The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Is This 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

We are constantly lectured that eugenics is anti-Semitic pseudo-science. So even I was kind of surprised to read this article from the Times of Israel about how successful the seeming eugenic campaign against Tay-Sachs disease has been:

How Jewish activism has virtually wiped out Tay-Sachs

Thanks to technology and an aggressive screening campaign, the genetic disease is all but gone today — and carrier couples can have healthy children

By IRA STOLL
23 August 2017, 3:33 am

JTA — Parents of children born with Tay-Sachs disease talk about “three deaths.”

There is the moment when parents first learn that their child has been diagnosed with the fatal disease. Then there is the moment when the child’s condition has deteriorated so badly — blind, paralyzed, non-responsive — that he or she has to be hospitalized. Then there’s the moment, usually by age 5, when the child finally dies.

There used to be an entire hospital unit — 16 or 17 beds at Kingsbook Jewish Medical Center in Brooklyn — devoted to taking care of these children. It was often full, with a waiting list that admitted new patients only when someone else’s child had died.

But by the late 1990s that unit was totally empty, and it eventually shut down. Its closure was a visible symbol of one of the most dramatic Jewish success stories of the past 50 years: the near-eradication of a deadly genetic disease.

Generally speaking, I’ve always been more or less anti-eugenics on the whole, but it’s hard for me to object too much to this impressive accomplishment against a terrible disease afflicting children.

Since the ‘70s, the incidence of Tay-Sachs has fallen by more than 90 percent among Jews, thanks to a combination of scientific advances and volunteer community activism that brought screening for the disease into synagogues, Jewish community centers and, eventually, routine medical care.

Until 1969, when doctors discovered the enzyme that made testing possible to determine whether parents were carriers of Tay-Sachs, 50 to 60 affected Jewish children were born each year in the United States and Canada. After mass screenings began in 1971, the numbers declined to two to five Jewish births a year, said Karen Zeiger, whose first child died of Tay-Sachs.

I’m struck by how close a coincidence there was in time between the start of the anti-Tay-Sachs campaign in 1971 and the beginning of the campaign by 1970s Jewish intellectuals like Stephen Jay Gould to demonize old-time pro-eugenics WASPs like Francis Galton as proto-Nazis. It’s almost as if one was a distraction away from the other …

“It had decreased significantly,” said Zeiger, who until her retirement in 2000 was the State of California’s Tay-Sachs prevention coordinator. Between 1976 and 1989, there wasn’t a single Jewish Tay-Sachs birth in the entire state, she said. …

Before screening, couples in which both parents were Tay-Sachs carriers “almost always stopped having children after they had one child with Tay-Sachs, for fear of having another,” Ruth Schwartz Cowan wrote it in her book “Heredity and Hope: The Case for Genetic Screening.”

But with screening, Tay-Sachs could be detected before birth, and “carrier couples felt encouraged to have children,” she wrote. …

Romer and others involved with this issue stress the importance of screening interfaith couples, too. Non-Jews may also benefit from pre-conception screening for Tay-Sachs and other diseases. Some research indicates, for example, that Louisiana Cajuns, French Canadians and individuals with Irish lineage may also have an elevated incidence of Tay-Sachs.

Scientific progress means that Jews can now be screened for over 200 diseases with an at-home, mail-in test offered by JScreen. The four-year-old nonprofit affiliated with Emory University’s Department of Human Genetics has screened thousands of people, and the subsidized fee for the test — about $150 — includes genetic counseling.

While some genetic tests are standard doctor’s office procedure for pregnant women or couples trying to get pregnant with a doctor’s help, JScreen aims for pre-conception screening. The test includes diseases common in those with Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi backgrounds as well as general population diseases, making it relevant for Jewish couples and interfaith couples.

… In Cowan’s book, she mentions a chart prepared by Dr. Kaback reporting on 30 years of screening: 1.3 million people screened, 48,000 carriers detected, 1,350 carrier couples detected, 3,146 pregnancies monitored.

“Kaback and his colleagues could well have stopped there,” she wrote. “But they did not. There is one more figure, the one that matters most and that goes the furthest in explaining why Ashkenazi Jews accept carrier screening… after monitoring with pre-natal diagnosis, 2,466 ‘unaffected offspring’ were born” to parents who were both Tay-Sachs carriers.

On the other hand, this article isn’t wholly financially disinterested, so I dunno …

This article was sponsored by and produced in partnership with JScreen, whose goal of making genetic screening as simple, accessible, and affordable as possible has helped couples across the country have healthy babies. To access testing 24/7, request a kit at JScreen.org or gift a JScreen test as a wedding present. This article was produced by JTA’s native content team.

Is this an example of eugenics?

I could see creating another term like “anti-dysgenics” for programs aimed at countering tragic birth defects like this rather than improving upon okay genes. But, obviously, it’s all pretty blurry. Plus, I’m not aware that term exists.

I reviewed John Glad’s 2011 book Jewish Eugenics here.

 
Hide 148 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Anonymous[996] • Disclaimer says:

    Some research indicates, for example, that Louisiana Cajuns, French Canadians and individuals with Irish lineage may also have an elevated incidence of Tay-Sachs.

    Does this suggests these groups may have Jewish ancestry? Sephardic perhaps?

    • Replies: @Lot
    @Anonymous

    No, it suggests that the selective advantage of being a tay sachs carrier applies to the Irish and Cajans, just not as much as AJs, as they have a lower incidence.

    , @gcochran
    @Anonymous

    No: different mutations of the same gene.

    , @Federalist
    @Anonymous


    In the early part of their history, the Acadians were a self-contained community with a strong cultural cohesiveness, including a common religion and language. Together with geographical isolation both in Old Acadia (Nova Scotia) and New Acadia (Louisiana), these factors have contributed to an elevated incidence of autosomal recessive disorders. The Acadian population presents a higher than normal frequency of some rare genetic disorders, such as Friedreich ataxia, Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, Retinitis Pigmentosa, Alström syndrome, Usher syndrome, Tay-Sachs disease, Niemann-Pick disease, and other genetic syndromes.
     
    https://www.medschool.lsuhsc.edu/genetics_center/louisiana/article_geneticdisorders_p.htm
    , @Sean
    @Anonymous


    https://www.unz.com/pfrost/french-canadians-evolving-gene-pool/

    More to the point, middle-class English Canadians were not uniformly spread across the province. Demographically and economically, they used to dominate the Ottawa valley, the Montreal area, the Eastern Townships, Quebec City, and the eastern and southern portions of the Gaspé Peninsula. Economically, they also dominated the hinterland of Trois-Rivières and the Lac Saint-Jean region (timber industry). This leaves two regions where, historically, they were virtually non-existent—the same regions that report unusually high incidences of Tay Sach’s.

    An economic niche existed and had to be filled. In the absence of ethnic outsiders, middle-class French Canadians would have had more opportunities to go into business, marry earlier, and have larger families. Is this what happened in the lower St. Lawrence and Charlevoix County?
     

    https://www.unz.com/pfrost/more-on-french-canadians-and-tay-sachs/
    Interestingly, Tay Sach’s co-occurs in eastern Quebec with another hereditary illness that lies in the same metabolic pathway, i.e., lysosomal storage. [...] One region in eastern Quebec, however, has always been solidly French Canadian and yet has low incidences of Tay Sach’s and mucoliposes. This is Beauce County, a region south of Quebec City that covers the Chaudière valley up to the American border. Furthermore, Beaucerons are stereotyped as being self-reliant, business-minded go-getters—the “Yankees” of Quebec.

    Beauce County nonetheless differs demographically from the rest of eastern Quebec in one respect. Settlement began earlier there than elsewhere, well before the Conquest. There was thus a larger pool of people and hence more individuals who could fill the niches that opened up after the Conquest, as Quebec moved from a semi-feudal mercantilist society to a more market-driven economy. Selection thus had more leeway to favor individuals who had the necessary aptitudes while not suffering the costs that lysosomal storage illnesses impose on homozygotes. Fast evolution? All of this might seem hard to believe. How could such selection operate over a time span of less than two centuries?
     
    , @Ed
    @Anonymous

    Tay-Sachs isn’t unique to Jews it’s just that due to endogamy like mating over the centuries it manifested itself more among Jews.

    , @Kratoklastes
    @Anonymous

    No, it suggests a predictable outcome in cultures of deliberate isolation with abundant cousin-fucking... the inevitable genetic shitstorm that incest entails.

    Once the Ashkenazim moved out of the hovels of the Pale and into a gene pool with larger numbers of more-distantly-related potential partners, Tay-Sachs would be expected to wash out of the system over the course of a few generations. Screening simply made the process more rapid.

    Replies: @gcochran

  2. That dang Hitler ruined eugenics for everyone. If only he weren’t a Nazi.

    • Replies: @guest
    @Polynikes

    That dang Hitler ruined highways for everyone...Oh, wait. We're just fine with those.

    That dang Hitler ruined ballistic missiles...jet engines...vegetarianism...hermeneutic philosophy...the German shepherd breed...neoclassical art...torch parades...

    Ya know, I think we just pick and choose what Hitler ruined for reasons unrelated to Hitler.

    He is an excuse. The human "sciences" had already been claimed by the enemy before the Third Reich.

    Replies: @Coemgen, @fnn, @Ibound1, @BB753

    , @SFG
    @Polynikes

    Actually, I agree. My objection to the Holocaust isn't eugenics, it's mass murder. (Same objection to Holodomor, and yes, I think schoolkids should learn about them both.)

    I'd be perfectly fine with encouraging bright people to breed more, for instance.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  3. Now that there’s a wealth of information on genetic contributions to intelligence, one wonders how long it would take to breed a population of (white) children with a mean IQ of, say, 110.

    • Replies: @Realist
    @Macumazahn


    Now that there’s a wealth of information on genetic contributions to intelligence, one wonders how long it would take to breed a population of (white) children with a mean IQ of, say, 110.
     
    The sooner the better.....130 would be better.

    Replies: @Father O'Hara

    , @Jack D
    @Macumazahn

    No very long. If you differentiate white people into subgroups (e.g. Episcopalians, atheists) then the average is already there.

    Replies: @jbwilson24

  4. But with screening, Tay-Sachs could be detected before birth, and “carrier couples felt encouraged to have children,” she wrote…

    I’m struck by how close a coincidence there was in time between the start of the anti-Tay-Sachs campaign in 1971…

    …and Roe v Wade.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @fitzhamilton
    @Reg Cæsar

    Wow. Just wow. How is it that this is the first time I've ever heard about this?

    I just read the article in the Times of Israel Steve links to, and they don't explicitly mention abortion once. It's as if they screen the child before birth, then it simply magically disappears if it's a carrier of the gene? I've heard quite a bit about the aborting of Downs Syndrome children - they say it's about a 90% rate these days - but never once about this.. But Down's Sydrome effects the gentiles, equally, too - the epidemiology of Tay Sachs is much more narrow: it's predominately an Ashkenazi and Cajun/Arcadian French Canadian disease.

    I've always wondered at how so many radical feminists and abortion activists have been Jewish - I mean Freidan, Steinem, Firestone, Dworkin - there was hardly a major early feminist theorist who wasn't Jewish. I always chalked it up to culture.. Lately I've been getting a bit more cynical, and conspiratorially paranoid though..

    This article is a dropping penny. The genetic testing began in earnest in 1971, then in 1973, we get Roe v Wade. That can't be coincidental. Nor can the media silence about it all be accidental.

    Replies: @guest, @YetAnotherAnon, @Jack D, @DRA

    , @YetAnotherAnon
    @Reg Cæsar

    I noticed that too, and read the article to see if abortion was mentioned. It isn't, but I assume that's how 'no babies were born' with Tay-Sachs.

    Replies: @Gordo

    , @Steve Sailer
    @Reg Cæsar

    It's probably related to abortion being legalized in Washington D.C. in 1970.

    Replies: @Dr. X, @bored identity, @Sean, @Reg Cæsar

    , @sabril
    @Reg Cæsar

    I would guess it has more to do with the price tag than anything else. Before 1970 it cost thousands of dollars to screen for Jewish genetic diseases. It just wasn't practical for most couples to do it.

    By 2000, a full screening panel could be done cheaply enough that philanthropic organizations could give free or subsidized tests out to any Jew under the age of 40.

    It's actually quite interesting the way it works in the Orthodox community: They don't tell you your specific results. Instead, if you go on a few dates with someone and it seems like it might be a match, you advise the testing organization and they tell you if you are compatible or not.

    , @bored identity
    @Reg Cæsar

    Just like with Magic, one has to be able to distinguish between Black, White, and Jewish Eugenics.

    Don't forget that only one of three aforementioned is considered to be Triple Plus Parenthetically Good.


    Because, contrary to popular belief, Not Every Sperm is Sacred.

    https://www.latimes.com/health/la-xpm-2012-aug-15-la-fg-israel-sperm-20120816-story.html

    , @bored identity
    @Reg Cæsar

    Just like with a Magic, one has to be always able to distinguish between Black, White, and Jewish Eugenics.

    Don't forget that only one of three aforementioned is Triple Plus Parenthetically Good.

    Because, contrary to popular belief, Not Every Sperm is Sacred.


    https://www.latimes.com/health/la-xpm-2012-aug-15-la-fg-israel-sperm-20120816-story.html

  5. Lot says:

    It isn’t eugenics since it doesn’t change the gene pool, rather it avoids the birth of children who will die around age 4 or 5.

    In a really small way it may be eugenic by increasing the overall Jewish population slightly and increasing the tiny IQ boost of being a TS carrier to more people.

    The non-AJ equivalent of TS is probably cystic fibrosis. 1 in 30 whites are carriers, and random mating will result in 1 in 900 double carrier pairs and 1 in 2700 white births having CS.

    CS isn’t quite as fatal as TS, with massive medical intervention people can live to 40, and are not brain damaged.

    The advantage of being a CS carrier isn’t known and there is a lot of speculation, but I think the most likely explanation is a lower rate of death from diarrheal diseases.

    • Replies: @Lot
    @Lot

    The one in 2700 above should read 1 in 3600.

    , @Endgame Napoleon
    @Lot

    I think he was noting the contradiction between the way many Jews embrace a political, anti-Eugenics mentality that implicitly rejects notions of inequality, but when it comes down to their own progeny’s health and any sacrifices in raising disabled children, they will make an exception to otherwise hardline egalitarian ideals.

    It is understandable that Jews would reject a biological weeding out of humans deemed undesirable since a main component of the evil Nazi philosophy included notions of genetically superior humans. When it’s not Aryans, but genetically superior Jews and Asians with higher IQs, riding high above the other whites, Blacks and Hispanics (except the handful of outliers), the quest for social equality morphs into something else.

    Replies: @Moses

    , @Anonymous
    @Lot

    Being effectively suffocated by your own lungs - which CF sufferers have to endure - is an unbelievably distressing and horrible condition.

    It's quite probable that any CF sufferer when posed with the question 'should my very birth had been prevented?' if honest would reply in the affirmative.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @donut
    @Lot

    Back in the early oo's there was an article in the New Yorker by Sanjay Gupta promoting making hospital rankings/outcomes of stays available to the public by the names of the hospital , at the time they were not , I don't know about now . One of the main supports for his argument was the varied outcomes in different hospitals for cystic fibrosis pts. Just by happenstance a month or so after I had read the article I had as a pt. a gentleman who was very high up in a foundation that was all about CF . I mentioned the article to him . He said Gupta had interviewed him for the article and he had explained to Gupta , which I'm surprised he had to , that different populations genetics determined the severity of the disease and the two main supports for Gupta's argument were a hospital in the south , I don't remember which one , where the genetic makeup of the CF sufferers led to them having a milder form of the disease that responded well to treatment . The other pop. in Gupta's article was a hospital in the north where the people of a different genetic background generally had much worse outcomes because those people , Nordics I believe , carried a much more severe form of the disease . Of course that little bit of information didn't make it into his article in The New Yorker , He does work for CNN now so you might say fake news is in his blood .
    Maybe Sanjay could do an article about whether Indian doctors are genetically predisposed to cheat the Medicare system , you know nature vs. nurture .

    .

    , @RF
    @Lot

    Of course, it does affect the gene pool through social epistasis. Unless a diseased child is killed outright, it must be cared for with an allocation of resources that exceed those needed to maintain a healthy child. Such a family would therefore refrain from having normal children which in turn reduce the fitness of the family.

  6. OT: Cucks desperately scrambling to delay the demographic transformation that they, themselves, have endorsed for 40 years.

    Last year the people of Florida, by referendum, voted 65-35 to restore voting rights to ex felons. The Cucks are in a panic, they know that they are going to get very few of those 1 million or so expected votes from the newly franchised, and, with the ongoing migration of Asians and Latins, which the Cucks will still not oppose, they may permanently lose the ability to form a majority, so, they are passing legislation to thwart this expressed will of the people, be what it may what you think of those people. The Cuck’s legislation will make it damn near impossible for the ex-felons to actually cast a ballot. Cynical to the extreme. Regardless of one’s opinion on granting voting rights to ex-felons (almost all the states do restore voting rights when time is served) the arrogance, stupidity and cynicism of the Cucks are something to behold. If the Cucks had been paying attention to demographic issues over the past forty years they would have understood that the very immigration policies that they have enthusiastically endorsed – from Reagan on up to yesterday – would eventually overwhelm them, denying a voice to people who put their faith in the Cucks to uphold somewhat conservative values. Well, this ploy won’t work. Demographics march on, grinding down all resistance before it. I hate the Cucks. I hate them more than the Democrats. Damn the Cucks, damn them to hell.

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/florida-republican-senate-ron-desantis-amendment-4-felon-voting-rights.html

  7. @Anonymous

    Some research indicates, for example, that Louisiana Cajuns, French Canadians and individuals with Irish lineage may also have an elevated incidence of Tay-Sachs.
     
    Does this suggests these groups may have Jewish ancestry? Sephardic perhaps?

    Replies: @Lot, @gcochran, @Federalist, @Sean, @Ed, @Kratoklastes

    No, it suggests that the selective advantage of being a tay sachs carrier applies to the Irish and Cajans, just not as much as AJs, as they have a lower incidence.

  8. @Lot
    It isn’t eugenics since it doesn’t change the gene pool, rather it avoids the birth of children who will die around age 4 or 5.

    In a really small way it may be eugenic by increasing the overall Jewish population slightly and increasing the tiny IQ boost of being a TS carrier to more people.

    The non-AJ equivalent of TS is probably cystic fibrosis. 1 in 30 whites are carriers, and random mating will result in 1 in 900 double carrier pairs and 1 in 2700 white births having CS.

    CS isn’t quite as fatal as TS, with massive medical intervention people can live to 40, and are not brain damaged.

    The advantage of being a CS carrier isn’t known and there is a lot of speculation, but I think the most likely explanation is a lower rate of death from diarrheal diseases.

    Replies: @Lot, @Endgame Napoleon, @Anonymous, @donut, @RF

    The one in 2700 above should read 1 in 3600.

  9. @Anonymous

    Some research indicates, for example, that Louisiana Cajuns, French Canadians and individuals with Irish lineage may also have an elevated incidence of Tay-Sachs.
     
    Does this suggests these groups may have Jewish ancestry? Sephardic perhaps?

    Replies: @Lot, @gcochran, @Federalist, @Sean, @Ed, @Kratoklastes

    No: different mutations of the same gene.

  10. @Reg Cæsar


    But with screening, Tay-Sachs could be detected before birth, and “carrier couples felt encouraged to have children,” she wrote…
     
    I’m struck by how close a coincidence there was in time between the start of the anti-Tay-Sachs campaign in 1971...
     
    ...and Roe v Wade.

    Replies: @fitzhamilton, @YetAnotherAnon, @Steve Sailer, @sabril, @bored identity, @bored identity

    Wow. Just wow. How is it that this is the first time I’ve ever heard about this?

    I just read the article in the Times of Israel Steve links to, and they don’t explicitly mention abortion once. It’s as if they screen the child before birth, then it simply magically disappears if it’s a carrier of the gene? I’ve heard quite a bit about the aborting of Downs Syndrome children – they say it’s about a 90% rate these days – but never once about this.. But Down’s Sydrome effects the gentiles, equally, too – the epidemiology of Tay Sachs is much more narrow: it’s predominately an Ashkenazi and Cajun/Arcadian French Canadian disease.

    I’ve always wondered at how so many radical feminists and abortion activists have been Jewish – I mean Freidan, Steinem, Firestone, Dworkin – there was hardly a major early feminist theorist who wasn’t Jewish. I always chalked it up to culture.. Lately I’ve been getting a bit more cynical, and conspiratorially paranoid though..

    This article is a dropping penny. The genetic testing began in earnest in 1971, then in 1973, we get Roe v Wade. That can’t be coincidental. Nor can the media silence about it all be accidental.

    • LOL: IHTG
    • Replies: @guest
    @fitzhamilton

    I think I remember a t.v. movie about a couple trying to decide whether to abort the baby a test showed was homosexual. Or did I just dream that?

    , @YetAnotherAnon
    @fitzhamilton

    On the other hand, the Roe vs Wade voters were Blackmun, joined by Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell - wasn't that 100% Gentile?

    I see the verdict was on the grounds that the 14th apparently included the right to your own contraceptive methods. Wouldn't that cover infanticide too?

    Replies: @HammerJack, @Dr. X, @Dr. X

    , @Jack D
    @fitzhamilton

    The Jews didn't need Roe v Wade to make abortion available to Tay Sachs mothers. Abortion was legal in NY before Roe v Wade. There were also around a dozen states (up and down both coasts) where abortion was legal in case of a damaged fetus. The main area where abortion was completely illegal was the Midwest, where the Catholic Church had a big influence. But all you needed to do was to travel to the nearest state where abortion was legal. There were also illegal abortions available. People with money (e.g. Jews) always had access to abortion. The big effect of Roe v Wade was to make abortion available to blacks. This was a blessing for America.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    , @DRA
    @fitzhamilton

    It’s as if they screen the child before birth, then it simply magically disappears if it’s a carrier of the gene?

    Could happen, but unless the fetus has two copies of the defective gene the child will live a normal life, and have whatever benefit being heterozygous.

  11. J.Ross says: • Website

    Was this the cause of armag-addon?
    Hearing that changing signature requirement to false in about:config will fix this; some say updating helps, others say it does not. Some are saying this is tied to the system time and pushing your clock back helps (?!). I have not had any problems. However, many users of Firefox have been reporting that all their add-ons (crucially, including ad blockers) were all switched off at once.

  12. Anon[324] • Disclaimer says:

    Reading around about Bertrand Russell, I cam across this in his Wikipedia entry:

    Russell later criticised eugenic programs for their vulnerability to corruption, and, in 1932, he condemned the “unwarranted assumption” that “Negroes are congenitally inferior to white men” (Education and the Social Order, Chap. 3).

    It is sometimes maintained that racial mixture is biologically undesirable. There is no evidence whatever for this view. Nor is there, apparently, any reason to think that Negroes are congenitally less intelligent than white people, but as to that it will be difficult to judge until they have equal scope and equally good social conditions.

    — Bertrand Russell, New Hopes for a Changing World (London: Allen & Unwin, 1951, p. 108)

    But there was this:

    Another passage from early editions of his book Marriage and Morals (1929), which Russell later claimed to be referring only to environmental conditioning, and which he significantly modified in later editions, reads:

    In extreme cases there can be little doubt of the superiority of one race to another[…] It seems on the whole fair to regard Negroes as on the average inferior to white men, although for work in the tropics they are indispensable, so that their extermination (apart from the question of humanity) would be highly undesirable.

    — Bertrand Russell, Marriage and Morals, pg. 266 (1929)

    Later explained by him:

    Responding in 1964 to a correspondent’s inquiry, “Do you still consider the Negroes an inferior race, as you did when you wrote Marriage and Morals?”, Russell replied:

    I never held Negroes to be inherently inferior. The statement in Marriage and Morals refers to environmental conditioning. I have had it withdrawn from subsequent editions because it is clearly ambiguous.

    — Bertrand Russell, letter dated 17 March 1964 in Dear Bertrand Russell… a selection of his correspondence with the general public, 1950–1968. edited by Barry Feinberg and Ronald Kasrils.(London: Allen & Unwin, 1969, p. 146)

    • Replies: @guest
    @Anon

    "it will be difficult to judge until they have equal scope and equally good social conditions"

    Conveniently, one might forever claim some Phantom Menace is getting in their way, and the controlled experiment Russell pretends to wish to conduct will never happen. Which is good news for the happy warriors of the army of ignorance.

    , @HammerJack
    @Anon

    To which the 'correspondent' replied, "That's a good little doggie!"

    , @MEH 0910
    @Anon


    It seems on the whole fair to regard Negroes as on the average inferior to white men, although for work in the tropics they are indispensable, so that their extermination (apart from the question of humanity) would be highly undesirable.

    — Bertrand Russell, Marriage and Morals, pg. 266 (1929)
     
    We could turn the tropics into a nature reserve.

    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jIwF_h6orTQ/WotEBpjo0oI/AAAAAAAAXZ8/4jD_UuE1b5oDXy9W1iaP5WoiOW0qxgG2ACLcBGAs/s1600/dalek1.jpg
  13. The MIC being big in dis-eugenics:

    Deadly Dust: US Spreading Radiation and No One Wants to Raise the Issue – Author

    This will cause a big haunting later. Animals have not evolved any way to get Uranium out of their system.

  14. No, because this is good and eugenics is bad. Therefore, this can’t be eugenics. Simple logic, Steve.

  15. Aborting babies who would not have survived to reproductive age in any case is not eugenic, and may actually be dysgenic, if it allows Tay-Sachs carriers to pass that gene onto a greater number of fertile offspring.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Dave2

    Interesting point. I wonder though if it is not so much the abortion itself that is dysgenic (after all, those children would have died before reproducing anyway) but rather that it is the screening-and-abortion program that allows people to go further out on the dysgenic limb. In other words, whereas formerly, Tay-Sachs carriers might have refrained from having kids at all, once they became aware of their status, nowadays they can reproduce with abandon since they know that they can abort the full-blown Tay-Sachs babies, which means that now more Tay-Sachs carriers are around in net, but we don't notice them because the family trees keep getting pruned of the full-blown Tay-Sachs cases. So the outward manifestation of the disease disappears while the underlying genetics is in fact getting worse (i.e., greater liability for Tay-Sachs) rather than better. Which means that Tay-Sachs screening will become even more necessary rather less necessary and that Tay-Sachs abortions will become more common rather than less common. So screening isn't really a "cure" for Tay-Sachs so much as the thin edge of a wedge of a gradually increasing game of Tay-Sachs whack-a-mole.

    This is akin to Steve's argument with Steven Levitt about Levitt's abortion-reduced-crime hypothesis (and also akin to Ann Coulter's social—as opposed to moral—anti-abortion arguments): that the availability of abortion seems to incentivize inadvisable pregnancies that otherwise wouldn't have happened.

    , @res
    @Dave2

    Very interesting point. I wonder if the Tay-Sachs allele frequency in American Ashkenazi Jews has increased over that time.

    This actually ties into one of my (secondary) concerns about genetic engineering and selection. If it turns out that heterozygote advantage means that something like a Tay-Sachs carrier is considered "optimal" we run the risk of creating people who won't breed "true."

    This is analogous to the problems seen with trying to use seeds from F1 hybrid plants.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_hybrid#Disadvantages


    When F1 cultivars are used as parents, their offspring (F2 generation) vary greatly from one another. Some F2s are high in homozygous genes, as found in their grandparents, and these will lack hybrid vigour. From the point of view of a commercial seed producer who does not wish customers to produce their own seed via seed saving, this genetic assortment is a desired characteristic.
     
    Except in the human case they won't just be "lacking in hybrid vigor." A quarter of them will have the disease in question. And the odds quickly become much more unacceptable if more than one SNP is like this.

    P.S. There was a reason I left the final sentence of that quote in.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

  16. @Lot
    It isn’t eugenics since it doesn’t change the gene pool, rather it avoids the birth of children who will die around age 4 or 5.

    In a really small way it may be eugenic by increasing the overall Jewish population slightly and increasing the tiny IQ boost of being a TS carrier to more people.

    The non-AJ equivalent of TS is probably cystic fibrosis. 1 in 30 whites are carriers, and random mating will result in 1 in 900 double carrier pairs and 1 in 2700 white births having CS.

    CS isn’t quite as fatal as TS, with massive medical intervention people can live to 40, and are not brain damaged.

    The advantage of being a CS carrier isn’t known and there is a lot of speculation, but I think the most likely explanation is a lower rate of death from diarrheal diseases.

    Replies: @Lot, @Endgame Napoleon, @Anonymous, @donut, @RF

    I think he was noting the contradiction between the way many Jews embrace a political, anti-Eugenics mentality that implicitly rejects notions of inequality, but when it comes down to their own progeny’s health and any sacrifices in raising disabled children, they will make an exception to otherwise hardline egalitarian ideals.

    It is understandable that Jews would reject a biological weeding out of humans deemed undesirable since a main component of the evil Nazi philosophy included notions of genetically superior humans. When it’s not Aryans, but genetically superior Jews and Asians with higher IQs, riding high above the other whites, Blacks and Hispanics (except the handful of outliers), the quest for social equality morphs into something else.

    • Replies: @Moses
    @Endgame Napoleon


    It is understandable that Jews would reject a biological weeding out of humans deemed undesirable since a main component of the evil Nazi philosophy included notions of genetically superior humans.
     
    This is not true.

    Jews do not reject "biological weeding out." They embrace it.

    Judaism encourages abortion if the baby may have a birth defect.

    In Israel a woman may not choose to abort unless she gets proactive permission from a doctor panel.*


    Circumstances under which abortion is approved

    Under a 1977 abortion law, a termination committee can approve an abortion, under sub-section 316a,[8] in the following circumstances:

    1) The woman is younger than the legal marriage age in Israel (which currently is 18, raised from 17 in April 2013),[9] or older than forty. (This was later amended to also include women under the age of twenty.)[3]

    2) The pregnancy was conceived under illegal circumstances (rape, statutory rape, etc.), in an incestuous relationship, or outside of marriage.

    3) The fetus may have a physical or mental birth defect.

    4) Continued pregnancy may put the woman's life in risk, or damage her physically or mentally.
     

    *from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Israel

    In America though, Jewish activists push a "woman's right to choose" full stop. Weird.

    Replies: @miss marple, @SFG, @Jack D

  17. Isn’t this all about abortion?

    • Replies: @Rapparee
    @Charlotte Allen

    My understanding is that Rabbis arranging marriages or doing marriage prep work now encourage couples to undergo genetic testing, to ensure that at least one parent is not a carrier of Tay-Sachs. If both parents are carriers, they call off the union. I assume (and hope) this is a bigger factor than abortion, (the article also seems to imply this), but I don't really know much about it and am happy to be corrected.

  18. Stephen J. Gould was an influential writer, and we can’t change that. And that means not least, his writings will continue to influence lots of readers. What has motivated Gould then hardly matters to most of these readers, because Hitler. And Hitler is still important for lots of people (for almost all reasonable people in the world…).

    Seen from a time very far away, it is quite likely, that hardly anybody will be able to decipher what the difference between avoiding dysgenics and eugenics is. – That would be my guess.
    But as you wrote: There is indeed a difference between changing a gene and avoiding a gene to do harm. So – to improve the knowledge about the genetically right combination of parents would do too.

  19. Anonymous[367] • Disclaimer says:

    Also Cystic Fibrosis – another truly horrific genetically determined disorder – found mostly in those of north European descent could be effectively eliminated by a straightforward and relatively inexpensive program of universal genetic screening.

    Former British PM Gordon Brown has two children with CF. Apparently, both him and his wife carry the CF alleles.

    • Replies: @utu
    @Anonymous


    Also Cystic Fibrosis – another truly horrific genetically determined disorder – found mostly in those of north European descent could be effectively eliminated
     
    Elimination of diseases by killing people who are sick is not very original.
  20. Anonymous[367] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lot
    It isn’t eugenics since it doesn’t change the gene pool, rather it avoids the birth of children who will die around age 4 or 5.

    In a really small way it may be eugenic by increasing the overall Jewish population slightly and increasing the tiny IQ boost of being a TS carrier to more people.

    The non-AJ equivalent of TS is probably cystic fibrosis. 1 in 30 whites are carriers, and random mating will result in 1 in 900 double carrier pairs and 1 in 2700 white births having CS.

    CS isn’t quite as fatal as TS, with massive medical intervention people can live to 40, and are not brain damaged.

    The advantage of being a CS carrier isn’t known and there is a lot of speculation, but I think the most likely explanation is a lower rate of death from diarrheal diseases.

    Replies: @Lot, @Endgame Napoleon, @Anonymous, @donut, @RF

    Being effectively suffocated by your own lungs – which CF sufferers have to endure – is an unbelievably distressing and horrible condition.

    It’s quite probable that any CF sufferer when posed with the question ‘should my very birth had been prevented?’ if honest would reply in the affirmative.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Anonymous

    I'm not so sure about that nowadays. Children born with cystic fibrosis today probably have a life expectancy of around 50 years - that's not great but it's a reasonably full life - not so long ago that would be typical for those without CF. They can always kill themselves later if they decide their suffering is too great. It's better to avoid giving birth to CF babies but the ones that are already here can have reasonably fulfilling lives and the treatments just keep getting better.

  21. Generally speaking, I’ve always been more or less anti-eugenics on the whole

    What is your suggestions for all the problems with black people. Or with “white trash” people ? The HBD says that there are genetic basis for many human traits. So, the only way to solve all the problems with genetic origins, is to improve the genetics of the population. BTW, eugenics doesn’t need to be cruel. If the higher strata of the population donate embryos for the lower strata, vast number of problems will be solved. Perhaps, it’s not difficult for parents in the lower ends of society, to understand that their children would be better if they inherit an IQ of 130, not an IQ bellow 90.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @Valentino

    "if the higher strata of the population donate embryos for the lower strata, vast number of problems will be solved... it’s not difficult for parents in the lower ends of society, to understand that their children would be better if they inherit an IQ of 130"

    I knew an Oxbridge grad who did a lot of donating in his student days, before they changed the law (in 2005) to allow 'anonymous' donors to contact their biological fathers.

    Very bright and nice chap, six-three, handsome - those recipients will probably have tall, clever babies.

    On the other hand, most people want their children to be theirs, not a stranger's.

    You could improve a population's average IQ by encouraging intelligent women to have more babies, and by not subsidising less intelligent women to have more babies. Our systems are set up to do the exact opposite - bright women are encouraged to value career/qualifications over motherhood, less bright are subsidised via welfare to have babies.

    There's one little ray of hope in the UK, that's not been overturned by the courts (yet) - going forward from 2017, you can only claim benefits for two children (existing benefits continue, so if you have four born before 2017, you're OK, but won't get extra benefit if you have another).

    https://www.opfs.org.uk/limiting-benefits-paid-children/

    The other obvious eugenic step would be to reduce tax levels above a certain income for large families - I know Hungary does this, but not many places do.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @sabril, @DRA, @Valentino

  22. I have been calling myself anti-dysgenic for years. It seems to fit these kind of situations, and also has a pre-emptive de-escalation effect, so one can go ahead and talk about heredity and genetics. Or maybe I’m confusing people, like when I brag that I can reverse-moonwalk.

  23. guest says:

    People think they’re against eugenics because the word conjures images of mass murder. But ask them if they want to stop genetic diseases or have everyone get stupider and shorter generation by generation, and it’s a different story.

    Any policy that encourages passing on good inheritable traits and isolating bad ones is eugenics, and that’s not really a controversial thing if you put it in other words. The powers that be certainly are carrying on eugenic programs under other names.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @guest

    Not just TPTB. All life does.

    Replies: @AnotherDad

  24. the issue is that the government is going to ram officially sanctioned dysgenics on us by force. so why not turn that around. we’re going to get some version of a -genics program one way or another, so why not a minor beneficial version.

    yet most people i talk to don’t seem to get this, and recoil even at the thought of small time, humane eugenics as government policy. it’s really stupid. they seem to have super strong feelings about what the government is doing now being the right thing. either they don’t understand this is happening, or they’re going total hands off, never touch or interrupt anybody from breeding at will.

    the only thing they seem to be in favor of is eliminating down syndrome people.

    wrongthink concept i’ve had for a while – super low infant mortality is dysgenic. that’s a part of what’s making things worse, not better.

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    @prime noticer

    You are absolutely right. Our ability to keep alive marginal individuals is why government spending keeps growing. One commenter once observed that maybe the reason why young people don't return to rural America is "we don't make a place for them". E
    Most of the increase in education costs is from the expansion of "special needs" schooling.
    Dr. Emmanuel is right, but people don't want to admit it.

  25. guest says:
    @Polynikes
    That dang Hitler ruined eugenics for everyone. If only he weren't a Nazi.

    Replies: @guest, @SFG

    That dang Hitler ruined highways for everyone…Oh, wait. We’re just fine with those.

    That dang Hitler ruined ballistic missiles…jet engines…vegetarianism…hermeneutic philosophy…the German shepherd breed…neoclassical art…torch parades…

    Ya know, I think we just pick and choose what Hitler ruined for reasons unrelated to Hitler.

    He is an excuse. The human “sciences” had already been claimed by the enemy before the Third Reich.

    • Agree: GermanReader2, L Woods
    • Replies: @Coemgen
    @guest

    That dang Hitler ruined propaganda and socialism for everyone…Oh, wait. We’re just fine with those too.

    , @fnn
    @guest

    Plus Hippie Hitler gave us the VW, Green politics and anti-tobacco campaigns.


    the German shepherd breed
     
    The Bundeswehr (what's it for?) now uses Belgian Shepherds.
    , @Ibound1
    @guest

    What Hitler really ruined for everyone - really truly ruined - was normal German and (other) European nationalism. He turned pride in one’s country and civilization - the highest civilization in human history - into a freakish bizarre imperialistic death cult led by I might add, the ugly, dwarfish and misshapen (Himmler, Goebbels, and Goering). And we have yet to recover and may never recover. That’s what Hitler ruined for everybody: Nationalism. It doesn’t surprise me the Israelis are nationalistic. They are the only ones who refuse to take any lessons from Hitler.

    Replies: @bored identity, @dearieme

    , @BB753
    @guest

    But he did ruin Chaplinesque mustaches for all eternity. A pity!



    http://img.irtve.es/v/610565/

    Replies: @guest

  26. @fitzhamilton
    @Reg Cæsar

    Wow. Just wow. How is it that this is the first time I've ever heard about this?

    I just read the article in the Times of Israel Steve links to, and they don't explicitly mention abortion once. It's as if they screen the child before birth, then it simply magically disappears if it's a carrier of the gene? I've heard quite a bit about the aborting of Downs Syndrome children - they say it's about a 90% rate these days - but never once about this.. But Down's Sydrome effects the gentiles, equally, too - the epidemiology of Tay Sachs is much more narrow: it's predominately an Ashkenazi and Cajun/Arcadian French Canadian disease.

    I've always wondered at how so many radical feminists and abortion activists have been Jewish - I mean Freidan, Steinem, Firestone, Dworkin - there was hardly a major early feminist theorist who wasn't Jewish. I always chalked it up to culture.. Lately I've been getting a bit more cynical, and conspiratorially paranoid though..

    This article is a dropping penny. The genetic testing began in earnest in 1971, then in 1973, we get Roe v Wade. That can't be coincidental. Nor can the media silence about it all be accidental.

    Replies: @guest, @YetAnotherAnon, @Jack D, @DRA

    I think I remember a t.v. movie about a couple trying to decide whether to abort the baby a test showed was homosexual. Or did I just dream that?

  27. guest says:
    @Anon
    Reading around about Bertrand Russell, I cam across this in his Wikipedia entry:

    Russell later criticised eugenic programs for their vulnerability to corruption, and, in 1932, he condemned the "unwarranted assumption" that "Negroes are congenitally inferior to white men" (Education and the Social Order, Chap. 3).

    It is sometimes maintained that racial mixture is biologically undesirable. There is no evidence whatever for this view. Nor is there, apparently, any reason to think that Negroes are congenitally less intelligent than white people, but as to that it will be difficult to judge until they have equal scope and equally good social conditions.

    — Bertrand Russell, New Hopes for a Changing World (London: Allen & Unwin, 1951, p. 108)
     
    But there was this:

    Another passage from early editions of his book Marriage and Morals (1929), which Russell later claimed to be referring only to environmental conditioning, and which he significantly modified in later editions, reads:

    In extreme cases there can be little doubt of the superiority of one race to another[...] It seems on the whole fair to regard Negroes as on the average inferior to white men, although for work in the tropics they are indispensable, so that their extermination (apart from the question of humanity) would be highly undesirable.

    — Bertrand Russell, Marriage and Morals, pg. 266 (1929)
     
    Later explained by him:

    Responding in 1964 to a correspondent's inquiry, "Do you still consider the Negroes an inferior race, as you did when you wrote Marriage and Morals?", Russell replied:

    I never held Negroes to be inherently inferior. The statement in Marriage and Morals refers to environmental conditioning. I have had it withdrawn from subsequent editions because it is clearly ambiguous.

    — Bertrand Russell, letter dated 17 March 1964 in Dear Bertrand Russell... a selection of his correspondence with the general public, 1950–1968. edited by Barry Feinberg and Ronald Kasrils.(London: Allen & Unwin, 1969, p. 146)
     

    Replies: @guest, @HammerJack, @MEH 0910

    “it will be difficult to judge until they have equal scope and equally good social conditions”

    Conveniently, one might forever claim some Phantom Menace is getting in their way, and the controlled experiment Russell pretends to wish to conduct will never happen. Which is good news for the happy warriors of the army of ignorance.

  28. 3194001

    I would call one Soft Eugenics and the other Hard Eugenics.

  29. donut says:
    @Lot
    It isn’t eugenics since it doesn’t change the gene pool, rather it avoids the birth of children who will die around age 4 or 5.

    In a really small way it may be eugenic by increasing the overall Jewish population slightly and increasing the tiny IQ boost of being a TS carrier to more people.

    The non-AJ equivalent of TS is probably cystic fibrosis. 1 in 30 whites are carriers, and random mating will result in 1 in 900 double carrier pairs and 1 in 2700 white births having CS.

    CS isn’t quite as fatal as TS, with massive medical intervention people can live to 40, and are not brain damaged.

    The advantage of being a CS carrier isn’t known and there is a lot of speculation, but I think the most likely explanation is a lower rate of death from diarrheal diseases.

