The very short history of suppressing recognition of human races.

Over the years, as part of running my NeoEugenics’ Web Site, there has always been a great deal of discussion about the mechanics of practicing eugenics, as if it was some new program, even if reinvented from an earlier version circa the late 1800s, starting with Galton’s first use of the term. The reality however struck me that breeding crops and animals, along with breeding humans or at least arranging marriages to achieve certain genetic and cultural outcomes, have been around for over ten thousand years. If one looks for a period in history where breeding of humans did not take place—arranged marriages, caste systems, closed religious groups, etc.—it becomes apparent that eugenics, even if not called that, has been with us all along.

Human breeding has only been shunned since about 1930 when Franz Boas and the expanding academic discipline of cultural anthropology in the United States, started their propaganda campaign against the concept of innate racial differences, including even the concept that races had meaning. To these Marxists, everything was cultural and malleable, the genes made little or no difference for behavioral differences between human races. From a race realist standpoint, we should speak of the human species, recognizing races as subspecies, the same way we look at domesticated dogs as a species and breeds of dogs as subspecies.

In reality then, Western culture has only shunned eugenics for the last 75 years or so because we were collectively indoctrinated by the egalitarian, antiracism, anti-genetic zeitgeist of that period that is still in vogue today, though the pendulum has started to swing back towards eugenics. Eugenics then is not so much a program consisting of finding new and better ways of applying good breeding; it is primarily an attempt to overturn radical egalitarianism that denies that there are genetic differences of any significance between individuals to some degree, but absolutely no genetic differences between races. In a desperate attempt to maintain this dogma, they both deny that races exist, and then claim that the poor performance of Blacks on intelligence tests has to do with White racism.

This is the ideology of the radical or naïve environmentalists. A neoeugenics’ program or movement then is not new nor does it have to prove or show that it works because humans have been doing it for thousands of years. Of course, today we are adding powerful new tools to our arsenal for good breeding from the genetic revolution, making eugenics possible in small or large groups, at the family level or national level, etc. The ways of carrying out the program is not technological anymore but a matter of economics. For $10,000 a couple can have fertilized eggs genetically tested to discard the ones that have genetic disease, and implant the very best. This is a matter of money, not just science. When the intelligence genes are located, the acceleration in selective embryo implantation will really take off. Even though it is still taboo to think that intelligence is 80% genetic, the parents who deny the genetic portion will be racing to the labs to have their offspring selected for intelligence along with us current believers.

Before returning to a discussion of Salter’s (and others) so called “extremist” approach to nationalism and racial preservation, I want to touch upon the Left’s contradiction when it comes to racial preservation. Anywhere native or indigenous peoples can be found, there are attempts by the Left to help them preserve their primitiveness against the encroachments of modern civilization. The Left sends in representatives to argue on the part of these natives, that they should be left alone to carry on as they have in the past. What does this mean exactly, to be left alone and carry on as before?

First, a primitive, inbreeding, native population can reach genetic similarity approximating that of first cousins. It is an incestuous small racial group, which by all standards should be suffering from inbreeding depression. If in fact inbreeding depression is genetically always bad, then why don’t advocates for these people help them find a way out of their primitive tribal isolation and integrate them with larger society to reduce the number of “village idiots” and other harmful recessives from expressing themselves? It is obvious that the Left supports indigenous people’s rights to maintain their unique genetic similarity, without ever admitting that other races then should have the same right of genetic and cultural preservation.

The Left or course is not concerned with “racial separatism” for these native people, but rather they use indigenous people’s rights as a weapon against primarily Western culture infringing on native land rights, similar to other anti-progress or anti-technology advocates that are allied against the evils of capitalism and racism. Multiculturalism likewise advocates the preservation of many different cultures within a state or country, but also attacks any White group that declares a preference for their own culture to be maintained, such as White separatists. Mexican Americans can maintain their culture and their isolation from the rest of America, but White separatists cannot. Different standards are applied for different groups—people of color versus Whites. One is encouraged to stay ethnocentric; the other is admonished for racism if they even discuss a preference for living with other Whites.

Whether racial separation is undertaken to preserve racial diversity through preserving racial distinctiveness, or whether it is done to maintain a group’s cultural character, or if it is done to improve the genetic quality of a racial group or even the genetic quality of a new racial hybrid, it should be of no concern to anyone else. If indigenous peoples have a right to their separateness, likewise does any other group have the same right of separateness. Groups should be allowed to form around any legal criteria like sports, religion or race as long as they do not attack or harm any other group—it is freedom of association. Actually, it is quite easy to do, but very hard to discuss openly without being attacked. Moreover, in most European countries hate crime laws prevent such discussions from taking place, though if unspoken separation takes place it could be easily carried out—assimilation is not yet enforced to make all of humanity the same shade of brown.

From the evidence then of in-bred versus out-bred population groups, there is no good reason to favor one extreme or the other. Evolutionary arguments can be made for the value of either approach, but of course, humans need no arguments from an evolutionary bias towards reproductive success. It is no longer about sheer numbers of humans produced, but increasingly a matter of the quality of the human gene pool that if well bred, will lead to a happier, healthier, attractive, and more intelligent people. These well-bred races of people can then prosper however they define their own personal worldview of the good life. It is a belief, based on available data, that a better life is had by those with intelligence, beauty, and good health. Coming together as a racially isolated breeding group is a matter of individual freedom and it does not need to be justified to anyone outside of that group.

When anyone looks around at racial separation such as the caste system in India, the separation of people into tribal clans throughout the Middle East, East Asian’s racial attitudes towards their own superiority, it is clear that Salter’s premise that it is quite natural for races to band together at any level to help out the group against other groups, is naturally understood by most people in the world. Its in our blood, though it is far more prevalent in some individuals rather than others, and it is far more prevalent in some races than others. To preserve the White race, we may have to breed for both “intelligence” and “ethnocentrism.” One without the other will not equip us to act collectively to compete with other groups as the world’s resources decline under the burden of a population explosion.

Posted by Matt Nuenke on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 at 05:51 PM in Race realism
Comments (11) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 10, 2005, 07:54 PM | #

“In a desperate attempt to maintain this dogma, they both deny that races exist, and then claim that the poor performance of Blacks on intelligence tests has to do with White racism.” (—from the log entry)

... thus contradicting themselves not so much by invoking “racism” as by indicting supposedly non-existent “whites.”

Which is it, guys—whites exist? or they don’t? Can’t have it both ways ...

Accepting their premise, it’s as if they had said, “The poor performance of Negroes on intelligence tests is due to square circles.”

Square circles? What are those? I thought they didn’t exist.

“When the intelligence genes are located, the acceleration in selective embryo implantation will really take off.”

The “intelligence genes” aren’t going to be located any time soon, and neither is a de-bugged way of applying knowledge about them once complete understanding of them (I wrote complete understanding, not incomplete understanding) will have been discovered (I wrote “de-bugged,” not “that frickin’ moron who thinks he’s a scientist doesn’t know what in the goddamn hell he’s doing”). Genetics and gene expression regarding matters like human intelligence are extremely complex and subtle. Intelligence isn’t like Gregor Mendel’s smooth and wrinkled peas. The people who say genetic engineering for intelligence is going to be here by 2020 don’t know what in the goddamned hell they’re talking about. No one has any idea when it’ll be available, if ever: the bare beginnings of it might come in another hundred years (extremely doubtful), might require another quarter-of-a-millennium, maybe half-a-one, or maybe way longer. Maybe never.

“Even though it is still taboo to think that intelligence is 80% genetic, the parents who deny the genetic portion will be racing to the labs to have their offspring selected for intelligence along with us current believers.”

My two cents: I’m against eugenics. Christianity and our parent religion, Judaïsm, not eugenics, tell us all we need to know about how to choose our wives and husbands, and, if we are blessed by the Almighty with children, how to raise and love them. That’s all. The rest, in my opinion, is wrongness—apart, of course, from genetics-based disease research and genetics couples-counseling for disease prevention.

“Groups should be allowed to form around any legal criteria like sports, religion or race as long as they do not attack or harm any other group—it is freedom of association.”

Absolutely, one hundred percent right. Let the Race Police stick their noses in their own business for a change, instead of everyone else’s.

“It is no longer about sheer numbers of humans produced, but increasingly a matter of the quality of the human gene pool that if well bred, will lead to a happier, healthier, attractive, and more intelligent people. [...] It is a belief, based on available data, that a better life is had by those with intelligence, beauty, and good health.”

This thinking is unChristian and is wrong. It is exactly part of what would make all of us here, trust me, incapable of stomaching the Nazis if we had to live under their rule, even assuming they never committed any atrocities.

Posted by Rational Islamophobe on May 10, 2005, 09:16 PM | #

Excellent article, Matt. I certainly agree.

Posted by James Bowery on May 11, 2005, 11:46 AM | #

Which is it, guys—whites exist? or they don’t? Can’t have it both ways ...

The left claims that whites exist as “a social construct”. A few are intellectually honest enough to state explicitly that whites exist _only_ as a social construct. This is honest of them because the others, the dishonest ones, can weasel when confronted with the genetic evidence and deny they denied such genetic evidence.

Posted by Guessedworker on May 11, 2005, 03:09 PM | #

James, of course, is right. However, the question arises as to how much of the “social construct” is genetically derived, and how much cultural. And of the cultural, how much is genetically derived - that is, it partakes of genetically-derived characteristics and capacities expressed in concert within the subject’s formatory psychological environment. And then how much partakes of the territorial defensiveness natural not just to Europeans but to all human beings in all societies.

The liberal case for total plasticity of the human personality is crap. They think they can get away with claiming personality is acquired when, in fact, part only of personality is acquired.

Take, for example, the case of an ordinary, psychologically healthy European man who does not feel the same towards, say, a Ugandan as he does towards those he understands as his own kind. Liberalism must contend that he has no kind and he is merely parrotting an unnecessary, morally inexcusable and personally limiting, learned behaviour - white racism.

Taken to its logical end, this argument should hold that our friend has no family, that a woman in Uganda whom he has never met is potentially exactly the same, for him, as his own mother, wife or daughter.

The only reason liberals don’t say this is because it is absurd, and they know not to press the issue that far because to do so would harm them. But they do what they think they can get away with. And they think they can get away with routinely claiming that our friend’s unequal psychological response to a Ugandan in the next flat is simply learned racism. They want to help him - and you - to unlearn it. But since there is no sign that either of you can, they will force you - by anti-racist laws, if necessary. And, of course, it is necessary because you can’t unlearn the consequences of unlearned genetic difference.

Advanced liberalism is not simply a set of mad political principles and obsessions, however. These principles and obsessions are the unavoidable outcome of our general political milieu. They seek to free European Man from himself in this coarse and vulgar way because our general political milieu has evolved to the stage where that is inevitable ... where European Man is quite literally the enemy of politics.

Posted by ummjack on May 11, 2005, 11:45 PM | #

Even more taboo than genetic intelligence is the idea that women ought to be socialized to be nurturing, maternal, and domestic, and that it is certain maternal behaviors that form the foundation for high intelligence. You are missing an enormous piece of the puzzle here.

Posted by Guessedworker on May 12, 2005, 02:02 AM | #

Ummjack,

My understanding as a son, brother, husband and father of the fair sex is that she has to be “socialised” OUT of nurturing, maternal and domestic behaviours so, as an individual, she can select her own identity through the exercise of her reason. That’s what liberalism does to the feminine woman.

As to the maternal role in the production of high intelligence, I haven’t seen any research that demonstrates that. Can you point me to any?

I would, incidentally, agree that the Right of Woman to acknowledge her own nature is a grand issue which MR does not do justice to. I would very much like one of our female readers who finds the rest of our subject range interesting and important to step forward and help us with this blind spot. Any offers anyone?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 12, 2005, 09:06 AM | #

“it is certain maternal behaviors that form the foundation for high intelligence.” (—ummjack)

“As to the maternal role in the production of high intelligence, I haven’t seen any research that demonstrates that.” (—GW)

Didn’t Steve blog on the benefits of breast feeding in this regard not too long ago? Furthermore, though I haven’t seen research on it, the love shown physically and emotionally by a feminine mother toward her baby and toddler helps that child’s mind and personality to develop in all the right directions so that he has the best chance of realizing his potential in life.

Research? Some things are obvious, guys—we don’t have to make the most obvious truths conditional upon the grossly flawed “research” conducted by radical left-wing colllege professors who want us to disbelieve them, such as that the sky is blue; two plus two equals four; the sun will rise tomorrow; there are different human races; children are better off having a home with a mother and father; partial-birth abortion is absolutely the most horrific, the most unspeakable live-baby-dismembering and slaughter; women are feminine; and the physical and emotional love shown a baby or toddler by its mother helps it to develop the right way. “But ... won’t we make mistakes trusting our instincts and our two eyes that way, mistakes such as thinking the world is flat, or thinking different-size cannonballs dropped from the Leaning Tower of Pisa will fall at different speeds? Well ... yes, but way fewer than if we believe all the phony leftist “research” instead of each other and our own two eyes, instincts, and common sense. The leftists try to say “Nothing is true until our left-wing college professors have proven it,” and then of course always get their left-wing professors to claim to disprove it—claim to disprove the most obvious things. Then two or three generations of the most devastating social destruction have to go by until someone points out their mistake, by which time they’ve already launched into some other socially-destructive project, and another two or three generations must pass before that gets debunked, and so on. Sorry, leftists, that’s not how the game is going to be played ...

“I would, incidentally, agree that the Right of Woman to acknowledge her own nature is a grand issue which MR does not do justice to. I would very much like one of our female readers who finds the rest of our subject range interesting and important to step forward and help us with this blind spot. Any offers anyone?” (—GW)

May we make nominations? I nominate “Duende,” who blogged at GnXp very briefly a couple of years ago, a girl who though quite young seemed to know what she was talking about. (She was an undergrad at the time, somewhere in D.C.) Though they brought her on board at GnXp she turned out not to be Godless Capitalist’s cup of tea because she was race-realist in ways he didn’t like hearing about, hypocritical and dishonest little leftist that he was—so she didn’t last long there. Steve, if memory serves, had had a hand in originally noticing her as a talent. Anyone know what became of her, by the way? Is she blogging again?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 12, 2005, 09:30 AM | #

(Off topic:) GW, by the way, I love the recent little photo series you’ve been doing on English cathedrals. Gorgeous, every single one you’ve posted! I’ve been sitting here admiring them all and envying you Brits for having them. (The one you’ve got up now on Salisbury is breathtaking.) Just seeing them all conveys even to others a strong national feeling about you guys and your country. Don’t ever lose it. Don’t ever lose any of it.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 12, 2005, 09:31 AM | #

(I don’t know where that smiley face came from, above—I didn’t mean to add one there ...)

Posted by Guessedworker on May 12, 2005, 09:32 AM | #

Fred,

It was Ummjack’s reference to high intelligence that threw me. Normal (ie healthy) mothering will make the best of what’s there. I thought Ummjack might be implying something more than that, however - hence my request for references.

Duende is a great suggestion. For example, at GNXP she wrote:-

Yes, Japanese people care what Japanese think because the Japanese are a kind of big family in a way Americans will never be. Why should an unemployed Hispanic care what I think of him when we share no blood ties, national history, or life experience? Again, I emphasize the role that ethnic homogenity plays here.

A pre-Salter Salterian!

Posted by ummjack on May 13, 2005, 08:30 PM | #

There’s a lot here, but I want to address one massive issue that you guys on this blog seem to be totally unaware of: a society that breeds for high intelligence is shooting itself in the foot, because too many highly intelligent women is a recipe for demographic disaster. Really, this has never occurred to any of you? You get too many high IQ women and *who are they going to marry?*

Next entry: The Englishman and His Right To Bear Arms

Previous entry: Don’t know nuffink abaht jeans and quasi-flosophy does me ‘ead in. But …

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Controlled Opposition

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa