Eugenics I know has a terrible terrible name for itself after World War 2. In my opinion, much like communism, the NSDAP attempted to rush eugenic processes through experimentation. Communists didn’t believe so much in eugenics as they did in social welfare and equality – in many cases rushing through the processes of ridding their societies of “private property” or liquidating whole populations (Cambodia being prime example).
Both ended in deaths caused directly by their states, not because the ideas themselves created the deaths, but due to the unreasonable demand that things get done far too quickly.
However, if you look around yourself eugenic processes are happening all the time. In fact, most human effort goes into avoiding these processes and giving ourselves the greatest chance of procreating with the best possible partner in the best possible environment.
Dysgenic processes have also cropped up over time, human beings are the only creature I know of that is capable of creating a dysgenic environment through engineering that environment. This is where they uphold known disadvantaged genetic, social and economic traits at the expense of their stronger ones.
We see this all the time in the welfare system, housing, healthcare and other affirmative action programs which are designed to uphold the weak at all costs. It is my firm belief and argument that those costs have now become too high. We are seeing a growing political, social and demographic landscape that no longer has the strong in it. And as a result, it is in decline and will probably collapse at some point in the near future.
So what programs could be installed to fix this kind of problem?
The long and short of it is – we need standards.
Standards allow us to choose wisely from people we know have reached a certain level of competance, looks, survival and control. Standards are in use constantly today even among many of our rivals in the left. The laughable notion recently in a headline was a woman who would not sell her house to a Trump supporter, or people suggesting that those who won’t have sex with someone who is trans is therefore some kind of bigot. These also – are standards. Poorly thought out standards, but standards none-the-less.
There are 2 and possibly 3 great policies allowing for these eugenic processes in human society to naturally play out without any kind of forced eugenics.
- Housing – Public housing should be made available for young married couples who have children or plan to, these houses should be available for purchase from the government through payments to a federal housing department or through their personal taxation. The effect of this on a family unit cannot be undersold. Men suddenly have a legacy, a feeling of accomplishment. Women would gain stability, and a sense of heritage for the children. This in my opinion might go a long way to reversing trends in divorce and many other social ills that effect family units.
- Child Support – Child support should be limited to a single payment, limiting people on welfare to 1 child or lowering their living standards for more. This would have the effect of weeding out people at the bottom of the ladder through natural talent and ability to progress. It also creates an incentive to not be on welfare if you want children. So for every 2 people on welfare, they can only create 1 child in poor circumstances, not a dozen.
- Healthcare – Public healthcare it could be argued would raise all ships (pure socialism). Saul Alinsky saw fit to put it as his first point in “Rules for Radicals” where he stipulated the points of absolute control over the population. Point 1 was healthcare. Point 8 happened to be “class warfare”. (I mention these two points here specifically because of the “Nazbol problem”) Healthcare, therefore, should be privately funded by people and insurred by companies willing to do so at a reasonable rate determined by market fundamentals.
These 3 tools could easily create a framework where people are sorted – with a great allowance for genetic variation, improvement and exceptions to make their way into the pool, while weeding out those people (peacefully and without judgement) who either fail at the required tasks to procreate, or are unable.
Right now what we have are millions of single women with little incentive to breed well, creating single parent homes where they sometimes have 4 different offspring to 4 different men over years, who – on average – end up at the very bottom of every social, educational and vocational ladder in our societies. The stats are in on this, everything from finishing school to who becomes a murderer is effected by this single vector of whether or not a father was in the home.
We are breeding a dysgenic society and wondering how and why it is being upset by the politics of envy, socialism and why now outright communism is coming to the fore.
However, all of our so-called “right wing” politicians merely want to persue a program of “Economic Nationalism”, this is pure boomer thinking and goes once again to re-create the problems that are plaguing the current economy. Overpriced housing due to speculation, low wages due to cost cutting and infinite immigration and a fundamental inability to create a family by the younger generations which come along and find they cannot afford to do so even with a full time job.
Eugenics needs to stop being a dirty word in our society.
There have been a plethora of stories, podcasts and talks going on about this topic over the past year or so in the AltRight, most of which for some reason or another ends up coming down to numbers.
“If abortion were illegal, there’d be 50% more African Americans than there are today.” Is usually the line the conversation ends with, and everyone then nods wisely figuring the subject was close and a consensus has been met.
However, for some reason or other, nobody suggests that perhaps because of many of the other differences between African Americans and European American racial groups – that perhaps the fallout and cultural decay caused by abortion also has different weight to it.
To be AltRight is to accept certain differences between races and I would argue at least to accept the CONSTRUCT of r/K selection theory – if not the exact science.
When one suggests to me that an r selected racial group is having children 10:1 against a K selection racial group I consider resources, I consider housing, food, education. But what about care? What about the concept of preservation of life at a very basic level? How is the culture effected by this? Do the parents even CARE for their kids or have they at some basic level already admitted some might not survive? Does this effect their overall psychology?
Does the Somali man who has 15 children to 3 different mothers CARE about the preservation of his family? Does the Congolese? The Ethiopian?
Does the Westerner who has 1 child?
Is there a psychological and cultural difference?
What is the fallout of derailing that fatherhood for more nihilistic pursuits vs the fallout of derailing fatherhood for survival?
These are questions that seem lacking in the conversation regarding abortion in the AltRight. If – as many believe – we have a larger cultural heritage, then surely we have more to lose. And certainly much of that cultural and family social fabric is damaged when abortion is seen as a reasonable alternative to parenthood – so therefore is it not MORE damaging to us than to others?
This is not necessarily true of Ghetto Culture any more than African Culture. Are they damaged by it? How so?
The damage to us is GREATER even if the numbers might add up. And the ability of ghetto culture to change into a more sophisticated culture is probably being hindered and thus made more dangerous BECAUSE there is no responsibility necessary for conception.
We often point to the fact that black America had better family cohesion under slavery than it does today. We also point out that during the 40s and 50s African Americans had far greater numbers of fathers in the home. And the decline in that community has clearly made it far more dangerous to EVERYONE.
This is not just a numbers game. We don’t even know what the numbers might BE once the welfare system had to deal with that many more people. Would it collapse? Would we have already defeated the socialist regime in place?
How much of the cultural decline might’ve been avoided had people needed to take responsibility for sex outside of marriage?
“Muh 50 million” is a shit tier argument.
The conversation has not been had. It’s been avoided by people in the AltRight who want to be everything to everyone and it smacks of the same dishonesty we get from politicians today, glossing over the inconvenient truths and questions for the sake of sheer mathematics all the while taking the numbers out of context or just making them up.
I’m not sure if it’s my age showing or not, but I have certainly noticed this pattern playing out again and again regarding anything to do with modernity.
The inability of the modern to ascribe itself to any of the age-old tried and true rulesets has allowed most movements beset by the curse of modernity to fall prey to an almost sociopathic caricature of its former self.
Take motherhood, the church, politics or relationships generally, you will find within each a “modern” movement that preys upon a particular group which in previous times was defended or nurtured by that particular profession or position in society.
The same is true of “individualism” where instead of sociopathic behavior it has evolved into more a narcissistic behaviors probably due to the lack of group identity in white society. This also affects people of other ethnicities within western civilisation because without a dominant white identity and a minority racial identity – they often seem to fall prey to the same effects.
Let’s take for instance the church. The current Pope has begun to preach “We need more Islam” without any real responsibility being taken by himself or the church at large. Instead this ideal preys upon the taxpayers and citizens of many nations who are affected by the large quantities on Muslims coming into their societies.
Whether by killing or simply living on the tax dollars of others, this is a parasite/host relationship which could be explicitly defined as sociopathic given the vigor and sometimes physical or state violence that accompanies refusal.
There are then 3 reactionary groups that form around the church in order to deal with this split from more traditional doctrine.
- The group that wants to adapt or capitulate.
- The group that wants to go back to the way things used to be.
- The group that wants to split off and have nothing to do with it any longer.
They could be described as “For”, “Against” and “I don’t care anymore” but they seem far more distinctly defined and the group that “wants to go back” is almost always present – it is not merely a group of “Against”. This was true even for Brexit where the group wanting things to go back to the way it was before won out.
This pattern seems to play out time and time again.
The men’s rights movement is another school of thought that has split into 3 reactionary groups that are by and large more accurately defined.
- Pick-up Artists
- Men’s Rights Activists
- Men going their own way
Again these 3 groups form in order to deal with the change in relationships between men and women.
Again with politics too.
- Basic-bitch Conservatives
Although now oddly enough the Libertarian movement is ALSO splitting in these same groups within its’ own ranks once again. I am not sure if the AltRight has a lot to do with this or not, but certainly the left-leaning Libertarians have begun creating the exodus while a few classic Libertarians hang on with white knuckles to their failing school of thought.
I’m sure you could go through some more groups you know of and find the same pattern playing out to larger or lesser extents.
One group I find to be an exception to all of this is the AltRight. (Of course?)
It neither wants to go back, nor just accept the current schools of thought in politics, and certainly isn’t sitting on the sidelines. It can sometimes I think be considered a subgroup of the political supergroup but that group is so large it tends to shy from this pattern merely by the sheer numbers of people involved.
If you take a look at these groups forming in Religion, Relationships, Motherhood, or Politics (and probably other areas I don’t have listed here) – the AltRight is coming along and taking the best of each of the 3 groups and leaving the rest of the Sociopathy and Narcissism behind. Although, to be fair we sometimes fall prey to these things, they are soon rooted out by the sheer weight of numbers of thoughtful philosophical minds – you can see this in the backlash against things like “white sharia”.
I wanted to point this out in order to illustrate that the fight we’re in here isn’t just a political one. It is against these ideas of modernity and individualism themselves.
By pointing out the obvious flaws in Libertarianism and Individualism you can position the AltRight to be the clear alternative to basic-bitch or neo-con Republicanism.
By pointing out the flaws of MGTOW we can show that a real grassroots traditional alternative is present in the AltRight that PUAs and MRAs cannot create.
Being able to identify these groups and their leanings can help I hope for Alt-Righters to create a narrative that could bring more people over to our movement.
Conservatism and Liberalism were two sides of the democratic coin for an age in America. Other western nations often copied the same diametric system in a belief that democracy would work, and that there were standard ideas to be argued and legislated for and against.
In recent decades there has been another influence – that of socialism and communism. People may of course deny it, however this influence has primarily been a product of Jewish influence either at home or from abroad in most western nations. On occasion it has been picked up also by indigenous peoples who were conquered at the outset of those nations – like Australia, Canada and the USA.
This communist influence is what has changed standard liberalism and libertarianism into far more radical groups. Where fringe elements sprang up and wanted extreme change to social, economic and cultural norms, finally metastasizing into groups like Black Lives Matter, La Raza and Antifa.
Most of these changes were anti-democratic and anti-capitalist, culminating in a favor they did us all – Anti-White.
Conservatism is poorly (if at all) equipped to deal with racial matters. It’s very nature is to be politically correct – even if it is its’ own version of political correctness. Try for instance bringing up any kind of race realism – factual or not – at CPAC. You will never see a speaker on this topic.
Conservatives for generations have attempted to dig their heels into the dirt and placate the voters with what they figured they wanted. A middle ground between liberal ideas and conservative ones. However, with these new racially charged groups thrown into the mix who are willing to use violence, intimidation and the power of the social media to pull the conversation further and further left, we now have “conservatives” who openly promote anti-democratic ideas and take part in crony capitalism as a matter of course.
Conservatism is dead, and the only people who cannot seem to grasp this are the conservative assembly themselves. Sure, conservation of social, cultural and political norms is a real and continual process, but those in the conservative movement are not promoting these ideas. They are promoting open borders, amnesty for criminals, gay marriage and miscegenation of all kinds.
If you cannot conserve your racial identity, your culture or your borders, then how can you call yourself a conservative? What exactly are you conserving?
The one bright shining light out of the ashes is the new racially charged landscape, and anyone with half a brain can understand that white people are the engine of the western nation state. They pay an unproportionate amount of taxes and have built these civilisations over many generations.
The main problem we have are taxes, housing and land value and jobs as far as the “basic-bitch” politics is concerned. Of course some other issues are cropping up, like the attacks on our cultures and way of life.
Our taxes are constantly being used to pay for everything from female contraceptives to refugee resettlement and welfare for all of the above.
The cost of buying houses is skyrocketing because of overseas buying which is great for the unionised building industry, the real estate brokers and holders of these hard assets but we’re increasingly finding that having a family is unaffordable.
Jobs – as has been made clear by President Trump – are going overseas or dying out altogether to automation and cheap labor.
These are things that have been the backbone of western nations for over a century, and it is poignant that their destruction is coinciding with out of control national debt and poor management of our nation states in general. Corruption and waste in most western nations seems to be on the rise.
You would of course think that some stalwart of conservatism would step forth and champion these causes, fight these good fights, however nobody has even tried in Australia (or America as far as I can see) in over a decade.
Most are in fact too busy trying to shout down anyone who so much as suggests change as a racist or bigot.
The era is well and truly over for this kind of conservative stupidity. Often the same people calling out for “Muh Constitution” one minute, are calling for “Rule by shadow government” the next.
So much for being principled conservatives.
There are a plethora of statistics and corroboratory evidence to show the links between Race and IQ, job prospects and IQ – and of course crime and IQ.
These are in my view the pinnacle of Alt-Right thinking. They are not refuted – indeed most detractors fear even broaching the subject. These facts are on our side, but do not in fact fix any of the underlying issues.
Merely being aware of lower average IQ in sub saharan Africans won’t fix the crime.
Reminding people of low IQ among Middle Eastern tribes will not increase job prospects.
Also one has to remember that 20% of black people in the USA will still score ABOVE the average white person.
Asians will still do better than ALL other groups.
None of this fixes any of the real world issues however.
Further problems abound by the big tent. Milo Yiannopoulos political demise shows how easily a big tent can be brought down by someone not really espousing the views that are in the best interests of the people being represented. Much like open borders migration, pedophilia is frowned upon by the rank and file voter – and rightly so. It is not in their best interests to have these kinds of conversations – which only happen as a result of the big tent philosophy – a quick dirty unprincipled grab for more votes by pandering to small groups of hangers on.
“Conservatism” in its’ current form needs to die off before the problems of today can be thoroughly researched and begin to be solved. Without a race realist conservative platform – things will not change, they will get worse as more and more power slides to the left and violence overtakes debate as the modus operandi of political struggle.
If people think that the lack of AltRight progress and that its’ destruction will come from outside of its’ borders – think again.
The difference between a Purity Spiral and merely Policing your own.
If you want to see an excellent example of a movement that didn’t police its’ own and has begun to melt down because of that fact – look no further than the Democrats and left in general.
For years now the way to extricate yourself from the mere followers and become a leader of the left was to do or say something extreme – which to everyone else in the world sounded batshit crazy. The Air Conditioning is sexist, Abortion after birth, Free College + Free Child Minding for my kids while I finish my gender studies degree. All of these kinds of claims and “human rights” being given a platform on CNN or similar news network elevated people above the fray of blue haired, lip ringed idiots who were willing to follow anyone who looked more left wing than themselves.
Now apply these same group dynamics to the AltRight.
Feeling uncomfortable yet?
That’s ok, let’s take a look at a purity spiral.
Feminism is a classic one for this. When Anita Sarkeesian’s crazy views were being aired and she decided to basically tell Germaine Greer she just wasn’t feminazi enough because Germaine didn’t believe in her brand of feminism or even her definition – at the 2015 Festival of Dangerous Ideas – this is merely one example off the top of my head.
Defining things is important. Living up to the definition is far more difficult, and often people will stumble.
If you want to get a good example of someone redefining things at the drop of a hat in the AltRight – one only has to look as far as Richard Spencer. His views on abortion seem to have changed quite dramatically – and the timing seems to line up quite perfectly with toying with the idea of running for congress.
Heil Gate was another one – in one breath Richard tells the press that NPI is a place where we leave all the twitter nonsense behind and present ideas to the public and press. In the next breath he reiterates this point in one of his speeches.
And then the “Heil Trump” and screams of “Pepe” erupt from him later as if throwing the entire thing out the window. As if he didn’t realise that the press would use THAT as the takeaway from the entire conference. Never mind the work put in by dozens of people on presenting data, statistics and analysis. Never mind the weeks of defence afterwards on everyone’s account.
But none of this matter because Richard is followed with fanboy acclaim by the rank and file man-children who are looking for identity. The problem with them is – they haven’t found a WHITE identity, instead they have found an AltRight identity.
The movement is becoming a victim to the very problem it’s trying to solve – the lack of identity among younger people in our communities. As national identity is being stripped away – the last one in a long line of destruction, it’s leaving the void which nature abhors.
The difference here between Mike Enoch’s marriage (which occurred before the AltRight was even a thing) and Heil Gate was – Mike’s marriage didn’t particularly do DAMAGE to the movement. Only fools would think that this was even a problem.
If we want to see real change, if we want to give voice to concerns, lobbying needs to take place. Right now is a perfect time for that. A 10 point plan presented in a 10 minute meeting with Steve Bannon couldn’t be arranged? A presentation on birth rate, the unfairness of mostly whites paying for mostly blacks on welfare, the single motherhood of black ghetto’s leading to more and more unsociable and violent blacks on the street? None of this could happen?
NPI was the perfect vehicle to effect such a policy presentation.
No we’re too busy making Pepe meme’s which are great and all, but hardly the actual GOAL of the movement. NPI was a disaster for this very reason, heil-gate was swept under the rug while everyone is worried about Mike Enoch’s QUARTER JEW wife?!
Don’t take it the wrong way – I don’t CARE what the media thinks, nobody should apologise to those asshats, but it should never have happened and certainly neither should all this idiocy over Mike Enoch’s wife.
The problem is – nobody is calling that fact. We cannot seem to recognise our own errors when they occur because people are unwilling to criticize the people leading. This allows the AltRight to be easily led and easily led in the wrong direction – just like the Democrats.
Goals need to be striven for, not just talked about. We cannot be changing principles when it suits us and then worrying about things that aren’t important.
Dr David Duke did a 45 minute talk on this EXACT thing.
“We are in a fight for our survival. We cannot afford to be caught up in these purity spirals, we need to preach principles.”
Over the course of the past decade or more we have heard the argument over and over for multi-racial and sexually diverse roles in Hollywood and the workforce.
Whether it is black spiderman, female ghostbusters or the first female president, we are told diversity is necessary. The main reason for this has been stated as “people need role models that they can relate to.”
Even during the recent presidential election, women who were interviewed said over and over “It will be a wonderful thing to have the first woman president, imagine the example that will give to younger girls.”
Living and leading by example is without a doubt one of the basis of civilization as we know it. The exemplification of moral and ethical concern, choices and standards is how we learn to participate with each other peacefully, and even enjoy a sense of community with each other.
So how is it then that someone who cannot gain these moral or ethical lessons from a straight white Spiderman, can turn around and gain the moral, ethical or philosophical lessons from a straight white George Washington? An Abraham Lincoln? Or even a Christopher Columbus?
They can’t and they know it. The more we allow foreign interests into our nations the less those nations will be able to extol the virtues, standards and culture they were built upon.
This is already playing out across the United States, Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, as no-go zones, and Sharia Courts are set up. Suicide attacks become more common place and freedom and democracy are thrown aside for laws and restrictions that curb all of the natural rights of their original european populations.
The irony here of course is that many people coming here for the outcomes that only western civilization seems to be able to deliver, then want to change it so that it reflects the failed civilization that they came from.
This isn’t only true of Islamic or Multicultural immigrants – Socialists across the United States and other western nations have been raising their heads to change even further the system to reflect values it wasn’t built upon. These many faceted attacks on the civilization at large can only be described as a number of different groups who looking to Western wealth and hard fought for privileges see the liberal political and social landscape as an opportunity to attempt to take over a system that they could never build themselves.
Socialism and Communism are both failed ideologies that elites in the western world continue to wish to promote. After all – even in Russia the changes between communism and democratic capitalism didn’t really change the people at the very top. The same people who owned land, or owned a factory during the communist regime of the USSR still do so today. The same would be true of changing to a socialist or communist regime. Elites at the very top wouldn’t change, only the populations’ rights and living standards would.
It is about time America, Australia, Canada and the rest of the west got a hold of these many ideological forces that are attempting to claim a house that they never built.
It is past time to take back the Universities and end Multi-culturalism.