New waves of Eugenics in the Netherlands

Post Reply New Topic

There is “positive eugenics” and “negative eugenics” but also “consumer eugenics”. “Consumer Eugenics” is voluntary. It is doing eugenics in a way that is more acceptable to a lot of people. It could mean parents choosing to abort down syndrome babies. In the near future it is going to mean gene editing. Enthanasia can be a form of consumer eugenics. Doctor assisted killing of a termanally ill person is probably not eugenics. Doctor assisted suicide of a mentally ill person is the assisted suicide of a person with treatable condition. Autism and the common cooccurrence of suicidal depression are treatable conditions. The suicidally depressed in most cases do not have the mental capacity to make a rational decision about their life and death. Autism is a condition with a large genetic component. If the assisted killing of the mentally ill is disproportionally being accepted for autistic people that is suspicous. Eugenics of the mentally ill and the disabled has usually been justified as the morally correct thing to do by relieving the burden on society, the families of the person killed and the individual.

*Sigh*

Ok man, it looks like you caught me being sloppy.
I was honestly beginning to think nobody was even reading my posts , so I wasn't really trying to assemble them to be bulletproof instead I was being very casual. I definitely didn't compose the post for YOU. I KNOW that YOU know what everything means or ...very close to everything. but a lot of folks want a basic answer and as I am.....rather unskilled in delivering these - do to honestly not being at all good at reducing what appear to me to be complicated issues to the minimum, so that my posts do NOT go on forever... I have been trying to reign myself in. But I see now this was an error and I thank you for lighting a fire under my proverbial ass.

Let's dance.

the difference is exactly "an act upon oneself" vs. "an act upon another"...far from arbitrary but...
You have a right to your opinion...be glad you don't live under a Eugenic social movement that disagrees with you.

or don't...I can be glad FOR YOU that you do not live under a radical eugenic social movement that deems your opinion a threat to human progress...I AM glad...I think you're cool....for now. MUAHAHAHAHAHA kidding...just kidding.

I've always found this one of the more difficult moral issues to answer. For many people with a severe physical or mental condition, life may be too much of a burden to take. And they may take far more from society than they'll ever be able to give back. But among every 1000+ of these people, there is a Stephen Hawking, who does seem to have had a life more than worth living and who made contributions to science that are beyond most people's comprehension.

If we were to not give people with a severe physical or mental condition the chance to live, we may spare them and their environment from a lifetype of suffering... but we'll also lose the Steven Hawkings out there. There is no easy answer to this dilemma in my opinion.



You do realize that you're on a site full of Autistic people, right? That means that there's a lot of people out here with a keen eye for detail, who love to pick apart things and who lack the tact to spare people's feelings when they do so



Expressing an opinion or fact in a way that that is both sufficiently nuanced of detailed to be accurate and sufficiently concise to be accessible for someone with an attention span as short as that of the typical millennial is an art but very few possess. So don't kick yourself!



Sure...

Puts on YouTube vid...

Enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOl8LjKLDLs



The line between euthanasia, assisted suicide and murder is very thing and blurry, especially when it involves people who have a mental condition or are in some other way impaired from consenting.



I do agree with the need for eugenics. But I also acknowledge that if I'd have lived in a society that applied eugenic policies, that could mean I wouldn't not have been allowed to procreate. Heck, it could even mean I wouldn't have been able to be born.

This really is an issue of whether we put the interest of the many before the interest of the few. Again, there are no easy answers here.



I have quite a few opinions that are considered a threat to human progress by the powers that be TODAY.

Today, thinking outside of the box is no more allowed than it was during the days of the Spanish inquisition. It's just the content of the box that's changed. But stray too far outside that box, and you become a pariah.

Unfortunately, few realize how Orwellian the society they live in has become until they themselves get silenced for stating the obvious.



Never judge a man by his opinion. Judge him by his actions and his attitude.

You can change a man's opinion, but you can't change his personality.

Can't disagree. Wanting things to be simple ...no matter how bad one wants them to be that way doesn't make it so.




