Blog Archive

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Lessons from Changeling:

If people are unwilling to read the fictional work that is Changeling, which has lots of good ideas embedded in it, maybe they'll read the nonfiction version where I just say those good ideas outright.

What lessons can we learn from Changeling?

The most important act of discrimination we make in life is who we choose as mates. The second most important act of discrimination we make in life is who we choose as fellow citizens.

Anti-discrimination will eventually mean having no standards whatsoever for either of these decisions. We will belong to a one world government with marriages determined by lottery in the interests of perfect fairness. As such, all the races will be amalgamated into a mediocre brown mass.

So long as discrimination is considered the greatest of all evils on Earth, this fate is inevitable. Since discrimination of any sort, even on non-racial grounds, will have disproportionate racial impacts, because the races are fundamentally different, liberals will always be able to term discrimination of any sort as 'racism.' Racism is the greatest of all evils, therefore we must marry by lottery. The logic is absolutely iron-clad. An unbelievable statement? Then why did Nicholas Sarkozy say in a speech:

In his message Sarkozy insisted that the French people must change, that there will be dire consequences if they don't, and that not to intermarry racially is bad for the survival of the country. Thus he amalgamated the concepts of preference for minorities in job hiring with that of the need for the French to intermarry racially.

These are two separate things. But in the mind of Sarkozy they go together. Last December he chose a highly successful Algerian-born businessman, known as an impassioned advocate of diversity, Yazid Sabeg, to be his "high commissioner on diversity and equal opportunity", and to implement these government orders.

Liberals understand their endgame. It's time we understood their endgame too.

The answer to liberal's hatred of standards is love of standards. We should be setting higher standards for ourselves: both in who we marry and who we tolerate as a fellow citizen. No matter how small our population becomes due to these higher standards, the increased quality of our married lives and human capital from our neighbors will make up for it. Over time, any number of people can be born and raised in our ideas. Changeling points out that the entire Eurasian race is descended from less than 1,000 original ancestors who left Africa. Therefore if we wanted to start today, we could start with as few as 1,000 people ((In Changeling they started with 5,000 people)) as the new founding population for a new gene pool that will be cut off from the outside world and a new country whose laws will be different than the outside world's.

High standards lead to eugenics. If the founding population consists of high quality genes, and every subsequent generation is weeded out when they fail to qualify ((The weeding out process is simple, they can be thrown back into the outside world, or they can be allowed to live out their days childless, or they can become surrogate parents/adoptive parents of those who are allowed to breed because they do meet our high standards)), the result is eugenics. Once we've raised the bar a bit, we can set yet higher standards and start over, always having the standards just low enough that a breeding population can maintain the task of supplying the next generation. Continuous eugenic pressure can have startling effects over short time periods. This has been seen in animal husbandry and farming, but has never been applied to mankind before. There's no telling how rapidly our genomes could advance if only they were bred selectively on the basis of high standards, and parents were matched on the basis of their genetic quality in the hopes of producing superior kids. In Changeling, they have become a race of supermen in 12 generations, with genius level IQ, beautiful bodies, olympic level athleticism, long healthy lifespans which preserves their youthful looks well into middle age, moral self-control of all animal desires, and some of them even have psychic powers. The psychic powers part may not play out in the real world. ;). Everything else will. It's worth breeding for traits like these. They are the easiest and fastest path to eliminating all suffering on Earth, and reaching new heights of spiritual and material glory.

High standards can include, potentially, anyone from any race, but they should be kept objective and not lowered for the sake of affirmative action. Simply maintaining high standards and not caring about 'disparate impacts' would dramatically switch the balance of this world's future from depressingly dumb and ugly people of southern latitudes to inspiringly bright and beautiful people of northern latitudes. There is no no need to be racist to achieve these results. Be fair and objective, and everything we desire will fall into our hands.

Every day we waste on our material well being is another day lost to the creation of a new superrace. The pursuit of wealth in the modern world no longer goes to meeting any legitimate material needs. It is all for the sake of status, which in turn is leveraged to get high quality mates. However, if a group decides to isolate itself with only other high quality people from the outset, there would be no need to take such indirect measures of people's genetic worth as wealth or education. We could simply do dna tests, IQ tests, personality tests, and know personally their life history. ((Tight knit groups have the advantage of full information)). Imagine how much time and energy is freed up by not having to pursue status in order to get a high quality mate. Without having to pursue status, we don't have to pursue wealth. The pursuit of wealth and status is what has driven up the average age of marriage from 18 to 30. However, biologically, children are better off when born by 18 year olds than by 30 year olds. They will be healthier and smarter by being born at the appropriate time in our mammalian life cycle. We will be able to have more children, faster, if we start having kids at 18 instead of 30. And the actual bearing and raising of these kids, which requires a great deal of time and energy, is a better use of smart people's lives than pursuing wealth and status in the outside world. It has a better long-term benefit to the human race, and a better short-term benefit to the actual parents involved.

Statistically, marriage has been shown again and again to be the single greatest upgrade to people's quality of life. Likewise, for children, being brought up by a married couple is the single greatest environmental benefit they receive from their parents. Basically we are biologically meant to live within the context of first, living under two married parents, and then marrying ourselves and living as two married parents until the day we die. Anyone who strays from this path will be unhappy for life -- and their life will be on average 20 years shorter for that matter. Furthermore, they are far less likely to reproduce, so it's an evolutionary dead end.

We have refrained from marrying at 18 because we weren't sure we would be getting a 'high class' marriage partner. Instead we wait until they've gotten a phd and are making $100,000 a year, which is well into middle age. Forming a community of purely high class individuals, as determined by IQ tests, eliminates the need for this endless stalling.

We have also refrained from marrying at 18 for the hedonistic riches of getting to sleep around with endless short term partners before we settle down at 30. However, all evidence shows that such hedonists are actually far less happy than stable married couples. They never feel any real love, they have less sex than married couples, and their marriages subsequently are far less stable than people with few or no sex partners before marriage. High IQ people in general have fewer meaningless relationships before marriage, but having people marry at 18 would still be an upgrade over this nihilistic lifestyle from 18-30 that even high IQ individuals somewhat participate in these days.

As far as I can tell, the modern world has no love and no joy. This is because on average, people spend more of their lives unmarried than married, and children are more likely to be from divorced or separated homes than married homes. This is the single greatest poison ruining our world. The solution is simple. Marry as virgins at 18, don't divorce or separate, and give children a real home, with a mother and a father, like they deserve. For those who don't find their partners romantically, parents should arrange marriages for their kids. Ideally, it would work both ways. If parents notice a couple of kids getting along well, they should arrange to have them married at 18, and get them used to the idea that they are engaged and will be together forever. For those who don't get along, make them aware that they will have to get along in due time because they're arranged to be married, and encourage them to keep trying to get along until they do. It isn't important who you marry. It's important THAT YOU ARE MARRIED, and that both partners in a marriage perform their duty.

No matter what magical loving bond two people claim they share, in the real world, they are as likely as anyone else to divorce, separate, cheat on each other, or break up. In fact, the more profuse people say they love each other, the more likely they will break up, because they appear to be scatterbrains who can't keep to such a powerful feeling directed in any one direction for any length of time (just check out celebrity headlines.)

Therefore, romantic attachment is not a good predictor of marital success. High IQ is a good predictor of marital success. But even then, marriages are rocky compared to the past. The best predictor of marital success is a culture that doesn't allow marriages to fail. In the 1800's, divorce was unheard of, people married young, had lots of children, and raise those children in a stable home. There wasn't any of this 'love' nonsense, just solid honor and duty and faithfulness, a religious sense of obligation to fulfill a holy and necessary duty.

As stated earlier, statistically, study after study has shown that married couples are happier than unmarried individuals, and children from stable homes are better adjusted than children from broken homes. Basically, there's nothing more important to human happiness than that everyone is married and every kid has a mother and a father. "Love" never comes into it. No one has made any study showing people who feel 'love' profusely are happier than people who feel love more modestly and solidly. No study has ever shown that being that one girl from Sense and Sensibility (the Sensibility one who feels everything passionately) makes you better off than the other girl (The one who stays grounded and displays common Sense). But our era has plentifully provided examples of those who act on the basis of love, and are thrown into depression thereby -- every single person whose heart has been broken in the modern world by the endless frivolous breakups and divorces that have become the hallmark of modern living.

As just a hypothesis, Changeling asserts a revolutionary idea: The quality of one's married life depends not on 'love,' but on the quality of your partner (determined objectively, not subjectively, through selective testing) and the quality of your culture (what it expects from the married couple and what it demands from each spouse to provide dutifully to their spouse.) Anyone in their right mind would forsake the dubious passionate flights of 'love' for a beautiful, brilliant wife at age 18 that will always be faithful to you, will have any number of your kids, will never divorce you, and has a deepset feeling of pride in how well she performs her duty as a married woman, and gains great honor from performing her role well from society around her. Likewise, women would greatly benefit from marrying and having children at the appropriate age, 18 not 30, with assuredly brilliant, handsome, dutiful men who will not cheat on you, will not abandon you, are willing to have any number of kids, and will have a deepset pride in performing their role as a husband and gain great honor in doing so from society. Generally, men want fewer children than women, they are less faithful, and they pay very little attention to the home. If men were not so fixated on wealth creation and status accumulation, they could contribute much more to domestic felicity for any wife. They could help with childcare, or they could just be there for you, sexually, romantically, friendly, conversationally, whatever the wife needs at the time.

A series of technological innovations have changed traditional life in drastically negative ways. It used to be the whole family lived together on a farm -- men never left 'home' to go work in the first place. Then men all left home for women to tend alone, greatly reducing the meaningfulness of a marriage. Then women also left the home, which meant that neither spouse ever saw the other, nor did children ever see their parents. Then children were sent off to school, to be raised elsewhere, only coming home late themselves. Families have been ripped apart, like as though slave traders came in and sent them all to different districts, but instead it has all been for the sake of 'business efficiency' and 'getting a good job.' Only those who are willing to forsake wealth and status creation can regain a true home, where people really live and interact with each other happily and freely. Of course, today the situation is even worse. Instead of married couples basically living apart 18 hours out of every day and never interacting with their kids, they never marry in the first place, a single mother 'raises' her kids by working two jobs, one during the day and the other during the night, and the kids never see the mother or the father. The mother doesn't see anyone either, but she occasionally brings home abusive boyfriends who are just as likely to molest the single mother's daughters as have sex with the ugly worn mother.

We must go back if we're to go forward. Marriage is what mankind evolved for and it is the only way people can be happy or fulfilled in life. Marriage is not and has never been about 'love,' an intoxication of various instincts that has no long-term predictive value of a relationship's success. Marriage is about people fulfilling their words and doing their duty. If they are held responsible to do so, they will have much better married lives than any couples currently under the reign of modern day 'love.'

With drastically reduced wealth creation, people need to accept drastically lower living standards. Living in a commune together would help lower expenses. Many things can be shared, like entertainment devices, cars, cafeterias, common recreational areas, and rooms. The square footage of houses in America has nearly doubled even though the average family size has shrunk. This is a needless luxury, in fact it may even lower quality of life by further atomizing families apart from one another. A tight knit community would find endless redundancies it could scrap -- extra copies of the same book, everyone needing their own car to get to their own job, everyone needing their own extra 'study' to work at home from, and so on. Once all redundancies are scrapped and everything that can be held in common, is held in common, the cost of living should be well under $5,000 a year per capita.

This kind of money could be received free from the open arms of our charitable liberal government. It makes more sense for a group of eugenicists to have massive amounts of children in the hopes of eventually populating the world than for the government to be giving handouts to retarded crack babies of single mothers. People should have no shame in taking this money from the till. They are creating something of much greater value than the money they are taking from others -- a new superrace that will eliminate all suffering from the Earth and create new heights of human glory. Eugenicists are doing their part by living cheaply, marrying immediately, and having large families ((and I'm talking enormous families for those who qualify to give life to the next generation.)) They don't also have to work to be 'good people.' Let other people work for you and do the work that's truly important in this world -- human progress in the context of true human happiness, marriage and stable homes.

If people are simply unwilling to receive charity from others, they should still be able to find ways to make enough money while keeping their primary duty at home. Rather than finding work that has long hours and steep entrance requirements, find work that has short hours and doesn't take years to get a degree in. Use that money to live with, however little it is, and get back to your real job which is to be a husband and a father, or a wife and a mother.

Commune-Home schooling is an absolute necessity. First, to remove all of the cultural brainwashing that goes on in outside schools, second, to get kids of your gene pool interacting and mixing with each other for the sake of arranging their marriages later in life, and finally, to brainwash your children with your own, superior culture, such that it maintains its course to its true conclusion (however many generations down the line, the superrace.) If kids aren't taught to rally behind the cause, the standards, the internal laws of the commune and its eccentric way of life, they'll be corrupted by the appeals of mainstream life and fall away. Then the entire project would have to be aborted halfway and all that work will have been for nothing. Education must ensure that the next generation is just as fervently willing to continue the eugenics project as the previous generation. For those who simply can't accept this lifestyle, it's best to send them off back into the modern world, rather than leave them as a spoiled apple in the remaining pristine barrel. But home schooling should seek to minimize this problem as much as possible. Furthermore, these will be extremely intelligent kids, and they will need a school curriculum geared to their abilities. No more teaching to the lowest common denominator. Kids in Changeling will be taught at a speed they can enjoy with peers they can respect subjects that matter.

Not only should people be taught what they're expected -- 'don't cheat, don't lie, don't do drugs, don't do crime, don't sleep around,' but they should also be taught to hate and despise the outside world for continuing to do so. Hate and loathing, anything that throws up barriers between our community and the outside world, is a vast improvement. Jews used it to keep their gene pool isolated for thousands of years. The outside world should be considered inhuman, nothing good can come from it, and no contact with it can be beneficial. This can easily be supported by the facts. While the kids of Changeling live in married homes, with tip-top genes, surrounded by amazing people, and disallowed from participating in any vice, the outside world will be full of people with bad genes, bad morals, and bad homes who will mutually degrade each other. It should be easy for parents to teach their children how different and unique they are, and how any child of theirs who acts like 'those people' should die of the shame, but at the very least find the nearest door and leave this community forever. Pride in our self-identity as uniquely moral beings will strengthen our willpower to actually fulfill those demanding standards. Shame in not fulfilling what's expected of us will likewise arm us against failure. Hating and despising the outside world will teach us to never listen to their insults or persuasion and allow us to stay the course uninhibited.

A commune does not need sovereign authority to enforce its code. All it needs is shame and exile. This project could begin today anywhere in the world by any 1,000 people who wanted to do it. Once the benefits became more visible, more people would join. But this project doesn't need many people, lots of money, an armed revolution, or anything else. It only needs people with Will. The will to do what is necessary to change the world.

If everyone in the community had ten kids every generation, they would eventually become the majority population of the world -- without ever firing a shot and without ever gaining sovereignty and without ever making any money. Until having kids is banned, having kids is the easiest and fastest route to world conquest. Any 1,000 people could start conquering the world today. Why allow Nigerians to have 7 kids a piece and conquer the world? Why not outbreed them? Why not ensure the world for high IQ geniuses of our own stock and caliber? What's stopping us?

If this process did form a large enough population to conquer the world, it should do so. The new superrace will have been so eugenically improved that it will bear little relation to the outside world, which will look like a bunch of chimpanzees in comparison. This would allow progress to go from a tiny corner of the Earth to encompassing its entire breadth.

Why this program may not be practical: Eugenics takes time. It takes so much time that it won't be necessary by the time it is done. In the next one hundred years (much less three hundred), we will have advanced to something far beyond humans, via robotics or genetic engineering. Therefore this program made sense in the past, but probably doesn't make any sense today. However, if people are convinced that the world really is heading towards ruination and a new dark age, a eugenics program will have enough time to bear fruit, and should be embarked upon immediately. Therefore, anyone belonging to the 'collapse chorus' should find these proposals right up their alley. Changeling is set in just such a scenario where the world comes to a grinding halt due to nondiscrimination destroying everything. It is the perfect solution for the world it found itself in.

If mankind is to progress, we must eventually throw away our primitive superstitions of the past and cleave only to science. Christianity and all other religions must be abandoned and utilitarianism put in its place. Darwinism and atheism must prevail before any sensible public policy platforms can be endorsed. So long as we have useless moral scruples like Christianity, we won't even be able to start a eugenics program.

People must not be deterred or distracted by labels and buzz words. Labels and buzz words are all logical fallacies. The end goal is simple, use eugenics and traditional morality to create a new super-race that eliminates human suffering while increasing human glory. If that makes us 'racists' or 'nazis' or 'haters' or whatever else, who cares? The end goal is Good. No one can dispute that with us. Therefore we are Good, because we're making visible measurable progress towards that end Good, every step of the way. Proudly accept any and all abuse, but never compromise the program for the sake of approval from others. We must be martyrs who will die for our beliefs, we cannot be swayed by mere insults, loss of status, ostracism, etc. If we stick together and live in our community, they can't hurt us via taunts, low status, ostracism, lack of reproductive opportunity, or employment discrimination anyway. All the tools that are currently effective at suppressing racism today are ineffective against a commune that's perfectly content to live off of handouts and marries among itself.

Since we only need 1,000 people to start with, that means we only need 500 married couples to start with. No matter how less likely women are to approve of this plan than men, surely 500 women somewhere in the world could approve of it. That's not asking much. Therefore, the movement can start, as it needs to start, equally proportionate male to female.

If 1,000 high class individuals can't be persuaded to change their lifestyles and join a commune, humanity deserves to perish in a muddy morass. I don't need to change my offer to be more appealing.

There are four possible results to Changeling -- A) the program works and long term we create a superrace that ends human suffering. B) no one tries the program and we all become subsentient animals. C) Technology outspeeds eugenics and dysgenics and makes Changeling pointless. D) The culture of the whole world suddenly changes on a dime and gets rid of the dangers of out-of-control-non-discrimination, likely as a result of how much damage is being done by said force.

What's interesting is that in cases A, C, and D there's no harm in trying Changeling simultaneously. In case B the harm came exactly from not trying Changeling. According to Pascal's wager, Changeling should be instituted.

Furthermore, the quality of life of individuals who live in a Changeling commune will be higher in case D than the quality of life of individuals who live outside of the commune, participating in the system they already hate, and just waiting for people to 'wake up' and change the system to something more sane. While everyone in case D just has to suffer and endure until this miraculous change occurs, everyone in Changeling is living a bountiful and meaningful life while they 'wait' for the outside world to change. The only possible objection is that Changeling requires too many sacrifices if case C is true. Is case C true? I tend to think so. Therefore it's a pretty strong objection.

However, it's the Only objection. And like Pascal said, better safe than sorry. . .

No comments: