In the wake of the recent Oxford University study that sought to identify psychopharmacological cures to White racism (see my previous article on the subject), and in view of the study’s links to a modern advocate of eugenics, we are left with the question of what the anticipated resurgence of eugenics will mean for European-descended peoples in a cultural climate dominated by the liberal equality ideology.
Until now we have not associated eugenics with liberal egalitarianism, even though the eugenics movement of the early twentieth century had a notable progressive component, as best exemplified by pacifist eugenicist David Starr Jordan. (Jordan’s 1915 book, War and the Breed, was an impassioned attack on war as dysgenic.)
However, the abovementioned study, plus the fact that eugenics was never really abandoned since we still conduct pre-natal screenings, arises the prospect of egalitarian eugenics. Professor Julian Sepulescu of Oxford University’s Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, would be an example of this new paradigm.
As I previously stated, Savulescu’s thesis is that humans are biologically and psychologically unfit for the societies we live in, and that, absent a programme artificially to enhance our species, humanity faces extinction within a hundred years. In Sepulescu’s purview is the need to limit our commitment to liberalism, engage in more extensive surveillance of citizens, emphasise moral education, and favour long-term strategies over short term ones centred on election cycles. Among his long-term strategies he advocates the use of drugs on embryos to suppress psychopathic or other undesirable traits and, further down the line, using genetic engineering to breed a race of more peaceful, nicer, high-IQ humans.
Evidently, since the Oxford study classes racial consciousness as immoral, we can conclude that Sepulescu envisions a eugenic programme that breeds out racial consciousness.
Advertisement
In what follows I explore the implications of egalitarian eugenics. Some of it may seem like science fiction, but it is worth remembering that science begins with science fiction, and that science fiction, besides entertainment and a quintessentially Western literary form, is also a tool for ascertaining our ethical, moral, and ideological positions.
Possible Scope and Method of Implementation
In Western societies, the evaluation of racial consciousness as pathological and immoral is not a minority opinion held by alienated professors in the catacombs of university humanities departments. It is the view sponsored by the entire academic, political, and media establishment. Conversely, racial consciousness is treated as healthy and righteous in most other societies around the world. Only Western societies have instituted policies and erected social taboos that discourage and persecute expressions of racial consciousness among their indigenous White populations.
Thus, in the event of eugenics becoming once again culturally acceptable in the West, one can easily imagine that the promotion of amiability and equality would be one of any such eugenic programme’s key aims. Similarly, because other nations share with the West neither its commitment to equality nor its aversion to indigenous White ethnocentrism, one can easily imagine that such a eugenics programme would be implemented in the West alone.
One can further imagine three possible implementation scenarios.
One would involve citizens being encouraged to make a voluntary decision, either to self-medicate or to opt in for suppressing the psychochemical mechanisms involved in racial bias at the moment of ‘designing’ their child.
Another scenario would involve varying degrees of overt compulsion. Citizens would be required either to go on anti-racist drugs and hospitals would be mandated to select out a standard set of undesirable traits (schizophrenia, spina bifida, etc.) The psychochemical mechanisms of racial bias would be lumped alongside with psychopathy or deformity.
Yet another scenario would involve covert implementation. Anti-‘racist’ drugs would be introduced into bread or the water supply, and / or genetic modification would be performed on embryos unbeknownst to the parents, even where embryo design would be optional and voluntary for selecting in or out any number of other traits.
Policy makers would easily justify any eugenic programme with arguments analogous to those already used to justify the introduction of carbon taxes and other, more radical environmental measures. The marketing of such a programme would be couched in enlightened, progressive, moral language, reinforced by doomsday rhetoric.
It would be naïve, however, not to expect resistance. Conservative Christian groups would object at interfering with the human genome, no matter what the threat to our species. Libertarian groups would object at any kind of compulsion or government sponsorship. And ethnic minorities would press for exemptions, arguing that racial bias is a necessary defence mechanism needed against pervasive White racism. The latter argument would be harmonious with the notion, prevalent among Whites too, that only Whites are capable of racism. A liberal fascist state would likely crush the first two forms of opposition, and make concessions to minorities.
Upward Closing of Global IQ Gaps
What follows is more far-fetched than the above-described scenarios, but it is a hypothetical proposition to which we would need to know the answer if we are ever successfully to articulate a morality for White racial consciousness and self-assertion.
Assuming the emergence of a practical programme of egalitarian eugenics in the West, a logical extension of it would be to attempt an increase in the world’s average IQ, with particular emphasis on regions where populations score lower, so as to reduce or eliminate population gaps in human intelligence. Such an effort would constitute a form of foreign aid, and would indeed be in the spirit of the progressive Western ideology of Third World development. Its implementability would of course depend on a cheap and simple delivery system, such as a pill that permanently boosts brain function.
