The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
SWPL Eugenics
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The following graph shows the percentages of people–by race, sex and political orientation–who say “genetic testing will do more harm than good”:

Fetal genetic testing during the first trimester and embryo selection during IVF procedures to screen for conditions like Down or Patau syndromes is eugenics. It’s voluntary rather than coerced as many of the progressive eugenics movements of the 20th century were, but if the objectives are not eugenic, what are they?

The right, particularly the religious right, may have a human capital problem, but it doesn’t have a eugenics problem. Or maybe its problem is a decidedly non-eugenic approach to the propagation of the species. Beats me. Ask a white liberal.

General Social Survey variables used: GENEGOO2(1-2), RACEHISP, POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7)

 
• Category: Ideology, Race/Ethnicity, Science • Tags: Fecundity, GSS, Science 
Hide 144 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The right, particularly the religious right, may have a human capital problem

    Is that why a majority of the Supreme Court justices, with elite education credentials to boot, are from my religious team?

    “The religious right” isn’t just made up of the people “who read nothing but the Bible,” it also includes – increasingly – those of us “who read everything but the Bible.” 😉

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    @Twinkie

    If only the Pope hadn't added it to the Index of Banned Books!

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @iffen
    @Twinkie

    those of us “who read everything but the Bible.”

    Then you need to stop touting your "Christianity".

    Replies: @Twinkie

  2. Affirmative Action is like legacy admission.

    “Sheeeeeeiiit, my ancestor was a slave.” And that legacy means you are admitted.

    • Replies: @Caspar von Everec
    @Priss Factor

    https://theconversation.com/yes-mathematics-can-be-decolonised-heres-how-to-begin-65963

    https://undark.org/2018/12/31/in-south-africa-decolonizing-mathematics/

    The US will soon lead the world in black math where 4/2 = sheeit

    Replies: @Priss Factor

    , @DanHessinMD
    @Priss Factor

    Colorado follows California in discarding testing.

    Will the Eastern US (and especially the Northeast) regain its past stranglehold on elite education?

  3. The difference between modern and early-20th century progressivism is that the latter was oriented to finding long-term solutions for problems. So for the problem of these tards, the early progressives said, look, we’ll give them a nice life in the asylum, but we’ll sterilize them to prevent our descendants from being further burdened. In contrast, the modern progressives are all for lots of government programs to help the tards, but when it comes to tards having kids, they’re like, ah, what can we do, interfere with their reproductive rights? That’s basically Nazism.(This ignores that when the state takes away the kids of these retarded mothers for neglect, it’s certainly not true that they have “reproductive rights” that are being honored.) The early progressives wanted a world in which social ills were solved, relegated to the history books. Eugenics, along with other reform movements like prohibition and economic regulation, was promised to do this. But modern progressives and many modern “conservatives” have an altogether different vision. For in a world where every man is intelligent and responsible and gets along well with his neighbors, there isn’t much room for the do-gooder instinct.

    It’s the same story with these downs kids. You have a problem said to be due to the state of nature. (Much of it is actually due to the modern practice of waiting until you’re running on 40 years old to have kids.) So the solution is to mitigate the problem, make sure these kids are comfortable, not bullied in school, etc. But tell them “that’s all good, but shouldn’t we also look at how to prevent this problem from arising in the first place,” and they’re like “no, that’ll take away my opportunity to virtue-signal!”

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    @Alexander Turok

    People on the right don't like to admit that, unless you're willing to kill people, you have to have some way to support the ones who cannot hack it. The Left, at least as opposed to the Chicago-school Right, knows this better. The Right also knows that you do want to discourage burdens from growing, and the Left seems clueless here, as you point out.

    In some sense, we are still trying to undo the Reformation. At the time, the Church owned 1/5th to 1/3rd of the land in Europe. Much of that was dedicated to supporting the poor, the sick, and the mentally ill. Some of the wealth was skimmed off by corrupt officials who would appoint non-religious abbots to capture the economic streams of monasteries. But there was a social buffer there, and it was mated to a religious morality that would attempt to comfort the afflicted but also prevent their breeding more afflicted. Follow the rules or you might get kicked out of support for, for example, breeding another out of wedlock child.

    That arrangement was forever shattered when wealthy, connected elites decided to skim the value for themselves while dumping the burden of the poor on others by seizing land. (The more things change...). Social welfare states were an effort to restore this, but they've become a spur to burden-creation in low-trust societies, and destroyed trust in high-trust societies.

    Replies: @RoatanBill, @Twinkie, @anon

    , @songbird
    @Alexander Turok

    I wonder how many early eugenicists were also in favor of one-world government.

    It's interesting to read HG Wells. In 1901, he wrote:


    And how will the new republic treat the inferior races? How will it deal with the black? how will it deal with the yellow man? how will it tackle that alleged termite in the civilized woodwork, the Jew? Certainly not as races at all. It will aim to establish, and it will at last, though probably only after a second century has passed, establish a world state with a common language and a common rule. All over the world its roads, its standards, its laws, and its apparatus of control will run. It will, I have said, make the multiplication of those who fall behind a certain standard of social efficiency unpleasant and difficult… The Jew will probably lose much of his particularism, intermarry with Gentiles, and cease to be a physically distinct element in human affairs in a century or so. But much of his moral tradition will, I hope, never die. … And for the rest, those swarms of black, and brown, and dirty-white, and yellow people, who do not come into the new needs of efficiency?

    Well, the world is a world, not a charitable institution, and I take it they will have to go. The whole tenor and meaning of the world, as I see it, is that they have to go. So far as they fail to develop sane, vigorous, and distinctive personalities for the great world of the future, it is their portion to die out and disappear.
     
    But what is curious is that by 1906 he was already writing admiring passages about American blacks and railing against segregation and Jim Crow, even though he hated democracy. It seems apparent that he was an extreme universalist.

    It is an fascinating question what this apparent contradiction signifies. Perhaps, it is explained entirely by him visiting America. Or perhaps he was just trying to be provocative or had flighty, random thoughts in his original passage, as many intellectuals do.
  4. Fetal genetic testing during the first trimester and embryo selection during IVF procedures to screen for conditions like Down or Patau syndromes is eugenics

    Not really. “Eugenics”, as it was thought of in the beginning of the 20th century, right or wrong, was about “improving society”, or about “what is good for society” (or well, what they thought was good – I’m not a big defender of eugenics myself).

    But, for modern progressives, it’s all about “what’s good for me”.

    That’s why they see no contradiction in wanting their own children to be healthy, smart, etc, while at the same time decrying eugenics as a general social rule.

    Of course they will do “eugenics” for their own family, but they don’t want it for everyone else.

    And the same applies to any other liberal thought, “one rule for me, another for the others”. “Black Lives Matter, but not near me”. Etc, etc.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @Dumbo


    Not really. “Eugenics”, as it was thought of in the beginning of the 20th century, right or wrong, was about “improving society”, or about “what is good for society” (or well, what they thought was good – I’m not a big defender of eugenics myself).

    But, for modern progressives, it’s all about “what’s good for me”.
     
    Exactly.

    They may agree, on reflection, that it would also be good for society - ie it would be "eugenic" - but that is far from their main motivation.

    As an avid eugenicist, it doesn't bother me that people may adopt a eugenic practice for purely personal, selfish reasons. The trick for eugenicists is to expand the range of voluntary eugenic-(or anti-dysgenic)-but-call-it-something-else options so greatly that society as a whole takes on a eugenic profile, even without explicitly being aware of it.
  5. A big issue for the left is that two of their main constituencies, gays and blacks, don’t live very long. Gay men who were in their 20’s during the 1980’s had a WW1 sized hole ripped out of their ranks by AIDs. Even those who didn’t die of AIDs but were HIV positive had to stay on a pharmacological cocktail to keep them alive and suffer from all sorts of lesser maladies associated with a cornucopia of STDs and infections. I don’t know Tim Cooks HIV status buts he’s 60 and it is extremely unlikely he will ever become an octogenarian Warren Buffett or, god forbid, another George Soros. I haven’t seen any data on how Covid affected gay men over 60 but I doubt it is good news. Trannies do even worse in the longevity department than even gay men.

    Negro men live 5 years less than white men and my guess is that gap will be increasing due to homicide rates and lifestyle issues. Negro women had long lives but given that over 60 percent of young negro females are now obsese, many grotesquely so, I wouldn’t look for them to outlive their mothers.

    There is a third category of problematic people with longevity issues. Drug abusers. What their political leanings are, if any, I don’t think is known but they do make up the ranks of the homeless and have become by default a Democrat constituency and a source of fraudulent voters. While meth and cocaine abusers can survive for quite a few years the fentanyl epidemic is culling this population rapidly. San Francisco had 300 deaths from Covid last year but more than 700 fatal drug overdoses. They could have more than 800 this year. Fentanyl may solve the homeless problem permanently and put thousands of Democrat social workers and rehab clinics out of business.

    • Replies: @Rahan
    @UNIT472


    Fentanyl may solve the homeless problem permanently and put thousands of Democrat social workers and rehab clinics out of business.
     
    Not if they create and maintain a constantly renewed demographic of "trans" schoolkids "cured" from their youthful confusion by becoming permanent addicts of hormones, painkillers, antidepressants, and recreational drugs. With constant nervous breakdowns and suicidal drama.

    This mess can make the careers of infinite globohomo drones AND helps brainwash and sterilize hundreds of thousands of white boys and girls.

    It's like globohomo heaven.
    , @Mark G.
    @UNIT472


    Negro men live 5 years less than white men and my guess is that gap will be increasing due to homicide rates and lifestyle issues. Negro women had long lives but given that over 60 percent of young negro females are now obese, many grotesquely so, I wouldn’t look for them to outlive their mothers.
     
    This will probably be the case, for the reasons you mention. In recent years, the life expectancy gap has been decreasing between blacks and whites. Affirmative action and government jobs have created an artificial black middle class with access to better medical care. The money is running out for this, though. Like a parasite that kills its host and then dies itself, black life expectancy will start decreasing as the economy becomes unable to support subsidizing this artificially created black middle class. Added to the factors you mention, this may widen the black and white gap once again unless white life expectancy decreases at the same rate.

    Until recently, technological and medical advances have offset the bad economic policies the government has been following. For the last decade, though, U.S. life expectancy stopped increasing and then started decreasing. If you look at just the subset consisting of the white working class, life expectancy has been decreasing since 2001. The 2001 tech stock crash followed by expensive government bailouts and the expensive Middle East wars was the first major blow and then the continued bad government policies led to another stock and housing bubble which led to another crash in 2008 and more expensive bailouts. That seemed to be the tipping point that led to the now decreasing U.S. life expectancy. Rather than reversing these policies, we are doubling down and continuing them.

  6. Thinking about eugenics makes me feel status anxiety.

    This is not triggered by discussion of reducing Patau or other genetic illnesses. It is instead caused by reflecting on how the natural gifts which I have, that can never be taken away, would be diminished, in social value, by genetic engineering for good looks and intelligence. If the norm I’m these areas caught up and then overleapt me, I might feel smaller.

    I assume this adequately explains the bifurcated progressive attitude towards eugenics. I don’t mind feeling smaller, but fear of such is what drives a lot of politics.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Those fears are real, but they are quite unfounded.

    Firstly, your own generational peers - everyone's go-to comparison group - are not going to in any way "overtake" you because eugenics alters nothing about them; both they and you remain just as they and you were.

    Secondly, it's not as if everybody in the upcoming generation will be a product of eugenics and immediately overshadow you with their stunning good looks and brilliant intelligence as soon as they come of age.

    Eugenics only means that the proportion of people with such traits will be slightly greater in that generation. How slight? Imperceptibly slight. But you keep that up for generation after generation, and the benefits at some point make themselves felt.

  7. Every human seeking to choose a mate practices eugenics: aren’t young, healthy, atractive mates preferred stock?

    Pheromones “advertise” one’s genetic profile. You are more likely to be drawn toward others with a different profile as the combination promotes stronger, healthier offspring.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @Sick of Orcs


    Every human seeking to choose a mate practices eugenics: aren’t young, healthy, atractive mates preferred stock?
     
    Not every person seeking to mate mates with someone young or healthy or attractive, though, so it cannot be that anyone seeking to choose a mate practices eugenics.

    In order to be described as "practising eugenics," an action has to involve an awareness of that action's eugenic benefits for society, and be undertaken at least in part because of eugenic motives.

    Replies: @Sick of Orcs

  8. @UNIT472
    A big issue for the left is that two of their main constituencies, gays and blacks, don't live very long. Gay men who were in their 20's during the 1980's had a WW1 sized hole ripped out of their ranks by AIDs. Even those who didn't die of AIDs but were HIV positive had to stay on a pharmacological cocktail to keep them alive and suffer from all sorts of lesser maladies associated with a cornucopia of STDs and infections. I don't know Tim Cooks HIV status buts he's 60 and it is extremely unlikely he will ever become an octogenarian Warren Buffett or, god forbid, another George Soros. I haven't seen any data on how Covid affected gay men over 60 but I doubt it is good news. Trannies do even worse in the longevity department than even gay men.

    Negro men live 5 years less than white men and my guess is that gap will be increasing due to homicide rates and lifestyle issues. Negro women had long lives but given that over 60 percent of young negro females are now obsese, many grotesquely so, I wouldn't look for them to outlive their mothers.

    There is a third category of problematic people with longevity issues. Drug abusers. What their political leanings are, if any, I don't think is known but they do make up the ranks of the homeless and have become by default a Democrat constituency and a source of fraudulent voters. While meth and cocaine abusers can survive for quite a few years the fentanyl epidemic is culling this population rapidly. San Francisco had 300 deaths from Covid last year but more than 700 fatal drug overdoses. They could have more than 800 this year. Fentanyl may solve the homeless problem permanently and put thousands of Democrat social workers and rehab clinics out of business.

    Replies: @Rahan, @Mark G.

    Fentanyl may solve the homeless problem permanently and put thousands of Democrat social workers and rehab clinics out of business.

    Not if they create and maintain a constantly renewed demographic of “trans” schoolkids “cured” from their youthful confusion by becoming permanent addicts of hormones, painkillers, antidepressants, and recreational drugs. With constant nervous breakdowns and suicidal drama.

    This mess can make the careers of infinite globohomo drones AND helps brainwash and sterilize hundreds of thousands of white boys and girls.

    It’s like globohomo heaven.

  9. Both Conservatives and liberals have their own brand of dysgenics. Its just that the liberal one is far worse and irreperable.

    Conservative dysgenics would be Christian lunacy like not aborting down syndrome babies or other mentally deficient children. Honestly this isn’t even dysgenic per se. Bulk of these unfortunate people never reproduce to begin with as no one wants them. So it has no real impact in the long run.

    Liberal dysgenics otoh is irreversible and far more destructive. Their most sacred virtue is race mixing and self sterilization for the environment. Educated liberal women and soy men tie their tubes or get vasectomies in order to save the environemnt or prevent future oppression.

    This completely eradicates many educated(tho perhaps naive) people from the gene pool. Even worse is the africanization. Liberals heavily support mixing with blacks. It stops future ”oppression” of black people and in their mind it is an act of virtue to abolish whiteness.

    The one world mulatto race is effectively their biggest dream. This dream of a black world free of mystical racism where they can finally achieve gay space communism like star trek. And this race mixing propaganda is prominent in every facet of their culture, be it ads, comic books, movies, games, tv series, porn…everything.

    And this is something from which there is really no recovery.

    The greedy Brazilian capitalist elite instead of sending back black slaves to Africa kept them and allowed miscegenation. Now Brazil is an 87 IQ mulatto country with no presence on the world stage. For all its resources, size and long period of statehood, it should be a world power like the US but instead its a giant favela.

    This is despite mass european migration. That’s how corrosive black genes are. Same with all of Latin America to be honest. Race mixing with blacks destroyed the genetic potential of 6 million or so Italians, Portguese, Russians and Germans that went to Brazil after its independence from Portugal.

    Even today, Brazil nominally has the third largest white population in the world at 91 million. Though in reality they are more akin to Castizos.

    Look at Northern India, Central Asia or Iran to witness the irreversability of miscegenation. These regions were once dominated by Aryans. Now aside from some small enclaves in central Asia and Eastern Iran, they are nowhere to be found.

    • Agree: RoatanBill
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Caspar von Everec


    Educated liberal women and soy men tie their tubes or get vasectomies in order to save the environemnt or prevent future oppression.
     
    Is that really true? That's how conservatives think the liberal mind works but in general conservatives don't really understand what makes liberals tick, just as liberals don't really understand what makes conservatives tick.

    There might be a handful of people who will actually forego having children for the sake of the environment but I don't buy the idea that it's a widespread environment. People do not make decisions about how many children they're going to have based on ideology or social duty. People, including liberals, make decisions about having children based on whether they want children or not. Some may claim they are childless to "save the planet" but that's just opportunistic virtue-signalling. They've already decided not to have kids but why miss a chance to virtue-signal?

    Their most sacred virtue is race mixing and self sterilization for the environment.
     
    They may believe in race-mixing in theory. People believe in all sorts of things in theory. In practice white liberals are more likely to marry other white liberals.

    Replies: @Wency

    , @John Johnson
    @Caspar von Everec

    Conservative dysgenics would be Christian lunacy like not aborting down syndrome babies or other mentally deficient children. Honestly this isn’t even dysgenic per se. Bulk of these unfortunate people never reproduce to begin with as no one wants them. So it has no real impact in the long run.

    I would add breeding with weak and effeminate church going males over outside strong men. Church women are pressured to find mates of the same church or denomination. This selects against men that have strong genes but aren't active in the church. In fact much of church culture is really just beta men helping each other.

    But this is still much less destructive than liberalism.

    This completely eradicates many educated(tho perhaps naive) people from the gene pool. Even worse is the africanization. Liberals heavily support mixing with blacks. It stops future ”oppression” of black people and in their mind it is an act of virtue to abolish whiteness.

    I would add that a lot of liberals are aware that race exists and view miscegenation as the only solution.

    I've long suspected that their plans to bring in Hispanics to Black cities were in part for gene dilution. This is why so many Democrat mayors have no problem with businesses hiring illegals even when there are plenty of Black workers available. In fact we have seen Democrat mayors do everything they can to protect illegals from the Fed. What they want is to replace US Blacks with Mestizo mixed Blacks. But from what I have seen recently immigrated Hispanics have zero interest in helping with this plan.

    There are also conservatives that support race mixing for the same reason. They quietly support creating mulattoes to help smooth the curve. They are globalists that view race as bad for the stock market. In their minds we are better off sticking some half-breeds in executive positions rather than risking a questioning of both multiracial society and capitalism. The latter is really the driving factor.

    Great points though.

  10. @Priss Factor
    Affirmative Action is like legacy admission.

    "Sheeeeeeiiit, my ancestor was a slave." And that legacy means you are admitted.

    https://twitter.com/ramzpaul/status/1397314290252718086

    Replies: @Caspar von Everec, @DanHessinMD

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    @Caspar von Everec


    The US will soon lead the world in black math where 4/2 = sheeit
     
    Future math problem.

    If white boy Billy has $10 and black boy Taquon has $5, how much more does Billy have?

    Black answer: Taquon whupped Billy's ass and took da money, so Taquon gots all da money.

    Woke grading: A+

    But white logic is plenty crazy these days too.

    In truth, Jews and Israel meddle in American affairs, but to white libby-dibs, it's THE RUSSIANS.

    In truth, Jews do most to harm white race, but to white conzos, it's always the CHICOMS.

  11. @Twinkie

    The right, particularly the religious right, may have a human capital problem
     
    Is that why a majority of the Supreme Court justices, with elite education credentials to boot, are from my religious team?

    "The religious right" isn't just made up of the people "who read nothing but the Bible," it also includes - increasingly - those of us "who read everything but the Bible." ;)

    Replies: @TomSchmidt, @iffen

    If only the Pope hadn’t added it to the Index of Banned Books!

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @TomSchmidt

    Wouldn’t want us Catholics to get any dangerous ideas!

  12. @Alexander Turok
    The difference between modern and early-20th century progressivism is that the latter was oriented to finding long-term solutions for problems. So for the problem of these tards, the early progressives said, look, we'll give them a nice life in the asylum, but we'll sterilize them to prevent our descendants from being further burdened. In contrast, the modern progressives are all for lots of government programs to help the tards, but when it comes to tards having kids, they're like, ah, what can we do, interfere with their reproductive rights? That's basically Nazism.(This ignores that when the state takes away the kids of these retarded mothers for neglect, it's certainly not true that they have "reproductive rights" that are being honored.) The early progressives wanted a world in which social ills were solved, relegated to the history books. Eugenics, along with other reform movements like prohibition and economic regulation, was promised to do this. But modern progressives and many modern "conservatives" have an altogether different vision. For in a world where every man is intelligent and responsible and gets along well with his neighbors, there isn't much room for the do-gooder instinct.

    It's the same story with these downs kids. You have a problem said to be due to the state of nature. (Much of it is actually due to the modern practice of waiting until you're running on 40 years old to have kids.) So the solution is to mitigate the problem, make sure these kids are comfortable, not bullied in school, etc. But tell them "that's all good, but shouldn't we also look at how to prevent this problem from arising in the first place," and they're like "no, that'll take away my opportunity to virtue-signal!"

    Replies: @TomSchmidt, @songbird

    People on the right don’t like to admit that, unless you’re willing to kill people, you have to have some way to support the ones who cannot hack it. The Left, at least as opposed to the Chicago-school Right, knows this better. The Right also knows that you do want to discourage burdens from growing, and the Left seems clueless here, as you point out.

    In some sense, we are still trying to undo the Reformation. At the time, the Church owned 1/5th to 1/3rd of the land in Europe. Much of that was dedicated to supporting the poor, the sick, and the mentally ill. Some of the wealth was skimmed off by corrupt officials who would appoint non-religious abbots to capture the economic streams of monasteries. But there was a social buffer there, and it was mated to a religious morality that would attempt to comfort the afflicted but also prevent their breeding more afflicted. Follow the rules or you might get kicked out of support for, for example, breeding another out of wedlock child.

    That arrangement was forever shattered when wealthy, connected elites decided to skim the value for themselves while dumping the burden of the poor on others by seizing land. (The more things change…). Social welfare states were an effort to restore this, but they’ve become a spur to burden-creation in low-trust societies, and destroyed trust in high-trust societies.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
    @TomSchmidt

    you have to have some way to support the ones who cannot hack it.

    There's your mistake. I don't have to support anyone. Cancel welfare. Cancel all the free stuff programs and let nature take its course.

    There will always be people, and I among them, who will give to truly needy people, but it's the institutionalization of this charity that causes the problem we have today. Families on welfare generation after generation is not something a community would tolerate. It's the gov't interference in encouraging the needy to stay that way that IS the problem. When neighbor helped neighbor, that was well intentioned and bound a community together. Now we have gov't stealing from the productive to give to the dirtbags, a never ending stream of human trash.

    Where are the 'houses of worship' to take care of their 'flock'? They get a pass on taxes and aren't doing squat. The entire system is designed to subjugate the working people to support an ever increasing proportion of people that are programmed to be losers.

    https://youtu.be/RBqjZ0KZCa0

    Replies: @dfordoom, @TomSchmidt, @Twinkie

    , @Twinkie
    @TomSchmidt


    People on the right don’t like to admit that, unless you’re willing to kill people, you have to have some way to support the ones who cannot hack it.
     
    Better than supporting them would be creating an economic system, in which those that “can’t hack it” can still work and earn both dignity and a semblance of income and live like human beings. The corporatocracy, though, wants to socialize the externalities and privatize all the profits. Supporting massive immigration is part and parcel of that (at first, agro workers, now IT workers, tomorrow…).

    Then again, we deserve the corporatocracy, because we all sold out our country so that we could buy books online for a a couple of bucks less than at the local bookstore. Now there aren’t any local book stores to patronize. Chasing the lowest price is the death of us all.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt

    , @anon
    @TomSchmidt

    People on the right don’t like to admit that, unless you’re willing to kill people, you have to have some way to support the ones who cannot hack it.

    There's a solution that you endorsed just last year. Why not promote it more this year?

    https://www.amazon.com/Defense-Looting-Riotous-History-Uncivil/dp/1645036693

    "She has a point" -- TomSchmidt

    Replies: @TomSchmidt

  13. Here is a case where liberals are smarter than conservatives….no great achievement

    Why would any intelligent, decent human want to knowingly bring a handicapped person into this world???

    • Replies: @another fred
    @Realist


    Why would any intelligent, decent human want to knowingly bring a handicapped person into this world???

     

    They believe in "the ghost in the machine", aka a soul which inhabits a body but exists apart from the body and, in their doctrine, has one shot at physical life and an opportunity to grow. Abortion ends that one shot.

    Many people, perhaps most, believe in the ghost in the machine to some extent or another, but for the religious right it is a well developed doctrine.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_machine

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Realist

    , @Twinkie
    @Realist


    Why would any intelligent, decent human want to knowingly bring a handicapped person into this world???
     
    So, if you have no utility to me, can I shoot you in the head and take your stuff?

    Do you love a baby because it is going to “do things” in the future? Because, you know, they are some of the most handicapped human beings I’ve ever known - downright parasitic, even! They are, like, so much more useless and less capable than dogs!

    Replies: @Test tickles, @Realist

  14. @Dumbo

    Fetal genetic testing during the first trimester and embryo selection during IVF procedures to screen for conditions like Down or Patau syndromes is eugenics
     
    Not really. "Eugenics", as it was thought of in the beginning of the 20th century, right or wrong, was about "improving society", or about "what is good for society" (or well, what they thought was good - I'm not a big defender of eugenics myself).

    But, for modern progressives, it's all about "what's good for me".

    That's why they see no contradiction in wanting their own children to be healthy, smart, etc, while at the same time decrying eugenics as a general social rule.

    Of course they will do "eugenics" for their own family, but they don't want it for everyone else.

    And the same applies to any other liberal thought, "one rule for me, another for the others". "Black Lives Matter, but not near me". Etc, etc.

    Replies: @silviosilver

    Not really. “Eugenics”, as it was thought of in the beginning of the 20th century, right or wrong, was about “improving society”, or about “what is good for society” (or well, what they thought was good – I’m not a big defender of eugenics myself).

    But, for modern progressives, it’s all about “what’s good for me”.

    Exactly.

    They may agree, on reflection, that it would also be good for society – ie it would be “eugenic” – but that is far from their main motivation.

    As an avid eugenicist, it doesn’t bother me that people may adopt a eugenic practice for purely personal, selfish reasons. The trick for eugenicists is to expand the range of voluntary eugenic-(or anti-dysgenic)-but-call-it-something-else options so greatly that society as a whole takes on a eugenic profile, even without explicitly being aware of it.

  15. Genetics and Beauty

    Race Is Downstream From Genetics

    Civilization Is Downstream From Race

    I wrote this in April of 2019 about genetics and beauty and the fact that Bill Gates’s wife looks like Buddy Hackett(I’ll be Hubby #2 for you, Melinda baby, you and your divorce cash!):

    Amber Heard has an extremely beautiful mug that no Black woman, nor a mulatto woman, nor an off-brand woman could ever match.

    Amber Heard is beautiful because of her genetic ancestry which includes English, Scotch-Irish, Welsh, German, Irish and Scottish.

    Most off-brand broads can’t approach Amber Heard’s beauty because they ain’t got the right genetics for beauty.

    Ask that damn Limey dope Edward Dutton about it.

    Billionaire globalizer dirtbag Jeff Bezos does prove my theory about ancestry and attractiveness wrong because Bezos is an extremely ugly money-grubbing billionaire dirtbag with mostly Northern European ancestry.

    It is my belief that ugly bastard Bezos, who is so full of shit that his eyes are brown, has utilized his dismay at his lack of handsomeness to put all his energies into the ugly business of money-grubbing. Bill Gates is another ugly motherphucka who used fanatic GREED to express the ugliness of his inner and outer soul.

    In short, those of us who are extremely attractive must understand that many non-Whites and Whites who are ugly bastards are using their ugliness as battering rams to attack and destroy the beauty of White people and White culture.

    Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates are ugly disgusting globalizer greedy scum who must be considered to be enemies of the truth and beauty of White Core America.

    Yeah, I wrote this to be outlandish. Here is more. Melinda Gates is an ugly greedy globalizer bitch who looks like Buddy Hackett and we’re supposed to pretend that her vile ugliness hasn’t warped her rancid soul? Nonsense!

    Mother Nature Is Giving Us The Green!

    Happy Spring! Except to you ugly greedy globalizer billionaire dirtbags!

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/lets-talk-about-my-face/#comment-3178163

  16. @Sick of Orcs
    Every human seeking to choose a mate practices eugenics: aren't young, healthy, atractive mates preferred stock?

