Inverted perspectives on eugenics

Somebody recommended I visit and check out some of their videos.   It’s revolting that they include a presentation by the notorious anti-white hate-monger Tim Wise.  But I did take the time to watch the following video, also on YouTube:
It is clear that the narrator is, for the most part, opposed to James Watson’s views on eugenics.  I found it particularly interesting that some of the “leftist” stances against eugenics would normally be considered “conservative”.  It is Watson advocating change and leftists (or at least what I would call “leftists”) arguing for leaving nature alone and retaining the status quo.  It is Watson saying there is nothing sacred about our D.N.A., and that we should definitely tweak it, and leftists implying that our D.N.A. is sacred and shouldn’t be messed with.  It is Watson advocating equality and fairness while leftists tout the virtues of diversity in intellect, personality and capabilities.
At one point, an anti-eugenics, manic-depressed woman (who happens to be a professor and accomplished author) tells us that it is unacceptable to insult somebody’s D.N.A., and that nobody has the right to tell her not to have children.  I couldn’t help but wonder if she holds the same opinions when it comes to whites being constantly told to refrain from having children.  Does she get upset over this too?  I doubt it.
It was interesting watching the same woman tell us how important diversity is, even as forces much more powerful than herself are working toward the elimination of her own race from the face of the Earth.  She probably supports those forces with vigor.
There was one conversation that I found somewhat disturbing.  When they were interviewing the family with the mongoloid child, the father described an experience at the beach and the joy he, and his son, felt when the child was able to ride a wave on his own.  For some reason, I was reminded of the countless white people I’ve noticed who are accompanied by dogs.  As I’ve been out and about, enjoying what little Summer we have here in Oregon, I’ve seen them everywhere.  Lots of overweight (apparently) single white men spending quality time with their dogs.  Lots of older (possibly single) white women with dogs and yes, even families with dogs.  The dogs obviously give their masters much pleasure.  I wonder how much difference there is, in their innermost minds, between the pleasure they get from their dogs and the pleasure the parent of a mongoloid child gets from his child.  If I were to walk up to a single-man-with-dog and offer him a mongoloid child (of his own – let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that it’s possible) to replace his dog, would he accept the offer?  The answer is, of course, “no”.  So, not to diminish the humanity of the mongoloid child, but wouldn’t those parents have been just as happy had they aborted the baby and got a dog instead?*
And this brings me to another point, aren’t leftists supposed to be pro-choice?  It seems to me that, when it comes to eugenics, the Left attaches a lot of value to kids who have not been born yet, while the eugenics-friendly right (granted, only a small segment of the right) is more willing to sacrifice them.
As for Watson, I was galled by his claim, at the end, that he is not concerned about insulting anybody, that all he cares about is telling the truth.  This certainly did not seem to be the case when he grovelled at the feet of the morons of the world, back in 2007, when he let slip a “hate-fact” about Africans.
*Yes, I realize how offensive this comment of mine will be to a lot of readers;  I’m not saying that a dog is the same as a handicapped child, just that one reminded me of the other in certain ways.

This entry was posted in shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Inverted perspectives on eugenics

  1. The word eugenics has been hijacked. Etymologically speaking the word eugenics refers to good breeding. The modern notion of eugenics defines eugenics as meaning to sterilize people deemed(by a committee?) unfit to breed. However the traditional notion of good breeding(eugenics) refers to people simply having rational standards for who they marry and have kids with. I am against people being sterilized however I am not against people being self-motivated to have particular standards for who they breed with.

  2. Jehu says:

    I don’t approve of coercive eugenics, or, for that matter, coercive dysgenics by way of forcing the transfer of fertility from the productive to the nonproductive. I’m generally quite ok with people practicing voluntary eugenics, but I’m not about to try to convince anyone that they shouldn’t have children if they can support them, even groups that I don’t particularly like very much.

  3. It was an interesting to see a documentary devoted to James Watson’s views before his fateful comment made him a pariah and after watching it, it was easy to see exactly why he was so vigorously attacked for that comment. So in response to your reaction to his statement toward the end:

    As for Watson, I was galled by his claim, at the end, that he is not concerned about insulting anybody, that all he cares about is telling the truth.

    It’s easy to see where is confidence came from at the time of filming. He associated with Monsanto and pushed for them to go further, when Monsanto is considered the devil incarnate by many of the green left precisely because of their genetic engineering. He argued against the anti-eugenic excesses of the German civic religion that developed in the wake of World War II. So, he was accustomed to controversy and to offending people deeply and he felt that he could continue doing so.
    However, his comment regarding Africans was offensive to the civic religion of the United States, his home country, and for that he had no recourse. The Germans couldn’t cut off his funding because they were upset about his comments and neither could the radical environmentalists. However, when he struck at the core of American ideology, his enemies found a critical mass and I’m sure that he calculated that the loss of funding for the research he loved was a more severe blow than the grovelling he did. So yes, he was a bit hubristic in his pronouncement, but that’s because he didn’t understand the consequences that some statements would have.
    When it comes to the philosophy Watson espouses in the film, I agree with him in large measure. I do think that parents should be allowed to make informed choices about the children they have and I am hugely supportive of the current practice of screening for down syndrome and allowing for abortion in the test is positive. However, when he said that in deciding between looking at the individual and looking at the group, he looks at the individual, which I think can only be part of an overarching analysis of any sort of eugenic practice.
    That is not to say that I agree with Kay Jameson. In fact, it was interesting to listen to her, because it seemed to me that a major motivating factor for her research was to act as an apologist for manic depressive disorder (or bipolar disorder or whatever they want to call it in the next wave of faddish renamings that psychological taxonomists commit in an attempt to justify their existence). If the condition is part of her identity and she doesn’t have a problem passing it on to her offspring, then I have no problem letting her do so, though I don’t think that we should be actively discouraging those who wish to prevent their offspring from suffering the disorder from making that decision either.
    Essentially, I think that an important principle that needs to be integrated into the modern eugenics movement (which is a mostly underground movement at the moment) is the primacy of choice. Parents should be free to make choices with regard to their children and governments should not force the choice on them.
    I’m not ruling out, however, government incentivization, though it needs to be approached carefully. For instance, I could see a program where the government would allow for welfare payments conditioned on voluntary sterilization or for the duration of action of a long-term contraceptive such as an IUD. Such a program would have to be administered carefully and such programs run through governments have potential for abuse that should be seriously considered. What governments should not be allowed to do is sterilize, imprison, or kill people solely on eugenic rationale.
    If that last condition is followed, then many of the horrors associated with the Nazi version of Eugenics can be avoided.

    • eugenicist says:

      Modern liberalism is “pro-choice” but they don’t want people to have the right to make the wrong choice. Hence why some liberals bemoan the presence of Planned Parenthood in black/hispanic neighborhoods. Some anti-abortion activists have figured this out and used it to their advantage, since diversity usually trumps feminism.
      This is an interesting propaganda technique, and I wonder what kind of risk-assessment this organization does in putting up billboards, and where. Most pro-life billboards I see show blonde, blue-eyed babies. What would the psychological effect be if more of these billboards showed dark or mixed-race babies? Leftists aren’t the only ones capable of cognitive dissonance.
      Although I agree broadly with you re: Kay Jameson, I have met many kids of intelligent, successful people with mental illness. The kids tend not to fare as well as their parents, despite or even because of their advantages. So anyone with something like bipolar disorder should, at the very least, be strongly advised about the heritability of these traits and regression to the mean. It may not be a problem for you, but are you the only one in your family who can deal with it? If I was a high risk for passing on schizophrenia, or psychopathy, even if I wasn’t afflicted myself, I might consider trying to adopt instead. Just a thought.

      • a random user name says:

        I’m not so sure I would advocate not having children for geniuses with mental illness (in the family). The success of a gene is its success in being transferred in aggregate. So, provided that a gene for genius results in enough genius to say, fund a family of 6, that gene can afford to produce at least one crazy sibling that has 0-1 offspring and still results in more than break even success.
        I use the same idea for explaining why there are genes that can result in homosexuals/lesbians. If one gene results in a go-getting stud when males are produced but lesbians in females, that gene may still be successful on average.
        Same with a gene that enables a woman to have extra female characteristics (e.g. seductiveness, nurturing, navigating her way through society to find a good mate etc.). If she marries well and has what it takes to care for a bigger family, then she can have an effeminate homosexual brother who never leaves any progeny, and on balance that gene will still get transmitted.
        Yet one more thing that is related – separating genius and psychopathy is hard because they are very likely related. See the work that Eyesenk has done:
        The way I visualize it, the psychoticism continuum is a bit like a slider bar on a computer screen. The more you head into psychoticism, the looser the connections between different ideas you are able to draw. Being creative is in part the ability to cast a wider net when you are solving a problem. So you might relate work from several different fields – e.g. “I’ve seen that problem before! It looks kind of like…”
        Because psychoticism is related to testosterone, this is also a plausible explanation why East Asians are less creative than Europeans in general.
        Of course, if you move your psychoticism “slider bar” completely to the psychotic side to the point where you are making nonsensical connections between things on average, then this ceases to be helpful and starts looking like schizophrenia.
        So if the gene for genius just involves moving the slider bar a bit further over on the psychoticism scale, by telling geniuses not to breed you may end up lowering the number of geniuses around in an attempt to eliminate the crazies.
        Perhaps what may happen in future is identifying different gene combinations that will produce crazies so that more geniuses can be produced without the attendant crazies.

      • eugenicist says:

        Interesting perspective, random. And thanks for the paper on psychoticism and creativity. For the record, I wasn’t talking about geniuses with mental problems, just fairly intelligent people who were financially successful. There’s a big gap between Bach and someone who did alright in real estate.
        I guess if someone can afford a big family, then their “selfish genes” might find it acceptable to have a few crazy kids if they can have a few crazy-but-successful ones. Especially if the kids are likely to be attractive or charismatic. The problem is, many of these families have only one or two kids, maybe three at the most, so it’s a high-risk venture.
        Personally, I would find it very difficult to bring a child into the world, knowing that s/he is likely to be, say, schizophrenic, and then see the child become schizophrenic and endure the pain of that. I would feel very guilty.
        Psychotism and psychopathy are very different. Psychoticism is detachment from reality. Psychopathy is detachment from other people. In this clip for example, the man in the first cell is psychotic, the second one is a psychopath.

      • a random user name says:

        Sorry eugenicist, I should not have said psychopathy. I know they are different. Or at least, I thought I did.
        I have some relatives with schizophrenia. I suspect that the risk is about 20% or lower. OTOH, with that same DNA there is a good chance of getting high IQ + creativity. I’m having kids. I will support them. Life is not fair and not everyone gets to live a long and happy life. Even folks with disabilities make it work a lot of the time. The “religion of peace” has even managed to use crazies to their advantage!
        The older I get, the more I see different people as a mix of different compromises. The ones that are “maxed out” in some attributes have plenty of downsides to them or their DNA that they often don’t make public. People with thoroughbred type bodies suited for athleticism get injured all the time, something that people with more sturdy builds might not. People with thin dry skin that looks beautiful are often prone to fungal or bacterial infections that oily, pimply people don’t get.
        Everything is an illness these days. But I question a lot of it. For example, consider the story of twins being swapped at birth on Sailer’s blog. That’s the sort of thing that is not going to happen to a paranoid person. The paranoid is going to be watching that baby the whole time. In that case, some paranoia would have been a useful trait.
        To get back to the original discussion, while a reasonable average intelligence is useful to have civilized society (smart fraction theory), you also need some genius to push civilization ahead and solve the problems that have been created. In a perfect world relatives would have to chip in and help with the costs of caring for debilitated schizophrenics and similar such illnesses. This is what happened before the welfare state, and probably why families were closer knit than they are now – necessity.
        Speaking of which, the welfare state certainly cannot survive with mass immigration. Even without immigration the population of ne’er-do-wells shoots up as they realize they can take advantage of it. This eventually bankrupts the system, as it has in Britain. One thing we can do if we want to accelerate the inevitable breakdown of our states through bankruptcy is to admit that if we can’t beat them, we should join them. That means that even if you are a responsible, decent human being – learn the rules of welfare and use the system to your advantage.
        When the system does inevitably break down and scales back the welfare, you will be able to find gainful employment again. Meanwhile, a certain segment of the population will riot as soon as we stop paying tribute, or Danegeld. (Perhaps we should call this what it is, e.g. Blackgeld, or Negrogeld, or Browngeld or People-of-color-geld.) This rioting is and will be the best recruiting tool white nationalism will ever have, at least so far as encouraging the majority to thirst for a quick and bloody solution to the problem. The few remaining liberals will look back wistfully to a time when there was talk of paying yet more money in return for repatriation, and look back with the shameful knowledge that they were the ones who closed the doors of peaceful dialogue with the right.

  4. Pingback: Whither Eugenics « A Reluctant Apostate

  5. a random user name says:

    “hate-fact” – I love it! I can hear it now: “You are hereby sentenced to 300 hours of community service for spreading hate facts. I hope you have learned your lesson.”

    • jewamongyou says:

      I wish I could take credit for coining “hate fact”. It was somebody else’s idea and I can’t quite remember whose at the moment.

      • Bay Area Guy says:

        @ JAY
        I think Paul Kersey of Stuff Black People Don’t Like fame coined the term.
        I think his blog has the right idea. Avoids falling into white activist stereotypes, while simultaneously introducing white netizens to to the race question through humor.

  6. Even without the mass immigration of low IQ mud races, welfare societies and other socialist equalitarian policies will inevitably result in a lower average IQ and this will lead – in fact it is quite noticeably doing so – to a lower IQ western society which will mean that in the near future the west will be unable to feed and otherwise support the 3rd world masses in the way that has become expected of them.
    Therefore the west needs to practice eugenics not just to improve the stock but to prevent it from deteriorating any further, because without eugenics what we have is Dysenics by Default. If Liberals had any commonsense they should therefore be amongst the first to support eugenics.

  7. SFG says:

    The problem with the Nazis wasn’t that they practiced eugenics.
    The problem with the Nazis was that they practiced *mass murder*.
    Seems pretty simple to me…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *