Eugenics: What’s Wrong With It?

T.M. Goddard has replied to my two blog posts “The Alt-Right and Abortion” and “The Pro-Choice Temptation” over at Radix Journal.

At the outset, I will say that I agree this is an important debate, and that I am the last person to take any of this personally. I’ve spent the last hour or so reading through some of my old posts about eugenics. A decade ago, I agreed with many of the things that are being said about eugenics at Radix and Counter-Currents. In fact, I was really into this stuff and spent a lot of time researching and arguing about the matter.

Those who I have known in cyberspace the longest are probably getting a real kick out of this debate. Hopefully, I’m a bit older and wiser now. I’ve become a parent. I gave up on the Nietzschean superman a long time ago. I was wrong about eugenics. Right now, I just want to leave behind a better world for my children.

Abortion Rates & Absolute Numbers

Let’s engage in a thought experiment.

In this simple thought experiment, we will just assume that the 55.7 million who were aborted between 1973 and 2013 had lived. We will welcome them all back, factor them into the present day population, and see how much of a difference it makes.

Non-Hispanic Whites – 196,817,552 (63.7%)
Blacks – 37,685,848 (12.2%)
Hispanics – 50,477,594 (16.5%)
Others – 23,282,968 (7.5%)
Total: 308,745,538 (100%)

That’s the racial breakdown of the United States in 2010. This will be slightly off because the abortion numbers run to 2013. It won’t make much of a difference though. Now lets assign the aborted 55.7 million to their respective census category:

Non-Hispanic Whites – 224,717,552 (+27.9 million)
Blacks – 54,885,848 (+17.2 million)
Hispanics – 58,277,594 (+7.8 million)
Others – 26,082,969 (+2.8 million)
Total: 364,445,528

Welcome back, y’all.

I already feel A LOT better about it now that 27.9 million of my White peers weren’t aborted. All of y’all got the chance to grow up, have families of your own, and live out your dreams like we the living. Maybe some of you had the chance to become the next Issac Newton or William Shockley. Without 40 years of abortion, America is now approximately 61.6% White, 15.06% Black, 15.99 Hispanic, and 7.15% Other.

Some of you black boys and girls didn’t make it though. We assumed in this scenario that all of you lived to adulthood, but the black infant mortality rate is twice the White infant mortality rate. Quite a few of you died before you ever made it to your first birthday and many more of you died for various reasons in childhood:

infantMortality-01

Abortion & White Demographic Decline

There appears to be some confusion on this point.

I don’t believe Roe v. Wade caused the demographic decline of the White population. In “The Alt-Right and Abortion,” I explicitly said otherwise and said it was a net racial wash. Instead, I was taking issue with the “we’re being swamped” argument. It seems to me a bit exaggerated. That’s why I posted the racial demographics of every state in America in 1970. We managed to hit our racial highwater mark when abortion was illegal while presumably the black horde was overrunning America.

I’m just saying it is another Chicken Little argument – even Alabama hit 74% White in 1970 – like the dysgenic threat posed by those with Down Syndrome.

Downies are breeding like rabbits and destroying the gene pool!
Downies are breeding like rabbits and destroying the gene pool!

Birth Control Causes Falling White Birth Rates

I agree 100 percent.

In “The Alt-Right and Abortion,” I said that birth control was responsible for Europe’s unfolding demographic disaster. Pat Buchanan wrote a book about that, The Death of the West, which triggered my awakening.

Now I am going to do something that I rarely do on this blog: when Adolf Hitler took power in 1933, Germany had been in demographic decline for decades. Hitler had some innovative solutions to this problem and succeeded in reversing Germany’s stagnant birthrate. It is something we ought to take a look at:

“Ostensibly, the Lebensborn Society – literally translated Lebensborn means “fount” or “source, of life” – had been founded in 1935 as a sort of welfare organization, funded by the Nazi Party, to run maternity homes across Germany; it was set up in response to what was rapidly becoming a demographic crisis for the new Reich. When Hitler came to power in the 1930s, the country’s population had been falling for decades. In 1900 the statistics showed an average birth per thousand of 35.8; by 1932 that had dropped to 14.7. From the outset the Nazi regime set out to stop – and then reverse – the trend.

They began with innocent-sounding slogans – “Restoring the family to its rightful place” was typical – and then introduced financial incentives – marriage loans, child subsidies, and family allowances – to have a large family. A cult of motherhood was also formally established; every year on the birthday of Hitler’s own mother, fertile women were awarded the Honor Cross of the German Mother. Those who produced more than four children were given a bronze medal; more than six earner silver, with gold being awarded to those who had more than eight. When this didn’t produce results quickly enough, new laws were introduced to ban the advertisement and display of contraceptives and all birth control clinics were shut down. Abortions were criminalized as “acts of sabotage against Germany’s racial future.”

It was this phrase – “racial future” – that was the first clue to the reality behind the seemingly innocuous Lebensborn Society. Although the ostensible aim of the homes was to allow women who might otherwise abort their pregnancy to give birth in safety and in secret – thus helping to boost Germany’s population – they weren’t open to everyone.”

This sounds like our crisis pregnancy centers. Bachelors were taxed in the Third Reich:

“Even sharper measures prevailed after May 1933, and the number of abortions sank after laws preventing “acts of sabotage against Germany’s racial future” were enacted. Birth control clinics were closed and children, church, kitchen became the slogan of the thousand year Reich. A bachelor tax was enacted. There were loans to newlyweds, as well as allowances and child subsidies to parents with large families.”

Women caught trying to induce abortions faced anywhere from a day to five years in prison. In 1943, abortion became a capital crime in Hitler’s Germany. After a late start, the National Socialists also cracked down on homosexuality:

“On June 28, 1935, the Ministry of Justice revised Paragraph 175. The revisions provided a legal basis for extending Nazi persecution of homosexuals. Ministry officials expanded the category of “criminally indecent activities between men” to include any act that could be construed as homosexual. The courts later decided that even intent or thought sufficed. On October 26, 1936, Himmler formed within the Security Police the Reich Central Office for Combating Abortion and Homosexuality. Josef Meisinger, executed in 1947 for his brutality in occupied Poland, led the new office. The police had powers to hold in protective custody or preventive arrest those deemed dangerous to Germany’s moral fiber, jailing indefinitely—without trial—anyone they chose. In addition, homosexual prisoners just released from jail were immediately re-arrested and sent to concentration camps if the police thought it likely that they would continue to engage in homosexual acts.

From 1937 to 1939, the peak years of the Nazi persecution of homosexuals, the police increasingly raided homosexual meeting places, seized address books, and created networks of informers and undercover agents to identify and arrest suspected homosexuals. On April 4, 1938, the Gestapo issued a directive indicating that men convicted of homosexuality could be incarcerated in concentration camps. Between 1933 and 1945 the police arrested an estimated 100,000 men as homosexuals. Most of the 50,000 men sentenced by the courts spent time in regular prisons, and between 5,000 and 15,000 were interned in concentration camps. …”

Why doesn’t the Alt-Right give Hitler credit where it is so obviously due?

Hitler attacked Germany's demographic crisis on all fronts
Hitler attacked Germany’s demographic crisis on all fronts

Eugenics or Eugenic Effects

Borrowing another idea from Germany, I don’t see why we couldn’t make college largely tuition free. Whether that would be advisable in the present context is debatable. As I noted above, Hitler’s Germany made extensive use of loans to newlyweds, child subsidies, and allowances to boost the German birthrate. American conservatives like Kevin Williamson would certainly decry this as “welfare.”

Ubermensch and Untermensch

Since eugenics is so obviously the crux of this whole debate, which isn’t so much about abortion as it is about counter-signaling to American conservatives and daydreaming about Nietzschean supermen, let’s run through what is wrong with eugenics:

1.) Identity – As I said in the abortion thread, “identity” is the big new thing on the Alt-Right. The internet is suddenly full of “identitarians” who believe in, I guess, the “preservation and development of ethnic and cultural identity as its central ideological principle, and criticizes the state of the contemporary West.”

Here is a beauty of a statement from our comment section which illustrates the tension between the Alt-Right’s focus on identity and eugenics: “Brown and underclass whites are our demographic enemies no matter what their sex is.” See also this one: “We all know that there are some whites who might as well be black. They’re not helping us out as a race any more than libtard whites are.”

There goes “White identity” swirling down the eugenicist drain. Like I said in the abortion thread, there are plenty of eugenicists who believe White working class children – the Untermensch – don’t even deserve to live.

2.) Racial Hatred – You have probably heard the “identitarians” claim that they are not motivated by racial hatred. Instead, they claim to be driven by the desire to preserve their own nation and to nurture a healthy, positive sense of ethnic and culture identity in their communities. But is this true?

Here is another gem from our comment section: “Why is it ok to sacrifice healthy, patriotic white men (who pass asvaab, fitness tests, and basic training, and in whom we have invested heavily into educating in public schools at10K/yr x 13yrs=$130K) in warfare (even if it is a just war) but not ok to sacrifice a fetus of unknown merit and in whom we have not heavily invested taxpayer money?”

The eugenicist logic on display here is that it is okay to sacrifice an unborn White child in order to kill two Black children. That’s a net demographic victory. It is also clearly no longer pro-White. If you would sacrifice members of your own folk community for the sake of killing others, your true motivation is a desire to eliminate other races.

3.) Supremacy – Are we motivated by a belief that we are superior to other races? Do we divide our nation into the Ubermensch and the Untermensch? Alternatively, are we motivated by a desire to preserve our own people and way of life?

Nothing draws out the implicit supremacy lurking in identitarianism like discussions of eugenics: “For eugenic purposes, it might be very useful to fertilize a dozen eggs, sequence their genomes, choose only to implant the best, and wash the rest down the drain” or “While it’s true that a blanket ban on abortion would probably increase the White population in there numbers, it would, no doubt, decrease the overall quality, as well and leave all races stupider, more criminally prone, and more diseased” or “However, all things being equal, I would prefer a society populated by attractive, healthy, and intelligent people—rather than the ugly, sick, and stupid.”

In other words, the eugenicist believes in diagnosing the less intelligent, the less attractive, the less healthy and so forth as the Untermensch, and deeming them unworthy of life. Rather than accepting these people as members of our nation or folk community, and believing there is nothing necessarily wrong with them, eugenicists want to eradicate them from the White gene pool – divisive much?

4.) Traditionalism – Are we modernists or traditionalists?

Eugenicists are hyper-modernists. Listening to them talk, you can’t help but wonder what would happen to the organic bonds that are the foundation of nationalism in such a world. You would have parents killing their own children. You would have crackpots diagnosing much of our population as unfit to live or reproduce. You would have the government trying to arrange marriages in order to breed the population like barnyard animals. You would have parents competing with each other in order to have the income to go to the local eugenicist and get the next “killer app” or “upgrade” installed in their unborn child.

The traditional family would be dead as a doornail in such a world. The feeling of belonging to the same nation would certainly be as well.

5.) Ethics – I’m not sure who else feels this way, but I believe that the foundation of our entire cause is the moral duty we owe to our ancestors to preserve our heritage and pass on their legacy to future generations. When you cross the Rubicon and go into the business of exterminating the next generation for whatever reason (whether it is to breed a superior race or because you are too irresponsible to care for your own child), you have thrown our cause into the wind and perverted it into its polar opposite.

6.) Religion – To even get to such a point, traditional religion would certainly have to die in this country and be replaced by a spiritual worldview based on racial materialism. Given the fact that eugenics is so strongly correlated with childlessness and homosexuality, you have to wonder if such a worldview is even viable as a demographic proposition. Is it even capable of sustaining itself when its acolytes are unable to?

Wouldn’t you love to know the eugenicist birthrate? That would be such a fascinating data point.

7.) Breeding – Assuming that humans could be bred like animals, why would we even want to do it? Humanity has domesticated all kinds of plant and animal species. In the process, we have generally made them more useful to us, but also weaker, more docile and inferior to their wild counterparts.

8.) Imperfections – The desire to stamp out out the unfit is driven by a desire to achieve a kind of envisioned Platonic ideal, but genetic mutations (and those who suffer from them) are a natural and inevitable byproduct of evolution. The same is true of the diversity within our own race and species.

9.) Lack of Knowledge – Like their predecessors in the 1920s and 1930s who thought complex traits followed simple Mendelian inheritance patterns, the crackpots who want to embark on this adventure – which is certain to destroy the social fabric of the nation – aren’t even anywhere close to knowing how to achieve their ends.

