Eugenics, Dysgenics, and the Bizarre Contradictions of Ruling Class Coercion

The ruling classes dominating the West believe they have the right to engage in many forms of harmful coercion, including:

1. forcing individuals to pay fines for not having health care semi-insurance from corrupt industries, including working individuals unable to afford treatment for their illnesses. "You can't afford treatment? Too bad. Here, pay a fine to not be treated."
2. sending individuals to fight in mutually destructive wars on behalf of ersatz allies and war profiteering.
3. stripping whites of self-determination.
4. having truency laws, forcing children of working poor whites to attend hellish black majority schools.
5. taxing productive working individuals with regressive state, local, excise, and payroll taxes.
6. punishing individuals legally, socially or financially for telling the truth about multiculturalism.
7. forcing white prisoners to live in integrated prisons, where the ruling classes ignore the fact that they will endure millions of sexual and nonsexual assaults from nonwhites.
8. putting prisoners in solitary confinement, causing massive psychological damage (though the likes of Hannibal Lecter deserve solitary confinement or the death penalty.)

Despite their lofty rhetoric, contemporary establishments often use legal coercion to increase free riding and other harms.

And yet the ruling classes consider massively wrong any form of coercive "negative" eugenics. Men with repeated rape convictions will seldom be surgically sterilized. By eugenics, I mean both genetic improvements to IQ, health, and ethical character or practices that reduce the prevalence of harm causing genes.

Establishments even consider voluntary "positive" eugenics massively wrong despite the fact that every human evil throughout history was partly or mostly the result of dysgenics. Over 100 billion humans have been harmed by dysgenics. Hidden in plain sight, dysgenics remains the world's most massive preventable evil.

Eugenics gets demonized, in part, because several generations ago, some German individuals put a eugenic label on their dysgenic practices. In addition, a few others elsewhere practiced excessively coercive eugenics. But ethical civilizations and conscious, intelligent species cannot be created, or exist in the long term, without eugenics. Dygenics ranks among the worst forms of immoral nihilism. Yes, every establishment thinker and power broker practices colossal nihilism, no matter how friendly they appear in front of television cameras.

Until roughly the Twentieth Century, doctors caused far more harms to patients than benefits, yet anyone demanding the abolition of most medical fields would be rightly regarded as wrong, but few see evil in attempted abolition of eugenics and the mass promotion of dysgenics.

Eugenics ranks among the most cost effective ways to massively improve human lives. A trip to a eugenic sperm bank is often the difference between parents being stuck in 18 plus years of hell or a splendid, loving family life.

Establishments assume without evidence, and in the face of massive counterevidence, that positive eugenics is wrong, yet nevertheless treat the right of the worst individuals on earth to breed as often as they please as absulute and unalienable.

If we had the ethical and political will, we could raise mean IQs in Western countries by over 20 points in less than 100 years, even without expensive gene editing. We could slash the percentage of individuals devoted to egoism, misplaced altruism, and other evils. We could likewise cause the prevelance of genetic illnesses to plummet.

At the very least, the government could fund a chain of massively eugenic sperm banks, using media and schools to promote the hell out of them. Television ads about dysgenics should feature feature screeching, violent children. Other ads should show children throwing tantrums in stores, the types of acts that send shivers down the spines of would be parents. Eugenic ads should feature children peacefully playing and hugging their parents. Some evidence suggests that public information campaigns targeted in the right ways do well.

Not surprisingly, a forthcoming study suggests that much of the variance in parental stress and warmth comes from their childrens' genes. In other words, some kids' genes make their parents' lives hell. Parents and children mutually create downward spirals in their relationships. One counterargument to frequent use of eugenic sperm banks is that men are more violent toward unrelated children, but a major reason is that, in general, individuals who become step dads and step children have terrible genes, cultures, and behavior. Parents who adopt infants with good genes have far fewer problems.

I listed some other eugenic suggestions before.

We waste umpteen trillion dollars every year in direct and opportunity costs promoting dysgenics and massively inefficient environmental interventions to (sometimes) reduce the damage from dysgenics. Political fanaticism is partly a result of dysgenics, including the current mass culture of believing environments are almost all that matter for IQ and character.

To reverse and prevent disasters, we must have massive improvements in gene-culture co-evolution.

Some Types of Anxiety with Solutions

Ongoing, pathological anxiety: arises when doing the right acts but the anxiety stays.

Ongoing, general anxiety: feeling a vague, frequent anxiety but can't pinpoint specifics.

