What we can learn from stirpiculture: the eugenic cult of group marriage and seminal retention

Join My Facebook Group:

Genetic Engineering, Eugenics, Cloning & Non-Traditional Breeding Programs

 I have written often on this blog before about how eugenics, now associated with the social conservatism of the Nazi Reich, was at its beginning attached to much more liberal causes like birth control and free love. Indeed, outside Nazi Germany, very few people have attempted to institute a positive eugenics program (selective breeding); most successful eugenics programs have been negative eugenics programs (discouraging the breeding of some) such as birth control and abortion which early advocates wanted to direct mostly at the poor. However, the first positive eugenics program in American was not started by social conservatives but advocates of group marriage and male seminal retention. 

The Oneida Community was founded by John Humphrey Noyes in 1850. Noyes preached a Christian doctrine of "perfectionism", believing that Jesus had already returned in the year 70 AD, and so humans already had the ability to live in paradise on earth which they could build. The Oneida Community was based upon a communal lifestyle. The Oneida Community believed that traits like possessiveness and attachment were negative qualities which got in the way of their perfectionist mission, and so they encouraged group marriage where every woman was married to every man in the community and free love was practiced. 

But free love comes with the negative consequence of not knowing who the father is of the child. This was a particular snag for the Noyes because he also attempted to run a positive eugenics program which he called "stirpiclultre" where only the most spiritually (this was stressed most), physically and mentally sound would reproduce. In fact, community members who wanted to have children had to go before a committee before having the child, all children were to be planned. In order to preserve both group marriage and selective breeding, Noyes taught male seminal retention; this is the act of not ejaculating during sex or learning how to climax without ejaculating. Obviously learning to climax without ejaculating would be preferable to simply not climaxing at all due to fear of ejaculation as the former would provide more pleasure to the man. The community wanted people and especially women to enjoy sex. They were very sexually liberal with older women who were beyond the ability to produce children were allowed to have sex with younger male members, and instead of being viewed as lose women they were considered spiritual leaders. 

The practice of male seminal retention was very effective as only 12 unplanned pregnancies were recorded in the community, however, 58 planned eugenic stirpicultre pregnancies were recorded between 1869 and 1979. The community practiced non-attachment because they wanted their followers to focus on the community rather than individuals, so after breastfeeding the child, the children were raised in a communal fashion and in a separate house from the parents and were encouraged to bond with members tightly who were not their biological parents. Those who became pregnant in the stirpiculture program were advised to do with a bit of aloofness as this was a practical matter. This however caused some rifts as some parents wanted to spend more time with their own children. This along with a desire for traditional marriage was part of the reason why the community eventually broke up, along with accusations of statutory rape as the community was divided on what age sexual activity should begin. 

Today eugenicists are looking for any way to start a positive eugenics program, but this would take a large community effort. Free love is often a good way to get people involved in cults, and so the idea of group marriage could be brought forward again to entice members into the community. The idea of seminal retention is intriguing as it puts the power of birth control in the hands of the man rather than the women wich avoids chemical birth control and contraceptives and which the Oneida Community believed was more natural, and some believe seminal retention leads to heightened mental, physical and spiritual states of being. As interest in pure monogamy is waning, perhaps group marriage can be used again to entice people into a eugenics cult, and the men can especially be brought in through the ability to learn seminal retention. However, maybe strict group marriage would not be advisable as some would wish to practice monogamy or polygyny, and perhaps there should be more input from the parents in their children's lives. However, free love and seminal retention mixed in with the idea of selective breeding (which is contradictory), maybe be enough to relaunch a eugenics cult in our lifetime. 

The role of polyandry in nation building

 

Join My Facebook Group:

Genetic Engineering, Eugenics, Cloning & Non-Traditional Breeding Programs

Prior to the modern tech age, it was much easier to use polyandry to build powerful leaders. Polyandry is when one woman has multiple husbands, the opposite of polygyny. The basic idea was that inheritance went through the mother. In patrilineal societies, the father's wealth is continuously dispersed among many children, this dispersion of wealth is exacerbated by polygyny which may be eugenic but also comes with its own social and economic complications. Under polyandry, the wealth of several men is all inherited by the few children produced by one woman. In ancient times, before genetic testing, no one knew who the father was so each father adopted the child as his own and passed on his wealth, this meant that much social and economic power was handed over to a few people. 

I have discussed polygyny extensively on this blog and how I believe it is eugenic. Polygyny is the most primitive form of human breeding, it was what was practiced in the most ancient of times. The polygyny threshold model shows that females who breed with males who already have a mate increase the biological fitness of their offspring because she goes for the male with the best genes and most resources while skipping over other available males who have less. 

I have also argued that polygyny would reorganize humans in the modern age which is desperately needed, we are becoming atomized and fragmented and polygyny would quickly create large family networks which could centralize power, wealth, and social capital into the hands of those men who are capable of obtaining many wives, presumably those most capable of running larger society. Also, women who choose a greater man to share rather than have a single man to herself are the most prudent and sacrificing for their children and the race. Polygynous families, some say, are made up of the best of human stock. 

But polygyny leaves many men without a mate. Now to a degree, this is the point since only the most desirable men are wanted to breed. However, this could cause social problems by denying too many men sexual and emotional gratification. One suggestion I have made is for men to have wives but to also care for women in a harem-like atmosphere where they are free to practice free love while using birth control, thus allowing her to enjoy her life while also satiating the needs of those men who have no wives. Meanwhile, when it is time to breed with the desired male she could simply avoid contraception in that encounter. This would be an arrangement between the polygamous male and female, family building based on what is practical rather than love. Genetic flow would remain centralized and easier to control, and so would social power, yet the woman is given freedom. 

However, modern polyandry should also be considered. First, several men sharing a woman would alleviate some of the social tension created by polygyny. However, it would also perhaps partially erase some of the inheritance issues created by polygyny. Polyandry would allow a different and unique type of family to arrive, one where much wealth and power were centralized in a few children as they inherit the family wealth and social contacts of many men. The only issue would be that these men would need to agree to adopt the child despite the fact that we can now tell who is the father. It would be a certain type of man to engage in this practice, a more cooperative and less possessive man. Polygyny may select for men who are more aggressive and possessive, and we do not want everyone in society to be like this, we need all kinds of people, we need dominant and passive people, we need geniuses and laymen. What type of personalities would come out of polyandrous households needs to be investigated as they could perhaps make excellent natural leaders due to genetically and socially inherited traits and their ability to quickly accumulate power.

Women must lead the way in eugenic polygyny

 

 Join My Facebook Group: 
Genetic Engineering, Eugenics, Cloning & Non-Traditional Breeding Programs

There is a misconception that polygyny is always the will of the man, directed by the man. It is always assumed that if the woman had her way she would be the only wife. But if one studies both older Mormon culture and Muslim culture, they will find that polygyny is often initiated by the woman. 

Some believe that a woman who desires polygyny is the highest form of woman. She often does it out of love for her husband, wishing to give him the maximum pleasure, meaning she is self-sacrificing and very contentious as well as real; she would rather see her husband in an institution which would help avoid cheating rather than enforce him into monogamy which almost always eventually leads to cheating... again she has to be real. She also needs to be unjealous and unselfish, both qualities needed for building more advanced civilization. 

Polygynous wives often call themselves "sister-wives", meaning there is a degree of sorority there. The sorority is built around the fact that these women have all decided that it is best to congregate around the best man than to have an average man for herself. It takes a superior man to manage polygyny and the complex family system it engenders. In Mormonism it was thought best for women to engage in polygyny so that only the best souls would come on to the earth, polygyny was seen as a sort of eugenic duty. Women who practice polygyny are unified in their common effort to advance the human race. 

As I have seen it, and as I have said, it is common for a woman to suggest polygyny out of love for her husband, and as in the case of older Mormonism, eugenic duty. I would suggest that women who are currently married suggest and introduce their husbands to polygyny. However, I also think it would behoove women to pre-organize for polygyny. Associations could be made where women could go to meet to find other prospective sister-wives with whom they could build a relationship and test out whether or not they could live together. They could then offer themselves as a full package to perspective great men with whom they could then build a family, a sort of package deal. If they are magnanimous enough to organize for eugenic duty, such women could change the course of history.  

Only polygamy can save the white race

Please Join My Facebook Group:
Genetic Engineering, Eugenics, Cloning & Non-Traditional Breeding Programs

The white race is not only disappearing, they are declining in "purity" and quality, they are also totally lost politically. Polygamy is usually associated with early and primitive society, and so many scoff at using the institution to save the race now in our modern age, but some tweaking of polygamy can be what saves whites. Many white men dream of a revolution, where a strong leader arises and galvanizes everyone and patriarchy returns and women are sent back to the home to breed. White men sit and wait and wait and wait for the leader or the movement to arrive, yet they have no plans if this leader or movement never arrives or only arrives long past their lifetime. The White right has nothing that they can do right now, in the current climate, they have no subtle manipulations, they have no long term strategies. Hitler only rose to power because the Germans had a king far less than a generation ago, they were accustomed to having a fuhrer, they were used to centralized power under one man, this is not going to happen in America or modern Europe.

The idea that even right-wing White women are going to somehow immediately transform back into housewives is too idealistic, they have experienced a great degree of freedom and they are not going to so easily return to tradition. White men, no matter what they think, especially White men of the modern age, are not going to be able to beat their wives back into submission, modern civilized White man, no matter how offended he is by the modern world, just as woman is not ready to return to the housewife, he is not prepared to be the animalistic brute who puts her in chains and drags her back to the house, the idea that white men are going to become the beasts necessary to "re-tame" white woman is also too idealistic. It would take a generation of two of conditioning to make anything like that work, just as it took a generation or two of social revolution to bring us to the point where are now. Though I would suggest a new form of tradition which unifies modern and ancient. 

However, polygamy offers a way for woman to be eased back into a new motherhood, one that is similar to what she was before but which is also different and modern. The main issue with women in the workplace is that there is less time for children, and so it becomes harder and harder to raise many of them. But in our modern world, the way the economy is set up, it usually takes at least two parents working. Polygamy fixes this situation by the division of labor. If a man has more than one wife, preferably three of four or more, then some mothers can stay home with the children while the others engage in work. In such a system each woman could have 3 our 4 or 5 children, yet there would still be a way to make enough income to keep the family alive and not have to pay for babysitting. Polygamy would allow for such a blended traditional-modern family to arrive. Some mothers would be housewives while others engaged in work. 

But polygamy also has the advantage of more quickly purifying the race. Under monogamy, we have to deal with the fact that men of less desirable qualities obtain a wife and every man has a child. When I say race "purification" I am not necessarily speaking of straining out any remnants of other races as I am speaking about whites who have not bred with non-whites for centuries, I am talking about breeding in certain types of whites, bringing in a desired temperament and physique. In monogamy it is very hard to quickly breed in certain qualities across the spectrum of the population... a desirable man may breed his genes into a single family but they are lost on the larger population. In polygamy, a few more desirable men can breed their genes into as many women as possible, thus the race is "purified" faster. 

There is also the issue of political unity. Polygamous families create immediately larger family networks and can be used to more quickly consolidate social and political power into groups of smaller families. Monogamy is very atomizing, dispersing the power around. Some believe the theory that polygamous men and women are simply superior by the very fact that they want to practice polygamy. A man needs to be socially equipped to deal with many women and women need to be unjealous and desiring to congregate around only the best men to practice polygamy. It would be best for whites to have power in the hands of fewer polygamous families so that our political and social powers can become more centralized and less fragmented and perhaps in the hands of those who are best fit to rule. The path to power is less dictatorial and relies more upon strategy than force. 

Polygamy would allow our modern women to re-enter the home, yet still allow those who desire to work, this sounds more practical than waiting for a dictator who may never come. Polygamy would more quickly spread the most desirable genes in the population and would centralize power more quickly in the hands of a few, which is needed if we are going to radically transform society. For these reasons Whites need to start campaigning for plural marriage rights. 

Eugenics is supposed to make us kinder to the poor and disabled

The point of eugenics is to avoid slipping back into barbarism. Enlightened civilization depends on the population remaining strong, intelligent, and healthy. Under barbaric circumstances, there is no poverty because those who are unable to fend for themselves die off and are unable to pass on this social malaise to their offspring (though in modern society poverty is not always associated with dysgenic composition, social corruption can push the best of us into poverty and the worst of us into riches). In addition, there is no sickness or extreme mental and emotional dysfunction because such people also die off. 

Eugenicists fear that the comforts of modern society replicate social, mental, emotional, and spiritual traits which would otherwise die out in an uncivilized circumstance. Charity and social welfare keep the alcoholic, the lazy, the unintelligent, and the sick alive and allows them to reproduce. The fear is that this class will increase at such a rapid rate that they will outstrip the means of the healthy and industrious to provide, indeed becoming dominant. 

Overburden makes people resentful. One of the arguments of the early birth control eugenicists was that too many children lead to overburden in the parents, who eventually had more children than they wanted, and this caused them to love them less... some said that because of their sunken condition and absolute poverty that this allowed them to so easily throw their too many children into the dangerous industrious factories of the time, an enforced lack of empathy was keeping the ills of the industrial revolution alive. Indeed, having too many poor and sick people makes those who would otherwise want to help become resentful. We don't mind feeding one poor person, but millions becomes a strain. 

Eugenics seeks to reduce the number of the poor and the sick, first by checking their numbers through birth control and abortion, second by encouraging the intelligent and industrious to breed. If there were less poor and sick people, we would not feel so overextended in helping them, and thus we would feel less resentful and not become full of hate. When birth control and abortion become universally applied among the poor, then finally our hearts will become softened because there are not too many to care for and they are not replicating in society. Birth control and abortion should become freely available and incentives should be made for the poor and dysfunctional not to have children, birth control and abortion should be readily available in the developing world. When there are not too many poor and sick for the world to care for, we will see and kinder and more empathetic race. 

The raising of eugenics cult leaders

Join My Facebook Group:
Genetic Engineering, Eugenics, Cloning & Non-Traditional Breeding Programs

The modern breakdown of the nuclear family is actually the greatest opportunity in history to reengage the human race in selective breeding. The Bible proclaims that in hard time, seven women will cling to one man, they say they will provide for their own food and their own clothes but only wish to have his name, to be his collective wives: "Your men will fall by the sword, your warriors in battle. The gates of Zion will weep and mourn. The city will be like a ravaged woman, huddled on the ground. In that day seven women will take hold of one man and say, "We will eat our own food and provide our own clothes; only let us be called by your name. Take away our disgrace!" (Isaiah 3:25-4:1). When mass poverty is present, women would rather gather around a rich man than settle for their own man with no means. Today, we are not only seeing material poverty but the poverty of spirit. It would seem that most men are unworthy to become husbands and fathers, women will not take them as their husbands nor breed with them. But should monogamy have ever been practiced in the first place?