10.) Liberal Eugenics – If you want to know just how bad an idea combining liberalism with eugenics is, check out Lee Silver’s Remaking Eden: How Genetic Engineering and Cloning Will Transform the American Family:

“A Glimpse of Things to Come

Dateline Boston: June 1, 2010

Sometime in the not-so-distant future, you may visit the maternity ward at a major university hospital to see the newborn child or grandchild of a close friend. The new mother, let’s call her Barbara, seems very much at peace with the world, sitting in a chair quietly nursing her baby, Max. Her labor was — in the parlance of her doctor — “uneventful,” and she is looking forward to raising her first child. You decide to make pleasant conversation by asking Barbara whether she knew in advance that her baby was going to be a boy. In your mind, it seems like a perfectly reasonable question since doctors have long given prospective parents the option of learning the sex of their child-to-be many months before the predicted date of birth. But Barbara seems taken aback by the question. “Of course I knew Max would be a boy,” she tells you. “My husband Dan and I chose him from the embryos we made. And when I’m ready to go through this again, I’ll choose a girl to be my second child. An older son and a younger daughter — the perfect family.”

Now, it’s your turn to be taken aback. “You made a conscious choice to have a boy rather than a girl?” you ask.

“Absolutely!” Barbara answers. “And while I was at it, I made sure that Max wouldn’t turn out to be fat like my brother Tom or addicted to alcohol like Dan’s sister Karen. It’s not that I am personally biased or anything,” Barbara continues defensively. “I just wanted to make sure that Max would have the greatest chance for achieving success. Being overweight or alcoholic would clearly be a handicap.”

You look down in wonderment at the little baby boy destined to be moderate in both size and drinking habits.

Max has fallen asleep in Barbara’s arms, and she places him gently in his bassinet. He wears a contented smile, which evokes a similar smile from his mother. Barbara feels the urge to stretch her legs and asks whether you’d like to meet some of the new friends she’s made during her brief stay at the hospital. You nod, and the two of you walk into the room next door where a thirty-five-year old woman named Cheryl is resting after giving birth to a nine-pound baby girl named Rebecca.

Barbara introduces you to Cheryl as well as a second woman named Madelaine, who stands by the bed holding Cheryl’s hand. Little Rebecca is lying under the gaze of both Cheryl and Madelaine. “She really does look like both her mothers doesn’t she?” Barbara asks you.

Barbara asks you to explain. “Yes. You see Cheryl and Madelaine have been living together for eight years. They got married in Hawaii soon after it became legal there, and like most married couples, they wanted to bring a child into the world with a combination of both their bloodlines. With the reproductive technologies available today, they were able to fulfill their dreams.”

You look across the room at the happy little nuclear family — Cheryl, Madelaine, and baby Rebecca — and wonder how the hospital plans to fill out the birth certificate.”

Aww … how sweet! A little angel with two lesbians as her biological mothers.

“Dateline USA: May 15, 2350

It is now three hundred years later and although you are long since gone, a number of your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren are now alive, mostly unbeknownst to one another. The United States of America still exists, but it is a different place from the one familiar to you. The most striking difference is that the extreme polarization of society that began during the 1980s has now reached its logical conclusion, with all people belonging to one of two classes. The people of one class are referred to as Naturals, while those in the second class are called the Gene-enriched or simply the GenRich.

These new classes of society cut across what used to be traditional racial and ethnic lines. In fact, so much mixing has occurred during the last three hundred years that sharp divisions according to race — black versus white versus Asian — no longer exist. Instead, the American populace has finally become the racial melting pot that earlier leaders had long hoped for. The skin color of Americans comes in all shades from African brown to Scandinavian pink, and traditional Asian facial features are present to a greater or lesser extent in a large percentage of Americans as well.

The GenRich — who account for 10 percent of the American population — all carry synthetic genes. Genes that were created in the laboratory and did not exist within the human species until twenty-first century reproductive geneticists began to put them there. The GenRich are a modern day hereditary class of genetic aristocrats.

Some of the synthetic genes carried by present-day members of the GenRich class were already carried by their parents. These genes were transmitted to today’s GenRich the old-fashioned way, from parent to child through sperm or egg. These were placed into GenRich embryos through the application of genetic engineering techniques shortly after conception.

The GenRich class is anything but homogenous. There are many types of GenRich families, and many subtypes within each type. For example, there are GenRich athletes who can trace their descent back to professional sports players from the twenty-first century. One subtype of GenRich athlete is the GenRich football player, and a sub-subtype is the GenRich running back. Embryo selection techniques have been used to make sure that a GenRich running back has received all of the natural genes that made his unenhanced foundation ancestor excel at the position. But in addition, at each generation beyond the foundation ancestor, sophisticated genetic enhancements have accumulated so that the modern-day GenRich running back can perform in a way not conceivable for any unenhanced Natural. Of course, all professional baseball, football, and basketball players are special GenRich subtypes. After three hundred years of selection and enhancement, these GenRich individuals all have athletic skills that are clearly “nonhuman” in the traditional sense. It would be impossible for any Natural to compete.

Another GenRich type is the GenRich scientist. Many of the synthetic genes carried by the GenRich scientist are the same as those carried by all other members of the GenRich class, including some that enhance a variety of physical and mental attributes, as well as others that provide resistance to all known forms of human disease. But in addition, the present-day GenRich scientist has accumulated a set of particular synthetic genes that work together with his “natural” heritage to produce an enhanced scientific mind. Although the GenRich scientist may appear to be different from the GenRich athlete, both GenRich types have evolved by a similar process. The foundation ancestor for the modern GenRich scientist was a bright twenty-first century scientist who could produce even more brilliant children. There are numerous other GenRich types including GenRich businessmen, GenRich musicians, GenRich artists, and even GenRich intellectual generalists who all evolved in the same way.

Not all present-day GenRich individuals can trace their foundation ancestors back to the twenty-first century, when genetic enhancement was first perfected. During the twenty-second and twenty-third centuries, some Natural families garnered the financial wherewithal required to place their children in the GenRich class. But with the passage of time, the genetic distance between the Naturals and the GenRich has become greater and greater, and now there is little movement up from the Natural to GenRich class. It seems fair to say that society is on the verge of reaching the final point of complete polarization.

All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by the members of the GenRich class. GenRich parents can afford to send their children to private schools rich in the resources required for them to take advantage of their enhanced genetic potential. In contrast, Naturals work as low-paid service providers or as laborers, and their children go to public schools. But twenty-fourth century public schols have little in common with their predecessors from the twentieth century. Funds for public education have declined steadily since the beginning of the twenty-first century, and now Natural children are only taught the basic skills they need to perform the kinds of tasks they’ll encounter in the jobs available to members of their class.

There is still some intermarriage as well as sexual intermingling between a few GenRich individuals and Naturals. But, as one might imagine, GenRich parents put intense pressure on their children not to dilute their expensive genetic endowment in this way. And as time passes, the mixing of the classes will become less and less frequent for reasons of both environment and genetics.

The environmental reason is clear enough: GenRich and Natural children grow up and live in segregated social worlds where there is little chance for contact between them. The genetic reason, however, was unanticipated.

It is obvious to everyone that with each generation of genetic enhancement, the genetic distance separating the GenRich and Naturals is growing larger and larger. But a startling consequence of the expanding genetic distance has just come to light. In a nationwide survey of the few interclass GenRich-Natural couples that could be identified, sociologists have discovered an astounding 90 percent level of infertility. Reproductive geneticists have examined these couples and come to the conclusion that the infertility is caused primarily by the incompatibility between the genetic makeup of each member.

Evolutionary biologists have long observed instances in which otherwise fertile individuals taken from two separate populations prove infertile when mated to each other. And they tell the sociologists and reproductive geneticists what is going on: the process of species separation between the GenRich and Naturals has already begun. Together, the sociologists, the reproductive geneticists, and the evolutionary biologists are willing to make the following prediction: If the accumulation of genetic knowledge and advances in genetic enhancement technology continue at the present rate, then by the end of the third millennium, the GenRich class and the Natural class will become the GenRich humans and the Natural humans — entirely separate species with no ability to cross-breed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee.”

Doesn’t it sound wonderful?

By this point, we have jettisoned White identity, thrown away our traditions, lost the organic bonds that make up the nation, dissolved the bonds of the family, and we have turned our backs on God and blown apart the ties of kinship that has made us one people. It is highly unlikely to ever happen (Silver’s book was published in 1997 and many predictions have yet to materialize), but that’s the glorious vision!

Note: I left unmentioned the loonier ideas out there like man-animal chimeras, decerebreated human clones, and semi-artificial biolithic creatures.

Note: Wouldn’t it be a much better idea to just become more religious and have more children? After all, the black birthrate is only 1.90 per woman. Couldn’t we manage with fewer DINKs, homosexuals, and career women?

About Hunter Wallace 12166 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

194 Comments

  1. Eugenics can be entirely traditional, and Christian.
    In studying my own family line, I realized that I and my siblings are the result of centuries of selective breeding. One accomplished and long lived family married into another, over and over again. We should encourage this kind of “common-sense eugenics.” Look at your potential spouse’s family when considering a match, and remember that your children will carry that legacy–both social and genetic.

    • According to the dictionary definition, marrying White and wanting to live in a White country means we practice eugenics.

      • Using the word Eugenics, or calling someone a eugenicist means nothing. It’s like calling someone a racist. It’s a word used to intimidate when any sane white man or woman would be a racist eugenicist. The correct answer to such a charge is a simple “Duh!”

    • Not to mention a common theme if you’ve ever watched older British shows set in the Victorian Era, the obsession was marrying up into well to do families of “good breeding”.

    • Genetics (and its bastard offspring eugenetics) didn’t even exist hundreds of years ago. So I fail to see how your family could have practised selective breeding as you claim. Interestingly enough, the royal families of Europe practised close cousin marriages to maintain the “purity” of royal blood. That didn’t work out very well in practise though. A lot of idiots, lunatics, and hemophiliacs were begotten and born to those well breed families.

      • Now they know about the dangers of inbreeding, they are marrying somewhat downward. Again, they are practicing eugenics.

        • They knew about the dangers of inbreeding centuries ago. That’s why the Catholic Church forbade close cousin marriage for centuries, except for rare and usual circumstances.

          • Traditions die hard I guess. Pity they didn’t forbid interracial marriage. If they had genetic morality, South America wouldn’t be a third world dump.

          • And it’s odd that Victoria and Albert were 1st cousins, had 19 children, and nary a problem with any of them. Of course, Muslims marry their 1st cousins all the time, and this has resulted in very high birth defects and lowered IQ. And they really couldn’t’ afford any more points lower than it already was!!

          • Cousin marriages compound over generations. You or I could probably marry a first cousin with no problem, but if it is repeated for multiple generations, you will run into trouble!

            Also, with the tech we have today to screen for recessive defective genes, we could probably do a lot more cousin marriages as long as they pass the genetic screening. Problem is that we are just now scratching the surface with genetic screening while there are so, so many things that would need to be screened for.

            Of course you don’t have to actually identify the genes in question. We could use statistics and family histories of illnesses to screen for which first cousins should be ok to marry.

            But no doubt about it, cousin marriages will increase the risk of miscarriages and congenital defects–whether they be physical defects or mental defects.

          • Nature removes defects via survival of the fittest. If a population can’t rid itself of defects, it dies out. I’m not advocating “evolution” here but rather the process by which degeneration is prevented.

            Under your strategy of screening for recessive traits, a slow accumulation would develop.

            Anyway, Icelanders have been alright somehow. It is somewhat a miracle how our genetics have endured since Adam and Eve.

            Too much outbreeding risks a similar outcome to a small dog breeding with a large dog.

          • The Catholic Church forbade inbreeding in order to encourage intermarriage among Europeans, to bring about unity.

            It’s the same with today. Whites are supposed to marry nonwhites in order to bring about unity and also to get rid of the white problem.

      • That’s exagerated. Most marriages were power alliances. Power was grabbed by clever warriors and held by clever warriors. Constitutional monarchs had problems.

        Also monarchs in the 19th century limited the cruelty of wars. They had other functions. Your blood argument is a canard.

        • Many of the eugenicists were for close cousin marriages. They wanted to maintain “superior” bloodlines.

        • Inbreeding just brings preexisting genetic defects to the surface. I’m against overclose inbreeding, but a society like Iceland is a small breeding population. Defects there would come to the surface quickly, where they could be selected against.

          The current obsession with outbreeding seems intended to encourage miscegenation. Defects are hidden, but they also survive to be passed down.

          • Inbreeding is a nonproblem for us. I’ve only met one person in my life who was the product of incest. It was in a small town in Kentucky where he was a local retarded person who hung around a local church. I guess there may be a few in asylums though.
            Any of us would be perfectly ok to go with a 2nd cousin, or maybe even a 1st cousin, as long as it didn’t become a family tradition.

          • Is it preferred for defects to be revealed by inbreeding and selected against or for them to be hidden, passed down, and accumulated as you suggest?

            You seem to believe technology will enable to us to remove them at will one day. I fear that day though. That will be the day Southerners kill the South.

          • Eugenics is by definition good. Dysgenics is by definition bad.
            You seem not to care that we are in a state of dysgenics today. We need some eugenic policies just to keep from evolving backwards.
            It is many, many times more likely that we (our posterity) will suffer doom from our neglecting eugenics than from implementing it.

          • There is eugenics and eugenics. Identity and the concept of the soul must be preserved.

            I’m a nationalist, not a eugenitic. I know what enemy extinguishes the white race: Eugenitics. That is Ragnarok.

            Which side you choose is up to you.

          • Technology is already here for us to screen for many genetic diseases, and the list is just going to get longer with time. There is no reason a young couple today can’t do a cheap screen to make sure they are genetically compatible to have children.
            Sperm donors are screened heavily for genetic diseases already. Of course, due to our race denying political climate, a woman can get inseminated with any ethnicity she chooses–That would change if I were president again.

          • Well, screening would be fine. I dislike how our side tends to assume technology will just resolve genetic problems though.

            You could also match individual sperm and eggs. I’m fine with that, though if such became widespread it could be risky were a good gene wrongly identified as bad.

          • Yeah, we don’t have to weed out every last copy of a bad gene variant, especially if it is recessive. The allele for cystic fibrosis is pretty rare already, and we can screen for it already, so couples can get screened before marriage. I guess it would be nice to get rid of it altogether, but once it’s so rare and easily manageable, it’s just a nonproblem. Plus it may help confer resistance to some future plague, so maybe we should keep it around for that purpose.
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1724059

          • I suppose a doctor could, in the future, play a joke on a white nationalist by mixing black genes into his children. There’s really need for a state government that is pro-white.

          • There’s already a mixup case where two blonde lesbians requested a blond donor, but the child was mulatto. They tried to sue but lost.
            That’s devastating for us. Since lately gays win darn near every time they bring a case to court. I guess race-mixing agenda trumps gay agenda.

      • There is some thought that Cousin Marriage is healthier as similar genetics results in many more children, just look at the Arabs. Im no geneticist but it could be because non-related people’s genes clash therefore less children. Vast majority of marriages before 1850 were made between people who were related at some level. This ended with the mobility brought by the locomotive. I know in Appalachia where my family came from, you have generations of people marrying back and forth and its hard to figure out sometimes all the relations. For instance my grandmother’s sister married my grandfather’s nephew, making him both cousin and uncle. This was once the normal and we were better off.

        • Billy Ray, close cousin marriages are dangerous to the health of the children they produce. The chances of recessive genes that might give the descendants of such marriages birth defects are increased by consanguinity. And as for your claim about Arabs having healthier children by such unions, you have been misinformed. Read this and see how unhealthy it is! http://www.themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/psychologist-serious-consequences-of-muslim-inbreeding/

          • I was speaking mostly about the Arabs having many more children as cousin marriages are statistically much more fertile. As Rhett Butler told Scarlett O’Hara like should only be matched with like. In Antebellum Dixie, 1st and 2nd Cousin Marriages were as common as toilet paper, literally everyone did it. Most of your great Southern leaders were the products of such relationships. LIKE SHOULD ONLY MATE WITH LIKE. Now unfortunately we have such a hatred of marrying relatives our society thinks Interracial breeding is more healthy than cousin breeding which in fact is a lie as IR children are genetic one-offs and if they need spare parts, forget it,

          • I doubt “everybody was doing it”. A lot of people were probably doing it, but not everybody.
            So what if great Southern leaders came from such unions. What was the health of their descendants like? I’m willing to bet their health wasn’t that great, and that those families are decayed or extinct today.
            The reason why we have such a hatred of intrafamily marriages is simple. It’s considered incest. The only groups that I know of that practise this are Jews, fundamentalist Mormons, Muslims, Amish, and the Apostolic Christian Church. All of these groups have a high number of members with birth defects and hereditary dresses and illnesses. So come again how “healthy” it is to be married to a close relative!

          • That is how humanity came to be my friend in the beginning all races of men arose from inbreeding. I have seen studies on marrying relatives that shows the genetic risks are much smaller than previously stated. When I said everyone was doing it, i meant that almost every family had members married to family members and by that that could mean cousins as distant as 4th or 5th or closer. I can go back in my family and I had generation after generation marrying cousins and no one was born with 3 eyes or without arms, so I reckon there’s no real risk.

          • You can make all the claims you want, but until you can post a link to a legitimate scientific study that backs up your claims, you’re shooting bs like Prez Davis.

        • It’s a tradeoff.

          On one hand, we have kin selection/nepotism that favors marriages of relatives (and the more they have in common genetically, the more they will like each other).

          On the other hand, inbreeding gives children weaker immune systems and a higher incidence of homozygosity for some deleterious trait.

          This study
          http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ReproductiveHealth/story?id=4258128
          indicates that the optimum is 3rd/4th cousin marriage for Icelanders. But it could even be closer for us since we haven’t been inbreeding in recent generations as much as the Icelanders have.
          For us, marrying a 3rd/4th cousin isn’t much different from just marrying within your race.
          People might make jokes about the old inbreeding hillbillies of Appalachia, but except in extreme cases, it really wasn’t a big deal–Maybe even beneficial.

          • Look my family’s from Kentucky, Harlan/Bell Co in fact and I can tell you this, they couldn’t help but marry kin because of the small population in the pioneer days, that’s all there was. Within 100 years, it was difficult for people to find spouses they weren’t at least distantly related to. This same thing happened even in the North, pioneer groups moved together as family groups and tended to already be related back in the old state and carried it on in the new. The reason cousin marriage declined in the North was simply because large amounts of immigration widened the pool of available spouses. In Appalachia, where there was less immigration, the number of potential spouses was lower. Take what you can get.

    • One thing you have to remember is this. Families once picked their children’s mates. Now it is true that technically in the Antebellum days, that even then the arranged marriages were not a hard and fast rule as they were among the Europeans, but they were heavily encouraged. Most parent’s typically managed their daughter’s associates which had the same effect.

      The North, which was more prosperous and with less rootless whites, could simply manage their family associations and there would usually be no problems. Miscgenation was unheard of because most people of quality didn’t associate with whites who were less well to do than they were much less Negroes. The Yankees simply believed that family and social ostracism was enough to keep bad behavior out of the picture.

      The South, because of the indentured servants and white convict slaves of Colonial days, had a sizeable population of white trash, that had to be managed. This group was less prevelent in the North. They couldn’t be counted on to mind social rules or to behave themselves so the South had to have harsh laws governing social behavior.

      The South’s moral prohibition laws were proven the correct method by the 1920s, when in the Northern cities, family connections broke down and a small segment of women began to become libertines. This process was much less in the country, and the depression ended it altogether but then WWII came. With brothers and cousins out of the USA to watch them the women got jobs and associated with whomever they wished. WWII brought the complete death of the family social management system and respect for tradition in the North,

      The South was able to maintain this through one way and that was LAW. Of course by 1970 these laws were gone, and slowly the same problems that had started in the North mostly because of WWII reared its ugly head in the South. Still the effects haven;t been as widespread as in the North but are still bad.

    • Careful now son, we on the right love to sperg out and we absolutely hate memes that the other 99% can easily understand and appreciate, hate em.
      Go write an essay

      • Hunter, If you could choose for your next child to be either ugly, dumb, sick or handsome, smart, healthy, I’m pretty sure I know which option you would pick.

      • What about the white rapists, murderers, thieves and child molesters?
        Is there nothing wrong with them either? I mean they get a free pass for being white, Right?
        Some people are infertile and have to use sperm/egg donors. I’ve got an idea:
        Since all the doctors and future doctors are busy practicing or studying, they really don’t have time to donate sperm. We should get men in prisons who have plenty of time on their hands to be the sperm donors instead. I mean, as long as they’re white what could possibly go wrong?

      • We have technology already that shows traits of babies before they are born. The enemy media calls them designer babies, but that is just poopytalk for eugenics. Eugenics is a real science. It will continue even if under another name. We must control the system to benefit us and dump the dead weight of failed races holding us down. We would already have space stations like the one in 2001 A Space Odyssey if not for the dumb dark ones who suck down our budget and cause Billions in damage and crime. Flush the garbage and there will be Hundreds of Billions for subsidizing White children and Science and even Spaceflight.

  2. Hunter Wallace, I commend you. In this and the essay on abortion from two days ago, you’ve summed up perfectly the disagreements I have with White advocates sympathetic to eugenics. It is immoral stuff. Freedom to choose a spouse is enough. All human life is precious, and couples should be encouraged to cherish all the children God gives them.

    • You’re assuming eugenics necessarily equals cruelty or involves test tubes.
      If you don’t want your daughter to marry a negro, then you’re a eugenicist.

      • What if the negro was highly intelligent and had the IQ test to prove it or was a star athlete? Shouldn’t your daughter breed with the negro in order to have his superior qualities represented in her offspring?

        • No. because it would be dysgenic in that the children would not be white–that’s a pretty big disqualifier.
          Also don’t forget about “regression to the mean.” It is very unlikely that a high IQ negro will produce an equal IQ child. It is not understood genetically, but it is irrefutably observed statistically.

          Two full-blooded negroes, both with an IQ of 130, are extremely unlikely to produce a child with an IQ of 130 on any given pregnancy. But if they were to have 10 kids then perhaps one or two of them might be that smart.

          It’s not unique to humans. It’s long observed in racehorses. with a large population of breeding racehorses, breeding a KY Derby winning stallion to a KY Derby winning mare does not give you a very good chance of having the KY Derby winner 3 yrs down the road–but it gives you a Hell of a lot better chance than breeding two mediocre racehorses!

    • ‘All human life is precious, and couples should be encouraged to cherish all the children God gives them.”

      Unless you are willing to equate ‘human life’ only with Caucasoid bipeds.
      If not, BULLSHIT.

      There is no other way to describe this squishy, touchy-feely, JUDAIZED LIBERALISM masquerading as Christian ‘charity.’

      The OT was VERY PRECISE that eugenics, via only tribal unions among the Israelites, were permitted. Transgressing outside of that RACIAL GROUP, brought about INSTANT COVENANTAL APOSTASY.

      So bad was this transgressing, that it would take @400 YEARS (the ’10 generations’) to ‘purify’ the ‘seed’ that had been ‘spoiled.’

      If that’s not Eugenics, and racial supremacy, CONDONED AND COMMANDED BY GOD, I don’t know what is.

      You folks aren’t acting like Southernors, you are acting and thinking like DAMN YANKEES.

    • I stand by my previous comment, which Hunter has quoted in this article:

      “Why is it ok to sacrifice healthy, patriotic white men (who pass asvaab, fitness tests, and basic training, and in whom we have invested heavily into educating in public schools at10K/yr x 13yrs=$130K) in warfare (even if it is a just war) but not ok to sacrifice a fetus of unknown merit and in whom we have not heavily invested taxpayer money?”

      Perhaps someone could tell me exactly where my thinking is wrong?

  3. It’s necessary to draw a distinction between engineered eugenics and natural, volitional eugenics. For instance, I am somewhat vertically-challenged as a consequence of my mother’s side being extremely short. So I have never dated girls below a certain height, as I have every interest in my male children being taller than I am. In a similar vein, I am blessed to have very intelligent parents, and for reasons both personal (I need to be with an intelligent girl for my own sanity) and eugenic, I’m attracted to highly intelligent girls. This side of eugenics – choosing one’s life partner discriminatingly – has been practiced for millennia.

    Coercion and bioengineering are never going to be sustainable game plans, because they disturb the natural, emotional process of childbirth. Positive incentives can work on a broad basis, but selective “breeding” controlled by the government will not appeal to a broad swath of society, and it shouldn’t.

    • I think its going to happen regardless. The Chinese have no such qualms with trying to improve themselves. The West will try to forbid it, so people will use it in secret.

    • Agreed.

      We’re not arguing about “positive eugenics” here. The only type of eugenics which would actually be helpful is wisely choosing a mate and having 4 to 6 children.

        • I don’t see immigration as a eugenics issue. Many of the immigrants coming here from Asia have high IQs and are generally very successful in business. The same is true of even many African immigrants.

          • You seem to think being pro-eugenics means having an obsession with IQ and caring for nothing but IQ.
            Obviously a IQ is the elephant in the room THAT WE CANNOT AFFORD TO IGNORE but it is not the only factor to consider. Not being a racial white (preferably anglo-celt, homegrown Southerner) is a bigass disqualifier.
            Just looking through my imaginoscope, I see a South that only takes non-liberal Northwest Europeans, only in small numbers, and only the absolute cream of the crop. Again, preference would be for anglo-celts over Scandinavians, Germans or French.
            But we don’t really have to take ANY immigrants, even if they are anglo-celts. We certainly don’t need to open our doors to any Elton Johns or Piers Morgans to come over here.
            Let’s not forget that we are not quite the same as Brits racially, even if we are 100% British ancestry. The explanation is a bit longwinded, so perhaps I should look for a link to an explanation.
            But here goes:
            First, look up the statistics definitions of
            –population
            –sample
            –sample bias
            Obviously, neither all Brits, nor all English, nor all Welsh, nor all Scots are genetic clones. (They’re so close, lets just count them all as one British race, including the Ulster Scots.) So we have a large population of racial Brits, a small sample of which colonized the South, another small sample colonized the North, and still others elsewhere or remaining in UK.
            But the colonization wasn’t random. There were sample biases. The Brits that settled the North were Puritans who no doubt had some genetic predisposition to Puritan ideology (and it shows in their liberalism today), and many of whom were closely related. The Brits that settled the South came mostly for the cheap land, either to homestead or to start plantations. Of course there was a selection bias there also. The sample certainly wasn’t a random representation of the population as some entire clans of Scots came over together. Plus, some types of people would naturally be more attracted to cheap land while others would be more inclined to pursue some other venture.
            Therefore, one group with certain population genetics went to the North, while another went to the South. These groups obviously grew into two distinct racial groups, not only being different from each other but also different from their ancestral population in Britain. In biology/evolution circles this is known as the “founder effect” and it explains just one way evolution can occur much more rapidly than usual. (Of course the implications in animal breeding are tremendous)
            It would work the same way if I had two Petri dishes, one overgrown with lots of different bacteria from my nose, and the other one clean. If I take a loop (a small wire loop for grabbing bacterial samples from a culture) and collect a small sample from the first dish and then colonize the clean dish with it, the clean dish will soon grow a culture that is 100% derived from the original dish, but it will be different because my sample did not include a perfect representation of all the bacteria on the original dish.
            Therefore, assuming there was no admixture with indigenous tribes or any other European peoples, we are probably more racially close to the anglo-celts of Australia, South Africa, or New Zealand than we are to the anglo-celts of Britain or the Northeast.
            I don’t obsess over IQ or racial purity, but they are both important and should not get thrown out of the equation for immigration, or fertility incentives. Obviously, the single best possible solution is to get eugenic fertility through the roof and just say no, thanks to any immigration. I sympathize with the Boers of South Africa, and I don’t suppose it would be the worst possible evil if we took them in, but I’d much rather see them reconquer Africa than to come here.

          • You mean those families of Somali Muslims that are imported to go on welfare. High IQ, my foot.

  4. NO, Hunter, you are wrong.

    1) Abortion is NOT Eugenics.

    Eugenics was the PREVENTATIVE means to ensure a healthier, more viable population, to ‘reverse the curse’ in Biblical terms. The greatest eugenicists of the early 20th Century were scientists, as WELL AS Pastors, teachers, etc.

    To equate Eugenics with Abortion, falls into the IDIOTIC Roman Catholic mindset, that is so messed up with faulty philosophical premises, that to even BEGIN to talk about it, would demand six months of daily posts! But their primary fallacy is believing in UNIVERSALISM on a soteriological scale, which ipso facto engenders the utterly damnable ‘all men are equal’ BS scenario. THEY ARE NOT.

    To go back ‘ad fontes’ I can quote no more cogent (and qualified) comment on Rome’s FUNDAMENTAL ERROR, than this:

    “The filioque is the outward, efficacious, and visible symbol of an inward and metaphysical depravity.” – Dr. Joseph P. Farrell (OXON)

    When you stop equating death with a desire to enable White Christian men to do what God called us to do, (the Great Commission’s true locus and focus- to build God’s Kingdom, here ‘on earth, as it is in heaven’) rather than the Jewish abortion mindset, or the BS Egalitarian mindset, I’ll listen.

    • To clarify:

      1.) Radix and Counter-Currents claim that abortion in the US is eugenic.

      2.) Eugenic abortion through prenatal diagnosis is a type of eugenics. There are also other methods like sterilization.

        • That true in a multiracial society. It’s a bad position in a homogenous society. It also contracts white identity to a great extent.

          By welfare I assume you mean giving money to blacks with no strings attatched.

          • I mean welfare as we know it today: giving money to people (usually single mothers) based on their lack of gainful employment and the number of children they have…It should be pending the sterilization or birth control implant of the woman. That way you are bribing your ne’er do wells to get sterilized, while at the same time providing charity where needed. Also, it’s not abolishing welfare, just adding a requirement, so it should be an easier battle politically.

        • No. Require sterilization, hormonal implant, or IUD before the woman can get the welfare. That would be bribed sterilization of people with welfaritis and would not neglect the children already born.

    • The crux of the argument from the atheists at Radix was that abortion kills all the the right people, and is therefore eugenic. Therefore we must support abortion. Marian van Court makes this argument when she pushes eugenics over at counter currents. Traditional Christian societies practiced the eugenics of richer, smarter, or otherwise more able people having more kids than poor, foolish or dysfunctional people. The people promoting eugenics in the current controversy are anti Christian, anti family and pro degeneracy. why would you ally with them and take 4 paragraphs to gratuitously swipe at the largest group of traditional Christians in the world?

      • Who are these ‘traditional Christians? Are talking about Roman HERETICS? The spawn of the Whore of Babylon?

        Have you even LOOKED AT THE RECENT ACTIONS/PRONOUNCEMENTS of the ‘Pope’? Just read the articles related to the current papal encyclical, over at Barnhardt.biz

        http://www.barnhardt.biz/2016/04/05/confirmed-amoris-laetitiae-means-the-joy-of-sodomy/

        If he (Bergoglio) is not the Antichrist, he sure is the false prophet. And only a nutjob like convert Ann can still believe the Roman Communion is still the “True Church,’ but there you are. The infection of universalism via the Pope’s ‘invite the world, subdue the world’ (to Rome) is utterly contrary to both the Praxis of the OT, and the first millennium of the TRUE Church’s existence. It is also the foundational rationale for thinking lesser races and deformed individuals are somehow ‘special’ in God’s eyes. There are cursings and blessings in the Bible, and the cursings are NOT a ‘sign’ of God’s special favor. (I can’t believe I have to say this!)

        As to ‘The people promoting eugenics in the current controversy are anti Christian, anti family and pro degeneracy,’ WELL, WHOSE FAULT IS THAT?

        If we had not taken Rome’s lead in this back in the 1960s, perhaps we might have also avoided the Sailer strategy in Europe’s ‘inviting’ the Syrian ‘refugees’ to ANNIHILATE THE NATIVE EUROPEAN WHITES!? If we had not listened to the lies of Copernican heliocentrism, 500 years ago, or the Papal claims a 1000 years ago, PERHAPS WE WOULDN’T BE HAVING THIS ARGUMENT, at all.

        But we did, and we are.

        And UNTIL we REPENT of our heliocentrism while pretending to be ‘Bible Christians,’ and use/believe in some elements of Evolution, while we cuck ourselves into a corner talking about the ‘precious Negroes’ of God, while aborting our own white babies, and then worry about being ‘nice’ when we are dealing with a lying Psychopath, rather than be thought ‘boorish’ for voting for Trump….. Well, it’s rather a moot point, frankly.

        • For a Christian cleric, you are sorely lacking in charity, humility or temperance. I’m no fan of the current pope, and don’t advocate for any of the policies currently destroying Europe. What being opposed to Eugenics, Degeneracy, and Abortion has to do with heliocentrism I have no idea, but once again you’ve shown your penchant for insults and tangents. Never Mind that it’s been the constant Teaching of the Church, including St. Paul in the scripture in Gal 5, Justin Martyr, and all the Fathers that contraception and abortion were gravely sinful. The problem is heterosexual white people have embraced Degenerate Sinful sexual practices, nothing else. Hunter is actually addressing this issue, you appear to be supporting them.

          The idea that God had cursed the negro and that Christianity does not belong there appears to directly contradict the Great Commission, as well as Acts, where Philip converts the Ethiopian. I have no desire to debate with you on this, or any other topic in this space, except the matter of Eugenics, Abortion, and Contraception. All of which, AFAIK, the Church East and West categorically rejected.

          • Christ was neither charitable, humble or temperate when he took a WHIP and scourged the Moneylenders in the Temple. Can you in good conscience (do you even have one?) say that the modern apostate, sodomitical, abortion blood-reeked, PHarisee Evangelicuck American, is not WORSE than the usurers in God’s Temple?

            Don’t preach to me, you fool, of that “perennial mouth gag of the godless,” about what a priest or a son of God should do! You are neither my bishop, nor my equal, unless you are a priest, and then, even so, were you a Roman, I would call you heretic as soon as look at you. Just as St. Mark of Ephesus has done, and his witness has stood for centuries.

  5. Now let us cut to the chase here, years ago the WN version of HW was a waffle fed looking ‘Murkan, then he took a leave of absence and raised his “Sexual market value” SMV and now looks like a white man should look.
    You want to raise the white birth rate you have to raise your SMV, sorry Game haters you won’t excite the female hind brain of a worthy womb holder by quoting some philosopher or the bible.
    Report to Roissy’s website, and indulge.

    • This misses the point.

      We are talking about collapsing populations and Good Birth. Most women will eventually reproduce with a beta-provider. That’s reality. Children require a breadwinner. Either a voluntary one or a compelled by the state taxpayer. A court sanctioned Child support payer is the third option.

      Have your fun before that moment arrives but a woman will not settle down and build a family with a playah either.

        • Allow me to LARP for a moment. It sure ain’t the 50s and the 50s were not the 30s…fuck it, were the 1950s the 50s?

          Also I do enjoy Chateau Heartiste.

          It’s a good guide to the Hind Brain

      • Don’t make the mistake of thinking that provider=beta. The manosphere/PUA articles can get a little carried away, but there’s a grain of truth in their talk.

  6. At a certain point whether a society embraces or rejects eugenics will be determined by circumstances beyond its control. I have no doubt in my mind that China will practice eugenics in its population. It in fact is essentially practicing it now in pilot programs. The only hope a non-eugenic society will have is that the eugenic techniques remain fairly basic and in practice mostly directed at the elimination of negative traits such as disease. Once however a society surpasses what is in essence screening for disease then a non eugenic society will not be in a position to compete. And at that point it may be too late to catch up.

    The genie is out of the bottle and isn’t going back. The power inherent in genetic manipulation makes it certain that some societies will pursue it. And if they are successful then non-eugenic societies will be had the mercy of those whose strong inclination will be to hold them as genetic inferiors possessing land and other resources that would be “better” used by more advanced humans.

    • This was all laid out in Silver’s book in 1997. Nearly 20 years later, it hasn’t happened. We still don’t understand the genetics of intelligence. This is a good time to revisit the issue because we were debating it exactly 10 years ago on forums.

      • There is nothing that says we never will understand the genes that largely determine intelligence. But progress has been made.

        • Until then we have animal husbandry to give a clue how to do that in the real world.

          • Yep, but we are up against people who are against eugenics because they think it is “playing God.”

            Wouldn’t it be equally playing God to decide against eugenics? If we are indeed playing God by practicing eugenics, then we are playing a benevolent God, where those who oppose eugenics would be playing a cruel God. The option to “not play God at all” does not exist.

            Do these same people thing it is playing God to vaccinate their children?

          • We’re up against people who “have a hunch” who believe that qualifies them to determine who is worthy of life. God explicitly says children are a blessing. Some eugenicists compare children to ticks and parasites.

          • If you believe *all* children are a blessing from God, then why don’t you adopt a bunch of African babies?

            Since you are using appeals to religion like you promised not to do in your post, I guess it’s free game for me to do the same:

            Exodus 12:29
            Numbers 31:17
            1 Samuel 15:3
            Isaiah 13:16
            Hosea 9:11-16
            Hosea 13:16
            Psalm 137:9
            Acts 7:19

            Why was God ok with killing babies in the Bible, but it is such a bad thing for us to do it now–when we have mountains of data to prove we are disproportionately impacting the enemy. Why is it worse than sacrificing grown men of proven merit and in whom we have heavily invested (130k in public school alone) but not OK to sacrifice unborn babies of unknown merit and in whom we have invested nothing, and know from data that they are on avg below avg genetic quality?

