HBD and Race Realism* are often broadly tarred with the same brush as Nazism, but this is a failure to appreciate the enormous differences in fundamental 1st premises.

Nazis were Big State Government interventionists who believed the Sovereign should micromanage every aspect of human relations. Their own conception of the Role of Government COMPELLED them to take proactive steps to achieve their social ends, not to mention to combat the always unforeseen negative consequences of their Socialism.

The only PROACTIVE intellectually consistent HBD/Race Realist* solution to the ills facing us that is consistent with ordered liberty and limited government is to disestablish the very regime of programs and policies that CREATE the problem in distinct contravention of both the Constitution and the Mos Maiorum of the United States.

I have yet to see a legitimate HBD/RR call for concerted (ie, Government) POSITIVE action towards eliminationist policies as a RESULT of their belief system.  As HBD/RR tends to coincide inevitably with some form of Libertarianism and Dynamism, most of its proponents wouldn’t be able to even begin to support a government powerful enough and vested with the right to conduct such activities.

Instead, what HBD/RR tend to believe is that humans left up to their own devices and forced to deal with the consequences of their choices do not naturally engage in the behaviors associated with the Underclass for long, because it makes them die. Moreover, they tend to believe that the Underclass is artificially created AND sustained by GOVERNMENT policy alone, and that MORE Government can never be the solution, but only another band-aid on top of the inverted pyramid of band-aids Western Civilization has now become that threatened to topple over on all of us.

*I tend to distinguish HBD/RR from White Supremacists/Nationalists based on the reason for the interest. A white supremacist cares about HBD ONLY so far as he can use the results of its inquiry to prove whites superior, he makes no pretense towards objectivity and downplays any evidence of other ethnic superiorities or spins arcane theories around them. HBD/RR as I “practice” it is a scientific worldview that doesn’t seek to use its body of knowledge to attain some end, but merely to understand the world as fully and intellectually honestly as possible.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Not INSTITUTING Eugenics, REPEALING Dysgenics

  1. Digo says:

    “humans left up to their own devices and forced to deal with the consequences (…) makes them die. ”

    How do you make people follow their new guiding overlords in a minarchy?

  2. dana says:

    ok, how did you derive “guiding overlords” from “humans left up to their own devices”?

    the point is, no guidance but the consequences of your own actions

  3. Digo says:


    I guess I fail to see how you stop the scope and power of a minarchy from growing – you know, like every other state in history. A limiting constitution won’t do much to stop it. 😉

  4. dana says:

    obviously any political system can be undermined by failing to adhere to its own founding principles. if you look historically though this usually happens because of whatever the patrician class consists of allowing the rise of New Men of money, often not of founding stock, who havent taken the unwritten “constitution” or Mos Maiorum of the polity with mother’s milk, or because a country allows itself to be overwhelmed with foreigners, or allows a foreign philosophy to invade it. the constitutional republic doesnt begin to stop being itself “just because”, something happens first.

  5. dana says:

    are you saying no limiting constitutional gov. can learn from past mistake and adjust?

  6. Digo says:

    That’s right. It’s only a matter of time, in my view.

  7. Gorbachev says:

    Maybe we need some Trotsky.

    A little revolution, now and then, …

  8. PA says:

    A little revolution, now and then

    I believe it’s not just Trotsky, but also Jefferson who expressed a similar thought.

    If the engine of history is the will of the elites, and revolution is what happens when the elites lose control after turning on their own subjects, then yeah, I’m for it.

  9. dana says:

    heres what is so interesting to me. the left managed to fundamentally alter the face of the US government and culture without firing a shot or giving a rat’s ass about the consequences but whenever the “right” (whatever the fuck that means in the US) proposes something drastic, like say–deporting illegals or ending welfare , everyone is all like “you can’t do THAT! its impossible!” or “you’d have to have a revolution to do that or secede from the union!”

    why was the left able to achieve its ends with no resistance or concern for the future?

  10. PA says:

    why was the left able to achieve its ends with no resistance or concern for the future?

    This is somethign I wonder about all the time. As far as I can tell, it’s not difficult ot subjugate a people. Maybe if I’d have been alive from the 50s on, I’d trace this in hindsight.

    But it’s a serious question. A few weeks ago they did a documentary about the Texas clocktower shooter in 1966. I paid little attention to the crime itself. Instead, I was struck by the MANLINESS of America of that time and place shown in the archival newsreels. The cops, the news reporters, the ordinary men — all seemed like Marine drill sergeants in comparison with their contemporaries today. Everyone, including 12 year old boys, owned assault rifles, for fuck’s sake.

    In one generation, all gone. Without a shot.

    Was it Rock and Roll? the left’s capture of the media, effectively propagandizing leftism to bright, cool young people? Prosperity and easy credit? Was it Satan? (serious question)

    Whatever it was, it’s ubiquitous throughout the Westernworld, and more advanced parts of non-West and Eastern Europe.

    • PaleRider says:

      Pa, a very interesting question you pose, one I’ve pondered over the years.

      Quite possibly it’s something in the water, pesticides and such, that affects males and females in the same way: making each more like the other.

      Consider the dearth of manly men and the seemingly over-abundance of manly women, and you can see what I mean.
      See the number of so-called men wearing earrings and carrying purse (I mean ‘man bags’), and the unbelievable number of women sporting tatoos, as an example. There are many more, but I think you catch my drift!

  11. James Caan says:

    The current social environment is only dysgenic if you desire an intelligent, conscientious and independent population. If you’d prefer (to extort) a nation of brownish, amalgamated serfs, then current state policies and racial propaganda are nearly as eugenic as could be imagined.

    It’s an ugly thing to say, but compared to all other racial groups, northern and central europeans make the worst serfs by a very large margin. I think that on a (mostly) unconscious level, the progressive state understands that.

  12. theobsidianfiles says:

    Hi Dana,
    Glad to see you’ve gone from being a proud troll to actually getting in the game as a blogger. I’ll be stopping by from time to time.

    As for the topic at hand, I find HBD “race realists” like you to be quite amusing. You rail against “Liberals” and the like for their hidebound faith and belief in things, ideas and policies that don’t work, but you turnaround and do exactly the same thing, by supporting ideas that have proven not to work. You can put as fine a point as you want on Nazism, but the bottomline is that Eugenics, failed. Nazism played a big role in said failure, but by no means were they the only factor(s) involved in said failure. All it takes is for one to look the matter up at Wikipedia to see other contributing factors. Yet HBDers like you, cling to this notion of Eugenics. It’s a Fool’s Errand.

    Moreover, the obsessive focus on the “Underclass” (read: poor, inner city Black folk) smacks again, of the very disdain you hold for Liberals and Libertarians in terms of their obsessions and conspiracy theories. But the fact of the matter is, that most African Americans are middle class, and that the underclass is actually a smaller segment of the Black community on a whole-and at any rate, the Welfare Reform policies of the Clinton-era has been hailed, by both sides of the political aisle, as a resounding success. So much so that even the authors of The Bell Curve, the Bible of the HBD set, quited down their policy prescription that was in the book in this regard.

    Black folk have reproduction rates overall that closely mirrors the White rate at present. In that I am not Hispanic, I’ll refrain from discussing them to any degree.

    As I’ve pointed out several times at my blog, the real issue is that the Smart White Folks aren’t making whoopie and having babies. For example, how many kids do you have, Dana? If it’s less than two, you have failed in your duty to increase the number of Smart White People in the USA, and, given your self-reported age range, and the fact that White/Jewish Women tend to have a hard go of it having babies to begin with, things don’t look good for you or folk like you demographically. If one is truly about HBD, all roads lead back to this fundamental question. I say it’s due to the immutable tradeoffs that must occur throughout Nature-simpl put, having more brains, has its price. Which is, less sexiness overall.

    I’ll hold here. Holla back


  13. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Absentee Edition (NSFW)

  14. Erranter says:

    Education lowers third world and lower class birth rates. Women literacy is usually the determining factor. Get rid of that and you will not get rid of the underclass.

    The underclass has always outbred the upper classes. And yet we have not seen a huge dysgenic effect over the years. There must be more at work. Regression to the mean may have something to do with it.

  15. dana says:

    you may want to look in to A Farewll to Alms which postulates that at the end of the malthusuan trap the WEALTHY had more progeny and their healthier smarter children trickled down the profession and classes thereby raising the overall quality health and intelligence of the people leading to the advances of the industrial revolution

    • Erranter says:

      I’m dubious. Even if they did, studies have shown that IQ decreases with each additional child. Lowering birthrates across the board seems to be naturally eugenic. Even if the supersmart had tons of kids only their first, second and third children would have the higher IQs.

      Of course, something more ideal would still be for higher IQ people to have higher birthrates, above the probable 1.2 for their kind, and for the lower IQ people (about 2.3 I’m guessing) to have their birthrates. But either way, there is no massive dysgenic effect at work. Among population groups the IQs have been remaining stable or increasing.

      If you want an example of a place where the wealthy are still conceiving the largest number of offspring, look at the Middle East. Part of the reason why they are not merely bearing and raising kids in the West is that Western life give them the opportunity to do more important things.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s