The most primitive and thus natural form of reproduction is polygamy and harem breeding. Before civilization the most fierce and intelligent man would collect as many women as possible for himself, leaving most, yes most men without a wife. This system strained out those men who were not the best... you could not just be great, you had to be the best to have wives or concubines and procreate. But when civilization arises it is obvious that under equality all men demand a wife and all women demand a single husband who pays attention to them alone, monogamy becomes enforced. When all men are given a chance at breeding we see a decline in the genetic quality of the race. No animal breeder worth his salt breeds all of his males, no animal breeding program relies upon monogamy, an illustrious race of horses is bred from only a few sires. 

But as our society degrades we are returning to a more primitive time... the average man cannot provide for a wife and as already stated, he is beyond the desire of most women, monogamy will no longer work. However, we also do not live in the more savage age, the best of our men are not claiming stake to women through violence, and because we have a modern economy, it is not always the best or brightest or strongest men who have all the money... corruption has sunk in. How are we supposed to use this opportunity to return to eugenic polygamy? It is possible that some charismatic dictator would rise and institute the system, but number one is is this probable, and number two is this desirable? What would be the worth of a eugenic state if it was draconian? Some men dream of being ruled by an authoritarian state, but things are different when you actually live in it. 

All around the world there are charismatic and handsome men who are able to collect loyal followers around themselves who give them money and women who give themselves to him sexually. These men usually have a spiritual message, but this message could be made biological for those who are of the right bend of mind. However, polygamy might not be taken up with enthusiasm by the average man as he knows that this would mean that he would be deprived of a wife. Who to go for first? The women. The Bible says the women will pay for their own clothes and food, but still wish to be guided by one husband amongst them... it is better to share a great man than have a mediocre man to yourself. However, this would only be the start as eugenics mean fecundity for women (not over fecundity though) and thus it would not behoove the system to overstress women with too much work (though they should not become inert either). Women would be used to start such a cult, but once it is established we can turn to the men. The polygamous magnanimous cult leader should be encouraged to be more liberal with women, enticing them into his harem with a culture which not only gives them degrees of freedom but also protection from the imposing monogamous men who only wish to cruelly dominate them. A polygamous cult leader should be of the right kind of feminism, creating a place where women can be educated and have some involvement in public life. How can we tell how intelligent a woman is if she is not educated and allowed to work with her education? Though a balance must be struck between involvement in life and having children. Polygamy would allow women to take turns caring for the children so that others could be free for leisure or light duties. The phenomena of epigenetic inheritance should not be discounted, the genetic transferring of acquired skills in one's lifetime... women who engage in physical fitness may pass on this muscle memory to their children... women who live in a state of heightened consciousness due to education and duty might do the same... an active woman is more likely to breed a superior race. Such a balanced woman can only be produced through the polygamous/harem system as long as the leader is sound enough to not be intimidated by her abilities. This is how to gain the trust and loyalty of the women. 

Early eugenics was marked by free love, it was believed that monogamy was based in jealously and selfishness, traits which should be weeded out of the human race. Women who share a husband cannot be jealous. The Mormon ideal was that women would share the best of the men so that only the best of children would be born to be vestures for the incoming souls of the world so that they would not be born to a lower order... the Mormon ideal was to put jealousy aside for the best of the race... women who choose polygamy are obviously the best of the race of women. However, there is the issue of stability to contend with. If most men do not have wives or sexual partners than they will be dissatisfied and may become a threat to the polygamous leader. Once polygamy is established a larger harem can be produced with too many women for any one man to satiate. These women in agreement could practice free love with the followers of the great polygamous leader, indeed creating a sex cult to keep his men obedient. Sex without the burden of children is very alluring to men. These men would then donate their time and money to the system in exchange for free sex. The women could be kept on birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies, however if certain men are deemed to be eugenically fit then they could be allowed to breed with such women for the induction of novel and desirable genes. 

However there is another class of humans who should be considered for the cult practice and that is LGBTQs. At first this may seem like an odd addition to a eugenics cult but let me explain. In ancient Mesopotamia the sacred harems were marked by the presences of transvestites and effeminate men, indeed they were believed to be sent by the goddess Ishtar to supplement the royal courts of the polygamous elite. Homosexuality especially of the male sort, takes males out of the breeding game... with less males competing for women, the more women there are for polygamy and harem breeding. The effeminate homosexual makes a good loyal and passive servant (to some degree) and can be trusted with the women. Indeed the effeminate homosexual is a great companion to women and can serve as friend and guide to her in the chose mysteries of the polygamous leader. The hypermasculine type of homosexual makes a good personal guard as not only is he often more vicious than the average heterosexual, he has no incentive to topple the polygamous leader out of jealously of his position with women. Homosexuals are also overrepresented in the priesthood and so would be a perfect fit for protecting the mysteries of the leader. Homosexuality has always been more tolerated and present in the king's court, eunuchs (this is a barbaric practice which can be replaced with effeminate homosexuals) were much more common among the aristocracy. Indeed everywhere we look, homosexuality is more accepted among the refined classes and less so among the more course. The aristocracy provides homosexuals with safety from the less refined masses and so they are grateful and loyal to the power structure. A system should be devised where as many homosexuals are encouraged to drop out of the breeding system as possible and serve the polygamous male. Transvestites are often able to poach even heterosexual males and so can be used to satiate males to keep them away from the females, if necessary. Persecuting homosexuals causes social tensions and upheavals, it is better to integrate them into the system and use their talents than to cause social divisions... LGBTQs in included would be among the most fanatical supports of the leaders. They should be encouraged to engage heavily in race science as well. They make good evaluators of the eugenic worth of the subjects, particularly the women. They are more subtle and delicate minded, picking up on things others don't. Their position as outsiders allows them to see through internal hypocrisies and petty strifes. They also do not reproduce and so can be objective in assessing those who should breed. 

By first gaining the support of the women by providing them a wholesome, free and safe environment, then using free love to induct men, and also providing LGBTQs a position in his harem work, the polygamous leader can rise to the top with the social and financial support of his followers and a new polygamous cycle can begin. 

Eugenics used to be associated with free love... why?

Today eugenics is associated with the extreme traditionalism of Nazism, people were to build traditional families, though Himmler did propose state-run polygamy programs devoid of marriage where women would raise their children communally and be supported by the state (Lebensborn). However, the earlier era of eugenics was associated with free love. John Humphrey Noyes was an American spiritualist who established the Oneida Community. He coined the term "stirpiculture" which was an early form of selective breeding where only the most spiritual members of the community would breed. However, he also advocated free love outside marriage because he believed that monogamy represented selfishness, a trait he did not want to propagate in the community. Victoria Woodhull was an early suffragette and ran for President, she advocated free love and eugenics. Alice Vickery was the first women in Britain to gain her pharmacy degree... she advocated birth control and free love and campaigned to end the stigma attached to being born outside of wedlock. 

Today many find it funny that eugenics was first associated with free love, but it might not be all that hard to understand. Noyes was on to something when he spoke about monogamy being "selfish", it is associated with possessiveness and a lack of confidence. How does selfishness affect society and what kind of society would be built if we were all less selfish? Would it be a more cooperative society? Would it be a society filled with less pettiness? Would it be a society filled with less greed? The early eugenicists saw something in those who were capable of practicing free love, a sort of evolved spirit. Free love in my opinion is associated with intelligence, a free and inquiring spirit, self-confidence, and generosity. What would happen if these qualities were bred into the human over jealous monogamy?

Margaret Sanger advocated birth control partially on the premise that the release of inhibitions and fears in the human race would bring upon us rapid and profound perceptions and increase our intelligence and that free access to sex was the best way for us to lose our inhibitions (perhaps outside of bloody warfare... which free love should not replace). If interest in ecstatic sex were a sign of intelligence and virility, then free love would need to be made normal so as to find and select for those who were most enthusiastic about the ritual... in nature a lack of interest in sex would indicate a lower level of reproductive fitness and would thus be dysgenic. Eugenicists have lamented that the Christain obsession with homely women had deteriorated the race as a woman who was deemed to be too sexually provocative in appearance (even if she were chaste) was frowned upon and a more simple type of woman who seemed sexless was preferred. Thus Christain obsession with anti-sex may have had a deteriorating effect on the race. 

Perhaps free love should not be practiced among the average classes as they are not ready for it and its institution could wreak social havoc, however it should be promoted among cults which are formed and organized for no other reason than eugenics. People would be selected based on their ability to responsibly engage in free love. Birth control would be used so that when the time came to producing children it could be done selectively. I would suggest that an adeptness at sexual proclivities and a particularly generous spirit when it came to sex should be used as selective criteria for mating, if less sexed and generous persons are needed to maintain society then this would be brought forward by the monogamous laity. Free love should be used to produce a leading eugenic class who are open, tolerant, generous, not selfish, intelligent, creative, and adventurous... all aspects which may be associated with those who can practice free love.

If abortion were relinked with eugenics, less women would get abortions

Once upon a time abortion was linked with eugenics. Abortion is inextricably linked to the previous birth control movement with was founded an run entirely by eugenicists. If you read the original birth control pamphlets and books of the 1920s and 1930s, they were almost all against abortion and instead advocated preventing the conception in the first place. This could have been because abortion was much too radical an idea at the time and to tie abortion in with birth control would harm the cause (Margaret Sanger's first addition of "Family Limitation" listed abortion as a method but was removed in subsequent copies). 