            What makes it moral to sacrifice the men in a just racewar, but not the children? Which loss is the least burden to our race? You do care about our race don’t you?

          • Ok, If I invented a genetic test to screen pregnancies to spot any women who might be carrying the next Bill Clinton, Would you allow those babies to be aborted?

          • I’m not going to spend anymore of my time arguing with someone who believes in child sacrifice.

            Quite honestly, I don’t want to be associated with people like that. I don’t share the goals of people who feel they have the right to determine who is “worthy of life.” I certainly don’t want to live in a dystopian science fiction movie. The system we have now is terrible, but if that is where the Alt-Right is headed, then I want no part of it.

          • This was one of the key points that I thought about myself when I was reexamining my views on abortion.
            The argument that it is a human life means little, because we decide to take human lives all the time.
            –we send men to war, knowing many will die
            –we execute some criminals, though libs make it a lot harder to do
            –we often passively allow people to die by removing medical devices
            –police snipers shoot hostagetakers
            In each of these cases we are deciding who is least worthy of life.
            The argument that it is a human life is primarily a visceral appeal, and is expected to just end the debate. The opponent is expected to give up or be a “bad person who doesn’t like babies enough.”
            –we risk our own and other people’s lives every time we go out on the highway
            –we could save lots of lives by lowering the speed limit to 40 mph on highways, but we don’t
            –many people are accidentally shot every year but we don’t confiscate firearms
            In each of these scenarios, are we “playing God” and judging that the benefit is worth the risk to other people’s lives?

        • Agree.
          Just adding my.02 here. I think it will be a very long time before we name all, or even half of the genes that code for intelligence. Just the fact that IQ curves are a normal (Gaussian) distribution proves that intelligence is a polygenic trait rather than a Mendelian trait. So far only a few intelligence genes have been identified and they only count for a very small percentage of variation in intelligence.
          However we know much about statistics. We are today well capable of identifying and selecting for the trait. The only thing that slows us down is agreeing on which practices are on the table and which practices are not. Unfortunately we are dealing with people who believe that eugenics is evil (I guess they prefer dysgenics.) and must not see the light of day.

      • To be honest, you don’t have to actually identify a gene to be able to select for a particular trait. If that were the case then we would just now be learning that we could selectively breed animals.

      • Some genes that code for intelligence have been identified, and guess what! They’re not equally distributed racially! I know that’s a big surprise to everyone here but I thought I’d throw it in anyway.

        You’re “20 yrs later and still hasn’t come true” argument is so absurd you should be ashamed to make it. When I was a little boy I realized I would die someday, but over 20 years later it still hasn’t come true, so I guess I was wrong!

        Besides, Isn’t the League a pro-secession organization? And isn’t it over 20 yrs old?

        • We spent a lot of time arguing about Silver’s book in 2006 and his predictions of things like biological lesbian mothers by 2010 have yet to come true. He vastly overestimated the progress that genetics was making.

          • I’d say we’re pretty close to the capability for biological lesbian mothers now, if not already. It’s certainly possible to take a nucleus from one woman’s egg and put it into another woman’s egg (that already had the nucleus taken out). That would give one woman 100% of the nuclear parentage and the other 100% of the mitochondrial parentage. It’s nowhere near an even split like a male-female mating, but it actually would include some genetic contribution from each woman.

            It will be a very long time before we identify 50% of the genes that code for intelligence. It likely includes hundreds, if not thousands of genes. But we are marching in that direction, and like I said, some have already been identified.

            Overwhelmingly, the best way to achieve eugenics goals is to simply get certain people to breed a lot more and certain people to breed a lot less. Gene splicing to rid us of mendelian genetic diseases is very close, if not already here.

          • BTW, Harold is still 100% right. in the comment above. If you want to imagine a dystopian future, just imagine if we reject eugenics while the Chinese embrace it. Now that’s a horror story.

            It doesn’t make that much difference if we actually identify the genes for intelligence or not. We already have way more knowledge than we need to do this. The only thing standing in the way is politics.

            Pending politics, we are plenty capable today of achieving our goals with the practices I have suggested here:
            http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2016/04/14/eugenics-whats-wrong-with-it/#comment-2624386849
            along with some policies to boost family size in higher quality individuals.

            Also, of course there is plenty of room for other good ideas beyond what I have at this time. Once people are open to and desire eugenics, there is no limit to the creative solutions that we could come up with.

          • I’ve heard it all before from eugenicists.

            It was all in the Lee Silver book Remaking Eden. In fact, we had a very long debate about this issue ten years ago on a forum. And that was ten years after the book was published. Here we are today and none of it has come true.

            It is actually a lot like the Peak Oil apocalypse that was so popular in the mid-2000s. It turned out to be a lot of hype.

      • If we’re to embrace eugenics as our identity, then nationalism is silly. I believe radical eugenics would also kill Christianity. Lines would need to be crossed for that though. Are we descended from Adam and Even, in possession of a soul and a rooted genetic tradition, or are we mere products of a lab, the latest generation in a march “forward”, a progression that never looks back, disdains the past?

        Lynn once had an article at TOQ about robot brains. To quote Chesterton, would man be happier with a higher IQ? And there was a guy who wrote for Alt Right, also had an article published at VDARE. He wrote that for the eugenicist, the primary concern is that society will collapse due to dysgenic trends before the eugenic revolution can take off. Also, he believed the free market could be potent for eugenics.

        The nice thing about eugenics is I can finally curse the classical liberals, Darwinists, and rationalists/Enlightenment-fans who tend to embrace eugenics, in my experience. And I can finally declare the environment as conservative territory. I don’t mind if I’m on the losing side of history. I prefer being on the sane side though. All who seem to remain though are the odd Christians, especially Catholics. No one else wants to remain human.

        In 2003 I guess it was, I gave a speech at my university speech class that said ideally a state should be set up to defend humanity from eugenitics. What I meant is a white state should be set up with the audacious intention of self-preservation. It gave me one more reason to value race, because a strong identity would be more likely to endure such struggle.

        Michael Crichton wrote a tolerable fiction book that included some interesting bits within it. As fiction, he wrote that Neanderthals were the first environmentalists. They refused to change, and so they became extinct despite their higher IQs. I believe he gave them higher IQs.

        Jerry Salyer has written some excellent articles regarding genetic engineering. He always seems to veer off into that topic. He once wrote something like how, “Nothing is inevitable. Someone will have to do it,” with regard to how GMOs are inevitable.

        It’s worth mentioning that Fukuyama declared history has not “ended”, that the biotech revolution will keep the world interesting.

        If I ever do much work on my personal website, it will include a lot about heritage sites, European population numbers, and the slow destruction of the natural environment by GMOs and overpopulation. Also, I’ll include info encouraging people to have children and to not waste their lives fighting plutocrats politically. If politics is the preserve of the wealthy, then it is their burden to bear. Plutocrats will do as plutocrats do. It’s nothing to do with us. In a normal society that has 4-6 children as you say, it wouldn’t be a big deal were 1 or 2 to neglect parenthood.

    • Thanks so much Harold!
      I couldn’t have said it better myself. You have no idea how encouraging it is to get a breath of sanity from a League leader in this debate! I was worried I was fighting a losing battle here, but you’ve renewed my hope!

    • For hundreds, if not thousands of years, we Europeans have, either by act of God or perhaps by accident of nature with God being ambivalent, been the *master race* of humanity. If we don’t get serious fast, the Chinese will surely take our crown from us and our great grandchildren will either bow to them or be exterminated by them.

    • The genie can be put back into the bottle, a la Dune. If we don’t put the genie back in the bottle, we will face white genocide by another means.

    • That’s why eugenics is the greatest threat to any sort of identity. Eugenics, not Yankees, is what ultimately destroys the South. Eugenics is Ragnarok.

      The only hope of resisting is that since the Progressives will progress away all sense of identity, they’ll go mad from the relativity created. They won’t be able to distinguish good from bad, won’t be able to define anything. Perhaps an argument could be made that someone would arbitrarily create values, and that those values would then give them a sense of order and purpose.

      The science types don’t understand things like culture, so they never understand this. They don’t see a need for religion and identity. To them, it’s just cool to see what’s possible, and nothing really matters. You won’t find a scientist charging into battle. He’d have nothing to fight for. It’s only those of us with irrational attachments who are crazy enough to take stands.

  7. Every Down’s Syndrome baby that is living in a nuclear home today is taking a place that could have been taken by a healthy baby. Their very presence in the home depresses the number of healthy children that are born.
    Suppose a churchgoing white couple who met in their mid-late 30’s decides to have, say 3 children.
    –The first one is prenatally diagnosed with Down’s Syndrome and they keep it.
    –Now let’s suppose they decide to go ahead as planned with the other 2 (though a special needs child often changes a couple’s fertility plans).
    –The DS baby is a dead end and will never have children, but the other 2 do.
    That means that the DS child reduced the effective fertility of the said couple by 33%.
    Therefore a DS child does not have to reproduce to contribute to the current dysgenic crisis.

    • Interesting.

      Why again can’t eugenicists have any children? What about homosexuals? Why can’t they give up their lifestyle? What about the legions of DINKs? What about all the people who use birth control including all the childless career women?

      There are 5,100 Down Syndrome births a year. It is having no “dysgenic” impact on the White population whatsoever. That’s a trivial number compared to the impact of homosexuality alone.

      • Eugenicists do have children, though you don’t have to have children to be a eugenicist.

        Even if a eugenicist is childless, that has nothing to do with the merit of his arguments.

        I might be flat broke, but still acknowledge that $100 plus $100 equals $200. Just because I don’t have $200 does not mean that my math is bad.

        • I’m sure that some do.

          1.) I’ve spent years interacting with eugenicists on the internet and two of their most common traits have always stood out to me: childlessness and homosexuality.

          2.) I would say that it does. The eugenicists want their creed to be the basis of our social order. It says a lot about that creed that its most passionate advocates are either incapable or have no interest in reproducing themselves.

          3.) When childless homosexuals start agitating for the government to decide who is fit to live, it is going to invite an inevitable backlash.

          • 1) Don’t forget in real life. Every member of the LOS who does not want his daughter to marry a negro is a eugenicist.

            2) You have got to be kidding me. Do you really believe that? I know I’ve already corrected you on it already, but I’ll post a link this time:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

            3) OK, fine. You aren’t a childless homosexual are you? Ok, good. That makes you the perfect person to advocate for eugenics so that we don’t have too much of a backlash. Thanks.

          • 1.) League members don’t want their children to marry negroes because they want to preserve their own bloodline. They want to have White Southern grandchildren. To quote Calvin Candie, it doesn’t matter if the negro in question is an Issac Newton or a Galileo. From a eugenicist standpoint, your daughter should be allowed to marry and breed negro with the negro if he has superior qualities.

            2.) I’ve known many ardent eugenicists for 5, 10, some even 15 years now. Virtually all of them are childless. I would say that at least a quarter of them are homosexuals. I’ve just seen no empirical evidence that leads me to believe that this worldview is demographically viable.

            3.) I don’t have a problem with positive eugenics.

          • 1) Again, I’ve never heard anybody claim that it would be eugenic for a white woman to marry a negro if he passed an IQ test. You keep asserting “Eugenicists believe [x]” when several of us are here on your very own blog telling you otherwise.

            If you want to keep doubling down on what eugenicists believe, please provide a citation from some formal association of eugenicists that lays it down in their core tenets.

            2a) Again, it means nothing if they are 100% childless homos. It is shocking to me that you double down here after I’ve called you out on the genetic fallacy on this point at least twice, and providing this link for reference:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

            2b) You have to have a certain worldview to be a eugenicist? Please provide a citation to back it up.

            2c) “I’ve just seen no empirical evidence that leads me to believe that this worldview is demographically viable.”

            You’ve already conceded:

            “I agree that humans can be bred for certain traits.”

            here: http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2016/04/12/the-pro-choice-temptation/#comment-2620947723

          • This obsession with Eugenics is the realm of guys with Asperger’s, of course they don’t have any kids, women loathe that type of man. There’s a whole series called “Big Bang Theory” making fun of them, of course in real life they don’t get the girl like on that show, that’s thrown in by the writers to make the show more interesting. Only someone like Sheldon could dig the idea of creating “Man-Animal-Chimeras.” Eugenics is simply a vehicle of Aspergers to get revenge on society by remaking it in their image. Karl Marx probably had Asperger’s as well to come up with that unworkable delusion.

      • So in addition to the “childless eugenicist” argument, would you please describe the flaw in my logic regarding how DS babies suppress the total # of healthy children being born. You replied by changing the subject, now please reply by explaining exactly how I am wrong.

        • The number of Down Syndrome babies born annually – around 5,100 – is so trivial that it is only a miniscule fraction of White births. It is dwarfed by the impact of homosexuality which in turn is dwarfed by the impact of DINKs which is dwarfed by birth control.

          • That averages to 100/state/yr. I’d say that’s significant, but not the biggest of our problems. Also don’t forget there are others, and more to come in the future.
            Down’s Syndrome
            Edward’s Syndrome
            Hydrocephaly
            Spina Bifida
            I suppose there are more that could go on this list now, but the list is sure to grow with time. We are talking about the future here, Right?

          • It is on the same level as a gnat hitting your windshield. The eugenic threat posed by individuals who suffer from Down’s Syndrome, Cystic Fibrosis, Spina Bifida and so on isn’t worth talking about.

            It is just not a pressing issue like the low birthrate, miscegenation, and immigration. The real problems are things like too many women in the workforce and college, free love, birth control, and DINKs.

  8. You were probably aware of the Lebensborn program before I brought it up in the previous article, but it is good you included an account of the policies in this one.

    Hitler or his policy writers were spot on. Just like the Autobahn.

    • I brought it up because the Alt-Right, which is normally fascinated with fascism, is strangely silent on Hitler’s policies on this issue. I’m guessing it is because of the Third Reich’s position on homosexuality.

      • Lol. The Scandinavian policy of a year off if you have a child is essentially Lebensborn.

        No American conservative or fascist would allow for a couple to drop out of work for a year to restock the race.

        • Sure they would.

          The notion that the conservative population is opposed to all social welfare is thoroughly discredited by the rancorous applause Trump gets when he says he’s not going to cut entitlements, specifically citing Medicare and Social Security.

          These Beltway Libertarian positions opposing logical social welfare programs have support that’s paper thin, limited to a few Ayn Randians and their Reason.com shepherds.

          • I don’t see any right leaning pol suggest a year off work for a couple having a child.

            Which is effectively similar to the amount of cash the NSDAP offered German couples.

          • I was merely pointing out that the state awarded a family an amount of cash for kids. The time off they get in Denmark is effectively similar in amount.

          • That’s my point. You couldn’t do it with the black population you have…

        • A fascist would. “Conservatives” are really capitalists by another name, so no, they wouldn’t.

  9. Hunter,
    Why is it that you use total number of abortions per race rather than abortion rate per race in your argument that abortion is a genetic wash, but in this article you cite the graph showing infant mortality rate per race instead of total per race?
    If you are going to stick with total abortions by race rather than rate by race, shouldn’t you cite infant mortality as total per race rather than rate?
    Just sayin.

  10. Can you breed a higher race via policy? That was Himmler’s policy apparently. His degree in animal husbandry must have given him ideas.

    In theory it’s not that different from horse breeding or dog breeding. The problem that arrives soon enough is that many of the breeder decisions are aesthetic when it comes to human mate selection. A dog horse breeder is looking for function mostly. Looks are a secondary effect.

      • The only thing the left seems to accept a biological explanation for is homosexuality. I do think by the mid teenage years one’s sexuality is set and can’t be changed, however I wonder if people are absolutely born gay, or if it is a result of the wrong experiences being reinforced during formative years of very-early puberty? I had this question pop into my head after high school. Our High School in the Chicago suburbs included “Maryville: The City of Youth” a Catholic Orphanage which by the late 80s did not have the traditional orphans you’d see in a 40s movie, but crack babies, kids removed from abusive ghetto homes, etc that were overwhelmingly black. Most of the very few blacks in our High School came from this place. One shocking thing I found out a few years after graduating was a vastly disproportionate % of these black guys turned gay. (One fat gay black dude was talking about how another one of them “uses the pullout method to avoid aids” and how he “loves how it feels when his lover pulls out and splatters cum across his buttcheecks.” The dude is probably costing medicaid a small fortune in pills by now living like that.) This Maryville place was sort of gender separate dorm living with a few adults to supervise the kids and I wonder if these young pubescent black dudes were so horny they were punking out each other’s butts when young and like the conditioning of Pavlovs Dog came to fall under the gay spell? They could also have come from an abusive home to begin with as well. It just didn’t seem normal for so many black dudes who you expect to mostly be ‘jive talking players’ after the “ho’s n’ bitches” to be queers? Had they had a normal childhood I wonder how they’d have turned out?

        • Even a gay man can stick his penis in a women and ejaculate. The trouble is why would we want them to?

          • Who on earth would want their daughter to marry some “ex-gay.” That’s how women get aids. Note that queerness is on the downlow amongst non-whites world wide to a much greater extent than the number of whites who continue to hide such shameful behavior. What do liberal do-gooders who want your money call the disease affecting these closeted gays and their female sex partners? So called “heterosexual aids.” The Big Lie of do-gooder liberal NGOs and pussified missionary types is the ridiculously high% of aids claimed for sub saharan Africa, these countries would be gone now if it really were the 30%-50% figures they pulled out of their ass in the mid 80s based on the most pessimistic projections before the true nature of the virus was understood. Of course they get big bucks to go on safari courtesy of taxpayers and donors by keeping with these figures, (the “human trafficking” hoax being another cash cow.) In reality the figures are in the lower single digits and can be completely explained by gay men on the downlow and their female sex partners, throw in some children born to such and cases of unsanitary health care practices and “heterosexual aids” goes away. Yet here in the US they continue to ruin sex for heterosexuals by making it seem like Nacy Drew is spreading the aids to Jack Armstrong the All American Boy through a bout of heavy petting without dental dams who then passes it on to Sally the Homecomming Queen, who gives it to Harry Highschool in Smallville Kansas.

  11. “Why doesn’t the Alt-Right give Hitler credit where it is so obviously due?”
    As I said in another comment, If Hitler had been such a great strategist, there probably wouldn’t have been a WWII.
    I agree that we need to look into fertility incentives for our own people.
    I wonder if Hitler was opposed to Jews getting abortions?
    If Hitler had found out that:
    –Jews were aborting at 4x the rate of Germans
    –Gypsies were getting abortions at 2.5x the rate of Germans
    –the lowest 10% of the German race were getting 90% of the German abortions
    Do you think he would have changed his mind?

    • 1.) I’m not a fan of Hitler’s foreign policy. National Socialist Germany was innovative in lots of areas though.

      2.) Hitler had no problem with Jews getting abortions.

      3.) The Nazis criminalized abortion as racial sabotage, prescribed the death penalty for abortionists, imprisoned women and banned birth control. They also set up the equivalent of crisis pregnancy centers.

    • The answers to your questions are widely available.

      He strongly discouraged Aryan abortion and encouraged others to flush.

      The clash between Soviet Union and Germany at the head of a Rightwing European alliance was probably inevitable with or without Hitler.

  12. Nothing wrong with humane eugenics. The quality of European stock has collapsed. Abortion is murder however.

    • No one has any objection to wisely choosing a mate and having 4 to 6 children. That kind of “eugenics” would actually be helpful right now. For whatever reason, that type of eugenics has the least appeal to eugenicists themselves.

      • Funny how you put eugenics in quotes. It’s like you’re trying to infer that it’s not really eugenics. What gives?
        And again, why *wisely* choose a mate to have my children with?
        Why not Rachel Jeantel?
        You’re not a eugenicist are you?

          • This isn’t even an attempt to answer my question as to why I should wisely choose a mate, or as you said elsewhere, “find a good woman”. Why not just any woman?
            It’s like you’re trying to distract me by saying “Look, A bird!”

          • It’s your choice.

            If you want to pursue positive eugenics within your own family, you are free to do so. All it requires is wisely selecting a mate and having more than 2 children. Some have cited the Jews as an example and that is really all they have done with their matchmaking over the course of history.

            TBH, the Manosphere contingent of the Alt-Right has a serious problem even getting that far in light of all the problems they have with White women. A lot of these people would be fortunate to even get with one White woman and have at most 2 children.

          • These manlets don’t want to “settle”, there are plenty of unmarried white women around, just not the best looking or smartest. Furthermore, the pick up artist is a degenerate. If someone tried that stuff on my daughter, I would murder them, if she didn’t first!

  13. The Nazi experiment with governance might have lasted significantly longer and been taken more seriously in history without the disastrous wars against Britain, France and the Soviet Union. The Spanish Fascists lasted far longer the German ones. The Nazi’s had many good ideas about how to run a modern society, and were not afraid to implement them. Hitler was a very effective leader in many respects. I can’t agree that the wars were good for Germany and the west as a whole.

  14. Hunter are you with the enemy? Heredity was practiced hundreds of years ago. DNA is new but scientific. The White Race has always advanced further through science. Dog breeding and horse breeding are eugenic. Some bad genes get through but thoroughbred horses have advantages that simply mating would never produce. There is nothing immoral about Eugenic Science. It has been linked to Hitler hate and the enemy does not want Whites to improve. The whole miscegenation pogrom is based on lowering Whites into docile brown sludge to be misruled by these insane parasites and their mad delusions of being the masters of a brown world of slaves. Eugenics and advances in DNA may not necessarily lead to a Nietshce Superman, but would eliminate many diseases by improving health and increase things like intelligence. They have ALREADY IDENTIFIED genes linked to intelligence. Using these breakthroughs it should be possible to increase median IQ to one or even two standard deviations. With a standard deviation shift of two places the median IQ would be 130. IQs of 200 would be within reach. And no, the 115 IQ the enemy quotes is another Big Lie. Their median IQ is around 86. Their prevalence at the top is due to their fake money from their Central Banks and collusion by networking and simply giving positions to their own kind. Their lies of greater intellect are quickly disproven by the mismanagement and ruin caused by their control. They are a curse.

    • There’s a lot to digest here.

      No, I am not with the enemy. I’ve left eugenicists a way out. All they got to do is find a good woman and have 4 to 6 kids. If they broke even and had 2 kids, that would be a massive improvement.

      • Having children sounds so easy, but solutions are never that easy. Whites are not dying out because of abortion or eugenics. Its a system that hates them and keeps them from finding work that pays enough to raise families. The brown scum will drop babies in a ditch, and the government will pay for every one, but Whites are too responsible for that and the FEDGOV always seems to find a way to steal their money and deny them benefits. Its dying, and I’ll make sure its dead. This GAME IS NOW OVER.

        • When our ancestors were sharecroppers and lived in debt peonage under the crop lien for generations, most Whites in the South had over 6 siblings. There is nothing stopping all these DINKs from having children except their own materialism and unwillingness to do so.

          • It has nothing to do with materialism. White people aren’t having children because there is no safe place left on earth to raise them anymore, and they’ve been demoralized into accepting that the world isn’t theirs to even exist in.

            Sharecroppers may have been impoverished, but the world they lived in was nevertheless dominated by white people and safe for white people. That isn’t the case anymore.

            No sane white person wants to bring children into a world that wants to make their sons into tranny freaks and their daughters into sex toys for niggers, all the while making them feel like they committed an offense against humanity just for being white.

          • I agree, finances is a common excuse, but we could all eat plainer diets, drive older cars and afford more kids, and those kids could wear hand-me-downs.
            But there are multiple reasons why one may delay marrying and having kids. The system today hates stable, fertile white families.

          • It’s a mindset foisted on people by the Elite (Jews + Masons).

            In their defense, when you do the math, population growth is a frightening thing. We would truly be “swamped”. The trouble is that the propaganda that works on intelligent doesn’t work on the less intelligent, so you end up crippling intelligent fertility while doing next to nothing to slow global population growth (88 million per year!!!)

          • 1890 or 1900 Census Hunter not sure which, I had a book that averaged the Yankee family size then as 3-4 and the Southern family at about 8-10. My grandpa had 12 in his family, grandma had 8, themselves they had five boys even though my grandmother barely had the health for two children.

            What is funny is there is a book about my family written by a chiropractor in Ohio in 1924. You see about a quarter of Ohio was still owned by Virginia after the land cession in 1784 and after Virginia finished doling out her Rev War Lands in Ky and Trans-Allegheny, it began doling out land in Ohio. I think it also paid vets after 1812 in Ohio land as well. A few of the cousins seized their free land in Ohio, while the rest remained in the South.

            The odd thing about this book is the writer states in it, our family name here in the North is almost extinct as our family did not reproduce enough males to carry it on while the Southern branches of the family were much more fertile and had an abundance of males.

            A funny anecdote, but it illustrates the entire point very well don’t it?

      • Why would they have to find a *good* woman?
        Wouldn’t just any ol’ welfare queen do fine?
        I mean, since you don’t believe in eugenics, the LAST thing a young single person should do is waste time trying to find a *good* mate.

      • If 51% of whites had 4 children, white genocide would be an impossibility.

        What does it say when a majority can’t even copulate (a wonderful pastime!) to save their race? Or do we not breed well in captivity?

  15. Trump in a slump, OD faggots down in the dumps
    And now Hunter Wallace got him a new cause to hump

    He’s on a crusade
    To overturn Roe v Wade
    Positions changin with the wind, like vintage Fade

    Stephen Dalton callin’ me a troll, then duckin down a hole
    Counting all the money his fellow crypto’s stole

    Phony catholic bitch, go wash nigger feet like your pope
    Keep runnin’ that jew mouth and I’ll turn you into a bar of soap

    Captain John Charity Spring, ya sissy ass quim
    Nobody cares about your eurofaggot history
    You’re single-digit IQ ain’t a mystery

    English boy swim back to Manchester
    The land of your knobby nosed crooked toothed ancestors
    I’ll abort your pasty British ass like it’s the third trimester
    Go hand out college credits to the BLM protestors

    These rhymes are sicker than green baby shit
    And you can’t stop #TheBern cuz the fire’s been lit

    #FeelTheBern you inbred mutts, and drive a stake through The Cunt
    Jaye Ellis still sends money to Northwest Front

    HOLLLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

    C.R.E.A.M. git dat money

  16. In my dream world, I would support a Positive form of Eugenics, not one that attempts to discriminate against “lower” forms, but encourages the mingling of good blood. Maybe even encourage eugenics, with a word other than “eugenics,” through dating networks built around DNA databses. “Meet your genetic match!” Just like how many decent families, on some level, think or used to think: “Their family has good blood.”

  17. Hey Hunter,

    If eugenics is inherently wrong, then please tell me why you would reject all of these policies:

    –ban undesirable immigration

    –requiring anyone seeking welfare to get a hormonal implant, IUD, or sterilization before he/she can get the money

    –making deadbeat fathers either pay up or get a vasectomy

    –offering browns and mulattoes the option to either leave the country or be sterilized, bribing quadroons, octoroons, etc to be sterilized (but the women could still work as surrogate mothers if they wanted to)

    –ban interracial/international adoption and encourage infertile couples to use modern reproductive technologies like IVF, surrogate mothers, or sperm/egg donors

    –imposing minimum ethnic purity, IQ and pass a panel of genetic disease screening for any sperm or egg donors

    –restrict above fertility services to heterosexual, married couples

    –castrating (and perhaps a penectomy also) male child molesters

    –keeping criminals incarcerated longer, or bargaining with them to get sterilized in exchange for early release

    Every one of these would be hard core eugenics policies, and according to you there is no way eugenics could lead to anything other than a dystopian nightmare that throws religion, nationhood, and nuclear families in the ditch.

    Other than the welfare tradition, the out of wedlock birth tradition, and the miscegenation tradition, what traditions do you hold dear that would be endangered by these eugenics policies?

    • – Basically, I would favor an immigration policy that preserves the Anglo-Celtic ethnic and cultural character of the South. Because I have no interest in the whole Ubermensch vs. Untermensch debate, I would exclude high IQ, low crime Asians.

      • Sterilization for black women would be a responsible thing to enact.

        A one time government payment of $10,000 as an incentive for black women and black men to undergo the procedure would be a win win for everyone.

      • Sorry, I should have numbered my bulletpoints above. I’ll repent.

        1a) So we mostly agree…on this eugenics practice.
        1b) Regarding the Ubermensch vs. Untermensch debate, you are the one who is fascinated with those words, not me. I’m also not interested in the Niestzc…whatever guy. Never read any of his works, and I doubt I’ll ever make the time to. But please answer the following question:
        1c) If you would not like for future generations of Southerners to be (on average) smarter, healthier, more athletic, less obese, less drug addicted, less mentally ill, or–Heaven’s forbid–better looking, then why not? Doesn’t it take an unusually cruel person to know he could do something to improve all these things, but refuse to do anything about any of them?
        How does your neglect of eugenics comport with the LOS vision statement “Survival, well-being and independence of the Southern people”?
        Wouldn’t our people’s well-being be advanced by eugenics?
        Is there not danger that we may actually lose ground in the well-being department if we carelessly neglect eugenics?
        If we are not to seek to improve the well-being of our future generations by genetics, then shall we neglect drug and vaccine development also? What about improving surgical techniques? Does that have a place in the South?

        2a) You want to keep the welfare farm going?
        We know that welfare use tends to run in families for generations. Why not try to reduce it?

        2b) I’m cool with providing tax incentives for working class whites to have more children. We can sort out the details later, but not a bad idea.

        3) “more of a cultural failing” So are you acknowledging a genetic component to these social ills?

        If there is no genetic component, why is it worse among blacks, even though we live in the same country, practice the same religion, go to the same schools, subject to the same tv propaganda (though we may choose different channels) and under the jurisdiction of the same laws?

        If there is a genetic component, then wouldn’t it help to selectively weed those gene variants out of the population.

        4) Why not? Vasectomies are very cheap and easy, and tube jobs have become easier and more convenient due to newer technique? Do you believe it’s impractical to sterilize (or euthanize the ones that don’t get adopted) stray animals?

        5) So we agree…on another evil eugenics policy.

        6) But there will be more of them if we ban interracial adoptions! There will also be more if your plan to incentivize fertility works!

        Besides, if we do not address this issue, it will create a toehold for SJWs to get gullible women pregnant with negro sperm just to create more mulatto babies.

        7) Serious crimes: rape, murder, theft, trying to overthrow the Southern government, etc.

        8) So you don’t have a problem with eugenics then. I thing the modifier “liberal” will ruin about any good word.

        So you are not worried about losing any traditions to these eugenics policies that I’ve mentioned?

        Also, I’ll throw in another eugenics practice:

        9) sterilizing parents of children who had to be rescued from their biological parents and placed in foster care.

        • 1.) Why should highly intelligent, disease-free, hardworking Jews or Asians be excluded under our immigration laws?

          2.) It was framed that way in the latest Radix article.

          3.) I love my own people – the Anglo-Celtic people of the White South. It doesn’t bother me that some are tall while others are short, some are fat while others are thin, some are beautiful while others are ugly, or that virtually everyone out there has some kind of medical issue.

          Unlike you, I don’t think any of these things make them unfit to live. I don’t see it as a problem that we need eugenics to solve. I don’t see it as anything other than natural that there is this sort of diversity within our own race.

          4.) I’m not an American conservative. Lots of European countries, most famously the Third Reich, have used cash incentives and the tax code to raise the birthrate. We already have the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit.

          5.) We already do. See above.

          6.) Quite honestly, I have never given any thought to sperm banks because there are so few births produced that way that I haven’t had any reason to consider the matter.

          7.) The explosion in miscegenation, gender confusion, fornication, homosexuality, out-of-wedlock births, divorce and so forth is being driven by cultural changes, not heredity. I don’t believe a massive biological change has occurred within one generation.

          8.) If you look at the infant mortality rate, you will see it has consistently gone down while a stubborn racial difference has persisted. The same is true of things like the increase in the literacy rate or the Flynn Effect or corrosive social trends like divorce and out-of-wedlock births.

          9.) I don’t see our people buying into the blacks should be sterilized like animals argument. Instead, I think it is type of position which would just create an unnecessary distraction and inhibit people from supporting our cause.

          10.) I’m sure you are aware there are different types of eugenics. There is positive eugenics, which is essentially eugenics through life, and there is negative eugenics, which are the much more controversial mass sterilization programs, genetic engineering, abortion and so forth of classical eugenics that target others.

          Liberal eugenics takes place at the individual level and operates through private sector IVF, prenatal diagnosis, eugenic abortion, and so on. The issue has been endlessly debated for years now.

          11.) I don’t have an opinion on that issue.

          • I don’t think our numbers our numbered bullets are matching up anymore, but I’ll give it a shot.

            1) Because they are a separate ethnic group. They’re not us and never will be.

            2) Don’t know what you mean by framed this way in Radix article. Whatever.

            3) Not sure which one of my bullets you are addressing with this one, but evolution is occurring to our people, just like every other people. We can evolve toward Idiocracy, or we can evolve along an ascendant path. To think that we are not going to evolve one way or another is absurd. It’s becoming more apparent though that your objection to eugenics is an emotional one rather than a logical one. I would love for my great-grandchildren to be genetically better off than me. Don’t you?

            If you don’t believe in eugenics, but just want to get the fertility rate up, why not just advocate for a program where you pay prisoners, homeless, and insane to breed and have large broods while the rest of us just spend more of our time working. They need the money and they’re not doing anything else. As long as they’re anglo-celtic Southerners, what could possible go wrong?

            4) Are you answering my 2b with this one?

            6) If your fertility incentives work, and if interracial/international adoption is banned, there will be more demand for sperm/egg services.

            7) you and I both know that propaganda and genetics are both factors in the degeneracy we see today. If genetics were not a factor then there wouldn’t be such racial disparity. Give me and your other readers a break.

            8) see #7

            9) Amazing. You and other LOS are ethnically conscious, don’t want mulatto grandkids, want independence for the sake of Southerners, but would not like to get rid of blacks given the opportunity. Amazing.
            You said earlier that you didn’t think it was practical, but then I insisted that it was, and now you claim nobody wants it. Whatever.
            Why would you keep them around?
            Is it because they smell so good or is it to keep the rape rate up? Maybe you want to keep them as English teachers for your kids?

          • 1.) Immediately, this illustrates the difference between preserving your own ethnic group and eugenics. From a eugenics perspective, there is no reason to oppose breeding with high IQ Jews, Asians and blacks if they have “superior” qualities.

            2.) In the last Radix article, the fifth point was framed as Ubermensch, Untermensch and Embryos.

          • 1) It would still be eugenics. You seem to think that eugenics must always be race agnostic and only select for IQ without caring about anything else. The prefix eu- just means “good” so it is up to us to decide what we are selecting for. Race and IQ are the elephants in the room, and the easiest to objectively, quantifiably evaluate, so they would be at the very top of the list.

            3) “Eugenicists aren’t nationalists in the sense that they love their own people. The true object of their heart’s desire is an abstract ideal which doesn’t even exist.”
            Says you. You keep telling me (us) what “they” eugenicists believe and want, when we are all around you and we are telling you otherwise.

            5) It will only grow with time, especially if we ban interracial/international adoptions.

            6) Not sure what you’re responding to here, but I don’t think anybody is arguing that everything follows Mendelian pattern. Very few traits are Mendelian. So?

            7) I’m not sure what you’re responding to here either.

            8) I’m surprised to hear this! I would expect any racially conscious Southerner to jump at the chance to get rid of blacks! What about the Mexicans? Do you deny that Trump’s popularity is largely due to his proposed wall and deportation strategy? Or is it because Southerners love New Yorkers?

            It looks to me like the surest way to make sure your daughter doesn’t get impregnated by a negro would be to get rid of the negroes or to kill or sterilize your daughter. I know which one I would pick.

  18. The term experts now use for the new planetary race they hope to achieve is “Afroeurasian” Looking through modern history books, especially those relating to world history, and you will be amazed how many times that new term pops up.

  19. “If you would sacrifice members of your own folk community for the sake of killing others, your true motivation is a desire to eliminate other races.”

    And your point is?

    How do you think USA got to be a white country in the first place? Didn’t some white men die fighting Indians? Or do you think it’s an atrocity that whites conquered North America?

    • When you advocate killing or sacrificing your own people, you are not pro-White. You are motivated by hatred of other races. BTW, our ancestors certainly didn’t believe the unborn were soldiers, and they didn’t colonize North America by exterminating Indian children.

      • 1) Every war has casualties. You can’t get around that. If it is on the battlefield, there will be battlefield casualties to our side. If it is in an abortion clinic under the current political climate, then some of the casualties will be on our side. You cannot fight a war without having any casualties to your own side. Your strategy must be to keep your casualties as small as possible while inflicting much greater casualties onto your enemy.

        2) We are in a race war whether it is in the streets at this point or not. The womb is just one front of that war whether you like it or not.

        3) What do you think happened to the Indian children during the Indian wars? Do you think they adopted them as trophy babies?

        The Indians didn’t seem to mind killing white children or cutting open pregnant women:
        http://www.nchistoricsites.org/bath/tuscarora.htm

  20. “Are we motivated by a belief that we are superior to other races? Do we divide our nation into the Ubermensch and the Untermensch? Alternatively, are we motivated by a desire to preserve our own people and way of life?”

    If you don’t believe your race and culture are superior to mestizo Mexican race and culture, then why care about immigration?

    • I love my own race and culture.

      I want to conserve and perpetuate my own ethnic group. I don’t care if there are high IQ, hardworking Mexicans or high IQ, successful Nigerian businessmen. They are not my people. I don’t want them settling here and changing the ethnic makeup of the South.

      I’m just not really interested in “superiority.” I actually like Mexican food. I also like the Caribbean.

      • “I want to conserve and perpetuate my own ethnic group. I don’t care if there are high IQ, hardworking Mexicans or high IQ, successful Nigerian businessmen. They are not my people. I don’t want them settling here and changing the ethnic makeup of the South.”

        Then you do believe your race and culture are superior to the invading race and culture.

  21. Hunter Wallace: thanks for another meaningful article: the following is scatter-plot, but good food for thought. I try to keep it sequential to your article: Please read!

    You begin to address the fallacy that if all the aborted children were brought to term, the effect would be to add those number to the current population:

    1. as you point out, there is a death rate too, a fraction of the babies aborted/born in 1973 would have died

    2. those people would have had children at some rate

    3. the effect on the FINAL fertility of a woman is probably minimal; on average it would be higher than 0 but far less than 1. Most women don’t have abortions, yet have far fewer children than women in the past. Why? Birth control, family planning.

    KEY POINT: If you force women to have “unwanted” children, they will just subtract the “wanted” ones later.

    The fellow TM Goddard said that the loss of an early stage pregnancy has less of an impact: speaking from personal experience, that just isn’t true. Men and women who come in at eight weeks mourn and grieve like the rest of them. Is he a childless man? A “pick up artist”? An autiste?

    Is this the essential argument: For a better world, people who would abort their own offspring shouldn’t reproduce? There is some truth to this. If white genocide is a Darwinian selective pressure, as white genocide proceeds, the resultant white race will be hyper-fertile and hyper-political. In that sense, genocide is reversing the dysgenics of 3000 years of Zoroastrianism/Christianity.

    Alt-right, is about destination rather than doctrine; we all want to move in the same direction, perhaps not to the same exact destination, but in the ball park.

    If you personally move towards Christianity (when people have children they dust off their bibles) your politics will follow. If you look at states by church attendance, the highest ones go for Cruz, the lowest ones go for Trump. The classic right is christian, the Alt Right isn’t – no matter how many dissident Christians are part of it. That’s partially why I am not sold on the alt right. I would fancy myself a deist, or better said, an unaffiliated/uncomplicated monotheist. People who reject God worry me more than Christians do (both are mistaken, but that is a tale for another day).

    Hitler isn’t exactly the poster child for an anti-eugenics argument. Could we look for similar arguments with Putin as the poster child? Putin, a self-styled Christian and a ruler of a state that has Christianity in a supportive role – i have no problem with that whatsoever! Atheism etc should be like homosexuality, kept out of the public square but essentially unpunishable if kept private. 99% of white western political history is people wrecking Christianity for not accepting that fair compromise, to include the present election.

    Wasn’t the South a model for Hitler’s eugenics program?

    Aren’t married folks better off on taxes? In a sense bachelors are punished. I can at least argue that my property taxes are going to my children’s schooling, a bachelor can’t.

    Abortion becoming a capital crime in 1943 speaks to the argument that the issue itself is a fatal distraction. Shouldn’t Hitler have been focused on things more critical to the immediate survival of the state? I lost the war, but at least I banned abortion! Sounds like the cuckservative who worships unfettered immigration but holds the line on abortion (Planned Parenthood are the real racists!!!)

    We definitely need to look at Hitler dispassionately, as a right wing populist who took a rare chance in the seat of power to thoroughly wreck his country through war and dictatorship, and by losing his war gamble, destroyed right wing populism for at least 2 generations and subjected his race to the threat of genocide. Hitler should have worked with the white (British) aristocracy, many of whom admired him. He should have initiated the Cold War and took credit for it! Contrast Putin.

    College being free, like socialism in general, becomes more possible the more white a society is. Horse before cart.

    On identity, you are dead on. For practical as well as ideological reasons, no white left behind. It’s also not OK to “sacrifice” soldiers to say nothing of the unborn. Abortion, like war is at best a necessary evil.

    The argument for a scientific / technical eugenics is not a present one, but it will be here in less time than we know. CRISPER/Cas9 and derivative technologies allow for direct manipulation of the genome. This actually renders all of these arguments moot, because no one will want anyone to sire children without genetics-perfecting technologies (especially the insurance companies!!!), it would be child abuse.

    These folks (the alt right) are not traditionalists, and that is dangerous. As a movement we need to find our self on the human side of the human vs AI and human vs robot and human vs super human question. We need to be genetic conservatives for popularity as well as ideological purposes. I do not want to midwife the entity that will replace me and my lineage, do you?

    Ethics: not all wrongs should be criminalized. I agree that more often that not, abortion is the product of a diseased soul. Do I want doctors and or women thrown in the slammer or grow the power of the state to the point that it will stop surreptitious abortion? HELL NO!

    Religion: it’s safe to say that religious people have higher fertility, that doesn’t excuse its falsity in other respects, but we have to be rational about the irrational, no? Traditional religion will be here as long as old ladies fear death and beta males want to restrain alphas with the chains of morality and law – which is to say for as long as humans are humans.

    Breeding: you are wrong about the consequences of breeding; you ascribe to breeding what is more properly ascribed to domestication. Humans have been breeding and domesticating humans for the longest. Good breeding is why we are not fully domesticated and there are still some natural ary-stocrats among us. (see what I did there?!)

    Imperfections: technology will sort this out, much like monoclonal antibodies have revolutionized medicine. If you have time you should read a few Wikipedia articles about them to understand just how rapidly things change in technology. Roe v Wade 1973, monoclonal antibodies 1975, see my point? Roe v Wade was 43 years ago, what will technology be like in 43 years? It actually boggles the mind, and an entire political fortune is to be made controlling The Beast.

    Lack of knowledge: The knowledge will be here before we know it.

    Liberal eugenics: As I’ve said, political gold is to be made in managing The technological Beast. Put it has to be an intelligent process, not a binary good-bad dichotomy. Why? If it’s all of a piece, people will chose
    technology ultimately. It has to be a pick and choose paradigm. Some eugenics, but not eugenics that undermines current balances.

    Let’s marry white preservationism to a broader human preservationism for the win!

  22. What is ironic about Eugenics is that our two greatest Eugenicists, Madison Grant and Lolthrop Stoddard were from old Yankee families. I have a theory as to why this happened. After the war was over the scientific explosion hit the United States from Europe, the work of Gregor Mendel and such.

    The Northern white Yankee population, so decimated from the war and having only on average 3-4 children went into free fall decline. As their population declined and was replaced by Catholics and Jews, they largely repudiated racial equality at the same time they repudiated Biblical Truths. Oddly enough in their obsession with hating Irish Catholics they allowed legal miscegnation in theory with Negroes, but the Northern opinion on that was as people of quality didn’t associate with Negroes, the only victims of Negro advances would be Irish subhumans

    The problem was at the same time the German Jews were accruing wealth and began purchasing newspapers and allied themselves with the remnant of the abolitionist left and began entering in limited numbers the Ivy League and buying up newspapers. Whites in the North and the South in the 1800s largely regarded newspapermen and authors as lowlifes, so they seemed not to take this seriously. The problem was they didn’t understand how power was accrued and consolidated

  23. They were so cocksure of themselves and so elitest in their thinking they didn’t notice the Jew like a group of termites slowly eating away until by the 1920s, they had full control of the nation’s press, the nascent Hollywood and the radio. Henry Ford was one of the few who blew the horn on this as did Grant and Stoddard, but unfortunately by 1933, the Jews began forcing libraries to pull Grant’s books from circulation and even blocked one of Grant’s seminal works from being distributed for sale.

    By the 1930s, the fruits of the population decline among old line Yankee families, the immorality that came as a result of the rejection of Christianity Jewish educators and the Jazz age, raised up a new generation of liberals who later joined with the white immigrant groups and the Jews in a mad plan to overthrow the old money establishment. That brings us to the modern day.

  24. Dixie on the other hand had suffered a gigantic brain drain brought on by the war, the aristocracy had suffered disproporinately to everyone. Luckily for the South the average family averaged between 9-10 children from about the 1860s to the 1930s. Slowly over time Dixie rebuilt itself and the explosive growth of the white population kept Jim Crow strong.

    The Depression and WW2 brought about the Southern White population shrinkage for various reasons the families became smaller. Hundreds in the Upper South moved to Northern States for jobs. The clan network was broken and by the time of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, Southern Whites even without the Yankee interlopers had lost their population advantage. Birmingham Alabama in 1960 was about 40% black. New Orleans was about the same. After the chaos in April on May 11th, 1963 Negroes began stabbing random whites and throwing rocks and bottles and Kennedy sent in troops. Now it is true the Civil Rights interlopers largely caused this, but this point must be remembered. When you have an overwhelming numeric majority you are safe, when you don’t you have to get extreme to maintain safety.

  25. Sam Bowers in MISS understood this, Robert Shelton in Bama understood this that when you face overwhelming numbers, you must become a million times more brutal than your opponent. By 1960 for various reasons, most Southern whites lost their killer instinct and by 1970, Bowers and Shelton had largely begun to fade into obscurity. This is what we face today all over the White World, WE HAVE TO FIND OUR KILLER INSTINCT OUR SAVAGE SIDE.

  26. You have eugenics and eugenics. The government could offer to pay $10K per year for every child had by those who win certain athletic and academic competitions.

    And the government could perhaps ban men from having children past the age of 45. Women seem to go largely infertile on their own, but men slowly degrade I think.

    These two things alone would help reduce the current dysgenic trend, which is really my primary concern. We need a carefully thought out established tradition to follow, and then we need to follow it blindly.

    Anyway I just posted a somewhat related reply in the comments at James Edwards’s blog. It might not show for a few days, but basically I think as the author (Hunter Wallace) here does.:

    http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/heart/#comment-71655

    • The 10k reward for certified people is a pretty good idea. I’d include some kind of athletic standard, but I wouldn’t be as stiff on that as I would on the IQ and ethnic purity. I’d also screen for any known liberal genetics, but so far only a few genes have been discovered.
      Why would you ban men siring children past 45?

  27. Btw, if anyone is interested in this topic, HBD Chick is the source y’all need to read.

    One post of hers:

    so, i’ve been writing in previous posts (and reading in various sources) that the church tried to limit consanguineous marriages for financial reasons, i.e. to fiddle with the social structures of european society so that more legacies would be left to the church and not so much to people’s families.

    I still think there is something to that, but — whoa! — clearly the church fathers were also just interested in social engineering for social engineering’s sake. and both augustine and thomas a. clearly understood how social relationships operate (altho prolly not the biological underpinnings).

    And another quote, Saint Thomas quoted by HBD Chick:

    Afterwards, however, towards these latter times the prohibition of the Church has been restricted to the fourth degree, because it became useless and dangerous to extend the prohibition to more remote degrees of consanguinity. Useless, because charity waxed cold in many hearts so that they had scarcely a greater bond of friendship with their more remote kindred than with strangers: and it was dangerous because through the prevalence of concupiscence and neglect men took no account of so numerous a kindred, and thus the prohibition of the more remote degrees became for many a snare leading to damnation.

    If y’all like this topic, she is whom y’all should read.

    I’m trying to remember some of the defences of inbreeding (which is a relative term). Mammoths died out only recently. They endured within a tiny breeding pool until ~3600 years ago. Google brings up the topic.

    Iceland is another argument. Typically the point is “garbage in; garbage out”. Tristan da Cunha has asthma only because many of the founders had asthma. Inbreeding didn’t likely create the condition. When dog breeding, if necessary you bring in outside blood. The Irish Wolfhound was saved that way, though I couldn’t say whether that outside blood was truly needed for that breed. I just happen to have a book on the breed.

    The tiny island population of The Faroes split into two populations, one with a size of 200. I have an odd book on the islands, and that’s the claim anyway. Also, before the bicycle, closer marriage was more common. Transportation has increased outmarriage.

Comments are closed.