Social pressure anxiety: anxiety about others' acts or norms influencing you. Social pressure is higher when those with powerful halo effects attempt to manipulate. Occurs, for example, when the cool kids try to pressure you into terrible decisions. Social pressures cause many unwarranted anxieties among nonmulticulturalists.

Imitation contradiction anxiety: often arises when media frame a nonexistent contradiction to look like a contradiction. Example: the bible says love your neighbor as yourself, yet these Christians oppose immigration. Many Christians dismiss the bible as a poor ethical guide. Every prescription in the bible contradicts some other prescription in the bible. The "all things are possible" passage by itself contradicts everything else in the bible. In addition, helping evil spread is not love. Media regularly attempt the you belong to group X, yet you believe things that contradict some doctrines of group X gambit, as if groups have a right to dictate your values. (Not surprisingly, those accusing others of ersatz contradictions live lives riddled with despicable self contradictions.)

Deserved cognitive dissonance: arises when acts or beliefs contradict evidence or each other.

Solutions: The right solution to deserved cognitive dissonance is to change acts and beliefs to fit the evidence. For harmful types of anxiety, make massive improvements in beliefs, actions, and environments. Exercise more or harder. Use strength and interval training. Look for more opportunities to socialize. Eat healthier foods. Take more well-reasoned risks. Take fewer reckless, desperate risks. Act as a person of dignity. Develop a sacredness mindset toward beneficial things. Avoid thinking the grass is always greener or is that all there is? Be grateful for things worth being grateful for. Wanting the wrong things leads to disasters. Many who appear to have superb lives quietly wish they had different lives. Change the things you can and should change. Forget the things you cannot or should not change. Develop a hatred for mass culture products. If you are constantly tempted by corrosive things, up your hatred of those things. Make environments very, very helpful, so that constant exertions of will aren't needed. Drugging yourself or chasing other forms of hedonism is the wrong solution to anxieties. Individuals trying to trick you into hedonism are not true friends.

Let's examine a paradigm case: Ian Jobling. Years ago Jobling, an anxious man, created the now defunct whiteamerica.us website. Jobling became troubled by some vile thoughts promoted by some nonmulticulturalists. Some nonmulticultural ideologies are good. Hitlerism, KKKism, and some others are evil. Jobling wanted to go back to the multicultural, middle class world. He gave a fallacy filled interview with the Southern Poverty Law Center, denouncing his former beliefs. (a great way to prove to corporate employers that you support cultural Marxism.) Now a logical, ethical person would think: since all known multicultural belief systems are evil and some nonmulticultural beliefs are also evil, I should promote nonmulticultural belief systems that are good and oppose the evil. That's not what Jobling did. Consciously or unconsciously, he let misguided anxieties dictate. But Jobling, apparently, didn't feel anxiety about the SPLC, an organization with a long track record of lies, greed, and other evils. The interview contains numerous anti-white slurs, but apparently, Jobling didn't feel enough anxiety to stop the interview. Jobling had a defective approach to anxiety. Despite being an academic, Jobling behaved with unethical wantonness.

(You can lead academics to logic and ethics, but it's difficult to make them logical and ethical. A selection effect seems to exist where the people wanting to be professional academics are predisposed to being terrible at logic and ethics. Doing right things is more important than careerism.)

Since we feel anxiety for a variety of reasons, anxiety by itself is not a good guide for finding the truth. Anxiety is an often haywire warning system. We should be conscious of what causes our anxieties, especially when dealing with social influences or misweighed evidence.

Homes Versus Borders

Ilya Somin attacks the straw person analogy of houses and borders. But the point immigration fact facers make: it is a contradiction for multiculturalists to support the sanctity of one and not the other. Homes and borders are not analogous. Violating the borders of otherwise ethical individuals by peoples causing long term mass destruction is a worse violation than violating a home. The sanctity of an otherwise ethical person's home may be violated for many reasons, including failing to pay rent, mortgages, and property taxes. Borders should never be violated by worse beings.

"But my home is my castle" is circular or a bad definition, depending on the meaning used for castle.

The other major point: multiculturalists support militarism and cheap labor, plus divide-and-screw politics while shifting the massive costs of harmful invasions onto nonwealthy whites--wrecking lives, schools, nations, careers, freedoms, and neighborhoods--all while multiculturalists try to live far from the low functioning diversity they create.

No right for more harmful peoples to immigrate exists. And no right for more harmful peoples to live in others' homes exists unless they happen to be multiculturalists who refuse to sacrifice while coercing others to pay massive costs.

(The above argument will not sway multiculturalists and their fallacious intuitions but that is irrelevant. Fanaticism is difficult to reform.)

Out from Under the Killing Moon

In tribal wars, clever bands ambushed others, often in the early morning under a bright killing moon. If the ambush was not a lopsided victory, the clever ambusher fled to fight another day. If pursued, they hid, set additional ambushes or outraced pursuers. If ambushers scored a lopsided victory, they exterminated rivals and gained assets, including nubile females. Victims were often disorganized by the chaos of the initial assault. Children cried for their dead parents and siblings. Casualties often exceeded 50 percent. Among Amerindians, only 13 percent "did not engage in wars with their neighbors at least once per year." More gentle peoples were enslaved or eliminated. Torture was incessant, a form of control and entertainment. In tribes, fight or be annihilated was no idle warning.

Tribal members were seldom mere disposable parts of the tribal whole. They valued their lives and sought to spread their individual seed. (I use the word seed since they knew almost nothing about individual genes spreading self-copies.) Members sometimes toppled leaders they considered unfair. Trade made matters worse, increasing tribal conflicts. Many settled peoples outproduced nomads, but nomads sometimes won by being better at killing and being more difficult to find. Nomads had an overlooked disadvantage: they suffered higher rates of miscarriages, especially when women rode horses.

In more complex societies, some wars created large, long term benefits.

But who benefits now? The direct and opportunity costs of contemporary empire wars far exceed benefits.

In many so-called professional militaries, ruling groups make personnel hyper obedient, to make soldiers regard their own lives as low value, to fight for fallacious rhetoric masking as virtue. Behind the rhetoric lies the naked psychological egoism of ruling groups and their vile outgroup allies. Research on wars refers to this egoism as opportunism.

Powerful individuals frequently look for opportunities to undermine the legitimate self-interest of others. Organ donors expect nothing while medical establishments walk away with millions. Economics is largely a sham science, promoting the excessive self-interest of free riding individuals over more deserving individuals, especially pro-immigration junk science that leaves nearly all harms out of the analysis. Military elites likewise propagandize low ranking personnel into thinking their own legitimate self-interest crass.

Military elites side with rulers in encouraging hostility toward establishment critics, regardless how well-reasoned the criticism, inculcating misplaced us versus them mindsets, even when elites operate as a them. The more rulers try to make their rule coup proof, the worse they perform at national defense.

Trying to make make professionals out of individuals predisposed toward tribalism often fails because such individuals value their individual lives and seed too much to waste it on behalf of platitudes and low value medals. In addition, many such individuals have IQs too low to function militarily in complex militaries.

In recent decades, Western militaries taught personnel to ignore unethical orders--burning villages and killing inhabitants being a paradigm case. But they do not teach personnel to disobey big picture wrongs. Note that ethics would require personnel to organize strikes to boycott the wars in Southwest Asia, yet few personnel pursue that option. The so-called emphasis on ethics seems mainly a rear end covering exercise. Blame falls on those at the bottom of the hierarchy for alleged atrocities. Institutions downplay the bigger wrongs of wasting lives and massive resources in unwinnable wars. The Vietnam war wasn't worth one American life.

The definitions of winning become ever more bad and bizarre. We enter wars with terrible or  inadequate goals. Helping powerful political parties hostile to yourself gets called winning. Wasting money to cheer for victorious, fan despising athletes is considered winning. Getting corrupt outgroup leaders to bend to the will of our own corrupt leaders is labeled winning, even when harms far exceed benefits. The tribal band member might well say, "Where is the loot? Where are the nubile females from your so-called winning? Where are your children and grandchildren? Oh, you have a ribbon, a ribbon you had to purchase yourself at the commissary, a ribbon civilians seldom comprehend. Will you wear that ribbon if you find yourself sleeping in an alley?"

To which many might correctly reply: character matters more than winning. Looting, murdering, torturing, and kidnapping are execrable. But we must go further. We must avoid evils of tribe and empire.

Multicultural empires rampantly engage in bait-and-switch and divide-and-rule strategies. They antagonize other groups with salami slicing and spirals of tit-for-tat acts. China salami slices via  emigration, trade policies, and South China Sea thefts. Salami slicers often find to their surprise that past trends change. Hitler sliced off Czechoslovakia, but was shocked when he could not slice off Poland. Such ruling groups are decadent and willfully blind to their power cravings, blind to their unjust treatment toward those outside the ruling groups. Nevertheless they love to play the victim. The Third Reich's rulers excoriated degeneracy while lying their rear ends off, while stuffing their faces with alcohol, amphetamines, and synthetic opiates. It's astonishing how corrosive concentrated power is in empires. Female rulers deserve their share of blame. "Europe's queens were 27 percent more likely than its kings to wage war."

Even smaller lands such as Sweden should be viewed as mini multicultural empires, where elites use ethnoracial diversity to bait whites into fighting each other instead of corrupt rule. Elites consolidate  totalitarian power under the banner of security, a lack of security they deliberately caused by pursuing diversity.

When one multicultural empire fights another, citizens find themselves thrust into dilemmas. Their own ruling classes commit evils, yet some outgroup ruling classes commit more evils. Should one fight and perhaps die on behalf of lesser evils? Maybe one should sit the war out. Truth is a rampant casualty of war. No aggressive government admits to being the greater evil. Shirking becomes more common in diverse units. Should it even be regarded as shirking when totalitarian governance denies one's right to self-determination? But should one turn his back to family and friends?

Many warn against Thucydides traps, but even somewhat well meaning members of ruling classes seem clueless about how to avoid such traps.

Outsiders have a better grasp:

1. emphasizing no more brother wars (not the biological meaning of brother) 
2. avoiding salience to outgroups
3. keeping good fences to make better neighbors
4. increasing credible local deterrents, for example, providing smaller, better nations with nuclear deterrents sufficient to extract massive costs on aggressors
5. avoiding being the victim of a fait accompli, especially the rhetoric of inevitable white genocide by multiculturalists.
6. recognizing that outside interference often prolongs civil wars or other conflicts. (Often prolongation and mutual destruction is what the outsider seeks.)
7. recognizing that long lasting rivalries make wars more destructive.

But ruling classes will not pursue policies based on "no more brother wars" because they regard nonwealthy whites as an enemy. They would punish any elite member uttering those four words. They pursue salience and globalism because it gives billionaires more play money, no matter how much conflict globalism creates and how many harms globalism creates for nonwealthy Westerners. They will not provide nuclear weapons to smaller nations because doing so threatens arbitrary nonproliferation rules and threatens their nuclear oligopoly. It also threatens their profiteering, their ripping off of taxpayers, demanding we defend people who dislike us or who are disinclined to fight themselves. A mere eleven percent of Japanese Gallup poll respondents said they would fight for their nation, though that a number is malleable by mass media. Pew polling suggests a host negative views towards Americans by Japanese. Contempt would not be too strong a word for their attitudes. But multiculturalists expect us to suffer and die on behalf of people who hold us in such contempt.

Despite its reputation for being, well, byzantine, the Byzantine Empire managed to survive far longer than the Western Roman Empire by employing crafty diplomatic and military strategies. But such leadership exists almost nowhere among contemporary Western ruling classes. They likely consider such acts not even part of their duties.

Resolve often works, but for what ends should we direct our resolve?

If Japan, Poland, Taiwan, Ukraine, Australia, South Korea, and a few other nations had nuclear arsenals, the world would be a safer place. Instead, Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal for empty globalist promises that backfired spectacularly. A status quo bias exists. It is considered acceptable for aggressive Pakistanis to have nuclear weapons, but not for more logical individuals in Taiwan.

In the long run, despite technological advances, nuclear mistakes, pathogen evolution, natural disasters, and dysgenic overpopulation will likely cause havoc. The recently arising dysgenic paradox is thus: The worse genes individuals have, the more likely they will breed. The better the genes, the less likely. The most dangerous enemies often reside from the neck up. One way or another, the totalitarian xenocentrism of many whites will end. Racial cooperation out competes xenocentrism. And unethical winners become even more aggressive toward losers.

In Praise of a Few Minor Improvements

In 2006, Yale's Brady-Johnson program on grand strategy included the likes of  David Brooks, Walter Russell Mead, John Negroponte, Peggy Noonan, Victoria Nuland, Paul Solman, and Evan Wolfson. Ugh. The most recent program includes Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer.

Legal immigration visas are on track to drop 12 percent during the first two years of the Trump presidency.

Facebook usage is down.

Far more Americans than ten years ago identify immigration as the most important issue, including 19 percent of Republicans.

On the negative side, the Federal Government plans to drop charges against 38 individuals accused of crimes during the Trump inauguration.

Ruling Groups Believe Much of What They Say They Believe About Multiculturalism

I sometimes read comments that our ruling classes' beliefs about ethnoracial issues aren't as willfully inaccurate as they appear to be, that elites can't be that ethically unaware.

Oh, but they are.

Otherwise, many idle rich individuals or powerful retirees, having little to lose from defecting, would defect. Instead, nonwealthy whites, individuals with much to lose from doxing and other totalitarian punishments, drive nonmulticultural thought. Elites are almost nowhere found. Nonmulticultural websites struggle for tiny sums of money while institutions do trillions of dollars worth of propagandizing on behalf of establishment views. Morrissey, James Woods, and a few other C-list celebrities have made a few politically incorrect comments, but their comments barely scratch the surface of nonmulticulturalism. Such celebrities have almost no political power. No nonmulticultural website ranks among the top 500 most popular websites. Despite its many agitations, Breitbart is mostly an assimilationist, neoconservative site on policy issues.

When someone wealthy or famous gets punished for saying something offensive to multiculturalists, the thought expressed is usually some knee-jerk intuition. Such individuals don't get punished for talking about behavioral genetics because they know next to nothing about such matters. Ideologies driven by egoism, including egalitarianism, are simple. Fact facing is complex. Most ethnoracial issues require careful study. If you asked random politicians and billionaires about behavioral genetics, you'll have a tougher time than asking them about the Phillips Curve. They have little idea. They have lived their lives in the fallacy dominated mass media universe, where whites are the overwhelming majority of those committing evils and knowledge of nonwhite evils is suppressed.

Philosophers, supposed experts in logic and thought leadership, nevertheless believe Richard Lewontin's preposterous corn analogy.

Notice how we seldom see elites secretly undermining cultural Marxism. Politicians pretend to be pro-worker on the campaign trail, then turn anti-worker in office. They pretend to support non-interventionalism, then switch to militarism in office. We see similar contradictions between campaign rhetoric and policy behavior on dozens of other issues. Yet multiculturalists remain steadfastly multicultural in both campaign rhetoric and policy actions. Yes, they aren't as multicultural as the likes of Robert Mugabe and Keith Ellison, but that's because elites are devoted to profiting from the decline of the West. If they blow the West up all at once, they lose, too.

Powerful individuals are spoiled rotten. They have dark triad tendencies. They don't care about ethical facts, except when they see some benefit to themselves and their close associates. They live culturally isolated lives. Their "war rooms" are groupthink rooms. Television tells them nonwealthy whites are "deplorables," and they believe it. The things they think privately about whites are worse than the things they say publicly. They live in a world of knee-jerk talking points. They do vile acts, then engage in tokenism and grandstanding to pretend they are ethically superior. Treating nonwealthy whites as worse than mere objects is their normalcy. Harms to whites outside their social milieu don't register to them. Forcing nonwealthy white children to attend diverse, hostile schools worse than many prisons seldom bothers them, but they become enraged when individuals having no business in the West are incarcerated for their crimes. Their ethnoracial ideas come though a mass media filter that constantly uses slurs, straw person attacks and other fallacies to demonize those who disagree with them, including those telling the truth. (They don't have to look far to find straw persons to ridicule since much of the Alt Right preoccupies itself with horrendous memes and other infotainment garbage.)

Most humans don't say to themselves: "Let me find the most well-reasoned conclusions wherever they may be." Instead, they at least unconsciously think: "I can't go down the ethical truth rabbit hole because the media says X is somehow associated with Y, and the media says Y is a Nazi." Carefully and accurately weighing the good points from various sides is simply not something they do. The more reality contradicts their ethnoracial views, the more they fanatically cling to their political teams. Confirmation biases become a lifestyle. They live their political lives in a mental fog of manipulations, cocksure that fallacies are truth.

It doesn't matter to them that 100 percent of Muslim run countries are totalitarian, that nonwhite rule over large groups of whites has been disastrous 100 percent of the time, that racial diversity makes most individuals behave worse than they otherwise would, that eugenics for IQ and character offers fantastic opportunities, that mass dysgenics almost guarantees horrors. Sticking to their self-interested narratives matters more to them, as does finding plenty of people they regard as inferior to mock.

The ability to experience cognitive dissonance (contradiction anxiety) rises with logical skills. Individuals practicing new age cultism--plus other aceticisms and aestheticisms experience little or no cognitive dissonance when spewing fallacies. Believing what they want to believe makes them feel good, even when cult leaders exploit them. If they quit and start reading with a more logical and open mind, their ability to experience cognitive dissonance increases. Feeling anxiety when telling untruths is an ethically beneficial mental price of being logical. Ethical persons feel anxiety when they say something fallacious. Unethical persons feel more anxiety when they violate their groups' norms. Our rulers are genetically and culturally ill-suited to experience cognitive dissonance. They have little psychological incentive to believe the truth when believing fallacies benefits them far more in the short term.

Fanaticism doesn't require secular or avuncular fundamentalism. Glib, quiet, casual dismissal of unwanted evidence does the job, often without a second thought.