I might realize and the ironic thing is that whether I do or don't it's very autistic of me to either notice or miss it entirely. I....will not be in a position to judge others for enjoying picking stuff apart until I can manage to stop dismantling electronic devices...so maybe never.hahaha



OH ...no I won't kick myself. I'll just keep trying patiently. Only thing to do really.



I was kinda more here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY1Vetd7OCs

it wasn't bad though. thanks.



OK I use too many ellipses and it makes it hard for people to tell where to cut the quote. Got it. It's hard to read context the way you quoted it here without going all the way back to read it, which I'm not going to do.
instead from memory i will do my best but if my argument becomes inconsistent here it is only that i cannot recall what I originally said to keep it all consistent. It still looks to me like it is a pretty clear difference.

consent where able/no consent where unable vs. no consent needed regardless of ability to to give it or not.
how doesn't that , as an issue come down to An act upon oneself vs. an act upon another?
if you could make it clear for me I would appreciate it. I am totally aware that I don't know everything and have things to learn forever. It just seems like you are advocating a scenario where choice would for some who are able to make it basically vanish...and it's their life. Am I misreading ? IF so clarify.




It's true that there are no easy answers, but that does not mean there are no elegant and morally tolerable solutions it merely means they are challenging to find. I think I disagree that it is strictly about a good of many vs. a good of a few. And I don't see a strong enough argument for applied eugenics in any form to OUTWEIGH the horrors it opens the door to. I haven't actually seen a single collective human endeavor that wasn't rapidly distorted in the space of a couple generations. Condone eugenics NOW and while I cannot promise it will go terribly wrong, history seems to lean that way. I can't balance an argument on that view because I don't have a crystal ball but there are quite a lot of scenarios where by the time one would discover something had seriously negative repercussions it'd be too late to do anything about those, so I weigh in favor being massively wary of humanities tenancy to take stuff in directions it shouldn't be taken.

if it were your world and you were the undisputed dictator I'd say "decide what you must but allow me to leave at least" and that's kinda my issue with eugenics...there's no escape really. how does leaving people who don't want to die...or have their genetic codes partially or completely edited, NO CHOICE...make the world better?

I don't think it does and if the folks making that choice are so superior...why don't they leave earth and go prove it? leave the genetically inferior here, let nature decide. :\ and if they get off the planet on their own...maybe they are fine after all? it's only a dilemma to begin with because nature isn't in play anymore.


Me too. And i can't argue about this...it's just accurate. It is Orwellian exactly . and boxes...yes ...I am a wheel in a land of boxes to be sure. But you just pointed out my very point about eugenics yourself. people DON'T realize how dangerous some things are until they personally face the consequences. So, I think, why take chances with that? Civil and personal liberty should be preserved I think at basically any cost they have to be preserved at and life cannot be perfect really...not ever. but ...we probably can work out how it goes more or less and facilitate that for those willing and able to make their own choices...as for those not either willing or able...I have little sympathy for whatever happens to them, but i am not going to euthanize them or try to prevent them from coming to exist in the first place.

I want to read your argument for this in detail. it might need it's own thread.
[/quote]

I honestly don't though it seems challenging for others to believe this when I tell them.
I mostly think that if I believe i have seen a flaw in another (and especially if i have a strong emotional reaction) then I may well have caught a glimpse of something within myself I do not like. Then I think to myself "where is my time better spent?" and generally I look inward for whatever I disliked in that person so I can grow beyond it. Almost always when i find that I feel humility, and a duty to get to work on it and the next time I encounter it in another person it doesn't bother me and I know what i am really looking at. it just seems to work better than judging people. :\

How or earth do you dance to that?!

Anyway, if you're talking videogame soundtracks, I'd rather go for something like the Hell March (from Red Alert).

Or Late Goodbye (from Max Payne 2).



Most people will probably reject the idea of euthanasia for people 100% capable of consenting who do not consent with it. So I don't really think that's much of an issue.

It's people with very low IQ and others who're somewhere in the grey area between capable of consenting and incapable of consenting that most disagreements will involve. That's because in those cases there's no obvious answer.



In my experience, most moral issues that don't have an obvious answer are either of the type "good for many vs a good for few" or "my freedom to do X vs your protection from my doing X".

Freedom usually comes at a cost of security and vice versa. And where you need freedom, I may need security... and vice versa. There's no one-size-fits all solution for moral issues, and that's why people never can agree on it.



We have two options :
(1) either we revert our technological level back to a more primitive state, allowing nature to take its toll and weed out the poorly adapted in favor of the well adapted
(2) either we implement a eugenic policy that allows better genes to prosper and poor genes to wither away in the long run

Those are the only two options we have, and option (2) is by far the most humane option.

If we don't take any actions, Western civilization is guaranteed to collapse within the next century and possibly within our lifetimes. There is simply no way a society that becomes increasingly complex technologically can be maintained in the long run by a population that is gradually returning back of a primitive state of barbarism as a consequences of the dysgenic effects of modern medicine and advanced technology unless we use eugenic politics to undo those effects.



Western civilization has already suffered irreparable damage since we abandoned eugenics after the end of WW2.

The longer we wait to restore such politics, the less of Western civilization there will be left to save.



My ideal world would be a world where Fascists, Anarchists, Communists, Christians, Muslims, etc. would all have their own independent states / communes that compete with each other, and where individuals can freely choose to move to another state / commune that is more in tune with their own individual perspective.



It's a mild fate compared with a civilization collapsing under its own weight... which is the inevitable consequence if we don't either (1) return to a much simpler way of life or (2) we start applying eugenics again.



Let them have their own commune... where they can move to, so they can prove to the world that their lives or those of their children are much more valuable than the government estimated it to be.



That's the whole problem.

Modern medicine and advanced technology largely eliminated natural selection. And the entire point of eugenics is to be a form of artificial selection that can replace natural selection.

If we want to truly let nature decide, we need to abandon modern medicine and advanced technology and return to a more primitive way of live.



It's not like people aren't trying to get off this planet and move to another. It turns out that's pretty hard to achieve, even with the technology of today.



Because the alternatives are much, much worse!



What liberty?

When people are can lose their reputation, their career, their social life... when people can get a fine or even get sent to jail... just for expressing their opinion... what liberty that matters is left, then?

Your precious liberties & rights are just an illusion!



Objective truth is the only thing that truly matters. And the only way to get to the truth, is to let go of your emotional reactions, to look at any data as dispassionately as possible and to keep an open mind to everything while also questioning everything (including yourself). This attitude is a key component to the scientific method and it's the only reliable path towards objective truth.

Being very much aware of the irony therein, I sorta live by these words.

People are confusing the apparent American collapse with world collapse. Empires collapse and new ones take their place. This usually involves horrific death and destruction. The world is still here.

Eugenists go on the false assumption that the rightous and the logical people will control how eugenics is used. Like all other tools, the people with the best social skills and the narcissists will control how eugenics is used. For those type of people the introverted and those that do not have social skills and those that can’t fight back are the burdens to eliminated. Homosexuals by nature can’t reproduce, weed them out, blacks have higher crime statistics, weed them out etc etc, see how this goes?. And looking in to future if genectics can determine whom-will have politically incorrect thoughts before they are born it will be used to make sure they are never born or there wrong traits edited out.

It's not an American thing. It's a Western thing.

Europe is suffering from many of the same problems. And as a European, I worry about seeing the civilization my ancestors took centuries to build falling apart around me.



Sure. But if there's even a slim change that we could prevent the destruction of a civilization and the horrific death of millions, wouldn't it be worth trying?



They don't. They don't assume anything.

It is anti-eugenicists like yourself who go on the false assumption that evil people will control how eugenics is used.

And even if evil people do take control of eugenicist policies, the alternative (which you yourself described as "horrific death and destruction") is still far worse!



That's a totally unsubstantiated assumption.



Regimes like that don't tend to last very long. If such a regime would be put in place, it would be but a matter of time until the masses revolt and replace the regime with a more righteous one.

Also, I've never heard of a single eugenicist that supported the murder of Blacks or homosexuals.

Your opposition against eugenics seems to be entirely based on irrational fears and/or false information.



Interestingly, it's those pushing for "politically correctness" and for silencing anyone who disagree with them who are the strongest voices AGAINST eugenics.

In fact, one might argue that there's a direct correlation between irrationality, the desire to silence other opinions and opposition against eugenics.

You have good reasons to worry




There is always a chance anything might work. That does not necessarily make them the best choice




A good percentage of them like any other activists assume they are the righteous ones. Hell is paved with good intentions etc.


It is an assumption based on thousands of years of human history that evil and just misguided people often use tools to do great harm.


Why assume evil genius eugenists won't use other tools besides eugenics like weapons of mass destruction to weed out people they do not want?




The introverted and those who lack social skills have always and continue to be targeted. It could happen that people like me will be spared but there is little reason to assume eugenicists will be any different in this regard.




Even if that does happen a lot of harm done on the way. It is also an assumption the masses will revolt. Eugenics was quite popular at one time.


You have not heard a single eugenicist say they supported it, that is not the same thing.


Like I said before it is based on a lot history of how humans use powerful tools and experience about how humans act, hardly irrational.




"Political correctness" is not limited to anti eugenics people, the infestation is affecting all walks of life. I had in mind a leader using eugenics to get rid of opposition but it is possible that the regressive left could use it to weed out people assumed to have traits that make them a Trump voter, after all a lot of eugenics roots is in progressivism.

I can't think of a better alternative.

Can you?



The point of eugenics isn't to wipe people out. The point of eugenics is to save them.



Just because they are today, that doesn't mean they always were.

Where do you get that from?



It was popular because people understood it was essential for our survival.

Then WW2 happened, and everyone got their priorities mixed up.



You may want to read Stoddard's "The Revolt against Civilization" before you make up your mind on how eugenicists think.

I've read quite a few of the man's works, and I never encountered a man more reasonable, more nuanced, more enlightened than Stoddard.



ANY tool can be used for evil and for good.



Eugenics is rooted in science, not ideology.

Eugenics as mentioned earlier in the thread has a positive and negative compenents. The negative component is wiping people out. One can just practice positive eugenics but that is a half way measure but it can still wipe certain types of people or certain traits out of the gene pool will just take a lot longer and it is a lot less brutal.

Eugenics was marketed not as a way not for survival but a way to ease burdens.

What we have as now as bad as it is, is a less bad alternative because wiping unwanted people out is not so subtle which as you mentioned has at times led people to rally against it.

I am sure most eugenicists do not want to wipe black people out because most understand race does not make one inferior or at least they understand FOR NOW that will not be tolerated.

Look at history the attacked were often attacked because one of the reasons they were percieved to lack the ability to understand the attackers motives. Preying on the outsider is basic human psychology.

Deciding what traits are wrong to have is a judgement call, a world view. How to get rid of the traits is science. In deciding if an idea is a good one one needs to look at who supports it and who opposes it. While all ideologies supported it in the west the progressives were the leaders.

If one does not like political correctness because it shuts down difference based on what the censor decides is wrong why support a science whose aim to better the world by altering or eliminating certain differences?

The negative component involves preventing genes from spreading. This usually involves sterilization of feeble-minded people, rapists, violent murderers and other specific sections of society that are considered a burden on society.

Obviously, we need to make sure that the list of "undesirables" doesn't keep getting bigger and bigger and filled with people who are just politically inconvenient to the powers that be. But any potential risks involved here are far from a valid reason to avoid it completely, when the survival of an entire civilization is at stake!



Even practicing only positive eugenics would be a major step ahead.



I don't see how anyone can seriously argue that it's a bad thing when society produces less feeble-minded people and less violent rapists.



The point of eugenics has always been to preserve Western civilization and the populations producing it by reverting dysgenic trends caused by advanced technology, modern medicine & modern life at large. Its literature was pretty clear on that.

Again, you might want to read Stoddard's "The Revolt against Civilization", which is one of the most influential eugenicist works ever written.



About a century ago, there was a general consensus among well-educated, well-meaning people that eugenics was necessary. This, across the political spectrum.

Eugenics only became politically incorrect after WW2, when anti-eugenicist demagogues abused the horrors of the German concentration camps to delegitimatize it.



The reason most eugenicists would not want to wipe out black people, is because most eugenicists are very reasonable people who are looking for humane solutions for complex problems and not the sociopaths you portray them as.

Anti-eugenicists are not looking for solutions. They just deny the problems or downplay their consequences, while everything just keeps getting progressively worse. That's simply not a constructive position whatsoever.



Just because it's possible to use court rooms and jails to put people away for having the wrong opinion, does that mean we should abolish court rooms and jails?

Just because it's possible to kill someone with a knife, does that mean we should abolish knives?

As I said before, ANY tool can be used for evil. So, your argument that eugenics can be used for evil is not an argument at all, especially when it's critical for preserving Western civilization.



Analyzing which traits have an overall positive impact on society and which traits have an overall negative impact on society is as much a scientific endeavor as analyzing why the sun gives off heat or why a certain chemical in our brains change our emotions in a certain way.

In fact, I don't favor the application of ideology or religion in any way or form on any issue. Like Lothrop Stoddard & Sam Harris alike, I promote a purely scientific approach towards dealing with any aspect of society, including moral issues.



Nonsense.

In deciding if an idea is a good one, one only needs to look at the potential consequences of implementing the idea.

Who supports or opposes an idea should NEVER play any role whatsoever in assessing the validity of an idea.

Deciding if an idea is a good one one by looking at who supports it or opposes it, is a road that leads straight to the most irrational and violent of prejudices, and is one of the greatest hindrances in progress.

It is only be challenging what is considered "common sense" by most that ANY great advances in science or philosophy were possible.



As I said, there was a general consensus among well-educated, well-meaning people that eugenics was necessary, across the political spectrum.

Judging by your reasoning, it would have been a clear-cut case that eugenics was a good idea in the in the 1920s. Today, almost a century later, it would be a clear-cut case that eugenics is a good idea. This is a perfect illustration of how whatever is considered "common sense" by even society's intelligentsia is heavily influenced by the dominant culture and ideology of an era and why this shouldn't play any role whatsoever in judging the validity of an idea.



The point of eugenics is not to alter or eliminate differences. It's to stop our society from accelerating towards otherwise inevitable collapse. And it attempts to achieve this goal in the most humane and scientific manner possible.

I can't think of a pursuit more noble or urgent than that.

Even with sterilizing lets say violent criminals eugentists want to decide not to let a person be born because they might be a criminal also. Of course the “feeble minded” may not have committed any crime but the negative eugenicists want to sentence them to having no children anyway.

It is all about improving life because they(and to be fair many others) do not want the burden of helping people they believe are flawed.

If survival of civilization is at stake radical measures are needed but survival of civilization is probably not at stake, humanity flawed as it is has managed to survive without eugenics.

“The Point of eugenics is to preserve Western Civilization” . Western Civilization has given us a lot but it has seroius flaws also. Like all civilizations it will be altered and probably replaced. Eugenicists will alter the process but it is enivatable. Being an Autism site we concentrate on eugenics and the disabled. I think the word “racist” is way overused but I think it is quite applicable to a lot of the core world view of eugenists. At least here in America eugenics became popular during and after a period of massive immigration and I doubt that was a coincidence.

I agree that the Nazis were the worst thing to happen to the eugenicists cause. That happened because people saw the consequences of the where the eugenics world view can lead to when taken to the extreme. No anti eugenicists demagogues were needed, the Nazi’s did it all by themselves.

While it should not be the only factor in deciding the value of something, who supports it or is behind it should be taken into account. It allows one to go beyound the talking points of the propenents see the agenda behind it.

I agree that one should not refrain from doing good things because a few bad people gave it a bad name. The opposite is true also, one should not do bad things because some people involved in it did good things. Redoing Nazi Germany is not a right thing because Nazis had a lot to do with the basis of our roads and our Autism diagnosis.

Right now the history of attempting eugenics has a horrific history. That does not mean that it will always be that way, but it is a reason for at the minimum extreme caution because it very well might be an indicator the the core idea is bad.

It's not about improving life as much as it is about preventing it from reverting to barbarism.



You admitted yourself that I "have good reasons to worry" with respect to Western civilization falling apart.



Civilizations throughout history have gone through the same cycle or rise and fall.

What eugenicists are trying to do, is just to prevent / stop that fall.



It is inevitable without eugenics.

It is evitable with eugenics.

And that's precisely why we desperately need eugenics.



Being an Autistic person, I do not consider Autism a disability and I consider the notion that Autism is a disability to be harmful for the Autistic community at large.

Anyway, I don't really see why you believe that statement is relative to our discussion at all.



Is it racist to acknowledge the existence of inborn biological differences between races, when decades of scientific research demonstrate such differences to be real and far from insignificant?



In America, eugenics became popular because Americans started realizing that the overall quality of the American population was declining. Mass immigration of poor, uneducated people was one of the two main causes of this decline. The dysgenic effects of modern life (and advanced technology, modern techology in particular) was the other.



Nonsense!

You might as well argue that America invading countries like Afghanistan or Iraq and killing millions in the process demonstrates where democracy can lead to when taken to the extreme, and that we should therefore be wary of democracy.



The validity of an idea can not be judged in any way whatsoever by whoever supports it. No matter who believes the earth is flat or why that person believes it, that doesn't make it any less round.

Hitler was a vegetarian. Does that, in your opinion, discredit vegetarianism?



I have no idea what you're trying to say here.



Right now, eugenics has been discredited only because demagogues with subversive political agendas have managed to push a nefarious, distorted picture of what eugenics really implies and managed to successfully obscure the fact that it is essential for the preservation of the West.

Eugenics is supposed to make superior people. The goal is to improve life otherwise why do it.

If the west is to fall it does not neccessarly mean whatever is to replace it will be inferior or barbaric. As bad as it is now it is a lot less barbaric then in the past. Change is hard for me because I am older and I am autistic but that is my problem not neccessarily the change. I am not saying change just for change’s sake.

It is racist to judge a race as inferoir. Your science has concluded that the differences between races is not about inferiority or superoirity Blacks are not innately criminal for example. You seem to think western society is civilized other societies less so. But at times Africans and Asians have been more “advanced” then western societies. Why don’t you form your own whites only country? Eugenices has to happen there and those of us the don’t want it will be left alone. Your superior genes should figure out a way to handle us barbarians if we become jealous and try mess with your superior society.

Mass immigration did not screw up America quite the opposite. The problem now is not immigration, it is that it has become acceptable for immigrants not to try and assimilate. You are having the same issue in europe. America was built on the adding some new and mixing it up with what was here. That is a political and religous fanatisism problem not a genetic problem.

People are becoming wary of democracy because of certain American actions.

Autistic difficulties are a result of disabiling traits and in large part the disadvantage of being a very small minority. That the core differences involve social communications makes it worse.

It's not about making people superior as much as it is about preventing people from degenerating towards a more primitive, more barbaric state.

In nature, natural selection favors individuals best suited for a particular environment while weeding out those least suited. This allows the best suited ones to live longer and procreate at greater rates, effectively improving the adaptability of the species to that particular environment for the groups living these.

Technology and especially advanced medicine largely eliminate this process of natural selection. To make things worse, modern life causes those with highest intelligence and moral standards to procreate as much lower rates than those with lower intelligence and moral standards. The combination of both trends results in a significant decrease of the adaptability of the species to our environment. A mass influx of low IQ immigrants further aggravates this situation.

Basically, we live in a society where technology is becoming ever more complex and people are becoming dumber with every generation. This means we're accelerating towards a threshold where the population will no longer be capable of maintaining the civilization we've built.

The point of eugenics is to replace natural selection with artificial selection, so this dysgenic trend can be reverted and the otherwise inevitable collapse of Western civilization can be avoided.



Blacks are not innately criminal, but they do tend to be more aggressive, more impulsive and less cautious. The average IQ of Blacks is also 17 points lower than the average IQ of Whites and 21 points lower than that of East-Asians.

Here's an overview of what 30 years of research on worldwide racial differences have taught us :



source

SAT scores show the exact same gap :



source

Income differences also shows this same gap :



source

So does welfare use :



source

So do prison populations :



source

No matter at which dataset you look like, you always see East-Asians come on top, African Blacks and Australian Aboriginals at the bottom and Whites somewhere in between. And this irrespective of wealth or social status. And this irrespective of whether one's home country was once colonized by Whites. And this irrespective of whether they're part of an immigrant population or whether they live in their ancestral country.



Until Whites colonized their continent, Sub-saharan Africans & Australian aboriginals never had any civilization that evolved beyond the Iron age level. And after Whites left their African colonies and left Black rulers in charge, they all reverted to a state of despotism, with lots of violence, corruption, poverty, etc.

It's become trendy to blame White colonizers for the mess Sub-saharan Africa is in today, but that's nothing but a totally unsubstantiated claim driven by vile anti-White racism. If colonialism were to blame, it would not explain why former East-Asian colonies did not just manage to emancipate themselves but actually move ahead of Europe and North-America! While the West is every more rapidly declining, places like Hongkong, Singapore & Shanghai manage to not just catch up with Western standards but have managed to surpass them.

Blacks being more aggressive, more impulsive and less cautious than other races as well as having a lower IQ and East-Asians being on the other side of that spectrum is all that's really needed why Sub-saharan Africa and East-Asia evolved the way they did and why they evolved so differently after the age of European colonization.

Anyway, this issue is only partially correlated to eugenics, as eugenics affects differences within a racial group as much as - if not more than - differences between racial groups. If Europeans were to force everyone who wasn't White to migrate from their territory, eugenics would still be necessary for the remaining White population.



In most of Europe, we had that for thousands of years. Then, in the 1960s, our traitorous "leaders" started importing large amounts of non-White immigrants against the wishes and interests of the general population.

To make things worse, anyone who has been publicly arguing against this import of non-White immigrants is being slandered as a "racist" and political parties intended to stop this process are often refused a public forum or otherwise boycotted by the powers that be. Meanwhile, endless "multicultural" propaganda is being pushed onto the gullible masses to convince them that their own replacement is good for them.

This has left Europeans powerless to stop their own replacement, although there are small pockets of resistance that seem to be growing as all the "multicultural" propaganda is becoming ever more ineffective.



Mass immigration is precisely what allowed immigrants not to try and assimilate. Ghettoization is the logical consequence of mass migration. And why bother assimilating to the dominant culture of your country when you live in a ghetto where everyone around you shares the same immigrant culture?



America was built by Englismen, Irishmen, Germans, Dutchmen, Frenchmen, Spaniards and other Europeans.

These people all had roughly the same race and a very similar, compatible culture. Until the early 20th century, American culture was totally European. And except for the ancestors of former slaves, it was also predominantly European from a racial perspective. America was not "multicultural" at all by modern standards. It never really was the "melting pot" Israel Zangwill called it.



Autistic difficulties are a result of traits that are both disabling and enabling.

It is also Autism that produced men like Thomas Jefferson, Hans Christian Andersen, Amadeus Mozart, Nikola Tesla and many others among the world's greatest minds.

We should never forget that our greatest weaknesses are just the counterbalance of our greatest strengths!

Technology overall has improved our lives. If we have reached a point where it is too much of a good thing, that it is causing "deevolution" so to speak I do not see any reason why the "superior" would be immune from becoming dumber.

At times African civilizations have been as advanced as white ones. The studies concluding that blacks as a race have deficits could be influenced by cultural norms, not unlike NT studies of Autistic deficits.

When eugenics became popular in America it was during and after a period of large Southern and Eastern European immigration. While not technically a racial matter these new immigrants often had darker skin than the white people already here. There was a religious element, the new immigrants were more Catholic and Jewish compared to the existing Protestants.

If you are going to argue science and logic it behooves you not to make a blanket statement that certain historical figures WERE autistic. We know these people had certain traits associated with Autism, nothing more. Those traits could have been because they were autistic, because they had another condition with similar traits, or they had no condition, it was just their personality.