Life consists of many things, including pitfalls, which are concealed traps that you do not see. The worst of these are the pockets, meaning those little pockets of time between doing something dumb and seeing how its results are truly horrible.
Oftentimes, what seems like a good solution is in fact fatal. Consider the case of firemen approaching a burning home. In the old days, they would kick down the door and charge in. Later they learned that there was a hidden trap here.
If you have a fire raging, and then you suddenly goad it with lots of fresh oxygen, it can cause something closer to an explosion — rapidly expanding ignition in an enclosed space — which means that kicking open the door is the worst thing to do.
Our existence contains lots of little traps like these. We learn to navigate some, such as our tendency to be too accepting of others before figuring out who they are at a character level. We find our way around scientific pitfalls like chemical reactions.
However, we have now found out that our existence has been in a pocket for some time, and we have now reached the far wall of that pocket when consequences are due. We will suffer for our many years of happy oblivion. Ecocide has arrived as a worry for us:
The authors say they found overwhelming evidence that human activities are behind nature’s decline. They ranked the major drivers of species decline as land conversion, including deforestation; overfishing; bush meat hunting and poaching; climate change; pollution; and invasive alien species.
Human activity has resulted in the severe alteration of more than 75 percent of Earth’s land areas, the Global Assessment found. And 66 percent of the oceans, which cover most of our blue planet, have suffered significant human impacts.
Protecting nature and saving species is all about securing the land and water plants and animals need to survive, said Jonathan Baillie, executive vice president and chief scientist of the National Geographic Society.
Reading between the lines, we can see that the focus has switched from “climate change,” which was relatively easy to fix, to reducing human use of nature and influence on natural lands.
This means an end to constant human growth, and a need to dial back our footprint in terms of number of people and amount of land that we influence.
That, in turn, means that we will have to confront what the herd (because it is comprised of individuals who are narcissistic enough to feel that it is directed at them) fears: hierarchy, triage, natural selection, and other hard decisions.
In other words, instead of “everyone is equal” we are going to start thinking in terms “who do we need?” on a world where we cannot keep everyone. The virus of egalitarianism has run its course, and now we have too many people, most of them with little to offer.
The Left will cry and wail because they are fundamentally despairing. For them, life is doomed because it did not make them God, and so we might as well all perish because that is better than having to be subject to the rules of reality.
On a practical level, however, we are going to have to accept some kind of replacement for natural selection administered by humans. This leads us to wonder what is eugenics, and what fits into other categories. A quick breakdown shows genetic health is a broad category:
The deep sense of crisis one gets after knowing of HBD (human biodiversity, -Ed.) comes in two flavours. Let’s call them macro and micro.
Macro is the danger of race replacement. Millions of migrants from sub-90 IQ populations have been moving massively into areas with super-100 IQ populations, namely the West. You don’t need to have a tribal allegiance to your people to feel very uncomfortable about that. For 20 years we have been hearing about how Eurabia will happen during this century, and there’s nothing we can do about it. Hell you don’t even have to understand HBD to feel very uncomfortable with the prospect.
The micro demographic crisis is the differential birth rate between high IQ and low IQ, in all races. Remember the prologue of Idiocracy? Well that’s it. Smart people worldwide are having less children than average, and the dumbest and most dysfunctional people are pumping out kids like rodents thanks to generous welfare benefits. The consequences must be, of course, a general dumbing down of the population.
Here we have two issues: nationalism and eugenics. In the past, eugenicists have confounded themselves by assuming that the multi-ethnic and multi-racial society is natural, and therefore that they must design a eugenic program for it.
In reality, nationalism comes before eugenics; eugenics works only within one tribe because each tribe has its own ideals. You cannot formulate a “universal” ideal human whether for diversity or for eugenics.
We adopt nationalism because it works; culture is neither objective nor subjective, but it is necessarily semi-arbitrary. What matters is distinctiveness because these are the symbols — customs, attire, cuisine, language, aesthetics — that separate you from other groups.
Any group which does not separate becomes absorbed, so there is survivorship bias here. There were groups which were not nationalist, and we will never hear from them again. Nationalism means a will to survive by having one and only one ethnic group comprise your civilization.
Nationalism allows keeping of the peace. If a group cannot decide about a fundamental issue, it can separate in two, and then each group tries its own method and history judges what worked. This is similar to how the states in America were designed to be “laboratories of democracy”; if California adopted universal welfare, and everyone died, then we would at least know what did not work. If California, Wisconsin, and North Carolina adopted competing economic programs, we could see which one worked best for each type of economy. Nationalism also preserves unique genetic strains, like when one group breaks away from others and goes to the mountains for wisdom, then ends up being more contemplative on a genetic level.
We all benefit from nationalism. With nationalism, there is no racism because different ethnic groups are not competing directly. With nationalism, there is high social trust and a lack of constant infighting over which cultural standards become enshrined in law, or at least incentivized by the tax code. This seems like a small issue until you realize that every act of government benefits some group over another, so government either defends culture or is working against it. This is why we offer marital deductions on that 1040EZ; if we did not, we would be penalizing marriage.
On top of the issue of nationalism, we have the vanguard of our environmental crisis, which is that 95% of humanity lives in third world conditions — subsistence poverty, high corruption, low trust, no functional social institutions, constant warlords or war — and among those groups, many want to take the lowest common denominator approach and simply flee to someplace that is already in better shape.
A eugenicist knows better: nationalism separates groups by grouping similar traits, and this is a prerequisite for applying eugenics, since applying eugenics to people of dissimilar basic traits leads to a kind of inefficient and sadistic norming. Imagine having a mixed group of dogs and cats, and you declare that your eugenics program rewards independence… soon you will have few dogs. In the same way, since average IQs, appearances, and other physical traits like bone density vary among groups, choosing one standard for a mixed group means injustice and stupidity. Since separating national groups is required, fleeing to another nation does not address the underlying cause of third world conditions, which is low average intelligence and a high preference for individualism (also heritable).
In the West, our trendy intellectuals — most of whom come from impoverished backgrounds and broken homes — argue that poverty causes low intelligence, instead of looking at the obvious fact that it is the other way around. Low intelligence causes poverty because poor quality decision-making causes poverty; in addition, being impoverished limits the ability to use intelligence, but even when these people are taken to wealthy nations, their intelligence remains limited. Further, most third world countries are in fact naturally prosperous places, and the reason for their poverty is disorganization and internal turmoil. As always, humans blame external factors where they should look at their own lack of self-discipline and applied intelligence.
This means that the solution for third world groups is not emigration, but to take control of their nations and raise standards through eugenics. If they send their best and brightest away, their home nations will always be blighted. By the same token, we need to repatriate them in order to be apply to apply eugenics to our home nations.
With nationalism in place, we face the question of eugenics. Assume for a moment that we can only keep 40% of our population, and that the others are going to disappear; who do we keep? The good democratic brainwashed answer is to have a lottery or something of that nature, in order to be “fair,” but there is nothing fair about keeping the incompetent instead of the competent, so more likely, we would separate our population into two groups: people who can do things on their own, and people who need to be told what to do.
We would find that, as in all societies, the latter group would be much bigger, and yet also the source of most of our crime, conflict, and social degeneracy. This is why in past ages, as both a form of eugenics and a compassionate method of instilling social order, Western European societies operated on the manorial feudalism model, where 90% of the population were designated as “serfs” and given few rights, but cared for like unruly slightly dumb children.
Many of us find ourselves leery of state-sponsored eugenics, or people making lives/dies choices. We can choose a gentler option, which is to be careful about who we reward, and to remove all of the programs designed to reverse natural selection like entitlements, public education, equality, civil rights, and so on. Instead of forcing equality, we would force a competitive inequality, limited by the fact that people would have lower social mobility, and therefore the competition would not be the intense and pointless grinding we have now that sees people working ten-hour days on nothing important. That provokes pushback from those who fear that they have nothing to contribute if it were not for subsidies or a chance to work in the equality industry.
Nonetheless, these issues require us to address them, and we now know that our window is closing. We have reached the far side of the pocket, and now we have to face the difficult choices that we were evading in the first place.