the elites want more social cohesion!
GP: Second, while I am aware of this argument, I am skeptical. Cohesion is largely a personality factor. Let us compare IQ 107 Japanese with IQ 55 KhoiSan. Each is fairly high in homogeneity, but the higher g Japanese are much more cohesive, the lower g Khoisan much more independent and individualistic. If we want more social cohesion, there are several heritable traits that contribute to it, but be aware that in a diverse society, increasing these traits is likely to lead to competing cohesive sub-cultures, not a cohesive national aggregate.
GP: Third, a stupider society could not keep eugenics going for long, for various reasons.
GP: Fourth, we are already getting stupider fast, so if that is the preference of the ruling class as you claim, then it is already succeeding magnificently.
RM: In other words, if you want a movie about the future, think Idiocracy, not Gattaca.
GP: No eugenics gives us Idiocracy. Eugenics gives us something closer to Gattaca.
RM: Technological “progress” in AI and robotics is quickly rendering flesh and blood bodies obsolete.
GP: AI and associated technologies are overhyped. They will have an impact, but they are not leading us into a post human scifi fantasy future. Yes, some jobs will get automated away, not for the first time, but life will go on.
RM: Why fiddle around with genetics when what you really want is a mechanical body
GP: You are confused. Eugenicists are not transhumanists, or at least not most of us. You are directing your question at the wrong intellectual community!
RM: one many times stronger and faster than a flesh and blood one could ever be; one immune to decay and disease, and virtually indestructible?
GP: Don’t be silly. There is no such thing as a machine that is immune to decay or “virtually indestructible.” Such absurd rubbish. I only wish the machines I own were indeed that durable!
RM: This is the “merger with machines” anticipated by the real futurists.
GP: The “real futurists” almost never get anything right, and especially not the big things. Whatever they predict, you can pretty much discount based on their track record alone! Have you read some of the techno-utopian fantasy forecasts they were prognosticating in the fifties and sixties? They didn’t get a damned thing right.
GP: And the big breakthroughs we really did get, like the internet and CRISPR? Completely missed them. “Real futurists,” bah humbug. At least when my parents promised me the tooth fairy would leave a coin under my pillow, I actually got something. Based on the evidence, the tooth fairy appears to be more real than the “real futurists.”
ERIC: Quantitative genetics has to do with genetic traits that change over time such as height. How is that relevant to this discussion of eugenics?
GP: First, quantitative traits are just traits affected by many genes, versus Mendelian traits that are affected entirely or predominantly by single locus involving dominants and recessives. Both Quantitative and Mendelian traits can change over time in response to selection.
GP: Second, most of the traits that eugenicists are concerned about are quantitative traits, and this includes all psychological and behavioral traits.
ERIC: You haven’t shown that psychometrics (which you call psychometry) is relevant either. People already know about IQ tests.
GP: First, IQ is only one of many psychometric tests, and most people know about only a few of them.
Second, psychometry (or psychometrics if you prefer) is relevant to eugenics because one cannot select for or against any heritable trait unless one is first able to measure individual differences in regard to that trait.
” … improving health and longevity through environmental interventions [such as improved sanitation] allows harmful mutations, which used to be kept in check through childhood mortality, to accumulate in the genome with each generation (legacy load).”
ERIC: So, we should be like India? Just let the shit flow?
GP: If you are a eugenicist, then no. If you are OPPOSED to eugenics, then YES, without eugenics it is absolutely essential for the long term viability of the population that we raise childhood mortality rates to a much higher level. Take your pick: artificial selection or natural selection, but you cannot keep the genome healthy without selection. Those are the “cold equations” (an allusion to a famous scifi story). You don’t have to like it, but you would be a fool to ignore it.
ERIC: Do you realize how absurd you’re sounding?
GP: Only to the genetically illiterate.
“[The response to Covid] was stupid because of our bad governments and corporate greed, not because of mainstream science.”
ERIC: Mainstream “science” swallowed the nonsense hook, line and sinker, with doctors and scientists rushing out to get tested and vaccinated along with everyone else.
GP: First, while practitioners have a scientific education, they are usually not scientists in the sense of people who actually apply the scientific method. — Second, many professionals risked getting the vaccines only so they would not be fired. — Third, if you have seen the chart of vaccine compliance by education level, the second least compliant by education level were those with a high school education or less. The least compliant of all? Those with a PhD. Holders of professional degrees were the third least compliant, even though many of them were probably under intense pressure to get vaxxed. The MOST compliant were the Master’s degree holders. I guess that is where most of the midwits are located these days.
ERIC: Either way (or a mixture of both), mainstream science hasn’t been looking very good lately.
GP: Once again, the vaccine testing procedure did NOT follow standard scientific protocols. That was a corporate business decision. The “lock downs” were NOT recommended scientific procedure for an outbreak of this nature. Ignoring the VAERS data was AGAINST standard scientific protocol. Mass vaccination DURING a pandemic totally violated all scientific virology theory. Soon after the vax rollout, the British equivalent of our American FDA declared the vaccines too dangerous for human use and recommended they be pulled from the market, but the politicians ignored them.
GP: In any profession, there are many people who will get on board and do as they are told because they fear for their livelihoods, and there are also many people who will put profits before principle, but the science itself was very clear, but it was not followed in most cases, and that was a decision made by government officials and business interests. But that is not a problem with the scientific method. That is a problem with the big investors, the big corporations, the politicians and bureaucrats they effectively “own,” the professional paper shuffling administrators of big institutions, and the vulnerability of scientists who get cowed into silence because these big institutions can ruin their careers. And of course there were also scientists and medical professionals who did speak out and were ignored at best and punished at worst, just as there were scientists who submitted dissenting papers that either did not get published or later got retracted by the big journals which are mostly business enterprises.
GP: Sure, there seem to be plenty of scientists who will compromise under pressure or for money just as we find in any other profession, but what some scientists will do for reasons of either greed or fear is not the same as what the weight of their collective research actually indicates. The science is better than the scientists. Even in a super politicized field such as climate research, if you sort through enough material, you can separate the wheat from the chaff, although I realize you have to be pretty nerdy to go down some of those arcane rabbit holes, and the grant money gets disbursed very heavily in favor of researchers who can be trusted not to report any inconvenient findings, so you can’t just count the papers like they were votes in a legislature. Luckily, most of the generic research on immunology was done long before the covid pandemic in a much less politicized atmosphere.
GP: When 50 old people died after receiving the swine flu vaccine during the Ford administration, it was a national scandal that was publicized on the network news and the vaccines were immediately yanked off the market. That this did not happen this time even though the VAERS data were off the charts shows us that the corporate executives have the upper hand in public policy implementation in a very big way! But the basic science research itself is pretty good when profits and politics are not corrupting the process.
Gene Poole: “Ultimately, the whole human species, although the benefits would initially accrue to the early adopters.”
That statement encapsulates perfectly the eugenicist attitude, which holds that biological race or even species is malleable and hence of no lasting importance. For the eugenicist, the whole “human species” is nothing worth preserving in itself. It’s only a starting point for his “improvements”, and for those, there’s no logical stopping point. Do you want two foot tall human beings who can live on a diet of freeze-dried cockroaches? “Okay!”, says the eugenicist. “Comin’ right up!” LOL Yes, one can see how that could be very “adaptive”.
Gene Poole: “Good health is inherently adaptive in any environment.”
No it isn’t. What would happen if everyone, by virtue of their genetics, were so healthy that they never died of any disease? The world would rapidly become overpopulated, likely with fatal consequences for everyone. Fatal diseases serve the purpose of keeping the population in check.
Furthermore what constitutes “good health” is a matter of opinion and is relative. For example, you seem to think that “psychopathy” is a health problem that’s tied to genetics. Granting that arguendo, if you were able to select against it to obtain a tamer population that was uniformly “healthier”, a sudden change in the environment might lead to that population being eliminated if greater aggressiveness were called for. You’d have bred out a potentially “healthy” characteristic; one whose virtues weren’t appreciated until it was too late.
Gene Poole: “While it is true man cannot control his environment “completely,” that is a bogus argument. We can control it well enough, just like ants, honey bees, termites, and naked mole rates. ”
“Well enough” is also a matter of opinion. Neither any of the creatures you mention, nor man, can control natural disasters, some of them potentially causing the elimination of whole species, or even, in extreme cases, all life on Earth. Even worse, there are man-made disasters that will predictably and inevitably result from the application of technology, no matter how much care is taken, because there are always unforeseen consequences of using any technology. It’s also certain that the more powerful technology becomes, the more powerful the unforeseen consequences of its use become, and those may be planet-killers or species-enders too.
I’ll have to stop here because, regrettably, as my browser lacks javascript, I can’t read past [MORE] tags. I’m sure whatever you said was fascinating though! LOL
Let me reiterate that doctors and scientists either A) rushed out to take the vaccines themselves or B) didn’t take them but still pushed them on patients, which would be totally evil.
Either way, they don’t look good, and the excuses you make for them strike me as feeble.
You blame companies and politicians, but in every case, they depended on doctors, scientists and public health officials to confirm what they were doing was right.
Whether they took the vaccines themselves or not, the great majority of doctors and scientists violated the Nuremberg Code, which forbids inducing or forcing people accept medical treatment without their informed consent.
I would say the height of absurdity and malevolence came when 1700 public health officials, doctors, and – yes – research scientists signed an open letter saying BLM riots were safe for not spreading Covid, but lockdown protests weren’t.
Scientists have shown by their own behavior that they shouldn’t be allowed to alter DNA or do anything else to alter genes. Eugenics should be limited to such things as improved sanitation.
TOC: The fundamentals aren’t that hard to grasp. Intuitively, most people seem to grasp them.
GP: No, they don’t intuitively understand. That is why we needed tens of thousand of years to discover the mechanism of heredity. Even Darwin never figured it out, and Mendel thought he had discovered a special case that applies only to hybridization. Only in 1900 was it realized that the gene is the key to understanding the secrets of heredity, and only in 1927 was Lamarckism decisively refuted by Weissman’s experiments to the dismay of Fabian socialists, a well validated finding that doctrinaire Communists continued to resist until the 1950’s. (And ironically this discovery is what moved the left to abandon its support for the eugenics movement.) And additive (or quantitative) genes were only discovered in the 1930s by Jay Lush. The selection index which makes selection for multiple traits practical only appears in the literature in 1909. Knowing only the basic principles of quantitative and population genetics, you can read comments made by random people on the internet and realize most of them are badly confused about this topic.
The ancient Greeks thought racial characteristics were determined by the climate in which one matured rather than inherited from parents. Other ancient peoples thought traits were passed through the paternal line only and the mother was just a passive incubator like the dirt in which a farmer planted his seeds in the spring. In the book of Genesis, we see how Jacob watered his sheep in front of branches that he had peeled strip of bark from giving them a striped appearance so the sheep, beholding these “striped” branches during mating season, would produce striped and speckled sheep. This was a common belief about heritability in those times, and versions of it survived into the early 20th century.
Bakewell made a huge advanced in accelerated trait selection in the 18th century, but he did not understand, nor did anyone else until the 20th century, that his procedures increased disease risk and limited evolutionary potential. That is why crossing two inbred lines produces hybrid vigor: inbreeding causes too many sub-optimal recessives to go to fixation (producing some degree of inbreeding depression) and outcrossing breaks them up, often pairing them with superior dominants which are then expressed. Selecting for better genes through assortative mating while minimizing the coefficient of inbreeding would avoid the inbreeding depression in the first place. Do you really think any of this is intuitive? Only to people who already know quite a bit about genetics!
TOC: Modern-day eugenics, if you want to call it that way, has long given up on solely pursuing a simplistic gene-based approach (via selective breeding or modification).
GP: No, it hasn’t, because eugenics is just animal husbandry principles applied to man. Although reproductive tech is applied to animals and plants far more aggressively than it is to humans, have any contemporary breeders “given up on solely pursuing a simplistic gene based approach?” Hell no!
TOC: Now, developmental psychology is all the rage and the many ways how you can “improve” your kid’s (epi-)genetically determined development.
GP: Such things have been “all the rage” since the 1960s, but that, by definition, is not eugenics. Even epigenetics is poorly understood and in the opinion of most geneticists of only marginal value for breeding purposes. (In fact, as far as I can tell, it is routinely ignored by both practical and experimental breeders who do not find it useful.)
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2011/08/21/is-epigenetics-a-revolution-in-evolution/
“…there is not the slightest evidence that the findings of epigenetics will dispel the main ideas of neo-Darwinism, which include the ideas of evolutionary change via natural selection and genetic drift, the randomness of mutations, the ideas of speciation and common descent, and the gene-centered view of evolution. I’ve explained my views on epigenetics as a revolution in several previous posts, for example here, here, here, and here, but, like the Lernean Hydra, each time you cut off a head of the epigenetic beast, it grows another one.”
GP: And this is also why an effective eugenics program requires closing the gene pool
TOC: Alfred Huxley might disagree. A global eugenic measure would also not theoretically involve any active closing of a gene pool.
GP: Only if you bred the whole human race as a single unit, which would require a permanent global authority to supervise, because that would turn the human species into a single closed gene pool. Also, I assume you are referring to Aldous, not Alfred (who’s Alfred?). Aldous’s brother Julian was explicitly a eugenicist. Aldous, however, is unclear. His book _Brave New World_ is not about eugenics at all but rather a World State (the Marxist dream!) in which humans are controlled via social conditioning, indoctrination, drugs, and orgiastic sex, and no one knows who their biological parents are, which apparently does not matter in a world in which people are controlled by stringent environmental interventions. Two of the main characters in Aldous’s novel are named Marx and Lenina (feminine of Lenin).
GP: People are opposed to the managerial state, apparently unaware that we are stuck with it already. So why not use it for something beneficial
TOC: What might be called the first law of “historical literacy”. If a state gains more than it losses from brutalizing its or somebody else’s population, it will do just that.
GP: I fail to see any relevance whatsoever in your comment. Perhaps it is relevant in your own mind, but you need to explain the linkage, because it is not at all obvious. First, eugenics does not require “brutalizing” people. Eugenics is a humanitarian movement because it is far kinder than natural selection. Currently, we are able to promote dysgenic fertillity without brutalizing anyone, so why not just reverse the incentives?
Second, the state does NOT always seek to maximize its gains. For example, eugenics is low hanging fruit that offers the potential for huge gains, yet there is not one eugenic state in the world today.
GP: Almost everyone who claims to oppose re-engineering the human genome is a liar because to be sincere one would have to oppose basic sanitation, any knowledge of the germ theory of disease….
TOC: Sanitation, germ theory, vaccination, education etc. don’t involve modifications of the body or the mind.
GP: They directly CAUSE modifications of the body and the mind through their effects on differential fertility and mutational load accumulation. You are proving my point: people do NOT intuitively understand how heredity works without instruction.
Inbreeding is bad but people did it anyway. You should definitely look for a mate outside your family tree. Like, really far away. A LOT farther. LOL