It bears asking whether we could support such an initiative, for one of the primary arguments used by critics of diversity in the West is its cost, on account of the economic underperformance of Third World settlers due to their lower IQs and associated behaviours, such as propensity to violent crime. It is conceivable that proponents of diversity would see the closing of world IQ gaps as a means of eliminating resistance. It is also conceivable that some opponents of diversity would see this closing as a means of removing the incentive of Third World peoples to immigrate, since poverty is a driver of emigration from the Third World and higher IQs would mean higher economic growth in regions now classed as poor. A predictable supporting argument would be that a more equal IQ distribution at a higher level would boost global economic growth, reduce conflict, improve governance, produce well-run Western-style techno-industrial societies everywhere, and create new markets for mature developed nations.
On the surface, this seems attractive. Yet, a world of uniformly high-IQ humans would have a significant impact on European peoples. European peoples would lose their advantage, particularly if ways are found also to increase creativity. Europeans peoples would be faced, in fact, with fierce competition from everywhere, not from just from China, Japan, and Ashkenazi Jews. What is more, peoples with historical grudges against Whites would be much more able effectively to devise policies of extraction, particularly if racial consciousness has been eugenically bred out of the White race. In addition, chances of interracial pairings would increase, since by breeding out racial consciousness and eliminating cognitive gaps would further eliminate barriers to miscegenation, and since race differences in fertility would favour a gradual global shift towards a predominantly Negro population. Ultimately, egalitarian eugenics would have the same genocidal implications for Whites as existing so-called ‘egalitarian’ policies.
Mention should be made also of the environmental impact of a fully developed planetary civilisation. Existing demographic trends within developed nations suggests that global populations would decline rapidly among European-descended peoples and South East Asians. However, higher libido among Negro populations would cause these rapidly to increase. If less aggressive than present Negro populations, their mortality would also be lower. Presumably ways of lowering fertility would be considered by non-Negro populations and promoted on environmental grounds. What our planet’s sustainable population maximum is remains open to question, but even if technological advances mean our planet would be able to sustain higher populations than predicted at present, there would still be a maximum, beyond which off-planet colonies would become necessary.
With egalitarian eugenics, therefore, the White race disappears, the most common human ends up a Negro—although Asian man would also be very numerous—and humanity becomes a space-faring civilisation, with a history written from an Afrocentric and Asiacentric perspective. The Aryan Promethean fades uncredited.
Conclusions: (1) egalitarian eugenics for us means extinction, even when not intended; and (2) IQ or economic arguments serve not the cause for the White race, and may actually harm it. It seems trivial when stated, but many racial conservatives have yet to accept this view, as they continue to formulate criticisms of diversity on the basis of functionalist arguments.
The Rights of Man
One of the cornerstones of the liberal egalitarian ideology is the notion that man has fundamental, inalienable rights that are universal. Yet, this notion presupposes that abstractions like ‘human rights’ exist independently of the empirical world, somehow above or outside human affairs, whereas, in fact, human affairs cannot be separated from ‘human rights’. In practice, rights exist only so long as there are humans who accept them and are able to enforce them.
From this perspective, conceiving the cause for the White race as a question of human rights, arguing that Whites have as much a right to exist as any other group, seems preposterous in the present climate. Other groups, being generally ethnocentric, are not concerned with the right of Whites to exist; they are concerned with the right of their own group to exist, and even in many of these cases they do not think in terms of rights, even where they have appropriated Western rhetoric; they think in terms of eating or being eaten. Worse still, not even Whites—save a small minority—are presently concerned with the right of Whites to exist. If Whites will not enforce their own right to exist, we cannot say that such a right exists at all, even if a small minority believes it does.
It follows then that the terminal decline of Whiteness resultant from egalitarian eugenics would be seen as unproblematic by Western nations breeding theHomo equalis. The decline of Whites would be rationalised as it is today by the most radical ‘egalitarians’: as a casualty of human progress, necessary, even, for the greater good of humanity. The Universal Declaration of the Rights of Manwould become The Selective Declaration of the Rights of the Coloured Man with the Biggest Stick.
A universal declaration of human rights makes sense only in a homogeneously White Western society or in a world where Western White man is dominant. Otherwise it is hypertrophic: universality ends where non-Western man’s dominance begins. And since the latter tends not to think in terms of ‘human rights’, even if he appropriates the rhetoric for strategical reasons, so happens with ‘human rights’. Like anything else from the Left, then, egalitarian eugenics is ultimately a negation of ‘human rights’, and since by implication a society founded on ‘human rights’ is the aim of egalitarian eugenics, the latter ultimately achieves the opposite of its purported aims.
Equality vs. Difference
As stated earlier in this article, eugenics, though now long out of favour, has never been abandoned. Western societies still pursue eugenic practices, even if said practices are called something else or are overwhelmed by others that are dysgenic. As a professor affiliated with a prestigious university, eugenics advocate Julian Savulescu, although for the moment representing perhaps a vanguard opinion, demonstrates that a rehabilitation of eugenics is possible within a liberal egalitarian framework. It thus becomes conceivable that the decline of liberal democracy may give way to a form of liberal fascism that would support eugenic programmes with the stated aim of promoting world peace and human progress. Absent the formulation of a compelling morality of White racial consciousness, it would be difficult to mount an opposition toHomo equalis in the West since the prospect of universal genetic human enhancement, even if it were never to be achieved in practice, would negate the functionalist arguments presently used by critics of diversity. In other words, all the collected statistics about diversity-related crime and race differences in IQ would be out the window, since a universally beneficial solution would have been ‘found’.
A moral statement for White racial consciousness founded on notions of superiority would not likely gain traction in a society that understands implictly, however explicitly egalitarian, that Whites are cognitively at the top of the human league, if just under Ashkenazi Jews and South East Asians. Race differences in IQ are flattering to us, but politically they are inconvenient because sympathy is with the weak rather than the strong. However, a moral statement for White racial consciousness could be framed within the larger framework of a moral statement for human difference. The advantage of this approach is that it has common ground with liberal notions of diversity as well as with liberal notions of individuality and the right to self-determination. It goes without saying that if equality and anti-racism are code words for anti-White, egalitarians will concentrate their efforts to divorce difference from race by, for example, denying the existence of race. We can expect advances in genetic science eventually to negate this strategy, particularly with the emergence of race-specific pharmacology. It would, nevertheless, be advantageous further to develop metaphysical conceptions of race—following Spengler and Evola—to supplement purely biological raciology and avoid the trap of genetic reductionism and the problems of blurred racial borders. The existence of areas of common ground with liberalism would make a morality of difference easier to defend, since rejecting it would imply also rejecting fundamental tenets of liberalism. Still, a morality of difference is not egalitarian, because difference implies quality, identity, and uniqueness—defining concepts of tradition.
The answer to egalitarian eugenics would, therefore, be qualitative eugenics: human enhancement designed to maximise the unique desirable qualities of a population, where humans become progressively more specialised and different groups—though not all—are forced to cooperate, or at least work with others, on the basis of their unique specialisations and in the measure that these are needed. This would lead to a highly differentiated world where some human societies maintain highly developed, energy-intensive civilisations while others remain pre-industrial and are less demanding on the Earth’s environment and resources. The survival of the human species would be enhanced given that there would be a greater variety of adaptations, and therefore a greater number of alternative survival strategies in the event of a changing environment. Thus, qualitative eugenics would not only permit the survival of our race specifically, but would also allow each a source of collective pride and be more harmonious with the way nature works and human societies are organised.
Made in the Soviet Union during Stalin's rule, Ivan is nevertheless an extraordinary production, as one would expect, albeit incomplete, since only Parts I and II out of an intended trilogy were ever made. (Stalin objected to Part II and funding was withdrawn, causing Part III never to leave the production stage.) Part I is the best of the surviving two. Three aspects strike the viewer: firstly, the stunning photography, which is so tightly scripted that it forces actors into submission—they must step into a scene and operate within a narrow set of kinetic limits, so that they may not upset the composition; secondly, the very archaic, unmodern atmosphere in the production, and the fact that it is not a result of the film's production date—older American films have a much more modern atmosphere; and thirdly, the sheer weirdness of it, be it the theatrical delivery of the lines, the sumptuously outlandish costumes, the strange rituals, or the grand and disproportionate scale of everything—actors, clad in enormous outfits, must stoop through low arched doors to gain access to vast thick-walled halls with tiny windows. There is, overall, a sense of raw ancientness, sleepy energy, and masculine power—despite the furs and the cascades of gold and gems—fused in this film that is quite unlike anything one would encounter in a Western film. It is worth watching for that reason alone. The transfer is clear but not the best, and the English subtitles are hard to read at times due to poor contrast, so I hope someone will put out a version that corrects these deficiencies, as the technology, if perhaps not the will, has been available for a while. 
