Full Thread: #1 Christianity Thread
View Single Post
Old January 27th, 2011 #102
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Default

I don't wan't to take the thread off-topic, but we've already had several posts along these lines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Streed View Post
On eugenics, it should probably be set up so somewhere around the bottom 10% are sterilized, male and female. This would be done at somewhere around age 12-14, the potential of a child should be evident by then.

A few generations should show results.

The top 5-10% would be the target for the priesthood, defenders, whatever you wanted to call them, and of course the very best would furnish the leadership. They would be screened for symptoms of psychopathy and any showing psychopathic tendencies would be sterilized.

It is way more complex than that really. There might be psychological traits that are deemed important enough to warrant a certain amount of slack on IQ. I don't know, but I do know that we will need to start and the details can be worked out as they come up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Maguire" via FAEM
http://home.att.net/~dysgenics/eug.htm
Eugenics Is Back?

The Proven Value of American Negative Selective Eugenics and
The Continuing Fallacies of Positive Eugenics Breeding Theories

And my point is, even if a small group of people would pool their resources and breed children that would have IQs in the
above 180 group, these few children with the right training and dedication would be the driving force for change and human advancement. Just one child with an IQ above 180 and with the conscientiousness to use it, is worth a thousand average children with the best education money can buy.

Practical experience says that when one engineers to optimize just one capability, one winds up with a highly suboptimized
construct. If I.Q. measurements alone were the ultimate determinant of human value, then Mensa wouldn't contain such a huge
density of truck drivers, waitresses and trailer park Sealey Posturepedic Mattress Queens.

That writer also cited the Jews as a positive example of a eugenics program designed to optimize 'intelligence'. If I were to use
the Jews as an example of eugenics, it would be to illustrate the infinite social dangers of trying to optimize for just one trait on the basis of empirical observations. Physically and emotionally they are a mess. Ashkenazi Jews have a strong congenital defect
known as Tay Sachs Disease. Just ask any obstetrics doctor. This is why medical questionnaires for pregnant women always ask about Ashkenazi Jew lineage. Jews also experience far higher than average rates of insanity and other mental and emotional dysfunctions.

Jews also provide the only known example of a nation conducting a four sided civil war while under external siege from
foreigners. See Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War. Their civic quotients are so low it takes threatened genocide to unite them and even then they don't cooperate effectively. Nor do people with 'high intelligence' alone have a long term track record of
community survival or security dominance. If they did, the Jews would still be in southern Lebanon, rather than battling
Palestinians inspired by Hezbollah's example of protracted war.

The experimental data to date indicate that optimizing for high IQ as currently defined will merely produce the results we
presently have around us. A great deal of historical experience says it also produces a mindset incapable of truly long term
planning since the products of that program are incapable of living in symbiosis with their hosts.

The current state of the art is not advanced enough to allow for a positive program of selective eugenics. The doctors can weigh in again on positive selective eugenics when they've cured cancer. That happy day will also be serious scientific evidence they know enough to speak authoritatively on the subject of chromosomes, genes, DNA and RNA. At the current time positive
selective eugenics stands on a par with many DaVinci mental inventions. It's great in theory but the technology simply doesn't
exist to implement.

Eugenics as applied by the male and female mind always produces two different results. Margaret Sanger, who had an emotional sympathy for the National Socialist program in Germany, is a classic case in point. She believed in eugenics for other races and 'lower' (apparently measured by economics) whites. She was also a nymphomaniac of the first water. Her ultimate contributions, birth control pills and abortion, are the two biggest backfires in history. They turned out to be precision guided munitions for preempting future intelligent white babies. All the "lessers" either refused or are too stupid to effectively use them.

Eugenics programs limited only to mate selection will not succeed. Most females practice this in some degree or another already. Nor is heredity the only factor. If it were, we would not be in the midst of a crisis of fetal alcohol syndrome, "crack babies" and children damaged by parentally transmitted venereal disease. Heredity establishes the potential upper limit. Environment will either facilitate or cripple the realization of that potential. In the current environmental chaos our emphasis as white patriots must be on reestablishing lawful authority and stable social conditions. It is useless to consider any positive eugenics program when the present social environment handicaps utilization of current maximum potential.

There is one example of a successful multigeneration eugenics program.

The previous eugenics programs in the U.S.A running from the very late 19th Century until the late 1960s were very effective.
They operated on the principle of herd culling. Most inmates of mental institutions and many prisoners were sterilized. There was no attempt at either "scientific" selection based on inadequate science or breeding programs based on unproved theories. The selection criteria were based on 'Civic Quotient' and 'Emotional Quotient' deficiencies as measured by criminal conviction or institutionalization. Compared to attempts to breed two arbitrary ideals together, the American program was precision targeted at selecting out identifiable dysfunctions. The American program was the most scientific ever implemented. It was backed by epidemiology studies that proved mental illness and criminality was far more prevalent in certain families and thus had a strong genetic component. And it did not attempt more than was proven by the existing state of the art.

Much of the German National Socialist program of negative selective eugenics was copied directly from American practices
which had been operating for a generation at that time. The Germans also started some selective positive programs grouped
together under the label of "Lebensborn". These positive breeding experiments have great theoretical and emotional appeal to
white patriots. These positive selective eugenics experiments operated for too brief a time to produce statistically significant
results. The short period of a few years, combined with the environmental contamination of the post war Morgenthau famine,
Soviet rapine, deportation and chaos mean that the Lebensborn program, and specifically S.S. breed matchings, can never be
evaluated scientifically. Assumptions that they would have worked will always remain just that.

Following World War II the U.S.A. programs were progressively restricted and finally aborted by the late 1960s in a series of
ZOG court rulings. First the involuntary sterilizations were stopped. Subsequently almost all the mental patients were
deinstitutionalized. Now they live under bridges, sleep on steam grates, throng the soup kitchens, are frequently addicted to drugs and fund it all with low level street crime, begging and sporadic charity. They have no shelter when it snows and don't know where their next meal is coming from. But they are free to breed, particularly the women among them who turn to prostitution. I ask anyone to tell me who was more humane: Bad old racist sexist U.S.A. or kinder gentler ZOGland? Back in the bad old days such unfortunates at least had a warm bed and three square meals in the county mental hospital. Nor did they propagate new generations of dysfunctionals.

The increase in U.S crime rates, the decline in composite population academic performance and the collapse in white birth rates correlates with the progressive elimination of American style eugenics and their replacement by Sanger-Jewish "feminist eugenics".

The American program of negative selective eugenics did operate for a sufficiently long period to produce discernible results.
Communist New Dealers and Jews have been quick to take credit for the American Era that started approximately in 1940 and
ended in the late 1960s. Certainly it was an era of unparalleled economic and scientific advance. Diverse ideological factions
variously credit homosexual Keynsian economics, Jewish Marxist economics, Jewish immigration or stolen German technology for that period. Few want to recognize the American Eugenics factor. The beginning of the period in the 1940s marked the maturity of the first full American generation subjected to American style eugenics. The end of the American Era marked the rise to maturity of the children of a generation that was progressively less culled. Our present posture on the brink of a New Dark Age marks the maturity of a generation not at all subjected to American negative selective eugenics and that was subjected to female eugenics of the Margaret Sanger style.

The older American eugenics program was not restricted to whites. American blacks and American Indians who 'qualified'
themselves because of mental deficiency or criminal behavior were also included in the programs of sterilization. It would
therefore be inaccurate to say that American eugenics were racist. They were not in that regard. There was a tendency towards
more inclusiveness of negroes and Indians because the law was White Law. Miscegenation between whites and blacks was
usually outlawed, and miscegenation in general strongly discouraged. The country was multi-racial but the society was racially
segregated.

This racially inclusive eugenics policy had its results. Today American negroes are universally considered superior in intelligence
to Haitian negroes or African negroes. African newspapers sometimes even comment on this fact, although they explain this
disparity by accusing whites of having 'stolen' the best genes from Africa. This explanation is oxymoronic on its face since it was stronger negroes who were selling the weaker negroes to Arab and Jewish slave traders. What the Evil White Man actually did was improve his initially inferior Negro breed stock. Miscegenation accounts for some of this gap, improved environmental factors for some more, but they don't explain all or even the majority of the large gap between the average American negro and the average African negro.

This same effect can be seen among American Indians. They are demonstrably superior in all measurements to Mexican and
South American Indians. Yet it was the Indians of South America who possessed the higher Aztec, Mayan, and Inca Empires.
What accounts for this remarkable reversal of human quality factors between the two populations of Indians? Neither American
Negroes or American Indians rose to the white level but they are measurably superior when compared to their coracialists in
other countries and continents. This is because none of their coracialists were subjected to a negative eugenics program
conducted according to white law. What happened to end this happy state of affairs precisely when it was starting to return
decisive results?

It's not only modern American whites who display an apparent decay compared to previous generations. Other commentators
have noticed a qualitative decline among American negroes and American Indians compared to their recent ancestors. The
influence of media cannot account for all this because the three groups constitute very different media markets.

There is also one large white racial group in America that still practices the 'American System' of selecting out for poor civic and emotional quotients. This group is the Old Order Amish. This becomes clear once one studies their social system. While one must be born Amish, that is no guarantee of remaining Amish and hence propagating the next generation of Amish. One may choose to leave the Order, or one may be 'shunned' for social (criminal) transgressions. This shunning is equivalent to social and economic expulsion from the community. It also constitutes genetic expulsion since no other Amish family will marry a child to a person shunned. The shunned person may reproduce, but he will do so in the general population and not in the Old Order Amish community.

What has been the result of Old Order Amish adherence to American Negative Selection Eugenics? The Old Order Amish are
the only remaining white group in America still productively increasing in population. Highly cohesive and productive Old Order
Amish communities are spreading in territorial extent and also pioneering previously unoccupied areas. The progressive prohibition of American style negative eugenics and the rise of Sanger style eugenics correlates to the increase of the Jewish population in America.

This is a simple demographic and historical fact. It's also confirmed simply by listing the organizations and individuals that
spearheaded the drives to end American negative eugenics and adopt birth control pills and abortion. This is why I said earlier that "the experimental data to date indicate that optimizing for high IQ as currently defined will produce the results we presently have." The Jews themselves are a product of precisely such an older empirical program. Let us not emulate others' failed experiences.

The Jews, both conducting and being the products of a more primitive eugenics program, recognized the mortal threat a
scientifically based program in other races posed to them. The German Lebensborn experiment certainly excites the greatest
emotional reaction in them to this day. The Lebensborn program was also the most similar to their own. But I will assert it was the American program that posed the greatest peril they have ever faced. Not only was it improving American whites but it was also improving American blacks and Indians. The thoughtful Jew looking three generations ahead could foresee a world in which he was far outclassed not only by American whites but probably by American Indians and in which he might only be equal to American blacks. From the Jews' viewpoint this was another 'Holocaust' of far greater peril.

We thus saw another deployment of Rebbe's millenia-old nuclear political weapon: "But the Jews were jealous, so they rounded up some bad characters from the marketplace and started a riot." Acts 17:5

The Jewish social assault against the American white population since World War II has been at least as savage as that against German whites. It has been so savage, so strongly sustained and so carefully coordinated as to make thoughtful whites wonder what in the world they ever did. It's almost as if they were guilty of a 'Holocaust' themselves instead of having fought for the Jews in World War II. From the Jewish viewpoint that is precisely their "crime". It was actually a threatened 'Holocaust' of the Jews being surpassed not only mentally but physically and emotionally and by more than one race of people. Consequently 'saving' the Jews from the National Socialists and rendering vast aid to the Zionist project counted for naught. America was still guilty of the ultimate 'sin'.

Conclusions. The case for a eugenics program based on positive selection for 'intelligence' has one long term data pool. The resulting products in the form of the Jews is very negative as to programs of empirically directed breeding eugenics. The more recent American negative culling program based on 'emotional' and 'civic' measurements rapidly returned far superior results to the society undertaking it. White racialists can continue to maintain a belief that the Lebensborn program would have returned a positive result. But that belief is in fact an article of faith unsupported by scientific measurement. Probability theory indicates equal chances that the S.S. experiments would have returned no result or an adverse result for the same reason as previous Jewish programs: insufficient scientific foundation.

Those interested in positive breeding programs will be well advised to stick to the customs of the millennia until genetic science
further advances. The case for negative culling programs is undeniably established. Those interested in improving societal gene
pools are well advised to focus their efforts on negative selection and sterilization.

End note: Indiana was the first American state to adopt mandatory sterilization of prisoners and institutional patients in 1907. Fifteen other states adopted similar laws by 1918. The majority of American states had similar programs in place by the end of the 1920s. These sterilization programs had varying durations with the typical length being about 50 years. Sterilization of mental patients on an ad hoc basis was typically adopted earlier in each state. Without the benefit of lawerly supervision, doctors exercised greater latitude in their care of feeble-minded charges.

M. Maguire
http://www.faem.com/adlib/2000/a1124.htm