    Pheromones "advertise" one's genetic profile. You are more likely to be drawn toward others with a different profile as the combination promotes stronger, healthier offspring.

    Replies: @silviosilver

    Every human seeking to choose a mate practices eugenics: aren’t young, healthy, atractive mates preferred stock?

    Not every person seeking to mate mates with someone young or healthy or attractive, though, so it cannot be that anyone seeking to choose a mate practices eugenics.

    In order to be described as “practising eugenics,” an action has to involve an awareness of that action’s eugenic benefits for society, and be undertaken at least in part because of eugenic motives.

    • Replies: @Sick of Orcs
    @silviosilver

    Eugenics is, "the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable."

    My opinion is the macro definition applies to individuals, even if for selfish reasons.



    Not every person seeking to mate mates with someone young or healthy or attractive, though, so it cannot be that anyone seeking to choose a mate practices eugenics.
     
    I considered this argument--which is correct--but ultimately felt it muddled the main idea.

    The West no longer practices eugenics as a movement, now it stresses dysgenics.
    The fictional handsome black genius is made to be the pinnacle of evolution that all women should desire when reality tells us a very different tale. The welfare system pays the most irresponsible among us to breed indiscriminately and the goblin-steered federal mafia allows diseased foreigners to cross our border without medical checkups. During a "pandemic."

    Replies: @songbird

  17. “genetic testing will do more harm than good”

    Some could interpret it as being about simple ancestry testing or disease risk and diagnosis.

    Personally, it is hard not to see the utility of passports or visas based on genetic distance, or some variant scheme such as genetic distance to civilized countries. And also the ridiculousness of passports and visas that seem increasingly based on whim.

  18. @Triteleia Laxa
    Thinking about eugenics makes me feel status anxiety.

    This is not triggered by discussion of reducing Patau or other genetic illnesses. It is instead caused by reflecting on how the natural gifts which I have, that can never be taken away, would be diminished, in social value, by genetic engineering for good looks and intelligence. If the norm I'm these areas caught up and then overleapt me, I might feel smaller.

    I assume this adequately explains the bifurcated progressive attitude towards eugenics. I don't mind feeling smaller, but fear of such is what drives a lot of politics.

    Replies: @silviosilver

    Those fears are real, but they are quite unfounded.

    Firstly, your own generational peers – everyone’s go-to comparison group – are not going to in any way “overtake” you because eugenics alters nothing about them; both they and you remain just as they and you were.

    Secondly, it’s not as if everybody in the upcoming generation will be a product of eugenics and immediately overshadow you with their stunning good looks and brilliant intelligence as soon as they come of age.

    Eugenics only means that the proportion of people with such traits will be slightly greater in that generation. How slight? Imperceptibly slight. But you keep that up for generation after generation, and the benefits at some point make themselves felt.

    • Agree: Triteleia Laxa
  19. @Alexander Turok
    The difference between modern and early-20th century progressivism is that the latter was oriented to finding long-term solutions for problems. So for the problem of these tards, the early progressives said, look, we'll give them a nice life in the asylum, but we'll sterilize them to prevent our descendants from being further burdened. In contrast, the modern progressives are all for lots of government programs to help the tards, but when it comes to tards having kids, they're like, ah, what can we do, interfere with their reproductive rights? That's basically Nazism.(This ignores that when the state takes away the kids of these retarded mothers for neglect, it's certainly not true that they have "reproductive rights" that are being honored.) The early progressives wanted a world in which social ills were solved, relegated to the history books. Eugenics, along with other reform movements like prohibition and economic regulation, was promised to do this. But modern progressives and many modern "conservatives" have an altogether different vision. For in a world where every man is intelligent and responsible and gets along well with his neighbors, there isn't much room for the do-gooder instinct.

    It's the same story with these downs kids. You have a problem said to be due to the state of nature. (Much of it is actually due to the modern practice of waiting until you're running on 40 years old to have kids.) So the solution is to mitigate the problem, make sure these kids are comfortable, not bullied in school, etc. But tell them "that's all good, but shouldn't we also look at how to prevent this problem from arising in the first place," and they're like "no, that'll take away my opportunity to virtue-signal!"

    Replies: @TomSchmidt, @songbird

    I wonder how many early eugenicists were also in favor of one-world government.

    It’s interesting to read HG Wells. In 1901, he wrote:

    [MORE]

    And how will the new republic treat the inferior races? How will it deal with the black? how will it deal with the yellow man? how will it tackle that alleged termite in the civilized woodwork, the Jew? Certainly not as races at all. It will aim to establish, and it will at last, though probably only after a second century has passed, establish a world state with a common language and a common rule. All over the world its roads, its standards, its laws, and its apparatus of control will run. It will, I have said, make the multiplication of those who fall behind a certain standard of social efficiency unpleasant and difficult… The Jew will probably lose much of his particularism, intermarry with Gentiles, and cease to be a physically distinct element in human affairs in a century or so. But much of his moral tradition will, I hope, never die. … And for the rest, those swarms of black, and brown, and dirty-white, and yellow people, who do not come into the new needs of efficiency?

    Well, the world is a world, not a charitable institution, and I take it they will have to go. The whole tenor and meaning of the world, as I see it, is that they have to go. So far as they fail to develop sane, vigorous, and distinctive personalities for the great world of the future, it is their portion to die out and disappear.

    But what is curious is that by 1906 he was already writing admiring passages about American blacks and railing against segregation and Jim Crow, even though he hated democracy. It seems apparent that he was an extreme universalist.

    It is an fascinating question what this apparent contradiction signifies. Perhaps, it is explained entirely by him visiting America. Or perhaps he was just trying to be provocative or had flighty, random thoughts in his original passage, as many intellectuals do.

  20. @UNIT472
    A big issue for the left is that two of their main constituencies, gays and blacks, don't live very long. Gay men who were in their 20's during the 1980's had a WW1 sized hole ripped out of their ranks by AIDs. Even those who didn't die of AIDs but were HIV positive had to stay on a pharmacological cocktail to keep them alive and suffer from all sorts of lesser maladies associated with a cornucopia of STDs and infections. I don't know Tim Cooks HIV status buts he's 60 and it is extremely unlikely he will ever become an octogenarian Warren Buffett or, god forbid, another George Soros. I haven't seen any data on how Covid affected gay men over 60 but I doubt it is good news. Trannies do even worse in the longevity department than even gay men.

    Negro men live 5 years less than white men and my guess is that gap will be increasing due to homicide rates and lifestyle issues. Negro women had long lives but given that over 60 percent of young negro females are now obsese, many grotesquely so, I wouldn't look for them to outlive their mothers.

    There is a third category of problematic people with longevity issues. Drug abusers. What their political leanings are, if any, I don't think is known but they do make up the ranks of the homeless and have become by default a Democrat constituency and a source of fraudulent voters. While meth and cocaine abusers can survive for quite a few years the fentanyl epidemic is culling this population rapidly. San Francisco had 300 deaths from Covid last year but more than 700 fatal drug overdoses. They could have more than 800 this year. Fentanyl may solve the homeless problem permanently and put thousands of Democrat social workers and rehab clinics out of business.

    Replies: @Rahan, @Mark G.

    Negro men live 5 years less than white men and my guess is that gap will be increasing due to homicide rates and lifestyle issues. Negro women had long lives but given that over 60 percent of young negro females are now obese, many grotesquely so, I wouldn’t look for them to outlive their mothers.

    This will probably be the case, for the reasons you mention. In recent years, the life expectancy gap has been decreasing between blacks and whites. Affirmative action and government jobs have created an artificial black middle class with access to better medical care. The money is running out for this, though. Like a parasite that kills its host and then dies itself, black life expectancy will start decreasing as the economy becomes unable to support subsidizing this artificially created black middle class. Added to the factors you mention, this may widen the black and white gap once again unless white life expectancy decreases at the same rate.

    Until recently, technological and medical advances have offset the bad economic policies the government has been following. For the last decade, though, U.S. life expectancy stopped increasing and then started decreasing. If you look at just the subset consisting of the white working class, life expectancy has been decreasing since 2001. The 2001 tech stock crash followed by expensive government bailouts and the expensive Middle East wars was the first major blow and then the continued bad government policies led to another stock and housing bubble which led to another crash in 2008 and more expensive bailouts. That seemed to be the tipping point that led to the now decreasing U.S. life expectancy. Rather than reversing these policies, we are doubling down and continuing them.

  21. @Realist
    Here is a case where liberals are smarter than conservatives....no great achievement

    Why would any intelligent, decent human want to knowingly bring a handicapped person into this world???

    Replies: @another fred, @Twinkie

    Why would any intelligent, decent human want to knowingly bring a handicapped person into this world???

    They believe in “the ghost in the machine”, aka a soul which inhabits a body but exists apart from the body and, in their doctrine, has one shot at physical life and an opportunity to grow. Abortion ends that one shot.

    Many people, perhaps most, believe in the ghost in the machine to some extent or another, but for the religious right it is a well developed doctrine.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_machine

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @another fred


    Many people, perhaps most, believe in the ghost in the machine to some extent or another, but for the religious right it is a well developed doctrine.
     
    To the consternation of more recent philosophers, this problem was solved (in the usual view of the educated, orthodox religious right) by Plato, Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas as long ago as the 13th century.

    One meets so many misleading and flat-out wrong interpretations of Aristotle and St. Thomas that I hesitate to add my own, but here goes: the relationship between mind and body somewhat resembles the relationship between an architectural plan and the finished building. The ghost of the architectural plan might be said to inhabit the building in a metaphorical sense but perhaps not in the sense you mean.

    Out of my depth, I shall pursue the point no farther, except to note that the notion of the ghost in the machine is largely a straw man.

    Replies: @Wency

    , @Realist
    @another fred


    They believe in “the ghost in the machine”, aka a soul which inhabits a body but exists apart from the body and, in their doctrine, has one shot at physical life and an opportunity to grow. Abortion ends that one shot.
     
    I did preface my comment with the phrase...intelligent, decent human

    Many people, perhaps most, believe in the ghost in the machine to some extent or another, but for the religious right it is a well developed doctrine.
     
    The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.

    Bertrand Russell ‘29

  22. @Priss Factor
    Affirmative Action is like legacy admission.

    "Sheeeeeeiiit, my ancestor was a slave." And that legacy means you are admitted.

    https://twitter.com/ramzpaul/status/1397314290252718086

    Replies: @Caspar von Everec, @DanHessinMD

    Colorado follows California in discarding testing.

    Will the Eastern US (and especially the Northeast) regain its past stranglehold on elite education?

  23. @silviosilver
    @Sick of Orcs


    Every human seeking to choose a mate practices eugenics: aren’t young, healthy, atractive mates preferred stock?
     
    Not every person seeking to mate mates with someone young or healthy or attractive, though, so it cannot be that anyone seeking to choose a mate practices eugenics.

    In order to be described as "practising eugenics," an action has to involve an awareness of that action's eugenic benefits for society, and be undertaken at least in part because of eugenic motives.

    Replies: @Sick of Orcs

    Eugenics is, “the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable.”

    My opinion is the macro definition applies to individuals, even if for selfish reasons.

    Not every person seeking to mate mates with someone young or healthy or attractive, though, so it cannot be that anyone seeking to choose a mate practices eugenics.

    I considered this argument–which is correct–but ultimately felt it muddled the main idea.

    The West no longer practices eugenics as a movement, now it stresses dysgenics.
    The fictional handsome black genius is made to be the pinnacle of evolution that all women should desire when reality tells us a very different tale. The welfare system pays the most irresponsible among us to breed indiscriminately and the goblin-steered federal mafia allows diseased foreigners to cross our border without medical checkups. During a “pandemic.”

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Sick of Orcs


    The West no longer practices eugenics as a movement, now it stresses dysgenics.
     
    Saw a stock photo the other day.

    Felt a bit out of place because contra the race-mixing propaganda, it had a white mother and white baby, even though she had a black female friend. But then I realized that the friend had two black babies to her one white, and that they were on the the left side, which is the priority of the eye in reading in the West.
  24. @another fred
    @Realist


    Why would any intelligent, decent human want to knowingly bring a handicapped person into this world???

     

    They believe in "the ghost in the machine", aka a soul which inhabits a body but exists apart from the body and, in their doctrine, has one shot at physical life and an opportunity to grow. Abortion ends that one shot.

    Many people, perhaps most, believe in the ghost in the machine to some extent or another, but for the religious right it is a well developed doctrine.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_machine

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Realist

    Many people, perhaps most, believe in the ghost in the machine to some extent or another, but for the religious right it is a well developed doctrine.

    To the consternation of more recent philosophers, this problem was solved (in the usual view of the educated, orthodox religious right) by Plato, Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas as long ago as the 13th century.

    One meets so many misleading and flat-out wrong interpretations of Aristotle and St. Thomas that I hesitate to add my own, but here goes: the relationship between mind and body somewhat resembles the relationship between an architectural plan and the finished building. The ghost of the architectural plan might be said to inhabit the building in a metaphorical sense but perhaps not in the sense you mean.

    Out of my depth, I shall pursue the point no farther, except to note that the notion of the ghost in the machine is largely a straw man.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Well put. To the earlier point, the relevant concept here is not "ghost in the machine" (which is at least somewhat contra-Biblical), but imago Dei. Human life is sacred, independent of any utility or lack thereof it might convey.

    I'm sure there exist American folk theologies that reason out abortion opposition via some quasi-Cartesian dualistic error or another, but none of that matters because 20th century Protestant opposition to abortion is historically a product of Catholic opposition to abortion (a fact that I'll admit I find embarrassing as a Protestant, but credit where credit is due), and Catholic doctrine here has nothing to do with such dualistic errors.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Twinkie

  25. @Sick of Orcs
    @silviosilver

    Eugenics is, "the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable."

    My opinion is the macro definition applies to individuals, even if for selfish reasons.



    Not every person seeking to mate mates with someone young or healthy or attractive, though, so it cannot be that anyone seeking to choose a mate practices eugenics.
     
    I considered this argument--which is correct--but ultimately felt it muddled the main idea.

    The West no longer practices eugenics as a movement, now it stresses dysgenics.
    The fictional handsome black genius is made to be the pinnacle of evolution that all women should desire when reality tells us a very different tale. The welfare system pays the most irresponsible among us to breed indiscriminately and the goblin-steered federal mafia allows diseased foreigners to cross our border without medical checkups. During a "pandemic."

    Replies: @songbird

    The West no longer practices eugenics as a movement, now it stresses dysgenics.

    Saw a stock photo the other day.

    Felt a bit out of place because contra the race-mixing propaganda, it had a white mother and white baby, even though she had a black female friend. But then I realized that the friend had two black babies to her one white, and that they were on the the left side, which is the priority of the eye in reading in the West.

    • Thanks: Sick of Orcs
  26. “Neither blindness nor ignorance corrupts people and
    governments. They soon realize where the path they
    have taken is leading them. But there is an impulse
    within them, favored by their natures and reinforced by
    their habits, which they do not resist; it continues to
    propel them forward as long as they have a remnant of
    strength. He who overcomes himself is divine. Most see
    their ruin before their eyes; but they go on into it.”

  27. Fetal genetic testing during the first trimester and embryo selection during IVF procedures to screen for conditions like Down or Patau syndromes is eugenics. It’s voluntary rather than coerced as many of the progressive eugenics movements of the 20th century were, but if the objectives are not eugenic, what are they?

    Eugenics, obviously, from the eye of both, society at large, the parents involved.

    Who is most obsessed with eugenics, mind — out of their own angle of interests —, it must be named, — today, not the morrow — the elites. It requires a loss-less mind not to see that eugenics — as in modulating the population at large, at nil messing with their own off-spring — is hard at work in a different workflow as was understood in the early twentieth century.

    The privileged — by impacting the meat-ball population — shape their environment, and eugenics in that sense as strategy and tactics has an immediate present. Covid vaccinations are a trial and error “cock the gun”. So at NULL risk to their own off-spring, — by opening the possibility and acceptance to modulate the genes of the surplus population —, the environment and context into population control is altered from H-bombs to precise eu-missiles. Eugenics is at work! Be blind and do not see that social engineering in the traditional sense: finance and it’s deceit, con-Z-umerism, Hollywood, the Internet, pale compared to access at large the genes of others, to influence a world of theirs. This can be called progress in a sense and their must be attribution to the middle class corporate vassals and Big Farma. The Sassoons, the clipper ships, then China, now the globe, of the twenty-first century.

    China, Russia, Corporations, intelligentsia, Deep State, US, media, and our niche zine of unz are all in on the agenda. Most collaboration is obtained by confusing, incomprehension, ambiguity, in short the Jewish mindset, the Jewish soccer game. Be it that this new eugenics phenomenon might finally have a war plan for the long term. It would then attribute to general progress at the minor cost of culling the global synthetic — synthetic as for real, more then half the global population will finally subsist which a current dose of chemical manipulators in their sorry carcass — meat ball population.

  28. Genetics Makes Me Think Charles Murray Will Avoid Middlebury College, Vermont In The Future.

    Charles Murray is innately intelligent enough due to his ancestry and individual genetics to avoid Middlebury College, Vermont when he promotes his new book on race and crime and differences in intelligence derived from genetics.

    Charles Murray has a new book on genetics and race and the like called “Facing Reality: Two Truths about Race in America.” Murray’s book is said to be ready for release on June 15, 2021.

    Genetics Says Blacks Are Low IQ Boobs In Comparison To Whites And Asians From Northeastern Asia.

    God Loves Blacks Even If They’re Low IQ Boobs.

    Attention All Low IQ Black Boobs:

    Mailbox Money Is On The Way If You Want it.

    Blacks born in colonial America or born in the USA before 1924 should get ten thousand dollars a month and the Pewitt Conjured Loot Portion(PCLP) will get it for them.

    If Black brains are smoother than river rocks, then it seems to me that Blacks should get conjured up currency from the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank to alleviate problems from low Black IQ.

    Black crime rates should drop dramatically if the Blacks know they’ll be getting ten thousand dollars a month. Black crimes of passion might be substantially reduced too.

    I wrote this in November of 2029 with our mutual Black friends in mind:

    I blame sneaky and shady upper middle class White neoliberal globalizers for using Black disfunction and poor school performance on so-called “racism” or so-called “bad schools” or any other reason but innate intelligence differences between Blacks/Latinos and Whites/Asians.

    And I don’t mean Penelope Cruz when I say Latinos.

    Mestizos and Amerindians and Latinos and Blacks and Mulattos and other Africanized populations have lower IQs than do Whites and Northeastern Asians such as Chinese and Japanese and Koreans.

    Sneaky upper middle class Whites will never admit that Blacks/Latinos have lower IQs on average, because that will take away a demographic weapon that the upper middle class Whites use to pound the Hell out of middle class Whites and lower middle class Whites and regular Whites and underclass Whites.

    The education system scam in the USA has poured trillions of dollars into the bottomless pit of Black disfunction and plenty of upper middle class Whites have been clam raking loot out of that gravy train.

    White Core American Patriots must be clear that Black disfunction and poor school performance and Black boneheadedness is due to genetic factors and inborn, innate ancestral biological reasons, but that White Core America will do its best to advance Black interests and Black achievement by using honest and truthful means.

    Do not for a split second underestimate the evil and immorality of White government workers and White upper middle class neoliberal globalizers when they refuse to honestly discuss Black disfunction and poor Black school performance and test scores of Blacks. These disgusting White cohorts of pure evil and immorality use the innate biological fact of low Black IQ as a weapon to accuse regular Whites of so-called “racism” and to destroy White schools by flooding them with Black disfunction and Black criminality and Black low IQ behaviour and low time preference Black behaviour and Black lack of impulse control.

    White Core America will tell the truth about Black criminality and Black disfunction and the low IQ scores of Blacks and poor school performance of Blacks while helping Blacks do the best they can.

    White Core America will also give each American with all blood ancestors born in colonial America or the USA before 1924 ten thousand dollars a month. Old Stocker Blacks will get that cash and Blacky-come-lately Blacks will be encouraged to exit the USA.

    BRIBE THE BLACKS!

    BRIBE THE WHITE BROADS!

    BRIBE THE VOTERS!

    Imperial Disintegration Demands Voter BRIBERY!

    The hostile Blacks are merciful; the dreaded enemy is the upper middle class Whitey neoliberal globalizers and the White government workers clam raking loot out of Black disfunction.

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/average-black-iq-by-state-2019/#comment-3570706

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    @Charles Pewitt

    Note to self re book idea: Defacing Reality — The Race That Will Destroy America

  29. The right, particularly the religious right, may have a human capital problem, but it doesn’t have a eugenics problem. Or maybe its problem is a decidedly non-eugenic approach to the propagation of the species.

    The right, particularly the religious right, have lost the plot: The people most likely to get abortions are precisely the ones the right should encourage to self-cull. It must be modern Christian masochism and self-loathing.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    @The Alarmist

    It seems that the religious right has no interest or awareness of this. The babies they so much want to be born won't stay babies for long. When they grow up they will destroy whatever is left of the religious right agenda, both through voting and their personal behavior. Then again does the religious right care about anything other than abortion these days? It doesn't seem like it.

    Replies: @anon, @dfordoom

  30. @Charles Pewitt
    Genetics Makes Me Think Charles Murray Will Avoid Middlebury College, Vermont In The Future.

    Charles Murray is innately intelligent enough due to his ancestry and individual genetics to avoid Middlebury College, Vermont when he promotes his new book on race and crime and differences in intelligence derived from genetics.

    Charles Murray has a new book on genetics and race and the like called "Facing Reality: Two Truths about Race in America." Murray's book is said to be ready for release on June 15, 2021.

    Genetics Says Blacks Are Low IQ Boobs In Comparison To Whites And Asians From Northeastern Asia.

    God Loves Blacks Even If They're Low IQ Boobs.

    Attention All Low IQ Black Boobs:

    Mailbox Money Is On The Way If You Want it.

    Blacks born in colonial America or born in the USA before 1924 should get ten thousand dollars a month and the Pewitt Conjured Loot Portion(PCLP) will get it for them.

    If Black brains are smoother than river rocks, then it seems to me that Blacks should get conjured up currency from the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank to alleviate problems from low Black IQ.

    Black crime rates should drop dramatically if the Blacks know they'll be getting ten thousand dollars a month. Black crimes of passion might be substantially reduced too.

    I wrote this in November of 2029 with our mutual Black friends in mind:

    I blame sneaky and shady upper middle class White neoliberal globalizers for using Black disfunction and poor school performance on so-called “racism” or so-called “bad schools” or any other reason but innate intelligence differences between Blacks/Latinos and Whites/Asians.

    And I don’t mean Penelope Cruz when I say Latinos.

    Mestizos and Amerindians and Latinos and Blacks and Mulattos and other Africanized populations have lower IQs than do Whites and Northeastern Asians such as Chinese and Japanese and Koreans.

    Sneaky upper middle class Whites will never admit that Blacks/Latinos have lower IQs on average, because that will take away a demographic weapon that the upper middle class Whites use to pound the Hell out of middle class Whites and lower middle class Whites and regular Whites and underclass Whites.

    The education system scam in the USA has poured trillions of dollars into the bottomless pit of Black disfunction and plenty of upper middle class Whites have been clam raking loot out of that gravy train.

    White Core American Patriots must be clear that Black disfunction and poor school performance and Black boneheadedness is due to genetic factors and inborn, innate ancestral biological reasons, but that White Core America will do its best to advance Black interests and Black achievement by using honest and truthful means.

    Do not for a split second underestimate the evil and immorality of White government workers and White upper middle class neoliberal globalizers when they refuse to honestly discuss Black disfunction and poor Black school performance and test scores of Blacks. These disgusting White cohorts of pure evil and immorality use the innate biological fact of low Black IQ as a weapon to accuse regular Whites of so-called “racism” and to destroy White schools by flooding them with Black disfunction and Black criminality and Black low IQ behaviour and low time preference Black behaviour and Black lack of impulse control.

    White Core America will tell the truth about Black criminality and Black disfunction and the low IQ scores of Blacks and poor school performance of Blacks while helping Blacks do the best they can.

    White Core America will also give each American with all blood ancestors born in colonial America or the USA before 1924 ten thousand dollars a month. Old Stocker Blacks will get that cash and Blacky-come-lately Blacks will be encouraged to exit the USA.

    BRIBE THE BLACKS!

    BRIBE THE WHITE BROADS!

    BRIBE THE VOTERS!

    Imperial Disintegration Demands Voter BRIBERY!

    The hostile Blacks are merciful; the dreaded enemy is the upper middle class Whitey neoliberal globalizers and the White government workers clam raking loot out of Black disfunction.

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/average-black-iq-by-state-2019/#comment-3570706

    Replies: @The Alarmist

    Note to self re book idea: Defacing Reality — The Race That Will Destroy America

  31. @The Alarmist

    The right, particularly the religious right, may have a human capital problem, but it doesn’t have a eugenics problem. Or maybe its problem is a decidedly non-eugenic approach to the propagation of the species.
     
    The right, particularly the religious right, have lost the plot: The people most likely to get abortions are precisely the ones the right should encourage to self-cull. It must be modern Christian masochism and self-loathing.

    Replies: @Jay Fink

    It seems that the religious right has no interest or awareness of this. The babies they so much want to be born won’t stay babies for long. When they grow up they will destroy whatever is left of the religious right agenda, both through voting and their personal behavior. Then again does the religious right care about anything other than abortion these days? It doesn’t seem like it.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Jay Fink

    Either of you ever actually meet a person who is culturally conservative and some form of Christian?

    When they grow up they will destroy whatever is left of the religious right agenda,

    What exactly is the "religious right agenda"? Quotes, please. Bear in mind the current year is not 1980-something and Jerry Falwell is still dead.

    , @dfordoom
    @Jay Fink


    It seems that the religious right has no interest or awareness of this. The babies they so much want to be born won’t stay babies for long. When they grow up they will destroy whatever is left of the religious right agenda, both through voting and their personal behavior.
     
    As much as I dislike the Religious Right I think that on this issue they are morally correct. They will not and cannot support the idea of "culling" "useless eaters" because they recognise that such a policy is barbarism.

    Rightoids who like the idea of culling useless eaters might like to reflect on the possibility that the day might come when they are the ones who are going to get culled.

    The idea of eliminating large parts of the population that you happen to disapprove of is a very very dangerous idea.

    Replies: @Usura, @Alexander Turok

  32. @Caspar von Everec
    @Priss Factor

    https://theconversation.com/yes-mathematics-can-be-decolonised-heres-how-to-begin-65963

    https://undark.org/2018/12/31/in-south-africa-decolonizing-mathematics/

    The US will soon lead the world in black math where 4/2 = sheeit

    Replies: @Priss Factor

    The US will soon lead the world in black math where 4/2 = sheeit

    Future math problem.

    If white boy Billy has $10 and black boy Taquon has $5, how much more does Billy have?

    Black answer: Taquon whupped Billy’s ass and took da money, so Taquon gots all da money.

    Woke grading: A+

    But white logic is plenty crazy these days too.

    In truth, Jews and Israel meddle in American affairs, but to white libby-dibs, it’s THE RUSSIANS.

    In truth, Jews do most to harm white race, but to white conzos, it’s always the CHICOMS.

    • Agree: Realist
  33. @TomSchmidt
    @Alexander Turok

    People on the right don't like to admit that, unless you're willing to kill people, you have to have some way to support the ones who cannot hack it. The Left, at least as opposed to the Chicago-school Right, knows this better. The Right also knows that you do want to discourage burdens from growing, and the Left seems clueless here, as you point out.

    In some sense, we are still trying to undo the Reformation. At the time, the Church owned 1/5th to 1/3rd of the land in Europe. Much of that was dedicated to supporting the poor, the sick, and the mentally ill. Some of the wealth was skimmed off by corrupt officials who would appoint non-religious abbots to capture the economic streams of monasteries. But there was a social buffer there, and it was mated to a religious morality that would attempt to comfort the afflicted but also prevent their breeding more afflicted. Follow the rules or you might get kicked out of support for, for example, breeding another out of wedlock child.

    That arrangement was forever shattered when wealthy, connected elites decided to skim the value for themselves while dumping the burden of the poor on others by seizing land. (The more things change...). Social welfare states were an effort to restore this, but they've become a spur to burden-creation in low-trust societies, and destroyed trust in high-trust societies.

    Replies: @RoatanBill, @Twinkie, @anon

    you have to have some way to support the ones who cannot hack it.

    There’s your mistake. I don’t have to support anyone. Cancel welfare. Cancel all the free stuff programs and let nature take its course.

    There will always be people, and I among them, who will give to truly needy people, but it’s the institutionalization of this charity that causes the problem we have today. Families on welfare generation after generation is not something a community would tolerate. It’s the gov’t interference in encouraging the needy to stay that way that IS the problem. When neighbor helped neighbor, that was well intentioned and bound a community together. Now we have gov’t stealing from the productive to give to the dirtbags, a never ending stream of human trash.

    Where are the ‘houses of worship’ to take care of their ‘flock’? They get a pass on taxes and aren’t doing squat. The entire system is designed to subjugate the working people to support an ever increasing proportion of people that are programmed to be losers.

    • Agree: Realist, Mark G.
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @RoatanBill


    There’s your mistake. I don’t have to support anyone. Cancel welfare. Cancel all the free stuff programs and let nature take its course.
     
    On an individual level you can make the choice to be a selfish asshole. But you can't build a functional society based on selfish assholes. If you want a functional civilised society then the selfish assholes have to be forced to behave like civilised human beings.

    Society does not exist for the benefit of selfish assholes.

    Replies: @RoatanBill

    , @TomSchmidt
    @RoatanBill


    you have to have some way to support the ones who cannot hack it.

    There’s your mistake. I don’t have to support anyone. Cancel welfare. Cancel all the free stuff programs and let nature take its course.
     
    One wonders how you made it past neo-natal stage to the point where you learned to write and use the Internet? My guess is from age 0 to about 7 you couldn't hack it and needed someone to support you. If you were lucky, it was parents. If you were unlucky, it was foster care or an orphanage. Children don't choose to be born, and some are born with crippling illnesses that keep them from functioning.

    Since you want to let nature take its course, you have not advocated directly killing the crippled individuals. That's a start.

    Daniel Amneus, author of the Garbage Generation, talks about the mutilated beggar argument. Apparently there are people in Egypt who will capture street urchins, mutilate them horribly, and send them out to beg. Tourists who see these mangled children naturally give them money, but by doing so they encourage and perhaps even grow the numbers of mutilated beggars and the monsters who create and profit from them. Liberals seem unaware of the mutilated beggars that subsidizing childbearing by the incompetent creates. I'm sure we both don't want more.

    Replies: @RoatanBill

    , @Twinkie
    @RoatanBill

    No Medicare for you, Mr. Expatriate-living-in-Latin-America-is-great-because-doctors-are-50 cents-an-hour.

    Replies: @RoatanBill

  34. Uh, everytime a mean girl selects the alpha male (strength, wealth, intelligence), she is practicing genetics. It’s just not as good as the laboratory kind. Everytime a negro thinks he is superior male b/c he can jump and his appendage is bigger, he is practicing genetic selection, but I would not call it eugenics.

  35. @Twinkie

    The right, particularly the religious right, may have a human capital problem
     
    Is that why a majority of the Supreme Court justices, with elite education credentials to boot, are from my religious team?

    "The religious right" isn't just made up of the people "who read nothing but the Bible," it also includes - increasingly - those of us "who read everything but the Bible." ;)

    Replies: @TomSchmidt, @iffen

    those of us “who read everything but the Bible.”

    Then you need to stop touting your “Christianity”.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @iffen

    You are obviously too uninformed to get the joke.

    Replies: @iffen

  36. @another fred
    @Realist


    Why would any intelligent, decent human want to knowingly bring a handicapped person into this world???

     

    They believe in "the ghost in the machine", aka a soul which inhabits a body but exists apart from the body and, in their doctrine, has one shot at physical life and an opportunity to grow. Abortion ends that one shot.

    Many people, perhaps most, believe in the ghost in the machine to some extent or another, but for the religious right it is a well developed doctrine.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_machine

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Realist

    They believe in “the ghost in the machine”, aka a soul which inhabits a body but exists apart from the body and, in their doctrine, has one shot at physical life and an opportunity to grow. Abortion ends that one shot.

    I did preface my comment with the phrase…intelligent, decent human

    Many people, perhaps most, believe in the ghost in the machine to some extent or another, but for the religious right it is a well developed doctrine.

    The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.

    Bertrand Russell ‘29

  37. anon[282] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jay Fink
    @The Alarmist

    It seems that the religious right has no interest or awareness of this. The babies they so much want to be born won't stay babies for long. When they grow up they will destroy whatever is left of the religious right agenda, both through voting and their personal behavior. Then again does the religious right care about anything other than abortion these days? It doesn't seem like it.

    Replies: @anon, @dfordoom

    Either of you ever actually meet a person who is culturally conservative and some form of Christian?

    When they grow up they will destroy whatever is left of the religious right agenda,

    What exactly is the “religious right agenda”? Quotes, please. Bear in mind the current year is not 1980-something and Jerry Falwell is still dead.

  38. @iffen
    @Twinkie

    those of us “who read everything but the Bible.”

    Then you need to stop touting your "Christianity".

    Replies: @Twinkie

    You are obviously too uninformed to get the joke.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Twinkie

    You are obviously too uninformed to get the joke.

    Obviously.

    I just didn't know that you counted yourself among that part of the right.

    Replies: @RSDB

  39. @Caspar von Everec
    Both Conservatives and liberals have their own brand of dysgenics. Its just that the liberal one is far worse and irreperable.

    Conservative dysgenics would be Christian lunacy like not aborting down syndrome babies or other mentally deficient children. Honestly this isn't even dysgenic per se. Bulk of these unfortunate people never reproduce to begin with as no one wants them. So it has no real impact in the long run.

    Liberal dysgenics otoh is irreversible and far more destructive. Their most sacred virtue is race mixing and self sterilization for the environment. Educated liberal women and soy men tie their tubes or get vasectomies in order to save the environemnt or prevent future oppression.

    This completely eradicates many educated(tho perhaps naive) people from the gene pool. Even worse is the africanization. Liberals heavily support mixing with blacks. It stops future ''oppression'' of black people and in their mind it is an act of virtue to abolish whiteness.

    The one world mulatto race is effectively their biggest dream. This dream of a black world free of mystical racism where they can finally achieve gay space communism like star trek. And this race mixing propaganda is prominent in every facet of their culture, be it ads, comic books, movies, games, tv series, porn...everything.

    And this is something from which there is really no recovery.

    The greedy Brazilian capitalist elite instead of sending back black slaves to Africa kept them and allowed miscegenation. Now Brazil is an 87 IQ mulatto country with no presence on the world stage. For all its resources, size and long period of statehood, it should be a world power like the US but instead its a giant favela.

    This is despite mass european migration. That's how corrosive black genes are. Same with all of Latin America to be honest. Race mixing with blacks destroyed the genetic potential of 6 million or so Italians, Portguese, Russians and Germans that went to Brazil after its independence from Portugal.

    Even today, Brazil nominally has the third largest white population in the world at 91 million. Though in reality they are more akin to Castizos.

    Look at Northern India, Central Asia or Iran to witness the irreversability of miscegenation. These regions were once dominated by Aryans. Now aside from some small enclaves in central Asia and Eastern Iran, they are nowhere to be found.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @John Johnson

    Educated liberal women and soy men tie their tubes or get vasectomies in order to save the environemnt or prevent future oppression.

    Is that really true? That’s how conservatives think the liberal mind works but in general conservatives don’t really understand what makes liberals tick, just as liberals don’t really understand what makes conservatives tick.

    There might be a handful of people who will actually forego having children for the sake of the environment but I don’t buy the idea that it’s a widespread environment. People do not make decisions about how many children they’re going to have based on ideology or social duty. People, including liberals, make decisions about having children based on whether they want children or not. Some may claim they are childless to “save the planet” but that’s just opportunistic virtue-signalling. They’ve already decided not to have kids but why miss a chance to virtue-signal?

    Their most sacred virtue is race mixing and self sterilization for the environment.

    They may believe in race-mixing in theory. People believe in all sorts of things in theory. In practice white liberals are more likely to marry other white liberals.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @dfordoom

    I mostly agree with this, but here's what I would say: liberal women (and even many conservative career women who are influenced by liberal culture) most often refuse to have babies because they don't see it as a worthy endeavor, they don't see motherhood as honorable, they see their career in HR as more meaningful work and traveling to Europe as a more worthwhile use of time and resources.

    I do think the argument that having children is bad for the environment does play some part in dishonoring motherhood, but it's probably very seldom the biggest part, it's attack #1,074 in a centuries-long series of attacks. But it's trendy and hip and virtuous to say it, high-status people and publications say it, so of all the reasons she's been convinced not to have children (many of which she's not even consciously aware of), that's the one she feels most inclined to tell herself and others at present.

  40. @Jay Fink
    @The Alarmist

    It seems that the religious right has no interest or awareness of this. The babies they so much want to be born won't stay babies for long. When they grow up they will destroy whatever is left of the religious right agenda, both through voting and their personal behavior. Then again does the religious right care about anything other than abortion these days? It doesn't seem like it.

    Replies: @anon, @dfordoom

    It seems that the religious right has no interest or awareness of this. The babies they so much want to be born won’t stay babies for long. When they grow up they will destroy whatever is left of the religious right agenda, both through voting and their personal behavior.

    As much as I dislike the Religious Right I think that on this issue they are morally correct. They will not and cannot support the idea of “culling” “useless eaters” because they recognise that such a policy is barbarism.

    Rightoids who like the idea of culling useless eaters might like to reflect on the possibility that the day might come when they are the ones who are going to get culled.

    The idea of eliminating large parts of the population that you happen to disapprove of is a very very dangerous idea.

    • Replies: @Usura
    @dfordoom


    [...]the idea of “culling” “useless eaters”[...] such a policy is barbarism.
     
    In Rome and Sparta, infanticide was not only acceptable and commonplace, but institutionalized. Indeed the term "barbaroi" is a classical echoic, connoting unintelligible, that is, non-Greek speech.

    So strictly speaking infanticide is the opposite of barbaric, and is of the very essence of aristocratic order as embodied in the Roman and Greek civilizations.


    Rightoids who like the idea of culling useless eaters might like to reflect on the possibility that the day might come when they are the ones who are going to get culled.
     
    Rightoids fear the death of their race and civilizational ORDER far more than they fear their own death; your exhortation won't convert many.


    The idea of eliminating large parts of the population that you happen to disapprove of is a very very dangerous idea.
     
    "Every serious idea is dangerous, but in the civilized mind, it is not." - R. Scruton

    Replies: @Twinkie, @V. K. Ovelund

    , @Alexander Turok
    @dfordoom

    There's no slippery slope because fetuses are neither rational nor self-aware. They have no desire to live that one is taking away.

    Replies: @iffen, @Wency

  41. @RoatanBill
    @TomSchmidt

    you have to have some way to support the ones who cannot hack it.

    There's your mistake. I don't have to support anyone. Cancel welfare. Cancel all the free stuff programs and let nature take its course.

    There will always be people, and I among them, who will give to truly needy people, but it's the institutionalization of this charity that causes the problem we have today. Families on welfare generation after generation is not something a community would tolerate. It's the gov't interference in encouraging the needy to stay that way that IS the problem. When neighbor helped neighbor, that was well intentioned and bound a community together. Now we have gov't stealing from the productive to give to the dirtbags, a never ending stream of human trash.

    Where are the 'houses of worship' to take care of their 'flock'? They get a pass on taxes and aren't doing squat. The entire system is designed to subjugate the working people to support an ever increasing proportion of people that are programmed to be losers.

    https://youtu.be/RBqjZ0KZCa0

    Replies: @dfordoom, @TomSchmidt, @Twinkie

    There’s your mistake. I don’t have to support anyone. Cancel welfare. Cancel all the free stuff programs and let nature take its course.

    On an individual level you can make the choice to be a selfish asshole. But you can’t build a functional society based on selfish assholes. If you want a functional civilised society then the selfish assholes have to be forced to behave like civilised human beings.

    Society does not exist for the benefit of selfish assholes.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
    @dfordoom

    Did you even read past the sentence you quoted? My objection to the current system is the ever increasing spending that encourages more sloth. Ever heard of 'what you subsidize, you get more of'?

    No gov't should be supporting people, at least not long term. The religious institutions get a tax break to do that kind of work and people in a community should be in a better position to judge if someone is worthy of charity from their pockets. The current system has no real checks and balances. The welfare spigot is open to just about anyone that doesn't want to work or is strung out on drugs or alcohol. The immigration problem is chiefly due to the welfare and free stuff magnet the US advertises to the rest of the world.

    It is the gov't stealing from the productive to purchase votes from the trash in the society that expands its recipients continuously as a matter of policy.

    Does name calling in any way make your position more correct?

  42. @dfordoom
    @RoatanBill


    There’s your mistake. I don’t have to support anyone. Cancel welfare. Cancel all the free stuff programs and let nature take its course.
     
    On an individual level you can make the choice to be a selfish asshole. But you can't build a functional society based on selfish assholes. If you want a functional civilised society then the selfish assholes have to be forced to behave like civilised human beings.

    Society does not exist for the benefit of selfish assholes.

    Replies: @RoatanBill

    Did you even read past the sentence you quoted? My objection to the current system is the ever increasing spending that encourages more sloth. Ever heard of ‘what you subsidize, you get more of’?

    No gov’t should be supporting people, at least not long term. The religious institutions get a tax break to do that kind of work and people in a community should be in a better position to judge if someone is worthy of charity from their pockets. The current system has no real checks and balances. The welfare spigot is open to just about anyone that doesn’t want to work or is strung out on drugs or alcohol. The immigration problem is chiefly due to the welfare and free stuff magnet the US advertises to the rest of the world.

    It is the gov’t stealing from the productive to purchase votes from the trash in the society that expands its recipients continuously as a matter of policy.

    Does name calling in any way make your position more correct?

  43. @RoatanBill
    @TomSchmidt

    you have to have some way to support the ones who cannot hack it.

    There's your mistake. I don't have to support anyone. Cancel welfare. Cancel all the free stuff programs and let nature take its course.

    There will always be people, and I among them, who will give to truly needy people, but it's the institutionalization of this charity that causes the problem we have today. Families on welfare generation after generation is not something a community would tolerate. It's the gov't interference in encouraging the needy to stay that way that IS the problem. When neighbor helped neighbor, that was well intentioned and bound a community together. Now we have gov't stealing from the productive to give to the dirtbags, a never ending stream of human trash.

    Where are the 'houses of worship' to take care of their 'flock'? They get a pass on taxes and aren't doing squat. The entire system is designed to subjugate the working people to support an ever increasing proportion of people that are programmed to be losers.

    https://youtu.be/RBqjZ0KZCa0

    Replies: @dfordoom, @TomSchmidt, @Twinkie

    you have to have some way to support the ones who cannot hack it.

    There’s your mistake. I don’t have to support anyone. Cancel welfare. Cancel all the free stuff programs and let nature take its course.

    One wonders how you made it past neo-natal stage to the point where you learned to write and use the Internet? My guess is from age 0 to about 7 you couldn’t hack it and needed someone to support you. If you were lucky, it was parents. If you were unlucky, it was foster care or an orphanage. Children don’t choose to be born, and some are born with crippling illnesses that keep them from functioning.

    Since you want to let nature take its course, you have not advocated directly killing the crippled individuals. That’s a start.

    Daniel Amneus, author of the Garbage Generation, talks about the mutilated beggar argument. Apparently there are people in Egypt who will capture street urchins, mutilate them horribly, and send them out to beg. Tourists who see these mangled children naturally give them money, but by doing so they encourage and perhaps even grow the numbers of mutilated beggars and the monsters who create and profit from them. Liberals seem unaware of the mutilated beggars that subsidizing childbearing by the incompetent creates. I’m sure we both don’t want more.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
    @TomSchmidt

    Did you watch that video I posted? That woman has 15 children with different fathers and proclaims loudly that 'someone has to pay' to keep her and her litter alive. She obviously didn't have all 15 kids at once. She had them over an extended period of time and undoubtedly got state support for well over a decade. She's the POS I'm concerned about - the bulk of the welfare problem. Children are the innocent victims of state support. If there weren't the free stuff programs to support her, she wouldn't have been able to have all 15.

    What you subsidize you get more of. Once the gov't got into the faux charity business it crowded out the organizations that formerly did the job of taking care of the indigent. Those local organizations knew who they were dealing with and knew when to cut off the moochers because their funds were limited. Today, there is no practical limit. The gov't taxes and spends, prints and spends and the problem just gets bigger.

    I own a bakery. I've given away just baked bread to anyone that came by the rear of the building where the ovens are that asked for it and looked like they needed it. I've also turned away dopers and drunks because they have a self inflicted condition. I have no pity for them.

    BTW My wife was an orphan, so I'm tuned into their plight.

  44. @TomSchmidt
    @RoatanBill


    you have to have some way to support the ones who cannot hack it.

    There’s your mistake. I don’t have to support anyone. Cancel welfare. Cancel all the free stuff programs and let nature take its course.
     
    One wonders how you made it past neo-natal stage to the point where you learned to write and use the Internet? My guess is from age 0 to about 7 you couldn't hack it and needed someone to support you. If you were lucky, it was parents. If you were unlucky, it was foster care or an orphanage. Children don't choose to be born, and some are born with crippling illnesses that keep them from functioning.

    Since you want to let nature take its course, you have not advocated directly killing the crippled individuals. That's a start.

    Daniel Amneus, author of the Garbage Generation, talks about the mutilated beggar argument. Apparently there are people in Egypt who will capture street urchins, mutilate them horribly, and send them out to beg. Tourists who see these mangled children naturally give them money, but by doing so they encourage and perhaps even grow the numbers of mutilated beggars and the monsters who create and profit from them. Liberals seem unaware of the mutilated beggars that subsidizing childbearing by the incompetent creates. I'm sure we both don't want more.

    Replies: @RoatanBill

    Did you watch that video I posted? That woman has 15 children with different fathers and proclaims loudly that ‘someone has to pay’ to keep her and her litter alive. She obviously didn’t have all 15 kids at once. She had them over an extended period of time and undoubtedly got state support for well over a decade. She’s the POS I’m concerned about – the bulk of the welfare problem. Children are the innocent victims of state support. If there weren’t the free stuff programs to support her, she wouldn’t have been able to have all 15.

    What you subsidize you get more of. Once the gov’t got into the faux charity business it crowded out the organizations that formerly did the job of taking care of the indigent. Those local organizations knew who they were dealing with and knew when to cut off the moochers because their funds were limited. Today, there is no practical limit. The gov’t taxes and spends, prints and spends and the problem just gets bigger.

    I own a bakery. I’ve given away just baked bread to anyone that came by the rear of the building where the ovens are that asked for it and looked like they needed it. I’ve also turned away dopers and drunks because they have a self inflicted condition. I have no pity for them.

    BTW My wife was an orphan, so I’m tuned into their plight.

  45. @dfordoom
    @Jay Fink


    It seems that the religious right has no interest or awareness of this. The babies they so much want to be born won’t stay babies for long. When they grow up they will destroy whatever is left of the religious right agenda, both through voting and their personal behavior.
     
    As much as I dislike the Religious Right I think that on this issue they are morally correct. They will not and cannot support the idea of "culling" "useless eaters" because they recognise that such a policy is barbarism.

    Rightoids who like the idea of culling useless eaters might like to reflect on the possibility that the day might come when they are the ones who are going to get culled.

    The idea of eliminating large parts of the population that you happen to disapprove of is a very very dangerous idea.

    Replies: @Usura, @Alexander Turok

    […]the idea of “culling” “useless eaters”[…] such a policy is barbarism.

    In Rome and Sparta, infanticide was not only acceptable and commonplace, but institutionalized. Indeed the term “barbaroi” is a classical echoic, connoting unintelligible, that is, non-Greek speech.

    So strictly speaking infanticide is the opposite of barbaric, and is of the very essence of aristocratic order as embodied in the Roman and Greek civilizations.

    Rightoids who like the idea of culling useless eaters might like to reflect on the possibility that the day might come when they are the ones who are going to get culled.

    Rightoids fear the death of their race and civilizational ORDER far more than they fear their own death; your exhortation won’t convert many.

    The idea of eliminating large parts of the population that you happen to disapprove of is a very very dangerous idea.

    “Every serious idea is dangerous, but in the civilized mind, it is not.” – R. Scruton

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Usura


    In Rome and Sparta
     
    Ancient Rome and Sparta had lots of things most sane, civilized people would consider barbaric these days such as a Roman paterfamilias having an absolute power of life and death over his family (yeah, honor killings we decry as a Pakistani barbarity were very Roman) and Spartan peers having homosexual relationships with their boy charges and then teaching the latter to murder slaves.

    Infanticide IS barbaric, strictly or otherwise.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @RSDB

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @Usura


    In Rome and Sparta, infanticide was not only acceptable and commonplace, but institutionalized. Indeed the term “barbaroi” is a classical echoic, connoting unintelligible, that is, non-Greek speech.

    So strictly speaking infanticide is the opposite of barbaric, and is of the very essence of aristocratic order as embodied in the Roman and Greek civilizations.
     

    Factually and etymologically correct.

    @dfordoom and @Twinkie


    Yep. If the only way to save a civilisation is to abandon all rules of civilised conduct and emulate barbaric societies like Rome and Sparta then that is too high a price to pay. And I certainly do not believe that saving civilisation requires us to embrace barbarism.
     
    An unremarkable Catholic opponent of inhuman conduct, I do not promote indecent treatment of anybody; but we live in Job's fallen world, in which dysgenics have consequences. Is the saving of every unfortunate sustainable?

    I, my wife, and two of our five children would probably be dead today under moderately harsher conditions. This isn't about us, of course, but I mention it for the obvious reason: in the statistical aggregate, how long can a civilization survive the survival of her unlucky and unfit?

    If the answer is: that lies in God's hands, then maybe that is the right answer; but when dysgenic consequences are so blatantly foreseeable, I am not convinced. Whether you and I like it or not, @Usura may have a point.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  46. @TomSchmidt
    @Twinkie

    If only the Pope hadn't added it to the Index of Banned Books!

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Wouldn’t want us Catholics to get any dangerous ideas!

  47. @RoatanBill
    @TomSchmidt

    you have to have some way to support the ones who cannot hack it.

    There's your mistake. I don't have to support anyone. Cancel welfare. Cancel all the free stuff programs and let nature take its course.

    There will always be people, and I among them, who will give to truly needy people, but it's the institutionalization of this charity that causes the problem we have today. Families on welfare generation after generation is not something a community would tolerate. It's the gov't interference in encouraging the needy to stay that way that IS the problem. When neighbor helped neighbor, that was well intentioned and bound a community together. Now we have gov't stealing from the productive to give to the dirtbags, a never ending stream of human trash.

    Where are the 'houses of worship' to take care of their 'flock'? They get a pass on taxes and aren't doing squat. The entire system is designed to subjugate the working people to support an ever increasing proportion of people that are programmed to be losers.

    https://youtu.be/RBqjZ0KZCa0

    Replies: @dfordoom, @TomSchmidt, @Twinkie

    No Medicare for you, Mr. Expatriate-living-in-Latin-America-is-great-because-doctors-are-50 cents-an-hour.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
    @Twinkie

    Sorry, but I just signed up for Social Security and Medicare when I turned 70.

  48. Australian state of Victoria locked down up again.

    https://news.trust.org/item/20210527003449-ixaur

  49. @TomSchmidt
    @Alexander Turok

    People on the right don't like to admit that, unless you're willing to kill people, you have to have some way to support the ones who cannot hack it. The Left, at least as opposed to the Chicago-school Right, knows this better. The Right also knows that you do want to discourage burdens from growing, and the Left seems clueless here, as you point out.

    In some sense, we are still trying to undo the Reformation. At the time, the Church owned 1/5th to 1/3rd of the land in Europe. Much of that was dedicated to supporting the poor, the sick, and the mentally ill. Some of the wealth was skimmed off by corrupt officials who would appoint non-religious abbots to capture the economic streams of monasteries. But there was a social buffer there, and it was mated to a religious morality that would attempt to comfort the afflicted but also prevent their breeding more afflicted. Follow the rules or you might get kicked out of support for, for example, breeding another out of wedlock child.

    That arrangement was forever shattered when wealthy, connected elites decided to skim the value for themselves while dumping the burden of the poor on others by seizing land. (The more things change...). Social welfare states were an effort to restore this, but they've become a spur to burden-creation in low-trust societies, and destroyed trust in high-trust societies.

    Replies: @RoatanBill, @Twinkie, @anon

    People on the right don’t like to admit that, unless you’re willing to kill people, you have to have some way to support the ones who cannot hack it.

    Better than supporting them would be creating an economic system, in which those that “can’t hack it” can still work and earn both dignity and a semblance of income and live like human beings. The corporatocracy, though, wants to socialize the externalities and privatize all the profits. Supporting massive immigration is part and parcel of that (at first, agro workers, now IT workers, tomorrow…).

    Then again, we deserve the corporatocracy, because we all sold out our country so that we could buy books online for a a couple of bucks less than at the local bookstore. Now there aren’t any local book stores to patronize. Chasing the lowest price is the death of us all.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    @Twinkie

    I recall Steve Sailer on this point about elites and "meritocracy," which became their religion. They don't like talking about IQ and they don't like talking about group IQ and why it might be genetic. At first, it appears to be anti-racist, but it's really just self-protective.

    By insisting that IQ is unimportant and that anyone can work hard enough to get somewhere in life, they absolve themselves of the need to do anything for people of low IQ. Blacks aren't Nobel prize winning scientists? It must be discrimination or lack of motivation, and low self-esteem. Because if it is IQ, and if IQ tests are accurate, they, the ruling elites (or at least the Professional-Managerial handmaidens of them) are where they are due to luck of the genetic draw combined with being born to parents who had the resources and brains to help them capitalize. They ought to recognize that and create an economy where IQ isn't the only thing that's valued.

    Of course the other reason for supporting meritocracy is so nobody notices that a lot of the elite got their not on merits but on guangxi, connections. That's really verboten, since it takes away any notion of their hard work being key.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  50. anon[414] • Disclaimer says:
    @TomSchmidt
    @Alexander Turok

    People on the right don't like to admit that, unless you're willing to kill people, you have to have some way to support the ones who cannot hack it. The Left, at least as opposed to the Chicago-school Right, knows this better. The Right also knows that you do want to discourage burdens from growing, and the Left seems clueless here, as you point out.

    In some sense, we are still trying to undo the Reformation. At the time, the Church owned 1/5th to 1/3rd of the land in Europe. Much of that was dedicated to supporting the poor, the sick, and the mentally ill. Some of the wealth was skimmed off by corrupt officials who would appoint non-religious abbots to capture the economic streams of monasteries. But there was a social buffer there, and it was mated to a religious morality that would attempt to comfort the afflicted but also prevent their breeding more afflicted. Follow the rules or you might get kicked out of support for, for example, breeding another out of wedlock child.

    That arrangement was forever shattered when wealthy, connected elites decided to skim the value for themselves while dumping the burden of the poor on others by seizing land. (The more things change...). Social welfare states were an effort to restore this, but they've become a spur to burden-creation in low-trust societies, and destroyed trust in high-trust societies.

    Replies: @RoatanBill, @Twinkie, @anon

    People on the right don’t like to admit that, unless you’re willing to kill people, you have to have some way to support the ones who cannot hack it.

    There’s a solution that you endorsed just last year. Why not promote it more this year?

    “She has a point” — TomSchmidt

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    @anon

    Clearly, I was wrong: Vicky is not a she. Nice to see I have a fan!

  51. @Realist
    Here is a case where liberals are smarter than conservatives....no great achievement

    Why would any intelligent, decent human want to knowingly bring a handicapped person into this world???

    Replies: @another fred, @Twinkie

    Why would any intelligent, decent human want to knowingly bring a handicapped person into this world???

    So, if you have no utility to me, can I shoot you in the head and take your stuff?

    Do you love a baby because it is going to “do things” in the future? Because, you know, they are some of the most handicapped human beings I’ve ever known – downright parasitic, even! They are, like, so much more useless and less capable than dogs!

    • Replies: @Test tickles
    @Twinkie

    That's a terrible analogy. A baby's 'handicap' is temporary, and shooting an existing person in the head is nothing like preventing a malformed baby from being born. I had a severely disabled child who was in pain every day of his life, and suffered indignity after indignity at the hands of doctors in the form of multiple operations that hurt hum even more. If I could have humanely prevented his birth and subsequent suffering then of course I would have.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @dfordoom

    , @Realist
    @Twinkie

    You are stupid beyond belief.

  52. @Twinkie
    @Realist


    Why would any intelligent, decent human want to knowingly bring a handicapped person into this world???
     
    So, if you have no utility to me, can I shoot you in the head and take your stuff?

    Do you love a baby because it is going to “do things” in the future? Because, you know, they are some of the most handicapped human beings I’ve ever known - downright parasitic, even! They are, like, so much more useless and less capable than dogs!

    Replies: @Test tickles, @Realist

    That’s a terrible analogy. A baby’s ‘handicap’ is temporary, and shooting an existing person in the head is nothing like preventing a malformed baby from being born. I had a severely disabled child who was in pain every day of his life, and suffered indignity after indignity at the hands of doctors in the form of multiple operations that hurt hum even more. If I could have humanely prevented his birth and subsequent suffering then of course I would have.

    • Thanks: Realist
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Test tickles

    Sorry to hear of the suffering, but there are others who feel otherwise: https://www.lifenews.com/2015/05/14/rick-santorums-miracle-daughter-bella-who-has-trisomy-18-defies-the-odds-turns-7/

    Replies: @Test tickles

    , @dfordoom
    @Test tickles


    That’s a terrible analogy. A baby’s ‘handicap’ is temporary, and shooting an existing person in the head is nothing like preventing a malformed baby from being born.
     
    You're changing the subject. The comment (by one of our libertarian friends) to which I took exception clearly did not refer merely to severely malformed individuals. It clearly referred to anybody who for some reason has difficulty in making it in society without some assistance. That would, fairly obviously, include sick and elderly persons and people who have suffered some serious misfortune.

    I think Twinkie's analogy does hold up. A baby appears to be unable to survive unaided which is indeed a temporary thing. But illness and misfortune can be temporary things as well. People can appear to be in hopeless situations but those hopeless situations are not necessarily permanent.

    Replies: @Test tickles

  53. @Test tickles
    @Twinkie

    That's a terrible analogy. A baby's 'handicap' is temporary, and shooting an existing person in the head is nothing like preventing a malformed baby from being born. I had a severely disabled child who was in pain every day of his life, and suffered indignity after indignity at the hands of doctors in the form of multiple operations that hurt hum even more. If I could have humanely prevented his birth and subsequent suffering then of course I would have.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @dfordoom

    • Replies: @Test tickles
    @Twinkie

    I obviously can't speak for anyone else, but watching such suffering up close did not bias me against eugenic practises. Quite the opposite.

  54. @Usura
    @dfordoom


    [...]the idea of “culling” “useless eaters”[...] such a policy is barbarism.
     
    In Rome and Sparta, infanticide was not only acceptable and commonplace, but institutionalized. Indeed the term "barbaroi" is a classical echoic, connoting unintelligible, that is, non-Greek speech.

    So strictly speaking infanticide is the opposite of barbaric, and is of the very essence of aristocratic order as embodied in the Roman and Greek civilizations.


    Rightoids who like the idea of culling useless eaters might like to reflect on the possibility that the day might come when they are the ones who are going to get culled.
     
    Rightoids fear the death of their race and civilizational ORDER far more than they fear their own death; your exhortation won't convert many.


    The idea of eliminating large parts of the population that you happen to disapprove of is a very very dangerous idea.
     
    "Every serious idea is dangerous, but in the civilized mind, it is not." - R. Scruton

    Replies: @Twinkie, @V. K. Ovelund

    In Rome and Sparta

    Ancient Rome and Sparta had lots of things most sane, civilized people would consider barbaric these days such as a Roman paterfamilias having an absolute power of life and death over his family (yeah, honor killings we decry as a Pakistani barbarity were very Roman) and Spartan peers having homosexual relationships with their boy charges and then teaching the latter to murder slaves.

    Infanticide IS barbaric, strictly or otherwise.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    Ancient Rome and Sparta had lots of things most sane, civilized people would consider barbaric these days such as a Roman paterfamilias having an absolute power of life and death over his family (yeah, honor killings we decry as a Pakistani barbarity were very Roman) and Spartan peers having homosexual relationships with their boy charges and then teaching the latter to murder slaves.
     
    Yep. If the only way to save a civilisation is to abandon all rules of civilised conduct and emulate barbaric societies like Rome and Sparta then that is too high a price to pay. And I certainly do not believe that saving civilisation requires us to embrace barbarism.

    Infanticide IS barbaric, strictly or otherwise.
     
    Agreed.
    , @RSDB
    @Twinkie


    Infanticide IS barbaric, strictly or otherwise.

     

    I agree of course that it is bad, but in what sense is it barbaric? Or are you using "civilization" or "civilized" as terms to describe more humane and less cruel forms of conduct in general?
  55. @Twinkie
    @iffen

    You are obviously too uninformed to get the joke.

    Replies: @iffen

    You are obviously too uninformed to get the joke.

    Obviously.

    I just didn’t know that you counted yourself among that part of the right.

    • Replies: @RSDB
    @iffen

    "Read everything but the Bible" is a joke related to the (not entirely unfounded, at least in relative terms) Protestant idea that Catholics a) don't read the Bible as often as Protestants do and b) are more likely than Protestants to read devotional literature other than the Bible, like, say, the Imitation of Christ or the Ascent of Mount Carmel.

    Replies: @iffen

  56. @Twinkie
    @TomSchmidt


    People on the right don’t like to admit that, unless you’re willing to kill people, you have to have some way to support the ones who cannot hack it.
     
    Better than supporting them would be creating an economic system, in which those that “can’t hack it” can still work and earn both dignity and a semblance of income and live like human beings. The corporatocracy, though, wants to socialize the externalities and privatize all the profits. Supporting massive immigration is part and parcel of that (at first, agro workers, now IT workers, tomorrow…).

    Then again, we deserve the corporatocracy, because we all sold out our country so that we could buy books online for a a couple of bucks less than at the local bookstore. Now there aren’t any local book stores to patronize. Chasing the lowest price is the death of us all.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt

    I recall Steve Sailer on this point about elites and “meritocracy,” which became their religion. They don’t like talking about IQ and they don’t like talking about group IQ and why it might be genetic. At first, it appears to be anti-racist, but it’s really just self-protective.

    By insisting that IQ is unimportant and that anyone can work hard enough to get somewhere in life, they absolve themselves of the need to do anything for people of low IQ. Blacks aren’t Nobel prize winning scientists? It must be discrimination or lack of motivation, and low self-esteem. Because if it is IQ, and if IQ tests are accurate, they, the ruling elites (or at least the Professional-Managerial handmaidens of them) are where they are due to luck of the genetic draw combined with being born to parents who had the resources and brains to help them capitalize. They ought to recognize that and create an economy where IQ isn’t the only thing that’s valued.

    Of course the other reason for supporting meritocracy is so nobody notices that a lot of the elite got their not on merits but on guangxi, connections. That’s really verboten, since it takes away any notion of their hard work being key.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @TomSchmidt

    If our elites were purely meritocratic, then we'd have a push to rely more off standardized testing, not less. That's the only thing-the only thing in admissions-that does not change regardless of your socioeconomic station, geographic location, race, or whatever. It's not completely fair-you can train for the tests better with money-but it's the closest that comes to it.

    What we have is a sort of crony meritocracy, not too dissimilar from the crony capitalism that is our economic system. There's enough of a sheen of merit and hard work so that people who make it feel no sort of obligation to people who don't, hence the American political class' attitude toward the rest of the country, but the system is riddled with inconsistencies, rigging mechanisms, and a reliance on heavy doses of luck that nobody dares acknowledge because it would invalidate the "moral" legitimacy of the mandarinate.

  57. @Twinkie
    @RoatanBill

    No Medicare for you, Mr. Expatriate-living-in-Latin-America-is-great-because-doctors-are-50 cents-an-hour.

    Replies: @RoatanBill

    Sorry, but I just signed up for Social Security and Medicare when I turned 70.

  58. @Test tickles
    @Twinkie

    That's a terrible analogy. A baby's 'handicap' is temporary, and shooting an existing person in the head is nothing like preventing a malformed baby from being born. I had a severely disabled child who was in pain every day of his life, and suffered indignity after indignity at the hands of doctors in the form of multiple operations that hurt hum even more. If I could have humanely prevented his birth and subsequent suffering then of course I would have.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @dfordoom

    That’s a terrible analogy. A baby’s ‘handicap’ is temporary, and shooting an existing person in the head is nothing like preventing a malformed baby from being born.

    You’re changing the subject. The comment (by one of our libertarian friends) to which I took exception clearly did not refer merely to severely malformed individuals. It clearly referred to anybody who for some reason has difficulty in making it in society without some assistance. That would, fairly obviously, include sick and elderly persons and people who have suffered some serious misfortune.

    I think Twinkie’s analogy does hold up. A baby appears to be unable to survive unaided which is indeed a temporary thing. But illness and misfortune can be temporary things as well. People can appear to be in hopeless situations but those hopeless situations are not necessarily permanent.

    • Replies: @Test tickles
    @dfordoom

    I wasn't replying to your comment, but to Twinkie's reply to Realist.

  59. @Twinkie
    @Usura


    In Rome and Sparta
     
    Ancient Rome and Sparta had lots of things most sane, civilized people would consider barbaric these days such as a Roman paterfamilias having an absolute power of life and death over his family (yeah, honor killings we decry as a Pakistani barbarity were very Roman) and Spartan peers having homosexual relationships with their boy charges and then teaching the latter to murder slaves.

    Infanticide IS barbaric, strictly or otherwise.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @RSDB

    Ancient Rome and Sparta had lots of things most sane, civilized people would consider barbaric these days such as a Roman paterfamilias having an absolute power of life and death over his family (yeah, honor killings we decry as a Pakistani barbarity were very Roman) and Spartan peers having homosexual relationships with their boy charges and then teaching the latter to murder slaves.

    Yep. If the only way to save a civilisation is to abandon all rules of civilised conduct and emulate barbaric societies like Rome and Sparta then that is too high a price to pay. And I certainly do not believe that saving civilisation requires us to embrace barbarism.

    Infanticide IS barbaric, strictly or otherwise.

    Agreed.

  60. @Usura
    @dfordoom


    [...]the idea of “culling” “useless eaters”[...] such a policy is barbarism.
     
    In Rome and Sparta, infanticide was not only acceptable and commonplace, but institutionalized. Indeed the term "barbaroi" is a classical echoic, connoting unintelligible, that is, non-Greek speech.

    So strictly speaking infanticide is the opposite of barbaric, and is of the very essence of aristocratic order as embodied in the Roman and Greek civilizations.


    Rightoids who like the idea of culling useless eaters might like to reflect on the possibility that the day might come when they are the ones who are going to get culled.
     
    Rightoids fear the death of their race and civilizational ORDER far more than they fear their own death; your exhortation won't convert many.


    The idea of eliminating large parts of the population that you happen to disapprove of is a very very dangerous idea.
     
    "Every serious idea is dangerous, but in the civilized mind, it is not." - R. Scruton

    Replies: @Twinkie, @V. K. Ovelund

    In Rome and Sparta, infanticide was not only acceptable and commonplace, but institutionalized. Indeed the term “barbaroi” is a classical echoic, connoting unintelligible, that is, non-Greek speech.

    So strictly speaking infanticide is the opposite of barbaric, and is of the very essence of aristocratic order as embodied in the Roman and Greek civilizations.

    Factually and etymologically correct.

    and

    Yep. If the only way to save a civilisation is to abandon all rules of civilised conduct and emulate barbaric societies like Rome and Sparta then that is too high a price to pay. And I certainly do not believe that saving civilisation requires us to embrace barbarism.

    An unremarkable Catholic opponent of inhuman conduct, I do not promote indecent treatment of anybody; but we live in Job’s fallen world, in which dysgenics have consequences. Is the saving of every unfortunate sustainable?

    I, my wife, and two of our five children would probably be dead today under moderately harsher conditions. This isn’t about us, of course, but I mention it for the obvious reason: in the statistical aggregate, how long can a civilization survive the survival of her unlucky and unfit?

    If the answer is: that lies in God’s hands, then maybe that is the right answer; but when dysgenic consequences are so blatantly foreseeable, I am not convinced. Whether you and I like it or not, may have a point.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @V. K. Ovelund

    After writing, ...


    ... how long can a civilization survive the survival of her unlucky and unfit?
     
    ... I realized that that sounded like something an aborter of a Down Syndrome child would write. Ugh, I hate the postmodern politics of this.

    For information, I have never aborted and would never abort my own child, regardless of syndrome; but on the other hand would not expect you to help to save a sickly child of mine, either. I am unsure, but it seems to me that this may be the only tenable place at which to draw the line.

    I believe that too much of our society, often on the left but sometimes for different reasons on the right, has forgotten the great principles of responsibility and subsidiarity. I act to save my child because it is mine, but then how can I blame @Usura for acting to save his civilization because it is his?

    Dysgenics is real as far as I know. Ignoring it will have consequences. Ignoring it is having consequences already.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Wency

  61. @Twinkie
    @Test tickles

    Sorry to hear of the suffering, but there are others who feel otherwise: https://www.lifenews.com/2015/05/14/rick-santorums-miracle-daughter-bella-who-has-trisomy-18-defies-the-odds-turns-7/

    Replies: @Test tickles

    I obviously can’t speak for anyone else, but watching such suffering up close did not bias me against eugenic practises. Quite the opposite.

  62. @dfordoom
    @Test tickles


    That’s a terrible analogy. A baby’s ‘handicap’ is temporary, and shooting an existing person in the head is nothing like preventing a malformed baby from being born.
     
    You're changing the subject. The comment (by one of our libertarian friends) to which I took exception clearly did not refer merely to severely malformed individuals. It clearly referred to anybody who for some reason has difficulty in making it in society without some assistance. That would, fairly obviously, include sick and elderly persons and people who have suffered some serious misfortune.

    I think Twinkie's analogy does hold up. A baby appears to be unable to survive unaided which is indeed a temporary thing. But illness and misfortune can be temporary things as well. People can appear to be in hopeless situations but those hopeless situations are not necessarily permanent.

    Replies: @Test tickles

    I wasn’t replying to your comment, but to Twinkie’s reply to Realist.

  63. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Usura


    In Rome and Sparta, infanticide was not only acceptable and commonplace, but institutionalized. Indeed the term “barbaroi” is a classical echoic, connoting unintelligible, that is, non-Greek speech.

    So strictly speaking infanticide is the opposite of barbaric, and is of the very essence of aristocratic order as embodied in the Roman and Greek civilizations.
     

    Factually and etymologically correct.

    @dfordoom and @Twinkie


    Yep. If the only way to save a civilisation is to abandon all rules of civilised conduct and emulate barbaric societies like Rome and Sparta then that is too high a price to pay. And I certainly do not believe that saving civilisation requires us to embrace barbarism.
     
    An unremarkable Catholic opponent of inhuman conduct, I do not promote indecent treatment of anybody; but we live in Job's fallen world, in which dysgenics have consequences. Is the saving of every unfortunate sustainable?

    I, my wife, and two of our five children would probably be dead today under moderately harsher conditions. This isn't about us, of course, but I mention it for the obvious reason: in the statistical aggregate, how long can a civilization survive the survival of her unlucky and unfit?

    If the answer is: that lies in God's hands, then maybe that is the right answer; but when dysgenic consequences are so blatantly foreseeable, I am not convinced. Whether you and I like it or not, @Usura may have a point.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    After writing, …

    … how long can a civilization survive the survival of her unlucky and unfit?

    … I realized that that sounded like something an aborter of a Down Syndrome child would write. Ugh, I hate the postmodern politics of this.

    For information, I have never aborted and would never abort my own child, regardless of syndrome; but on the other hand would not expect you to help to save a sickly child of mine, either. I am unsure, but it seems to me that this may be the only tenable place at which to draw the line.

    I believe that too much of our society, often on the left but sometimes for different reasons on the right, has forgotten the great principles of responsibility and subsidiarity. I act to save my child because it is mine, but then how can I blame for acting to save his civilization because it is his?

    Dysgenics is real as far as I know. Ignoring it will have consequences. Ignoring it is having consequences already.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Dysgenics is real as far as I know.
     
    That's an interesting point. It's an article of faith on the far right that dysgenics is a major problem afflicting our society. But is there any actual evidence for this? And claiming that something is true because it feels true isn't enough.

    Everyone these days, whatever their position on the political spectrum, holds certain positions on certain issues as articles of faith. We should always be a bit sceptical. Maybe dysgenics is real but I'd like to see some hard evidence. It worries me that this is position that is often based on a dislike of certain groups of people.

    I see all sorts of things going wrong with our society but I'm not convinced that dysgenics is a major cause. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't.

    Whether dysgenics is real or not there's still a trade-off to be made. If you want a society based in eugenic principles you have to accept that there will be a price to be paid. Personally I think that price would be too high - that we'd find that we'd made a Devil's Bargain.

    To save civilisation you have to have a civilisation worth saving.

    It's rather odd to find right-wingers supporting eugenics - it's the sort of social engineering project for which right-wingers usually castigate the Left. To me it reeks of leftist utopianism.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Alexander Turok, @songbird, @Audacious Epigone

    , @Wency
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I believe that too much of our society, often on the left but sometimes for different reasons on the right, has forgotten the great principles of responsibility and subsidiarity. I act to save my child because it is mine, but then how can I blame @Usura for acting to save his civilization because it is his?
     
    There is much to be said for subsidiarity in parenting, and that our society has gone much too far in repudiating it, but would you really extend this to an absolute? Was it an error for Rome to abandon the right of the paterfamilias to murder his progeny?

    I have to think in this case there is a Christian duty to try to save such children, and that in this case our common bond as children of God supersedes the bond of Earthly parent and child.

    Yet I would be happy to make a trade with The Powers That Be, and I don't think such an agreement would be contrary to the Gospel: do not interfere with the conduct of our families, and we will not seek to interfere with anyone else's. But alas, I don't think they would accept. Just yesterday I noticed that our Honey Nut Cheerios have a hidden gay message that you can't see except by scanning the box with Snapchat.


    If the answer is: that lies in God’s hands, then maybe that is the right answer; but when dysgenic consequences are so blatantly foreseeable, I am not convinced.
     
    No, you had it right with the first part. And I don't think that the dysgenic consequences of abortion are nearly so foreseeable as you suggest. A point was made earlier: Downs TFR is surely very low, and can be made lower by thoughtful parents seeing to it. Even if not zero, it thus converges to zero if Downs is passed down from generation to generation.

    But I also think the interplay of fertility and culture is complex, and we cannot know all the downstream effects of one evil choice. The secular right says, "If not for abortion, then these groups of people we don't like would come to outnumber us even more." Ah, and yet, they come to outnumber us all the same, for our women have no more children.

    It would be one thing the make the argument that our very lovely society is preserved by millions of dead babies and thus the sacrifice is worth it. But as it stands, our civilization and our republic are breaking down, my children's breakfast cereal has a hidden message promoting sodomy, and also, in addition, we have millions of dead babies.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  64. @dfordoom
    @Caspar von Everec


    Educated liberal women and soy men tie their tubes or get vasectomies in order to save the environemnt or prevent future oppression.
     
    Is that really true? That's how conservatives think the liberal mind works but in general conservatives don't really understand what makes liberals tick, just as liberals don't really understand what makes conservatives tick.

    There might be a handful of people who will actually forego having children for the sake of the environment but I don't buy the idea that it's a widespread environment. People do not make decisions about how many children they're going to have based on ideology or social duty. People, including liberals, make decisions about having children based on whether they want children or not. Some may claim they are childless to "save the planet" but that's just opportunistic virtue-signalling. They've already decided not to have kids but why miss a chance to virtue-signal?

    Their most sacred virtue is race mixing and self sterilization for the environment.
     
    They may believe in race-mixing in theory. People believe in all sorts of things in theory. In practice white liberals are more likely to marry other white liberals.

    Replies: @Wency

    I mostly agree with this, but here’s what I would say: liberal women (and even many conservative career women who are influenced by liberal culture) most often refuse to have babies because they don’t see it as a worthy endeavor, they don’t see motherhood as honorable, they see their career in HR as more meaningful work and traveling to Europe as a more worthwhile use of time and resources.

    I do think the argument that having children is bad for the environment does play some part in dishonoring motherhood, but it’s probably very seldom the biggest part, it’s attack #1,074 in a centuries-long series of attacks. But it’s trendy and hip and virtuous to say it, high-status people and publications say it, so of all the reasons she’s been convinced not to have children (many of which she’s not even consciously aware of), that’s the one she feels most inclined to tell herself and others at present.

  65. @Twinkie
    @Realist


    Why would any intelligent, decent human want to knowingly bring a handicapped person into this world???
     
    So, if you have no utility to me, can I shoot you in the head and take your stuff?

    Do you love a baby because it is going to “do things” in the future? Because, you know, they are some of the most handicapped human beings I’ve ever known - downright parasitic, even! They are, like, so much more useless and less capable than dogs!

    Replies: @Test tickles, @Realist

    You are stupid beyond belief.

  66. @V. K. Ovelund
    @another fred


    Many people, perhaps most, believe in the ghost in the machine to some extent or another, but for the religious right it is a well developed doctrine.
     
    To the consternation of more recent philosophers, this problem was solved (in the usual view of the educated, orthodox religious right) by Plato, Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas as long ago as the 13th century.

    One meets so many misleading and flat-out wrong interpretations of Aristotle and St. Thomas that I hesitate to add my own, but here goes: the relationship between mind and body somewhat resembles the relationship between an architectural plan and the finished building. The ghost of the architectural plan might be said to inhabit the building in a metaphorical sense but perhaps not in the sense you mean.

    Out of my depth, I shall pursue the point no farther, except to note that the notion of the ghost in the machine is largely a straw man.

    Replies: @Wency

    Well put. To the earlier point, the relevant concept here is not “ghost in the machine” (which is at least somewhat contra-Biblical), but imago Dei. Human life is sacred, independent of any utility or lack thereof it might convey.

    I’m sure there exist American folk theologies that reason out abortion opposition via some quasi-Cartesian dualistic error or another, but none of that matters because 20th century Protestant opposition to abortion is historically a product of Catholic opposition to abortion (a fact that I’ll admit I find embarrassing as a Protestant, but credit where credit is due), and Catholic doctrine here has nothing to do with such dualistic errors.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @Wency


    but imago Dei
     
    That's never prevented Catholics or Protestants killing people when they've believed the circumstances warrant it. Aborting undesirable fetuses is just one more instance in which "killing" - if you insist on viewing abortion that way - is warranted.
    , @Twinkie
    @Wency


    Human life is sacred, independent of any utility or lack thereof it might convey.
     
    Indeed, full stop.
  67. @V. K. Ovelund
    @V. K. Ovelund

    After writing, ...


    ... how long can a civilization survive the survival of her unlucky and unfit?
     
    ... I realized that that sounded like something an aborter of a Down Syndrome child would write. Ugh, I hate the postmodern politics of this.

    For information, I have never aborted and would never abort my own child, regardless of syndrome; but on the other hand would not expect you to help to save a sickly child of mine, either. I am unsure, but it seems to me that this may be the only tenable place at which to draw the line.

    I believe that too much of our society, often on the left but sometimes for different reasons on the right, has forgotten the great principles of responsibility and subsidiarity. I act to save my child because it is mine, but then how can I blame @Usura for acting to save his civilization because it is his?

    Dysgenics is real as far as I know. Ignoring it will have consequences. Ignoring it is having consequences already.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Wency

    Dysgenics is real as far as I know.

    That’s an interesting point. It’s an article of faith on the far right that dysgenics is a major problem afflicting our society. But is there any actual evidence for this? And claiming that something is true because it feels true isn’t enough.

    Everyone these days, whatever their position on the political spectrum, holds certain positions on certain issues as articles of faith. We should always be a bit sceptical. Maybe dysgenics is real but I’d like to see some hard evidence. It worries me that this is position that is often based on a dislike of certain groups of people.

    I see all sorts of things going wrong with our society but I’m not convinced that dysgenics is a major cause. Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t.

    Whether dysgenics is real or not there’s still a trade-off to be made. If you want a society based in eugenic principles you have to accept that there will be a price to be paid. Personally I think that price would be too high – that we’d find that we’d made a Devil’s Bargain.

    To save civilisation you have to have a civilisation worth saving.

    It’s rather odd to find right-wingers supporting eugenics – it’s the sort of social engineering project for which right-wingers usually castigate the Left. To me it reeks of leftist utopianism.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @dfordoom


    It’s rather odd to find right-wingers supporting eugenics – it’s the sort of social engineering project for which right-wingers usually castigate the Left. To me it reeks of leftist utopianism.
     
    The key difference being is that it's based on realistic assumptions about human nature.

    Also, it makes no promises about the kind of society that it expects to eventuate except to say that that society will have greater native intelligence. What it chooses to do with that intelligence is an open question.

    So it doesn't really "reek of leftist utopianism" at all. That's just your psychological hang-ups about it speaking.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Alexander Turok
    @dfordoom


    It’s rather odd to find right-wingers supporting eugenics – it’s the sort of social engineering project for which right-wingers usually castigate the Left. To me it reeks of leftist utopianism.
     
    It's utopian in the same way the automobile and the interstate highway system were utopian.

    As for social engineering, what is an abortion ban if not social engineering? In any case I reject the premise that "social engineering" should be rejected. It's just a justification for inaction and laziness.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @songbird
    @dfordoom


    It’s rather odd to find right-wingers supporting eugenics – it’s the sort of social engineering project for which right-wingers usually castigate the Left. To me it reeks of leftist utopianism.
     
    I think many on the Right would be somewhat content with the pre-existing fertility patterns of circa 1900, when Leftists were promoting eugenics. When the vast majority of people did not go to college and when housing was cheap.

    Trouble is that things are a lot worse now, due to decades of blank-slatism and other ruinous policies.

    At a minimum, I think any moral state would need to acknowledge the following three premises:
    1.) intelligence is good
    2.) educating people does not make them intelligent
    3.) genes are what make people intelligent

    And probably many more, but a large number can be derived from those three.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @dfordoom

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @dfordoom

    The GSS suggests a mild dysgenic trend among whites and a more pronounced one among Hispanics and especially blacks.

  68. Dysgenics is real as far as I know. Ignoring it will have consequences. Ignoring it is having consequences already.

    AFAIK the genetics gods don’t give a rip whether your civilization survives, it only cares about the survival of genes.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @iffen


    AFAIK the genetics gods don’t give a rip whether your civilization survives, it only cares about the survival of genes.
     
    Agreed.

    The survival of individual genes, the survival of the species and the survival of civilisation are entirely different things.

    One of the big problems with eugenics is the same problem that all social engineering projects run into - unintended and unexpected consequences. You might think your eugenics program is selecting for qualities that will be useful to society but you might turn out to be entirely wrong. You might end up with too much of some desirable qualities, and with too little of other qualities that you hadn't realised were important.

    You might end up with a less functional society.

    If you're going to play at being gods you really need the wisdom of gods.

    Replies: @iffen, @silviosilver

  69. @TomSchmidt
    @Twinkie

    I recall Steve Sailer on this point about elites and "meritocracy," which became their religion. They don't like talking about IQ and they don't like talking about group IQ and why it might be genetic. At first, it appears to be anti-racist, but it's really just self-protective.

    By insisting that IQ is unimportant and that anyone can work hard enough to get somewhere in life, they absolve themselves of the need to do anything for people of low IQ. Blacks aren't Nobel prize winning scientists? It must be discrimination or lack of motivation, and low self-esteem. Because if it is IQ, and if IQ tests are accurate, they, the ruling elites (or at least the Professional-Managerial handmaidens of them) are where they are due to luck of the genetic draw combined with being born to parents who had the resources and brains to help them capitalize. They ought to recognize that and create an economy where IQ isn't the only thing that's valued.

    Of course the other reason for supporting meritocracy is so nobody notices that a lot of the elite got their not on merits but on guangxi, connections. That's really verboten, since it takes away any notion of their hard work being key.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    If our elites were purely meritocratic, then we’d have a push to rely more off standardized testing, not less. That’s the only thing-the only thing in admissions-that does not change regardless of your socioeconomic station, geographic location, race, or whatever. It’s not completely fair-you can train for the tests better with money-but it’s the closest that comes to it.

    What we have is a sort of crony meritocracy, not too dissimilar from the crony capitalism that is our economic system. There’s enough of a sheen of merit and hard work so that people who make it feel no sort of obligation to people who don’t, hence the American political class’ attitude toward the rest of the country, but the system is riddled with inconsistencies, rigging mechanisms, and a reliance on heavy doses of luck that nobody dares acknowledge because it would invalidate the “moral” legitimacy of the mandarinate.

    • Agree: TomSchmidt, Twinkie
  70. @V. K. Ovelund
    @V. K. Ovelund

    After writing, ...


    ... how long can a civilization survive the survival of her unlucky and unfit?
     
    ... I realized that that sounded like something an aborter of a Down Syndrome child would write. Ugh, I hate the postmodern politics of this.

    For information, I have never aborted and would never abort my own child, regardless of syndrome; but on the other hand would not expect you to help to save a sickly child of mine, either. I am unsure, but it seems to me that this may be the only tenable place at which to draw the line.

    I believe that too much of our society, often on the left but sometimes for different reasons on the right, has forgotten the great principles of responsibility and subsidiarity. I act to save my child because it is mine, but then how can I blame @Usura for acting to save his civilization because it is his?

    Dysgenics is real as far as I know. Ignoring it will have consequences. Ignoring it is having consequences already.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Wency

    I believe that too much of our society, often on the left but sometimes for different reasons on the right, has forgotten the great principles of responsibility and subsidiarity. I act to save my child because it is mine, but then how can I blame for acting to save his civilization because it is his?

    There is much to be said for subsidiarity in parenting, and that our society has gone much too far in repudiating it, but would you really extend this to an absolute? Was it an error for Rome to abandon the right of the paterfamilias to murder his progeny?

    I have to think in this case there is a Christian duty to try to save such children, and that in this case our common bond as children of God supersedes the bond of Earthly parent and child.

    Yet I would be happy to make a trade with The Powers That Be, and I don’t think such an agreement would be contrary to the Gospel: do not interfere with the conduct of our families, and we will not seek to interfere with anyone else’s. But alas, I don’t think they would accept. Just yesterday I noticed that our Honey Nut Cheerios have a hidden gay message that you can’t see except by scanning the box with Snapchat.

    If the answer is: that lies in God’s hands, then maybe that is the right answer; but when dysgenic consequences are so blatantly foreseeable, I am not convinced.

    No, you had it right with the first part. And I don’t think that the dysgenic consequences of abortion are nearly so foreseeable as you suggest. A point was made earlier: Downs TFR is surely very low, and can be made lower by thoughtful parents seeing to it. Even if not zero, it thus converges to zero if Downs is passed down from generation to generation.

    But I also think the interplay of fertility and culture is complex, and we cannot know all the downstream effects of one evil choice. The secular right says, “If not for abortion, then these groups of people we don’t like would come to outnumber us even more.” Ah, and yet, they come to outnumber us all the same, for our women have no more children.

    It would be one thing the make the argument that our very lovely society is preserved by millions of dead babies and thus the sacrifice is worth it. But as it stands, our civilization and our republic are breaking down, my children’s breakfast cereal has a hidden message promoting sodomy, and also, in addition, we have millions of dead babies.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Wency


    Was it an error for Rome to abandon the right of the paterfamilias to murder his progeny?
     
    I do not know. Theodor Mommsen, recounting the history of the early Roman republic, seemed to think it largely a theoretical point. A magisterial principle with extensive implications was involved for, as you know, the Roman consuls, patres civitatem (if my Latin is right), had the identical power with respect to the citizenry, nor was the identity accidental. It is thus hard for you and me to comment coherently from within a familiar framework of Anglo-Saxon law.

    The early Romans understood better than we that the state's police power is unfit to regulate family relations. When the state tries, results are bad, the proof of which is found in the apparent absence of adults that express gratitude for police interference, years ago when the adults were children, against natural parents. Such an observation does not obviate your point, of course, but if I am to take your point with the seriousness it deserves, then one is reluctant to answer either yea or nay.

    (I should clarify that I am not advocating the grafting of the prerogatives of the Roman paterfamilias, alien to us, into our Anglo-Saxon system.)

    Let me take it from a different angle. Some 400,000 foreigners have been killed by U.S. military forces in the broader Middle East during the past 30 years, most of them unjustly as I believe. Who can now deliver justice for the 400,000? I do not think anyone can, and if someone could, then the delivery would probably inflict even more injustice than the injustice the delivery avenged.

    The problem here is that justice, as a concept, ill suits the circumstance. When it comes to civic justice, the concept ill suits family relations, as well.

    Under Malthusian constraints (as recently explored by you), the question of exposure of infants and such acquires a different hue. My point is that these matters are extremely difficult. When it comes to another man's family, I dislike to intervene.

    (I have carefully read the rest of your remarks, but those stand on their own without further argument by me. I do not know whether @silviosilver is reading, but his approach to the question is not mine. I agree with you more than him, and certainly agree more with your approach, though I seem accidentally, unwillingly to have ended up somehow more on his side than yours in this specific instance.)

    Replies: @Twinkie

  71. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Dysgenics is real as far as I know.
     
    That's an interesting point. It's an article of faith on the far right that dysgenics is a major problem afflicting our society. But is there any actual evidence for this? And claiming that something is true because it feels true isn't enough.

    Everyone these days, whatever their position on the political spectrum, holds certain positions on certain issues as articles of faith. We should always be a bit sceptical. Maybe dysgenics is real but I'd like to see some hard evidence. It worries me that this is position that is often based on a dislike of certain groups of people.

    I see all sorts of things going wrong with our society but I'm not convinced that dysgenics is a major cause. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't.

    Whether dysgenics is real or not there's still a trade-off to be made. If you want a society based in eugenic principles you have to accept that there will be a price to be paid. Personally I think that price would be too high - that we'd find that we'd made a Devil's Bargain.

    To save civilisation you have to have a civilisation worth saving.

    It's rather odd to find right-wingers supporting eugenics - it's the sort of social engineering project for which right-wingers usually castigate the Left. To me it reeks of leftist utopianism.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Alexander Turok, @songbird, @Audacious Epigone

    It’s rather odd to find right-wingers supporting eugenics – it’s the sort of social engineering project for which right-wingers usually castigate the Left. To me it reeks of leftist utopianism.

    The key difference being is that it’s based on realistic assumptions about human nature.

    Also, it makes no promises about the kind of society that it expects to eventuate except to say that that society will have greater native intelligence. What it chooses to do with that intelligence is an open question.

    So it doesn’t really “reek of leftist utopianism” at all. That’s just your psychological hang-ups about it speaking.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @silviosilver


    Also, it makes no promises about the kind of society that it expects to eventuate except to say that that society will have greater native intelligence. What it chooses to do with that intelligence is an open question.
     
    That's not at all the impression I get from right-wing eugenics fans. The impression I get is that they have very definite ideas of the type of society that they hope will be created by eugenics. They either hope for a libertarian utopian world, or a fascist utopia, or a white Christian utopia. They don't all have the same utopian dream but they all seem to be motivated by a belief that eugenics will lead to the sort of society of which they approve.

    The key difference being is that it’s based on realistic assumptions about human nature.
     
    Right-wingers cling tenaciously to the belief that their assumptions about human nature are realistic and that liberals' assumptions about human nature are unrealistic. But I've seen no evidence that right-wingers are any more realistic about human nature of society than left-wingers.

    Right-wingers and left-wingers and liberals all cling to different illusions, but they do all cling to illusions.

    Replies: @anon

  72. @Wency
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Well put. To the earlier point, the relevant concept here is not "ghost in the machine" (which is at least somewhat contra-Biblical), but imago Dei. Human life is sacred, independent of any utility or lack thereof it might convey.

    I'm sure there exist American folk theologies that reason out abortion opposition via some quasi-Cartesian dualistic error or another, but none of that matters because 20th century Protestant opposition to abortion is historically a product of Catholic opposition to abortion (a fact that I'll admit I find embarrassing as a Protestant, but credit where credit is due), and Catholic doctrine here has nothing to do with such dualistic errors.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Twinkie

    but imago Dei

    That’s never prevented Catholics or Protestants killing people when they’ve believed the circumstances warrant it. Aborting undesirable fetuses is just one more instance in which “killing” – if you insist on viewing abortion that way – is warranted.

  73. @Wency
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I believe that too much of our society, often on the left but sometimes for different reasons on the right, has forgotten the great principles of responsibility and subsidiarity. I act to save my child because it is mine, but then how can I blame @Usura for acting to save his civilization because it is his?
     
    There is much to be said for subsidiarity in parenting, and that our society has gone much too far in repudiating it, but would you really extend this to an absolute? Was it an error for Rome to abandon the right of the paterfamilias to murder his progeny?

    I have to think in this case there is a Christian duty to try to save such children, and that in this case our common bond as children of God supersedes the bond of Earthly parent and child.

    Yet I would be happy to make a trade with The Powers That Be, and I don't think such an agreement would be contrary to the Gospel: do not interfere with the conduct of our families, and we will not seek to interfere with anyone else's. But alas, I don't think they would accept. Just yesterday I noticed that our Honey Nut Cheerios have a hidden gay message that you can't see except by scanning the box with Snapchat.


    If the answer is: that lies in God’s hands, then maybe that is the right answer; but when dysgenic consequences are so blatantly foreseeable, I am not convinced.
     
    No, you had it right with the first part. And I don't think that the dysgenic consequences of abortion are nearly so foreseeable as you suggest. A point was made earlier: Downs TFR is surely very low, and can be made lower by thoughtful parents seeing to it. Even if not zero, it thus converges to zero if Downs is passed down from generation to generation.

    But I also think the interplay of fertility and culture is complex, and we cannot know all the downstream effects of one evil choice. The secular right says, "If not for abortion, then these groups of people we don't like would come to outnumber us even more." Ah, and yet, they come to outnumber us all the same, for our women have no more children.

    It would be one thing the make the argument that our very lovely society is preserved by millions of dead babies and thus the sacrifice is worth it. But as it stands, our civilization and our republic are breaking down, my children's breakfast cereal has a hidden message promoting sodomy, and also, in addition, we have millions of dead babies.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Was it an error for Rome to abandon the right of the paterfamilias to murder his progeny?

    I do not know. Theodor Mommsen, recounting the history of the early Roman republic, seemed to think it largely a theoretical point. A magisterial principle with extensive implications was involved for, as you know, the Roman consuls, patres civitatem (if my Latin is right), had the identical power with respect to the citizenry, nor was the identity accidental. It is thus hard for you and me to comment coherently from within a familiar framework of Anglo-Saxon law.

    [MORE]

    The early Romans understood better than we that the state’s police power is unfit to regulate family relations. When the state tries, results are bad, the proof of which is found in the apparent absence of adults that express gratitude for police interference, years ago when the adults were children, against natural parents. Such an observation does not obviate your point, of course, but if I am to take your point with the seriousness it deserves, then one is reluctant to answer either yea or nay.

    (I should clarify that I am not advocating the grafting of the prerogatives of the Roman paterfamilias, alien to us, into our Anglo-Saxon system.)

    Let me take it from a different angle. Some 400,000 foreigners have been killed by U.S. military forces in the broader Middle East during the past 30 years, most of them unjustly as I believe. Who can now deliver justice for the 400,000? I do not think anyone can, and if someone could, then the delivery would probably inflict even more injustice than the injustice the delivery avenged.

    The problem here is that justice, as a concept, ill suits the circumstance. When it comes to civic justice, the concept ill suits family relations, as well.

    Under Malthusian constraints (as recently explored by you), the question of exposure of infants and such acquires a different hue. My point is that these matters are extremely difficult. When it comes to another man’s family, I dislike to intervene.

    (I have carefully read the rest of your remarks, but those stand on their own without further argument by me. I do not know whether is reading, but his approach to the question is not mine. I agree with you more than him, and certainly agree more with your approach, though I seem accidentally, unwillingly to have ended up somehow more on his side than yours in this specific instance.)

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Theodor Mommsen
     
    1) Wow. You are well-read for a non-historian!

    2) Mommsen was vastly overrated and was wrong about a lot. Just ask Hans Delbrück. ;)

    Replies: @nebulafox

  74. @dfordoom
    @Jay Fink


    It seems that the religious right has no interest or awareness of this. The babies they so much want to be born won’t stay babies for long. When they grow up they will destroy whatever is left of the religious right agenda, both through voting and their personal behavior.
     
    As much as I dislike the Religious Right I think that on this issue they are morally correct. They will not and cannot support the idea of "culling" "useless eaters" because they recognise that such a policy is barbarism.

    Rightoids who like the idea of culling useless eaters might like to reflect on the possibility that the day might come when they are the ones who are going to get culled.

    The idea of eliminating large parts of the population that you happen to disapprove of is a very very dangerous idea.

    Replies: @Usura, @Alexander Turok

    There’s no slippery slope because fetuses are neither rational nor self-aware. They have no desire to live that one is taking away.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Alexander Turok

    no desire to live that one is taking away

    Then why do they do all that replication and differentiation of cells? Why do they develop organs?

    Replies: @Alexander Turok

    , @Wency
    @Alexander Turok

    You've made this point before and I think I've disagreed with it before -- maybe this moral framework works for you, but as it happens neither my framework nor yours is the one the left is using. The political Schelling Point around abortion is based on the location of the child (inside the mother or not) and not the child's cognitive capabilities, which increase continuously from conception to adulthood. There is no step change when a child leaves the womb, which is an arbitrary and flexible moment in time.

    But I hadn't thought much about the question of an abortion slippery slope, so I'll speculate on it a moment. Again, I think the political matter is bound up in location of the child, so I doubt it could "slip" to infants and beyond (which is not to say our enemies would never start murdering our children, only that they'd justify it in other terms). The most probable direction of a slippery slope, then, is leading towards mandatory abortion of undesirables. Something like this may already exist in the PRC, or so they say, so it's not so great a stretch.

    If Down's Syndrome is a genetic malformation that must be cured by culling, then how much more important is eliminating the genetic disease known as "whiteness", the cause of all humanity's troubles? Though really, I don't see them saying such things entirely out loud. More likely fetuses receive a social credit score partly inherited from the parents but affected by features of the child's genome (calculated by an algorithm that is less than fully transparent), and those below a certain score face mandatory abortion. Which, as we know, is morally equivalent to removing a tumor, so what are the grounds to really object?

  75. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Dysgenics is real as far as I know.
     
    That's an interesting point. It's an article of faith on the far right that dysgenics is a major problem afflicting our society. But is there any actual evidence for this? And claiming that something is true because it feels true isn't enough.

    Everyone these days, whatever their position on the political spectrum, holds certain positions on certain issues as articles of faith. We should always be a bit sceptical. Maybe dysgenics is real but I'd like to see some hard evidence. It worries me that this is position that is often based on a dislike of certain groups of people.

    I see all sorts of things going wrong with our society but I'm not convinced that dysgenics is a major cause. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't.

    Whether dysgenics is real or not there's still a trade-off to be made. If you want a society based in eugenic principles you have to accept that there will be a price to be paid. Personally I think that price would be too high - that we'd find that we'd made a Devil's Bargain.

    To save civilisation you have to have a civilisation worth saving.

    It's rather odd to find right-wingers supporting eugenics - it's the sort of social engineering project for which right-wingers usually castigate the Left. To me it reeks of leftist utopianism.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Alexander Turok, @songbird, @Audacious Epigone

    It’s rather odd to find right-wingers supporting eugenics – it’s the sort of social engineering project for which right-wingers usually castigate the Left. To me it reeks of leftist utopianism.

    It’s utopian in the same way the automobile and the interstate highway system were utopian.

    As for social engineering, what is an abortion ban if not social engineering? In any case I reject the premise that “social engineering” should be rejected. It’s just a justification for inaction and laziness.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Alexander Turok


    As for social engineering, what is an abortion ban if not social engineering? In any case I reject the premise that “social engineering” should be rejected. It’s just a justification for inaction and laziness.
     
    I wasn't talking about abortion in the first place. I was responding to a suggestion by a libertarian that anyone who can't make it in society without assistance should just be allowed to die because survival of the fittest. My position was (and is) that a society based on such a libertarian position would be a barbarous nightmare society that would not be worth saving.

    I'm not the one who diverted the thread into a debate on abortion.
  76. @Alexander Turok
    @dfordoom

    There's no slippery slope because fetuses are neither rational nor self-aware. They have no desire to live that one is taking away.

    Replies: @iffen, @Wency

    no desire to live that one is taking away

    Then why do they do all that replication and differentiation of cells? Why do they develop organs?

    • Replies: @Alexander Turok
    @iffen

    When I say "desire to live" I'm talking about the desire of an intelligent, self-conscious being.

  77. @iffen
    @Alexander Turok

    no desire to live that one is taking away

    Then why do they do all that replication and differentiation of cells? Why do they develop organs?

    Replies: @Alexander Turok

    When I say “desire to live” I’m talking about the desire of an intelligent, self-conscious being.

  78. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Dysgenics is real as far as I know.
     
    That's an interesting point. It's an article of faith on the far right that dysgenics is a major problem afflicting our society. But is there any actual evidence for this? And claiming that something is true because it feels true isn't enough.

    Everyone these days, whatever their position on the political spectrum, holds certain positions on certain issues as articles of faith. We should always be a bit sceptical. Maybe dysgenics is real but I'd like to see some hard evidence. It worries me that this is position that is often based on a dislike of certain groups of people.

    I see all sorts of things going wrong with our society but I'm not convinced that dysgenics is a major cause. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't.

    Whether dysgenics is real or not there's still a trade-off to be made. If you want a society based in eugenic principles you have to accept that there will be a price to be paid. Personally I think that price would be too high - that we'd find that we'd made a Devil's Bargain.

    To save civilisation you have to have a civilisation worth saving.

    It's rather odd to find right-wingers supporting eugenics - it's the sort of social engineering project for which right-wingers usually castigate the Left. To me it reeks of leftist utopianism.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Alexander Turok, @songbird, @Audacious Epigone

    It’s rather odd to find right-wingers supporting eugenics – it’s the sort of social engineering project for which right-wingers usually castigate the Left. To me it reeks of leftist utopianism.

    I think many on the Right would be somewhat content with the pre-existing fertility patterns of circa 1900, when Leftists were promoting eugenics. When the vast majority of people did not go to college and when housing was cheap.

    Trouble is that things are a lot worse now, due to decades of blank-slatism and other ruinous policies.

    At a minimum, I think any moral state would need to acknowledge the following three premises:
    1.) intelligence is good
    2.) educating people does not make them intelligent
    3.) genes are what make people intelligent

    And probably many more, but a large number can be derived from those three.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @songbird


    At a minimum, I think any moral state would need to acknowledge the following three premises:
    1.) intelligence is good
    2.) educating people does not make them intelligent
    3.) genes are what make people intelligent
     
    Disagree.

    1) Intelligence is a tool. It can be utilized for good or evil. It is not inherent good in the moral context.
    2) Educating people may not make them more intelligent, but it can make them wiser, both spiritually and materially - at all levels of intelligence. But I would agree that the said education should be tailored to the cognitive profiles of the pupils. Germans, overall, do a good job in this - they have a three-tier secondary education system that channels students into menial/service labor, technical/trades labor, and university-track academics, and provide relevant practicum as well.
    3) Intelligence is highly heritable, but genes aren't the only variable.

    One thing to keep in mind is that, conscientiousness (or persistence) is highly correlated with personal success/achievement, perhaps more so than even intelligence (though, of course, the two are also correlated). Fostering high intelligence may be good for the society as a whole, but I would argue that fostering conscientiousness among the populace is essential for developing and maintaining a society that is materially successful AND decent/just/harmonious.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @songbird, @silviosilver

    , @dfordoom
    @songbird


    At a minimum, I think any moral state would need to acknowledge the following three premises:
    1.) intelligence is good
    2.) educating people does not make them intelligent
    3.) genes are what make people intelligent

     

    Those are all merely unproven assertions. They're assertions that are articles of faith on the far right but they're still merely unproven assertions.

    1). Intelligence can be useful but it's just one of many potentially useful qualities. A society of high-IQ psychopaths would be a dysfunctional nightmare. A functional society requires a whole range of desirable personality traits. And society is so complex that any attempt to artificially encourage the breeding of high IQ individuals could backfire - you could end up with a society that is deficient in other equally important personality traits. It is dangerous to fetishise intelligence.

    2). Whether education can affect raw IQ is uncertain. Despite the religious dogma of the HBD crowd it does seem possible that education can have at least a small effect. What matters is that intelligence is just the raw material - education converts the raw material into something useful. The purpose of education is not to turn people into nuclear physicists or mathematicians but to help them become useful members of society, and you don't necessarily need a high IQ to be a useful member of society. Your assertion on this point is based on a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of education.

    3). Genes are undoubtedly one of the factors that determine intelligence.

    Replies: @songbird

  79. @Wency
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Well put. To the earlier point, the relevant concept here is not "ghost in the machine" (which is at least somewhat contra-Biblical), but imago Dei. Human life is sacred, independent of any utility or lack thereof it might convey.

    I'm sure there exist American folk theologies that reason out abortion opposition via some quasi-Cartesian dualistic error or another, but none of that matters because 20th century Protestant opposition to abortion is historically a product of Catholic opposition to abortion (a fact that I'll admit I find embarrassing as a Protestant, but credit where credit is due), and Catholic doctrine here has nothing to do with such dualistic errors.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Twinkie

    Human life is sacred, independent of any utility or lack thereof it might convey.

    Indeed, full stop.

  80. @songbird
    @dfordoom


    It’s rather odd to find right-wingers supporting eugenics – it’s the sort of social engineering project for which right-wingers usually castigate the Left. To me it reeks of leftist utopianism.
     
    I think many on the Right would be somewhat content with the pre-existing fertility patterns of circa 1900, when Leftists were promoting eugenics. When the vast majority of people did not go to college and when housing was cheap.

    Trouble is that things are a lot worse now, due to decades of blank-slatism and other ruinous policies.

    At a minimum, I think any moral state would need to acknowledge the following three premises:
    1.) intelligence is good
    2.) educating people does not make them intelligent
    3.) genes are what make people intelligent

    And probably many more, but a large number can be derived from those three.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @dfordoom

    At a minimum, I think any moral state would need to acknowledge the following three premises:
    1.) intelligence is good
    2.) educating people does not make them intelligent
    3.) genes are what make people intelligent

    Disagree.

    1) Intelligence is a tool. It can be utilized for good or evil. It is not inherent good in the moral context.
    2) Educating people may not make them more intelligent, but it can make them wiser, both spiritually and materially – at all levels of intelligence. But I would agree that the said education should be tailored to the cognitive profiles of the pupils. Germans, overall, do a good job in this – they have a three-tier secondary education system that channels students into menial/service labor, technical/trades labor, and university-track academics, and provide relevant practicum as well.
    3) Intelligence is highly heritable, but genes aren’t the only variable.

    One thing to keep in mind is that, conscientiousness (or persistence) is highly correlated with personal success/achievement, perhaps more so than even intelligence (though, of course, the two are also correlated). Fostering high intelligence may be good for the society as a whole, but I would argue that fostering conscientiousness among the populace is essential for developing and maintaining a society that is materially successful AND decent/just/harmonious.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    Fostering high intelligence may be good for the society as a whole, but I would argue that fostering conscientiousness among the populace is essential for developing and maintaining a society that is materially successful AND decent/just/harmonious.
     
    I agree.

    I think it's also important to bear in mind that it's not a One Size Fits All situation. There is no such thing as Perfect Citizens that can be bred like prize cattle. A successful society requires people with a wide range of abilities and characteristics. You don't want or need every citizen to have the same mix of abilities.

    Take openness to new experience. That can be a two-edged sword and you wouldn't want an entire society composed of people with high levels of openness to new experience. But you do need some.

    A modern society doesn't need many people with great physical strength, but it needs some (it's a very useful quality in a firefighter). You probably don't need many people with superb hand-eye co-ordination, but you need some.

    The problem with eugenics is that you could end up with too many people of the same type. Especially if you focus too much on intelligence. You need a few genius math geeks but you don't want to have too many.

    It's even possible that we already have more very high IQ people than we actually need. And possibly not enough high conscientiousness people.
    , @songbird
    @Twinkie


    It is not inherent good in the moral context.
     
    You might think otherwise, if you lived in a country with a national IQ in the 70s.

    Germans, overall, do a good job in this – they have a three-tier secondary education system that channels students into menial/service labor, technical/trades labor, and university-track academics
     
    Blank-slatism and immigration might make it go by the wayside - pressures are being put on it

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @silviosilver
    @Twinkie


    Fostering high intelligence may be good for the society as a whole, but I would argue that fostering conscientiousness among the populace is essential for developing and maintaining a society that is materially successful AND decent/just/harmonious.
     
    Conscientiousness, of itself, won't necessarily lead to decency/justice/harmony. By all accounts, Adolf Eichmann was a conscientious worker, yet he's hardly a byword for decency and justice.

    Citing the importance of conscientiousness is mostly a way to wriggle out of the implication that biology places some fairly hard limits on what various individuals are capable of. If we admit the importance of intelligence, then we're admitting that certain desirable accomplishments are, for all intents and purposes, forever going to be out of reach for certain people. If we tell ourselves it's all about conscientiousness, we can imagine that if we'd just work hard enough at it, any of us could do anything.

    That isn't to downplay the importance of conscientiousness. It's critically important. It's just that by itself, it won't always be enough, depending on the task.
  81. @iffen
    Dysgenics is real as far as I know. Ignoring it will have consequences. Ignoring it is having consequences already.

    AFAIK the genetics gods don't give a rip whether your civilization survives, it only cares about the survival of genes.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    AFAIK the genetics gods don’t give a rip whether your civilization survives, it only cares about the survival of genes.

    Agreed.

    The survival of individual genes, the survival of the species and the survival of civilisation are entirely different things.

    One of the big problems with eugenics is the same problem that all social engineering projects run into – unintended and unexpected consequences. You might think your eugenics program is selecting for qualities that will be useful to society but you might turn out to be entirely wrong. You might end up with too much of some desirable qualities, and with too little of other qualities that you hadn’t realised were important.

    You might end up with a less functional society.

    If you’re going to play at being gods you really need the wisdom of gods.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @dfordoom

    If you’re going to play at being gods you really need the wisdom of gods.

    A really good case can be made embracing the idea that if there are gods (is a God) said gods would be on the far left of the curve for wisdom.

    , @silviosilver
    @dfordoom


    You might end up with a less functional society.

    If you’re going to play at being gods you really need the wisdom of gods.
     

    The same reasoning applies to free-breeding.

    Take a profile of the people who are having children in the present generation (or perhaps for the past few), in which free-breeding is given free rein, and then imagine that that precise profile had been dreamed up and implemented by eugenicists.

    "Oh my gosh, you want this specific profile of people to have children rather than some other profile? What makes you think you know what you're doing? Have you thought about the risks, the consequences? Stop playing God!!!!!!!!"

    It's the same thing.

    In fact, free-breeding, if you ask me, is even more dangerous. "Oh, but it's gotten us to this point in fairly decent shape, so how bad can it be?" Well, what if there had been a chance to, say, avoid the two world wars? To avoid communist brutality? We can't know, but the possibility is certainly open. We really need to abandon this idea that free-breeding is necessarily the "safest" option. Get real.

  82. @silviosilver
    @dfordoom


    It’s rather odd to find right-wingers supporting eugenics – it’s the sort of social engineering project for which right-wingers usually castigate the Left. To me it reeks of leftist utopianism.
     
    The key difference being is that it's based on realistic assumptions about human nature.

    Also, it makes no promises about the kind of society that it expects to eventuate except to say that that society will have greater native intelligence. What it chooses to do with that intelligence is an open question.

    So it doesn't really "reek of leftist utopianism" at all. That's just your psychological hang-ups about it speaking.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Also, it makes no promises about the kind of society that it expects to eventuate except to say that that society will have greater native intelligence. What it chooses to do with that intelligence is an open question.

    That’s not at all the impression I get from right-wing eugenics fans. The impression I get is that they have very definite ideas of the type of society that they hope will be created by eugenics. They either hope for a libertarian utopian world, or a fascist utopia, or a white Christian utopia. They don’t all have the same utopian dream but they all seem to be motivated by a belief that eugenics will lead to the sort of society of which they approve.

    The key difference being is that it’s based on realistic assumptions about human nature.

    Right-wingers cling tenaciously to the belief that their assumptions about human nature are realistic and that liberals’ assumptions about human nature are unrealistic. But I’ve seen no evidence that right-wingers are any more realistic about human nature of society than left-wingers.

    Right-wingers and left-wingers and liberals all cling to different illusions, but they do all cling to illusions.

    • Replies: @anon
    @dfordoom

    That’s not at all the impression I get from right-wing eugenics fans.

    Please point to examples, by name. Thanks.

  83. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Wency


    Was it an error for Rome to abandon the right of the paterfamilias to murder his progeny?
     
    I do not know. Theodor Mommsen, recounting the history of the early Roman republic, seemed to think it largely a theoretical point. A magisterial principle with extensive implications was involved for, as you know, the Roman consuls, patres civitatem (if my Latin is right), had the identical power with respect to the citizenry, nor was the identity accidental. It is thus hard for you and me to comment coherently from within a familiar framework of Anglo-Saxon law.

    The early Romans understood better than we that the state's police power is unfit to regulate family relations. When the state tries, results are bad, the proof of which is found in the apparent absence of adults that express gratitude for police interference, years ago when the adults were children, against natural parents. Such an observation does not obviate your point, of course, but if I am to take your point with the seriousness it deserves, then one is reluctant to answer either yea or nay.

    (I should clarify that I am not advocating the grafting of the prerogatives of the Roman paterfamilias, alien to us, into our Anglo-Saxon system.)

    Let me take it from a different angle. Some 400,000 foreigners have been killed by U.S. military forces in the broader Middle East during the past 30 years, most of them unjustly as I believe. Who can now deliver justice for the 400,000? I do not think anyone can, and if someone could, then the delivery would probably inflict even more injustice than the injustice the delivery avenged.

    The problem here is that justice, as a concept, ill suits the circumstance. When it comes to civic justice, the concept ill suits family relations, as well.

    Under Malthusian constraints (as recently explored by you), the question of exposure of infants and such acquires a different hue. My point is that these matters are extremely difficult. When it comes to another man's family, I dislike to intervene.

    (I have carefully read the rest of your remarks, but those stand on their own without further argument by me. I do not know whether @silviosilver is reading, but his approach to the question is not mine. I agree with you more than him, and certainly agree more with your approach, though I seem accidentally, unwillingly to have ended up somehow more on his side than yours in this specific instance.)

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Theodor Mommsen

    1) Wow. You are well-read for a non-historian!

    2) Mommsen was vastly overrated and was wrong about a lot. Just ask Hans Delbrück. 😉

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Twinkie

    >Hans Delbrück

    Father of Max Delbrück. Funny how the specialties of these antebellum German-world academic families went by generation, or sometimes within the same one. You'd have historians and jurists and diplomats (the von Weizsäckers, as one example) coexisting with physicists and chemists and mathematicians. They all got the brain gift, but different hemisphere distributions.

  84. @Alexander Turok
    @dfordoom


    It’s rather odd to find right-wingers supporting eugenics – it’s the sort of social engineering project for which right-wingers usually castigate the Left. To me it reeks of leftist utopianism.
     
    It's utopian in the same way the automobile and the interstate highway system were utopian.

    As for social engineering, what is an abortion ban if not social engineering? In any case I reject the premise that "social engineering" should be rejected. It's just a justification for inaction and laziness.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    As for social engineering, what is an abortion ban if not social engineering? In any case I reject the premise that “social engineering” should be rejected. It’s just a justification for inaction and laziness.

    I wasn’t talking about abortion in the first place. I was responding to a suggestion by a libertarian that anyone who can’t make it in society without assistance should just be allowed to die because survival of the fittest. My position was (and is) that a society based on such a libertarian position would be a barbarous nightmare society that would not be worth saving.

    I’m not the one who diverted the thread into a debate on abortion.

  85. @songbird
    @dfordoom


    It’s rather odd to find right-wingers supporting eugenics – it’s the sort of social engineering project for which right-wingers usually castigate the Left. To me it reeks of leftist utopianism.
     
    I think many on the Right would be somewhat content with the pre-existing fertility patterns of circa 1900, when Leftists were promoting eugenics. When the vast majority of people did not go to college and when housing was cheap.

    Trouble is that things are a lot worse now, due to decades of blank-slatism and other ruinous policies.

    At a minimum, I think any moral state would need to acknowledge the following three premises:
    1.) intelligence is good
    2.) educating people does not make them intelligent
    3.) genes are what make people intelligent

    And probably many more, but a large number can be derived from those three.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @dfordoom

    At a minimum, I think any moral state would need to acknowledge the following three premises:
    1.) intelligence is good
    2.) educating people does not make them intelligent
    3.) genes are what make people intelligent

    Those are all merely unproven assertions. They’re assertions that are articles of faith on the far right but they’re still merely unproven assertions.

    1). Intelligence can be useful but it’s just one of many potentially useful qualities. A society of high-IQ psychopaths would be a dysfunctional nightmare. A functional society requires a whole range of desirable personality traits. And society is so complex that any attempt to artificially encourage the breeding of high IQ individuals could backfire – you could end up with a society that is deficient in other equally important personality traits. It is dangerous to fetishise intelligence.

    2). Whether education can affect raw IQ is uncertain. Despite the religious dogma of the HBD crowd it does seem possible that education can have at least a small effect. What matters is that intelligence is just the raw material – education converts the raw material into something useful. The purpose of education is not to turn people into nuclear physicists or mathematicians but to help them become useful members of society, and you don’t necessarily need a high IQ to be a useful member of society. Your assertion on this point is based on a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of education.

    3). Genes are undoubtedly one of the factors that determine intelligence.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @dfordoom


    It is dangerous to fetishise intelligence.
     
    Perhaps, but less so than fetishizing perfect equality.

    Despite the religious dogma of the HBD crowd it does seem possible that education can have at least a small effect.
     
    IQ is a proxy for intelligence. You can teach the test to a slight extent, but giving everyone pre-k education up to the 12th grade is not worth the resources. The follow up results are not impressive.

    3). Genes are undoubtedly one of the factors that determine intelligence.
     
    The main factor - this has been established with twin studies long ago. And the most is largely deterministic at birth, and not education.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  86. @dfordoom
    @silviosilver


    Also, it makes no promises about the kind of society that it expects to eventuate except to say that that society will have greater native intelligence. What it chooses to do with that intelligence is an open question.
     
    That's not at all the impression I get from right-wing eugenics fans. The impression I get is that they have very definite ideas of the type of society that they hope will be created by eugenics. They either hope for a libertarian utopian world, or a fascist utopia, or a white Christian utopia. They don't all have the same utopian dream but they all seem to be motivated by a belief that eugenics will lead to the sort of society of which they approve.

    The key difference being is that it’s based on realistic assumptions about human nature.
     
    Right-wingers cling tenaciously to the belief that their assumptions about human nature are realistic and that liberals' assumptions about human nature are unrealistic. But I've seen no evidence that right-wingers are any more realistic about human nature of society than left-wingers.

    Right-wingers and left-wingers and liberals all cling to different illusions, but they do all cling to illusions.

    Replies: @anon

    That’s not at all the impression I get from right-wing eugenics fans.

    Please point to examples, by name. Thanks.

  87. @Twinkie
    @songbird


    At a minimum, I think any moral state would need to acknowledge the following three premises:
    1.) intelligence is good
    2.) educating people does not make them intelligent
    3.) genes are what make people intelligent
     
    Disagree.

    1) Intelligence is a tool. It can be utilized for good or evil. It is not inherent good in the moral context.
    2) Educating people may not make them more intelligent, but it can make them wiser, both spiritually and materially - at all levels of intelligence. But I would agree that the said education should be tailored to the cognitive profiles of the pupils. Germans, overall, do a good job in this - they have a three-tier secondary education system that channels students into menial/service labor, technical/trades labor, and university-track academics, and provide relevant practicum as well.
    3) Intelligence is highly heritable, but genes aren't the only variable.

    One thing to keep in mind is that, conscientiousness (or persistence) is highly correlated with personal success/achievement, perhaps more so than even intelligence (though, of course, the two are also correlated). Fostering high intelligence may be good for the society as a whole, but I would argue that fostering conscientiousness among the populace is essential for developing and maintaining a society that is materially successful AND decent/just/harmonious.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @songbird, @silviosilver

    Fostering high intelligence may be good for the society as a whole, but I would argue that fostering conscientiousness among the populace is essential for developing and maintaining a society that is materially successful AND decent/just/harmonious.

    I agree.

    I think it’s also important to bear in mind that it’s not a One Size Fits All situation. There is no such thing as Perfect Citizens that can be bred like prize cattle. A successful society requires people with a wide range of abilities and characteristics. You don’t want or need every citizen to have the same mix of abilities.

    Take openness to new experience. That can be a two-edged sword and you wouldn’t want an entire society composed of people with high levels of openness to new experience. But you do need some.

    A modern society doesn’t need many people with great physical strength, but it needs some (it’s a very useful quality in a firefighter). You probably don’t need many people with superb hand-eye co-ordination, but you need some.

    The problem with eugenics is that you could end up with too many people of the same type. Especially if you focus too much on intelligence. You need a few genius math geeks but you don’t want to have too many.

    It’s even possible that we already have more very high IQ people than we actually need. And possibly not enough high conscientiousness people.

  88. @Twinkie
    @songbird


    At a minimum, I think any moral state would need to acknowledge the following three premises:
    1.) intelligence is good
    2.) educating people does not make them intelligent
    3.) genes are what make people intelligent
     
    Disagree.

    1) Intelligence is a tool. It can be utilized for good or evil. It is not inherent good in the moral context.
    2) Educating people may not make them more intelligent, but it can make them wiser, both spiritually and materially - at all levels of intelligence. But I would agree that the said education should be tailored to the cognitive profiles of the pupils. Germans, overall, do a good job in this - they have a three-tier secondary education system that channels students into menial/service labor, technical/trades labor, and university-track academics, and provide relevant practicum as well.
    3) Intelligence is highly heritable, but genes aren't the only variable.

    One thing to keep in mind is that, conscientiousness (or persistence) is highly correlated with personal success/achievement, perhaps more so than even intelligence (though, of course, the two are also correlated). Fostering high intelligence may be good for the society as a whole, but I would argue that fostering conscientiousness among the populace is essential for developing and maintaining a society that is materially successful AND decent/just/harmonious.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @songbird, @silviosilver

    It is not inherent good in the moral context.

    You might think otherwise, if you lived in a country with a national IQ in the 70s.

    Germans, overall, do a good job in this – they have a three-tier secondary education system that channels students into menial/service labor, technical/trades labor, and university-track academics

    Blank-slatism and immigration might make it go by the wayside – pressures are being put on it

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @songbird

    The abortion debate is fascinating. Liberals, who usually instinctively go for the most caring and sharing position possible on most issues, suddenly become quite callous on the subject of abortion.

    The enthusiasm for abortion among some sections of the far right is even more interesting. It seems weirdly in conflict with their obsession about low fertility and their enthusiasm for pro-natalism. You can't get much more anti-natal than abortion.

    Many on the far right seem to be in favour of abortion because they believe (or at least hope) that it will reduce the black population of the US. So it's not a position based on any kind of moral arguments. It's simply an expression of their visceral hatred of blacks. They seem quite happy about the idea of unborn white babies being killed as long as more unborn black babies get killed.

    And then they wonder why so many people regard them as dangerously unhinged.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @silviosilver

  89. @dfordoom
    @songbird


    At a minimum, I think any moral state would need to acknowledge the following three premises:
    1.) intelligence is good
    2.) educating people does not make them intelligent
    3.) genes are what make people intelligent

     

    Those are all merely unproven assertions. They're assertions that are articles of faith on the far right but they're still merely unproven assertions.

    1). Intelligence can be useful but it's just one of many potentially useful qualities. A society of high-IQ psychopaths would be a dysfunctional nightmare. A functional society requires a whole range of desirable personality traits. And society is so complex that any attempt to artificially encourage the breeding of high IQ individuals could backfire - you could end up with a society that is deficient in other equally important personality traits. It is dangerous to fetishise intelligence.

    2). Whether education can affect raw IQ is uncertain. Despite the religious dogma of the HBD crowd it does seem possible that education can have at least a small effect. What matters is that intelligence is just the raw material - education converts the raw material into something useful. The purpose of education is not to turn people into nuclear physicists or mathematicians but to help them become useful members of society, and you don't necessarily need a high IQ to be a useful member of society. Your assertion on this point is based on a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of education.

    3). Genes are undoubtedly one of the factors that determine intelligence.

    Replies: @songbird

    It is dangerous to fetishise intelligence.

    Perhaps, but less so than fetishizing perfect equality.

    Despite the religious dogma of the HBD crowd it does seem possible that education can have at least a small effect.

    IQ is a proxy for intelligence. You can teach the test to a slight extent, but giving everyone pre-k education up to the 12th grade is not worth the resources. The follow up results are not impressive.

    3). Genes are undoubtedly one of the factors that determine intelligence.

    The main factor – this has been established with twin studies long ago. And the most is largely deterministic at birth, and not education.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @songbird



    It is dangerous to fetishise intelligence.
     
    Perhaps, but less so than fetishizing perfect equality.
     
    I don't do either of those things.

    In fact I distrust eugenics because I believe that people do vary widely in all sorts of ways and I suspect that a healthy society probably needs people of widely varying abilities and with widely varying strengths and weaknesses.

    Wouldn't a eugenics policy based on IQ be essentially a utopian scheme to achieve perfect equality?

    Replies: @silviosilver, @songbird

  90. @songbird
    @Twinkie


    It is not inherent good in the moral context.
     
    You might think otherwise, if you lived in a country with a national IQ in the 70s.

    Germans, overall, do a good job in this – they have a three-tier secondary education system that channels students into menial/service labor, technical/trades labor, and university-track academics
     
    Blank-slatism and immigration might make it go by the wayside - pressures are being put on it

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The abortion debate is fascinating. Liberals, who usually instinctively go for the most caring and sharing position possible on most issues, suddenly become quite callous on the subject of abortion.

    The enthusiasm for abortion among some sections of the far right is even more interesting. It seems weirdly in conflict with their obsession about low fertility and their enthusiasm for pro-natalism. You can’t get much more anti-natal than abortion.

    Many on the far right seem to be in favour of abortion because they believe (or at least hope) that it will reduce the black population of the US. So it’s not a position based on any kind of moral arguments. It’s simply an expression of their visceral hatred of blacks. They seem quite happy about the idea of unborn white babies being killed as long as more unborn black babies get killed.

    And then they wonder why so many people regard them as dangerously unhinged.

    • Agree: Wency
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    Many on the far right seem to be in favour of abortion because they believe (or at least hope) that it will reduce the black population of the US. So it’s not a position based on any kind of moral arguments. It’s simply an expression of their visceral hatred of blacks. They seem quite happy about the idea of unborn white babies being killed as long as more unborn black babies get killed.
     
    I know a straw man I'd like to introduce you to sometime. Great guy. Let's all do lunch together sometime next week, the three of us.

    Replies: @iffen

    , @silviosilver
    @dfordoom


    It’s simply an expression of their visceral hatred of blacks. They seem quite happy about the idea of unborn white babies being killed as long as more unborn black babies get killed.
     
    A fetus isn't a baby, so no one's killing any babies.

    You don't have to "viscerally hate" blacks to believe you (and, incidentally, they) would be better off with fewer of them around, especially with fewer of the most vicious sorts of blacks.

    "Abortion" is a very imprecise term when it refers to policy. There can be all sorts of abortion policies, not just a simple allow/disallow. Eugenically, it would be preferable to make it harder for certain people to get abortions and even easier for other people. The fact that present day abortion policy - a complete free-for-all - results in more blacks getting abortions is simply an unintended blessing.

  91. @songbird
    @dfordoom


    It is dangerous to fetishise intelligence.
     
    Perhaps, but less so than fetishizing perfect equality.

    Despite the religious dogma of the HBD crowd it does seem possible that education can have at least a small effect.
     
    IQ is a proxy for intelligence. You can teach the test to a slight extent, but giving everyone pre-k education up to the 12th grade is not worth the resources. The follow up results are not impressive.

    3). Genes are undoubtedly one of the factors that determine intelligence.
     
    The main factor - this has been established with twin studies long ago. And the most is largely deterministic at birth, and not education.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    It is dangerous to fetishise intelligence.

    Perhaps, but less so than fetishizing perfect equality.

    I don’t do either of those things.

    In fact I distrust eugenics because I believe that people do vary widely in all sorts of ways and I suspect that a healthy society probably needs people of widely varying abilities and with widely varying strengths and weaknesses.

    Wouldn’t a eugenics policy based on IQ be essentially a utopian scheme to achieve perfect equality?

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @dfordoom


    Wouldn’t a eugenics policy based on IQ be essentially a utopian scheme to achieve perfect equality?
     
    When someone tells you the objective is to raise the proportion of people with very high IQ, and to lower the proportion of people with very low IQ - not tomorrow, but over the course of generations - then doesn't this indicate to you that there is still going to be wide disparity of intelligence levels in society?

    And if it is does, then how can you possibly conclude that eugenics is a scheme to achieve "perfect equality"?

    In fact I distrust eugenics because I believe that people do vary widely in all sorts of ways and I suspect that a healthy society probably needs people of widely varying abilities and with widely varying strengths and weaknesses.
     
    People with higher IQ share same distribution of strengths and weaknesses in other traits as all other people.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @songbird
    @dfordoom


    Wouldn’t a eugenics policy based on IQ be essentially a utopian scheme to achieve perfect equality?
     
    I think there is a possible danger in radical egalitarians eventually taking it up, with that goal in mind.

    The way I conceive of it, though, is simpler and more restrained. Less dysgenics. Namely, trying to keep the average IQ from falling, or the smart fraction (the percentage of high IQ people) from falling. Smart fraction is necessary for innovation.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  92. @dfordoom
    @iffen


    AFAIK the genetics gods don’t give a rip whether your civilization survives, it only cares about the survival of genes.
     
    Agreed.

    The survival of individual genes, the survival of the species and the survival of civilisation are entirely different things.

    One of the big problems with eugenics is the same problem that all social engineering projects run into - unintended and unexpected consequences. You might think your eugenics program is selecting for qualities that will be useful to society but you might turn out to be entirely wrong. You might end up with too much of some desirable qualities, and with too little of other qualities that you hadn't realised were important.

    You might end up with a less functional society.

    If you're going to play at being gods you really need the wisdom of gods.

    Replies: @iffen, @silviosilver

    If you’re going to play at being gods you really need the wisdom of gods.

    A really good case can be made embracing the idea that if there are gods (is a God) said gods would be on the far left of the curve for wisdom.

  93. @dfordoom
    @songbird

    The abortion debate is fascinating. Liberals, who usually instinctively go for the most caring and sharing position possible on most issues, suddenly become quite callous on the subject of abortion.

    The enthusiasm for abortion among some sections of the far right is even more interesting. It seems weirdly in conflict with their obsession about low fertility and their enthusiasm for pro-natalism. You can't get much more anti-natal than abortion.

    Many on the far right seem to be in favour of abortion because they believe (or at least hope) that it will reduce the black population of the US. So it's not a position based on any kind of moral arguments. It's simply an expression of their visceral hatred of blacks. They seem quite happy about the idea of unborn white babies being killed as long as more unborn black babies get killed.

    And then they wonder why so many people regard them as dangerously unhinged.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @silviosilver

    Many on the far right seem to be in favour of abortion because they believe (or at least hope) that it will reduce the black population of the US. So it’s not a position based on any kind of moral arguments. It’s simply an expression of their visceral hatred of blacks. They seem quite happy about the idea of unborn white babies being killed as long as more unborn black babies get killed.

    I know a straw man I’d like to introduce you to sometime. Great guy. Let’s all do lunch together sometime next week, the three of us.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I know a straw man

    All he needs to do is replace "many" with "some" to make it an accurate observation.

    Replies: @Wency

  94. @anon
    @TomSchmidt

    People on the right don’t like to admit that, unless you’re willing to kill people, you have to have some way to support the ones who cannot hack it.

    There's a solution that you endorsed just last year. Why not promote it more this year?

    https://www.amazon.com/Defense-Looting-Riotous-History-Uncivil/dp/1645036693

    "She has a point" -- TomSchmidt

    Replies: @TomSchmidt

    Clearly, I was wrong: Vicky is not a she. Nice to see I have a fan!

  95. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    Many on the far right seem to be in favour of abortion because they believe (or at least hope) that it will reduce the black population of the US. So it’s not a position based on any kind of moral arguments. It’s simply an expression of their visceral hatred of blacks. They seem quite happy about the idea of unborn white babies being killed as long as more unborn black babies get killed.
     
    I know a straw man I'd like to introduce you to sometime. Great guy. Let's all do lunch together sometime next week, the three of us.

    Replies: @iffen

    I know a straw man

    All he needs to do is replace “many” with “some” to make it an accurate observation.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @iffen

    Yes, this definitely is not a straw man or even a weak man, it's a very common opinion on Unz.com, people say it all the time. For example, I see it first appeared as comment #5 on the last abortion thread: https://www.unz.com/anepigone/atheism-and-abortion/#comments

    I also think it might be more widespread on some of the other blogs/columns on this site (AE's has one of the more civil readerships, which is one reason I hang around here).

    My understanding is this is also, for example, Richard Spencer's position, and also not uncommon in the Stormfront and related crowds.

    But I don't think this opinion is even that uncommon in the wider world, among secular or nominally religious BoomerCon men. They just know better than to say it aloud. Though that's not something I can back up with direct citations, just a sense of some men I've known who are very focused on the racial question, but in normie terms.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Audacious Epigone

  96. @dfordoom
    @songbird



    It is dangerous to fetishise intelligence.
     
    Perhaps, but less so than fetishizing perfect equality.
     
    I don't do either of those things.

    In fact I distrust eugenics because I believe that people do vary widely in all sorts of ways and I suspect that a healthy society probably needs people of widely varying abilities and with widely varying strengths and weaknesses.

    Wouldn't a eugenics policy based on IQ be essentially a utopian scheme to achieve perfect equality?

    Replies: @silviosilver, @songbird

    Wouldn’t a eugenics policy based on IQ be essentially a utopian scheme to achieve perfect equality?

    When someone tells you the objective is to raise the proportion of people with very high IQ, and to lower the proportion of people with very low IQ – not tomorrow, but over the course of generations – then doesn’t this indicate to you that there is still going to be wide disparity of intelligence levels in society?

    And if it is does, then how can you possibly conclude that eugenics is a scheme to achieve “perfect equality”?

    In fact I distrust eugenics because I believe that people do vary widely in all sorts of ways and I suspect that a healthy society probably needs people of widely varying abilities and with widely varying strengths and weaknesses.

    People with higher IQ share same distribution of strengths and weaknesses in other traits as all other people.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @silviosilver


    People with higher IQ share same distribution of strengths and weaknesses in other traits as all other people.
     
    Do they? Do we know that for a fact?

    Do we know that genes (and we're probably talking many genes) that contribute to intelligence have no effect whatsoever on other personality traits?

    It's possible, but I'm not sure we can be as dogmatic as saying that high IQ people don't differ from lower IQ people in any respect other than IQ scores.

    Replies: @silviosilver

  97. @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I know a straw man

    All he needs to do is replace "many" with "some" to make it an accurate observation.

    Replies: @Wency

    Yes, this definitely is not a straw man or even a weak man, it’s a very common opinion on Unz.com, people say it all the time. For example, I see it first appeared as comment #5 on the last abortion thread: https://www.unz.com/anepigone/atheism-and-abortion/#comments

    I also think it might be more widespread on some of the other blogs/columns on this site (AE’s has one of the more civil readerships, which is one reason I hang around here).

    My understanding is this is also, for example, Richard Spencer’s position, and also not uncommon in the Stormfront and related crowds.

    But I don’t think this opinion is even that uncommon in the wider world, among secular or nominally religious BoomerCon men. They just know better than to say it aloud. Though that’s not something I can back up with direct citations, just a sense of some men I’ve known who are very focused on the racial question, but in normie terms.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Wency

    The hate card derails debate.

    I am confident that neither you nor @iffen nor @dfordoom has played the hate card with deliberate mischief, but as long as hate haters on the left have suppressed and censored “far-right” opinion (which opinion, in most instances, would more accurately be described as “utterly centrist paleoconservatism” or, better, “unremarkable, uncontroversial things your great-grandfather believed”), why, I shall decline the premise.

    When will the right finally figure out that the left is dealing from a bottomless deck of projectionary slanders? The left can deal those cards faster than we can rip them up.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @iffen

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Wency

    I don’t think this opinion is even that uncommon in the wider world, among secular or nominally religious BoomerCon men.

    Agree. They're the same types who hear about 7 people murdered in Chicago over the weekend and say, "Good, let them kill each other".

  98. @dfordoom
    @songbird

    The abortion debate is fascinating. Liberals, who usually instinctively go for the most caring and sharing position possible on most issues, suddenly become quite callous on the subject of abortion.

    The enthusiasm for abortion among some sections of the far right is even more interesting. It seems weirdly in conflict with their obsession about low fertility and their enthusiasm for pro-natalism. You can't get much more anti-natal than abortion.

    Many on the far right seem to be in favour of abortion because they believe (or at least hope) that it will reduce the black population of the US. So it's not a position based on any kind of moral arguments. It's simply an expression of their visceral hatred of blacks. They seem quite happy about the idea of unborn white babies being killed as long as more unborn black babies get killed.

    And then they wonder why so many people regard them as dangerously unhinged.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @silviosilver

    It’s simply an expression of their visceral hatred of blacks. They seem quite happy about the idea of unborn white babies being killed as long as more unborn black babies get killed.

    A fetus isn’t a baby, so no one’s killing any babies.

    You don’t have to “viscerally hate” blacks to believe you (and, incidentally, they) would be better off with fewer of them around, especially with fewer of the most vicious sorts of blacks.

    “Abortion” is a very imprecise term when it refers to policy. There can be all sorts of abortion policies, not just a simple allow/disallow. Eugenically, it would be preferable to make it harder for certain people to get abortions and even easier for other people. The fact that present day abortion policy – a complete free-for-all – results in more blacks getting abortions is simply an unintended blessing.

  99. @dfordoom
    @iffen


    AFAIK the genetics gods don’t give a rip whether your civilization survives, it only cares about the survival of genes.
     
    Agreed.

    The survival of individual genes, the survival of the species and the survival of civilisation are entirely different things.

    One of the big problems with eugenics is the same problem that all social engineering projects run into - unintended and unexpected consequences. You might think your eugenics program is selecting for qualities that will be useful to society but you might turn out to be entirely wrong. You might end up with too much of some desirable qualities, and with too little of other qualities that you hadn't realised were important.

    You might end up with a less functional society.

    If you're going to play at being gods you really need the wisdom of gods.

    Replies: @iffen, @silviosilver

    You might end up with a less functional society.

    If you’re going to play at being gods you really need the wisdom of gods.

    The same reasoning applies to free-breeding.

    Take a profile of the people who are having children in the present generation (or perhaps for the past few), in which free-breeding is given free rein, and then imagine that that precise profile had been dreamed up and implemented by eugenicists.

    “Oh my gosh, you want this specific profile of people to have children rather than some other profile? What makes you think you know what you’re doing? Have you thought about the risks, the consequences? Stop playing God!!!!!!!!”

    It’s the same thing.

    In fact, free-breeding, if you ask me, is even more dangerous. “Oh, but it’s gotten us to this point in fairly decent shape, so how bad can it be?” Well, what if there had been a chance to, say, avoid the two world wars? To avoid communist brutality? We can’t know, but the possibility is certainly open. We really need to abandon this idea that free-breeding is necessarily the “safest” option. Get real.

  100. @Alexander Turok
    @dfordoom

    There's no slippery slope because fetuses are neither rational nor self-aware. They have no desire to live that one is taking away.

    Replies: @iffen, @Wency

    You’ve made this point before and I think I’ve disagreed with it before — maybe this moral framework works for you, but as it happens neither my framework nor yours is the one the left is using. The political Schelling Point around abortion is based on the location of the child (inside the mother or not) and not the child’s cognitive capabilities, which increase continuously from conception to adulthood. There is no step change when a child leaves the womb, which is an arbitrary and flexible moment in time.

    But I hadn’t thought much about the question of an abortion slippery slope, so I’ll speculate on it a moment. Again, I think the political matter is bound up in location of the child, so I doubt it could “slip” to infants and beyond (which is not to say our enemies would never start murdering our children, only that they’d justify it in other terms). The most probable direction of a slippery slope, then, is leading towards mandatory abortion of undesirables. Something like this may already exist in the PRC, or so they say, so it’s not so great a stretch.

    If Down’s Syndrome is a genetic malformation that must be cured by culling, then how much more important is eliminating the genetic disease known as “whiteness”, the cause of all humanity’s troubles? Though really, I don’t see them saying such things entirely out loud. More likely fetuses receive a social credit score partly inherited from the parents but affected by features of the child’s genome (calculated by an algorithm that is less than fully transparent), and those below a certain score face mandatory abortion. Which, as we know, is morally equivalent to removing a tumor, so what are the grounds to really object?

    • Agree: dfordoom
  101. Clearly, I was wrong: Vicky is not a she.

    Yes, that error of yours was obvious last year. Although now you can be accused of transphobia.

    So why not promote looting this year the way you did last year? Wouldn’t that solve the problem?

  102. @Wency
    @iffen

    Yes, this definitely is not a straw man or even a weak man, it's a very common opinion on Unz.com, people say it all the time. For example, I see it first appeared as comment #5 on the last abortion thread: https://www.unz.com/anepigone/atheism-and-abortion/#comments

    I also think it might be more widespread on some of the other blogs/columns on this site (AE's has one of the more civil readerships, which is one reason I hang around here).

    My understanding is this is also, for example, Richard Spencer's position, and also not uncommon in the Stormfront and related crowds.

    But I don't think this opinion is even that uncommon in the wider world, among secular or nominally religious BoomerCon men. They just know better than to say it aloud. Though that's not something I can back up with direct citations, just a sense of some men I've known who are very focused on the racial question, but in normie terms.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Audacious Epigone

    The hate card derails debate.

