Eugenic Suicide

Eugenicists advocate for human selection to maximise societal harmony, productivity, ‘pro-sociality’ and intelligence. In doing so, they neuter the population, reduce total potential births and then when this smaller, selected population finds itself in an environment where they do not have control over the state and a monopoly on violence, they are vulnerable and exposed. They are left with too few brash and violent men, as such men generally of average to slightly below average IQ, to rally and tear up the streets in their favour.

Eugenicists advocate strongly against polygamy as it reduces assortative mating and elite female fertility which is said to lower selection for elite traits such as IQ. They also bemoan the increase in societal disorder and physical conflict caused by the surplus un-paired males polygamous societies produce. Yet these ‘bugs’ of polygamy are a feature, and work to accelerate the expansion of ascendant marital peoples.

As far as I can tell eugenicists personalities are strongly averse to societal disorder, to an extent that’s more characteristic of post-menopause women than of young-ish men that HBD bros tend to be. I don’t think this is due to some innate characteristic of most HBD types, since believing in hereditarian positions is not the mark of a conformist, but probably is because they’ve been misguided as I was, and perhaps need to consume more organ meats. I’ll credit ♱ Rurik Christwalker ♱ ( not a Christian ;) ) for sowing a few seeds in my mind that pulled me out of hereditarianism.

The eugenicist’s solution to the dysfunctional underclass, even when the underclass is ostensibly apart of their own ethnic group, is to reduce their fertility, ideally sterilising them which will supposedly reduce the frequency of their traits from the population. You should not view the poor and violent among your people as another people. Even if the traits of the poor and violent are mostly heritable is true, the eugenic ‘solution’ is a deep error1, and leads at best to a people stagnating, and at worst to their ruin.

Stoody: Dunbar, R. I. M. & Wallette, A. (2024). Are there fitness benefits to violence? The case of medieval Iceland

Among Viking age Icelanders, having a family member who was a killer increased their brothers’ and cousins’ grandchildren significantly, most especially if the killer’s brother died of natural causes rather than of homicide. The killer phenotype, a man who killed others, was highly beneficial in chaotic Iceland. Having a family member who was a killer decreased a man’s chances of being killed by 37.5%, although the significance of that finding can be criticised due to sample size.

What cannot be disregarded is the immense advantage that killers brought towards growing the family line. Inclusive fitness represents the total ‘biological units’ of a person in the next generation. Simply put, a man is biologically 50% of his children, 25% of his siblings’ children and 12.5% of his first cousins’ children. So a man with two children and no nephews or nieces has equivalent inclusive fitness as a man with four sibling derived nephews and no children of his own. Following from this, a man with two children and four sibling derived nephews has an inclusive fitness value equal to both of the previous men combined. This is represented by a number, and a man with a number twice as large as another man has double the inclusive fitness of him.

The mean inclusive fitness of men who had killer brothers who did not die by homicide was found to be ~0.85, while that of men without killer brothers that also did not die by homicide was ~0.35. In other words a man with killer brothers who was not killed had 2.5 times the inclusive fitness of a man whose brother was not a killer. This is a staggering difference. When considering that there also was no inclusive fitness penalty for killer men who themselves were killed it means that given enough time the family lines of men who were not killers themselves and were without killer family members would die out.

In conditions such as those of Iceland, where none hold the monopoly on violence which we seem to be heading towards2, the ‘ill-bred’ criminal is important for familial survival and success. Not only does the killer themselves benefit from their behaviour, having on average twice the number of wives as non-killer men, but as stated previously the entire family line, particularly the male line, benefits, with male family members of killers also having twice as many wives as non-killers, and twice the number of children, which compounds onto each of their inclusive fitnesses.

By removing violent criminals, who are typically mentally ‘unstable’ and aggressive, from the group’s population and culturally shaming violence, the group becomes fragile as the state recedes, like domesticated animals separated from their farmer.3 This is because it leads a people to grow dependent on a strong state that can execute violence in lieu of their own violent selves or family members. When that state can no longer guarantee safety and violent family members are absent, the orderly, peaceful man is at immense disadvantage and his personal as well as extended familial lineage will die out without adaptation.

The alternative approach is allowing polygamy, and shoving the underclass and surplus males towards foreign lands and the enemies of the group. Incidentally, this was the strategy of every successful empire and all expansive peoples in history. Rather than treating your own people as parasites to be killed off, the underclass is harnessed for their benefit and the growth of the group. Continual group expansion rather than stagnant surgical management and ‘optimisation’ must be the goal.

But, if even if we take the eugenicists’ values seriously for a moment: Intelligence is normally distributed, not only among the population as a whole but also within families, the difference is where the mean sits and the variance. Statistically a poor family made up of low IQ adults have a fraction of their children being of average to above average intelligence. Among siblings, the standard deviation of IQ is 10 points, compared to the 15 points within a racial group.

The mean IQ of American Non-Hispanic White males who report being sentenced to a correctional facility was 93. If we take these Whites sentenced as representative of the White underclass4, and assume the IQ variance among the underclass as a whole is the same as the variance between siblings (10 points) to account for multi-generational assortative mating among social classes, 25% of children born to the White underclass still have an IQ above 100, and 4.5% would have an IQ above 110. Is it really best to flush these babies down the toilet?

The great expansion of the British peoples from the 17th to 20th century across multiple continents did not happen due to any eugenics program5, but unrestricted births coupled with empire. Britain exported around a hundred thousand of its underclass, including criminals to what is now the southern United States, which has multiplied through natural increase to a diaspora 70 million strong that occupies a region larger than Western Europe. If Britain was more intentional in increasing its New World population and decided to send only 100 thousand more early on, perhaps there would be over 200 million White Southerners today, but either way, the colony was a success.

In 1800, Britain had a population of 10 million, yet by 1914 its population multiplied to 40 million, driven, famously among hereditarians, by the underclass. Let’s apply the eugenic counterfactual: sterilise the underclass or otherwise generally make conditions such that they do not reproduce. We can compare results with France, whose population only increased from 28 million in 1800 to 42 million by 1914, and did not have the population pressure and drive and so failed to ultimately subjugate and populate Algeria. Frontiers are settled by the underclass and the downwardly mobile middle-class, both of which are side-effects of high population growth all else equal.

Despite the short boat trip, within 7 decades of the initial conquest, in 1901, the European Algerians only numbered 475 thousand against 4 million Algerian Muslims. Even if the European Algerians had remained in Algeria, by 2000 they would have been outnumbered 20:1 and at most 1.5-2 million in number. A failure of a colony. The Algerians kept multiplying far beyond what that country could sustain after the Pied-Noir left, and then exported their underclass to France, with the aid of duplicitous French natives.

I’ve seen some point to Sparta and their eugenics ethic as a based primitive version of a eugenic society. But we should be reminded: What did Sparta achieve? How far did their people extend?

Sparta failed to establish colonies, besides from one (quite successful) colony, Taras, formed from a single expulsion of abandoned half-Spartiate males which did not recreate helotry nor the agoge. Over 500 years, a society totally devoted to war and the Spartans didn’t even manage to conquer their home island/peninsular of the Peloponnese. Sparta’s feudal elitism meant that they could only rally a small, ever shrinking percentage of their population to war, for Helots cannot be allowed to fight.

WEIRD Nuclear Family and Social Structure as Subjugation

·

Jan 22

Often now, with the increase in discourse of the WEIRD concept and traits, I see poasters riffing about the corruption of Western institutions by ethnocentric non-white groups and families. Contrasted with those peoples are North-West Europeans and the diaspora, who have lived in nuclear families for centuries. These peoples, with their weak familial ti…

In the end, by the time the Romans were encroaching the actual Spartan citizen population had cratered to only a few hundred due to the multi-generational birth dearth and so the unenviable Spartan lifestyle and their ethnos faded from history. The reward for eugenics coupled with monogamy is the death of a people on spawn island. If you look closely, the similarities between the Spartans and the modern Koreans, north and south, are uncanny.

Successful patriarchal groups maximise the births within their group, and when they inevitably encounter resource constraints they do not sterilise their sub-groups of their own population, or dedicate effort into optimising the quality of births, but force their excess population and any undesirables among them upon the world. Polygamy acts as a catalyst for expansion by creating many bastard sons and un-wed men. Polygamy also has the side-effect of strengthening clans as it leads to more men sharing a recent common ancestor which then expands everyone’s family network.

‘Eugenically’ selecting for IQ, work-ethic, impulse control and agreeableness and against what we now consider mental instability, as well low impulse control and other non-bourgeois traits in the aim of creating a more harmonious and productive society leaves the group fragile and dependent on the state, which is already receding, and so should not be done. Discard eugenics and embrace the orc.