    Replies: @Lot, @Endgame Napoleon, @Anonymous, @donut, @RF

    Back in the early oo’s there was an article in the New Yorker by Sanjay Gupta promoting making hospital rankings/outcomes of stays available to the public by the names of the hospital , at the time they were not , I don’t know about now . One of the main supports for his argument was the varied outcomes in different hospitals for cystic fibrosis pts. Just by happenstance a month or so after I had read the article I had as a pt. a gentleman who was very high up in a foundation that was all about CF . I mentioned the article to him . He said Gupta had interviewed him for the article and he had explained to Gupta , which I’m surprised he had to , that different populations genetics determined the severity of the disease and the two main supports for Gupta’s argument were a hospital in the south , I don’t remember which one , where the genetic makeup of the CF sufferers led to them having a milder form of the disease that responded well to treatment . The other pop. in Gupta’s article was a hospital in the north where the people of a different genetic background generally had much worse outcomes because those people , Nordics I believe , carried a much more severe form of the disease . Of course that little bit of information didn’t make it into his article in The New Yorker , He does work for CNN now so you might say fake news is in his blood .
    Maybe Sanjay could do an article about whether Indian doctors are genetically predisposed to cheat the Medicare system , you know nature vs. nurture .

    .

  30. @Reg Cæsar


    But with screening, Tay-Sachs could be detected before birth, and “carrier couples felt encouraged to have children,” she wrote…
     
    I’m struck by how close a coincidence there was in time between the start of the anti-Tay-Sachs campaign in 1971...
     
    ...and Roe v Wade.

    Replies: @fitzhamilton, @YetAnotherAnon, @Steve Sailer, @sabril, @bored identity, @bored identity

    I noticed that too, and read the article to see if abortion was mentioned. It isn’t, but I assume that’s how ‘no babies were born’ with Tay-Sachs.

    • Replies: @Gordo
    @YetAnotherAnon

    Same way no babies are born with Downs Syndrome in Iceland. But we're allowed to criticise that.

  31. @fitzhamilton
    @Reg Cæsar

    Wow. Just wow. How is it that this is the first time I've ever heard about this?

    I just read the article in the Times of Israel Steve links to, and they don't explicitly mention abortion once. It's as if they screen the child before birth, then it simply magically disappears if it's a carrier of the gene? I've heard quite a bit about the aborting of Downs Syndrome children - they say it's about a 90% rate these days - but never once about this.. But Down's Sydrome effects the gentiles, equally, too - the epidemiology of Tay Sachs is much more narrow: it's predominately an Ashkenazi and Cajun/Arcadian French Canadian disease.

    I've always wondered at how so many radical feminists and abortion activists have been Jewish - I mean Freidan, Steinem, Firestone, Dworkin - there was hardly a major early feminist theorist who wasn't Jewish. I always chalked it up to culture.. Lately I've been getting a bit more cynical, and conspiratorially paranoid though..

    This article is a dropping penny. The genetic testing began in earnest in 1971, then in 1973, we get Roe v Wade. That can't be coincidental. Nor can the media silence about it all be accidental.

    Replies: @guest, @YetAnotherAnon, @Jack D, @DRA

    On the other hand, the Roe vs Wade voters were Blackmun, joined by Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell – wasn’t that 100% Gentile?

    I see the verdict was on the grounds that the 14th apparently included the right to your own contraceptive methods. Wouldn’t that cover infanticide too?

    • Replies: @HammerJack
    @YetAnotherAnon


    On the other hand, the Roe vs Wade voters were Blackmun, joined by Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell – wasn’t that 100% Gentile?
     
    Two questions:

    1. Who were the Jews on the High Court at the time?

    2. How stupid do you think the iSteve readership is?

    Replies: @Logan

    , @Dr. X
    @YetAnotherAnon

    The didn't even bother to decide which amendment granted this supposed right. If you read the text of the Roe decision, they just state that it could be the 14th, could be the 9th -- didn't matter. They merely stated that the "right of privacy" was "broad enough" to include abortion.

    , @Dr. X
    @YetAnotherAnon

    The didn't even bother to decide which amendment granted this supposed right. If you read the text of the Roe decision, they just state that it could be the 14th, could be the 9th -- didn't matter. They merely stated that the "right of privacy" was "broad enough" to include abortion.

  32. The thing is fertility treatments may well entail also having an abortion. While you’re tampering with nature anyway, you may well decide to make deliberate choices about the embryo’s qualities. I don’t believe there are many women who have to resort to such measures who don’t get over the controversies of abortion and eugenics potentially being involved.

  33. OT

    Oh, no, not again. Staples Center? Farrakhan?

    Funeral for director John Singleton to be held in Los Angeles

    Family also planning larger memorial for Boyz N the Hood director, who died this week

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/may/04/funeral-for-director-john-singleton-to-be-held-in-los-angeles

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Anon

    What about Chewbacca?

    Replies: @stillCARealist

    , @guest
    @Anon

    OMG, the man behind Poetic Justice and Baby Boy is dead?

    Seriously though, I enjoy how he depicted black males as eternal adolescents. Some good Noticing going on in his movies, at least. Including:

    1. How racist black cops are against black youfs
    2. How shiftless black males rely on black women to support them
    3. How stepfathers suck, especially large ones from prison
    4. How black-on-black shootings are mostly impromptu emotional thangs

  34. @Reg Cæsar


    But with screening, Tay-Sachs could be detected before birth, and “carrier couples felt encouraged to have children,” she wrote…
     
    I’m struck by how close a coincidence there was in time between the start of the anti-Tay-Sachs campaign in 1971...
     
    ...and Roe v Wade.

    Replies: @fitzhamilton, @YetAnotherAnon, @Steve Sailer, @sabril, @bored identity, @bored identity

    It’s probably related to abortion being legalized in Washington D.C. in 1970.

    • Replies: @Dr. X
    @Steve Sailer

    ...and New York in 1970 -- the second-biggest population of Jews outside Israel.

    , @bored identity
    @Steve Sailer

    bored identity just found this great missing link about HBD, and potential up&downsides of eugenics...

    He knows that Uncle Sailer would appreciate learning about what happens when 60 Minutes imitates Documentary Now !:

    https://youtu.be/6GlNQzjii1c




    Let's be honest; Ilhan's uniqueness is soooo Last Current Year compared to this.

    So, how long before Weimerica imports her First Four-Legged-Walker to the House of Repressentatives?

    Replies: @guest

    , @Sean
    @Steve Sailer

    It would be interesting to know if only embryos with a copy of the Tay-Sachs mutation from each parent (those homozygous for it that will get the fatal child disease) are aborted, or if the clinics are selecting for embryos without the mutation at all. If they believe that bullcrap about founder effect they may be trying for no mutations, and if they did that with every disease Jews are prone to they might be having a very real effect on Jewish IQ.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Steve Sailer


    It’s probably related to abortion being legalized in Washington D.C. in 1970.
     
    New York State legalized it in 1970, too. It led to a spate of embarrassing "abortion tourism", as the downstate urban counties lie in a thicket of nearby states where it was still illegal and strictly enforced.

    What few people know is that there was blowback in New York. The legislature changed composition (if not partisanship) in that year's election, and by 1972 was able to pass a bill repealing the the previous one, which would return the state to some of the strictest laws on the books anywhere.

    Gov. Rockefeller, of the eugenicist clan, flew in from an out-of-state vacation specifically to veto the bill. Roe v Wade came down a few months later, making the effort doubly moot.

    Anyone interested in this story should look into this balanced, indeed diplomatic, history, by a professor who doesn't seem to have been born yet at the period it covers:


    Defenders of the Unborn: The Pro-Life Movement Before Roe V. Wade

    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26262377-defenders-of-the-unborn


    On April 16, 1972, ten thousand people gathered in Central Park to protest New York's liberal abortion law. Emotions ran high, reflecting the nation's extreme polarization over abortion. Yet the divisions did not fall neatly along partisan or religious lines-the assembled protesters were far from a bunch of fire-breathing culture warriors. In Defenders of the Unborn, Daniel K. Williams reveals the hidden history of the pro-life movement in America, showing that a cause that many see as reactionary and anti-feminist began as a liberal crusade for human rights.
     
  35. Slightly off-topic: the average IQ for Down Syndrome folks is about 60. Compare that to say, Sierra Leone average, which is about the same. Does this mean Ashkenazi Jewish Down Syndrome people have an average IQ around the same as American Blacks?

    • Replies: @sabril
    @TelfoedJohn

    Possibly, but asking the IQ of someone with Down's Syndrome is a bit like asking the dress size of an amputee.

    Generally speaking, knowing a woman's dress size gives you a pretty good idea of her overall size and shape, but it's not a perfect measure and especially not for people who have major deformities. So too with IQ.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @TelfoedJohn

    The Sierra Leoneans are stupid, but healthy. Down Syndrome kids are similar. They have a cognitive condition, but are pretty well-rounded otherwise.

    Compare them with Prader-Willi people, who are at a similar mental level, and a horrendous appetite and weight problem.

    Replies: @gcochran

  36. Eugenics is bad when done to superiors, not inferiors, not that the author of the article would ever imply that.

  37. @Valentino

    Generally speaking, I’ve always been more or less anti-eugenics on the whole

     

    What is your suggestions for all the problems with black people. Or with "white trash" people ? The HBD says that there are genetic basis for many human traits. So, the only way to solve all the problems with genetic origins, is to improve the genetics of the population. BTW, eugenics doesn't need to be cruel. If the higher strata of the population donate embryos for the lower strata, vast number of problems will be solved. Perhaps, it's not difficult for parents in the lower ends of society, to understand that their children would be better if they inherit an IQ of 130, not an IQ bellow 90.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    “if the higher strata of the population donate embryos for the lower strata, vast number of problems will be solved… it’s not difficult for parents in the lower ends of society, to understand that their children would be better if they inherit an IQ of 130”

    I knew an Oxbridge grad who did a lot of donating in his student days, before they changed the law (in 2005) to allow ‘anonymous’ donors to contact their biological fathers.

    Very bright and nice chap, six-three, handsome – those recipients will probably have tall, clever babies.

    On the other hand, most people want their children to be theirs, not a stranger’s.

    You could improve a population’s average IQ by encouraging intelligent women to have more babies, and by not subsidising less intelligent women to have more babies. Our systems are set up to do the exact opposite – bright women are encouraged to value career/qualifications over motherhood, less bright are subsidised via welfare to have babies.

    There’s one little ray of hope in the UK, that’s not been overturned by the courts (yet) – going forward from 2017, you can only claim benefits for two children (existing benefits continue, so if you have four born before 2017, you’re OK, but won’t get extra benefit if you have another).

    https://www.opfs.org.uk/limiting-benefits-paid-children/

    The other obvious eugenic step would be to reduce tax levels above a certain income for large families – I know Hungary does this, but not many places do.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @YetAnotherAnon

    "You could improve a population’s average IQ by encouraging intelligent women to have more babies, and by not subsidising less intelligent women to have more babies."

    So by subsidizing you mean welfare for the semi-bright and highly bright? To you, what does this program entail? What are the eligibility requirements? How is it funded? How will it be advertised, i.e. gaining political and citizen support?

    Replies: @miss marple

    , @sabril
    @YetAnotherAnon


    Our systems are set up to do the exact opposite – bright women are encouraged to value career/qualifications over motherhood, less bright are subsidised via welfare to have babies.
     
    Yes, if the current system continued for another 500 or 1000 years, one could reasonably expect that the intelligence gap between men and women would get substantially wider.

    That said, on a 500 year time frame, with everything continuing on the current track, the only thing that matters is subcultures that put a high value on reproduction -- Amish people; Ultra-Orthodox Jews; FLDS; etc.

    Among these groups, are smart women having more children than stupid women? I don't know for sure, but I am pretty confident that the answer is "yes." Because in general, smart people are better than stupid people at obtaining what they value.

    Replies: @gcochran, @AnotherDad

    , @DRA
    @YetAnotherAnon

    Probably unconstitutional due to disparate impact. Otherwise it sounds like a good idea.

    Perhaps allowing full tax deductibility of child care costs could help encourage better educated couples to have more children at a younger age. Likewise, financial assistance for freezing eggs to facilitate latter childbirth for those dedicating time to carrier development.

    A guaranteed annual income per citizen, large enough to provide for one or two dependent children below school age, and no additional governmental child support, could remove any financial incentive for having children. Then pay kids for going to school, through their parent of guardian, with a base amount for attendance and bonuses for superior achievement.

    Perhaps the guaranteed annual income could start at completion of high school, or at a reasonably later age, when the school attendance compensation expires.

    , @Valentino
    @YetAnotherAnon


    “On the other hand, most people want their children to be theirs, not a stranger’s.”

     

    This could change more easily than people imagine. People could be educated about all the genetics basis of the mind and body, and that a good mind will be better for their children, and that even them will be benefited with competent children that will help them at an old age.

    “You could improve a population’s average IQ by encouraging intelligent women to have more babies, and by not subsidising less intelligent women to have more babies. Our systems are set up to do the exact opposite – bright women are encouraged to value career/qualifications over motherhood, less bright are subsidised via welfare to have babies.”
     
    This is not an efficient way to solve these problems. It will be extremely slow until all the gene pool of society improve. But if you spread the genetics of the most successful people throughout the socio-economic pyramid, only in one or two generations, the society will be much better. On the other hand, dumb people also want to have children. They could be benefited with all the best that children and grandchildren can offer.
  38. @guest
    @Polynikes

    That dang Hitler ruined highways for everyone...Oh, wait. We're just fine with those.

    That dang Hitler ruined ballistic missiles...jet engines...vegetarianism...hermeneutic philosophy...the German shepherd breed...neoclassical art...torch parades...

    Ya know, I think we just pick and choose what Hitler ruined for reasons unrelated to Hitler.

    He is an excuse. The human "sciences" had already been claimed by the enemy before the Third Reich.

    Replies: @Coemgen, @fnn, @Ibound1, @BB753

    That dang Hitler ruined propaganda and socialism for everyone…Oh, wait. We’re just fine with those too.

  39. Anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    OT

    Oh, no, not again. Staples Center? Farrakhan?

    Funeral for director John Singleton to be held in Los Angeles

    Family also planning larger memorial for Boyz N the Hood director, who died this week

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/may/04/funeral-for-director-john-singleton-to-be-held-in-los-angeles

    Replies: @Anonymous, @guest

    What about Chewbacca?

    • Replies: @stillCARealist
    @Anonymous

    RIP.

    I could never understand a thing he said.

  40. @YetAnotherAnon
    @fitzhamilton

    On the other hand, the Roe vs Wade voters were Blackmun, joined by Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell - wasn't that 100% Gentile?

    I see the verdict was on the grounds that the 14th apparently included the right to your own contraceptive methods. Wouldn't that cover infanticide too?

    Replies: @HammerJack, @Dr. X, @Dr. X

    On the other hand, the Roe vs Wade voters were Blackmun, joined by Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell – wasn’t that 100% Gentile?

    Two questions:

    1. Who were the Jews on the High Court at the time?

    2. How stupid do you think the iSteve readership is?

    • Replies: @Logan
    @HammerJack

    Somewhat surprisingly, there were no Jews on the Court from 1969 (Fortas) to 1993 (Ginsburg).

  41. @Anon
    Reading around about Bertrand Russell, I cam across this in his Wikipedia entry:

    Russell later criticised eugenic programs for their vulnerability to corruption, and, in 1932, he condemned the "unwarranted assumption" that "Negroes are congenitally inferior to white men" (Education and the Social Order, Chap. 3).

    It is sometimes maintained that racial mixture is biologically undesirable. There is no evidence whatever for this view. Nor is there, apparently, any reason to think that Negroes are congenitally less intelligent than white people, but as to that it will be difficult to judge until they have equal scope and equally good social conditions.

    — Bertrand Russell, New Hopes for a Changing World (London: Allen & Unwin, 1951, p. 108)
     
    But there was this:

    Another passage from early editions of his book Marriage and Morals (1929), which Russell later claimed to be referring only to environmental conditioning, and which he significantly modified in later editions, reads:

    In extreme cases there can be little doubt of the superiority of one race to another[...] It seems on the whole fair to regard Negroes as on the average inferior to white men, although for work in the tropics they are indispensable, so that their extermination (apart from the question of humanity) would be highly undesirable.

    — Bertrand Russell, Marriage and Morals, pg. 266 (1929)
     
    Later explained by him:

    Responding in 1964 to a correspondent's inquiry, "Do you still consider the Negroes an inferior race, as you did when you wrote Marriage and Morals?", Russell replied:

    I never held Negroes to be inherently inferior. The statement in Marriage and Morals refers to environmental conditioning. I have had it withdrawn from subsequent editions because it is clearly ambiguous.

    — Bertrand Russell, letter dated 17 March 1964 in Dear Bertrand Russell... a selection of his correspondence with the general public, 1950–1968. edited by Barry Feinberg and Ronald Kasrils.(London: Allen & Unwin, 1969, p. 146)
     

    Replies: @guest, @HammerJack, @MEH 0910

    To which the ‘correspondent’ replied, “That’s a good little doggie!”

  42. Of course “abortion” is the magically missing word. I suggest reading Anthony Ludovici’s little book “The Night Hoers” for a frank discussion of rational eugenics. Writing before the advent of amniocentesis and other prenatal tests, he deplored abortion as equivalent to hoeing at night, that is, trying to eliminate weeds without the benefit of daylight. Better by far to wait till the baby was born and it could be examined carefully by a competent committee to see if it would constitute a burden on the community (and not the parents particularly).

  43. @Endgame Napoleon
    @Lot

    I think he was noting the contradiction between the way many Jews embrace a political, anti-Eugenics mentality that implicitly rejects notions of inequality, but when it comes down to their own progeny’s health and any sacrifices in raising disabled children, they will make an exception to otherwise hardline egalitarian ideals.

    It is understandable that Jews would reject a biological weeding out of humans deemed undesirable since a main component of the evil Nazi philosophy included notions of genetically superior humans. When it’s not Aryans, but genetically superior Jews and Asians with higher IQs, riding high above the other whites, Blacks and Hispanics (except the handful of outliers), the quest for social equality morphs into something else.

    Replies: @Moses

    It is understandable that Jews would reject a biological weeding out of humans deemed undesirable since a main component of the evil Nazi philosophy included notions of genetically superior humans.

    This is not true.

    Jews do not reject “biological weeding out.” They embrace it.

    Judaism encourages abortion if the baby may have a birth defect.

    In Israel a woman may not choose to abort unless she gets proactive permission from a doctor panel.*

    Circumstances under which abortion is approved

    Under a 1977 abortion law, a termination committee can approve an abortion, under sub-section 316a,[8] in the following circumstances:

    1) The woman is younger than the legal marriage age in Israel (which currently is 18, raised from 17 in April 2013),[9] or older than forty. (This was later amended to also include women under the age of twenty.)[3]

    2) The pregnancy was conceived under illegal circumstances (rape, statutory rape, etc.), in an incestuous relationship, or outside of marriage.

    3) The fetus may have a physical or mental birth defect.

    4) Continued pregnancy may put the woman’s life in risk, or damage her physically or mentally.

    *from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Israel

    In America though, Jewish activists push a “woman’s right to choose” full stop. Weird.

    • Replies: @miss marple
    @Moses

    I love conspiracy theories myself but don't you think blaming abortion on the Jews is a bit ridiculous?

    Replies: @Moses

    , @SFG
    @Moses

    Makes sense. American Jews (excluding the balding fellow in the white house and Unz commenters) are generally liberal and swallow the Kool-Aid (TFR's pretty low among secular American Jews). Israeli Jews want to secure a future for themselves and their Jewish children, so they ban it to keep the birth rates up.

    Replies: @IHTG

    , @Jack D
    @Moses

    Continued pregnancy may put the woman’s life in risk, or damage her physically or mentally.


    Damage to mental health is a loophole that you could drive a truck through. Yes you have to jump thru some more hoops (go before the committee) but as a practical matter, abortion is available to women in Israel.

    Any slight difference is accounted for by the fact that there is a much larger % of Jews in Israel who are religious. If you compare a Tel Aviv liberal to a NY liberal you wouldn't find a shekel's worth of difference in their social and political views.

  44. @Anon
    OT

    Oh, no, not again. Staples Center? Farrakhan?

    Funeral for director John Singleton to be held in Los Angeles

    Family also planning larger memorial for Boyz N the Hood director, who died this week

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/may/04/funeral-for-director-john-singleton-to-be-held-in-los-angeles

    Replies: @Anonymous, @guest

    OMG, the man behind Poetic Justice and Baby Boy is dead?

    Seriously though, I enjoy how he depicted black males as eternal adolescents. Some good Noticing going on in his movies, at least. Including:

    1. How racist black cops are against black youfs
    2. How shiftless black males rely on black women to support them
    3. How stepfathers suck, especially large ones from prison
    4. How black-on-black shootings are mostly impromptu emotional thangs

  45. @Dave2
    Aborting babies who would not have survived to reproductive age in any case is not eugenic, and may actually be dysgenic, if it allows Tay-Sachs carriers to pass that gene onto a greater number of fertile offspring.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @res

    Interesting point. I wonder though if it is not so much the abortion itself that is dysgenic (after all, those children would have died before reproducing anyway) but rather that it is the screening-and-abortion program that allows people to go further out on the dysgenic limb. In other words, whereas formerly, Tay-Sachs carriers might have refrained from having kids at all, once they became aware of their status, nowadays they can reproduce with abandon since they know that they can abort the full-blown Tay-Sachs babies, which means that now more Tay-Sachs carriers are around in net, but we don’t notice them because the family trees keep getting pruned of the full-blown Tay-Sachs cases. So the outward manifestation of the disease disappears while the underlying genetics is in fact getting worse (i.e., greater liability for Tay-Sachs) rather than better. Which means that Tay-Sachs screening will become even more necessary rather less necessary and that Tay-Sachs abortions will become more common rather than less common. So screening isn’t really a “cure” for Tay-Sachs so much as the thin edge of a wedge of a gradually increasing game of Tay-Sachs whack-a-mole.

    This is akin to Steve’s argument with Steven Levitt about Levitt’s abortion-reduced-crime hypothesis (and also akin to Ann Coulter’s social—as opposed to moral—anti-abortion arguments): that the availability of abortion seems to incentivize inadvisable pregnancies that otherwise wouldn’t have happened.

  46. @Moses
    @Endgame Napoleon


    It is understandable that Jews would reject a biological weeding out of humans deemed undesirable since a main component of the evil Nazi philosophy included notions of genetically superior humans.
     
    This is not true.

    Jews do not reject "biological weeding out." They embrace it.

    Judaism encourages abortion if the baby may have a birth defect.

    In Israel a woman may not choose to abort unless she gets proactive permission from a doctor panel.*


    Circumstances under which abortion is approved

    Under a 1977 abortion law, a termination committee can approve an abortion, under sub-section 316a,[8] in the following circumstances:

    1) The woman is younger than the legal marriage age in Israel (which currently is 18, raised from 17 in April 2013),[9] or older than forty. (This was later amended to also include women under the age of twenty.)[3]

    2) The pregnancy was conceived under illegal circumstances (rape, statutory rape, etc.), in an incestuous relationship, or outside of marriage.

    3) The fetus may have a physical or mental birth defect.

    4) Continued pregnancy may put the woman's life in risk, or damage her physically or mentally.
     

    *from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Israel

    In America though, Jewish activists push a "woman's right to choose" full stop. Weird.

    Replies: @miss marple, @SFG, @Jack D

    I love conspiracy theories myself but don’t you think blaming abortion on the Jews is a bit ridiculous?

    • Replies: @Moses
    @miss marple


    I love conspiracy theories myself but don’t you think blaming abortion on the Jews is a bit ridiculous?
     
    I'm not blaming anyone. That's your hallucination.

    I merely noted the fact that Jewish activism re: abortion is quite different in Israel vs. the USA.

    Weird.
  47. L Woods says:

    Generally speaking, I’ve always been more or less anti-eugenics on the whole, but it’s hard for me to object too much to this impressive accomplishment against a terrible disease afflicting children.

    Oh come on. You of all people should know better than to indulge in this sort of myopic moral preening. The alternative to “eugenics” is the idiocratic hell into which we are presently descending.

  48. @Polynikes
    That dang Hitler ruined eugenics for everyone. If only he weren't a Nazi.

    Replies: @guest, @SFG

    Actually, I agree. My objection to the Holocaust isn’t eugenics, it’s mass murder. (Same objection to Holodomor, and yes, I think schoolkids should learn about them both.)

    I’d be perfectly fine with encouraging bright people to breed more, for instance.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @SFG

    "I’d be perfectly fine with encouraging bright people to breed more, for instance."

    Regardless of their political stripe?

    And what about lower IQ, lower class white people? Are you on board lumping them together with the darkies as to discourage their proclivities to date and mate?

    Although, here is a palatable idea for the Alt Right. Females in their childbearing prime ought to be shamed, nay coerced, into abandoning their own hopes, dreams, and aspirations and procreating with a God-fearing man! I humbly argue that social pressure has generally NOT produced the desired results; only legislation modeled after “Mother Russia” will induce women to birth and raise children. Socialist medicine to cure those baby blues--direct cash payments to females for every child popped out like popcorn and accommodating work schedules to account for those udderly ridiculous late night feeding frenzies!

    Let us take it one step further--ban compulsory schooling for females in particular. All they learn at the state run asylums is how to swear like a drunken sailor and get STD's. Keep the girls at home where they can start having children at the tender age of 16 or 17, and then when the kids reach puberty, MAYBE they can entertain the thought of employment outside of the home, so long as they obtain permission from Father.

    Replies: @epochehusserl, @L Woods, @Reg Cæsar

  49. SFG says:
    @Moses
    @Endgame Napoleon


    It is understandable that Jews would reject a biological weeding out of humans deemed undesirable since a main component of the evil Nazi philosophy included notions of genetically superior humans.
     
    This is not true.

    Jews do not reject "biological weeding out." They embrace it.

    Judaism encourages abortion if the baby may have a birth defect.

    In Israel a woman may not choose to abort unless she gets proactive permission from a doctor panel.*


    Circumstances under which abortion is approved

    Under a 1977 abortion law, a termination committee can approve an abortion, under sub-section 316a,[8] in the following circumstances:

    1) The woman is younger than the legal marriage age in Israel (which currently is 18, raised from 17 in April 2013),[9] or older than forty. (This was later amended to also include women under the age of twenty.)[3]

    2) The pregnancy was conceived under illegal circumstances (rape, statutory rape, etc.), in an incestuous relationship, or outside of marriage.

    3) The fetus may have a physical or mental birth defect.

    4) Continued pregnancy may put the woman's life in risk, or damage her physically or mentally.
     

    *from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Israel

    In America though, Jewish activists push a "woman's right to choose" full stop. Weird.

    Replies: @miss marple, @SFG, @Jack D

    Makes sense. American Jews (excluding the balding fellow in the white house and Unz commenters) are generally liberal and swallow the Kool-Aid (TFR’s pretty low among secular American Jews). Israeli Jews want to secure a future for themselves and their Jewish children, so they ban it to keep the birth rates up.

    • Replies: @IHTG
    @SFG

    Abortion in Israel is far from banned. You have to pass through a committee, so the government oversees and regulates it, but it's ultimately a rubber stamp.

    Replies: @SFG

  50. OK: Eugenics within a race by that race.
    Not OK: Eugenics between races imposed by an external authority.

    Blacks practice eugenics too. They are selectively breeding for dat azz.

  51. @Steve Sailer
    @Reg Cæsar

    It's probably related to abortion being legalized in Washington D.C. in 1970.

    Replies: @Dr. X, @bored identity, @Sean, @Reg Cæsar

    …and New York in 1970 — the second-biggest population of Jews outside Israel.

  52. “Generally speaking, I’ve always been more or less anti-eugenics, on the whole”

    You say this, Steve, but the linked article doesn’t seem anti-eugenics. In fact, it seems mildly pro-eugenics: praising Robert Graham’s Nobel Prizewinner sperm bank, criticizing Steven Levitt’s faulty pseudo-eugenic logic, comparing selective birth (aka “eugenics”) to sensible selective immigration, etc.

    Perhaps the trouble is in the popular understanding of the word “eugenics”. The word literally means “good kin” or “good birth”. And everyone is in favor of that. After all, who doesn’t want good kin or good births, or good anything for that matter? I think the trouble comes from where it often comes from: the government getting involved. Government-sponsored coercive eugenics gave plain old everyday eugenics a bad name. Now when people think of “eugenics” they don’t think of choosing a healthy and capable spouse, they think of roaming murder vans picking up and gassing undesirables. This is a shame since it prevents clear discussion of important matters.

    In the strictest sense, every reproduction decision is either eugenic or dysgenic, so if you’re not a eugenicist, you’re a dysgenicist. As Olorin once commented,

    [ ] EUGENICS | [ ] DYSGENICS

    Nature says: pick one

  53. “Generally speaking, I’ve always been more or less anti-eugenics, on the whole”

    You say this, Steve, but the linked article doesn’t seem anti-eugenics. In fact, it seems mildly pro-eugenics: praising Robert Graham’s Nobel Prizewinner sperm bank, criticizing Steven Levitt’s faulty pseudo-eugenic logic, comparing selective birth (aka “eugenics”) to sensible selective immigration, etc.

    Perhaps the trouble is in the popular understanding of the word “eugenics”. The word literally means “good kin” or “good birth”. And everyone is in favor of that. After all, who doesn’t want good kin or good births, or good anything for that matter? I think the trouble comes from where it often comes from: the government getting involved. Government-sponsored coercive eugenics gave plain old everyday eugenics a bad name. Now when people think of “eugenics” they don’t think of choosing a healthy and capable spouse, they think of roaming murder vans picking up and gassing undesirables. This is a shame since it prevents clear discussion of important matters.

    In the strictest sense, every reproduction decision is either eugenic or dysgenic, so if you’re not a eugenicist, you’re a dysgenicist. As Olorin once commented,

    [ ] EUGENICS | [ ] DYSGENICS

    Nature says: pick one

  54. @YetAnotherAnon
    @fitzhamilton

    On the other hand, the Roe vs Wade voters were Blackmun, joined by Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell - wasn't that 100% Gentile?

    I see the verdict was on the grounds that the 14th apparently included the right to your own contraceptive methods. Wouldn't that cover infanticide too?

    Replies: @HammerJack, @Dr. X, @Dr. X

    The didn’t even bother to decide which amendment granted this supposed right. If you read the text of the Roe decision, they just state that it could be the 14th, could be the 9th — didn’t matter. They merely stated that the “right of privacy” was “broad enough” to include abortion.

  55. @YetAnotherAnon
    @fitzhamilton

    On the other hand, the Roe vs Wade voters were Blackmun, joined by Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell - wasn't that 100% Gentile?

    I see the verdict was on the grounds that the 14th apparently included the right to your own contraceptive methods. Wouldn't that cover infanticide too?

    Replies: @HammerJack, @Dr. X, @Dr. X

    The didn’t even bother to decide which amendment granted this supposed right. If you read the text of the Roe decision, they just state that it could be the 14th, could be the 9th — didn’t matter. They merely stated that the “right of privacy” was “broad enough” to include abortion.

  56. @guest
    @Polynikes

    That dang Hitler ruined highways for everyone...Oh, wait. We're just fine with those.

    That dang Hitler ruined ballistic missiles...jet engines...vegetarianism...hermeneutic philosophy...the German shepherd breed...neoclassical art...torch parades...

    Ya know, I think we just pick and choose what Hitler ruined for reasons unrelated to Hitler.

    He is an excuse. The human "sciences" had already been claimed by the enemy before the Third Reich.

    Replies: @Coemgen, @fnn, @Ibound1, @BB753

    Plus Hippie Hitler gave us the VW, Green politics and anti-tobacco campaigns.

    the German shepherd breed

    The Bundeswehr (what’s it for?) now uses Belgian Shepherds.

  57. @SFG
    @Polynikes

    Actually, I agree. My objection to the Holocaust isn't eugenics, it's mass murder. (Same objection to Holodomor, and yes, I think schoolkids should learn about them both.)

    I'd be perfectly fine with encouraging bright people to breed more, for instance.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “I’d be perfectly fine with encouraging bright people to breed more, for instance.”

    Regardless of their political stripe?

    And what about lower IQ, lower class white people? Are you on board lumping them together with the darkies as to discourage their proclivities to date and mate?

    Although, here is a palatable idea for the Alt Right. Females in their childbearing prime ought to be shamed, nay coerced, into abandoning their own hopes, dreams, and aspirations and procreating with a God-fearing man! I humbly argue that social pressure has generally NOT produced the desired results; only legislation modeled after “Mother Russia” will induce women to birth and raise children. Socialist medicine to cure those baby blues–direct cash payments to females for every child popped out like popcorn and accommodating work schedules to account for those udderly ridiculous late night feeding frenzies!

    Let us take it one step further–ban compulsory schooling for females in particular. All they learn at the state run asylums is how to swear like a drunken sailor and get STD’s. Keep the girls at home where they can start having children at the tender age of 16 or 17, and then when the kids reach puberty, MAYBE they can entertain the thought of employment outside of the home, so long as they obtain permission from Father.

    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    @Corvinus

    Let us take it one step further–ban compulsory schooling for females in particular. All they learn at the state run asylums is how to swear like a drunken sailor and get STD’s. Keep the girls at home where they can start having children at the tender age of 16 or 17, and then when the kids reach puberty, MAYBE they can entertain the thought of employment outside of the home, so long as they obtain permission from Father.
    --------------------------------------
    I personally wouldn't have a problem with banning compulsory schooling for everyone.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @L Woods
    @Corvinus

    Look, it can talk sense.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Corvinus


    Females in their childbearing prime ought to be shamed, nay coerced, into abandoning their own hopes, dreams, and aspirations
     
    How are the "hopes, dreams, and aspirations" to make big bucks in corporate America any more noble than starting a family with a fellow citizen?

    Let's recognize selfishness for what it is.
  58. @YetAnotherAnon
    @Valentino

    "if the higher strata of the population donate embryos for the lower strata, vast number of problems will be solved... it’s not difficult for parents in the lower ends of society, to understand that their children would be better if they inherit an IQ of 130"

    I knew an Oxbridge grad who did a lot of donating in his student days, before they changed the law (in 2005) to allow 'anonymous' donors to contact their biological fathers.

    Very bright and nice chap, six-three, handsome - those recipients will probably have tall, clever babies.

    On the other hand, most people want their children to be theirs, not a stranger's.

    You could improve a population's average IQ by encouraging intelligent women to have more babies, and by not subsidising less intelligent women to have more babies. Our systems are set up to do the exact opposite - bright women are encouraged to value career/qualifications over motherhood, less bright are subsidised via welfare to have babies.

    There's one little ray of hope in the UK, that's not been overturned by the courts (yet) - going forward from 2017, you can only claim benefits for two children (existing benefits continue, so if you have four born before 2017, you're OK, but won't get extra benefit if you have another).

    https://www.opfs.org.uk/limiting-benefits-paid-children/

    The other obvious eugenic step would be to reduce tax levels above a certain income for large families - I know Hungary does this, but not many places do.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @sabril, @DRA, @Valentino

    “You could improve a population’s average IQ by encouraging intelligent women to have more babies, and by not subsidising less intelligent women to have more babies.”

    So by subsidizing you mean welfare for the semi-bright and highly bright? To you, what does this program entail? What are the eligibility requirements? How is it funded? How will it be advertised, i.e. gaining political and citizen support?

    • Replies: @miss marple
    @Corvinus

    I agree with your concerns about throwing money around. Young people need to be encouraged to be self-sufficient much earlier than their 30s and to recognize how important family is rather than career. I've been working out the indoctrination strategy for a few years now. Sadly, feminist dogma seems to have brought about the near extinction of the upwardly mobile. I would predict more conservative voting patterns out of a population raised to function as independent adults at a younger age than has been typical in our recent past.

  59. @Anonymous

    Some research indicates, for example, that Louisiana Cajuns, French Canadians and individuals with Irish lineage may also have an elevated incidence of Tay-Sachs.
     
    Does this suggests these groups may have Jewish ancestry? Sephardic perhaps?

    Replies: @Lot, @gcochran, @Federalist, @Sean, @Ed, @Kratoklastes

    In the early part of their history, the Acadians were a self-contained community with a strong cultural cohesiveness, including a common religion and language. Together with geographical isolation both in Old Acadia (Nova Scotia) and New Acadia (Louisiana), these factors have contributed to an elevated incidence of autosomal recessive disorders. The Acadian population presents a higher than normal frequency of some rare genetic disorders, such as Friedreich ataxia, Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, Retinitis Pigmentosa, Alström syndrome, Usher syndrome, Tay-Sachs disease, Niemann-Pick disease, and other genetic syndromes.

    https://www.medschool.lsuhsc.edu/genetics_center/louisiana/article_geneticdisorders_p.htm

  60. @SFG
    @Moses

    Makes sense. American Jews (excluding the balding fellow in the white house and Unz commenters) are generally liberal and swallow the Kool-Aid (TFR's pretty low among secular American Jews). Israeli Jews want to secure a future for themselves and their Jewish children, so they ban it to keep the birth rates up.

    Replies: @IHTG

    Abortion in Israel is far from banned. You have to pass through a committee, so the government oversees and regulates it, but it’s ultimately a rubber stamp.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @IHTG

    ah, thank you.

    The general point about the battle of the cradle with the Palestinians still holds, I think?

  61. We are constantly lectured that eugenics is anti-Semitic pseudo-science.

    I challenge you to produce 3 quotes from prominent commentators in the past 12 months stating, in substance, that eugenics is anti-Semitic pseudo-science. (It doesn’t count if the commentator mentions anti-Semitism as one of various types of invidious discrimination.)

  62. @Corvinus
    @YetAnotherAnon

    "You could improve a population’s average IQ by encouraging intelligent women to have more babies, and by not subsidising less intelligent women to have more babies."

    So by subsidizing you mean welfare for the semi-bright and highly bright? To you, what does this program entail? What are the eligibility requirements? How is it funded? How will it be advertised, i.e. gaining political and citizen support?

    Replies: @miss marple

    I agree with your concerns about throwing money around. Young people need to be encouraged to be self-sufficient much earlier than their 30s and to recognize how important family is rather than career. I’ve been working out the indoctrination strategy for a few years now. Sadly, feminist dogma seems to have brought about the near extinction of the upwardly mobile. I would predict more conservative voting patterns out of a population raised to function as independent adults at a younger age than has been typical in our recent past.

  63. @prime noticer
    the issue is that the government is going to ram officially sanctioned dysgenics on us by force. so why not turn that around. we're going to get some version of a -genics program one way or another, so why not a minor beneficial version.

    yet most people i talk to don't seem to get this, and recoil even at the thought of small time, humane eugenics as government policy. it's really stupid. they seem to have super strong feelings about what the government is doing now being the right thing. either they don't understand this is happening, or they're going total hands off, never touch or interrupt anybody from breeding at will.

    the only thing they seem to be in favor of is eliminating down syndrome people.

    wrongthink concept i've had for a while - super low infant mortality is dysgenic. that's a part of what's making things worse, not better.

    Replies: @Redneck farmer

    You are absolutely right. Our ability to keep alive marginal individuals is why government spending keeps growing. One commenter once observed that maybe the reason why young people don’t return to rural America is “we don’t make a place for them”. E
    Most of the increase in education costs is from the expansion of “special needs” schooling.
    Dr. Emmanuel is right, but people don’t want to admit it.

  64. The ‘soft’ eugenic approach that would also have these results of having Jews marry the Gentiles was off the table I suppose.

  65. @Reg Cæsar


    But with screening, Tay-Sachs could be detected before birth, and “carrier couples felt encouraged to have children,” she wrote…
     
    I’m struck by how close a coincidence there was in time between the start of the anti-Tay-Sachs campaign in 1971...
     
    ...and Roe v Wade.

    Replies: @fitzhamilton, @YetAnotherAnon, @Steve Sailer, @sabril, @bored identity, @bored identity

    I would guess it has more to do with the price tag than anything else. Before 1970 it cost thousands of dollars to screen for Jewish genetic diseases. It just wasn’t practical for most couples to do it.

    By 2000, a full screening panel could be done cheaply enough that philanthropic organizations could give free or subsidized tests out to any Jew under the age of 40.

    It’s actually quite interesting the way it works in the Orthodox community: They don’t tell you your specific results. Instead, if you go on a few dates with someone and it seems like it might be a match, you advise the testing organization and they tell you if you are compatible or not.

  66. @TelfoedJohn
    Slightly off-topic: the average IQ for Down Syndrome folks is about 60. Compare that to say, Sierra Leone average, which is about the same. Does this mean Ashkenazi Jewish Down Syndrome people have an average IQ around the same as American Blacks?

    Replies: @sabril, @Reg Cæsar

    Possibly, but asking the IQ of someone with Down’s Syndrome is a bit like asking the dress size of an amputee.

    Generally speaking, knowing a woman’s dress size gives you a pretty good idea of her overall size and shape, but it’s not a perfect measure and especially not for people who have major deformities. So too with IQ.

  67. @YetAnotherAnon
    @Valentino

    "if the higher strata of the population donate embryos for the lower strata, vast number of problems will be solved... it’s not difficult for parents in the lower ends of society, to understand that their children would be better if they inherit an IQ of 130"

    I knew an Oxbridge grad who did a lot of donating in his student days, before they changed the law (in 2005) to allow 'anonymous' donors to contact their biological fathers.

    Very bright and nice chap, six-three, handsome - those recipients will probably have tall, clever babies.

    On the other hand, most people want their children to be theirs, not a stranger's.

    You could improve a population's average IQ by encouraging intelligent women to have more babies, and by not subsidising less intelligent women to have more babies. Our systems are set up to do the exact opposite - bright women are encouraged to value career/qualifications over motherhood, less bright are subsidised via welfare to have babies.

    There's one little ray of hope in the UK, that's not been overturned by the courts (yet) - going forward from 2017, you can only claim benefits for two children (existing benefits continue, so if you have four born before 2017, you're OK, but won't get extra benefit if you have another).

    https://www.opfs.org.uk/limiting-benefits-paid-children/

    The other obvious eugenic step would be to reduce tax levels above a certain income for large families - I know Hungary does this, but not many places do.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @sabril, @DRA, @Valentino

    Our systems are set up to do the exact opposite – bright women are encouraged to value career/qualifications over motherhood, less bright are subsidised via welfare to have babies.

    Yes, if the current system continued for another 500 or 1000 years, one could reasonably expect that the intelligence gap between men and women would get substantially wider.

    That said, on a 500 year time frame, with everything continuing on the current track, the only thing that matters is subcultures that put a high value on reproduction — Amish people; Ultra-Orthodox Jews; FLDS; etc.

    Among these groups, are smart women having more children than stupid women? I don’t know for sure, but I am pretty confident that the answer is “yes.” Because in general, smart people are better than stupid people at obtaining what they value.

    • Replies: @gcochran
    @sabril

    Longer than that: it is hard to select for trait differences between the sexes.

    Replies: @sabril

    , @AnotherDad
    @sabril


    Yes, if the current system continued for another 500 or 1000 years, one could reasonably expect that the intelligence gap between men and women would get substantially wider.
     
    No reason for that at all.

    The correlation between intelligence and low fertility is a cultural one. There's nothing about fertility in the abstract that favors low intelligence or vice versa. Historically, being a farm wife--what most women were--managing a farm household successfully while popping out and feeding, raising and marrying off a bunch of kids would have been strongly correlated with women who had it going on--IQ, conscientiousness, great health,

    I'd argue even now that actually smart--call it "wise"--are organizing their lives to have families, while the clever sillies are the ones who think that being a mom and having a family can't possibly be as important and rewarding as lawyering for an NGO or editing drivel for some maganize. Well maybe a big dose of anti-selection on "status seeking" and "narrative compliance".

    But in any case, you're noting that high fertility will come from religious communities which provide their own--non-standard--culture. So there's no particular reason why, within them, low IQ would correlate with higher fertility. Change the cultural "goal" ... change the behavior.


    I think what is--and will be--obviously selected for is women, and men, with strong nurturing and family orientation. Basically we're boiling off the low nurturing, more ego-centric genes.
  68. Eugenics is good. They are doing things properly.

  69. The duck knows whose beard he can pull. Even larpers know when to shut up.

  70. Good for science that a genetic disease can be basically eliminated. Makes you wonder where all the “Everything Pink” money raised for breast cancer research goes. How about elevated levels of infant mortality and maternity mortality in blacks. Dedication to a desired result?

  71. @guest
    People think they're against eugenics because the word conjures images of mass murder. But ask them if they want to stop genetic diseases or have everyone get stupider and shorter generation by generation, and it's a different story.

    Any policy that encourages passing on good inheritable traits and isolating bad ones is eugenics, and that's not really a controversial thing if you put it in other words. The powers that be certainly are carrying on eugenic programs under other names.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Not just TPTB. All life does.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @Desiderius



    Any policy that encourages passing on good inheritable traits and isolating bad ones is eugenics, and that’s not really a controversial thing if you put it in other words. The powers that be certainly are carrying on eugenic programs under other names.
     
    Not just TPTB. All life does.
     
    Exactly. I'm not for killing people--aside from murders ... and telephone solicitors and on-line scammers ...


    But I thought Steve's

    Generally speaking, I’ve always been more or less anti-eugenics on the whole, but it’s hard for me to object too much to this impressive accomplishment against a terrible disease afflicting children.
     
    was a bit perplexing. Everyone practices eugenics at the personal level. We're sexually attracted to people immediately/visually to people who seem to be fit, healthy and fertile--not misshapen and sickly. And then in interactions the other qualities--good character, intelligence, sense of humor, conscientiousness ... whatever.

    I'm sure Mrs. Sailer was attractive to Steve because she had it going on, and likewise Steve was attractive to her because of his intelligence, height and interest in golf course architecture.


    Even if we wave off all individual choice as "not eugenics" and just talk about social policy, a sane nation is "pro-eugenics". It needs it's smart, healthy, conscientious, cooperative, capable--"fit"--people to reproduce and its "unfit" to reproduce less or not at all. Otherwise it will weaken and lose the competitive race to--perhaps be overcome, conquered by--nations that are eugenic and becoming more capable.

    Historically "life" took care of this--more or less. People who could hack it--be productive and stay at least moderately healthy--in their environment did not survive/reproduce. So society generally reproduced those who could maintain it. But with the industrial revolution, modern medicine and the welfare state these things are misaligned. Society keeps alive a lot of people who aren't particularly productive and/or healthy and can't actually maintain the society and let's them, sometimes encourages them, to reproduce.

    The word mush of "eugenics" and "discredited" that "journalists" are mandated to insert into every article that touched on genetics is just that--mush. Simply more minoritarian propganda against any white person feeling an attachment to their nation as theirs and caring about its future.
    There isn't anything "discredited" about eugenics. Like selection ... it just is.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  72. @Macumazahn
    Now that there's a wealth of information on genetic contributions to intelligence, one wonders how long it would take to breed a population of (white) children with a mean IQ of, say, 110.

    Replies: @Realist, @Jack D

    Now that there’s a wealth of information on genetic contributions to intelligence, one wonders how long it would take to breed a population of (white) children with a mean IQ of, say, 110.

    The sooner the better…..130 would be better.

    • Replies: @Father O'Hara
    @Realist

    Can they also kick ass?

    Replies: @Realist

  73. @Reg Cæsar


    But with screening, Tay-Sachs could be detected before birth, and “carrier couples felt encouraged to have children,” she wrote…
     
    I’m struck by how close a coincidence there was in time between the start of the anti-Tay-Sachs campaign in 1971...
     
    ...and Roe v Wade.

    Replies: @fitzhamilton, @YetAnotherAnon, @Steve Sailer, @sabril, @bored identity, @bored identity

    Just like with Magic, one has to be able to distinguish between Black, White, and Jewish Eugenics.

    Don’t forget that only one of three aforementioned is considered to be Triple Plus Parenthetically Good.

    Because, contrary to popular belief, Not Every Sperm is Sacred.

    https://www.latimes.com/health/la-xpm-2012-aug-15-la-fg-israel-sperm-20120816-story.html

  74. @Anonymous
    @Anon

    What about Chewbacca?

    Replies: @stillCARealist

    RIP.

    I could never understand a thing he said.

  75. @Charlotte Allen
    Isn't this all about abortion?

    Replies: @Rapparee

    My understanding is that Rabbis arranging marriages or doing marriage prep work now encourage couples to undergo genetic testing, to ensure that at least one parent is not a carrier of Tay-Sachs. If both parents are carriers, they call off the union. I assume (and hope) this is a bigger factor than abortion, (the article also seems to imply this), but I don’t really know much about it and am happy to be corrected.

  76. @Reg Cæsar


    But with screening, Tay-Sachs could be detected before birth, and “carrier couples felt encouraged to have children,” she wrote…
     
    I’m struck by how close a coincidence there was in time between the start of the anti-Tay-Sachs campaign in 1971...
     
    ...and Roe v Wade.

    Replies: @fitzhamilton, @YetAnotherAnon, @Steve Sailer, @sabril, @bored identity, @bored identity

    Just like with a Magic, one has to be always able to distinguish between Black, White, and Jewish Eugenics.

    Don’t forget that only one of three aforementioned is Triple Plus Parenthetically Good.

    Because, contrary to popular belief, Not Every Sperm is Sacred.

    https://www.latimes.com/health/la-xpm-2012-aug-15-la-fg-israel-sperm-20120816-story.html

  77. res says:
    @Dave2
    Aborting babies who would not have survived to reproductive age in any case is not eugenic, and may actually be dysgenic, if it allows Tay-Sachs carriers to pass that gene onto a greater number of fertile offspring.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @res

    Very interesting point. I wonder if the Tay-Sachs allele frequency in American Ashkenazi Jews has increased over that time.

    This actually ties into one of my (secondary) concerns about genetic engineering and selection. If it turns out that heterozygote advantage means that something like a Tay-Sachs carrier is considered “optimal” we run the risk of creating people who won’t breed “true.”

    This is analogous to the problems seen with trying to use seeds from F1 hybrid plants.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_hybrid#Disadvantages

    When F1 cultivars are used as parents, their offspring (F2 generation) vary greatly from one another. Some F2s are high in homozygous genes, as found in their grandparents, and these will lack hybrid vigour. From the point of view of a commercial seed producer who does not wish customers to produce their own seed via seed saving, this genetic assortment is a desired characteristic.

    Except in the human case they won’t just be “lacking in hybrid vigor.” A quarter of them will have the disease in question. And the odds quickly become much more unacceptable if more than one SNP is like this.

    P.S. There was a reason I left the final sentence of that quote in.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @res

    Same deal with apple seeds not yielding the same apples they came from.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/apples-of-your-eye-71328777/

    "Sixteen years ago, when I worked at The Planters & Designers garden center in Bristol, Virginia, old-timers frequentlycame in and asked for apple varieties called Virginia Beauty and Yellow Transparent. I tried to look them up infruit tree catalogs, but I could never find them. The more they asked me, the more intrigued I became. Though I came from along line of nursery men, I knew little about fruit varieties ofthe past, a subject called historical pomology."

    [...]

  78. @Anonymous
    Also Cystic Fibrosis - another truly horrific genetically determined disorder - found mostly in those of north European descent could be effectively eliminated by a straightforward and relatively inexpensive program of universal genetic screening.

    Former British PM Gordon Brown has two children with CF. Apparently, both him and his wife carry the CF alleles.

    Replies: @utu

    Also Cystic Fibrosis – another truly horrific genetically determined disorder – found mostly in those of north European descent could be effectively eliminated

    Elimination of diseases by killing people who are sick is not very original.

  79. Then, after Neil Armstrong demonstrated America’s technological superiority, America tended to attract a higher quality of new Cold War allies, such as Zhou Enlai and Anwar Sadat, while the Soviets were stuck with Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and others of that ilk.

    Steve Sailer

    All the more reason for POTUS to announce a manned Mars Mission before 2030, a US space program reborn after Obama. Imagine all the USA haters on Unz after a successful Martian landing.

    • Replies: @prime noticer
    @Joe Stalin

    "Imagine all the USA haters on Unz after a successful Martian landing."

    more like imagine the 3000 post thread about how the mars landing was faked.

  80. @guest
    @Polynikes

    That dang Hitler ruined highways for everyone...Oh, wait. We're just fine with those.

    That dang Hitler ruined ballistic missiles...jet engines...vegetarianism...hermeneutic philosophy...the German shepherd breed...neoclassical art...torch parades...

    Ya know, I think we just pick and choose what Hitler ruined for reasons unrelated to Hitler.

    He is an excuse. The human "sciences" had already been claimed by the enemy before the Third Reich.

    Replies: @Coemgen, @fnn, @Ibound1, @BB753

    What Hitler really ruined for everyone – really truly ruined – was normal German and (other) European nationalism. He turned pride in one’s country and civilization – the highest civilization in human history – into a freakish bizarre imperialistic death cult led by I might add, the ugly, dwarfish and misshapen (Himmler, Goebbels, and Goering). And we have yet to recover and may never recover. That’s what Hitler ruined for everybody: Nationalism. It doesn’t surprise me the Israelis are nationalistic. They are the only ones who refuse to take any lessons from Hitler.

    • Replies: @bored identity
    @Ibound1




    "... That’s what Hitler ruined for everybody: Nationalism.

    It doesn’t surprise me the Israelis are nationalistic.

    They are the only ones who refuse to take any lessons from Hitler."

     

    You do understand that you are allowed to read your comments before you click 'publish'?

    Replies: @Ibound1

    , @dearieme
    @Ibound1

    That’s what Hitler ruined for everybody: Nationalism.

    Interesting point. You could argue that it was Bismarck who ruined German Nationalism by penning most of the German states into what was effectively a Prussian Empire. Then the Austrian Hitler wanted not Nationalism but a new all-German Imperialism, incorporating Germans from Western, Central, and Eastern Europe, and building it on conquered Slav territories.

    That point, however, is too complicated to sell to the public so, as you say, Nationalism got the rap.

    It may matter that the most Nationalist of his opponents in the war - the French - contributed effectively nothing to his defeat. The principal engine of his defeat was the slave army of the USSR.

  81. @YetAnotherAnon
    @Reg Cæsar

    I noticed that too, and read the article to see if abortion was mentioned. It isn't, but I assume that's how 'no babies were born' with Tay-Sachs.

    Replies: @Gordo

    Same way no babies are born with Downs Syndrome in Iceland. But we’re allowed to criticise that.

  82. @res
    @Dave2

    Very interesting point. I wonder if the Tay-Sachs allele frequency in American Ashkenazi Jews has increased over that time.

    This actually ties into one of my (secondary) concerns about genetic engineering and selection. If it turns out that heterozygote advantage means that something like a Tay-Sachs carrier is considered "optimal" we run the risk of creating people who won't breed "true."

    This is analogous to the problems seen with trying to use seeds from F1 hybrid plants.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_hybrid#Disadvantages


    When F1 cultivars are used as parents, their offspring (F2 generation) vary greatly from one another. Some F2s are high in homozygous genes, as found in their grandparents, and these will lack hybrid vigour. From the point of view of a commercial seed producer who does not wish customers to produce their own seed via seed saving, this genetic assortment is a desired characteristic.
     
    Except in the human case they won't just be "lacking in hybrid vigor." A quarter of them will have the disease in question. And the odds quickly become much more unacceptable if more than one SNP is like this.

    P.S. There was a reason I left the final sentence of that quote in.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    Same deal with apple seeds not yielding the same apples they came from.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/apples-of-your-eye-71328777/

    “Sixteen years ago, when I worked at The Planters & Designers garden center in Bristol, Virginia, old-timers frequentlycame in and asked for apple varieties called Virginia Beauty and Yellow Transparent. I tried to look them up infruit tree catalogs, but I could never find them. The more they asked me, the more intrigued I became. Though I came from along line of nursery men, I knew little about fruit varieties ofthe past, a subject called historical pomology.”

    […]

  83. @Steve Sailer
    @Reg Cæsar

    It's probably related to abortion being legalized in Washington D.C. in 1970.

    Replies: @Dr. X, @bored identity, @Sean, @Reg Cæsar

    bored identity just found this great missing link about HBD, and potential up&downsides of eugenics…

    He knows that Uncle Sailer would appreciate learning about what happens when 60 Minutes imitates Documentary Now !:

    Let’s be honest; Ilhan’s uniqueness is soooo Last Current Year compared to this.

    So, how long before Weimerica imports her First Four-Legged-Walker to the House of Repressentatives?

    • Replies: @guest
    @bored identity

    She literally said they might be the "missing link" between man and ape. That was something said on 60 minutes.

    What must one do to qualify as an evolutionary psychologist, by the way? Fail out of creative writing?

  84. @guest
    @Polynikes

    That dang Hitler ruined highways for everyone...Oh, wait. We're just fine with those.

    That dang Hitler ruined ballistic missiles...jet engines...vegetarianism...hermeneutic philosophy...the German shepherd breed...neoclassical art...torch parades...

    Ya know, I think we just pick and choose what Hitler ruined for reasons unrelated to Hitler.

    He is an excuse. The human "sciences" had already been claimed by the enemy before the Third Reich.

    Replies: @Coemgen, @fnn, @Ibound1, @BB753

    But he did ruin Chaplinesque mustaches for all eternity. A pity!

    http://img.irtve.es/v/610565/

    • Replies: @guest
    @BB753

    One man on earth has Hitler-stache immunity: NBA legend/underwear pitchman Michael "Air" Jordan.

    https://theoffdutymime.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/michael-jordan-mustache-hitler.jpg

    Replies: @BB753

  85. @Anon
    Reading around about Bertrand Russell, I cam across this in his Wikipedia entry:

    Russell later criticised eugenic programs for their vulnerability to corruption, and, in 1932, he condemned the "unwarranted assumption" that "Negroes are congenitally inferior to white men" (Education and the Social Order, Chap. 3).

    It is sometimes maintained that racial mixture is biologically undesirable. There is no evidence whatever for this view. Nor is there, apparently, any reason to think that Negroes are congenitally less intelligent than white people, but as to that it will be difficult to judge until they have equal scope and equally good social conditions.

    — Bertrand Russell, New Hopes for a Changing World (London: Allen & Unwin, 1951, p. 108)
     
    But there was this:

    Another passage from early editions of his book Marriage and Morals (1929), which Russell later claimed to be referring only to environmental conditioning, and which he significantly modified in later editions, reads:

    In extreme cases there can be little doubt of the superiority of one race to another[...] It seems on the whole fair to regard Negroes as on the average inferior to white men, although for work in the tropics they are indispensable, so that their extermination (apart from the question of humanity) would be highly undesirable.

    — Bertrand Russell, Marriage and Morals, pg. 266 (1929)
     
    Later explained by him:

    Responding in 1964 to a correspondent's inquiry, "Do you still consider the Negroes an inferior race, as you did when you wrote Marriage and Morals?", Russell replied:

    I never held Negroes to be inherently inferior. The statement in Marriage and Morals refers to environmental conditioning. I have had it withdrawn from subsequent editions because it is clearly ambiguous.

    — Bertrand Russell, letter dated 17 March 1964 in Dear Bertrand Russell... a selection of his correspondence with the general public, 1950–1968. edited by Barry Feinberg and Ronald Kasrils.(London: Allen & Unwin, 1969, p. 146)
     

    Replies: @guest, @HammerJack, @MEH 0910

    It seems on the whole fair to regard Negroes as on the average inferior to white men, although for work in the tropics they are indispensable, so that their extermination (apart from the question of humanity) would be highly undesirable.

    — Bertrand Russell, Marriage and Morals, pg. 266 (1929)

    We could turn the tropics into a nature reserve.

  86. @Corvinus
    @SFG

    "I’d be perfectly fine with encouraging bright people to breed more, for instance."

    Regardless of their political stripe?

    And what about lower IQ, lower class white people? Are you on board lumping them together with the darkies as to discourage their proclivities to date and mate?

    Although, here is a palatable idea for the Alt Right. Females in their childbearing prime ought to be shamed, nay coerced, into abandoning their own hopes, dreams, and aspirations and procreating with a God-fearing man! I humbly argue that social pressure has generally NOT produced the desired results; only legislation modeled after “Mother Russia” will induce women to birth and raise children. Socialist medicine to cure those baby blues--direct cash payments to females for every child popped out like popcorn and accommodating work schedules to account for those udderly ridiculous late night feeding frenzies!

    Let us take it one step further--ban compulsory schooling for females in particular. All they learn at the state run asylums is how to swear like a drunken sailor and get STD's. Keep the girls at home where they can start having children at the tender age of 16 or 17, and then when the kids reach puberty, MAYBE they can entertain the thought of employment outside of the home, so long as they obtain permission from Father.

    Replies: @epochehusserl, @L Woods, @Reg Cæsar

    Let us take it one step further–ban compulsory schooling for females in particular. All they learn at the state run asylums is how to swear like a drunken sailor and get STD’s. Keep the girls at home where they can start having children at the tender age of 16 or 17, and then when the kids reach puberty, MAYBE they can entertain the thought of employment outside of the home, so long as they obtain permission from Father.
    ————————————–
    I personally wouldn’t have a problem with banning compulsory schooling for everyone.

    • Agree: jim jones
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @epochehusserl

    "I personally wouldn’t have a problem with banning compulsory schooling for everyone."

    Why don't you try to make this a reality and then get back to us?

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

  87. @Desiderius
    @guest

    Not just TPTB. All life does.

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    Any policy that encourages passing on good inheritable traits and isolating bad ones is eugenics, and that’s not really a controversial thing if you put it in other words. The powers that be certainly are carrying on eugenic programs under other names.

    Not just TPTB. All life does.

    Exactly. I’m not for killing people–aside from murders … and telephone solicitors and on-line scammers …

    But I thought Steve’s

    Generally speaking, I’ve always been more or less anti-eugenics on the whole, but it’s hard for me to object too much to this impressive accomplishment against a terrible disease afflicting children.

    was a bit perplexing. Everyone practices eugenics at the personal level. We’re sexually attracted to people immediately/visually to people who seem to be fit, healthy and fertile–not misshapen and sickly. And then in interactions the other qualities–good character, intelligence, sense of humor, conscientiousness … whatever.

    I’m sure Mrs. Sailer was attractive to Steve because she had it going on, and likewise Steve was attractive to her because of his intelligence, height and interest in golf course architecture.

    Even if we wave off all individual choice as “not eugenics” and just talk about social policy, a sane nation is “pro-eugenics”. It needs it’s smart, healthy, conscientious, cooperative, capable–“fit”–people to reproduce and its “unfit” to reproduce less or not at all. Otherwise it will weaken and lose the competitive race to–perhaps be overcome, conquered by–nations that are eugenic and becoming more capable.

    Historically “life” took care of this–more or less. People who could hack it–be productive and stay at least moderately healthy–in their environment did not survive/reproduce. So society generally reproduced those who could maintain it. But with the industrial revolution, modern medicine and the welfare state these things are misaligned. Society keeps alive a lot of people who aren’t particularly productive and/or healthy and can’t actually maintain the society and let’s them, sometimes encourages them, to reproduce.

    The word mush of “eugenics” and “discredited” that “journalists” are mandated to insert into every article that touched on genetics is just that–mush. Simply more minoritarian propganda against any white person feeling an attachment to their nation as theirs and caring about its future.
    There isn’t anything “discredited” about eugenics. Like selection … it just is.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @AnotherDad

    "It needs it’s smart, healthy, conscientious, cooperative, capable–“fit”–people to reproduce and its “unfit” to reproduce less or not at all. Otherwise it will weaken and lose the competitive race to–perhaps be overcome, conquered by–nations that are eugenic and becoming more capable."

    Except the problem here is that the term "fit" is subjective and can be used by unscrupulous fellows such as yourself to gain power and influence.

    What, do you think tomorrow's world ought to be a version of Rollerball?

    Replies: @AnotherDad

  88. @epochehusserl
    @Corvinus

    Let us take it one step further–ban compulsory schooling for females in particular. All they learn at the state run asylums is how to swear like a drunken sailor and get STD’s. Keep the girls at home where they can start having children at the tender age of 16 or 17, and then when the kids reach puberty, MAYBE they can entertain the thought of employment outside of the home, so long as they obtain permission from Father.
    --------------------------------------
    I personally wouldn't have a problem with banning compulsory schooling for everyone.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “I personally wouldn’t have a problem with banning compulsory schooling for everyone.”

    Why don’t you try to make this a reality and then get back to us?

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Corvinus

    Education was viewed as a purely private good and no business of the government's to provide for most of human history. And we got cathedrals, Classical Antiquity, the Renaissance, and even the Industrial Revolution out of it.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  89. @AnotherDad
    @Desiderius



    Any policy that encourages passing on good inheritable traits and isolating bad ones is eugenics, and that’s not really a controversial thing if you put it in other words. The powers that be certainly are carrying on eugenic programs under other names.
     
    Not just TPTB. All life does.
     
    Exactly. I'm not for killing people--aside from murders ... and telephone solicitors and on-line scammers ...


    But I thought Steve's

    Generally speaking, I’ve always been more or less anti-eugenics on the whole, but it’s hard for me to object too much to this impressive accomplishment against a terrible disease afflicting children.
     
    was a bit perplexing. Everyone practices eugenics at the personal level. We're sexually attracted to people immediately/visually to people who seem to be fit, healthy and fertile--not misshapen and sickly. And then in interactions the other qualities--good character, intelligence, sense of humor, conscientiousness ... whatever.

    I'm sure Mrs. Sailer was attractive to Steve because she had it going on, and likewise Steve was attractive to her because of his intelligence, height and interest in golf course architecture.


    Even if we wave off all individual choice as "not eugenics" and just talk about social policy, a sane nation is "pro-eugenics". It needs it's smart, healthy, conscientious, cooperative, capable--"fit"--people to reproduce and its "unfit" to reproduce less or not at all. Otherwise it will weaken and lose the competitive race to--perhaps be overcome, conquered by--nations that are eugenic and becoming more capable.

    Historically "life" took care of this--more or less. People who could hack it--be productive and stay at least moderately healthy--in their environment did not survive/reproduce. So society generally reproduced those who could maintain it. But with the industrial revolution, modern medicine and the welfare state these things are misaligned. Society keeps alive a lot of people who aren't particularly productive and/or healthy and can't actually maintain the society and let's them, sometimes encourages them, to reproduce.

    The word mush of "eugenics" and "discredited" that "journalists" are mandated to insert into every article that touched on genetics is just that--mush. Simply more minoritarian propganda against any white person feeling an attachment to their nation as theirs and caring about its future.
    There isn't anything "discredited" about eugenics. Like selection ... it just is.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “It needs it’s smart, healthy, conscientious, cooperative, capable–“fit”–people to reproduce and its “unfit” to reproduce less or not at all. Otherwise it will weaken and lose the competitive race to–perhaps be overcome, conquered by–nations that are eugenic and becoming more capable.”

    Except the problem here is that the term “fit” is subjective and can be used by unscrupulous fellows such as yourself to gain power and influence.

    What, do you think tomorrow’s world ought to be a version of Rollerball?

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @Corvinus



    “It needs it’s smart, healthy, conscientious, cooperative, capable–“fit”–people to reproduce and its “unfit” to reproduce less or not at all. Otherwise it will weaken and lose the competitive race to–perhaps be overcome, conquered by–nations that are eugenic and becoming more capable.”

     

    Except the problem here is that the term “fit” is subjective and can be used by unscrupulous fellows such as yourself to gain power and influence.
     
    Corny, i know you like to turn all thought to mush .... oh, ooh, it's so complicated, it can go wrong, blah, blah, blah.

    But really this is no more difficult to navigate then other issues--war, education, transportation, etc. And can easily be handled by normal republican governance in a free nation.

    Here's a simple solution to your "subjective" dilema:
    -- What is fit? -- Being able to provide for and take care of yourself.
    -- What is unfit? -- Not being able to provide and take care of yourself.

    So policy wise
    -- Provide a big ass tax deduction--not a refundable credit, no EIC nonsense, but a deduction--to parents for each child. Maybe make it twice as big for parents of young pre-school age children where ideally mom leaves the workforce, then smaller when the school system takes up the slack and allows mom to work part time. The big deduction allows married couples who are earning well--i.e. providing for themselves, i.e. "fit"--to spend their money on their family/children rather than feeding the super-state parasites (and subsidizing others children), allowing the couple to have more children if they wish.

    -- Conversely, provide public assistance to people not taking care of themselves--i.e. "unfit"--only in return for them going on birth control, or at some term sterilization. And certainly don't provide extra assistance for more children. (Rather give them a minimum wage public service job.)

    No one has to put a gun to anyone's head. Nor do top-secret genomic calculations of "fitness". Simply "people who are providing for themselves" are "fit" and while child bearing/raising we ease their tax burden; "people who can't/don't provide for themselves are "unfit" and if they want the rest of us to pick up the slack, then they must forgo more children.

    Have sane eugenic policies is not exactly rocket science.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  90. @Macumazahn
    Now that there's a wealth of information on genetic contributions to intelligence, one wonders how long it would take to breed a population of (white) children with a mean IQ of, say, 110.

    Replies: @Realist, @Jack D

    No very long. If you differentiate white people into subgroups (e.g. Episcopalians, atheists) then the average is already there.

    • Replies: @jbwilson24
    @Jack D

    " If you differentiate white people into subgroups (e.g. Episcopalians..)"

    Not going to be of much use, I fear. 99% of them seem to be over 60, and there are no young ones lining up to procreate.

    I seem to recall reading that the Episcopal Church was something of a social supper club for the WASP elite, hence the higher IQs.

  91. @Corvinus
    @SFG

    "I’d be perfectly fine with encouraging bright people to breed more, for instance."

    Regardless of their political stripe?

    And what about lower IQ, lower class white people? Are you on board lumping them together with the darkies as to discourage their proclivities to date and mate?

    Although, here is a palatable idea for the Alt Right. Females in their childbearing prime ought to be shamed, nay coerced, into abandoning their own hopes, dreams, and aspirations and procreating with a God-fearing man! I humbly argue that social pressure has generally NOT produced the desired results; only legislation modeled after “Mother Russia” will induce women to birth and raise children. Socialist medicine to cure those baby blues--direct cash payments to females for every child popped out like popcorn and accommodating work schedules to account for those udderly ridiculous late night feeding frenzies!

    Let us take it one step further--ban compulsory schooling for females in particular. All they learn at the state run asylums is how to swear like a drunken sailor and get STD's. Keep the girls at home where they can start having children at the tender age of 16 or 17, and then when the kids reach puberty, MAYBE they can entertain the thought of employment outside of the home, so long as they obtain permission from Father.

    Replies: @epochehusserl, @L Woods, @Reg Cæsar

    Look, it can talk sense.

  92. @Anonymous
    @Lot

    Being effectively suffocated by your own lungs - which CF sufferers have to endure - is an unbelievably distressing and horrible condition.

    It's quite probable that any CF sufferer when posed with the question 'should my very birth had been prevented?' if honest would reply in the affirmative.

    Replies: @Jack D

    I’m not so sure about that nowadays. Children born with cystic fibrosis today probably have a life expectancy of around 50 years – that’s not great but it’s a reasonably full life – not so long ago that would be typical for those without CF. They can always kill themselves later if they decide their suffering is too great. It’s better to avoid giving birth to CF babies but the ones that are already here can have reasonably fulfilling lives and the treatments just keep getting better.

  93. @Realist
    @Macumazahn


    Now that there’s a wealth of information on genetic contributions to intelligence, one wonders how long it would take to breed a population of (white) children with a mean IQ of, say, 110.
     
    The sooner the better.....130 would be better.

    Replies: @Father O'Hara

    Can they also kick ass?

    • Replies: @Realist
    @Father O'Hara


    Can they also kick ass?
     
    I suppose that they could be engineered to 'kick ass', but that is an outdated attribute in a time of technology.
  94. @Ibound1
    @guest

    What Hitler really ruined for everyone - really truly ruined - was normal German and (other) European nationalism. He turned pride in one’s country and civilization - the highest civilization in human history - into a freakish bizarre imperialistic death cult led by I might add, the ugly, dwarfish and misshapen (Himmler, Goebbels, and Goering). And we have yet to recover and may never recover. That’s what Hitler ruined for everybody: Nationalism. It doesn’t surprise me the Israelis are nationalistic. They are the only ones who refuse to take any lessons from Hitler.

    Replies: @bored identity, @dearieme

    “… That’s what Hitler ruined for everybody: Nationalism.

    It doesn’t surprise me the Israelis are nationalistic.

    They are the only ones who refuse to take any lessons from Hitler.”

    You do understand that you are allowed to read your comments before you click ‘publish’?

    • Replies: @Ibound1
    @bored identity

    Do you freaks ever shut up. Sure Israel is Nazi, we get it. Great.

  95. @fitzhamilton
    @Reg Cæsar

    Wow. Just wow. How is it that this is the first time I've ever heard about this?

    I just read the article in the Times of Israel Steve links to, and they don't explicitly mention abortion once. It's as if they screen the child before birth, then it simply magically disappears if it's a carrier of the gene? I've heard quite a bit about the aborting of Downs Syndrome children - they say it's about a 90% rate these days - but never once about this.. But Down's Sydrome effects the gentiles, equally, too - the epidemiology of Tay Sachs is much more narrow: it's predominately an Ashkenazi and Cajun/Arcadian French Canadian disease.

    I've always wondered at how so many radical feminists and abortion activists have been Jewish - I mean Freidan, Steinem, Firestone, Dworkin - there was hardly a major early feminist theorist who wasn't Jewish. I always chalked it up to culture.. Lately I've been getting a bit more cynical, and conspiratorially paranoid though..

    This article is a dropping penny. The genetic testing began in earnest in 1971, then in 1973, we get Roe v Wade. That can't be coincidental. Nor can the media silence about it all be accidental.

    Replies: @guest, @YetAnotherAnon, @Jack D, @DRA

    The Jews didn’t need Roe v Wade to make abortion available to Tay Sachs mothers. Abortion was legal in NY before Roe v Wade. There were also around a dozen states (up and down both coasts) where abortion was legal in case of a damaged fetus. The main area where abortion was completely illegal was the Midwest, where the Catholic Church had a big influence. But all you needed to do was to travel to the nearest state where abortion was legal. There were also illegal abortions available. People with money (e.g. Jews) always had access to abortion. The big effect of Roe v Wade was to make abortion available to blacks. This was a blessing for America.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Jack D


    Abortion was legal in NY before Roe v Wade.
     
    For two years. And, but for a governor's desperate veto, it would have been outlawed again.

    The main area where abortion was completely illegal was the Midwest, where the Catholic Church had a big influence.
     
    The Church had much more influence in the Northeast. Marriage laws were stricter there, too. New York didn't get no-fault divorce until 2010.

    There were also illegal abortions available. People with money (e.g. Jews) always had access to abortion.
     
    Puerto Rico. It was illegal there, too, but unenforced. That's where lots of East Coast debs got their "procedures".

    The big effect of Roe v Wade was to make abortion available to blacks. This was a blessing for America.
     
    Huh? Black illegitimacy was lower before Roe than it is for whites today. Freed from discipline, their behavior went down the tubes.

    Think about it-- if a woman has "a right to her body", that means she has a right to make them as well as destroy them. And make them they did.

    If you're thinking about demographics, the white/black ratio has hardly budged in 50 years.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Ed

  96. The legendary mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss considered his alleged discovery of statistical regression “trivial.”

    https://priceonomics.com/the-discovery-of-statistical-regression/

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Malcolm Y

    Note that the site you link to publishes these two books:


    https://priceonomics.com/static//images/hbm-cover.png


    https://priceonomics.com/static//images/eib-cover-noshadow.png

    Thus,


    https://i.imgur.com/gjfZTJN.jpg

  97. Many Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia offer genetic screening and targeted abortion to combat dysgenics of consanguineous marriage. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/12/saudi-gene-hunters-comb-countrys-dna-prevent-rare-diseases

  98. @Moses
    @Endgame Napoleon


    It is understandable that Jews would reject a biological weeding out of humans deemed undesirable since a main component of the evil Nazi philosophy included notions of genetically superior humans.
     
    This is not true.

    Jews do not reject "biological weeding out." They embrace it.

    Judaism encourages abortion if the baby may have a birth defect.

    In Israel a woman may not choose to abort unless she gets proactive permission from a doctor panel.*


    Circumstances under which abortion is approved

    Under a 1977 abortion law, a termination committee can approve an abortion, under sub-section 316a,[8] in the following circumstances:

    1) The woman is younger than the legal marriage age in Israel (which currently is 18, raised from 17 in April 2013),[9] or older than forty. (This was later amended to also include women under the age of twenty.)[3]

    2) The pregnancy was conceived under illegal circumstances (rape, statutory rape, etc.), in an incestuous relationship, or outside of marriage.

    3) The fetus may have a physical or mental birth defect.

    4) Continued pregnancy may put the woman's life in risk, or damage her physically or mentally.
     

    *from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Israel

    In America though, Jewish activists push a "woman's right to choose" full stop. Weird.

    Replies: @miss marple, @SFG, @Jack D

    Continued pregnancy may put the woman’s life in risk, or damage her physically or mentally.

    Damage to mental health is a loophole that you could drive a truck through. Yes you have to jump thru some more hoops (go before the committee) but as a practical matter, abortion is available to women in Israel.

    Any slight difference is accounted for by the fact that there is a much larger % of Jews in Israel who are religious. If you compare a Tel Aviv liberal to a NY liberal you wouldn’t find a shekel’s worth of difference in their social and political views.

  99. Sean says:
    @Anonymous

    Some research indicates, for example, that Louisiana Cajuns, French Canadians and individuals with Irish lineage may also have an elevated incidence of Tay-Sachs.
     
    Does this suggests these groups may have Jewish ancestry? Sephardic perhaps?

    Replies: @Lot, @gcochran, @Federalist, @Sean, @Ed, @Kratoklastes

    https://www.unz.com/pfrost/french-canadians-evolving-gene-pool/

    More to the point, middle-class English Canadians were not uniformly spread across the province. Demographically and economically, they used to dominate the Ottawa valley, the Montreal area, the Eastern Townships, Quebec City, and the eastern and southern portions of the Gaspé Peninsula. Economically, they also dominated the hinterland of Trois-Rivières and the Lac Saint-Jean region (timber industry). This leaves two regions where, historically, they were virtually non-existent—the same regions that report unusually high incidences of Tay Sach’s.

    An economic niche existed and had to be filled. In the absence of ethnic outsiders, middle-class French Canadians would have had more opportunities to go into business, marry earlier, and have larger families. Is this what happened in the lower St. Lawrence and Charlevoix County?

    https://www.unz.com/pfrost/more-on-french-canadians-and-tay-sachs/
    Interestingly, Tay Sach’s co-occurs in eastern Quebec with another hereditary illness that lies in the same metabolic pathway, i.e., lysosomal storage. […] One region in eastern Quebec, however, has always been solidly French Canadian and yet has low incidences of Tay Sach’s and mucoliposes. This is Beauce County, a region south of Quebec City that covers the Chaudière valley up to the American border. Furthermore, Beaucerons are stereotyped as being self-reliant, business-minded go-getters—the “Yankees” of Quebec.

    Beauce County nonetheless differs demographically from the rest of eastern Quebec in one respect. Settlement began earlier there than elsewhere, well before the Conquest. There was thus a larger pool of people and hence more individuals who could fill the niches that opened up after the Conquest, as Quebec moved from a semi-feudal mercantilist society to a more market-driven economy. Selection thus had more leeway to favor individuals who had the necessary aptitudes while not suffering the costs that lysosomal storage illnesses impose on homozygotes. Fast evolution? All of this might seem hard to believe. How could such selection operate over a time span of less than two centuries?

  100. The jews have been engaged in eugenics for a long time. They weren’t a people apart, as in downtrodden outcasts, they wanted to remain pure. And match makers were used to pair up the best with the best and dummies with dummies. They were vicious and rapacious with the European peasants that were purposely kept uneducated and impoverished. And they wonder why there is long lingering resentment towards them – they are not friends of real Americans. You can learn it all, with a little between the line reading, in David Horowitz’s Radical Son. Did his parents want to be American – no they wanted a bolshevik revolution and to line your (great) grandparents up against the wall and execute them. Israel was founded on communist theory and it remains heavily socialist – it plays the US as a sucker yet we get all these “Christians” that moon over it non-stop. In this sensse, we are a group of real idiots.

  101. @Ibound1
    @guest

    What Hitler really ruined for everyone - really truly ruined - was normal German and (other) European nationalism. He turned pride in one’s country and civilization - the highest civilization in human history - into a freakish bizarre imperialistic death cult led by I might add, the ugly, dwarfish and misshapen (Himmler, Goebbels, and Goering). And we have yet to recover and may never recover. That’s what Hitler ruined for everybody: Nationalism. It doesn’t surprise me the Israelis are nationalistic. They are the only ones who refuse to take any lessons from Hitler.

    Replies: @bored identity, @dearieme

    That’s what Hitler ruined for everybody: Nationalism.

    Interesting point. You could argue that it was Bismarck who ruined German Nationalism by penning most of the German states into what was effectively a Prussian Empire. Then the Austrian Hitler wanted not Nationalism but a new all-German Imperialism, incorporating Germans from Western, Central, and Eastern Europe, and building it on conquered Slav territories.

    That point, however, is too complicated to sell to the public so, as you say, Nationalism got the rap.

    It may matter that the most Nationalist of his opponents in the war – the French – contributed effectively nothing to his defeat. The principal engine of his defeat was the slave army of the USSR.

  102. Sean says:
    @Steve Sailer
    @Reg Cæsar

    It's probably related to abortion being legalized in Washington D.C. in 1970.

    Replies: @Dr. X, @bored identity, @Sean, @Reg Cæsar

    It would be interesting to know if only embryos with a copy of the Tay-Sachs mutation from each parent (those homozygous for it that will get the fatal child disease) are aborted, or if the clinics are selecting for embryos without the mutation at all. If they believe that bullcrap about founder effect they may be trying for no mutations, and if they did that with every disease Jews are prone to they might be having a very real effect on Jewish IQ.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Sean

    I doubt that naturally conceived recessive Tay Sach carriers are being aborted. In cases of in-vitro fertilization, more likely. If you are going to spend all that money on implanting an embryo, might as well pick out a good one.

    Replies: @Sean

  103. @Anonymous

    Some research indicates, for example, that Louisiana Cajuns, French Canadians and individuals with Irish lineage may also have an elevated incidence of Tay-Sachs.
     
    Does this suggests these groups may have Jewish ancestry? Sephardic perhaps?

    Replies: @Lot, @gcochran, @Federalist, @Sean, @Ed, @Kratoklastes

    Tay-Sachs isn’t unique to Jews it’s just that due to endogamy like mating over the centuries it manifested itself more among Jews.

  104. Somewhat related are Orthodox Jews opposed to abortion like Catholics and Evangelicals? For that matter are Muslims?

    • Replies: @IHTG
    @Ed

    They are opposed to it, but if you're an Orthodox Jew and you even need an abortion, you've already fucked up.

  105. @Steve Sailer
    @Reg Cæsar

    It's probably related to abortion being legalized in Washington D.C. in 1970.

    Replies: @Dr. X, @bored identity, @Sean, @Reg Cæsar

    It’s probably related to abortion being legalized in Washington D.C. in 1970.

    New York State legalized it in 1970, too. It led to a spate of embarrassing “abortion tourism”, as the downstate urban counties lie in a thicket of nearby states where it was still illegal and strictly enforced.

    What few people know is that there was blowback in New York. The legislature changed composition (if not partisanship) in that year’s election, and by 1972 was able to pass a bill repealing the the previous one, which would return the state to some of the strictest laws on the books anywhere.

    Gov. Rockefeller, of the eugenicist clan, flew in from an out-of-state vacation specifically to veto the bill. Roe v Wade came down a few months later, making the effort doubly moot.

    Anyone interested in this story should look into this balanced, indeed diplomatic, history, by a professor who doesn’t seem to have been born yet at the period it covers:


    Defenders of the Unborn: The Pro-Life Movement Before Roe V. Wade

    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26262377-defenders-of-the-unborn

    On April 16, 1972, ten thousand people gathered in Central Park to protest New York’s liberal abortion law. Emotions ran high, reflecting the nation’s extreme polarization over abortion. Yet the divisions did not fall neatly along partisan or religious lines-the assembled protesters were far from a bunch of fire-breathing culture warriors. In Defenders of the Unborn, Daniel K. Williams reveals the hidden history of the pro-life movement in America, showing that a cause that many see as reactionary and anti-feminist began as a liberal crusade for human rights.

  106. @Sean
    @Steve Sailer

    It would be interesting to know if only embryos with a copy of the Tay-Sachs mutation from each parent (those homozygous for it that will get the fatal child disease) are aborted, or if the clinics are selecting for embryos without the mutation at all. If they believe that bullcrap about founder effect they may be trying for no mutations, and if they did that with every disease Jews are prone to they might be having a very real effect on Jewish IQ.

    Replies: @Jack D

    I doubt that naturally conceived recessive Tay Sach carriers are being aborted. In cases of in-vitro fertilization, more likely. If you are going to spend all that money on implanting an embryo, might as well pick out a good one.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Sean
    @Jack D

    I feel sure that given their high economic level and the females' extended time spent in education Jewish couples will often have limited time for a family and a very high rate of in-vitro fertilization for fertility reasons. If it is quite possibly going to be their only child, not vaginal delivery, and the mother taking time out a career, then they will want to make it as perfect as possible.

    I am dubious whether they understand what carrying Tay Sachs and other mutations means for the heterozygous child. Liberal Jews marrying each other nowadays is not going to happen by accident (whatever they tell themselves) they'll probably have a preference for their own kind and if they are committed to the Jewishness of their child, then "good" would not mean athletic ability at the expense of intelligence.

    I suspect they do not know what difference the main Ashkenazi mutation's heterozygosity makes, and to be safe they will try choose embryos completely clear of them. I very much doubt the clinics would be presenting Tay Sachs as a mixed blessing, they'll portray it as unalloyed curse to be eradicated.

  107. @bored identity
    @Ibound1




    "... That’s what Hitler ruined for everybody: Nationalism.

    It doesn’t surprise me the Israelis are nationalistic.

    They are the only ones who refuse to take any lessons from Hitler."

     

    You do understand that you are allowed to read your comments before you click 'publish'?

    Replies: @Ibound1

    Do you freaks ever shut up. Sure Israel is Nazi, we get it. Great.

  108. @BB753
    @guest

    But he did ruin Chaplinesque mustaches for all eternity. A pity!



    http://img.irtve.es/v/610565/

    Replies: @guest

    One man on earth has Hitler-stache immunity: NBA legend/underwear pitchman Michael “Air” Jordan.

    • Replies: @BB753
    @guest

    Black privilege in action! Now that you mention it, Blacks still favor 1930's moustache styles, that is trimmed and thin (think Clark Gable, Erroll Flynn), now universally banned as "fascist", perhaps because Blacks can get away with anything.

    Replies: @Anon, @guest

  109. @Corvinus
    @SFG

    "I’d be perfectly fine with encouraging bright people to breed more, for instance."

    Regardless of their political stripe?

    And what about lower IQ, lower class white people? Are you on board lumping them together with the darkies as to discourage their proclivities to date and mate?

    Although, here is a palatable idea for the Alt Right. Females in their childbearing prime ought to be shamed, nay coerced, into abandoning their own hopes, dreams, and aspirations and procreating with a God-fearing man! I humbly argue that social pressure has generally NOT produced the desired results; only legislation modeled after “Mother Russia” will induce women to birth and raise children. Socialist medicine to cure those baby blues--direct cash payments to females for every child popped out like popcorn and accommodating work schedules to account for those udderly ridiculous late night feeding frenzies!

    Let us take it one step further--ban compulsory schooling for females in particular. All they learn at the state run asylums is how to swear like a drunken sailor and get STD's. Keep the girls at home where they can start having children at the tender age of 16 or 17, and then when the kids reach puberty, MAYBE they can entertain the thought of employment outside of the home, so long as they obtain permission from Father.

    Replies: @epochehusserl, @L Woods, @Reg Cæsar

    Females in their childbearing prime ought to be shamed, nay coerced, into abandoning their own hopes, dreams, and aspirations

    How are the “hopes, dreams, and aspirations” to make big bucks in corporate America any more noble than starting a family with a fellow citizen?

    Let’s recognize selfishness for what it is.

  110. @bored identity
    @Steve Sailer

    bored identity just found this great missing link about HBD, and potential up&downsides of eugenics...

    He knows that Uncle Sailer would appreciate learning about what happens when 60 Minutes imitates Documentary Now !:

    https://youtu.be/6GlNQzjii1c




    Let's be honest; Ilhan's uniqueness is soooo Last Current Year compared to this.

    So, how long before Weimerica imports her First Four-Legged-Walker to the House of Repressentatives?

    Replies: @guest

    She literally said they might be the “missing link” between man and ape. That was something said on 60 minutes.

    What must one do to qualify as an evolutionary psychologist, by the way? Fail out of creative writing?

  111. @Jack D
    @fitzhamilton

    The Jews didn't need Roe v Wade to make abortion available to Tay Sachs mothers. Abortion was legal in NY before Roe v Wade. There were also around a dozen states (up and down both coasts) where abortion was legal in case of a damaged fetus. The main area where abortion was completely illegal was the Midwest, where the Catholic Church had a big influence. But all you needed to do was to travel to the nearest state where abortion was legal. There were also illegal abortions available. People with money (e.g. Jews) always had access to abortion. The big effect of Roe v Wade was to make abortion available to blacks. This was a blessing for America.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Abortion was legal in NY before Roe v Wade.

    For two years. And, but for a governor’s desperate veto, it would have been outlawed again.

    The main area where abortion was completely illegal was the Midwest, where the Catholic Church had a big influence.

    The Church had much more influence in the Northeast. Marriage laws were stricter there, too. New York didn’t get no-fault divorce until 2010.

    There were also illegal abortions available. People with money (e.g. Jews) always had access to abortion.

    Puerto Rico. It was illegal there, too, but unenforced. That’s where lots of East Coast debs got their “procedures”.

    The big effect of Roe v Wade was to make abortion available to blacks. This was a blessing for America.

    Huh? Black illegitimacy was lower before Roe than it is for whites today. Freed from discipline, their behavior went down the tubes.

    Think about it– if a woman has “a right to her body”, that means she has a right to make them as well as destroy them. And make them they did.

    If you’re thinking about demographics, the white/black ratio has hardly budged in 50 years.

    • Agree: bored identity
    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Reg Cæsar


    but for a governor’s desperate veto, it would have been outlawed again.
     
    What's the difference between a desperate veto and a plain ordinary veto? Rockefeller signed abortion on demand into law 2 years before, he wasn't about to change his mind that quickly.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @guest

    , @Ed
    @Reg Cæsar


    Think about it– if a woman has “a right to her body”, that means she has a right to make them as well as destroy them. And make them they did.
     
    You actually see guys on “urban blogs” make this exact point. Women will say if a guy doesn’t want a baby he should wear a condom, the men will say that the women ultimately decide cause she could have an abortion. This response usually makes the women on these boards upset.
  112. @Reg Cæsar
    @Jack D


    Abortion was legal in NY before Roe v Wade.
     
    For two years. And, but for a governor's desperate veto, it would have been outlawed again.

    The main area where abortion was completely illegal was the Midwest, where the Catholic Church had a big influence.
     
    The Church had much more influence in the Northeast. Marriage laws were stricter there, too. New York didn't get no-fault divorce until 2010.

    There were also illegal abortions available. People with money (e.g. Jews) always had access to abortion.
     
    Puerto Rico. It was illegal there, too, but unenforced. That's where lots of East Coast debs got their "procedures".

    The big effect of Roe v Wade was to make abortion available to blacks. This was a blessing for America.
     
    Huh? Black illegitimacy was lower before Roe than it is for whites today. Freed from discipline, their behavior went down the tubes.

    Think about it-- if a woman has "a right to her body", that means she has a right to make them as well as destroy them. And make them they did.

    If you're thinking about demographics, the white/black ratio has hardly budged in 50 years.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Ed

    but for a governor’s desperate veto, it would have been outlawed again.

    What’s the difference between a desperate veto and a plain ordinary veto? Rockefeller signed abortion on demand into law 2 years before, he wasn’t about to change his mind that quickly.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Jack D


    What’s the difference between a desperate veto and a plain ordinary veto?
     
    He was out of state at the time it was passed, and arranged a special flight home for the veto. He could have waited until his scheduled return, but chose not to.

    That's pretty desperate. He had a point to make.
    , @guest
    @Jack D

    A veto is a veto. The desperation comes from the man issuing it. If desperation compels your veto, we call the veto desperate to save time.

  113. @IHTG
    @SFG

    Abortion in Israel is far from banned. You have to pass through a committee, so the government oversees and regulates it, but it's ultimately a rubber stamp.

    Replies: @SFG

    ah, thank you.

    The general point about the battle of the cradle with the Palestinians still holds, I think?

  114. @Anonymous

    Some research indicates, for example, that Louisiana Cajuns, French Canadians and individuals with Irish lineage may also have an elevated incidence of Tay-Sachs.
     
    Does this suggests these groups may have Jewish ancestry? Sephardic perhaps?

    Replies: @Lot, @gcochran, @Federalist, @Sean, @Ed, @Kratoklastes

    No, it suggests a predictable outcome in cultures of deliberate isolation with abundant cousin-fucking… the inevitable genetic shitstorm that incest entails.

    Once the Ashkenazim moved out of the hovels of the Pale and into a gene pool with larger numbers of more-distantly-related potential partners, Tay-Sachs would be expected to wash out of the system over the course of a few generations. Screening simply made the process more rapid.

    • Replies: @gcochran
    @Kratoklastes

    It's recessive. Takes a long time.

  115. @Father O'Hara
    @Realist

    Can they also kick ass?

    Replies: @Realist

    Can they also kick ass?

    I suppose that they could be engineered to ‘kick ass’, but that is an outdated attribute in a time of technology.

  116. @Corvinus
    @epochehusserl

    "I personally wouldn’t have a problem with banning compulsory schooling for everyone."

    Why don't you try to make this a reality and then get back to us?

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    Education was viewed as a purely private good and no business of the government’s to provide for most of human history. And we got cathedrals, Classical Antiquity, the Renaissance, and even the Industrial Revolution out of it.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    "Education was viewed as a purely private good and no business of the government’s to provide for most of human history. And we got cathedrals, Classical Antiquity, the Renaissance, and even the Industrial Revolution out of it."

    And due to the development of the modern nation-state that stemmed from the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution, a system for educating its citizens became necessary. And we got airplanes, nanotechnology, robotic assisted surgery, and 4D porn out of it. Perhaps in the modern age we will see more home schooling or computer assisted tutoring, with various tracks that the youngsters could pursue. In other words, a less reliance on brick and mortar. Nonetheless, government will remain in its funding and curriculum role.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

  117. @Malcolm Y
    The legendary mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss considered his alleged discovery of statistical regression “trivial.”

    https://priceonomics.com/the-discovery-of-statistical-regression/

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Note that the site you link to publishes these two books:


    Thus,

  118. @Jack D
    @Reg Cæsar


    but for a governor’s desperate veto, it would have been outlawed again.
     
    What's the difference between a desperate veto and a plain ordinary veto? Rockefeller signed abortion on demand into law 2 years before, he wasn't about to change his mind that quickly.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @guest

    What’s the difference between a desperate veto and a plain ordinary veto?

    He was out of state at the time it was passed, and arranged a special flight home for the veto. He could have waited until his scheduled return, but chose not to.

    That’s pretty desperate. He had a point to make.

  119. Sean says:
    @Jack D
    @Sean

    I doubt that naturally conceived recessive Tay Sach carriers are being aborted. In cases of in-vitro fertilization, more likely. If you are going to spend all that money on implanting an embryo, might as well pick out a good one.

    Replies: @Sean

    I feel sure that given their high economic level and the females’ extended time spent in education Jewish couples will often have limited time for a family and a very high rate of in-vitro fertilization for fertility reasons. If it is quite possibly going to be their only child, not vaginal delivery, and the mother taking time out a career, then they will want to make it as perfect as possible.

    I am dubious whether they understand what carrying Tay Sachs and other mutations means for the heterozygous child. Liberal Jews marrying each other nowadays is not going to happen by accident (whatever they tell themselves) they’ll probably have a preference for their own kind and if they are committed to the Jewishness of their child, then “good” would not mean athletic ability at the expense of intelligence.

    I suspect they do not know what difference the main Ashkenazi mutation’s heterozygosity makes, and to be safe they will try choose embryos completely clear of them. I very much doubt the clinics would be presenting Tay Sachs as a mixed blessing, they’ll portray it as unalloyed curse to be eradicated.

  120. Sean says:

    The cleverest dogs are working border collies, which tend to suffer from a disease called Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jvim.13971

    In occurs in humans very rarely except in a long Swedish influenced part of Finland where 1 in 24 is a carrier. Until the 1900s it was thought to be identical to Tay-Sachs.

    https://www.unz.com/pfrost/low-hanging-fruit/#comment-613390

  121. @Jack D
    @Reg Cæsar


    but for a governor’s desperate veto, it would have been outlawed again.
     
    What's the difference between a desperate veto and a plain ordinary veto? Rockefeller signed abortion on demand into law 2 years before, he wasn't about to change his mind that quickly.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @guest

    A veto is a veto. The desperation comes from the man issuing it. If desperation compels your veto, we call the veto desperate to save time.

  122. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Corvinus

    Education was viewed as a purely private good and no business of the government's to provide for most of human history. And we got cathedrals, Classical Antiquity, the Renaissance, and even the Industrial Revolution out of it.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Education was viewed as a purely private good and no business of the government’s to provide for most of human history. And we got cathedrals, Classical Antiquity, the Renaissance, and even the Industrial Revolution out of it.”

    And due to the development of the modern nation-state that stemmed from the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution, a system for educating its citizens became necessary. And we got airplanes, nanotechnology, robotic assisted surgery, and 4D porn out of it. Perhaps in the modern age we will see more home schooling or computer assisted tutoring, with various tracks that the youngsters could pursue. In other words, a less reliance on brick and mortar. Nonetheless, government will remain in its funding and curriculum role.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Corvinus

    The nation-state predates mandatory public schooling by several centuries. Governments love it but it's ill-suited for most cultures outside that regimented Prussian anthill.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  123. @TelfoedJohn
    Slightly off-topic: the average IQ for Down Syndrome folks is about 60. Compare that to say, Sierra Leone average, which is about the same. Does this mean Ashkenazi Jewish Down Syndrome people have an average IQ around the same as American Blacks?

    Replies: @sabril, @Reg Cæsar

    The Sierra Leoneans are stupid, but healthy. Down Syndrome kids are similar. They have a cognitive condition, but are pretty well-rounded otherwise.

    Compare them with Prader-Willi people, who are at a similar mental level, and a horrendous appetite and weight problem.

    • Replies: @gcochran
    @Reg Cæsar

    Down Syndrome kids have lots of medical problems. 40% have congenital heart disease. Leukemia is way more common. etc/

  124. @sabril
    @YetAnotherAnon


    Our systems are set up to do the exact opposite – bright women are encouraged to value career/qualifications over motherhood, less bright are subsidised via welfare to have babies.
     
    Yes, if the current system continued for another 500 or 1000 years, one could reasonably expect that the intelligence gap between men and women would get substantially wider.

    That said, on a 500 year time frame, with everything continuing on the current track, the only thing that matters is subcultures that put a high value on reproduction -- Amish people; Ultra-Orthodox Jews; FLDS; etc.

    Among these groups, are smart women having more children than stupid women? I don't know for sure, but I am pretty confident that the answer is "yes." Because in general, smart people are better than stupid people at obtaining what they value.

    Replies: @gcochran, @AnotherDad

    Longer than that: it is hard to select for trait differences between the sexes.

    • Replies: @sabril
    @gcochran


    Longer than that: it is hard to select for trait differences between the sexes.
     
    Obviously you know far more about this subject than me, and I agree that from an intuitive viewpoint it would be easier to breed an entire species for some trait rather than just the male or female members. On the other hand, men are already smarter than women so it would seem there are already genes for intelligence that already affect men and women differently.

    So I guess my question for you is what your evidence is? And if it takes one generation of breeding to raise the IQ of a subpopulation by 1 point, how many generations does it take to widen the difference between men and women by 1 point?
  125. @Kratoklastes
    @Anonymous

    No, it suggests a predictable outcome in cultures of deliberate isolation with abundant cousin-fucking... the inevitable genetic shitstorm that incest entails.

    Once the Ashkenazim moved out of the hovels of the Pale and into a gene pool with larger numbers of more-distantly-related potential partners, Tay-Sachs would be expected to wash out of the system over the course of a few generations. Screening simply made the process more rapid.

    Replies: @gcochran

    It’s recessive. Takes a long time.

  126. @Reg Cæsar
    @TelfoedJohn

    The Sierra Leoneans are stupid, but healthy. Down Syndrome kids are similar. They have a cognitive condition, but are pretty well-rounded otherwise.

    Compare them with Prader-Willi people, who are at a similar mental level, and a horrendous appetite and weight problem.

    Replies: @gcochran

    Down Syndrome kids have lots of medical problems. 40% have congenital heart disease. Leukemia is way more common. etc/

  127. Eugenics is arguably a political word where the meaning varies according to politicians who use it, in which case, no, I don’t hear major political figures publicly calling this eugenics.

    If you ask me, then yes, eugenics simply means improving the gene pool, and removing genetic diseases counts.

  128. @Jack D
    @Macumazahn

    No very long. If you differentiate white people into subgroups (e.g. Episcopalians, atheists) then the average is already there.

    Replies: @jbwilson24

    ” If you differentiate white people into subgroups (e.g. Episcopalians..)”

    Not going to be of much use, I fear. 99% of them seem to be over 60, and there are no young ones lining up to procreate.

    I seem to recall reading that the Episcopal Church was something of a social supper club for the WASP elite, hence the higher IQs.

  129. @guest
    @BB753

    One man on earth has Hitler-stache immunity: NBA legend/underwear pitchman Michael "Air" Jordan.

    https://theoffdutymime.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/michael-jordan-mustache-hitler.jpg

    Replies: @BB753

    Black privilege in action! Now that you mention it, Blacks still favor 1930’s moustache styles, that is trimmed and thin (think Clark Gable, Erroll Flynn), now universally banned as “fascist”, perhaps because Blacks can get away with anything.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @BB753

    Perhaps also because blacks aren't the best at growing facial hair.

    Replies: @BB753

    , @guest
    @BB753

    Speaking of fascism, black males are most privileged wearers of bald heads. If you're white and shave your head, you are either a neo-nazi or Lex Luthor.

    Replies: @Desiderius

  130. RF says:
    @Lot
    It isn’t eugenics since it doesn’t change the gene pool, rather it avoids the birth of children who will die around age 4 or 5.

    In a really small way it may be eugenic by increasing the overall Jewish population slightly and increasing the tiny IQ boost of being a TS carrier to more people.

    The non-AJ equivalent of TS is probably cystic fibrosis. 1 in 30 whites are carriers, and random mating will result in 1 in 900 double carrier pairs and 1 in 2700 white births having CS.

    CS isn’t quite as fatal as TS, with massive medical intervention people can live to 40, and are not brain damaged.

    The advantage of being a CS carrier isn’t known and there is a lot of speculation, but I think the most likely explanation is a lower rate of death from diarrheal diseases.

    Replies: @Lot, @Endgame Napoleon, @Anonymous, @donut, @RF

    Of course, it does affect the gene pool through social epistasis. Unless a diseased child is killed outright, it must be cared for with an allocation of resources that exceed those needed to maintain a healthy child. Such a family would therefore refrain from having normal children which in turn reduce the fitness of the family.

  131. @Ed
    Somewhat related are Orthodox Jews opposed to abortion like Catholics and Evangelicals? For that matter are Muslims?

    Replies: @IHTG

    They are opposed to it, but if you’re an Orthodox Jew and you even need an abortion, you’ve already fucked up.

  132. @HammerJack
    @YetAnotherAnon


    On the other hand, the Roe vs Wade voters were Blackmun, joined by Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell – wasn’t that 100% Gentile?
     
    Two questions:

    1. Who were the Jews on the High Court at the time?

    2. How stupid do you think the iSteve readership is?

    Replies: @Logan

    Somewhat surprisingly, there were no Jews on the Court from 1969 (Fortas) to 1993 (Ginsburg).

  133. @Joe Stalin

    Then, after Neil Armstrong demonstrated America’s technological superiority, America tended to attract a higher quality of new Cold War allies, such as Zhou Enlai and Anwar Sadat, while the Soviets were stuck with Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and others of that ilk.

    Steve Sailer
     
    All the more reason for POTUS to announce a manned Mars Mission before 2030, a US space program reborn after Obama. Imagine all the USA haters on Unz after a successful Martian landing.

    Replies: @prime noticer

    “Imagine all the USA haters on Unz after a successful Martian landing.”

    more like imagine the 3000 post thread about how the mars landing was faked.

  134. @gcochran
    @sabril

    Longer than that: it is hard to select for trait differences between the sexes.

    Replies: @sabril

    Longer than that: it is hard to select for trait differences between the sexes.

    Obviously you know far more about this subject than me, and I agree that from an intuitive viewpoint it would be easier to breed an entire species for some trait rather than just the male or female members. On the other hand, men are already smarter than women so it would seem there are already genes for intelligence that already affect men and women differently.

    So I guess my question for you is what your evidence is? And if it takes one generation of breeding to raise the IQ of a subpopulation by 1 point, how many generations does it take to widen the difference between men and women by 1 point?

  135. @Corvinus
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    "Education was viewed as a purely private good and no business of the government’s to provide for most of human history. And we got cathedrals, Classical Antiquity, the Renaissance, and even the Industrial Revolution out of it."

    And due to the development of the modern nation-state that stemmed from the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution, a system for educating its citizens became necessary. And we got airplanes, nanotechnology, robotic assisted surgery, and 4D porn out of it. Perhaps in the modern age we will see more home schooling or computer assisted tutoring, with various tracks that the youngsters could pursue. In other words, a less reliance on brick and mortar. Nonetheless, government will remain in its funding and curriculum role.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    The nation-state predates mandatory public schooling by several centuries. Governments love it but it’s ill-suited for most cultures outside that regimented Prussian anthill.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    "The nation-state predates mandatory public schooling by several centuries."

    Regardless, nation-states believed it was in their best interests to have its citizens have a baseline of knowledge. You are struggling here to find a point. I suggest you ask your wife how to proceed.

    "It is an object of vast magnitude that systems of education should be adopted and pursued which may not only diffuse a knowledge of the sciences but may implant in the minds of the American youth the principles of virtue and of liberty and inspire them with just and liberal ideas of government and with an inviolable attachment to their own country."

    Noah Webster, On the Education of Youth in America

    "Governments love it but it’s ill-suited for most cultures outside that regimented Prussian anthill."

    Indeed, the current model is outdated and needs major revision. Regardless, most (white) Americans are on board with having a system in place where there common procedures and standards in place, and currently that resides with the government, through their representation, to be at the head of the class.

    Why are you insisting on wearing a virtual dunce cap?

  136. @Corvinus
    @AnotherDad

    "It needs it’s smart, healthy, conscientious, cooperative, capable–“fit”–people to reproduce and its “unfit” to reproduce less or not at all. Otherwise it will weaken and lose the competitive race to–perhaps be overcome, conquered by–nations that are eugenic and becoming more capable."

    Except the problem here is that the term "fit" is subjective and can be used by unscrupulous fellows such as yourself to gain power and influence.

    What, do you think tomorrow's world ought to be a version of Rollerball?

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    “It needs it’s smart, healthy, conscientious, cooperative, capable–“fit”–people to reproduce and its “unfit” to reproduce less or not at all. Otherwise it will weaken and lose the competitive race to–perhaps be overcome, conquered by–nations that are eugenic and becoming more capable.”

    Except the problem here is that the term “fit” is subjective and can be used by unscrupulous fellows such as yourself to gain power and influence.

    Corny, i know you like to turn all thought to mush …. oh, ooh, it’s so complicated, it can go wrong, blah, blah, blah.

    But really this is no more difficult to navigate then other issues–war, education, transportation, etc. And can easily be handled by normal republican governance in a free nation.

    Here’s a simple solution to your “subjective” dilema:
    — What is fit? — Being able to provide for and take care of yourself.
    — What is unfit? — Not being able to provide and take care of yourself.

    So policy wise
    — Provide a big ass tax deduction–not a refundable credit, no EIC nonsense, but a deduction–to parents for each child. Maybe make it twice as big for parents of young pre-school age children where ideally mom leaves the workforce, then smaller when the school system takes up the slack and allows mom to work part time. The big deduction allows married couples who are earning well–i.e. providing for themselves, i.e. “fit”–to spend their money on their family/children rather than feeding the super-state parasites (and subsidizing others children), allowing the couple to have more children if they wish.

    — Conversely, provide public assistance to people not taking care of themselves–i.e. “unfit”–only in return for them going on birth control, or at some term sterilization. And certainly don’t provide extra assistance for more children. (Rather give them a minimum wage public service job.)

    No one has to put a gun to anyone’s head. Nor do top-secret genomic calculations of “fitness”. Simply “people who are providing for themselves” are “fit” and while child bearing/raising we ease their tax burden; “people who can’t/don’t provide for themselves are “unfit” and if they want the rest of us to pick up the slack, then they must forgo more children.

    Have sane eugenic policies is not exactly rocket science.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @AnotherDad

    "And can easily be handled by normal republican governance in a free nation."

    What do you mean by "normal republican governance"?

    "— What is fit? — Being able to provide for and take care of yourself. — What is unfit? — Not being able to provide and take care of yourself."

    Still remains subjective. Does that include the mentally ill? Does that include the mentally challenged, i.e. Down's Syndrome? Does that include the elderly who are in nursing homes? Does that include children who are wards of the State?

    Will this delineation be based on race, ethnicity, income, education, or a combination of factors?

    Who makes this decision as to who is and who is not be able to provide and take care of yourself? Is it a government agency? A corporation? A group of citizens? The premier thinkers of the Alt Right? How are these decisions made? Is there an appeals process? What happens when people oppose the decision that is rendered?

    Have you even thought this through?

    "Provide a big ass tax deduction–not a refundable credit, no EIC nonsense, but a deduction–to parents for each child."

    Regardless of race and ethnicity?

    "Maybe make it twice as big for parents of young pre-school age children where ideally mom leaves the workforce, then smaller when the school system takes up the slack and allows mom to work part time."

    Regardless of race and ethnicity?

    "The big deduction allows married couples who are earning well–i.e. providing for themselves, i.e. “fit”–to spend their money on their family/children rather than feeding the super-state parasites (and subsidizing others children), allowing the couple to have more children if they wish."

    Regardless of race and ethnicity? Moreover, you are using only "fit" in a strict economic sense. Just because a couple gets a big tax break does not mean that money goes to directly benefit their children.

    You also realize you are advocating for a socialist program here, right?

    "Conversely, provide public assistance to people not taking care of themselves–i.e. “unfit”–only in return for them going on birth control, or at some term sterilization."

    Except we know there are people who are on public assistance who do not have children or, if they do have children, have little desire to have more kids. Moreover, does this "unfit" group include white people who lost their manufacturing jobs? White women whose husband just died and had been a decent provided? How about the white couple who is trying to make ends meet and desires to have children, but cannot afford it unless they get food stamps or housing assistance?

    "Simply “people who are providing for themselves” are “fit” and while child bearing/raising we ease their tax burden; “people who can’t/don’t provide for themselves are “unfit” and if they want the rest of us to pick up the slack, then they must forgo more children."

    Except it is not as easy as you made it out to be, as I showed above.

  137. @fitzhamilton
    @Reg Cæsar

    Wow. Just wow. How is it that this is the first time I've ever heard about this?

    I just read the article in the Times of Israel Steve links to, and they don't explicitly mention abortion once. It's as if they screen the child before birth, then it simply magically disappears if it's a carrier of the gene? I've heard quite a bit about the aborting of Downs Syndrome children - they say it's about a 90% rate these days - but never once about this.. But Down's Sydrome effects the gentiles, equally, too - the epidemiology of Tay Sachs is much more narrow: it's predominately an Ashkenazi and Cajun/Arcadian French Canadian disease.

    I've always wondered at how so many radical feminists and abortion activists have been Jewish - I mean Freidan, Steinem, Firestone, Dworkin - there was hardly a major early feminist theorist who wasn't Jewish. I always chalked it up to culture.. Lately I've been getting a bit more cynical, and conspiratorially paranoid though..

    This article is a dropping penny. The genetic testing began in earnest in 1971, then in 1973, we get Roe v Wade. That can't be coincidental. Nor can the media silence about it all be accidental.

    Replies: @guest, @YetAnotherAnon, @Jack D, @DRA

    It’s as if they screen the child before birth, then it simply magically disappears if it’s a carrier of the gene?

    Could happen, but unless the fetus has two copies of the defective gene the child will live a normal life, and have whatever benefit being heterozygous.

  138. @BB753
    @guest

    Black privilege in action! Now that you mention it, Blacks still favor 1930's moustache styles, that is trimmed and thin (think Clark Gable, Erroll Flynn), now universally banned as "fascist", perhaps because Blacks can get away with anything.

    Replies: @Anon, @guest

    Perhaps also because blacks aren’t the best at growing facial hair.

    • Replies: @BB753
    @Anon

    Good point! And I suppose their facial hair is fuzzy too.

  139. @BB753
    @guest

    Black privilege in action! Now that you mention it, Blacks still favor 1930's moustache styles, that is trimmed and thin (think Clark Gable, Erroll Flynn), now universally banned as "fascist", perhaps because Blacks can get away with anything.

    Replies: @Anon, @guest

    Speaking of fascism, black males are most privileged wearers of bald heads. If you’re white and shave your head, you are either a neo-nazi or Lex Luthor.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @guest

    Leave a little stubble, stay in shape (i. e. lift and eat right), get your posture squared away, and dress like a grown man and you’re (more than) good.

  140. @sabril
    @YetAnotherAnon


    Our systems are set up to do the exact opposite – bright women are encouraged to value career/qualifications over motherhood, less bright are subsidised via welfare to have babies.
     
    Yes, if the current system continued for another 500 or 1000 years, one could reasonably expect that the intelligence gap between men and women would get substantially wider.

    That said, on a 500 year time frame, with everything continuing on the current track, the only thing that matters is subcultures that put a high value on reproduction -- Amish people; Ultra-Orthodox Jews; FLDS; etc.

    Among these groups, are smart women having more children than stupid women? I don't know for sure, but I am pretty confident that the answer is "yes." Because in general, smart people are better than stupid people at obtaining what they value.

    Replies: @gcochran, @AnotherDad

    Yes, if the current system continued for another 500 or 1000 years, one could reasonably expect that the intelligence gap between men and women would get substantially wider.

    No reason for that at all.

    The correlation between intelligence and low fertility is a cultural one. There’s nothing about fertility in the abstract that favors low intelligence or vice versa. Historically, being a farm wife–what most women were–managing a farm household successfully while popping out and feeding, raising and marrying off a bunch of kids would have been strongly correlated with women who had it going on–IQ, conscientiousness, great health,

    I’d argue even now that actually smart–call it “wise”–are organizing their lives to have families, while the clever sillies are the ones who think that being a mom and having a family can’t possibly be as important and rewarding as lawyering for an NGO or editing drivel for some maganize. Well maybe a big dose of anti-selection on “status seeking” and “narrative compliance”.

    But in any case, you’re noting that high fertility will come from religious communities which provide their own–non-standard–culture. So there’s no particular reason why, within them, low IQ would correlate with higher fertility. Change the cultural “goal” … change the behavior.

    I think what is–and will be–obviously selected for is women, and men, with strong nurturing and family orientation. Basically we’re boiling off the low nurturing, more ego-centric genes.

    • Agree: Desiderius
  141. DRA says:
    @YetAnotherAnon
    @Valentino

    "if the higher strata of the population donate embryos for the lower strata, vast number of problems will be solved... it’s not difficult for parents in the lower ends of society, to understand that their children would be better if they inherit an IQ of 130"

    I knew an Oxbridge grad who did a lot of donating in his student days, before they changed the law (in 2005) to allow 'anonymous' donors to contact their biological fathers.

    Very bright and nice chap, six-three, handsome - those recipients will probably have tall, clever babies.

    On the other hand, most people want their children to be theirs, not a stranger's.

    You could improve a population's average IQ by encouraging intelligent women to have more babies, and by not subsidising less intelligent women to have more babies. Our systems are set up to do the exact opposite - bright women are encouraged to value career/qualifications over motherhood, less bright are subsidised via welfare to have babies.

    There's one little ray of hope in the UK, that's not been overturned by the courts (yet) - going forward from 2017, you can only claim benefits for two children (existing benefits continue, so if you have four born before 2017, you're OK, but won't get extra benefit if you have another).

    https://www.opfs.org.uk/limiting-benefits-paid-children/

    The other obvious eugenic step would be to reduce tax levels above a certain income for large families - I know Hungary does this, but not many places do.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @sabril, @DRA, @Valentino

    Probably unconstitutional due to disparate impact. Otherwise it sounds like a good idea.

    Perhaps allowing full tax deductibility of child care costs could help encourage better educated couples to have more children at a younger age. Likewise, financial assistance for freezing eggs to facilitate latter childbirth for those dedicating time to carrier development.

    A guaranteed annual income per citizen, large enough to provide for one or two dependent children below school age, and no additional governmental child support, could remove any financial incentive for having children. Then pay kids for going to school, through their parent of guardian, with a base amount for attendance and bonuses for superior achievement.

    Perhaps the guaranteed annual income could start at completion of high school, or at a reasonably later age, when the school attendance compensation expires.

  142. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Corvinus

    The nation-state predates mandatory public schooling by several centuries. Governments love it but it's ill-suited for most cultures outside that regimented Prussian anthill.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “The nation-state predates mandatory public schooling by several centuries.”

    Regardless, nation-states believed it was in their best interests to have its citizens have a baseline of knowledge. You are struggling here to find a point. I suggest you ask your wife how to proceed.

    “It is an object of vast magnitude that systems of education should be adopted and pursued which may not only diffuse a knowledge of the sciences but may implant in the minds of the American youth the principles of virtue and of liberty and inspire them with just and liberal ideas of government and with an inviolable attachment to their own country.”

    Noah Webster, On the Education of Youth in America

    “Governments love it but it’s ill-suited for most cultures outside that regimented Prussian anthill.”

    Indeed, the current model is outdated and needs major revision. Regardless, most (white) Americans are on board with having a system in place where there common procedures and standards in place, and currently that resides with the government, through their representation, to be at the head of the class.

    Why are you insisting on wearing a virtual dunce cap?

  143. @YetAnotherAnon
    @Valentino

    "if the higher strata of the population donate embryos for the lower strata, vast number of problems will be solved... it’s not difficult for parents in the lower ends of society, to understand that their children would be better if they inherit an IQ of 130"

    I knew an Oxbridge grad who did a lot of donating in his student days, before they changed the law (in 2005) to allow 'anonymous' donors to contact their biological fathers.

    Very bright and nice chap, six-three, handsome - those recipients will probably have tall, clever babies.

    On the other hand, most people want their children to be theirs, not a stranger's.

    You could improve a population's average IQ by encouraging intelligent women to have more babies, and by not subsidising less intelligent women to have more babies. Our systems are set up to do the exact opposite - bright women are encouraged to value career/qualifications over motherhood, less bright are subsidised via welfare to have babies.

    There's one little ray of hope in the UK, that's not been overturned by the courts (yet) - going forward from 2017, you can only claim benefits for two children (existing benefits continue, so if you have four born before 2017, you're OK, but won't get extra benefit if you have another).

    https://www.opfs.org.uk/limiting-benefits-paid-children/

    The other obvious eugenic step would be to reduce tax levels above a certain income for large families - I know Hungary does this, but not many places do.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @sabril, @DRA, @Valentino

    “On the other hand, most people want their children to be theirs, not a stranger’s.”

    This could change more easily than people imagine. People could be educated about all the genetics basis of the mind and body, and that a good mind will be better for their children, and that even them will be benefited with competent children that will help them at an old age.

    “You could improve a population’s average IQ by encouraging intelligent women to have more babies, and by not subsidising less intelligent women to have more babies. Our systems are set up to do the exact opposite – bright women are encouraged to value career/qualifications over motherhood, less bright are subsidised via welfare to have babies.”

    This is not an efficient way to solve these problems. It will be extremely slow until all the gene pool of society improve. But if you spread the genetics of the most successful people throughout the socio-economic pyramid, only in one or two generations, the society will be much better. On the other hand, dumb people also want to have children. They could be benefited with all the best that children and grandchildren can offer.

  144. @AnotherDad
    @Corvinus



    “It needs it’s smart, healthy, conscientious, cooperative, capable–“fit”–people to reproduce and its “unfit” to reproduce less or not at all. Otherwise it will weaken and lose the competitive race to–perhaps be overcome, conquered by–nations that are eugenic and becoming more capable.”

     

    Except the problem here is that the term “fit” is subjective and can be used by unscrupulous fellows such as yourself to gain power and influence.
     
    Corny, i know you like to turn all thought to mush .... oh, ooh, it's so complicated, it can go wrong, blah, blah, blah.

    But really this is no more difficult to navigate then other issues--war, education, transportation, etc. And can easily be handled by normal republican governance in a free nation.

    Here's a simple solution to your "subjective" dilema:
    -- What is fit? -- Being able to provide for and take care of yourself.
    -- What is unfit? -- Not being able to provide and take care of yourself.

    So policy wise
    -- Provide a big ass tax deduction--not a refundable credit, no EIC nonsense, but a deduction--to parents for each child. Maybe make it twice as big for parents of young pre-school age children where ideally mom leaves the workforce, then smaller when the school system takes up the slack and allows mom to work part time. The big deduction allows married couples who are earning well--i.e. providing for themselves, i.e. "fit"--to spend their money on their family/children rather than feeding the super-state parasites (and subsidizing others children), allowing the couple to have more children if they wish.

    -- Conversely, provide public assistance to people not taking care of themselves--i.e. "unfit"--only in return for them going on birth control, or at some term sterilization. And certainly don't provide extra assistance for more children. (Rather give them a minimum wage public service job.)

    No one has to put a gun to anyone's head. Nor do top-secret genomic calculations of "fitness". Simply "people who are providing for themselves" are "fit" and while child bearing/raising we ease their tax burden; "people who can't/don't provide for themselves are "unfit" and if they want the rest of us to pick up the slack, then they must forgo more children.

    Have sane eugenic policies is not exactly rocket science.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “And can easily be handled by normal republican governance in a free nation.”

    What do you mean by “normal republican governance”?

    “— What is fit? — Being able to provide for and take care of yourself. — What is unfit? — Not being able to provide and take care of yourself.”

    Still remains subjective. Does that include the mentally ill? Does that include the mentally challenged, i.e. Down’s Syndrome? Does that include the elderly who are in nursing homes? Does that include children who are wards of the State?

    Will this delineation be based on race, ethnicity, income, education, or a combination of factors?

    Who makes this decision as to who is and who is not be able to provide and take care of yourself? Is it a government agency? A corporation? A group of citizens? The premier thinkers of the Alt Right? How are these decisions made? Is there an appeals process? What happens when people oppose the decision that is rendered?

    Have you even thought this through?

    “Provide a big ass tax deduction–not a refundable credit, no EIC nonsense, but a deduction–to parents for each child.”

    Regardless of race and ethnicity?

    “Maybe make it twice as big for parents of young pre-school age children where ideally mom leaves the workforce, then smaller when the school system takes up the slack and allows mom to work part time.”

    Regardless of race and ethnicity?

    “The big deduction allows married couples who are earning well–i.e. providing for themselves, i.e. “fit”–to spend their money on their family/children rather than feeding the super-state parasites (and subsidizing others children), allowing the couple to have more children if they wish.”

    Regardless of race and ethnicity? Moreover, you are using only “fit” in a strict economic sense. Just because a couple gets a big tax break does not mean that money goes to directly benefit their children.

    You also realize you are advocating for a socialist program here, right?

    “Conversely, provide public assistance to people not taking care of themselves–i.e. “unfit”–only in return for them going on birth control, or at some term sterilization.”

    Except we know there are people who are on public assistance who do not have children or, if they do have children, have little desire to have more kids. Moreover, does this “unfit” group include white people who lost their manufacturing jobs? White women whose husband just died and had been a decent provided? How about the white couple who is trying to make ends meet and desires to have children, but cannot afford it unless they get food stamps or housing assistance?

    “Simply “people who are providing for themselves” are “fit” and while child bearing/raising we ease their tax burden; “people who can’t/don’t provide for themselves are “unfit” and if they want the rest of us to pick up the slack, then they must forgo more children.”

    Except it is not as easy as you made it out to be, as I showed above.

  145. Ed says:
    @Reg Cæsar
    @Jack D


    Abortion was legal in NY before Roe v Wade.
     
    For two years. And, but for a governor's desperate veto, it would have been outlawed again.

    The main area where abortion was completely illegal was the Midwest, where the Catholic Church had a big influence.
     
    The Church had much more influence in the Northeast. Marriage laws were stricter there, too. New York didn't get no-fault divorce until 2010.

    There were also illegal abortions available. People with money (e.g. Jews) always had access to abortion.
     
    Puerto Rico. It was illegal there, too, but unenforced. That's where lots of East Coast debs got their "procedures".

    The big effect of Roe v Wade was to make abortion available to blacks. This was a blessing for America.
     
    Huh? Black illegitimacy was lower before Roe than it is for whites today. Freed from discipline, their behavior went down the tubes.

    Think about it-- if a woman has "a right to her body", that means she has a right to make them as well as destroy them. And make them they did.

    If you're thinking about demographics, the white/black ratio has hardly budged in 50 years.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Ed

    Think about it– if a woman has “a right to her body”, that means she has a right to make them as well as destroy them. And make them they did.

    You actually see guys on “urban blogs” make this exact point. Women will say if a guy doesn’t want a baby he should wear a condom, the men will say that the women ultimately decide cause she could have an abortion. This response usually makes the women on these boards upset.

  146. @Anon
    @BB753

    Perhaps also because blacks aren't the best at growing facial hair.

    Replies: @BB753

    Good point! And I suppose their facial hair is fuzzy too.

  147. @guest
    @BB753

    Speaking of fascism, black males are most privileged wearers of bald heads. If you're white and shave your head, you are either a neo-nazi or Lex Luthor.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Leave a little stubble, stay in shape (i. e. lift and eat right), get your posture squared away, and dress like a grown man and you’re (more than) good.

  148. @miss marple
    @Moses

    I love conspiracy theories myself but don't you think blaming abortion on the Jews is a bit ridiculous?

    Replies: @Moses

    I love conspiracy theories myself but don’t you think blaming abortion on the Jews is a bit ridiculous?

    I’m not blaming anyone. That’s your hallucination.

    I merely noted the fact that Jewish activism re: abortion is quite different in Israel vs. the USA.

    Weird.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS