Blog Archive

Friday, May 8, 2009

Eugenics or Dysgenics?

Commonly I hear people declaiming against eugenics as this great evil ideal that leads to a totalitarian dystopian genocidal nightmare. This is a strawman attack on eugenics, as a eugenics program can be set up in any number of ways, from totalitarian to completely libertarian, from genocidal to not harming a single hair on anyone's head, and from nightmare to daydream. But putting that aside for a second, a question aggravates me even more over these preachers against eugenics, who are worried about the improvement of our genes as though it's some sort of bubonic plague:

Did it ever occur to you that if the genetic stock of mankind is not improving, it must therefore be degrading? That out of the 6.7 billion people in the world, it is rather unlikely that an exact even keel is being kept and every single child born is exactly as good as the generation before them? That there is no 'alternate' to eugenics except dysgenics? Seriously, the idea that we should just be 'neutral' and be content with 'keeping the status quo' is one of the most naive and ridiculous beliefs imaginable. Look at the various IQ's of the world, multiply it by the various birth rates of the world, and then tell me that the 'status quo' is being maintained. The alternative to eugenics is not 1950's America stretched infinitely into the future, like some sort of white picket fence of happiness. The alternative, if we refuse to improve the racial stock in any way, if we intend to actually sit around and do nothing, is not the status quo, but a horrendous descent into a dysgenic Idiocracy. This is true not only of the world at large, but within every nation on earth. The lower IQ populace in every country on earth is having more children than the higher IQ populace. Even without any immigration at all, the natural birth rates of these two different segments of the population would eventually degrade the genetic stock of even the finest countries on earth.

Don't believe me?

See that blue line tanking to a world average IQ of 84 by 2100? (That's right, the average IQ of african americans, who have made such a splendid civilization out of Detroit, New Orleans, and Washington D.C. . .) It doesn't stop there. If nothing is done, if eugenics is not implemented, there is no end to that line. It just tanks and tanks and tanks and tanks and TANKS. Do you get it yet? Do you want the world's IQ to be 60? 50? At what point are you willing to concede eugenics is necessary? When would the 'nightmare dystopian genocide' of eugenics become a preferable result to baboon-world? If you are willing to accept even the most terrifying eugenic world imaginable would be better than allowing the status quo to continue indefinitely, then there is no sense in waiting until yet more damage is done before implementing said programs. If we do nothing, the world will descend into a giant Haiti (who am I kidding? it will be far worse than Haiti!). Low IQ people on every country will continue to out breed high IQ people, while the super low IQ's of Africa will meanwhile be tripling even as high IQ countries like China and Japan's populations half. This double whammy must be addressed at some point, or never. Those are your two options. If the issue is never addressed, there is no end to our dysgenic descent -- until a calamity of some massive proportion manages to kill, say, 90% of humans and finally intelligence is a more worthwhile survival trait than promiscuity. I suppose this, hoping for some miraculous natural disaster that disproportionately kills dumb people, is the excuse our self-righteous moralists will be using to keep their own 'hands clean?' If so, they are not only cowards who refuse to do what even they realize is necessary, but bastards who care nothing for the suffering and destruction inherent in such a position, a thousand times worse than the very 'eugenic dystopia' they so whine about.

What's sad is even dumb people are better off in a eugenic world, because it means they will be surrounded by intelligent people instead of dumb people. The more intelligent people, the better the economy, the lower the crime, the cleaner the streets, the more beautiful the architecture, the cleaner the water, and so on. Even dumb people would surely prefer this sort of lifestyle to a return to darkest africa, with their female circumcision, mass rape, chopping off of limbs with machetes, fly-blown malaria, AIDS, poverty, civil war and famine? The genetic quality of humanity is an issue that affects all people. If they have any love for mankind, or care about any Good on earth, they would be glad to endorse the policies necessary to avert this future, even at the expense of their own reproduction. If, however, dumb people are simply intent on reproducing maniacally with no concern for morality or the effects of their actions on others, they are not 'victims' but the aggressors, any group of smart people who take up measures to defend themselves against this nightmare world dumb people have consciously chosen for them are not 'attacking' innocents but simply defending themselves, their children, and ultimately Good itself, which can only be expressed through Good people, who can only exist if they are coded with Good genes.

I have no compunction or pity for people who say they know their actions will result in a worldwide haiti, and they don't care. They just want to enjoy themselves sexually, or love the thrill of power having so many children and grandchildren brings them, or are simply coldly calculating darwinists who understand that the name of the game is children and they intend to win --- these people are NOT the 'victims' of eugenics programs, they are the PERPETRATORS of DYSGENICS programs on the rest of us. It is absurd to call child birth a 'victimless crime.' Every child is a burden on mother earth, a place of finite resources than cannot contain an endless exponential horde of consumers and in fact already contains far too many for any sustainable environment or any high quality of life, and every child has some sort of impact on the humans around them. If that impact is negative, then there's your victim. And who is responsible? You are. Irresponsible breeding of inferior types bound to bring about horrendous negative results is not moral, or neutral, it is an attack on everyone, it is an act of aggression, and should be responded to with the full fury of the aggrieved in completely justified self-defense.

As far as I'm concerned, any measure at all that protects humanity from a dysgenic tide is moral. There is no limit to what is permissible, when we are speaking about protecting 100,000 years, millions of years of evolution. When we are protecting the ability to love, the ability to appreciate beauty, the ability to understand truth. Intelligence is necessary, sentience is necessary, for any Good at all to exist in the world. The higher one's intelligence, the better off people are. This has been shown over and over again through a variety of correlations, but a simple one is the human development index:

There are two pictures here. The first one is a map of the world colored in with high to low scores on the human development index. The second is a map of the world colored in by IQ. As you can see, the two are nearly identical. As in, everything 'good' we value in this world, is utterly locked up with high intelligence. Without intelligence, we have nothing. We are no better than animals. Everything people want, from security to freedom to comfort to long life to palaces and gourmet meals, requires high intelligence to maintain and produce.

Now for all I know there is an upper limit to intelligence where if we gain any more, everyone becomes suicidally depressive and life loses all value, but we sure as hell haven't reached that upper limit yet. So far, every IQ point a population gains, the better off the country becomes. By any known measure, by any objective rating system at all, the people in that country are happier in every way. Until that point, eugenics, which means the selective breeding of mankind in order to improve the racial stock, will always include selecting for higher intelligence. Alongside this will be selecting for other traits we desire: integrity, temperance, health, beauty, strength, conscience, sociability, whatever floats your boat. Any trait we desire can be bred for, as everything is at least partially, if not wholly determined by our genes. Tired of all the mental illnesses on earth? Breed them out of the gene pool. Tired of all the stunted, deformed, or crippled? Breed them out of the gene pool. Criminals? Breed them out. Psychopaths and sociopaths? Breed them out of the gene pool. Hemophiliacs and Huntington's Disease sufferers? Breed them out of the gene pool. Gays? Breed them out of the gene pool. Without the genes for these traits, naturally the traits themselves will no longer exist. If we have any wish to combat evil in this world, it has to start at the source, in our genes, not combat the symptoms which is always too late. Incarcerating criminals, locking up schizophrenics in mental asylums, spending endless welfare on retards and remedial school children, using plastic surgery to improve our looks or high-tech health care to offset horrible inborn health problems like the 'bubble boy', are all too-little too-late, super-expensive band-aids. We cannot be a world of band-aids covering a world of scars and open sores. People should be beacons of lights, torches, wellsprings of joy and benefit to everyone around them. Not threats, costs, or sorrowful mistakes brought into this world to serve no purpose but the world's destruction!

I don't care how eugenics is done, I just care that it be done. It is an object of such necessity, such pressing urgency, that the benefits outweigh any cost and I assure you the people of the future will thank us on their knees for having done it, no matter what it took to perform. "Nightmare dystopia" or not, ANYTHING is better than the dysgenic loss of our very humanity and a descent back into the stone age. However, for the bleeding hearts who refuse to hurt anyone, ever, for any reason, or do anything that might rob them of any choice, however vile and evil the choice may be, or whatever reason someone has against Eugenics, may I offer some eugenic solutions even you would find palatable?

1. How about this? The developed nations on earth give, freely, out of the goodness of their hearts, free birth control and abortion to any woman anywhere on earth who wishes to use it? Most women in the third world do not desire to bear so many children, but due to lack of birth control and abortion, or forced into this unwanted role. Would it be so cruel and heartless, is it a nightmare dystopia, to at least give them the option of preventing their own pregnancies and giving them a future of their own choosing, as a liberated woman with the same choices as the women of the free world enjoy for themselves? Where this policy has been implemented, for instance in Turkey and Iran, birth rates have fallen precipitously and horrible crisis averted, all without any compulsion but simply by giving women a choice in their own reproduction.

2. Or how about this? While every baby is still just a few weeks old, we allow free medical scans to check to see if it has any known genetic errors, like say, down's syndrome, and allow women the choice to abort for free if they do not wish to carry such a child into the world?

3. What about this? When we use fertility treatments to impregnate eggs in petri dishes, we take special care to select only those children with the healthiest genes out of all the possible combinations that have occurred? This way, parents will have not just any child, but the brightest, healthiest, most mentally stable children who represent the very best in their parent's?

4. Why not allow people to impregnate themselves with, say, sperm from well known brilliant, beautiful, successful men who any girl would be lucky to have as the father of their children? Sperm banks of such men could become a thriving business if advertising were done and proper screening measures used. Just imagine if every single mother on earth were paired up with Hugh Jackman instead of street hobo #3. How much better off would their children be?

5. Why not forbid all immigration of low IQ people into still open, rich lands that could support many more people? By doing this, we would have plenty of resources available for smart people to fill up with their smart children, creating a local eugenic boom simply by choosing our neighbors and co-citizens carefully instead of eeny-meeny-miney-moe?

6. Why not cut all welfare programs across the board, letting people sink or swim, and thus not subsidizing the endless irresponsible behavior of the lower classes? If they can support their own children, well and good. If they have five kids and they all die due to starvation and disease, Well whose fault was that? Maybe next time they'll think better of it and put on a condom.

7. Or how about this? Simply cut taxes. Cut taxes, especially, on the rich. Cut taxes so low that any woman who wants can drop out of the workforce, have a child with her husband, and support that child in a sumptuous way -- WITHOUT losing all the amenities of luxury and security she is used to while both the husband and the wife worked. Double every middle class and wealthy income simply by eliminating their taxes, and thus allow them to CHOOSE to have kids if they so desire. Is this too much to ask? Letting families of intelligent, caring, hard-working, and moral parents to have the funds necessary to bear a prince and a princess, in a nice home, with enough set aside for their college tuition?

8. Why not give a subsidy for all homes that meet a certain standard, for instance married, above the poverty line, no criminal record, no record of substance abuse, etc, to have children? With rewards and honors for any who have 3, 5, or 7 kids, however many they please, so that the cost of such heroic mothers and fathers is shared by all society for the wonderful gift of such well-adjusted, high genetic quality kids to our collective future?

9. Why not tie all charity to birth control measures, and require women on the dole to also be on the pill?

10. Would people be averse to vasectomizing all felons, for instance? It would be a simple way to reduce the likelihood of criminal children, without in any way preventing them from enjoying sex as normal. Do even felons have the human right to breed uncontrollably, even after all the harm they willingly chose to do to the rest of us? Or can we take some measure against them?

11. What would be so bad about requiring people with IQ below 100, say, to have only one child, while those with IQ above 100 can have 2, and those above 130 IQ 3, and so forth? Everyone could still enjoy a family life, no one would be killed or sterilized, but gently and softly, the gene pool would improve, and without anyone even noticing, the goal would be completed. What could be more humane and yet more successful? What could be a more environmentally friendly policy on this overcrowded spaceship Earth?

12. Recently a fertility clinic said it could give your children blue eyes to anyone who wanted them. Soon a time will come where the genes for intelligence, sociability, honesty, beautiful bodies, and health all become well known. What would be so nightmarish about parents freely choosing such good things for their own kids, out of love for them and a wish to see them succeed and be happy in life? It's their child, are you going to REQUIRE them to load it down with a bundle of unnecessary diseases, malformations, and dullness, hurting both the child and the parents, and the entire world just to suit your moral aesthetics?

13. As a corollary, why not require as a matter of human rights that parents DON'T make their children stupid, diseased, insane, or intentionally ugly? Don't children have a right to be born into this world with every advantage we can give them? If so, how criminal, how evil is it for parents to intentionally force onto them all these handicaps when the cure was available and freely paid for by the government?

14. Is it okay to at least teach people about genetics and the importance of good breeding, so that at least in their own personal lives they will avoid gang-bangers and ex-cons, in the desire to see their kids be admirable and successful people? Can we teach white girls, for instance, that breeding with stupid people will yield stupid children? Can we teach young girls about regression to the mean, and how even equally intelligent people will have either more intelligent or less intelligent kids, based on the average of their race? Regression to the mean is a huge factor in the genetic quality of your child, miscegenate even with a 100 IQ black, and the child is not going to have 100 IQ, but more like 90, all due to regression to the mean. Can we at least point this out and warn against miscegenation with lower IQ races, and then leave it to the individual to decide?

15. Would it be okay to give everyone a mandatory IQ test (or several, however many are necessary for accuracy) and require everyone tell their sexual partner their IQ and show the ID card proving it, thus giving people a sense of the genetic quality kids with such a lover would create? Can we at least give people the tools necessary to choose for themselves how stupid they want their kids to be?

As you can see, there are endless measures that enable eugenics. There are a million choices for a society to take, any one of which would be a drastic improvement of our future and a priceless gift to our children, grandchildren, and mankind. For those who reject every single proposal offered, I am certain they could come up with some other one, that meets every moral criteria they can possibly imagine, that would STILL yield some eugenic benefit to the next generation. I am open to any! Any will do, so long as it is done. Eugenics must be implemented, or dysgenics will devour us all. So please, come up with any plan you please. Make it as humane as you want. Give a million dollars to any dumb person who offers not to have children! I'll gladly pay! I don't care how humane, gentle, free, voluntary, slow, or gradual the process is. Just please implement eugenics before it is too late. I don't care if it is local, or universal. I don't care if it is aimed at all races, or just our own race. I don't care if the ax falls on every dumb white just as heavily as on every dumb black. I don't care if it's equal, fair, or color-blind. Just please let us do this, stop making senseless objections, and see the abyss we are about to plummet into if we do nothing.

The world is not perfect. Things are not proceeding swimmingly. The idea that everything would be great if only the evil eugenicists would stop scheming to genocide the world, and install their metal-grey totalitarian dystopia where somehow the sun never rises and clouds perpetually darken the sky -- is absurdly off. We are not the threat. We have no power. We have no voice. It is the other side of the coin, the dysgenic world, that truly threatens our civilization, our peace, our prosperity, and our freedom. They will not come in sleek uniforms and manicured nails, they will not wield laser guns and be smooth shaven with blue eyes and hard jaws. No, it will not be so happy a world! The dystopia that's really coming, the threat the world really faces, is an ugly, brutal, awful one. It will be people squatting and shitting in the streets, as toilets are no longer used. It will be people rutting in the streets, as decency is no longer heard of. It will be gunfire constantly heard in the streets, as crime becomes a way of life. It will be houses crumbling as no one cares enough to repair them. It will mean planes crashing, then going out of service. It will be epidemics, and famines, as all infrastructure breaks down. It will be soulless, vacant eyes who never spent a day in school and don't even know how to read staring at an incomprehensible and joyless world, perhaps occasionally swatting at flies that devour them while they sit with bone-bare limbs and grossly inflated bellies. This is the real dystopia, coming to a city near you! This is the real nightmare, the one approaching us every day and every night as we fiddle our future away.

If anyone truly cares about others, if anyone truly is concerned with the well-being of their fellow man, or the freedom of the individual, or the glory of western civilization, or the equality of mankind (HOW ELSE WILL WE EVER BE EQUAL WHILE OUR GENES ARE SO UNEQUAL????), he must discard all of his objections to eugenics, which are mere strawmen and obnoxious bromides. He must start objecting to dysgenics, the terror that has gripped our world by the hair and is about to slit our collective throats. He must find some eugenic path he deems moral and acceptable, and he must SUPPORT us. I don't care what process this takes. I don't care if first you must clear it with Jesus, or if this requires not hurting a single man on earth, or if a teddy bear must be provided to every affected family. Just wake up. Wake up and stop marching against the very future of your children. Stop destroying the very foundation our civilization stands upon. Stop betraying the human race and ultimately God, who spent so many millions of years developing us into the beautiful, brilliant beings we are and are meant to be. At the very least, step out of the way! Let some portion of our people save themselves. Don't force us to undergo the same dysgenics as everyone else. Give us a choice! Let us opt out. Let us define our own futures, without passing some law against it, or invading and conquering us, or refusing to let us secede! Can you even do that? Can you even allow a single group of people, just 50,000 people say, to leave and practice the eugenics you so deplore? No one is forcing it on you or anyone else. Just let us, at the very least, live our lives the way we please?

There is no moral highground among the 'status quoers.' They are morally bankrupt. They hold no values and no principles. If they held any, they would do anything to protect that which they love, and that includes maintaining a genome healthy enough it can express such things as love, beauty, and truth. If they have the absolute value of liberty, they would allow people to voluntarily form their own nation and practice whatever breeding behaviors they pleased. If they value happiness, they would want as many genetic improvements as possible be made for all mankind, so not just the privileged few but all mankind can share in the gifts of intelligence and beauty, and the riches and joys they bring. There is no moral system on earth that can, through any logical argument, oppose eugenics. There is only Satan and his friend the LIE, which attempts at all times to tear down anything good anyone, anywhere tries to erect. Eugenics is the abode of every good soul, from the most caring 18 year old college girl liberal who hopes to end world hunger, to the most grim and determined soldier who intends to protect his country. Outside eugenics, there is only dysgenics, and the only people who could ever wish for every generation to be stupider, less healthy, less mentally stable, and uglier than the last, are Satan worshippers. I don't see how they can be viewed as anything else. Haters of mankind and haters of God. That's the only group that could ever wish for such a thing.

We are the moral high ground. They are the utter moral base, they cannot crawl any lower. I am proud to be a eugenicist, they should be ashamed to be dysgenicists. It's one or the other. The choice is yours.


Bantu Education said...

I am as usual lost for words at the excellence of your articles.
Pity you are no longer posting at SAS. I am very disappointed and disillusioned at the way they keep getting rid of quality writers such as yourself.

Tots Diens

Diamed said...

I wish I knew if anyone were reading my stuff. For that matter, I wish I knew what happened with those people who said they were reading my book.

But ultimately, I'd rather lose my audience than lose my integrity.

I'm reading Solzhenitsyn and like usual I'm awe struck by his simple message. If you skirt around the truth, if you don't confront the central reality of the world, then you are no writer, you're just another brick in the wall. There is no substitute for truth.

If the holocaust turns out to be true and I've been misled by what seem to me, to be incontrovertible facts, then I can simply change my mind and believe in it again. But what about those people who know it's false even while they say it's true? They can't change their souls back to the purity it once had. They've lost their innocence forever.

This is a great quote by Dalrymple in regards to Lies, and why we must fight them no matter what:

"Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to."