Identity And Eugenics

Last week, famous biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins outraged all of the rage heads on Twitter by tweeting out, “It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology” The rage heads responded with outrage and demands that he be thrown into a well for bad think.

It was one of those events where people revealed things about themselves that they probably wish they had kept private. The “world’s foremost philosopher” managed to step on a series of rakes responding to Paul Ramsey. Not satisfied with his twitter performance, he did a full hour on YouTube, where he must have broken a record for the number of logical fallacies committed in one sitting. Apparently he has yet to reach the chapter on Hume’s law or the masked-man fallacy.

Molyneux’s response was fairly typical, so it is a useful, if unfortunate, example to use when discussing the issue raised by Dawkins. Eugenics, however one defines it, can be both immoral and effective. The morality of it has nothing to do with whether it would work, however one defines that. They are separate issues. Slavery “worked” for a long time, but then we decided it was immoral and it was eliminated. Slavery was not eliminated because it was unworkable or impractical.

His blunders are not surprising, as we live in an age in which morality has been anathematized and made illegitimate. We are no longer allowed to oppose something on moral grounds. Instead we’re required to make economic arguments or make appeals to science. Simply not wanting something, because you don’t like it is no longer a legitimate position. We see this here. Molyneux could not simply say eugenics is immoral, so he claimed it would not work.

The narrow definition of eugenics, according to Webster’s, is “the practice or advocacy of controlled selective breeding of human populations to improve the population’s genetic composition.” Of course, the term is loaded with historical significance and has a strong negative connotation. It brings to mind evil doctors experimenting on children or the state sterilizing people they deem unfit. Of course, you know who looms over any discussion about human fitness these days.

That said, Western societies have been putting a thumb on the scale, as far as the mating habits of the people, for a long time. A great example of this is the laws against consanguineous marriage. In the Middle Ages, the Church and then secular rulers enforced rules against marrying close relatives. This had a huge impact on the human capital of Europe. Cousin marriage leads to lower intelligence and most likely amplifies normal kinship into clannishness.

Henry Harpending and Peter Frost argued that the prolific use of the death penalty in Western Europe, starting in the late Middle Ages, pacified the population. Young men, who committed crimes, were hanged, thus eliminating them from the breeding pool at an early age. Do this long enough and the genes of violent men are slowly reduced. As interpersonal violence declined, men prone to it declined in status, thus reducing their value in the sexual marketplace. That’s eugenics.

That’s also a great example of how the moral arguments about eugenics are mostly based on a cartoon version of the past. Few would deny that the reduction in interpersonal violence was a good thing for the West. Similarly, no one would argue that a society has no right to defend itself against the violent. Like everything else, morality is about trade-offs. Reducing the amount mayhem and violence with the prolific use of the death penalty looks like a pretty good trade-off.

Now, Frost and Harpending could be wrong about the impact of the death penalty, but their theory is not wrong. We can make rules that reduce the reproductive success of those possessing undesirable traits. Those rules, given enough time, will reduce that undesirable trait. If we wanted, we can use force to eliminate those people from the breeding pool. East Asia has been using soft coercion for generations to alter the breeding habits of their people.

Of course, a big part of the hysteria is the implications. If eugenics is a real thing, it means people are not amorphous blobs that can be molded into any shape. To give an inch on the eugenics question is to give up entirely on the blank slate theology. Instead the true believers argue against reality by denying it or avoiding it. You see that in the Dawkins thread, where various people, mostly women, offered ridiculous claims against the reality of animal husbandry and agriculture.

Ultimately, the topic of eugenics brings us back to that point about discussing morality and collective agency in the modern age. A eugenic policy would mean legitimizing the collective will. It would also mean accepting that people collectively have an identity that is rooted in their nature. The war on our collective humanity starts with denying us a right to say who we are and what makes us who we are. It means denying us the legitimacy to want what we want for no other reason than we want it.

For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!

241 thoughts on “Identity And Eugenics

  1. Re: ” Henry Harpending and Peter Frost argued that the prolific use of the death penalty in Western Europe, starting in the late Middle Ages, pacified the population. Young men, who committed crimes, were hanged, thus eliminating them from the breeding pool at an early age.”

    Yes … but… many people were they hanging in the Middle Ages? Were they hanging violent young men by the tens of thousands? If not – I’d argue that their impact on the overall population was probably negligible.

    In recent times we’ve had a couple of events that probably did far more to create the current crop of men – than anything that happened in the Middle Ages.

    World War 1 & 2 took millions and millions of able bodied and smart men – who were *capable of violence* – and buried them in holes in the ground. A good many of these men likely never procreated. All you have to do is go back and read some WW2 history about what it was like in the US – to get a sense of who went into service – and who stayed. No man wanted to be 4F, and even mainstream popular movies (A Walk In The Clouds) address the issue of men who were serving – losing out on access to women to those who were not.

    The numbers of men killed in those two wars (and there were plenty more before that) – I’m pretty sure FAR exceeds the men taken out of circulation due to their criminal violence. And the men taken out of circulation due to war – are exactly the type of men who built the civilization and bred the next generations – of men who could continue to build and maintain the civilization.

    Criminally violent men don’t contribute much to the building of the type of civilization that white men created – and in fact probably seriously detract from it in that they’re a net minus to let them continue living and breathing.

    As I like to remind people who can’t seem to grasp the difference between what creativity and industriousness “cost” – vs what criminality “costs” : it has taken me YEARS to build my house, and with a can of gasoline and a match I could destroy it all in 15 minutes flat, and those 15 minutes would involve very little that could be considered “hard work”.

    When you lose the criminally violent – you don’t lose much. When you lose the strong and industrious and creative – you lose a LOT, you may have in fact – lost everything.

  2. Modern snowflakes are fully assimilated Marxists. What is not forbidden is required. Of course they’re going to Reeeeeeeeeeeeeee over anyone even suggesting that eugenics is not forbidden (Dawkins “can” i/o “must”.

  3. ‘Simply not wanting something, because you don’t like it is no longer a legitimate position.’

    This is an important point and one that I hope Z returns to in the future.

    A community with the power to enforce it’s rules needs no other justification than ‘This is what we want’.

    A long time ago, it was called ‘community standards’ now it’s called ‘fascism’ but either way the point is the same: Under the Western systems of ‘popular sovereignty’ (however muted) The People cannot be wrong, because their will defines right and wrong (at least within the context of the polity). The People can be mistaken, but they cannot be wrong.

  4. Young men, who committed crimes, were hanged…

    You meant “young men who committed crimes were hanged.” Adding commas changes it to mean something you didn’t intend. You randomly add commas the way millennials reflexively say “whom” when they mean “who” because they’re afraid they’re making a mistake when they use the simpler construction.

    I will pay you to stop using commas altogether. Name your price.

      • The Uberfuhrer of grammar nazis lol

        A) “The WNBA tends to recruit women who are taller than most men.”
        B) (with Z-comma) “The WNBA tends to recruit women, who are taller than most men.”

        You don’t have to memorize rules to understand the difference. Just speak the sentences out loud, pause at commas, and the different meanings become obvious. Z-comma makes the sentence bizarre.

        (*Uberfuhrer of grammar Nazis is fair comment since I think he’s soft on our high-functioning gypsy friends, too.)

  5. “Eugenics, however one defines it, can be both immoral and effective. The morality of it has nothing to do with whether it would work, however one defines that.”

    That depends on who’s defining what’s ‘moral’. Is it moral to allow your culture to be destroyed? Is it moral to allow your ethnic group to be diluted to extinction? Is it moral to permit your economy to backslide into “shithole” or “banana republic” status? At the moment, it’s the Left that defines ‘morality’ and everything they deem ‘moral’ is disgenic. – Paul

  6. Anyone who argues eugenics doesn’t work ought to be pointed to the fact that legal abortion has almost eliminated Down’s Syndrome in many nations. This has literally made the population of nations smarter and healthier.

    • Citations, please. Nevertheless, and be that as it may and all that, why don’t you explain to us how this is helpful long term, and in the grand scheme of things.

      • Ah the passive aggressive “:citations please” bull crap. I usually only get that from Leftists


        2/3rd of diagnosed cases aborted in the US. Its only this low because of religious idiots and of course not all cases are diagnosed of course as many people in the US have limited access to health care . Also more Down’s Syndrome has occurred do to a late child birth.

        According to Medscape

        In many parts of Europe, including the United Kingdom, the termination rate after a prenatal Down syndrome diagnosis is now more than 90 %

        With the rise of prenatal screening tests across Europe and the United States, the number of babies born with Down syndrome has significantly decreased, but few countries have come as close to eradicating Down syndrome births as Iceland.

        Since prenatal screening tests were introduced in Iceland in the early 2000s, the vast majority of women — close to 100 percent — who received a positive test for Down syndrome terminated their pregnancy.

        While the tests are optional, the government states that all expectant mothers must be informed about availability of screening tests, which reveal the likelihood of a child being born with Down syndrome. Around 80 to 85 percent of pregnant women choose to take the prenatal screening test, according to Landspitali University Hospital in Reykjavik.

        How’s that?

        • Thanks for the response, and sorry I didn’t get back to you in a timlier manner, but for whatever reason I can’t just type out a quick response this deeply into one of Z’s comment threads. Nevertheless you asked, “how’s that?”

          My answer is that it would be a “noble effort” if it made any sense. In the first place, you might just as well have cited the female ideologues at the Huffington Post, or one of AOC’s (lunatic) Speeches before Congress as to cite the sources you did. I mean, NYTimes, CNBC? C’mon!

          Secondly, and more to the point, you failed to answer my query. To be more explicit, what I’m asking you to do is successfully defend your premise that we are a smarter, more healthy society because of abortion and/or contraception, not to prove that these exist. Duh.

          As to your “passive-aggressive” complaint/charge. Okay? You think making the accusation and linking it to leftism in your personal experience means anything to me? Get out of here with that dingbattish nonsense.

          • Attack the source is another passive aggressive leftist thing you may not know you are doing.

            There are limited numbers of available information sources all with an axe to grind . Given that the government in both the US is pro abortion, it is reasonably likely that the figures are accurate enough for discussion purposes.

            Debate ideas not sources otherwise there is no way to discuss the issue, a caveat here being if you have decently sourced stats that show otherwise

            To be a bit politer, you may be coming in with an assumption that the anti abortion view is common outside the US which is not the case, People in Europe are broadly no longer religious or at least post Christian as is nearly everyone who gets an abortion.

            Again broadly, using Gallup stats most people in the US and nearly everyone in Europe favors abortion in case of rape, incest, severe fetal deformity. life of the mother and for nearly any reason (US here) within the first trimester or in Europe a bit later.

            The US is near the least pro abortion of White world outside of Ireland or such like as its also configured like a and highly religious 3rd world nation IMO anyway

            That said the abortion issue is one that will not be resolved at any point and its in the nations best interest that if a new republic was formed for some reason that pro abortion and anti abortion parties have their own polities.

            Someone like me who thinks organized religion is a grift and is pro eugenics cannot and should not share a polity with highly religious church going folks

      • Horse Hockey. The White population is lower by percentage than it was in the past only do to immigration. Even Black American fertility is below replacement. For the US is literally only Latino immigration that lowers the percentage these days.

        Using CDC stats from the Johnston Archive here

        The total US abortion rate as of 2017 is estimated at 280,000 which is 30% less than 1977!

        Its been in decline every single year for quite a while and still appears to be.

        The simply truth is abortion opponents are driven by the same irrational impulses as SJW’s , its fundamentally a religious drive though in the case of abortion foes its directly faith based.

        The current fertility shortfall is caused by urbanization and modernity to some degree along with use of birth control. And note the US TFR hit replacement level prior to Roe V Wade and the overall TFR was roughly 1.8 before the Hispanic migrant wave.

        The current US estimate is 1.8 though its 1.6 White and Asian.

        My opinion here it that a lot of it is celibacy voluntary and involuntary of various sorts combined with the after effects of culture, wage arbitrage and the fact that an urban population naturally has smaller families.

        You really can’t get fertility up, no one has under any functional circumstances and even a total ban on abortion would have no effect to speak of other than making the US more crime prone, left wing less healthy and less White . In other words its the most anti conservative goal possible.

        The strange combination of Christian Morality and a love of tech progress has deluded us into thinking that we can have unlimited numbers of people all urban and just keep growing forever

        No and hell no. The planet can’t support and socially we’ve reached carrying capacity too . Our numbers will go down. The only option we have is can we prevent a social collapse to a much less tech based order or do we let the Amish take over.

  7. Why wouldn’t “it” – Eugenics – work for humans, when it works so well for cows, horses, pigs and roses? Well, simply stated, because we humans aren’t cows (you ever spent any time around cows? – stupidest animals on the planet, by far!), horses, pigs (another stupid animal, as animals go), dogs – well, I mean, they’re “man’s best friend” and all that, but it ain’t like the best of them have a ninety IQ or something like that. I mean, let’s get real here. You guys and gals are spending WAY too much time in the cities and suburbs, best I can tell.