    I am confident that neither you nor nor has played the hate card with deliberate mischief, but as long as hate haters on the left have suppressed and censored “far-right” opinion (which opinion, in most instances, would more accurately be described as “utterly centrist paleoconservatism” or, better, “unremarkable, uncontroversial things your great-grandfather believed”), why, I shall decline the premise.

    When will the right finally figure out that the left is dealing from a bottomless deck of projectionary slanders? The left can deal those cards faster than we can rip them up.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    When will the right finally figure out that the left is dealing from a bottomless deck of projectionary slanders?
     
    It really isn't a projectionary slander. The view that abortion is OK as long as it's black unborn babies being aborted is a view that has been expressed on Unz Review many times by white nationalists and alt-righters. And it really is a very very extreme position. Some people are so blinded by racial hatred that they don't seem to appreciate just how extreme a position it is.

    Look at it this way. How would you react if a feminist said she was OK with abortion as long as it was male unborn babies being aborted? How would you react if a black person said abortion was A-OK as long as it was white unborn babies being aborted? How would you react if a Democrat said abortion was a good thing as long as it was the unborn babies of Republicans being aborted? Or the unborn babies of Christians? Because that's how extreme such a position really is.

    It's not liberals and leftists who are making this up. White nationalists really do openly express such views.

    This is not a case of liberals or leftists spreading lies about white nationalists to discredit them. This is a case of (some) white nationalists expressing extreme views that discredit their own political movement. This is an own goal on the part of (some) white nationalists. This is a self-inflicted injury.

    And you can use the term foetus if you think it makes such a position sound less extreme and less horrific, but it's still an extreme and horrific viewpoint.

    It doesn't even matter whether you're pro-abortion or anti-abortion in general, people who celebrate abortion as a means of eliminating people of whom they disapprove from the population is something that really is going to hopelessly discredit white nationalism.

    And as for playing the hate card, the sad fact is that there really are white nationalists who are driven by pathological hatred. This is also not a lie spread by liberals and leftists.

    If you genuinely want to advocate for white nationalism you'd be wise not to defend the idea of abortion as a useful tool for reducing the black population. In political terms it's a loser move.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @V. K. Ovelund, @John Johnson

    , @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    has played the hate card with deliberate mischief

    I had not put you in the group.

    It is a real surprise to me that you would take that position with regard to abortion.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  103. @silviosilver
    @dfordoom


    Wouldn’t a eugenics policy based on IQ be essentially a utopian scheme to achieve perfect equality?
     
    When someone tells you the objective is to raise the proportion of people with very high IQ, and to lower the proportion of people with very low IQ - not tomorrow, but over the course of generations - then doesn't this indicate to you that there is still going to be wide disparity of intelligence levels in society?

    And if it is does, then how can you possibly conclude that eugenics is a scheme to achieve "perfect equality"?

    In fact I distrust eugenics because I believe that people do vary widely in all sorts of ways and I suspect that a healthy society probably needs people of widely varying abilities and with widely varying strengths and weaknesses.
     
    People with higher IQ share same distribution of strengths and weaknesses in other traits as all other people.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    People with higher IQ share same distribution of strengths and weaknesses in other traits as all other people.

    Do they? Do we know that for a fact?

    Do we know that genes (and we’re probably talking many genes) that contribute to intelligence have no effect whatsoever on other personality traits?

    It’s possible, but I’m not sure we can be as dogmatic as saying that high IQ people don’t differ from lower IQ people in any respect other than IQ scores.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @dfordoom

    Do you ask the same questions, with the same urgency, and create the same panic about the answers when it comes to lower IQ people outbreeding higher IQ people, as this the case today?

    "Oh my God, lower IQ people may not have the same range of strengths and weaknesses as higher IQ people, and yet they're breeding at a higher rate!! People, listen, this is serious!! We can't be sure we know what we're doing if we let this continue!!!"

    Those are not concerns I've heard you so much as hint at.

  104. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Wency

    The hate card derails debate.

    I am confident that neither you nor @iffen nor @dfordoom has played the hate card with deliberate mischief, but as long as hate haters on the left have suppressed and censored “far-right” opinion (which opinion, in most instances, would more accurately be described as “utterly centrist paleoconservatism” or, better, “unremarkable, uncontroversial things your great-grandfather believed”), why, I shall decline the premise.

    When will the right finally figure out that the left is dealing from a bottomless deck of projectionary slanders? The left can deal those cards faster than we can rip them up.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @iffen

    When will the right finally figure out that the left is dealing from a bottomless deck of projectionary slanders?

    It really isn’t a projectionary slander. The view that abortion is OK as long as it’s black unborn babies being aborted is a view that has been expressed on Unz Review many times by white nationalists and alt-righters. And it really is a very very extreme position. Some people are so blinded by racial hatred that they don’t seem to appreciate just how extreme a position it is.

    Look at it this way. How would you react if a feminist said she was OK with abortion as long as it was male unborn babies being aborted? How would you react if a black person said abortion was A-OK as long as it was white unborn babies being aborted? How would you react if a Democrat said abortion was a good thing as long as it was the unborn babies of Republicans being aborted? Or the unborn babies of Christians? Because that’s how extreme such a position really is.

    It’s not liberals and leftists who are making this up. White nationalists really do openly express such views.

    This is not a case of liberals or leftists spreading lies about white nationalists to discredit them. This is a case of (some) white nationalists expressing extreme views that discredit their own political movement. This is an own goal on the part of (some) white nationalists. This is a self-inflicted injury.

    And you can use the term foetus if you think it makes such a position sound less extreme and less horrific, but it’s still an extreme and horrific viewpoint.

    It doesn’t even matter whether you’re pro-abortion or anti-abortion in general, people who celebrate abortion as a means of eliminating people of whom they disapprove from the population is something that really is going to hopelessly discredit white nationalism.

    And as for playing the hate card, the sad fact is that there really are white nationalists who are driven by pathological hatred. This is also not a lie spread by liberals and leftists.

    If you genuinely want to advocate for white nationalism you’d be wise not to defend the idea of abortion as a useful tool for reducing the black population. In political terms it’s a loser move.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @dfordoom


    If you genuinely want to advocate for white nationalism you’d be wise not to defend the idea of abortion as a useful tool for reducing the black population. In political terms it’s a loser move.
     
    Abortion is voluntary. No one is forcing blacks to abort. The fact they do so at a higher rate than whites is simply a bonus; and it's one that it's worthwhile making clear to those pro-whites who are inclined to be anti-abortion. I've never suggested it should be some central plank of pro-white politics, to be publicly announced on every occasion.

    You're not wrong that the public would take it badly. The public takes any notion that political outcomes should favor white interests badly - very badly. If the public reaction were to be the standard for what we're permitted to discuss on this site, hardly anything would ever get said.
    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    If you genuinely want to advocate for white nationalism you’d be wise not to defend the idea of abortion as a useful tool for reducing the black population. In political terms it’s a loser move.
     
    At some point during the discussion, I lost the thread. Striving for brevity, I seem instead to have achieved opacity, so now you and I are talking about two different things. I cannot recall, any time during my life, referring to abortion as a tool for any purpose other than murder.

    I hope that @silviosilver will take no offense if I observe that, somehow, I appear inadvertently to have fallen into a transitory coalition with him for purpose of this thread. Our coalition resembles one of those accidental parliamentary governing coalitions consisting of, say, free-market libertarians on the one hand and throne-and-altar monarchists on the other. There is little real logic to it.

    I had better defer to Minister @silviosilver to answer further questions on the topic! He speaks for his party rather than mine.

    Replies: @silviosilver

    , @John Johnson
    @dfordoom

    It really isn’t a projectionary slander. The view that abortion is OK as long as it’s black unborn babies being aborted is a view that has been expressed on Unz Review many times by white nationalists and alt-righters. And it really is a very very extreme position. Some people are so blinded by racial hatred that they don’t seem to appreciate just how extreme a position it is.

    I don't think it is that extreme. There aren't enough Christian conservatives or liberals willing to adopt the unwanted Black children that already exist. So you could argue it is a separate problem because they have a harder time finding adoptive parents for Black kids.

    Is there any political gain here? Probably not. Abortion is really just politically toxic in any form.

  105. @dfordoom
    @silviosilver


    People with higher IQ share same distribution of strengths and weaknesses in other traits as all other people.
     
    Do they? Do we know that for a fact?

    Do we know that genes (and we're probably talking many genes) that contribute to intelligence have no effect whatsoever on other personality traits?

    It's possible, but I'm not sure we can be as dogmatic as saying that high IQ people don't differ from lower IQ people in any respect other than IQ scores.

    Replies: @silviosilver

    Do you ask the same questions, with the same urgency, and create the same panic about the answers when it comes to lower IQ people outbreeding higher IQ people, as this the case today?

    “Oh my God, lower IQ people may not have the same range of strengths and weaknesses as higher IQ people, and yet they’re breeding at a higher rate!! People, listen, this is serious!! We can’t be sure we know what we’re doing if we let this continue!!!”

    Those are not concerns I’ve heard you so much as hint at.

  106. @Twinkie
    @songbird


    At a minimum, I think any moral state would need to acknowledge the following three premises:
    1.) intelligence is good
    2.) educating people does not make them intelligent
    3.) genes are what make people intelligent
     
    Disagree.

    1) Intelligence is a tool. It can be utilized for good or evil. It is not inherent good in the moral context.
    2) Educating people may not make them more intelligent, but it can make them wiser, both spiritually and materially - at all levels of intelligence. But I would agree that the said education should be tailored to the cognitive profiles of the pupils. Germans, overall, do a good job in this - they have a three-tier secondary education system that channels students into menial/service labor, technical/trades labor, and university-track academics, and provide relevant practicum as well.
    3) Intelligence is highly heritable, but genes aren't the only variable.

    One thing to keep in mind is that, conscientiousness (or persistence) is highly correlated with personal success/achievement, perhaps more so than even intelligence (though, of course, the two are also correlated). Fostering high intelligence may be good for the society as a whole, but I would argue that fostering conscientiousness among the populace is essential for developing and maintaining a society that is materially successful AND decent/just/harmonious.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @songbird, @silviosilver

    Fostering high intelligence may be good for the society as a whole, but I would argue that fostering conscientiousness among the populace is essential for developing and maintaining a society that is materially successful AND decent/just/harmonious.

    Conscientiousness, of itself, won’t necessarily lead to decency/justice/harmony. By all accounts, Adolf Eichmann was a conscientious worker, yet he’s hardly a byword for decency and justice.

    Citing the importance of conscientiousness is mostly a way to wriggle out of the implication that biology places some fairly hard limits on what various individuals are capable of. If we admit the importance of intelligence, then we’re admitting that certain desirable accomplishments are, for all intents and purposes, forever going to be out of reach for certain people. If we tell ourselves it’s all about conscientiousness, we can imagine that if we’d just work hard enough at it, any of us could do anything.

    That isn’t to downplay the importance of conscientiousness. It’s critically important. It’s just that by itself, it won’t always be enough, depending on the task.

  107. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    When will the right finally figure out that the left is dealing from a bottomless deck of projectionary slanders?
     
    It really isn't a projectionary slander. The view that abortion is OK as long as it's black unborn babies being aborted is a view that has been expressed on Unz Review many times by white nationalists and alt-righters. And it really is a very very extreme position. Some people are so blinded by racial hatred that they don't seem to appreciate just how extreme a position it is.

    Look at it this way. How would you react if a feminist said she was OK with abortion as long as it was male unborn babies being aborted? How would you react if a black person said abortion was A-OK as long as it was white unborn babies being aborted? How would you react if a Democrat said abortion was a good thing as long as it was the unborn babies of Republicans being aborted? Or the unborn babies of Christians? Because that's how extreme such a position really is.

    It's not liberals and leftists who are making this up. White nationalists really do openly express such views.

    This is not a case of liberals or leftists spreading lies about white nationalists to discredit them. This is a case of (some) white nationalists expressing extreme views that discredit their own political movement. This is an own goal on the part of (some) white nationalists. This is a self-inflicted injury.

    And you can use the term foetus if you think it makes such a position sound less extreme and less horrific, but it's still an extreme and horrific viewpoint.

    It doesn't even matter whether you're pro-abortion or anti-abortion in general, people who celebrate abortion as a means of eliminating people of whom they disapprove from the population is something that really is going to hopelessly discredit white nationalism.

    And as for playing the hate card, the sad fact is that there really are white nationalists who are driven by pathological hatred. This is also not a lie spread by liberals and leftists.

    If you genuinely want to advocate for white nationalism you'd be wise not to defend the idea of abortion as a useful tool for reducing the black population. In political terms it's a loser move.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @V. K. Ovelund, @John Johnson

    If you genuinely want to advocate for white nationalism you’d be wise not to defend the idea of abortion as a useful tool for reducing the black population. In political terms it’s a loser move.

    Abortion is voluntary. No one is forcing blacks to abort. The fact they do so at a higher rate than whites is simply a bonus; and it’s one that it’s worthwhile making clear to those pro-whites who are inclined to be anti-abortion. I’ve never suggested it should be some central plank of pro-white politics, to be publicly announced on every occasion.

    You’re not wrong that the public would take it badly. The public takes any notion that political outcomes should favor white interests badly – very badly. If the public reaction were to be the standard for what we’re permitted to discuss on this site, hardly anything would ever get said.

  108. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    When will the right finally figure out that the left is dealing from a bottomless deck of projectionary slanders?
     
    It really isn't a projectionary slander. The view that abortion is OK as long as it's black unborn babies being aborted is a view that has been expressed on Unz Review many times by white nationalists and alt-righters. And it really is a very very extreme position. Some people are so blinded by racial hatred that they don't seem to appreciate just how extreme a position it is.

    Look at it this way. How would you react if a feminist said she was OK with abortion as long as it was male unborn babies being aborted? How would you react if a black person said abortion was A-OK as long as it was white unborn babies being aborted? How would you react if a Democrat said abortion was a good thing as long as it was the unborn babies of Republicans being aborted? Or the unborn babies of Christians? Because that's how extreme such a position really is.

    It's not liberals and leftists who are making this up. White nationalists really do openly express such views.

    This is not a case of liberals or leftists spreading lies about white nationalists to discredit them. This is a case of (some) white nationalists expressing extreme views that discredit their own political movement. This is an own goal on the part of (some) white nationalists. This is a self-inflicted injury.

    And you can use the term foetus if you think it makes such a position sound less extreme and less horrific, but it's still an extreme and horrific viewpoint.

    It doesn't even matter whether you're pro-abortion or anti-abortion in general, people who celebrate abortion as a means of eliminating people of whom they disapprove from the population is something that really is going to hopelessly discredit white nationalism.

    And as for playing the hate card, the sad fact is that there really are white nationalists who are driven by pathological hatred. This is also not a lie spread by liberals and leftists.

    If you genuinely want to advocate for white nationalism you'd be wise not to defend the idea of abortion as a useful tool for reducing the black population. In political terms it's a loser move.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @V. K. Ovelund, @John Johnson

    If you genuinely want to advocate for white nationalism you’d be wise not to defend the idea of abortion as a useful tool for reducing the black population. In political terms it’s a loser move.

    At some point during the discussion, I lost the thread. Striving for brevity, I seem instead to have achieved opacity, so now you and I are talking about two different things. I cannot recall, any time during my life, referring to abortion as a tool for any purpose other than murder.

    I hope that will take no offense if I observe that, somehow, I appear inadvertently to have fallen into a transitory coalition with him for purpose of this thread. Our coalition resembles one of those accidental parliamentary governing coalitions consisting of, say, free-market libertarians on the one hand and throne-and-altar monarchists on the other. There is little real logic to it.

    I had better defer to Minister to answer further questions on the topic! He speaks for his party rather than mine.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I had better defer to Minister @silviosilver to answer further questions on the topic! He speaks for his party rather than mine.
     
    A convenient way to salve your conscience, but whatever helps you sleep easier, pal. I'm just happy for the political support.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  109. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    If you genuinely want to advocate for white nationalism you’d be wise not to defend the idea of abortion as a useful tool for reducing the black population. In political terms it’s a loser move.
     
    At some point during the discussion, I lost the thread. Striving for brevity, I seem instead to have achieved opacity, so now you and I are talking about two different things. I cannot recall, any time during my life, referring to abortion as a tool for any purpose other than murder.

    I hope that @silviosilver will take no offense if I observe that, somehow, I appear inadvertently to have fallen into a transitory coalition with him for purpose of this thread. Our coalition resembles one of those accidental parliamentary governing coalitions consisting of, say, free-market libertarians on the one hand and throne-and-altar monarchists on the other. There is little real logic to it.

    I had better defer to Minister @silviosilver to answer further questions on the topic! He speaks for his party rather than mine.

    Replies: @silviosilver

    I had better defer to Minister to answer further questions on the topic! He speaks for his party rather than mine.

    A convenient way to salve your conscience, but whatever helps you sleep easier, pal. I’m just happy for the political support.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @silviosilver


    A convenient way to salve your conscience, but whatever helps you sleep easier, pal. I’m just happy for the political support.
     
    You and NJP have the political support. Not many of us Boomers really grasp that European man is on a dire collision course with humiliation and extinction, but a few of us do.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @dfordoom

  110. @silviosilver
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I had better defer to Minister @silviosilver to answer further questions on the topic! He speaks for his party rather than mine.
     
    A convenient way to salve your conscience, but whatever helps you sleep easier, pal. I'm just happy for the political support.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    A convenient way to salve your conscience, but whatever helps you sleep easier, pal. I’m just happy for the political support.

    You and NJP have the political support. Not many of us Boomers really grasp that European man is on a dire collision course with humiliation and extinction, but a few of us do.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Whoever said politics makes strange bedfellows wasn't wrong. I quite literally would not want to be in the same room as those NJP punks. Hell, I doubt I could even bring myself to attend an Amren conference (a much milder bunch than the NJP). But their stand on race is close enough to mine that I have to put those misgivings aside.

    , @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Not many of us Boomers really grasp that European man is on a dire collision course with humiliation and extinction, but a few of us do.
     
    I don't disagree with that, although personally I think the entire species is on a dire collision course with extinction.

    Most Boomers still believe that the biggest threat that we face is over-population. That's what they believed in the 70s and 80s and most people, sadly, can never really escape from the beliefs they were indoctrinated into when young.

    But it's not just Boomers. The environmentalists did their work well and even among younger people you'll find that there's an overwhelmingly strong belief that the world is over-populated and that over-population is killing the planet.

    Out in the real world, as distinct from Unz Review, I have never encountered a single person (of any age) who has any awareness that we're facing demographic collapse.

    I don't see much chance of turning things around unless and until people become aware that demographic collapse is a real thing.

    That's a huge problem that faces all of us who actually are aware of the problem. Whatever our other differences might be the big priority has to be to convince people that demographic collapse is real.
  111. @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Theodor Mommsen
     
    1) Wow. You are well-read for a non-historian!

    2) Mommsen was vastly overrated and was wrong about a lot. Just ask Hans Delbrück. ;)

    Replies: @nebulafox

    >Hans Delbrück

    Father of Max Delbrück. Funny how the specialties of these antebellum German-world academic families went by generation, or sometimes within the same one. You’d have historians and jurists and diplomats (the von Weizsäckers, as one example) coexisting with physicists and chemists and mathematicians. They all got the brain gift, but different hemisphere distributions.

  112. @V. K. Ovelund
    @silviosilver


    A convenient way to salve your conscience, but whatever helps you sleep easier, pal. I’m just happy for the political support.
     
    You and NJP have the political support. Not many of us Boomers really grasp that European man is on a dire collision course with humiliation and extinction, but a few of us do.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @dfordoom

    Whoever said politics makes strange bedfellows wasn’t wrong. I quite literally would not want to be in the same room as those NJP punks. Hell, I doubt I could even bring myself to attend an Amren conference (a much milder bunch than the NJP). But their stand on race is close enough to mine that I have to put those misgivings aside.

  113. @Caspar von Everec
    Both Conservatives and liberals have their own brand of dysgenics. Its just that the liberal one is far worse and irreperable.

    Conservative dysgenics would be Christian lunacy like not aborting down syndrome babies or other mentally deficient children. Honestly this isn't even dysgenic per se. Bulk of these unfortunate people never reproduce to begin with as no one wants them. So it has no real impact in the long run.

    Liberal dysgenics otoh is irreversible and far more destructive. Their most sacred virtue is race mixing and self sterilization for the environment. Educated liberal women and soy men tie their tubes or get vasectomies in order to save the environemnt or prevent future oppression.

    This completely eradicates many educated(tho perhaps naive) people from the gene pool. Even worse is the africanization. Liberals heavily support mixing with blacks. It stops future ''oppression'' of black people and in their mind it is an act of virtue to abolish whiteness.

    The one world mulatto race is effectively their biggest dream. This dream of a black world free of mystical racism where they can finally achieve gay space communism like star trek. And this race mixing propaganda is prominent in every facet of their culture, be it ads, comic books, movies, games, tv series, porn...everything.

    And this is something from which there is really no recovery.

    The greedy Brazilian capitalist elite instead of sending back black slaves to Africa kept them and allowed miscegenation. Now Brazil is an 87 IQ mulatto country with no presence on the world stage. For all its resources, size and long period of statehood, it should be a world power like the US but instead its a giant favela.

    This is despite mass european migration. That's how corrosive black genes are. Same with all of Latin America to be honest. Race mixing with blacks destroyed the genetic potential of 6 million or so Italians, Portguese, Russians and Germans that went to Brazil after its independence from Portugal.

    Even today, Brazil nominally has the third largest white population in the world at 91 million. Though in reality they are more akin to Castizos.

    Look at Northern India, Central Asia or Iran to witness the irreversability of miscegenation. These regions were once dominated by Aryans. Now aside from some small enclaves in central Asia and Eastern Iran, they are nowhere to be found.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @John Johnson

    Conservative dysgenics would be Christian lunacy like not aborting down syndrome babies or other mentally deficient children. Honestly this isn’t even dysgenic per se. Bulk of these unfortunate people never reproduce to begin with as no one wants them. So it has no real impact in the long run.

    I would add breeding with weak and effeminate church going males over outside strong men. Church women are pressured to find mates of the same church or denomination. This selects against men that have strong genes but aren’t active in the church. In fact much of church culture is really just beta men helping each other.

    But this is still much less destructive than liberalism.

    This completely eradicates many educated(tho perhaps naive) people from the gene pool. Even worse is the africanization. Liberals heavily support mixing with blacks. It stops future ”oppression” of black people and in their mind it is an act of virtue to abolish whiteness.

    I would add that a lot of liberals are aware that race exists and view miscegenation as the only solution.

    I’ve long suspected that their plans to bring in Hispanics to Black cities were in part for gene dilution. This is why so many Democrat mayors have no problem with businesses hiring illegals even when there are plenty of Black workers available. In fact we have seen Democrat mayors do everything they can to protect illegals from the Fed. What they want is to replace US Blacks with Mestizo mixed Blacks. But from what I have seen recently immigrated Hispanics have zero interest in helping with this plan.

    There are also conservatives that support race mixing for the same reason. They quietly support creating mulattoes to help smooth the curve. They are globalists that view race as bad for the stock market. In their minds we are better off sticking some half-breeds in executive positions rather than risking a questioning of both multiracial society and capitalism. The latter is really the driving factor.

    Great points though.

  114. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    When will the right finally figure out that the left is dealing from a bottomless deck of projectionary slanders?
     
    It really isn't a projectionary slander. The view that abortion is OK as long as it's black unborn babies being aborted is a view that has been expressed on Unz Review many times by white nationalists and alt-righters. And it really is a very very extreme position. Some people are so blinded by racial hatred that they don't seem to appreciate just how extreme a position it is.

    Look at it this way. How would you react if a feminist said she was OK with abortion as long as it was male unborn babies being aborted? How would you react if a black person said abortion was A-OK as long as it was white unborn babies being aborted? How would you react if a Democrat said abortion was a good thing as long as it was the unborn babies of Republicans being aborted? Or the unborn babies of Christians? Because that's how extreme such a position really is.

    It's not liberals and leftists who are making this up. White nationalists really do openly express such views.

    This is not a case of liberals or leftists spreading lies about white nationalists to discredit them. This is a case of (some) white nationalists expressing extreme views that discredit their own political movement. This is an own goal on the part of (some) white nationalists. This is a self-inflicted injury.

    And you can use the term foetus if you think it makes such a position sound less extreme and less horrific, but it's still an extreme and horrific viewpoint.

    It doesn't even matter whether you're pro-abortion or anti-abortion in general, people who celebrate abortion as a means of eliminating people of whom they disapprove from the population is something that really is going to hopelessly discredit white nationalism.

    And as for playing the hate card, the sad fact is that there really are white nationalists who are driven by pathological hatred. This is also not a lie spread by liberals and leftists.

    If you genuinely want to advocate for white nationalism you'd be wise not to defend the idea of abortion as a useful tool for reducing the black population. In political terms it's a loser move.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @V. K. Ovelund, @John Johnson

    It really isn’t a projectionary slander. The view that abortion is OK as long as it’s black unborn babies being aborted is a view that has been expressed on Unz Review many times by white nationalists and alt-righters. And it really is a very very extreme position. Some people are so blinded by racial hatred that they don’t seem to appreciate just how extreme a position it is.

    I don’t think it is that extreme. There aren’t enough Christian conservatives or liberals willing to adopt the unwanted Black children that already exist. So you could argue it is a separate problem because they have a harder time finding adoptive parents for Black kids.

    Is there any political gain here? Probably not. Abortion is really just politically toxic in any form.

  115. @V. K. Ovelund
    @silviosilver


    A convenient way to salve your conscience, but whatever helps you sleep easier, pal. I’m just happy for the political support.
     
    You and NJP have the political support. Not many of us Boomers really grasp that European man is on a dire collision course with humiliation and extinction, but a few of us do.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @dfordoom

    Not many of us Boomers really grasp that European man is on a dire collision course with humiliation and extinction, but a few of us do.

    I don’t disagree with that, although personally I think the entire species is on a dire collision course with extinction.

    Most Boomers still believe that the biggest threat that we face is over-population. That’s what they believed in the 70s and 80s and most people, sadly, can never really escape from the beliefs they were indoctrinated into when young.

    But it’s not just Boomers. The environmentalists did their work well and even among younger people you’ll find that there’s an overwhelmingly strong belief that the world is over-populated and that over-population is killing the planet.

    Out in the real world, as distinct from Unz Review, I have never encountered a single person (of any age) who has any awareness that we’re facing demographic collapse.

    I don’t see much chance of turning things around unless and until people become aware that demographic collapse is a real thing.

    That’s a huge problem that faces all of us who actually are aware of the problem. Whatever our other differences might be the big priority has to be to convince people that demographic collapse is real.

  116. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Wency

    The hate card derails debate.

    I am confident that neither you nor @iffen nor @dfordoom has played the hate card with deliberate mischief, but as long as hate haters on the left have suppressed and censored “far-right” opinion (which opinion, in most instances, would more accurately be described as “utterly centrist paleoconservatism” or, better, “unremarkable, uncontroversial things your great-grandfather believed”), why, I shall decline the premise.

    When will the right finally figure out that the left is dealing from a bottomless deck of projectionary slanders? The left can deal those cards faster than we can rip them up.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @iffen

    has played the hate card with deliberate mischief

    I had not put you in the group.

    It is a real surprise to me that you would take that position with regard to abortion.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen


    It is a real surprise to me that you would take that position with regard to abortion.
     
    I have not adequately explained my position. I had started to write it up, but the result was much too long to impose on readers, so I dropped it.

    My one-word explanation is: subsidiarity.

    Wency got the point, though he disagreed, for he already understood the context; but I failed to explain the point well enough to convey it clearly to the rest of the readership.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @iffen

  117. @Twinkie
    @Usura


    In Rome and Sparta
     
    Ancient Rome and Sparta had lots of things most sane, civilized people would consider barbaric these days such as a Roman paterfamilias having an absolute power of life and death over his family (yeah, honor killings we decry as a Pakistani barbarity were very Roman) and Spartan peers having homosexual relationships with their boy charges and then teaching the latter to murder slaves.

    Infanticide IS barbaric, strictly or otherwise.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @RSDB

    Infanticide IS barbaric, strictly or otherwise.

    I agree of course that it is bad, but in what sense is it barbaric? Or are you using “civilization” or “civilized” as terms to describe more humane and less cruel forms of conduct in general?

  118. RSDB says:
    @iffen
    @Twinkie

    You are obviously too uninformed to get the joke.

    Obviously.

    I just didn't know that you counted yourself among that part of the right.

    Replies: @RSDB

    “Read everything but the Bible” is a joke related to the (not entirely unfounded, at least in relative terms) Protestant idea that Catholics a) don’t read the Bible as often as Protestants do and b) are more likely than Protestants to read devotional literature other than the Bible, like, say, the Imitation of Christ or the Ascent of Mount Carmel.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @RSDB

    “Read everything but the Bible” is a joke related to the (not entirely unfounded, at least in relative terms) Protestant idea that Catholics

    Thanks. I have always regarded it as true, not a joke, so uniformed was correct.

    I had forgotten that he was Catholic, read over the "my religious team," and thought that he was referring to politicos on the right who are always waving the Christianity flag, but never read the Bible.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Twinkie

  119. @RSDB
    @iffen

    "Read everything but the Bible" is a joke related to the (not entirely unfounded, at least in relative terms) Protestant idea that Catholics a) don't read the Bible as often as Protestants do and b) are more likely than Protestants to read devotional literature other than the Bible, like, say, the Imitation of Christ or the Ascent of Mount Carmel.

    Replies: @iffen

    “Read everything but the Bible” is a joke related to the (not entirely unfounded, at least in relative terms) Protestant idea that Catholics

    Thanks. I have always regarded it as true, not a joke, so uniformed was correct.

    I had forgotten that he was Catholic, read over the “my religious team,” and thought that he was referring to politicos on the right who are always waving the Christianity flag, but never read the Bible.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen

    In my experience, the Catholic interest in Bible reading is perhaps 20 or 25 percent the Protestant interest.

    I have heard a Catholic disagree. I have heard a Catholic contend that Catholics were equally interested. However, I doubt that the Catholic in question actually grasped the central role Bible reading plays in Protestant life.

    Compared to Protestants, Catholics do not care about the Bible very much. One suspects that this is why Catholics have been unable, except in Luke chapter 1, to match the literary quality of Protestant translations of the Bible to English. The sheer, sustained, monomaniacal effort Protestants have poured into their best Bible translations is not something Catholics can match. I suppose that this is why Catholic clergy know their Aristotle and Protestant clergy do not: because Catholics spend serious time in seminary studying Aristotle under instructors who know the subject well, where Protestant have spent commensurate time in obscure ancient languages and Biblical study.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @Twinkie
    @iffen

    Is that your version of "I am sorry"?

    Replies: @iffen

  120. @iffen
    @RSDB

    “Read everything but the Bible” is a joke related to the (not entirely unfounded, at least in relative terms) Protestant idea that Catholics

    Thanks. I have always regarded it as true, not a joke, so uniformed was correct.

    I had forgotten that he was Catholic, read over the "my religious team," and thought that he was referring to politicos on the right who are always waving the Christianity flag, but never read the Bible.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Twinkie

    In my experience, the Catholic interest in Bible reading is perhaps 20 or 25 percent the Protestant interest.

    I have heard a Catholic disagree. I have heard a Catholic contend that Catholics were equally interested. However, I doubt that the Catholic in question actually grasped the central role Bible reading plays in Protestant life.

    Compared to Protestants, Catholics do not care about the Bible very much. One suspects that this is why Catholics have been unable, except in Luke chapter 1, to match the literary quality of Protestant translations of the Bible to English. The sheer, sustained, monomaniacal effort Protestants have poured into their best Bible translations is not something Catholics can match. I suppose that this is why Catholic clergy know their Aristotle and Protestant clergy do not: because Catholics spend serious time in seminary studying Aristotle under instructors who know the subject well, where Protestant have spent commensurate time in obscure ancient languages and Biblical study.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Compared to Protestants, Catholics do not care about the Bible very much.
     
    Hey, now, the Catholic Mass has two Bible readings! We win!

    In all seriousness, I agree with you in general. Obviously since we Catholics do not subscribe to the heresy of sola scriptura, we aren't going to be "obsessed" about it as the sole source of spiritual authority.

    Another thing to keep in mind is that among Protestants, there has been a dramatic decline in number of "cultural," non-believing members. You can see this in the collapse of the mainline Protestant churches while evangelicals are holding the line. Although that trend is present among the Catholics as well, there are still A LOT of cultural or "cradle" Catholics who call themselves Catholics or nominally identify themselves as such (and even maintain memberships in parishes) while not practicing. So actual practicing (dare I say "real") Catholics are a subset of those who identify as Catholics, and I would content that Bible-reading is quite widespread and seriously taken among that subset.

    But, yeah, we are totally on the Aristotle train! Aristotelian virtue is the way to go in inculcating children (rather than some mindless virtue-signaling distortion of caritas).

    Replies: @RSDB

  121. @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    has played the hate card with deliberate mischief

    I had not put you in the group.

    It is a real surprise to me that you would take that position with regard to abortion.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    It is a real surprise to me that you would take that position with regard to abortion.

    I have not adequately explained my position. I had started to write it up, but the result was much too long to impose on readers, so I dropped it.

    My one-word explanation is: subsidiarity.

    Wency got the point, though he disagreed, for he already understood the context; but I failed to explain the point well enough to convey it clearly to the rest of the readership.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @V. K. Ovelund

    My last remark comes across with inadvertent arrogance. Pardon. Unintentional.

    In a hole, I will stop digging. Thanks for the reply.

    , @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Okay, but you can insert the MORE tag at any point.

  122. @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen


    It is a real surprise to me that you would take that position with regard to abortion.
     
    I have not adequately explained my position. I had started to write it up, but the result was much too long to impose on readers, so I dropped it.

    My one-word explanation is: subsidiarity.

    Wency got the point, though he disagreed, for he already understood the context; but I failed to explain the point well enough to convey it clearly to the rest of the readership.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @iffen

    My last remark comes across with inadvertent arrogance. Pardon. Unintentional.

    In a hole, I will stop digging. Thanks for the reply.

  123. @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen

    In my experience, the Catholic interest in Bible reading is perhaps 20 or 25 percent the Protestant interest.

    I have heard a Catholic disagree. I have heard a Catholic contend that Catholics were equally interested. However, I doubt that the Catholic in question actually grasped the central role Bible reading plays in Protestant life.

    Compared to Protestants, Catholics do not care about the Bible very much. One suspects that this is why Catholics have been unable, except in Luke chapter 1, to match the literary quality of Protestant translations of the Bible to English. The sheer, sustained, monomaniacal effort Protestants have poured into their best Bible translations is not something Catholics can match. I suppose that this is why Catholic clergy know their Aristotle and Protestant clergy do not: because Catholics spend serious time in seminary studying Aristotle under instructors who know the subject well, where Protestant have spent commensurate time in obscure ancient languages and Biblical study.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Compared to Protestants, Catholics do not care about the Bible very much.

    Hey, now, the Catholic Mass has two Bible readings! We win!

    In all seriousness, I agree with you in general. Obviously since we Catholics do not subscribe to the heresy of sola scriptura, we aren’t going to be “obsessed” about it as the sole source of spiritual authority.

    Another thing to keep in mind is that among Protestants, there has been a dramatic decline in number of “cultural,” non-believing members. You can see this in the collapse of the mainline Protestant churches while evangelicals are holding the line. Although that trend is present among the Catholics as well, there are still A LOT of cultural or “cradle” Catholics who call themselves Catholics or nominally identify themselves as such (and even maintain memberships in parishes) while not practicing. So actual practicing (dare I say “real”) Catholics are a subset of those who identify as Catholics, and I would content that Bible-reading is quite widespread and seriously taken among that subset.

    But, yeah, we are totally on the Aristotle train! Aristotelian virtue is the way to go in inculcating children (rather than some mindless virtue-signaling distortion of caritas).

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @RSDB
    @Twinkie


    Hey, now, the Catholic Mass has two Bible readings! We win!

     

    Are you talking about the Tridentine Mass? I think the NO has three (OT, epistle, and Gospel).

    Replies: @Twinkie

  124. @iffen
    @RSDB

    “Read everything but the Bible” is a joke related to the (not entirely unfounded, at least in relative terms) Protestant idea that Catholics

    Thanks. I have always regarded it as true, not a joke, so uniformed was correct.

    I had forgotten that he was Catholic, read over the "my religious team," and thought that he was referring to politicos on the right who are always waving the Christianity flag, but never read the Bible.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Twinkie

    Is that your version of “I am sorry”?

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Twinkie

    Is that your version of “I am sorry”?

    I was unaware that I had committed an infraction that required an apology, but if something I said offended you, I take notice. :)

    I accepted that I didn't get the joke, not that I was wrong in not liking the manner in which you tout your religion, whether you read The Bible or not.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  125. @Twinkie
    @iffen

    Is that your version of "I am sorry"?

    Replies: @iffen

    Is that your version of “I am sorry”?

    I was unaware that I had committed an infraction that required an apology, but if something I said offended you, I take notice. 🙂

    I accepted that I didn’t get the joke, not that I was wrong in not liking the manner in which you tout your religion, whether you read The Bible or not.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @iffen

    That was a joke as well.

    Replies: @iffen

  126. @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen


    It is a real surprise to me that you would take that position with regard to abortion.
     
    I have not adequately explained my position. I had started to write it up, but the result was much too long to impose on readers, so I dropped it.

    My one-word explanation is: subsidiarity.

    Wency got the point, though he disagreed, for he already understood the context; but I failed to explain the point well enough to convey it clearly to the rest of the readership.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @iffen

    Okay, but you can insert the MORE tag at any point.

  127. @iffen
    @Twinkie

    Is that your version of “I am sorry”?

    I was unaware that I had committed an infraction that required an apology, but if something I said offended you, I take notice. :)

    I accepted that I didn't get the joke, not that I was wrong in not liking the manner in which you tout your religion, whether you read The Bible or not.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    That was a joke as well.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Twinkie

    We don't seem to have the same sense of humor.

    My comment was a joke as well.

    I do sincerely apologize for illogically calling you to task for touting your religion without having a Bible reading foundation. Inasmuch as your religion is only loosely attached to The Bible, it was inconsiderate of me to expect you to have that basis for your touting.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  128. @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Compared to Protestants, Catholics do not care about the Bible very much.
     
    Hey, now, the Catholic Mass has two Bible readings! We win!

    In all seriousness, I agree with you in general. Obviously since we Catholics do not subscribe to the heresy of sola scriptura, we aren't going to be "obsessed" about it as the sole source of spiritual authority.

    Another thing to keep in mind is that among Protestants, there has been a dramatic decline in number of "cultural," non-believing members. You can see this in the collapse of the mainline Protestant churches while evangelicals are holding the line. Although that trend is present among the Catholics as well, there are still A LOT of cultural or "cradle" Catholics who call themselves Catholics or nominally identify themselves as such (and even maintain memberships in parishes) while not practicing. So actual practicing (dare I say "real") Catholics are a subset of those who identify as Catholics, and I would content that Bible-reading is quite widespread and seriously taken among that subset.

    But, yeah, we are totally on the Aristotle train! Aristotelian virtue is the way to go in inculcating children (rather than some mindless virtue-signaling distortion of caritas).

    Replies: @RSDB

    Hey, now, the Catholic Mass has two Bible readings! We win!

    Are you talking about the Tridentine Mass? I think the NO has three (OT, epistle, and Gospel).

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @RSDB

    Minimum required is two. I didn’t want to muddy the waters by overplaying the number. ;)

  129. @RSDB
    @Twinkie


    Hey, now, the Catholic Mass has two Bible readings! We win!

     

    Are you talking about the Tridentine Mass? I think the NO has three (OT, epistle, and Gospel).

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Minimum required is two. I didn’t want to muddy the waters by overplaying the number. 😉

  130. @Twinkie
    @iffen

    That was a joke as well.

    Replies: @iffen

    We don’t seem to have the same sense of humor.

    My comment was a joke as well.

    I do sincerely apologize for illogically calling you to task for touting your religion without having a Bible reading foundation. Inasmuch as your religion is only loosely attached to The Bible, it was inconsiderate of me to expect you to have that basis for your touting.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @iffen


    Inasmuch as your religion is only loosely attached to The Bible
     
    That would be the wrong takeaway from what I wrote. And that’s usually the reason our conversations don’t go well, not that we have different senses of humor.

    The Bible is essential to Catholicism, but it is not sufficient. There are three sources of authority in the Catholic Church: Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium.

    Replies: @iffen

  131. @dfordoom
    @songbird



    It is dangerous to fetishise intelligence.
     
    Perhaps, but less so than fetishizing perfect equality.
     
    I don't do either of those things.

    In fact I distrust eugenics because I believe that people do vary widely in all sorts of ways and I suspect that a healthy society probably needs people of widely varying abilities and with widely varying strengths and weaknesses.

    Wouldn't a eugenics policy based on IQ be essentially a utopian scheme to achieve perfect equality?

    Replies: @silviosilver, @songbird

    Wouldn’t a eugenics policy based on IQ be essentially a utopian scheme to achieve perfect equality?

    I think there is a possible danger in radical egalitarians eventually taking it up, with that goal in mind.

    The way I conceive of it, though, is simpler and more restrained. Less dysgenics. Namely, trying to keep the average IQ from falling, or the smart fraction (the percentage of high IQ people) from falling. Smart fraction is necessary for innovation.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @songbird


    The way I conceive of it, though, is simpler and more restrained. Less dysgenics.
     
    The trouble is that in practice "less dysgenics" will require social engineering.

    For decades rightists have criticised liberals and leftists for their enthusiasm for social engineering projects, on the grounds that such projects are unrealistic, utopian, will have unpredictable unintended consequences and will involve unwarranted interference in people's lives.

    I think it's incredibly funny that we now see white nationalists/alt-righters advocating social engineering projects which can be criticised on exactly the same grounds - that they're unrealistic, utopian, will have unpredictable unintended consequences and will involve unwarranted interference in people's lives.

    Replies: @songbird

  132. @songbird
    @dfordoom


    Wouldn’t a eugenics policy based on IQ be essentially a utopian scheme to achieve perfect equality?
     
    I think there is a possible danger in radical egalitarians eventually taking it up, with that goal in mind.

    The way I conceive of it, though, is simpler and more restrained. Less dysgenics. Namely, trying to keep the average IQ from falling, or the smart fraction (the percentage of high IQ people) from falling. Smart fraction is necessary for innovation.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The way I conceive of it, though, is simpler and more restrained. Less dysgenics.

    The trouble is that in practice “less dysgenics” will require social engineering.

    For decades rightists have criticised liberals and leftists for their enthusiasm for social engineering projects, on the grounds that such projects are unrealistic, utopian, will have unpredictable unintended consequences and will involve unwarranted interference in people’s lives.

    I think it’s incredibly funny that we now see white nationalists/alt-righters advocating social engineering projects which can be criticised on exactly the same grounds – that they’re unrealistic, utopian, will have unpredictable unintended consequences and will involve unwarranted interference in people’s lives.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @songbird
    @dfordoom


    The trouble is that in practice “less dysgenics” will require social engineering.
     
    Virtually all government policy is social engineering. Just because it is the status quo doesn't make it less utopian.

    I'd like to see less credentialism, so that people aren't wasting their time and money and having less children to get paper degrees that don't make them any smarter.

    The West is importing dumb people en masse, giving them free money and housing, and scapegoating their problems on white people - that is social engineering. I'd like to see less of that - that wasn't the situation 100 years ago. Is that utopian of me? Or am I just being realistic that this thing can't go on forever, and it won't end well.
  133. @iffen
    @Twinkie

    We don't seem to have the same sense of humor.

    My comment was a joke as well.

    I do sincerely apologize for illogically calling you to task for touting your religion without having a Bible reading foundation. Inasmuch as your religion is only loosely attached to The Bible, it was inconsiderate of me to expect you to have that basis for your touting.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Inasmuch as your religion is only loosely attached to The Bible

    That would be the wrong takeaway from what I wrote. And that’s usually the reason our conversations don’t go well, not that we have different senses of humor.

    The Bible is essential to Catholicism, but it is not sufficient. There are three sources of authority in the Catholic Church: Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @iffen
    @Twinkie

    That would be the wrong takeaway from what I wrote. And that’s usually the reason our conversations don’t go well,

    Exactly, I've told you before that your controlling idea that I (and everyone else) needs to think, act, and believe more (or exactly like) Twinkie does not scale.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  134. @Twinkie
    @iffen


    Inasmuch as your religion is only loosely attached to The Bible
     
    That would be the wrong takeaway from what I wrote. And that’s usually the reason our conversations don’t go well, not that we have different senses of humor.

    The Bible is essential to Catholicism, but it is not sufficient. There are three sources of authority in the Catholic Church: Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium.

    Replies: @iffen

    That would be the wrong takeaway from what I wrote. And that’s usually the reason our conversations don’t go well,

    Exactly, I’ve told you before that your controlling idea that I (and everyone else) needs to think, act, and believe more (or exactly like) Twinkie does not scale.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @iffen

    That’s not remotely what I ever wrote. It’s impossible for anyone to “think exactly like” I do even if I were worthy of imitation. But as Bismarck said, “Fools learn from their own mistakes; I prefer to learn from those of others.” A lot of people are foolish.

    Our conversations go wrong for the same reason that those with Rosie and some of the other trollish commenters here go wrong - you distort what I wrote to whatever you imagine it to be in your head, because you don’t like me and want to portray me as a bad guy in your mind. That’s how some of you try to salvage your egos.

    It’s the same reason immature audiences want clear-cut good guys and bad guys in movies. Real life is far more complex than that, and you can learn a lot even from those you may not like if you pay attention. Back when I used to train competitively in Judo, I’d see others who’d get upset when they got beat and go to extreme lengths to “get it back ” during training. I was never like that - when others beat me, I never got upset and instead asked them show me how they did it. Whether you like them or not, you get better faster if you learn from others who are successful and perhaps even imitate them where appropriate.

    Replies: @iffen, @dfordoom

  135. @iffen
    @Twinkie

    That would be the wrong takeaway from what I wrote. And that’s usually the reason our conversations don’t go well,

    Exactly, I've told you before that your controlling idea that I (and everyone else) needs to think, act, and believe more (or exactly like) Twinkie does not scale.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    That’s not remotely what I ever wrote. It’s impossible for anyone to “think exactly like” I do even if I were worthy of imitation. But as Bismarck said, “Fools learn from their own mistakes; I prefer to learn from those of others.” A lot of people are foolish.

    Our conversations go wrong for the same reason that those with Rosie and some of the other trollish commenters here go wrong – you distort what I wrote to whatever you imagine it to be in your head, because you don’t like me and want to portray me as a bad guy in your mind. That’s how some of you try to salvage your egos.

    It’s the same reason immature audiences want clear-cut good guys and bad guys in movies. Real life is far more complex than that, and you can learn a lot even from those you may not like if you pay attention. Back when I used to train competitively in Judo, I’d see others who’d get upset when they got beat and go to extreme lengths to “get it back ” during training. I was never like that – when others beat me, I never got upset and instead asked them show me how they did it. Whether you like them or not, you get better faster if you learn from others who are successful and perhaps even imitate them where appropriate.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Twinkie

    you distort what I wrote

    I have never distorted what you or anyone else has written.

    you get better faster if you learn from others who are successful and perhaps even imitate them where appropriate.

    Like I wrote: be like Twinkie.

    , @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    Our conversations go wrong for the same reason that those with Rosie and some of the other trollish commenters here go wrong – you distort what I wrote to whatever you imagine it to be in your head, because you don’t like me and want to portray me as a bad guy in your mind. That’s how some of you try to salvage your egos.
     
    Sometimes when you get into an online debate you have to accept that people just disagree with you. And they do so in good faith. Sometimes they really do understand what you're saying, but they still disagree with you. You can present an argument as clearly and as passionately as you're capable of and some people will still disagree with you.

    That doesn't make them trolls or fools. It doesn't mean they're out to get you.

    Sometimes people just have to agree to disagree.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @iffen

  136. @Twinkie
    @iffen

    That’s not remotely what I ever wrote. It’s impossible for anyone to “think exactly like” I do even if I were worthy of imitation. But as Bismarck said, “Fools learn from their own mistakes; I prefer to learn from those of others.” A lot of people are foolish.

    Our conversations go wrong for the same reason that those with Rosie and some of the other trollish commenters here go wrong - you distort what I wrote to whatever you imagine it to be in your head, because you don’t like me and want to portray me as a bad guy in your mind. That’s how some of you try to salvage your egos.

    It’s the same reason immature audiences want clear-cut good guys and bad guys in movies. Real life is far more complex than that, and you can learn a lot even from those you may not like if you pay attention. Back when I used to train competitively in Judo, I’d see others who’d get upset when they got beat and go to extreme lengths to “get it back ” during training. I was never like that - when others beat me, I never got upset and instead asked them show me how they did it. Whether you like them or not, you get better faster if you learn from others who are successful and perhaps even imitate them where appropriate.

    Replies: @iffen, @dfordoom

    you distort what I wrote

    I have never distorted what you or anyone else has written.

    you get better faster if you learn from others who are successful and perhaps even imitate them where appropriate.

    Like I wrote: be like Twinkie.

  137. @Twinkie
    @iffen

    That’s not remotely what I ever wrote. It’s impossible for anyone to “think exactly like” I do even if I were worthy of imitation. But as Bismarck said, “Fools learn from their own mistakes; I prefer to learn from those of others.” A lot of people are foolish.

    Our conversations go wrong for the same reason that those with Rosie and some of the other trollish commenters here go wrong - you distort what I wrote to whatever you imagine it to be in your head, because you don’t like me and want to portray me as a bad guy in your mind. That’s how some of you try to salvage your egos.

    It’s the same reason immature audiences want clear-cut good guys and bad guys in movies. Real life is far more complex than that, and you can learn a lot even from those you may not like if you pay attention. Back when I used to train competitively in Judo, I’d see others who’d get upset when they got beat and go to extreme lengths to “get it back ” during training. I was never like that - when others beat me, I never got upset and instead asked them show me how they did it. Whether you like them or not, you get better faster if you learn from others who are successful and perhaps even imitate them where appropriate.

    Replies: @iffen, @dfordoom

    Our conversations go wrong for the same reason that those with Rosie and some of the other trollish commenters here go wrong – you distort what I wrote to whatever you imagine it to be in your head, because you don’t like me and want to portray me as a bad guy in your mind. That’s how some of you try to salvage your egos.

    Sometimes when you get into an online debate you have to accept that people just disagree with you. And they do so in good faith. Sometimes they really do understand what you’re saying, but they still disagree with you. You can present an argument as clearly and as passionately as you’re capable of and some people will still disagree with you.

    That doesn’t make them trolls or fools. It doesn’t mean they’re out to get you.

    Sometimes people just have to agree to disagree.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    Sometimes they really do understand what you’re saying, but they still disagree with you.
     
    I’m perfectly fine with that. What I object to is when they re-write what I said into a straw man, e.g. Catholicism “ is only loosely attached to The Bible” and “everyone else needs to think, act, and believe… exactly like Twinkie.”

    That doesn’t make them trolls or fools.
     
    And when they do above repeatedly, the intentions aren’t good.
    , @iffen
    @dfordoom

    -Twinkie is not an honest, good faith interlocutor. He has "corrected" you and if you don't wish to get on his list you should not respond.

    Over the years, for whatever stupid reasons, I have tried to engage him at a personal level, but it fails.

    I speculate that it has to do with class and ethnicity. But I think that it might just be whether you know "your place" in relation to Twinkie.

    Just my advice to a Pollyanna peacenik. And a knee-jerk anti-American at that. (I also note every time you bad-mouth my Evangelical family and friends.)

  138. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    Our conversations go wrong for the same reason that those with Rosie and some of the other trollish commenters here go wrong – you distort what I wrote to whatever you imagine it to be in your head, because you don’t like me and want to portray me as a bad guy in your mind. That’s how some of you try to salvage your egos.
     
    Sometimes when you get into an online debate you have to accept that people just disagree with you. And they do so in good faith. Sometimes they really do understand what you're saying, but they still disagree with you. You can present an argument as clearly and as passionately as you're capable of and some people will still disagree with you.

    That doesn't make them trolls or fools. It doesn't mean they're out to get you.

    Sometimes people just have to agree to disagree.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @iffen

    Sometimes they really do understand what you’re saying, but they still disagree with you.

    I’m perfectly fine with that. What I object to is when they re-write what I said into a straw man, e.g. Catholicism “ is only loosely attached to The Bible” and “everyone else needs to think, act, and believe… exactly like Twinkie.”

    That doesn’t make them trolls or fools.

    And when they do above repeatedly, the intentions aren’t good.

  139. China has officially adopted a new family policy: up to three (3) children is legal and socially acceptable.

    Now we’ll see if genetic testing becomes even more normalized…in China.

  140. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    Our conversations go wrong for the same reason that those with Rosie and some of the other trollish commenters here go wrong – you distort what I wrote to whatever you imagine it to be in your head, because you don’t like me and want to portray me as a bad guy in your mind. That’s how some of you try to salvage your egos.
     
    Sometimes when you get into an online debate you have to accept that people just disagree with you. And they do so in good faith. Sometimes they really do understand what you're saying, but they still disagree with you. You can present an argument as clearly and as passionately as you're capable of and some people will still disagree with you.

    That doesn't make them trolls or fools. It doesn't mean they're out to get you.

    Sometimes people just have to agree to disagree.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @iffen

    -Twinkie is not an honest, good faith interlocutor. He has “corrected” you and if you don’t wish to get on his list you should not respond.

    Over the years, for whatever stupid reasons, I have tried to engage him at a personal level, but it fails.

    I speculate that it has to do with class and ethnicity. But I think that it might just be whether you know “your place” in relation to Twinkie.

    Just my advice to a Pollyanna peacenik. And a knee-jerk anti-American at that. (I also note every time you bad-mouth my Evangelical family and friends.)

  141. @dfordoom
    @songbird


    The way I conceive of it, though, is simpler and more restrained. Less dysgenics.
     
    The trouble is that in practice "less dysgenics" will require social engineering.

    For decades rightists have criticised liberals and leftists for their enthusiasm for social engineering projects, on the grounds that such projects are unrealistic, utopian, will have unpredictable unintended consequences and will involve unwarranted interference in people's lives.

    I think it's incredibly funny that we now see white nationalists/alt-righters advocating social engineering projects which can be criticised on exactly the same grounds - that they're unrealistic, utopian, will have unpredictable unintended consequences and will involve unwarranted interference in people's lives.

    Replies: @songbird

    The trouble is that in practice “less dysgenics” will require social engineering.

    Virtually all government policy is social engineering. Just because it is the status quo doesn’t make it less utopian.

    I’d like to see less credentialism, so that people aren’t wasting their time and money and having less children to get paper degrees that don’t make them any smarter.

    The West is importing dumb people en masse, giving them free money and housing, and scapegoating their problems on white people – that is social engineering. I’d like to see less of that – that wasn’t the situation 100 years ago. Is that utopian of me? Or am I just being realistic that this thing can’t go on forever, and it won’t end well.

  142. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Dysgenics is real as far as I know.
     
    That's an interesting point. It's an article of faith on the far right that dysgenics is a major problem afflicting our society. But is there any actual evidence for this? And claiming that something is true because it feels true isn't enough.

    Everyone these days, whatever their position on the political spectrum, holds certain positions on certain issues as articles of faith. We should always be a bit sceptical. Maybe dysgenics is real but I'd like to see some hard evidence. It worries me that this is position that is often based on a dislike of certain groups of people.

    I see all sorts of things going wrong with our society but I'm not convinced that dysgenics is a major cause. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't.

    Whether dysgenics is real or not there's still a trade-off to be made. If you want a society based in eugenic principles you have to accept that there will be a price to be paid. Personally I think that price would be too high - that we'd find that we'd made a Devil's Bargain.

    To save civilisation you have to have a civilisation worth saving.

    It's rather odd to find right-wingers supporting eugenics - it's the sort of social engineering project for which right-wingers usually castigate the Left. To me it reeks of leftist utopianism.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Alexander Turok, @songbird, @Audacious Epigone

    The GSS suggests a mild dysgenic trend among whites and a more pronounced one among Hispanics and especially blacks.

  143. @Wency
    @iffen

    Yes, this definitely is not a straw man or even a weak man, it's a very common opinion on Unz.com, people say it all the time. For example, I see it first appeared as comment #5 on the last abortion thread: https://www.unz.com/anepigone/atheism-and-abortion/#comments

    I also think it might be more widespread on some of the other blogs/columns on this site (AE's has one of the more civil readerships, which is one reason I hang around here).

    My understanding is this is also, for example, Richard Spencer's position, and also not uncommon in the Stormfront and related crowds.

    But I don't think this opinion is even that uncommon in the wider world, among secular or nominally religious BoomerCon men. They just know better than to say it aloud. Though that's not something I can back up with direct citations, just a sense of some men I've known who are very focused on the racial question, but in normie terms.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Audacious Epigone

    I don’t think this opinion is even that uncommon in the wider world, among secular or nominally religious BoomerCon men.

    Agree. They’re the same types who hear about 7 people murdered in Chicago over the weekend and say, “Good, let them kill each other”.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS