Eugenics: An Elite Movement

[Fade the Butcher]

The historical eugenics movement dovetails quite nicely with my top down model of revolutionary change. Even today, I think the key to reviving the eugenics movement lies in penetrating elite institutions and swaying over some aspect of the intelligentsia.

"The American masses were not rising up demanding to sterilize, institutionalize and dehumanize their neighbors and kinfolk. Eugenics was a movement of the nation's elite thinkers and many of its most progressive reformers. As its ideology spread among the intelligentsia, eugenics cross-infected many completely separate soical reform and health care movements, each worthwhile in its own right."

Black, Edwin. War Against the Weak. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003. p.125

[Petr]

The first eugenics movement had a element of surprise on its side. This time we are not going to hand over control to micro-managing eugenicists just like that.


Petr

[Pablo Escobar]

Too bad for you that the intelligentsia have a detectable quotient of intelligence, so they tend to avoid implementing pseudo-sciences which were discredited decades ago.

[Fade the Butcher]

Too bad for you that the intelligentsia have a detectable quotient of intelligence, so they tend to avoid implementing pseudo-sciences which were discredited decades ago.

Eugenics is a progressive movement. The laws of heredity which hold for corn also hold for human beings. The triumph of pseudoscience, however, did occur decades ago with the victory of dysgenics dressed up as philanthropy: abortion on demand, birth control amongst whites, welfare and other transfer payments to blacks, third world immigration, the repeal of sterilization and anti-miscegenation laws, the rise of expressive individualism amongst the fit and so on.

No matter. Let's encourage our best citizens not to have children. Let's encourage our best citizens to breed with lower races and produce inferior offspring that will burden the state. Let's slaughter entirely healthy children in the name of choice. Let's subsidize the expansion of defectives by taxing the fit and gifted to prop up the dull. We should be moving towards a more selfish society; more ignorance, poverty, sickness, misery, and backwardness. In the name of humanity, of course.

[Kodos]

Abortion mostly hits the blacks and spics you don't like Fade, thats one reason Sanger was for it. She hated them more then you do.

The much less controversial birth control pill( and prophilatic) has done much more to keep the white birthrate down.

[Pablo Escobar]

Then give a new name to the project of positive breeding,
since the pseudo-science called Eugenics has been proven to be mostly a load of crap.

Invent a new name for a real science which would take into account everything which has been newly discovered in related sciences in the last 70 years.

[Kodos]

neo-eugenics?

[Fade the Butcher]

Abortion mostly hits the blacks and spics you don't like Fade, thats one reason Sanger was for it. She hated them more then you do. The much less controversial birth control pill( and prophilatic) has done much more to keep the white birthrate down.

The white population also uses abortion and birth control for the noble purpose of maintaining their own pathetic lifestyle preferences.

[Fade the Butcher]

Then give a new name to the project of positive breeding

I'm an advocate of positive and negative eugenics.

since the pseudo-science called Eugenics has been proven to be mostly a load of crap.

This is false. As Carl Degler has shown, the decline of eugenics had nothing whatsoever to do with new evidence. It was a knee jerk reaction to WW2 driven by political ideology and sentimentality. The reaction has subsided somewhat in recent years and racialism and eugenics have begun their resurgence.

Invent a new name for a real science which would take into account everything which has been newly discovered in related sciences in the last 70 years.

There isn't much that has been discovered that would necessitate a new name to replace eugenics. MRI scans show racial differences in the brain and their hereditarian origin.

[Pablo Escobar]

I'm an advocate of positive and negative eugenics.

If you truly were, we wouldn't have a phora :D



This is false. As Carl Degler has shown, the decline of eugenics had nothing whatsoever to do with new evidence. It was a knee jerk reaction to WW2 driven by political ideology and sentimentality. The reaction has subsided somewhat in recent years and racialism and eugenics have begun their resurgence.

I'm sure you're aware that the knee-jerk reaction you're talking about happened in the years after WW2. Since then, there have been so many scientific discoveries, Eugenics simply couldn't survive, even if given a chance.

It's like trying to revitalize the career of a 100-year old boxer who used to win by cheating back in his glory days. He's got no chance with the new 20-year old boxers.


There isn't much that has been discovered that would necessitate a new name to replace eugenics. MRI scans show racial differences in the brain and their hereditarian origin.

Completely unrelated to eugenics though. Nice try.

I see you're still desperate to 'win' the dicussion with pathetic rhetoric,
instead of trying to really learn a thing or two about this interesting issue.

[Fade the Butcher]

I'm sure you're aware that the knee-jerk reaction you're talking about happened in the years after WW2.

I pointed that out in my last response. I even took the time to direct your attention to a source about the history of the eugenics movement that verifies my assertion.

Since then, there have been so many scientific discoveries, Eugenics simply couldn't survive, even if given a chance.

Explain. What exactly has been discovered that falsifies eugenics? We know infinitely more today about genetics than the pioneers of eugenics knew a century ago. We know that all sorts of traits are inherited, that human beings are still evolving, and far more about the mechanisms at work behind this process. We know more about this every single year. The heyday of racial egalitarianism in the 1970s and 1980s has long since passed.

It's like trying to revitalize the career of a 100-year old boxer who used to win by cheating back in his glory days. He's got no chance with the new 20-year old boxers.

You are attempting here to revive that analogy that I discredited a few weeks ago. The practice of bloodletting and human sacrifice does not discredit medicine. Similarly, the history of eugenics is irrelevant to the science of eugenics today.

Completely unrelated to eugenics though. Nice try.

It's entirely relevant. As I said before, we know far more today about the genetic makeup of human beings than we did fifty years ago; far more than we did just ten years ago.

I see you're still desperate to 'win' the dicussion with pathetic rhetoric,
instead of trying to really learn a thing or two about this interesting issue.

I would pay more attention to you if you would avoid making arguments from ignorance.

[Pablo Escobar]

Explain. What exactly has been discovered that falsifies eugenics?

We've been over this numerous times.
Breeding for certain traits ( like high IQ or physical strength )
has a negative side to it.

Some traits which appear to be positive are linked to other traits which
are negative.


The heyday of racial egalitarianism in the 1970s and 1980s has long since passed.

So what?


You are attempting here to revive that analogy that I discredited a few weeks ago. The practice of bloodletting and human sacrifice does not discredit medicine. Similarly, the history of eugenics is irrelevant to the science of eugenics today.

It's a stillborn pseudo-science. It's a positive thing it's original form is gone.
Perhaps some other, more rational attempt will succeed.


It's entirely relevant. As I said before, we know far more today about the genetic makeup of human beings than we did fifty years ago; far more than we did just ten years ago.

So, how is that connected to the MRI scans you mentioned?
How does that 'support' eugenics?


I would pay more attention to you if you would avoid making arguments from ignorance.

Don't pay attention to me. Just try to inform yourself before typing a load of irrelevant crap.

[Vindex]

The problem with Eugenics is it slaps the dogmatic egalitarianism that is the enforced highest and most holy belief today,across the mouth. So as pointed out Eugenics would have to be enforced from above onto the mass, which would also require a Radical change in world views to be established as well. With the masses it never really matters if it is right or wrong in reality, just as long as it is the popular opinon and that allows them to feel the most wise and self-righteous when repeating it.

[Pablo Escobar]

The problem with Eugenics is it slaps the dogmatic egalitarianism that is the enforced highest and most holy belief today,across the mouth. So as pointed out Eugenics would have to be enforced from above onto the mass, which would also require a Radical change in world views to be established as well. With the masses it never really matters if it is right or wrong in reality, just as long as it is the popular opinon and that allows them to feel the most wise and self-righteous when repeating it.

True.

But that doesn't prove Eugenics ( with current knowledge ) to be a good idea.

[Kodos]

We've been over this numerous times.
Breeding for certain traits ( like high IQ or physical strength )
has a negative side to it.

Some traits which appear to be positive are linked to other traits which
are negative.

Awar im curious... the welfare class should still be sterilized( in addition to ending transfer payments)... what positives do we get out of them. I'd also be in favor of sterilizing just about the whole population of Saudi Arabia for example, so their genetic tendency towards extreme religious fanaticism doesn't ever spread.

[Pablo Escobar]

Awar im curious... the welfare class should still be sterilized( in addition to ending transfer payments)... what positives do we get out of them. I'd also be in favor of sterilizing just about the whole population of Saudi Arabia for example, so their genetic tendency towards extreme religious fanaticism doesn't ever spread.

Cute, but... where's the cold hard evidence those people are 'like that'
due to faulty genetics?

Where's the assurance it wasn't all just social phenomenons and circumstance,
and civilization just ends-up with the same welfare class and same religious fanatics... only after euthanizing and sterilizing millions of innocent people.

I know you don't mind if they're innocent, but then again,
it would directly cost YOU and your family, as taxpayers.

[Gorilla]

There's also the sci-fi scenario where we will eventually (soon perhaps) have the technology and know how to manipulate genomes to achieve a desired result. Old-fashioned breeding for certain characteristics would be old-hat, and crude in comparison. I think I'll go and see where things are at.

[Pablo Escobar]

There's also the sci-fi scenario where we will eventually (soon perhaps) have the technology and know how to manipulate genomes to achieve a desired result. Old-fashioned breeding for certain characteristics would be old-hat, and crude in comparison. I think I'll go and see where things are at.

Actually, I think there already is technology which would allow us to manipulate genes. The desired results probably can be achieved.
But that's all just short-term.

Imagine an entire species of people who have incredily high IQ levels,
but who are born depressed, or people born with strength to lift cars, but whose
heart would give them 20 years of life.

Things are interconnected in many many ways. And there's more...

[Fade the Butcher]

Imagine an entire species of people who have incredily high IQ levels,but who are born depressed, or people born with strength to lift cars, butwhose heart would give them 20 years of life.

Imagine a species of human beings that is significantly more intelligent and capable of creating and sustaining complex civilizations, but has lost the thicker skulls and brute physical strength of their ancestors; a species of bipeds that has problems swinging from trees. Imagine a race of people who have evolved beautiful blonde hair, blue eyes, and light skin, but have lost the nappy hair and grotesque sun absorbing dark skin of their ancestors.

[Fade the Butcher]

We've been over this numerous times.
Breeding for certain traits ( like high IQ or physical strength )
has a negative side to it.

This is irrelevant.

1.) Humans are going to breed anyway.
2.) The law of unintended consequences applies equally to non-eugenic breeding.

Some traits which appear to be positive are linked to other traits which are negative.

Ah. You are saying we are exchanging thicker skulls for intelligence. That's certainly a wash!

So what?

I was pointed out the scientific advances you made reference to in your previous post have eroded racial egalitarianism.

It's a stillborn pseudo-science.

This is nonsense. Man is an organism. The laws of heredity apply just as much to humans as horses.

It's a positive thing it's original form is gone. Perhaps some other, more rational attempt will succeed.

Are you still preparing for the Stone Age? :p

So, how is that connected to the MRI scans you mentioned?

I was simply pointing out that we know far more today than we used to.

How does that 'support' eugenics?

It proves that there are racial differences in brain structure and that they are heritable.

[Professor John Frink]

Imagine a species of human beings that is significantly more intelligent and capable of creating and sustaining complex civilizations, but has lost the thicker skulls and brute physical strength of their ancestors; a species of bipeds that has problems swinging from trees. Imagine a race of people who have evolved beautiful blonde hair, blue eyes, and light skin, but have lost the nappy hair and grotesque sun absorbing dark skin of their ancestors.
Hmm, some of this (though not all) sounds somewhat familiar, I must admit...

Be it as it may, I'm sure such adaptations, which some may call evolution, could be brought about by natural selection rather than eugenics.

[Professor John Frink]

I was simply pointing out that we know far more today than we used to.



It proves that there are racial differences in brain structure and that they are heritable.


Could you give us a source (for the MRI scans)?

[Fade the Butcher]

Could you give us a source (for the MRI scans)?

I read about this years ago (probably on GNXP). I will try to find a source for you though. I'm about to step out for a bit, but should be back online later.

[Fade the Butcher]

Be it as it may, I'm sure such adaptations, which some may call evolution, could be brought about by natural selection rather than eugenics.

The problem with this is that civilization has muted environmental selection. I cited the settlement of Florida and Arizona as examples yesterday.

[Pablo Escobar]

Imagine a species of human beings that is significantly more intelligent and capable of creating and sustaining complex civilizations, but has lost the thicker skulls and brute physical strength of their ancestors;

Oh really?

Where's your proof that modern people have a higher IQ than cromagnons
or even neanderthals?



a species of bipeds that has problems swinging from trees. Imagine a race of people who have evolved beautiful blonde hair, blue eyes, and light skin, but have lost the nappy hair and grotesque sun absorbing dark skin of their ancestors.

Exactly. Imagine how much problems they could have if exposed to strong sun. Burns, skin cancer.

It's in no way a sign of 'superiority', just adaptation. As you can see, everything can have it's downsides.

[Daniel Shays]

Deconstructionist,

Have you seen "White World (http://www.solargeneral.com/video/whiteworld.wmv)"?

You'd like it. :)

[Professor John Frink]

The problem with this is that civilization has muted environmental selection. I cited the settlement of Florida and Arizona as examples yesterday.
In which case I'm tempted to assume that you're aiming for qualities beyond what you listed. ;)

[Péter]

Negative eugenics is absolutely necessary, and would be a good start in dealing with the issue of overpopulation. There needn't be any institutionalized positive eugenics which breeds for any specific traits; rather, individuals of superior biological quality--displaying strength and athleticism, intelligence, and will and morality (yes, the damn intangible elements have to be thrown in there, for they are biologically determined)--should be encouraged to reproduce prolifically, and form the highest caste.

As the generations pass, that which is deemed dysgenic will, given sufficient time, be far less genetically inferior. Encouraging de-industrialization and thereby making most medicines verboten would also accelerate this evolution, as the immunological health of groups would soon become vastly superior. I don't have to recall what happened when Europeans reached the new world, do I? Imagine a world in which vaccinations--egalitarian measures designed to save unnecessary lives--are no longer required, where disease is overcome through adaptation rather than artifice, where value is placed in the organic community rather than an individual's mortal coil.

[infoterror]

"The American masses were not rising up demanding to sterilize, institutionalize and dehumanize their neighbors and kinfolk. Eugenics was a movement of the nation's elite thinkers and many of its most progressive reformers. As its ideology spread among the intelligentsia, eugenics cross-infected many completely separate soical reform and health care movements, each worthwhile in its own right."

Black, Edwin. War Against the Weak. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003. p.125

Who else has the time/money and mental capacity for such things? At its core, eugenics is heroic -- sacrificing safety for doing what's right.

This was before our intelligentsia got gutted by politics. Since the 1960s, the brainiest have fled academia, leaving the weaklings, for the most part.

[infoterror]

Negative eugenics is absolutely necessary, and would be a good start in dealing with the issue of overpopulation.

There is a paradox in positive-only eugenics: If we segregate the better people, and leave the rest to their own fates, who's to say they won't come pouring over the borders like a horde of Russians hell-bent on raping better-bred German women?

[infoterror]

The problem with this is that civilization has muted environmental selection.

Or at least, large civilization does.

Small, localized communities surrounded by forest... with less technology... less so.

But now you're into Pentti Linkola - Unabomber - Hitler territory, you fascist.

[Petr]

Where's your proof that modern people have a higher IQ than cromagnons or even neanderthals?
Indeed - the whole "dumb caveman" stereotype is an evolutionist myth, created for similar propagandistic purposes as "the medieval people thought that the world was flat"-myth:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v1/i2/cromagnon.asp

"Readers are probably aware of how the Neanderthal finds were grossly distorted and exaggerated to make them appear ape-like (even ‘Time-Life’ now admits this freely)."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0404neandertal.asp

Old myths about ‘ape-men’ die slowly. Even Neandertals, who for decades have been recognized by even many evolutionists to be fully human, still struggle to shed their image as hairy less-than-human brutes.""


Petr

[Kodos]

Neanderthals aren't thought to be human, its thought they were a descendent of a common ancestor who we wiped out.