    • Oh eugenics would work, Mr Morris but you wouldn’t like life in the society that practiced it. Besides, what traits would you select for. PLUS considering how long a human generation is, versus domesticate animals, such a program would take centuries. Or you could just enFORCE genomic testing on the proles and sterilize any – adult or child – who carried any genetic “issues”. Of course the elites would be exempt from such testing/sterilization since their suitability to reproduce would be self-evident from their station.

  8. A society advances morally only after an economic advance allows it to occur. An example is the glass making factories in 19th century Pittsburgh. Child labor was used in the factories. The factory owners successfully blocked anti-child labor laws for decades. Child labor was only banned after the owners had already replaced child labor with machines.
    Slavery is subject to the same analysis. It is the industrial revolution that replaced human labor with machines that ultimately allowed for the abolition of slavery. This means that if we run out of fuel to run our machines, slavery will make a comeback- regardless of the morals.

    • Let some moron seriously try to implement a “Green New Deal” and see how quickly slavery returns to vogue. And it’ll be nitwits like AOC stumping for it being “humane” and the only fair way to “feed the children”.

    • I’ve joked for a bit that Sanders and Bloomberg amounts to a bum fight in a New York deli.

      It’s not so funny when you consider that sanders, even if he loses, is just the harbinger of a Marxist wave that immigration is bringing us.

      • Immigration is the problem. Yet Americans will blame each other for infecting conservative states when citizens move.

        • You’re probably right but it’s hard not to when you’ve lived it. The conservatives who move in aren’t bad people but they like to shop and they like all the conveniences. This makes things fancy, and the fanciness attracts the liberals, who wander in looking for their escaped tax base. The libs set about making things trendy and corporate and before you know it there’s another generic suburb on your doorstep. People keep moving in and eventually population density shifts the balance. Townships that were once overwhelmingly Republican start going Democratic.

          If people are going to move there’s no solution but to break with that system and ‘go native.’ Every destination will be devoured, locust-like, and the rot will keep spreading. Otherwise, yes, immigration is the key, because people won’t have to move in the first place.

          • I moved out of Calizuela recently. People are in no hurry to accept me. We all came from some other place, and I have learned here that no building codes means buyers beware. Do I think I should advocate Cali style regulation to get better protection or do I dig, research, and ask sellers to show evidence? Then ask more questions and do more research so as to avoid being robbed by a more street smart culture? The answer is obvious but this place will change and only due to one thing: the increased numbers of humans who move here. The tendency of government is to grow as population grows, and the governors will ask for more money and authority regardless of my intention to maintain the status quo. I will have to learn how to survive on my own as the lifers here fully endorse a Darwinistic rugged individualism. I’m good with that and that which won’t destroy me will make me stronger.

        • ProUSA rote “Immigration is the problem.”

          I disagree. Immigration in and of itself is neither good nor bad – at least as I see things. Have you ever read/heard the terms “hybrid vigor” or “exogamy”? Look ’em up.

          Nope. The problem as I see it is one of UNCONTROLLED or UNREGULATED immigration. There’s also the problem of massive ILLEGAL immigration. And then there’s also the issue of simple “birthright citizenship”. Once upon a time, for one to be a citizen at one’s birth, one’s parents had to be subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time that person was born. Today that “subject to jurisdiction” part excludes the children of foreign diplomats from citizenship. We need a law (which has about as great a likelihood of passing as me walking out and finding pig shite in the roof of my car) that specifically precludes children born to anyone living here and NOT ACTIVELY PURSUING CITIZENSHIP from birthright citizenship. Crossing the bridge between Nuevo Laredo and having a baby WOULD NOT CUT IT! Neither would coming here on a tourist visa or a student visa cut it, either. Your offspring, if born within the territory of the United States, would only be citizens at birth if you had already declared yourself to be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

          I have no problem with immigration per se. Everybody here is either an immigrant or the descendant of immigrants – even the so-called “first Americans”. Nope, I’d just like immigrants to come in the front gate instead of sneaking over/under the back fence. I also, while I feel for the “wretched refuse” and “huddled masses yearning to breathe free”, would want to restrict immigration to people who have skills which would make things better for the Republic to which I gave a decade of my life in service. I’m sorry some people are born into some 3rd world shite holes but then the universe isn’t fair. Unrestricted immigration might have made sense back when we had a continent to conquer and populate. Those times are past – LONG past.

          Robert Heinlein offered a unique vision of citizenship in his novel “Starship Troopers”. In Heinlein’s universe, if you wanted to participate in governance you had to PURCHASE your citizenship with the dearest coin of all – years of your life in service to the republic. Otherwise, you had pretty much all the civil rights we (allegedly) enjoy now. You simply could not vote or hold any public office – elective or appointive. Smart man, Mr. Anson. VERY smart man.

          • Yes, I agree completely. I did not wish to write this as detailed as you did because I can only comment via cellphone, which is much slower. So I simply wrote IMMIGRATION.

    • ProUSA, I followed your link and read that article along with a couple of others. I was struck by just how different a perceptual universe the writers there inhabit.

      In those folks’ universe:
      “Trump made use of an enemy foreign power, Russia, to win election in 2016”
      “white supremacy is a serious threat to national security, not just in America but around the globe”
      “Trump is behaving like a dictator” (utterly UNlike BHO B_M)
      “It’s only natural to fantasize about some balancing force in the universe that exists to track down violent fascists and, you know, cross them off the list.”
      “We’re slipping further into fascism as Trump indulges all his worst instincts, with the help of his toadies”
      “The cost of administering health care in the United States costs four times as much as it does in Canada”

      Physical reality (streets, roads buildings etc.) aside, those folks inhabit a completely different reality from the one I (and I believe the majority of folks who read the ZMan’s sage writings) live in. The reason we can find no common ground with them is because, the actual ground itself aside, there IS no common ground. I see no solution short of civil war and, ultimately, the fall of our civilization. Damned few socialists/Marxists around when one’s very life is at stake.

      • They were indoctrinated with that worldview, and we were indoctrinated into another. Ours is true and it works better. Extremes from either side must be compromised in a highly plural and diverse society, although it would be better to mitigate diversity through assimilation—or no diversity—which Democrats don’t want as it would foil their agenda.

        Too bad you received down votes for your statement on the immorality of eugenics. This is a very good blog and the desire readers express for racial autonomy is a valid one. Are blacks unequal to whites in IQ? That is what the research shows, but does the research include blacks in sub Saharan Africa? As a guy who has studied Math and some logic, for a statement to be true, not one counter example can be found. Do we know of highly intelligent black people? I can name some but I’ll get booed here. There are counter examples, but generally speaking the research about racial brainpower is true. Religious and public school indoctrination taught me to try helping others regardless of race, IQ, religion, etc. The enemy will now use that as a means to destroy me. So kudos to this site and others that are similar.

  9. Yes, Moly was ridiculous which, in turn, sheds light on his honesty. A shame.

    But I have seen the same in you.

    By the way I really like your reliance on negative identity. No one has really tried to measure this (besides me unsuccessfully); even though it is in undergraduate textbooks (via Erik Erikson).

  10. Civilization is dysgenic. By improving living conditions for all vs an uncivilized state, civilization increases the likelihood of those who under less “civilized” would have died prior to reproducing living to adulthood to find a mate and pass on their faulty genes. A welfare state is the ultimate in dysgenics. It not only allows but positively ENCOURAGES breeding by those who have nothing to contribute to the common weal.

    Like it or not, Planned Parenthood was formed by people who believed in eugenics. The whole purpose of the organization was to reduce the birthrate of members of what PP’s founders considered to be the “lesser peoples”. As an adoptive father of an Asian baby, grandfather of 2 Asian/Mexican grandchildren and uncle/great uncle of black (okay, half-black a la O’Bozo) adoptive nieces/nephews, I do not like to consider kin as “lesser people” but that is what Sanger et al considered them to be! I do believe that nurture can have a huge positive impact over nature. I’m not at all convinced any phenotype (i.e. what some call “race”) is inherently superior to any other. I do suspect that certain CULTURES are more likely to produce the sort of conditions which ALLOW a premier intellect such as a Newton or Hawking or Einstein to EXPRESS than others. Hell! For that matter I do not see the English Nobility/Gentry as being inherently superior to commoners. In my view it’s just that a potential Hawking born to commoners had no opportunity to express or explore their genius. They were likely too busy STAYING ALIVE to sit under a tree waiting for an apple to hit them on the head. (Yes I know that story about Newton is completely apocryphal. Geez!)

    Getting back to my original premise, civilization is inherently dysgenic. I believe that our current civilization with it’s highly developed food production and medical technologies probably the most dysgenic in history. Low infant/child mortality rates can only increase the likelihood of people with serious genetic issues not merely surviving to adulthood but finding a mate and producing progeny. Unfortunately, short of embarking upon a soul destroying full-on Nietzschean totalitarian program to “improve the breed” there is nothing we can do. Any way you look at it eugenics is immoral and repugnant to anyone with the merest shred of conscience. Whether by putting “superior” people together to produce “superior” offspring or reducing the birth rate of “the lesser people”, eugenics is JUST. PLAIN. WRONG!

    • It’s an interesting problem. You can do the Mongol thing but never reach the heights of civilization. Then when you settle down you quickly go soft and collapse. You can do the Nietzschean thing like the Spartans, but they didn’t last either.

      The Chinese have something. They’re so nationalistic they think China is the center of the universe. Maybe that’s the answer.

      • The Chinese don’t know what they think because they routinely think contradictory things. They think Chinese are heavans gift and foreigners are barbarians and they also do not trust each other and have good reason not to.

    • “…eugenics is JUST. PLAIN. WRONG!”

      Yeah, well so is dysgenics.

      And BTW the argument generally agreed upon here is not rooted in claims to racial supremacy, but in our right to self-determination and propagation, the right to preserve our racial identity, and, given our current troubles, to secure our very existence without having to justify it.

  11. A bit of a rif on Saml Adams comment about animal ‘eugenics’. The topic does open a rather large can of worms (the non-genetically altered kind).

    Full disclosure, many years ago I worked for the devil – that is Monsanto (now Bayer), albeit in a much more benign function and division. Depending on ones defintion of ‘eugenics’ those guys have done things with plant and seed eugencs (i.e. GMO) that fairly boggle the mind.

    The GMO subject seems to engender a reaction similar to Ganderson comment on this thread about starting a Hitler Youth chapter. And yet, there are (for better or worse) millions of people alive – and healthier – today as a result of improvements in seed genetics / crop yields. A subjective estimate, but the primary beneficairies are in no small number the population which is more likely to be the poor, and…um…melanin enriched. Ironic the people who actually derive the most benefit and are the pets of the ‘bleeding heart liberal’ ilk are the very ones who most bewail the evils of GMO.

    How does one define eugenics and where is the line drawn between good eugenics and bad eugenics?

    • Corporate America is no longer hiring white males at the bottom of the ladder; stated corporate policy. The joke here is that those lowest level new hires are the most exploited employees of all (long extra unpaid hours, doing the work assigned to their managers, etc). Which means the young women and POC beneficiaries are either going to get totally ripped off, or they are going to get smart very quickly and sue the pants off these corporations for exploitive job practices against females and minoriities. Pass the popcorn.

    • Vizzini, beg pardon but I see this as a white pill. The more globohomo has to rely on wahmens and pajeets to run their show, the sooner their show will hurtle into a brick wall. Young white men will be forced to carve out their own paths in the world and we will be better off for it.

      • Yeah, but there is a lot of ruin between here and “better off for it.” I can’t help but wish that we had never allowed these lunatics to take over all the key cultural institutions in the first place. They will do an awful lot of damage to good people with their power on the way down.

  12. What we’ve had in the last 70 years of the welfare state is a reverse-Eugenics program. Rampant immigration of mud people aside, paying the dumbest of our population to multiply is the single most destructive thing we’ve done. All in the name of “compassion” and a false programming of Christian charity merging with progressive taxation and wealth transfer. We allow Shenequa a path to an income by squirting out little knob heads, and Maria, and Krystal in the RV park in many cases. The sooner the welfare state bankrupts itself, the sooner this reverse-Eugenics program comes to an end. The result is millions of people who should have never been born, millions of people who were never born, and about 20% of the population that will need to be culled during some future emergency time.

    • Look at our smartest, Back in the 20’s and 30’s our intellectual class had seriously embraced Communism and Nazism. Feh it’s not a matter of brains, but being too clever by half and falling for well packaged bullshit time after time. Same thing today.

      The main problem whites have is their total inability to work together as a tribe and look out for one another. Instead we back stab one another, rat them out, etc.

      This is why I respect the Muslims and Irish travelers for having the common sense to stick together and help each other. Mainstream Whitey instead sucks up to sociopathic libertarian garbage, stabs each other in the back and then bitches as better organized Jews and Orcs take over.

      • That’s the problem right there. In a country spanning four time zones plus AK and HI, I stop recognizing “my tribe” (I’m talking other whites) around Denver as go east. Denver would be the last outpost. I certainly don’t belong with the southern ones. I’ll never forget my first business trip there years ago, getting the USA Today with a Nascar edition at the door of my hotel room. I was like, where the hell am I? The Northeast is its own place, with its own culture, not one I would fit into. The same for the midwest. White people would do better if this place was broken up. It may very well break up when the bills come due as the debt black hole consumes us. Sure we all have the same box stores. Only the consumer culture is identical across the country. It’s the dollar that holds us together, and economic winds shift through the generations.

        • I have that thought when I travel to Portland (either one): “Why do people in the midwest defer to these idiots telling us how we should live?”, and likewise I wonder why the coastal idiots think they gain something by bringing us along for their ride.

  13. To add: the discussion of eugenics is from a masculine perspective, i.e., reducing or punishing undesirable traits. What we have is a ‘feminine’ eugenics: increasing or rewarding undesirable traits.

    Why? It’s the attitude of women raising children. ‘You scraped your knee, let me put a band aid on that.’ ‘You’re being bullied, let me deal with it.’ It’s good to protect kids, but adults, in theory being trained to handle themselves, should be accountable.

    Whether it’s throwing money at bad schools, subsidizing single moms, building section 8 housing in the ‘burbs, bailing out bankers and giving them more control over the economy, adults not growing up, or any number of things, it comes down to women’s attitude towards children.

    These topics are are taboo because they threaten the gynocracy. Again, the discussion of eugenics is controversial because it’s from the masculine perspective. If we say, ‘We need to help failures succeed’ that’s OK, even though it too is eugenic.

    The fact is we went too far in reducing violence in society and ended up emasculating ourselves. This is the way the world ends/Not with a bang but a whimper

    • What it means is a group of men come in, they could be as dumb as stones, and take over the area being occupied by the effeminate men (see California). The world is and has always been tribes fighting over space. If one tribe just goes gay and gives up, even if it’s 10 times smarter, it’s a forfeit.

  14. Stefan Molyneux a philosopher? In another possible world, maybe. His formal training is in history. He doesn’t know anything about Hume because he’s probably never read any Hume. Except possibly the History of England. He seems to be a reasonably clever guy and some of what he says I agree with. But he’s no one I’d go to to learn anything about philosophy.

    • I believe he defines his philosophy every so often as “reason backed by fact based evidence and logic”. Or some such. I ignore the philosopher credentials, but often enjoy the videos.

      Can’t comment on the recent controversy as I have not followed it. But in general I’ve never heard a discussion that reminds me of anything I ever heard in the class room. Indeed, if you search for philosophy discussions on YouTube, you’ll get presentations that really are philosophical in nature and don’t resemble Molyneux’s presentations in the least.

      Ok, so he puts on airs. A lot of his stuff, older stuff, was pretty good. If he’s denying eugenics science on other than moral grounds, then he’s in gross error and in violation of his “fact based” claim. If he’s promoting the concept that eugenics has no moral aspect then he’s equally wrong.

      Here is a video of Moly on a subject where he nails it (IMO). It’s relatively short, but touches on a topic we’ve discussed before which concerns relationships among young men and women in modern society within social media dating. He does not cite ref’s for the data, but there are data to support exactly his concerns/conclusions, so I believe he’s knowledgeable enough to speak upon the controversy:

      • Same here. I enjoy some of his interviews. I also understand that he’s established his family in Canada, and like other Canadian YouTuber’s he has to be super-vigilant about anything that he (or a guest) says that might be misconstrued and get him de-platformed from his source of income.

  15. Are there people who honestly call him “the world’s foremost philosopher”? They must be deciding purely on the basis of how much they hate God. Dawkins is one of those Oxbridge types who at a certain stage of their career, lusting for more fame, stray into philosophy under the assumption that there’s no need to have actually read or practiced it before shooting your mouth off. How hard can it be, right? And yet it seems prestigious to them.

    Dawkins reminds me of a old joke about a professor who had a classroom joke about there being an infinite number of philosophers, because for any one, there’s always another who’s stupider. One day a student asked “what about Norman Malcolm?” The prof. paused, then said “oh, shit!”

    • Moly calls himself a philosopher now. He bills his site as the world’s most popular philosophy channel or something like that.

    • If a man, Christopher Hitchens just one example, is sharp, entertaining, and informative in all subjects in which he engages, the topic of religion will leave him competely divorced from all his best qualities. I’ve never seen it fail. Skewering religion can be made hilarious but committed atheists (religious atheist I call them) lose their best qualities on the subject.

      • Atheists are indeed religious and often zealously so. They claim atheism is a passive position but all their behavior betrays this (self) delusion.

  16. Yes, eugenics is a form of artificial selection similar to the practices of animal husbandry. And the transition from hunter-gatherer to agrarian society would not have occurred without the same sort of artificial selection practiced on plants. As such, civilization itself is an outgrowth of artificial selection. And none of the above is natural selection, which has been in play for about a billion years, and has worked pretty well to this point. Is man smarter than nature? We shall see.

  17. The more topics concerning HBD realities are brought up in the main-stream the better. Zman, I’m not sure if you or some of the other readers here watched this video by Dr. Gapin last fall about men’s heath and testosterone levels falling in men. He starts getting into genetics around the 23:00 mark and, of course, the obligatory tip-toeing that goes with it.

    • T levels are falling because of a number of external issues. Not just genetics. Our genetics really haven’t changed that much from the WWII generation.

      For starters our modern lifestyle is incompatible with our physiology. We weren’t meant to sit at a desk for 10 hours a day – like veal being prepped for slaughter. Eating vast amount of processed foods loaded with a host of chemicals that mess with out bodies doesn’t help. Our bodies are shutting down because of disuse/abuse.

      Look at the Buzzfeed Low T guys, they have the T levels of a 90 year old woman and look the part as well. That’s what the modern feminized lifestyle gets you.

      Prior to WWII the average American male lived in a rural environment and their jobs were of the manual arts type and often grew their own food. They weren’t low T. Neither were the factory workers at the time. Their lifestyles were more natural in many respects.

      • Less than half (around 43%) of the population was rural in the 30’s and most people haven’t been farmers for a century.

        Europeans are thinner , exercise more and eat better food in most nations and yet have the same T levels. Its probably something in the ecology.

        That said its a decent adaptation for urban living as most people don’t need the energy that a higher T level gives them and the brittle nature of modern society couldn’t cope with most men being aggressive and energetic.

        The only downside is low fertility but again the US TFR hit 1.8 in 1973 and T levels were almost certainly much higher. It may not matter.,

        Given the life expectancy of the Buzzfeed try guys isn’t going to be lower than yours or mine and might be a bit higher and they are less likely to offend they are well selected for urban modern life in many ways.

        Its profoundly natural and won’t last though as Robert Howard noted, barbarism is the natural state of mankind

  18. Forgive me if I can’t remember the author or exact quote, but to paraphrase it went something like, ” If we were to re-engineer one gene a generation in a hundred years we would be the equivalent of monkeys to our offspring ”

    It’s pathetic we let our lessers dictate the advancement of humanity. If we are ever to get off this rock we’re going to need more robust bodies and greater intelligence.

    For now we have ” The View ” and ” Caitlyn Jenner ”

    God help us !

    • My suspicion is that it will go down like this. A country like China, with no scruples against breeding a superior being, perfects the technique. Such eugenic use is quickly banned in the US and other Western “enlightened”, but suicidal, societies.

      The elites—those of us with $$$—say screw you and visit such clinics beyond the reach of law—nor is the law willing to punish them, since they basically are the law. Such children after a time are shown/suspected to be enhanced and there rises a hew and cry for us as a nation to follow suit. Perhaps a hard nosed neocon proclaims a “gene gap” with the enemy.

      After restrictions are lessened, more of the common folk begin to produce designer babies. These people initially will be of high status, i.e., White. Since such is “racist”, the government will then pick up the tab for non-Whites. And we’re off to the races.

      • More likely is China or someplace tries it and the results, while promising at first, turn into a nightmare. We don’t know much about how genes really work. It’s like letting you 8 year old tinker around with source code that has millions of lines. Maybe taking out that command makes things run faster…..until the memory doesn’t get cleared and everything crashes.

        • Chris. That would be creating/editing genes? Selective/implanting of normally created embryos based on a polygenetic scoring might yield superior results. But your point is well taken, we might jump into this only to find troubling results 20 years later.

          On the other hand, how is this fundamentally different from other long term experiments we, as a society, have jumped into without the slightest concern wrt consequences? Thinking educational system here. But there certainly are other progressive wet dreams we are in the process of regretting two generations later.

  19. Zman, small correction: “Similarly, no one would argue that a society has a right to defend itself against the violent.” You clearly meant no one would “not” argue…

    • Looking at the gun control activists and some of these blue metropolis DAs running around lately, actually I think some people would argue that.

  20. I can’t remember where I read it, but Dawkins himself has said human eugenics probably wouldn’t work, at least not to improve the species. Like dogs and cows, you could end up with all sorts of undesirable traits trying to breed desirable traits. Unlike dogs and cows, it could take a couple of decades before we find out about the evil unwanted traits. But, of course, leftists have to define eugenics in such a way where we’re all in, in order to argue against it. As Z points out, banning cousin marriage is a form of eugenics.

    Leftists hate the idea that druggies, prostitutes and criminals can be made not to reproduce, even voluntarily. There was a non-profit group running around paying women a bunch of money to get a birth control implant lasting 5 years. They basically went to high drug and prostitution areas in cities around the nation and held out the money in front of these women. It was basically a win-win. They got a few days worth of drugs and society got the benefit of not having to care for their future bastard children. If the women cleaned up, they could get the implant removed. Leftists went absolutely nuts about this. Had it been all middle class white women, they would have been all for it.

    A lot of leftists complete oppose prisons. Though it’s not exactly mainstream at this point, it is getting more mainstream year after year. Cities across the nation are refusing to put all but the most violent black men in prison. They say there are too many black males in prison and that this is unacceptable. We are going to get a rerun of the early nineties sooner or later.

    • “I can’t remember where I read it, but Dawkins himself has said human eugenics probably wouldn’t work, at least not to improve the species”

      I’m undecided about the morality of eugenics but I tend to doubt it would work. I think the Law of Unintended Consequences would come into play.

      I saw a meme once. First panel stated PRODUCT OF NATURAL SELECTION and showed a picture of a wolf.

      Second panel stated PRODUCT OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN and showed a picture of a pug…. nose flat against face, eyes almost bulging out of sockets, tongue hanging out of mouth.

    • All you say is true, but I’m not sure what effect an understanding at the genetic level—and breeding for that genome—would have. That is fast approaching. In other words, other genes/alleles cropping up may well be prevented or discarded.

      • Or worse, they think they understand, but do not. I am far more fearful of that. A lot of traits don’t come from a single gene. Without a complete understanding of all of the genes involved in a desirable trait, precise eugenics targeting those genes could end up turning on genes (or, more likely, combinations of genes) that have really evil effects.
        Though you might learn something useful from statistics, we really won’t know until well after such efforts have been in effect for quite a while.

        • Tarstarkusz, that comment was spot on. It is amazing how many people know “bean bag genetics” and think they are experts or something. Thanks for pointing out how dangerous our meddling might be.

          • It’s telling that so many people think they are exactly 50% from each parent. That’s not how chromosomes work. Women functionally operate on a single X chromosome. Males are an expression of their X and Y chromosomes. Women do not have any influence on the Y chromosome yet the male genetically influences the X chromosome. Ethnicity is built from the longevity of the Y chromosome. The X chromosome is interchangeable. It all perfectly explains the political differences between men and women.

            All that to say, men change women over time but women cannot change men. This is why the only way to elevate the lower races is to have them breed with white men. White women are encouraged to out-marrying for the purpose of demoralization to encourage white men to out-marry.

    • It’s quite clear the Left just wants to destroy the West and everything whites have built. They oppose any and all measures that lead to s safe and stable society and instead promote policies that will lead to the destruction of the West.

      The Left is evil, not misguided.

    • We’re possibly missing a trick here. Maybe we should join the campaign to release ALL black men from prison, especially the most violent ones. Let’s face it, their hunting grounds are going to be in big cities and their victims will be other blacks or white shitlibs. With a bit of luck, that will thin them out a bit.

  21. I’ve had lots of debates about the blank slate theory, particularly with women. I simply give them the following scenario to show them they don’t really believe it either. If we are all the same and genetics don’t matter, then if you went to a sperm donor clinic and were presented with two samples…… The first being from a 6ft 2″ self-made millionaire, who donates to charity and also does triathlons, or a never worked 5ft 6″ guy who sold sperm for the money – then you would reply ‘either is fine for me thanks’. We all know that almost 100% would take the successful man’s sperm. They know BST is a lie, they just don’t want to appear mean.

    • Like many atheists he has developed a sentimental attachment to his own head, and wouldn’t wish to loosen that attachment by criticizing Islam, if you know what I mean.

  22. Modern progs, by virtue of their death cult ideology, are reducing their fertility rates to sub 1.0 levels. Hyper feminism, genital mutilation, anti-masculinity hysterics and worthless degree accumulation will render them as relevant in a few generations as the Shakers are to us today. Our generational (millennial) challenge will be to deal with the sad-sack leftovers striking out against their unhappiness by spreading their ideological poison. Luckily, pointing to them and their misery as clear examples of how not to live a life will help our cause.

    White pill.

  23. I expect the greatest failed eugenics experiment in history was WW1 and WW2,too many men with the right stuff were killed,and the collapse of western civilization is the result.

    • Being the eternal optimist (or at least today), I might not go so far as to say collapse, but at a minimum – an increase in the angle of descent of western civ

    • That doesn’t really explain a country like Sweden though, does it? Sweden wasn’t involved in those but the problems are the same.

      • Sweden is an interesting control case, excellent point. Sweden proves that it cannot have been the physical destruction of the world wars that made the West go insane b/c Sweden was spared in both wars. I think there is a small but genuine nugget of information here that proves it was not the physical mayhem that made us all soft in the head.

    • I saw somewhere that 25% of the Oxford class of 1914 were dead by 1918. A great aunt of mine, and many others, never married because their men were dead.

      • Same in Russia in WWII. I believe 80+% of men born in 1920 were dead in 1945. I even saw some quotes attributed to newspaper publications enjoining young men not to forget other unmarried young women. In other words, to father children with them outside of marriage.

        And I believe there is a video by Dutton alluding to the good looks of present day Russian and Ukrainian women as possibly due to their grandmothers being good looking enough to attract one of the remaining men to breed with her, while the ugly ones remained spinsters. 😉

      • Bilejones – Peter Hitchens points out that the first two years were volunteers – the most idealistic men – who really did believe it was the war to save all civilizations. He believes England never recovered. Actually, the whole interview is worthwhile. (1:35 to 5:35)

    • I’ve wondered for a while if the supine lack of resistance to Asian rape gangs was the result of so many British male deaths in the world wars.

      • This is a really interesting idea! I posted a videolink to Bilejones above about what Hitchens said about the loss of WWI veterans. He explains the fatal effect it had on the culture – but your idea of WWII as well might go a long way toward creating a sort of weakening/ feminiization.

      • Yes I have pondered that possibility too. But, as someone as pointed out above, Sweden was spared that destruction. In fact, the Swedes have not fought any sort of war for over two centuries. Yet it is probably the only country in Europe which is more pozzed and pussified that Britain.

        • There’s a difference between the American personality and Swede personality in terms of individualism. Swedes have a propensity toward group consensus that Americans just don’t have. If you took two groups, American “atheists” and Swedish “atheists” and left them alone for ten years, the two societies would look quite different, with the Americans not feeling the need to “organize” except for cooperative or emergency situations (when they organize on a dime like nobody’s business). Americans want to be left alone and rely on their families, while Swedes prefer to create a larger societal network. Come to think of it, the Swedish ideal is what Hillary preached about and wishes to impose on us.

      • Not really.

        Its not my kid, social class etc and thus not my problem is the normal default reaction for the bulk of humanity. Those people no more care about kids on Rotherham being groomed than you would about kids in Atlanta if you lived in say Boston or L.A

        You might be obliged to pretend you did for social positioning reasons or you might have religious reasons to do so but caring about people who aren’t “yours” is profoundly unnatural for most of humanity.

        As for the locals who did act out, the State used force on them instead. You can say people in the UK should rebel or some such for that abuse but we have every bit as much, probably far more abuse here and far better means.

        Yet it hasn’t happened.

        And not is has little to do with massive casualties in the US . Our loses in wartime were very very low compared to Europe.

        My opinion is that moderns in the lower classes have too much to lose and little appetite for or understanding on how to rule others.

        Like basically most of humanity they want peace and prosperity not war to knife, knife to the hilt.

  24. Dawkins SJW’ed himself.

    He was well aware of how his work implied that every aspect of human biology and culture was at its most basic, genetics dependent. This caused a bit of a blow back when it was first published. Naively he followed that up with The Extended Phenotype, explaining how the mechanism worked. He gave example after example of how “nurture” was not something separate from nature but part of nature.

    This book only made his problems worse. A few years earlier EO Wilson had been assaulted by (((activist))) at Harvard. Wilson had been rocked back on his heels and was and still is both admired and reviled within the scientific community. Wilson WON the argument but he is still on the outs in many circles. Sociobiology won the argument but it has been so maligned it has had to fragment itself and give itself a half-dozen other names.

    Dawkins saw his own future following the same path, one he didn’t want. So initially he became anti-racist and tangentially attacked his own work arguing that humans can blunt the effects of biology through social manipulation and the condemnation of bad think. He argued for dysgenic social policies as a means of deflecting the attacks that were coming his way. He wanted an enjoyable life, he wanted to be celebrated and he wanted to periodically change one pretty girl for a younger one.

    At some point he got tired of his public persona having to battle with his professional accomplishments, so he sought something else to glom onto: Atheism. In his circles that is very very very low hanging fruit.

    This has worked wonders for him. Atheism has made him 1000x more celebrated than biology or anti-racism ever had……but he’s still a biologist…..the guy who wrote The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype. He’s worked with and publish with Wilson but they both go out of their way to blunt the implications of their work. They both saw what had happened to James Watson. Occasionally he can’t help himself, he’s attacked the goofy part of the university as pseudo scientific drivel. They beat him on the shoulders for this forcing him back onto the plantation…until things get under his skin and he again can’t hold his tongue.

    Dawkins, Wilson and Watson and most other researchers in the sciences DON’T want to be activists, dissidents or any form of lightning rod. They just want to be a bio-sperg or a chem-sperg or a math-sperg, etc. So now, no matter their field, everyone self-censors. Anything even slightly potentially controversial gets buried in the footnotes or gets publish overseas or stays in a desk drawer.

    The very crowd that continually announces its love for science has made real science about human nature immoral and falsehoods about human nature are given a scientific vainer of brilliant moral truth.

    Everyone engaged in honest scholarship who hasn’t mercenaried themselves or fooled themselves first, understands that their professional life and the welfare of their families absolutely depends upon keeping the commissars and their rabid bioweapons on the other side of the campus placated.

    This is the state of the University today. There are no other options. Dawkins isn’t the enemy. Look at his real work. Expecting spergy academics to swallow the hemlock when confronted by scum is a bit dewy-eyed.

    • So he sold his integrity in exchange for fame and fortune, in the process giving a whole generation of smug atheist types talking points. As a traditional Roman Catholic, I have very little sympathy for him.

      • Never meant to imply it was the noble thing to do, just not atypical. The crooked timber of humanity++++

  25. I only watched Molyneux’s short initial video on Dawkins’ tweet and I was shocked how bad it was. Hysterical teenage girl bad and entirely missing the point of Dawkins’ tweet.

    The idea that Molyneux felt obligated to try to make his response from within a homo economicus worldview didn’t occur to me, because I have never observed that is how Molyneux sees the world. It is actually a kinder interpretation than what I came away with, that he was unable to separate the function of eugenics from its morality, because he responded to the concept with kneejerk emotionalism.

  26. Welp, now we are in the home stretch of neoliberalism, aren’t we? Most of our morals and ethics evolved because they worked and made us better people. When the left abandoned faith, morals and ethics…the cultural rot and decay accelerated. They assumed science would provide the answers… but all real science will do is pose more and more thorny moral and ethical questions. Without any foundation to work from…the only way out is down.

    The failures of the multiculti social experiment are now obvious and starting to bite. Equally obvious is that dysgenic cultures will be at the mercies of the eugenic ones, and the only thing Leftie has for that is cognitive dissonance. The culture war may or may not be swift… But it will only end one way.

  27. One of the reasons you can purchase pork and farmed catfish so cheaply is the work one of my cousins (one of Bloomberg’s dumb farm kids) has done over the last thirty years on lean/adipose genetic expression and manipulation. The shit works. In fact, is it frightening how well it works. Every technique they’ve used in animal models would work in humans.

    • Only if you treat humans like animals, which is where morality comes in.

      If you’re religious it’s immoral. If you believe in natural law it’s illegal. If you think humanity is an expression of character it becomes possible. If you’re an atheist it’s certain.

      • Hey I’ll give vegans credit. They might think people and animals are morally equal, but at least they bring animals up to a human level. A lot of people out there think we’re just a herd to be managed. Herd immunity— remember that one?

        Then again there’s the whole Christian thing about being a good shepherd. Being like Jesus, if such a thing were possible. Hmm. Maybe that’s why I’m not a member of a church!

  28. The biggest practical problem w eugenics is picking which traits will be an advantage in the future, when circumstances change. Two examples, IQ and sickle cell anemia. IQ would certainly seem an advantage. But today we can empirically see that high IQ people breed less than low IQ people. It would seem that if you make a safe, abundant environment, IQ is an impediment to breeding. And accordingly our IQ average is dropping.

    Sickle cell anemia is mostly found in African populations. When you have two copies of the gene for it, from both parents, you develop sickle cell anemia. But if you only have one copy, from one parent, you have far higher resistance to malaria. So it is probably not the sort of gene you would want to wipe out.

    Today the state does eugenics, or perhaps dysgenics, via perverse incentives like the low IQ example. But, if the state did not do that (I guess that would eventually require removing the state, so a SHTF scenario or something since even criminal justice has an effect), I doubt we could do better by design, than natural selection and nature’s unapologetic removal of ‘mistakes.’ This is really the race of two optimization schemes and I would think ‘random walk’, ie natural selection, would win in the end.

    This may also be why some civilizations seem to blossom after a really thorough disaster. Maybe the black death, removing all the bad deadweight, paved the way for the Renaissance and later industrial revolution in Europe. If so, that’s a point for natural selection over design eugenics.

    • This is why eugenics works very well for domesticated animals (removed as much as possible from predators and dangerous natural forces), but less well for humans (beings whose reason prevents them from being so divorced from nature). It’s easy to look at an outside thing and see what makes it more useful to you, but less so to apply that logic to yourself/your neighbors

        • The best case against Eugenics (the state controlled type not the natural law type) is that whoever is designing it might turn us all into the human equivalent of chihuahuas.

      • I think you have a very good point, eugenics works wonderfully for domesticated animals, less so for humans. The difference? Domesticated animals have to live in, but not manage, a controlled environment, human habitation and needs. Humans have to manage it.

        But it also illustrates why the elites should perhaps be more into eugenics. Why not make the masses more docile, less likely to rebel? It seems the death penalty eugenics theory mentioned suggests they may have done just that. The kinds of men who don’t mind killing or committing crimes, could be dangerous revolutionary leaders??

        • Chances are whoever comes to be in charge of eugenics are going to be the ones most unfit to be in charge. The West will keep the brakes on but no doubt the Chinese are going to plunge in headfirst.

    • Higher intelligence hasn’t historically been an impediment. In fact historically the most intelligent and well-off had the most surviving children. What changed? Hostile social engineers took control.

      • Maybe you don’t even need social engineering, although I don’t disagree w your point there. But maybe abundance is enough to remove the competitive advantage of high IQ? Look up r/K strategy.

        That the abundance was probably created by high IQ people then gives the whole thing a sort of cyclical spin.

        • We don’t really have an endless abundance, though. We have more “stuff” in general due improvements in agricultural technology (being used to farm things like corn and soy, not very good for you as a staple of your diet) and boomertech that boomers will tell us somehow means things are better than ever and there’s nothing to complain about, but entertainment on screens of course doesn’t negate the fact that the ability for young people to afford to get a house and pop out children is worse than ever.

          Lots of people in the middle socioecomically, probably your smartest and most capable people who “Do Things” are literally unable to afford family formation or to have a family a size they’d like to because of a lack of resources. What you have is redistribution in a really big way, and today mostly towards foreigners the hostile social engineers are flooding the country with, or value siphoned upwards to those self-same social engineers.

          • I am suspicious of the “people aren’t having kids because it’s too expensive” thesis. I’m not saying it’s not a factor at all, but I think it is a minor one, maybe 10%. First point: the people in US society who are having lots of kids are often the poorest. There are a lot of families out near me who start families in their late teens and 20s and support multiple kids on incomes much smaller than mine (there is also a tremendous amount of divorce and kids living with stepparents, aunts, and grandparents, which is a point I’ll come back to later).

            It seems to me it is more about priorities. I sacrificed a lot of the materialist markers of status in order to have five kids, have the wife be able to stay at home to school them, and to be able to retire from my day job at 54.*

            I know multiple people — many, many people in the high tech industries — who followed similar career trajectories to mine, and had, maybe, one designer kid in their 40s if they had any at all. They, of course, gripe about how expensive kids are, because they are two income families (literally twice as much income as me, or more), but they pay for nannies, au pairs, all kinds of pricey pre-schools, lessons, fancy toys and still maintain the new, expensive cars and homes in “good school districts.”

            What you do with your time and your money shows what you value. Our society shows by its actions that people don’t value marriage and children. The willingness of people, especially lower class people, to divorce at the drop of the hat for frivolous reasons and throw their kids into chaotic lives means that they are narcissistic and don’t really care about their kids.

            But you can only partly blame them. That narcissistic, anti-child, anti-family worldview has been pounded into their heads since they were little kids by the media and educational establishment.

            To change things, we need to change the culture. It seems unimaginable, but we need to convince men and women to marry and start families young and for women to eschew careers. That flies in the face of every kneejerk, feminist, female-empowerment urge of the 21st century. There needs to be a massive “being a stay-at-home mom is the most awesomest thing a woman can do” campaign.

            *It’s also really interesting to me to see how I’m treated when I show up someplace in a business suit or sport coat, like I would for work, vs. when I’m wearing a stained Carhartt jacket, muddy jeans and boots, and a hat with a feed store logo on it.

          • “What you do with your time and your money shows what you value. Our society shows by its actions that people don’t value marriage and children”

            Too true. What cracks up/saddens me is how people say “children are too expensive…. children are too much responsibility”, then spend thousands of dollars on fences, furniture, toys, accessories, medical treatments and organic foods for their dog or cat.

          • Here’s the problem for me in an HBD nutshell, an incentive program for more children must apply to everyone. However, we don’t need more people of a general nature, we need more people of a specific nature. Crudely measured/described, this would mean White children. Raising the overall brith rate will do nothing for the current problem with minorities and their general inability to thrive in a highly technical society.

            My general thinking is that we’d make more progress via disincentives and working on the birthrate among those dependent on government support.

          • Any policy to increase birthrates among “successful” people would have to make large families a mark of high status and wealth. It’s hard to see how you could do this without making large families impossibly difficult/expensive for people on more modest incomes. The problem is that western societies and increasingly other societies around the world are now so prosperous that even the least well off can afford to breed as much as they wish, thereby devaluing large family size as a status marker. Of course a return to grinding poverty, hunger and lethal infectious diseases would fix this “problem”. Good luck running for election with that in your manifesto.

          • It’s two different problems to solve. Incentivize family creation for everyone. Impose an immigration moratorium, end birthright citizenship, and don’t renew any existing visas or hand out any more green cards. Aggressively deport. I know that’s currently on the the level of “and I want my very own pet unicorn,” but that’s what it would take to, maybe have a chance without separation.

      • Highly intelligent people created a comfortable world with I
        incredible medical care and social programs and now people that would have died in the past, now don’t.
        You know, not long before Baghdad was overtaken by military rule in the 9th century, the people were advocating for a 5-day work week and women to become judges, women were already in most professions at this point. It seems like myopia becomes an epidemic the more successful society but you need a much grander vision to keep it together

        • Sounds like you’ve read Glubb too or maybe the same sources he used. I believe he was onto something very important. What he said fits perfectly with ‘biohistory’ but also with PUA ‘game’.

    • The biggest problem with eugenics is that the people administering the program would be the same clowns that run the rest of the public sector. Which if past performance is any guide to future performance, means that we would end up with the opposite outcome to whatever the original intentions were.

  29. It’s going to take awhile for the blank slaters to go away. It’s official dogma in America’s schools. Even teachers who know better mouth blank slate platitudes. I once, in a meeting with the special ed people, asked why we couldn’t get access to useful data- IQ tests, etc. It was as if I had asked
    “ Could we start up a Hitler Youth chapter here?”

    • My father was a teacher in the inner city, and for most of his career he was a blank slater. Then he took a position giving placement tests, which were basically IQ tests. This gave him a good dose of race reality. I remember discussing education reform with him later in his life, and he said the only reform that would make any difference is to start with smarter kids.

      • There is a book, “Bad Students, not Bad Schools” by Weissberg. Which goes over this all in detail. I mention this book, because is is highly referenced such that most all arguments you’ll hear wrt “improving” schools, teachers, student environment, etc have been tried and shown to be failures.

        I have never had this argument with a teacher or Lefty (but I repeat myself) where their solution—usually more $$$, is not referenced in that book via a dozen or more failed programs. In short, the book is a long, somewhat dry read, but is a reference of great value if you feel challenged by an annoying Lefty claiming knowledge because they are repeating tired talking points know to be untrue before they were even born.

        When it comes to education reform, there are no new cures under the sun—only duplicitous promises to make bad-whites feel good (for the moment).

        • Actually, there is a single and simple solution to all social ills. Take resources from the productive and give them to the problematic. Ignore the disincentives to both from this transfer, and whether or not it works . Rinse and repeat.

        • I am a teacher, and yes, any discussion with faculty about racial differences in cognition triggers a maelstrom of acrimony. These people can’t distinguish between race realism and racial animus. Takes away their superhero capes, I think. The suggestion that they can’t purify entire biologies through Rosa Parks coloring books seems to offend them.

          Funny thing is I get better results with the minority kids than the goodwhites. I make slight alterations in my teaching style or diction and it works. They like to argue, so I make sure to engage them directly and with frequent guidance.

        • My extended family is replete with teachers, adminstrators and others who support school funding initiatives. I’ve found that the easiest way to end the tedium of lengthy discussions about what is to done with today’s schools is to toss out the simple hate-fact, “You can’t educate the uneducable.” Blank slatists cannot grasp that obsolete farm equipment doesn’t belong in school because their jobs and livelihood require it, not because they are unaware of the futility.

          • Teachers are well compensated (good pay, summers off, state pension, continuing ed with a raise, etc.) because they’re actually being paid to do dirty work.

            Same with health care workers. Take your shots!

            Nothing will change until it hits them in the pocketbook.

          • Teachers are the damn biggest whiners. They love to cite their pauper’s salary without adjusting/comparing it to private sector.

            Some things they and their enablers repeatedly spout to the gullible public:

            We are paid only so many dollars, less than average—yeah, but for a 9-10 month year.

            Again, we are paid less than average, even adjusted for school year—yeah, but what about your public pension after 20 years?

            Again, even with our pension, we are paid less than our peers in other States—yeah, but our State is 46th in cost of living and you cite CA and MA salaries.

            Well, we take work home at night so we work longer—well no, the school day is 6-7 hours. Most private sector jobs at your level of pay are exempt/salaried and demand uncompensated hours in excess of 40 as well.

            We hold college degrees, are highly educated—it’s a travesty we are paid so much less than others with degrees—yeah, but most of you graduated from the “College of Education” with a BA degree in general education, not in majors/fields related to what you are currently teaching. If you majored in Math for example, the corporate world would beat a path to your door.

            Well, salary concerns are not at the top of our list. We need increased funding for schools and reduced class sizes. It’s for the children’s sake, not ours—yeah, except the funding you ask for is to provide classroom teaching assistants and reduced class size which ultimately reduces your workload.

            The list goes on and on. Apologies for the rant. I’m too old I guess, I remember my grade school experience. Never had a class size under 44 students (8th grade). Teachers I had were hardworking and excellent. I’d not be here without them, indeed I did not deserve them. We did just fine.

          • The mandated high pay is inversely proportionate to the mandated low discipline standards which in turn produces a massive waste of resources.

          • Where I live the starting pay for teachers is $36k I think. That gets to $50k range in your 30s. Get your masters (on the taxpayer dime?) and you’re looking at $90k. Oh yeah, the district is something like 90% white.

            The average salary for everybody is around $45k, for 12 months without the pension. So teachers can kiss my butt if they think they don’t make enough.

          • I think in general we teachers are pretty well compensated, and with lots of time off. I work reasonably hard during the school year, not so much in July.

            Also, check your local district, and see how much is paid to the various counselors, special ed teachers, and others with much more limited contact with students. You’ll be amazed.

          • Don’t forget the Principal and typically 3 Assistant Principals in large high schools. District Superintendents make over $200k but as bureaucrats they don’t seem to exercise leadership because they must do what they are told to do. I don’t consider managers who do not innovate or buck the system to be worth a large salary.

          • I wish to go on record as being in favor of more money for ME!😀
            In all seriousness, though, there is no way for me within a typical school system, to significantly increase my salary- what if we had a system where I could teach more pupils- double my class load, double my compensation.

          • Now, you’re talking. I had bounced an idea around awhile back where teachers would receive a flat rate/salary for a baseline of students in classroom, then when that number increases above baseline, another $1-$2k per student. This is not unknown in Higher Ed institutions.

            Right now, the teachers union works mainly to compress/equalize among the poor and excelling teachers to the detriment of the public in general, and good teachers in particular.

          • Paid well in order to shift wealth via taxation to the public sector. Schools are so well-funded that there is an enormous ancillary staff composed of younger women and girly men who aren’t necessarily classroom teachers but counselors, aides, psychologists, nurses of the Nazi sort, and so

      • Growing up in Baltimore (Lagos-on-Chesapeake as Z calls it) I came to the conclusion as a young man that the money spent on inner city schools would be better spent on tequila and hookers. At least those things have a measurable if temporary benefit to the people spending the money.

        After reading up on how corporations in the third world have a “bribery budget” to pay off corrupt local officials I came to think of these periodic urban campaigns for “better schools” as just teachers unions and inner city residents shaking down the local government for a bigger slice. Somehow it made me less angry that my taxes went to pay bribes to keep the city skyline from turning all orange and smoky than thinking that ANYONE actually believed this money would help.

    • In California it is illegal to give IQ tests to black children.
      If we allowed IQ testing in schools, that would put an end to some very destructive beliefs about schooling and how everyone should graduate HS.
      IMHO, we need to have a system that IQ tests kids and then they graduate from whatever grade their IQ allows them to graduate. So if a kid has a 90 IQ, he is graduated if he completes the 9th grade. This is already what happens in reality. 90 IQ kids who “graduate” from HS, effectively graduate with a 9th grade education. The last 3 years was spent simply passing the person on and they didn’t learn anything.

      • Lack of IQ stat’s is common all over. There are proxies that are commonly used to estimate such. CA can’t eliminate these. This keeps a lot of current HBD research moving forward. It would move faster and be more accurate with better approximations—such as real WISC testing, but it won’t stop research and a countervailing argument to blank statism.

        • Yeah, they have done little to stop the research, but they also have been successful flooding high schools with low IQ kids who shouldn’t be there. They do nothing but disrupt actual smart kids who might benefit from being there.

          I think there is also a connection with “special ed” and retarded kids being in public school. It is little more than tax funded babysitting. What the hell are retarded children doing in public schools? We all feel sympathy for them and want them to be as good as they can, but they can’t be educated and simply do not belong in schools. It costs a fortune.

          This idea that every single kid should go to school is completely wrong-headed.

          • Correct. it’s called “mainstreaming” and I believe it’s the product of a series of court rulings and lawsuits starting in the 70’s. Discrimination, don’t you know. Your son/daughter must sacrifice themselves on the alter of equity and fairness.

          • We have a program in my high school that caters to the truly special- we have some Down Syndrome kids, etc. Its not a bad thing; the teachers who work with these kids are saints, IMO. They do things like deliver mail, coffee, etc, and interact withe the rest of the student body, although not in the classroom. It’s a good place for these kids and good for our non special charges to get to know them. I’m as hostile to special ed as anyone, but I don’t mind programs like these.

      • Why bother? The modern economy no longer demands the output of free, universal public education. It’s time to recognize that K-12 is nothing more than subsidized day care for a lot of working single mothers. It should be redesigned from the ground up to serve those with the intelligence to contribute to the modern post-industrial economy, which will be a fraction of the current school-aged demographic. As for the remainder, either conscript them into military or civilian service at low wage and basis kit; or provide a modest UBI and let them fend for themselves. If it’s to be the latter, then recipients must bear the consequences of their own folly or reap the rewards of their own wise initiative.

    • Funny how so much of the blank slate cult is pushed by women and their moral preening over fairness.

      Yet they conveniently cover one eye for any test that might reveal the eugenic nature of their own biological sexual strategy at work.

      When it comes to their own dating-mating-child rearing choices, fairness is quickly eclipsed by their preferences for things that should be irrelevant given the built-in protections of modernity and their own strong-independent go-girl equality attributes.

      But still they seem to want genetic fitness: tall, strong, handsome high status men, as if we live in straw huts.

      All the egg freezing and IVF stuff similarly reveals the truth of the female eugenic preferences and subsequent contortions required to lay cover for the unfair nature of their preferences.

      Economics are faggy but sometimes markets do prove useful.

      I like to point out to these women that a man under 5’10” cannot sell his sperm to a sperm bank. Even with his PhD in hand.

      Not because the bank is being unfair, but because women simply will not pay for it. When presented with a choice, their preferences reveal. There is simply no market for short(er) man sperm.

      Building a better baby, with graduated pricing schemes constructed solely on the explicit preferences of female mating (IQ/height/credentials/physical attributes/genetic mapping), lays out quite clearly the eugenic values in a literal menu.

      Fairness, like equality or diversity, is really meant to run in one direction.

      • My hunch is that the reason the Scandinavians are the tallest today is simply because they were one of the first societies to allow their women to breed with whoever they wanted (height being the most important important characteristic for most women).

        It’s always fun to point out to them that they still find muscular men more attractive even though guns obviate the need for brawn. I don’t blame them though it’s just entertaining to see them try to square their ideology with their biology. It also explains why they prefer “natural” muscles to “gym” muscles.

  30. Slavery was not eliminated because it was unworkable or impractical.

    Yes, it was. It was no coincidence that slavery was abolished during the industrial revolution. The moral arguments against slavery were only allowed to arise when vested interests no longer had use for slaves. Those same interests then opportunistically opposed slavery as the virtue signaling was a benefit for them.

    • Funny how the people eliminating slavery in Europe were wholly unaware of the fact they were following the NAP, when they really thought they were following Christian teaching.

          • Well, until you point out that a lot of their policies amount to forms of aggression in the pursuit of maximizing their own personal profits, and then they try to claim it’s somehow not aggression because it’s not as direct as just murdering people.

          • The fallacy is often in the interaction between consenting adults. One has to realize that the assumption is the two adults are of equal knowledge and power. Not always the case.

          • Thanks. It has its own Wikipedia page with multiple orange flags scattered throughout saying ‘this article has multiple issues’. That’s funny to me.

      • I’ve seen a case made the the importation of large amounts of penniless Europeans – the Irish, made slavery less economically viable because employers were not responsible for the welfare of employees and their families while slave-owners were,
        You spend no money on repairs and maintenance on cars you rent, not so on those you own.

        • That seems doubtful for a few reasons. First, the US was well on it’s way to phasing out slavery before industrialization. The Northwest Ordinance banned slavery in 1787. Congress outlawed the importation of slaves in 1808 and stopped US registered ships from carrying slaves well before that. Slavery was well on a downward path before significant Irish immigrants arrived. Only the cotton gin made is feasible again.

          Slavery isn’t expensive as long as you have a supply. The US cut that supply and therefore made slaves expensive. Look at places where slavery was allowed, like sugar cane plantations in the Caribbean, and they burned through slaves like kindling. Anyways, slavery was banned in almost all of the states that industrialized before they were industrialized.

          • Little known fact–slave importation was a necessity to continue business as usual because, excepting American slavery, slaves were not much prone to reproduction. Make of that what you will. The English imperialist historian Froude wrote a remarkable accounting of Caribbean slavery during his visits there.

          • I looked that book up and Wikipedia has a page for the book written to refute it but does not have a page for the actual book so I decided if Wikipedia hates it that much, I had to have it and I brought it from a private seller in England for $20 including shipping. You know it’s really amazing the world today isn’t it. I’m pretty blackpilled about the future but it doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the Bounty of today

      • An interesting point of disagreement. No doubt slavery was becoming less and less profitable as an institution. Indeed, I’ve read that even in the South as machines replaced field hands in crop maintenance, other crops in other states were cultivated and slaves moved/sold there.

        In modern example, fast food service moving to replace workers when their wage rose to $15 hour. But if wages had remained stable, when would those companies have modernized? If slavery had remained legal, when would we have given up on using such “free” labor? Would I have a shack in the corner of my yard for my slave—next to the dog house. Hell, there’s always yard work to do.

        I’m siding towards the moral imperative explanation.

        • A similar argument can be made against the importation of cheap third world labor in general. Why don’t we have a robot that can harvest broccoli? Is it really that hard to make one or is there just no way to make money developing and selling the things?

          I’m convinced that when future historians comment on this period they will estimate that cheap labor cost the West about 40 years worth of technological progress particularly in automation and AI. Of course those historians will probably be robots themselves so I imagine they’ll be biased.

          • But you’re right about cheap labor retarding tech progress: up until the noughties, we didn’t have cheap labor in Europe – we had poc, but you had to pay them union rates. That meant that one of the few areas where Europe was ahead of the US technologically, was in agri-tech.

            As a side note: back in the eighties and nineties, a viable way for impecunious, under-18 y.o. teenagers to spend a summer holiday or a gap year, was working as harvest hands in the south of France, because as a minor, they didn’t have to pay you union rates: you got room (a barn) and board (boiled snails), pocket money and eight hours of backbreaking work per day, but it allowed anyone to experience Provence in a way no tourist could hope for, and also meet fellow young Europeans away from parental and societal oversight for the first time. (Which is to say having a shitton of casual sex.)

            Now, all those jobs are filled by brown slaves.

    • I think you’re confused here. The Abolitionists always refuted slavery on moralistic grounds, but their movement only achieved critical mass when Industrialists believed it was in their own interest to champion the Abolitionist cause. The Industrialists acted because they believed the removal of Slaves would reduce the South’s autonomy and prevent them from selling their cotton to Britain and France rather than shipping it North.

      The economic interests of Yankee Industrialization, cloaked in moralism, is what drove Slavery out of existence in the US, not some inevitable force.

        • This is just not true. I think you overestimate the efficacy of machinery to replace cheap labor in the 19th and 20th centuries. You are just repeating a silly internet meme.

          It’s just a bad faith argument based on a poor understanding of industrial development by people who cannot credit the British or the West in general with any postive moral qualities.

          Even today farm labor is still necessary.

      • Spot-on! The war between the states was actually about which economic model would dominate; a local, industrial economy or an export-oriented agrarian one. Slavery was the excuse, not the cause.

    • You are historically illiterate: there were still plenty of uses for slaves. Only in the 20th century did the West develop technology which could replace cheap agricultural labour.

    • Slavery was never abolished, read the 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

      You just have to be convicted of a crime to be compelled to work for no compensation. The state just monopolized the practice and leases out the use of its capital to private prisons.

  31. Modern society is propagating undesirable traits in humans and suppressing the reproduction of decent and intelligent people.
    It’s everything from government handouts to African single mothers as the father of those children goes about making more babies with other women while getting his money car jacking and causing mayhem.
    Or the medical field spending enormous amounts of money saving the infant of that car jacker and mayhem creater whom is born premature within a highly expensive modern medical system paid for by white civilization.
    Or giving taxpayer paid medical care to anyone crossing our borders as they show up in the emergency room with three dogs and five kids in tow.
    This will never be stopped.
    The modern age has all the common sense of a child born to Elizabeth Warren or AOC fathered by Julian Castro.
    I listen to the discussion on eugenics
    It’s all true.
    But will never happen or be managed properly unless a collapse of civilization happens and a new one arises..

    • You are exactly correct. In this country, this criminal justice reform that “conservatives” have taken up as their big cause is simply releasing vast numbers of “non-violent” blacks and latinos with predictable results. I’m a big believer in the “broken window” view toward policing and criminal justice and what’s to stop these low-IQ mental midgets who’ve made breaking the law a lifestyle from moving up to violent crime when released? Quick answer, nothing. I wish we could at least sterilize these miscreants before they leave prison.

      • They are not mental midgets wrt knowing risks and playing odds. From reports I’ve read, lots of our vibrant youth admitted to leaving their guns at home when stop and frisk was the policy of NYPD. We also see the opposite when you can beat the system, such as using pre-teens to accept drug purchase money and deliver drugs from stash houses since such “youths” at best go to “juvi”, not prison.

        But I admit, if they had a higher than room IQ, they’d do anything other than sell/use drugs and gang bang.

      • California is the petri dish for cultivating the social cancer of woke justice. By effectively eliminating the penalty for possession or sales of hard drugs, a horde of heroin-addicted orcs has been unleashed to thieve in support of their habit and do violence to anyone frustrating their quest for the next high. We have what is essentially the direct opposite of the “broken windows” or “stop and frisk” theories; and it is failing massively. Why steralize? If long prison sentences are no longer economically viable, let’s return to the death penalty unencumbered by all the ridiculous procedural safeguards. One appeal completed within two years; then swift death for anyone whose conviction is affirmed. Bring back the wisdom of the late Middle Ages to which Zman referred.

        • I hope that California Petri dish continues to quickly go more rancid, even though I live here. I want the rest of the people in our country to be so appalled at what is going on, on the ground here, that this sort of thing gets quickly shut down. May as well go full crazy, I guess that makes me an accelerationist at the local level.

          • I must admit that while I generally oppose accelerationism for the whole country it does seem appropriate for CA. There’s so little left there that’s worth saving and the more the remaining sane people leave the more it becomes an object lesson in how not to do things.

        • I read recently, somewhere, that the ACLU is all-in on protecting civil liberties, but only for the same class of people they have stood up for since their founding, but they are silent when the bourgeoisie’s rights are trampled on by government. So when you talk about crime and punishment and capital punishment, I honestly believe that the left has no intention of stopping incarcerations or capital punishment, but they plan to use it on those of us who are white, male, and middle class. I guess you can call that ACLU eugenics. Keep punching, Maus.

    • Intelligence no longer endows a survival benefit.
      Governments impose a fertility tax upon the productive and provides a fertility benefit to the indigent.

      What could possible go wrong?

    • “Passive” eugenics is now commonly practiced. All large hospitals have eugenics “councilors”. They may term them something different, but that’s their job. Field is growing and positions can’t be filled fast enough. One hospital I am familiar with uses them in cancer treatment and also prebirth planning.

      Yes, folk are becoming aware that they may have family genetic problem that they well may pass on to their future progeny. Even low IQ folks get referred and are respectful, but painfully ignorant.

      Of course, the next logical step is in the womb testing and preventative abortion, all legal these days. At that point, I drop the discussion for the sake of civility among family.

    • We live in an age of eugenics. It’s just that the rootless, alien people who now rule white societies view whiteness as the trait to be bred out of existence. Just take a look at the collapsed birth rates of every white nation.

      • We chose contraception. Ever notice how the Jesuits dropped their white European descendants here in the states to court their new browner clients?

      • The correct word here would be “dysgenics” actually. eu is the prefix for beneficial, dys would instead connote a decline in quality. Less of the people who invented 95% of everything would constitute a decline, not a rise.

  32. I find it funny that Dawkins’s obvious bid to remain relevant caught so many people up. The outrage and overreaction merely makes him seem “controversial” (edgy).

    Has anyone offered Dawkins a guest spot yet?

    • Dawkins is not an unusual character in British intellectual circles. The outspoken intellectual, who violates convention is almost a stock character in Britain. The reaction is all about the feminized culture. Dawkins was just being himself.

    • Dawkin’s is a sad old man. He once ruled the edgy scene as one of the “four horsemen of atheism.” But around 2014 the most powerful religion in the West became Islam and criticizing Islam means criticizing brown people. So Dawkins was cast out, now he takes whatever crumb of attention he can.

      Dave Rubin interviewed him a few years back. Dawkin’s did his atheism bit and when he stuck in a “Trump voters are stupid” the audience of recovering atheists laughed and laughed and, for a moment, Dawkins could relive the atheist glory days. Fuck him, may the next blood clot take him.

      Ultimately, Dawkins’ failure is the failure of atheism. Killing Christianity did not bring about the scientific utopia, it just brought back the worst excesses of paganism and a foreign religion. Dawkins isn’t looking for attention, he’s desperate to get the entire atheist project back on track. Only he’s too stupid to see the Progs got off his line at the last train station.

      • Dawkins made some important contributions, but the over-the-top atheism was what people will remember him for, at least in the short term. it is a shame, but the narcotic of minor celebrity is powerful stuff.

        It’s important to not confuse the man with the message, however. Dawkins the man is not the point in this discussion.

        • His selfish gene nonsense is debunked. It was nice read for guys like me who were into PUA back in da day. What else he got? Da Meme? He tried to be edgy with his cannibalism statement, but it only made him look more like an attention whore than he already was.

          • His selfish gene nonsense is debunked.

            Not at all, the title of the book is much misunderstood. Dawkins (aside from giving a lucid introduction to the theory of evolution) convincingly argues how “selfish” genes could produce altruistic behavior.

            (Of course, genes can’t be selfish since they are not conscious and don’t act in the usual understanding of the word, but the way natural selection works, makes them appear so.)

            There’s a lot to it, but the nub of it can be summed up in the words of J.B.S Haldane: “I’d lay down my life for two of my brothers or eight of my cousins”. This describes rather well a healthy tribal mindset and, proposes Dawkins, could be explained by the fact that your willingness to act altruistically, is proportionate to the number of genes you share with the tribal member in question.

            To further this argument, a soldier is willing to give his life for the notion that he saves, say, a hundred of his tribesmen by doing so. He may not be directly related to them, but since they’re tribe, they each share a hundred-part of their genome with the soldier.

            The Selfish Gene is quite an accomplishment, Dawkins’ explanation being somewhat akin how Newton explained the motion of the planets by a falling apple – albeit nowhere near as revolutionary, of course.

          • What u just said is common sense, ofc people prefer those of their own tribe.
            That’s not what was debunked about his theory, natural selection is more than gene propagation(that’s what was debunked), that’s only one factor out of many as others. To put it shortly a white Liberal would probably not lend a helping hand to a white nationalist, despite them belonging to da same genepool.

          • Dawkins never claimed that he had sorted out evolution and takes great pains in his book to explain that genetic propagation is not the end-all, be-all of evolution.

            I admit it might seem a pedandic distinction, but Dawkins says this: “Given so-and-so, we would expect to see so-and-so because so-and-so”.

            He points out a correlation, he doesn’t posit causation. As Newton said: hypoteses non fingo – it is up to the reader to make hypotheses.

            In that sense, The Selfish Gene can’t be “debunked”, because there’s nothing there to debunk.

      • The man who gave us “memetics” now reduced to this.

        Turns out that trying to be a “Cultural Christian” just means you have no real moral basis to object to anything.

        • Walrus, “moral basis” is no sine qua non for objecting to anything. That’s why Zman wrote above that, “The war on our collective humanity…means denying us the legitimacy to want what we want for no other reason than we want it.”

      • I love the whole “Trump voters and Republicans are stupid” shtick. They are the most un-self-aware people in existence. It never even occurs to them that they are on the side of the 85 and 92 IQ groups, not to mention the criminal underclass. They have close to 100% of the black vote and some ridiculously high percentage of the Mestizo vote. They are the two lowest IQ racial groups in the country.

        • I think they know this wrt IQ and constituency. Every once in a while they let those feelings emerge, ala Bloomberg.

          When I hear such, I just assume they are talking about the group they really identify with—the ruling elites. Some think they are part of it already, other hope to join the group eventually. But is any event, such a group is not you, nor me.

          Ironically, we may be closer to those low IQ groups, wrt common interest, rights, and human dignity than are these elitists.

          • I accept that some of us are not part of the ruling elites because there is no causal link between IQ and political power. But I do not except that in consequence we have something in common with the low IQ hordes. It is precisely the sense of alienation from both ruling power and moral chaos that is so isolating and black-pilled. That is why forming irl communities is the first order of dissident business.

      • I’ve always found it useful to discern a difference between “atheists” and what I term “anti-theists”. Dawkins is an example of the latter. We’ve always had atheists and agnostics and deists. But at the bottom line, they have a live and let live relationship with “believers”. I have no problems with atheists nor believers. I believe we see such a mixture in this group, yet little dissenting stemming from such. A comment here, a rejoinder there, and it’s back to the issue at hand—as it should be. We are here to discuss our common interests.

        Something seems to have arisen in our new permissive society—folk who actually make it a point to use the system to fight against any god centered religious based belief system. Nothing less will do for these folk than to drive religious practice and belief from the public sphere and into some hidden recess of the mind—which I’m certain they’d go after if they had the ability.

        I have always had an idea in the back of my mind that “anti-theists” have a disappointment with god and are after a fashion fighting against God through His believers. In some way, ironically, they *believe* in God as much as His believers.

        Now Dawkins might simply be a grifter in his anti-theist extremism, but I think the example still holds in general for such folk, grifters aside.

        • I am somewhat a reluctant atheist. I try to get around it by being a cultural Christian.
          The whole atheist movement is largely funded and led by “secular” Jews trying to break the back of our Christian culture. All of the anti-Christian stuff has been spearheaded by Jews, Most of it is pretty recent. When my parents were in school, for instance, they had to pray every day. School prayer was only illegal in schools for maybe 10 years when I started school around 1975. But I was in Catholic school.

          I will take the Christians over the “secular” left any day of the week. It ain’t the religious right pushing transgenderism on children!

        • Compsci, I think the “anti-god, disappointed in god” types are simply a wholly owned subset of those who are disappointed in America, disappointed in Western Civilization, disappointed in Trump and anyone who doesn’t hate him, and so on and so on. They are disappointed in their own lives and selves, IMHO, and project it all out as the fault of “xxx”. The “anti-theists” are just a particular manifestation of all the rest of it. Treat them accordingly.

          • Could be. But the treat them accordingly is the key. In that respect, we are in total agreement—they are toxic to the body communal.

        • Atheists get the bullet, too. Your cult is your culture – to say you have no cult but the idolatry of your clan is the sort of totemism that can be shown no quarter.

          Eventually. We’ll try to reason with them first.

      • Dawkins’ involvement with the “New Atheism” that briefly flourished around 2010-2015 (basically Obama’s 2nd term) frequently illustrated that the NA movement, like so much of our current culture, was not really about what it was about.

        The “elevatorgate” incident (which may or may not have even happened) is a case in point. Briefly, there was a female grifter named Rebecca Watson. She had become “famous” in the NA circuit initially by posing for some kind of “girls of atheism” pinup calendar. Yes, such things existed… One day she was at a NA conference when some guy invited her back to his room “for coffee” at about 4AM while they were riding the elevator at the hotel. I admit that at first I didn’t even understand what the whole thing was about. I kept waiting for the rest of the story but there was none. That was it – a chubby pinup girl who generally cultivated a reputation as a slut was treated like a slut in an elevator. Apparently Dawkins also didn’t get the punchline of this joke and made some “insensitive” comments basically suggesting that RW was just another privileged white feminist complaining about first world problems while there actually were women in, say, the Islamic world, with real problems.

        The rageheads lost their tiny little minds over this and in fact NA immediately bifurcated into pro and anti RW camps with the pro-RW one being dominant (and the most shrill). You can imagine the sex of most members of each camp. To me the RW nonsense illustrated this difference between the superficial goals of organizations of all types and the real purposes they now serve. Superficially NA was about rationalism, scientific truth, and critical thinking. Dawkins and his fellow horsemen certainly thought this was the actual core of the thing. Underneath though, the rank and file was just the same feminists and SJWs who pile onto anything they think will help them complete the destruction of Western society. Once they took over they were predictably outraged when Dawkins or the other horsemen stuck to their guns about all that critical thinking and science stuff – “You guys are supposed to shut up and let us take it from here now!”

        • Was this the conference where the scientist stepped first onto the elevator and turned around to the group as if he were the elevator attendant and said, “Fourth floor — Ladies Lingerie” ?

          Apparently the new feminist had never seen an old movie.

          Up til about 1975, this was a job that, by and large, elderly blacks held in department stores – back when Black men expected to be gainfully employed in their later years. Customers knew the elevator operators, bathroom attendants – also physicians, pharmacists, and tradesmen- and so on. It was part of the pleasant social lubrication associated with something as mundane as shopping. Seems kind of trivial, but the fact that all classes were in very close contact was pleasant and familiar – the exact opposite of being surrounded by strangers and its alienating effect. People knew how to converse with others of different classes and they weren’t hesitant to.

          Now, you never see the same clerk twice and the only conversation is some state-mandated question like ” dya want a bag?”

          Murray’s book “Coming Apart” goes into great detail about how society is coming apart (social class-wise) with the middle class dying – largely due to the overly educated marrying the overly educated. But he kind of glosses over how that means the IQ gap between the two classes is also coming part. No amount of redistribution/reparations can bridge that gap.

      • He once ruled the edgy scene as one of the “four horsemen of atheism.”

        Edgy? That’s Dawkins in his dotage – none of those guys were edgy in any way, they merely took advantage of an America innocent of atheist notions and easily shocked.

        When he was at the top of his game, he wrote “The Selfish Gene” – the best layman book on evolution ever written.

        Killing Christianity did not bring about the scientific utopia

        Atheism was never about science or utopia, it was about not believing in stuff for which there is zero evidence, especially if said stuff is magic mushroom weird. “Atheism” is a misnomer, there’s no -ism involved.

        Look at it this way: you don’t believe in Ganesh, the elephant god for the same reason other people don’t believe in Jehova, the Jew god. In fact, I figure there’s at least a thousand gods you don’t believe in, so you’re 99.9% atheist – the difference between you and me amounts to 0.1%

        • Oh, my. The old, “Atheists just don’t believe in one more god than Christians don’t believe in,” thing? I had hoped for better.

          • Sorry, Champ, don’t wanna turn Z’s comments into atheist debate. I will simply note that the “one god fewer” line is one of those that’s not even wrong. It’s sorta clever, I admit, but it’s just not a serious thing to say. The Problem of Evil, maybe, can be served up by someone serious, but this? You’re better than that.

          • “Oh, that old argument! Hah ha, we won’t even deign to refute it!” Maybe the arguments are old because theists have never been able to refute them 🙂

        • Felix, I don’t believe in an Elephant god—true. But I don’t harangue my Indian friends with regard to their belief in such either. Nor do I get upset when I pass by the office of Prof Gupta with his picture of Shiva on the wall (true scenario at last position). This was the essence of my posting. That’s the difference between myself and Dawkins and others that I label “anti-theists”

          • That’s the difference between myself and Dawkins and others that I label “anti-theists”

            Yes, I appreciate that distinction, I was reacting to the four horsemen being called edgy. Apart from Sam Harris, they were all over the hill professionally when they found this cushy little gig that didn’t require them to do any intellectual heavy lifting but gave them tons of talk show appearances, where they got to curb-stomp hapless light-weights.

            Dawkins is a whole different level of assholery, but both him and Hitchens – and types like Milo Yiannopoulos and Gavin McInnes – have made careers out wielding British class bigotry at American tradcons with a posh accent, something that to prog Americans can pass for wit in a dim light.

            None of these gentlemen would be able to fill a phone booth back in Blighty with the God-shtick and the gay-baiting, and if they’d use that condescending boarding school tone of voice on a British audience, they’d probably get booed.

            As for the latter half of my post, I suppose that was more a reply to this thread in general and in a broader sense, the hostile attitude towards atheists on US right wing sites. It doesn’t really bother me any more, but I still feel obliged to put down a marker from time to time, remind people that for those not to salvation born, Christianity looks no different than any other religion: a bunch of crazy old folk tales with not the flimsiest shred of evidence to back it up.

          • No affront taken. As I’ve said, your postings and subsequent insights are alway well received. Keep it up.

        • Hitchens’s outburst against Christianity was the product of a couple of things. He despised Reagan era evangelicals and curiously, their influence was dwindling anyway. But the thing that really lit him up seemed to be the death threats to his literary pals – the Theo Van Goh, Salman Rushdie fatwa, death threats to the Danish cartoonists, and so on. In other words – censorship backed by Islamic violence.

          That scene largely died down after his death – before Merkle and the globalists began their great importation projects. He had no idea what was coming our way, but had already started making some candid observations about how badly diversity was working out.

          I suspect if he had lived to watch the recent unravelling of our civilization (in the US) and the left’s drive for censorship (not to mention the tech giants), he would have dropped his hostility toward Christianity. He did have the balls and moral courage to re-evaluate it all. I’m not so confident about the other three. Dawkins and Dan often expressed their totalitarian preference of making decisions for the lower classes – something Sam never expressed, to my knowledge, anyway.

          Maybe Hitchens would never be a believer in Christianity himself, but he would certainly be completely repulsed by what his own godless/soulless friends and acquaintances are doing in the name of Progressivism. He would have dropped his own religious belief that people don’t need God to be moral – when seeing just how those very people he had faith in operate now. Ironically, he was very much a man of Christian morality and culture, whether or not he believed in the plot twists.

          • I suspect if he had lived to watch the recent unravelling of our civilization (in the US) and the left’s drive for censorship (not to mention the tech giants), he would have dropped his hostility toward Christianity.

            So do I, or at least that he’d had found something better to spend his time on. I understand why he’d go after Islam, given Rushdie and so forth, but he went on year after year, serving up the same baked-over hash; it was easy money.

            He did have the balls and moral courage to re-evaluate it all.

            Yes. He not only defended Holocaust revisionists, he explicitly praised David Irving for his biography on Goebbels. That’s pretty much a get-out-of-jail-free-card in my book. A shame he spent so much time arguing 7th-grader stuff.

            He would have dropped his own religious belief that people don’t need God to be moral – when seeing just how those very people he had faith in operate now.

            Atheism is not a belief, just like not playing tennis isn’t a sport. That”s why atheism isn’t an -ism.

            You don’t need an invisible friend to be a moral person. Scandinavia is the most atheist region in the world, and I have noted no real practical difference in ethics between heritage Americans and Scandinavians. If anything, Scandinavia suffers from a superabundance of what would be called “Christian” values in America, but is called “citizen-mindedness” in Scandinavia: love thine enemy, turn the other cheek, be a good Samaritan and so forth.

            That’s because both cultures are NW European, and ethics, whether religious or not, is downstream from culture and culture is downstream from genetics. I bet Christianity in the Middle East is a entirely different beast.

            Also, Christians are amongst the worst offenders when it comes to promoting poz and multiculture. If you browse through Mistress Malkin’s book on the refugee industrial complex, it’s crawling with Christian organisations.

        • No. No, no, no. I’m fully in the “God is a mass delusion of people seeking a sky daddy to bring order to a disordered universe” camp, but to say that atheism is a null value is dumb. There has to be some authority to the world.

          If sky-daddy doesnt exist than the priests in the white lab coats take over. That was the promise of biologist-athesists like Dawkins
          and they had a major following in the millenial generation.

          Only they fucked up. Instead of bringing about the great empirical holy land where even democracy wasn’t sacred enough to order our lives, we got Marianne Williamson charging 19.99 USD for a mood candle and 99 flavors of gender.

          No one knows what comes next but bloviating about evidence of sky daddy ended in complete failure and, as shown by Dawkins eugenic tweet, took science with it.

          • If sky-daddy doesnt exist than the priests in the white lab coats take over.

            Why is that? Why would I let a physicist, a chemist or an astronomer preach morals to me, just because I don’t believe in fairies? Atheism =/= scientism.

            There has to be some authority to the world.

            Vade retro satana! Of all the pro-god arguments I’ve run into, the most worrying, not to say profoundly alarming, is this: “But if we don’t fear hell, what’s to stop us from lying, stealing and killing”? If you need an invisible friend to decide for you if murder is okay or not, you’re not going to babysit my children.

            we got Marianne Williamson charging 19.99 USD for a mood candle and 99 flavors of gender.

            Christians do that nonsense too.

            No one knows what comes next

            The same as came before.

            As the Zen master says: you’ve got one arrow.

          • Dawkins represents an attempt to make genetics and science the basis for the good life. See his book, Unweaving the Rainbow specifically the opening lines, “We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones.” This is an attempt to have scientific facts provide a feel good message just like religion.

            This science-as-religion extends to public debates. Merely wanting something is not enough, you have to justify it with the holy writ of studies and experts. Not only does Science now provide us with a reason to live, we are stardust after all; but is a guide to how we MUST live. I’m not talking about going to the gym and eating healthy, I’m talking about worshiping the sainted immigrant who, studies show, commits less crime than you, uses less healthcare than you, works harder than you and pleasures your wife more than you.

            But Dawkin’s fall from grace represents the contradiction of this type of thinking. Big S Science can be bent to justify anything, like blank slate ideology. Eugenics is a disproven theory after all. You see eugenics CAN’T just be a moral evil, it MUST be unscientific. And if racism is unscientific, than I can be a god damn tree-kin, that’s just science bro.

          • Dawkins represents an attempt to make genetics and science the basis for the good life.

            No. He attempts to explain our notion of the good life by genetics.

            “We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones.”

            I haven’t read that book, but I can certainly agree with that: Heaven sounds all fine and dandy, but after a hundred years? A thousand? A billion? And it doesn’t stop there, it’s for ETERNITY!

            Just take me down behind the woodshed already!

            but is a guide to how we MUST live.

            Science is nothing of the kind, it is not prescriptive. That’s one of the many things that distinguishes it from religion.

        • Atheism was never about science or utopia, it was about not believing in stuff for which there is zero evidence

          Oh Felix, this was disappointing coming from you. You just walked into a Marxist beartrap; The logically defensible position scientifically is agnosticism, which comes in a weak and a strong version (that you dont know about the validity of religion or that it is undefined from your point of view, respectively). Atheism is an active rejection of religion and it is a marxist lie that it is a ‘passive position’. It is one of the most effective attacks on culture yet devised. And this old marxist hunter just took it, hook, line and sinker. I dont always agree w you but you re often pretty good. Here Ol Karl pulled one on you.

          • The logically defensible position scientifically is agnosticism,

            Are you agnostic in regards to Ganesh? Is it Commie claptrap to “deny” the existence of Santa Claus? I mean, since there’s no way you can logically disprove the existence of either, it must be the only scientifically defensible position to maintain that you cannot say for certain either way. Right?

            No, it’s not right, that’s not how science work. It’s the Russell’s Teapot-fallacy. Agnosticism is intellectual cowardice, something you tell religious people as to not offend them too much with your atheism.

            Atheism is an active rejection of religion and it is a marxist lie that it is a ‘passive position’.

            And when did you actively choose to reject Ganesh – when was the first time you said to yourself, “Dammit, Old Charlie sold me: I don’t want to believe in Ganesh anymore”?

          • 20,000 BC three men are standing, looking at a mountain range, on the other side of which no one from the tribe has ever been. A girl from the tribe asks what is behind the mountains.

            The first man, Religio, says there is a sunny valley with lush pastures, crystal clear streams, plenty of game and juicy fruits on every tree.

            Atheisticus Congesticus looks at Religio with scorn and says ‘no, there is nothing behind the mountains. Nothing but parched desert for eternity.’

            The last guy, Brainius Getsthegirliecus, says to Sugababica, ‘I don’t know. But let’s go and find out.’ (And that’s how we got out of Africa lol)

            Atheism is a religion, the religion whose alter is called ‘the rejection of religion’ and makes postulates about things that are principally unknowable to us. And the zealous impulse to proselytize shows that it is neurobiologically a religion as well.

            Uncle Karl approves of your view, b/c it is wonderful for dissolving cultures and pave the way for the worker’s paradise. By contrast I hope you will eventually one day reach the other side of the mountain 🙂

          • The flaw of your parable is that Atheisticus would have no reason to think that there was nothing behind the mountains.

            As for Brainius and Sugarbabicus, the only way to find out if religion is true, is to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger – and in 20,000 bc, leaving the tribe to follow a religious nutter visionary would surely get you the same result.

            And the frustration of not knowing, the nagging doubt that maybe you’ve lived your entire life on a lie, has been known to drive people to desperate measures.

            Jesus, according to legend, acceded to his own crucifixion to prove his point, and what did he discover when he was hanging on the cross, peering into the Big Nowhere?

            “Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani?”

            God wasn’t there to greet him! How is that for a deathbed conversion?

            Atheism is a religion

            There is no dogma in atheism, no rules, no crazy fairy tales, no priests and no pope, no funny hats, no sermons, no moralfagging and, very importantly, no tithes.

            To repeat: not playing tennis is not a sport.

            And the zealous impulse to proselytize shows that it is neurobiologically a religion as well.

            The impulse to object to statements you disagree with, is neither zealotry nor proselytizing, but yes, the religious impulse has indeed been located to a particular area of the brain, so if you can show that this particular area lights up in an MRI-scan when atheists discuss god, I’m willing to listen.

            Uncle Karl approves of your view, b/c it is wonderful for dissolving cultures

            The utilitarian (dare I say materialistic?) stance: you should believe in god because it’s good for you. Sorry, belief doesn’t work that way.

            And also, Christians are perfectly capable of destroying cultures without any help from Uncle Karl – they are doing it to America right now.

          • It’s not a flaw. He makes a claim he doesn’t know about. So do atheists. That is why they are not agnostics, the former make a claim, the latter acknowledge that such is not for man to know.

            There is no dogma in atheism, no rules

            That is factually untrue. The dogma is ‘there is no god’. The rule is ‘reject religions as superstition’. These have proven plenty sufficient to spout a religion, the religion of atheism. So sorry, no cigar there.

            The utilitarian (dare I say materialistic?) stance: you should believe in god because it’s good for you. Sorry, belief doesn’t work that way.

            Hehe nice bait about materialism 🙂 If religion is required for the survival and long-term thriving of society, that seems to me a bit of an idealistic position to take on faith. In matters of survival, don’t be an idealist, Be a survivor.

          • The dogma is ‘there is no god’.

            Fair enough. Yes, you can’t very well be an atheist if you believe otherwise, but that’s pretty much it. One axiom does not a religion make.

            He makes a claim he doesn’t know about.

            There’s a difference between claiming “there must be something rather than nothing behind that mountain” and “there might or might not be a 300-foot unicorn farting piping hot bison burgers, so I am undecided on the notion as long as I haven’t checked myself.”

          • Or how about this: the person claiming that there’s nothing behind the mountain, is making a claim that runs contrary to all real world experiences. The null hypothesis is that the countryside on the other side of the mountain is similar to the land on this side.

            Claiming that there is nothing, is the religious stance because religious people claim that all the laws of nature and all the experiences of the real world, are rendered null and void when you enter the kingdom of god.

          • I cannot reason you out of a position you did not reason yourself into. You are using the wrong tools from science here. The null hypothesis is not the right one b/c you do not have the information to either prove or disprove it.

            You need to look at whether you have sufficient information to answer the question. You do not. But, as an atheist, you still make a claim about it, as you confirmed when you agreed that atheists claim there is no god. That means you make a claim about something unknowable to you via science. This makes you religious.

            In a way it is a more abstract sibling to the question of whether there is life in the universe outside Earth. You are making the equivalent claim of ‘no’, b/c ‘you have no evidence.’ A person of some religion says the equivalent of ‘yes and it is such and such.’ The question of religions is simply different semantics arguing about an uncountably infinite multiverse.

            We can argue this point until til the elephant-headed cows come home. Scientifically speaking I am right, as I apply that approach. And you are making a faith based claim. You are assuming that the parts of the multiverses you have no access to, are similar to the part of this universe you do understand. You are the religious one here and I am the scientist, sorry.

          • You need to look at whether you have sufficient information to answer the question. You do not.

            There is no such thing as sufficient information when it comes to non-falsifiable propositions.

            I’ve already made this point several times, but let me try once more: you are not an agnostic when it comes to Santa and (I’d guess) when it comes to Ganesh, so why are you agnostic about some Hebrew volcano god? Are you agnostic as to whether an angel spoke to an illiterate, Arab goat herder?

            But, as an atheist, you still make a claim about it

            The only claim I make is that you propose fantastical cosmologies based on zero evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

            In a way it is a more abstract sibling to the question of whether there is life in the universe outside Earth. You are making the equivalent claim…

            That is not an equivalent claim. Believing in life outside the solar system doesn’t require me to believe in magic.

          • “Doctor Simba, my son believes he has an invisible friend, and he’s talking to him almost every day. Please make it stop”.

            “Now, Mr Krull, don’t be so prejudiced! For all we know, there could be an invisible boy living in your house.”

          • You are wrong about the claim you make and you are wrong about the claim that can be made in favor of religions. You are claiming to know something about domains you have no access to, namely the name where a god may exist, whether it is a parallel universe or a bigger universe of which our universe is a subset. You are saying there is no god there. That is an active claim and since there is zero information available from this place, it is a faith based claim. That is why I call it a religious claim in its own right.

            The other claim, the one you ascribe to religious people, is a bit of a strawman. Most (non-idiotic) religious people are quite careful about ascribing too many characteristics to their god. I think it is the Muslims who say ‘you can know nothing about Allah’ or something to that effect. When they ascribe anthropomorphic characteristics to their god, your argument seems better, b/c the god easily becomes Santa Claus like. But there could still easily be a god and they are simply wrong about the specifics of him (or her or it or they or whatever gender God feels like assuming today).

            At the end of the day, atheism, to retain any meaning in that word, is an active belief that there is no god. And since god would almost have to live outside our universe, wherever he is, is by definition a place we have zero information about. Hence atheism is by definition a BELIEF. And that is why it is so closely related to religions, philosophically speaking. No amounts of strawmen arguments about Santas or Ganeesh or unicorns, has any influence on the logic of that argument.

            I also believe, as mentioned above, that it is a religion psychologically. It’s religious article of faith is simply ‘I reject all religions.’ To say that these words can turn it from a religion to a nonreligion is to place the formal semantics over the objective characteristics of a subject. Ie to claim that the word ‘hammer’ is more real than the object used to drive nails into wood. In other words, it is the very opposite of what science does.

          • You are claiming to know something about domains you have no access to

            The problem here is that there is only one “domain”, the domain of the real. By pluralizing the word, you posit a fictional “domain”, a domain of angels, demons and talking snakes, one which, by definition is outside the real, outside the knowable, and once you go there, there are millions of “domains” that you’d have to be agnostic about: gnomes, elves, dwarves, pixies, mermaids, trolls, ghosts and so forth.

            What is posited without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

            Most (non-idiotic) religious people are quite careful about ascribing too many characteristics to their god.

            Because non-idiotic people recognize that any claim you make about god, must be subordinate to the domain of science. And as science progresses, this leave god less and less space, gradually turning him into a deistic figure and rendering the original purpose of religion void: a god with no characteristics is not much use, is he?

            At the end of the day, atheism, to retain any meaning in that word, is an active belief that there is no god.

            If you wish to call it that, but belief is still not the same as religion. Is Santa Denialism a religion?

            It’s religious article of faith is simply ‘I reject all religions.’

            Are you religious if you believe that people with penises cannot be women?

            The act of dismissing an impossible claim, does not a religion make.

            No amounts of strawmen arguments about Santas or Ganeesh or unicorns, has any influence on the logic of that argument.

            Those are not strawmen, those are analogies and quite exact ones when it comes to their ontological status: the volume of evidence for each of these characters is exactly the same as for the Jewish Volcano God: zero.

            So how about you address my point instead of calling it a straw man? Why are not you not a Santagnostic? Why do your arguments not apply to Ganesh or the Spaghetti Monster? According to your own definition, you can’t know that there’s no Santa or no Elephant God, since they exist in another domain.

Comments are closed.