However, in the 1950s and 1960s, those eugenicists who came out of the birth control movement began to promote abortion. Alan Frank Guttmacher who not only was president of Planned Parenthood but also Vice-President of the American Eugenics Society, it was likely Guttmacher's dedication to eugenics which pushed him to launch the Association for the Study of Abortion in 1964. Vera Houghton was Vice-President of the British Eugenics Society, Executive Secretary of International Planned Parenthood Federation, and Chair of the Abortion Law Reform Association. The eugenic birth control movement became the eugenic abortion movement. The aims of the birth control and abortion movement was always to even out the classes, it is believed that the more industrious and intelligent have less children while those who are less engaged in the rigours aspects of society have larger families... it was hoped to even out these numbers. 

But the question today is is abortion eugenic? Yes, abortion is used more by the poor (who are not always dysgenic, social ills can prevent the best of us from gaining wealth) and so the hope that the classes would be evened out is working. However, those who were desired to stay in society may because of abortion have less children still then they already would have had, which would have been small to begin with. Is the tradeoff worth it? How do we allow abortion to have its eugenic effect? 

After the 1960s, abortion became less about eugenics and more about women's individual rights, and eugenics was eventually totally pushed out. Today, women don't think about abortion having anything to do with eugenics and there is no class consciousness inserted into the debate (accept by those who say abortion disproportioonatley affects non-Whites). However, if abortion were relinked with eugenics perhaps we would see a fall in abortion among the more conscious class. When abortion is associated with eugenics, this means that those who are getting abortions are a less desirable element in society, and women who wish to be viewed as more valuable would obtain a negative association with abortion because it is associated with elimination. 

How could such a consciousness be cultivated in the best of our women. By getting them deeply involved in the birth control and abortion movement. First, women of high caliber should be motivated to read the writings of female eugenicists like Margaret Sanger and Marie Stopes who were direct and frank about the purpose of birth control (and then apply these ideas to abortion). Women who became directly involved in preventing births from women who perhaps should not be procreating would become conscious of their own procreation, to not procreate would be associated with being undesirable and so perhaps these women would be less reluctant to abort their own and indeed would want to increase their fecundity. Women should be totally engaged in directing abortion propaganda back toward eugenics so then higher conscious women began to slow their abortions and abortion becomes associated only with the most desperate and least conscious amongst us. 

The "alt-right" and anti-Zionist Christians should still vote for Trump for accelerationism

Trump's presidency is in danger, Trump did not win by large margin in 2016, but he was definitely helped by the "alt-right" (or whatever they call themselves) and anti-Zionist Christians. Trump dog whistled a degree of anti-Judaism and anti-Zionism, or at least people read this into his rhetoric, maybe they conflated nationalism with anti-Judaism. But now Trump has proven himself to be the greatest support of Zionism, and those who so ardently supported him in 2016 are abandoning him in droves, indeed some of the most influential people in the alt-right and anti-Zionist Christendom are actively trying to get people not to vote... perhaps not vote for Biden... but just not to vote at all. 

The alt-right and anti-Zionist Christians perhaps have different motives though. I believe that the alt-right has a two-fold plan. First is to end the pro-Zionist stance of the government, the second is to welcome the Leftist instability that a Biden government will bring. The alt-right seems interested in having things excel to the point that violence is needed to thwart Leftism, they want a revolution. This is stupid at this time as the alt-right is completely disorganized, too small, fractured, full of infighting, and ideologically disjointed. The idea that anyone would win a revolution against a Biden government with the military is ridiculous, if Biden gets in Leftism will only become more organized and integrated into the government. I would believe anti-Zionist Christians have less interest in stoking a revolution. While they may disagree with Biden's policies, they are simply desperate to get the government away from supporting Zionism with they find to be evil, it is more about spirituality for the anti-Zionist Christians, they also have their sentiments for Palestine which also has Christian citizens. 

However I ask the alt-right and anti-Zionist Christians to consider the point of accelerationism. The slower the water heats, the less likely the frog is to notice the water is getting hot and cannot jump out. With the growing influence of Zionism over the USA, the more people are waking up to Zionist intrigues (such as Noahide Law). While there is the danger of Zionism gaining a stranglehold over the nation, is it not better for the water to boil faster so that more people wake up and radicalism spreads faster? Also, Trump's presidency is a galvanizer for anti-Islam sentiments. Where anti-Islam goes, so will anti-Judaism as people will equate all foreign laws and movements into one package. What would be more prudent would be to vote for Trump but for it to come with a propaganda qualifier, and that is we are voting for him in order to accelerate Zionism in the nation and thus faster lead to anti-Zionist sentiments. 

polygamous straight men, women and gays - a eugenic alliance

Join My Facebook Group:

Genetic Engineering, Eugenics, Cloning and Non-Traditional Breeding Programs

Eugenicists have always said that eugenics is the only way to keep civilized society alive without reverting back to barbarism. During barbaric times the least healthy and least intelligent of the race perish and fail to pass on their genes, while only the most intelligent and healthy survive to mate. When the primitive age is over, the natural checks on human population come to an end and so those who would normally perish under a more cruel situation live to create offspring. The eugenicists say that if we do not check our breeding that society will collapse due to an accumulation of dysgenic traits in the population and we will return to barbarism. Opponents of eugenics say that the system is barbaric, but it is just the opposite, it is designed to stave off barbarism. However, it cannot be denied that civilization as we know it does depend on more gentle and delicate demeanors, some of our greatest minds are delicate and perhaps would not survive in harsh traditions. We must also cultivate garden types of humans who would likely not survive outside the hothouse of eugenics.... eugenics must be balanced. 

One of the greatest checks to dysgenics which was abolished in the civilized age was polygamy. Genetic testing shows us that 8,000 years ago that the norm was that only one man bred for every 17 women, this means that only a few men had large harems of women. While it may have driven out the more delicate types needed for advanced civilization, this type of ancient polygamy was based on the fact that only the strongest and smartest man could accumulate so many wives, while those who were not all the way at the top of the pyramid could not accumulate any... you could not even be great to have a wife, you had to be the best, that was it, nothing less would do. In animal breeding we only breed the very best males, the very top, the top 10% or so, the other 90% fail to breed in many breeding programs. 

I would also like to say that having very few males breed will lead to hypergamy, meaning that children who had different grandmothers or great grandmothers, but the same grandfather or great grandfather, they might breed together and thus there would be a level of incest. The only problem with incest is the chance of negative recessives being accumulated in the gene pool, meaning that diseases that would normally be less likely to show do show. However, in more primitive times, those who did inherit two copies of the negative recessive would die. Is there a benefit to incest in barbaric times?  I would say yes, that a degree of incest accumulates a particular personality type in the tribe, making social cohesion greater. In our modern time, with genetic testing and egg/sperm sorting, negative recessives could be weeded out of polygenic incestious lines and thus a degree of a psychic conformity could be induced in a family tree without the threat of accumulating diseases... this is a modern and eugenic solution to simply allowing those offspring who had accumulated the negative recessives to die... which we must admit even in barbaric times is inefficient, but perhaps not less inefficient than having a tribe which is not mentally and emotionally aligned. 

However, there is the social aspect of polygamy to look at. A man who sought to acquire large numbers of females would need to fend off large numbers of jealous men who would be denied a wife due to the very nature of the system. This would mean that the leader would need very strong alliances and protections from an elite guard, and he would need a network of loyal subjects, even though this network might be small in comparison to the other 16 men or so who would not breed. There is the question of how this was accomplished in ancient times. There might be something in our psychological make up which allows a man who is strong and wise enough to accumulate large numbers of females to psychologically manipulate large crowds and that this ability to manipulate might be so great that he is able to control men even over the degree that they desire sex, and this would need to be great indeed. In ancient times cruel measures could not be discounted in accomplishing this, and the passing on of cruel and sadistic traits, the immediate turning to force, needs to be considered if it would be a detriment in creating the more cooperative types needed to build social society marked by softer civilization. The king might have also gained control by allowing his loyal men to have access to his harem. 

However, there is some data to be gleaned from a time where there was more civilized polygamy, thought it was practiced to much less a degree, and that comes from the fertility religions of ancient Mesopotamia. While it was more likely to be only kings who held multiple wives and concubines, the average citizen still seemed to be able to have a wife. However, there was also believed to be sacred prostitution where women were kept in harems available to the public. If enough women were engaged in sacred prostitution, and kings had multiple wives and large harems, there would still be segments of the male population who had no wife... though it would be believed only the least "fit" and intelligent would be able to acquire a wife. However it must be noted that in civilized times "fit" becomes a muddy word because just because a man is not as wealthy as another man or as politically powerful does not mean he is less "fit". Kings got there status through heredity and the first born son may not be the most eugenic son, yet he still would have more access to women. Also if a society if corrupt more noble men may find it harder to find suitable wives with whom to procreate, or he may feel so depressed by social conditions that he retreats from live, unfortunately becoming a monk of celibate as more noble men all to often do. Civilized society is where dysgenics begins. 

Now for the part where women and homosexuals come in. It was known that in ancient Mesopotamia homosexuality was more open. In the Christian era all men are expected to have a wife and to breed and homosexuality is shameful, and a man who is innately homosexual would likely want to hide his "shame" and thus he would look for a wife, thus taking another woman out of the breeding pool. However, if the maximum number of homosexuals are encouraged to drop out of the mating pool, this leaves a large surplus of females who can join harems for polygamy while still allowing heterosexual men who desire a wife to acquire one. Now it would seem that the Mesopotamians understood that homosexuality aided the polygamous system as the harems were known to contain transvestites and homosexuals, the Bible speaks of them heavily and was vehemently opposed to them. More effeminate men were believed to have been created and sent by the goddess Ishtar to the ruling class to aid them in their religious ceremonies. The ancient were known to desire eunuchs, a savage practice of castrations, however homosexuals and transvestites are natural eunuchs, at least effeminate homosexuals are more passive, and that is what was desired from a eunuch. Eunuchs were much more common among the ruling class for a reason, though it would seem that they were intelligent enough to see that effiniate men were natural eunuchs as well.  Now, not all homosexuals are effeminate, indeed masculate militant homosexuals tend to be more masculine and more militant than even heterosexual men and are known to be more militant... the original skull crushers of the Nazi party which allowed them to rise power was led by a vicious homosexuals named Ernst Rohm. Kings could use masculine homosexuals as their elite guards and military commanders, they would also be free from family and children, allowing them to devote all their time to the military. 

Homosexuals and transvestites could be trusted to run the king's harems without impregnating his women. There is also the issue of loyalty. I am of the pursusion that there is the biological tendency is a great number of humans to be naturally anti-homosexuals, I would also say that this tendency to be anti-homosexual is most aggravated in the less refined classes, while it is more absent in the more refined classes. Transvestites and homosexuals would likely find that they were better protected by the aristocracy then by the common people and so they would have a vested interest in being loyal to the king and his system. However, that would also mean that homosexuals and transvestites would be disproportionately involved in propping up tyrannies. 

It was known that in ancient Mesopotamia there was a certain high-ranking type of woman, the priestesses. Priestesses were often called upon to sire the royal children of the king. The laity's wives probably lived more traditional lives away from education and stately duties. Is there a eugenic effect in allowing child-baring women to become educated and engage in duties of the state?  First, how can we know just how intelligent and educated a woman is if she is not educated and allowed to express herself? If all women are kept submerged that it is impossible to tell the difference between those who are dull and those who are bright. And if women are not given the opportunity to engage in duty than it becomes impossible to know who is talented not just in letters but also in practice. Then there is the possible science of epigenetics to consider. Epigenetics are genes which can switch on and off depending on the life experience of the individual. It is now known that the living life of especially the woman is passed on to her offspring, for example if she engages in physical fitness in her life she may pass on immediate muscle knowledge of this on to her offspring... it must be investigated where or not this also applies to mental and emotional states... the ability to learn math or persevere under pressure. Allowing a degree of freedom for women likely gave the ruling class a eugenic advantage. 

How could something like this be accomplished today? We do not live in the times of kings. One method would be to start polygamous eugenic cults which would originally be organized by groups of polygamous men who are willing to work together in tandem. Though this cult would be small at first it could grown. I would suggest that the cult encourage homosexual men to be who they are and drop out of the mating scheme so that more women would be available for polygamy, also making the LGBTQ population loyal to their cause. In modern times with gay marriage, homosexuals should be asked to use the legal gains they have made to advocate for polygamy to be legalized as well. As for women I suggest that it be made known to them that in such polygamous cults they would be highly educated and would be encouraged to engage in certain duties which would exercise their minds. They should feel as though the polygamous system protects them from the dullard life of monogamy run by lesser men who would be threatened by their intelligence and independence, polygamous men must be shown and painted to be more magnanimous. Thus, with this alliance, eugenic polygamy could be restored. 

Why gays are like Jews, but not quite, and are instead benifecial for the race

Why do so many people dislike Jews? The vast majority of people live away from urban centers where they will meet many Jews, indeed many people who dislike Jews have met very few Jews in their life. People who dislike Jews will often point to their overrepresentation in causes that they disapprove of, usually showing how Jews are disproportionately engaged in nefarious methods on both sides of the spectrum, both left and right, and that these work together in synergy to be disruptive to the majority population. 

It is often honestly stated by anti-Jewish persons that if left undeterred, Jews rise to the top of society and naturally control it, that without a positive system of suppressing Jews that they are by default rendered dominant. Some say that this is not necessarily because Jews are smarter or more industrious, and arguments can be made that Jews might have these traits in greater concentrations, but that because they are immoral and unethical in their dealings, clannish... working for themselves as individuals and as a group to the detriment of the host population. 

Others hate Jews because of a general tendency they find in the Jewish personality. We all recognize that there tends to be something Black-ish about Blacks, Indian-ish about Indians, White-ish about Whites, Muslim-ish about Muslims... each race and religion and ethnic groups tends to have clusters of traits which make it stand out as unique from the others... though this cannot obviously always be universally applied, but there are tendencies. To some degree, many people dislike Jews "because there is just something about Jews", idiosyncrasies in their personality that others dislike. 

But the Jews themselves have recognized that there seems to be a natural tendency in non-Jews to dislike Jews... that it has a deeper almost spiritual basis. Many Jews believe that the non-Jews are simply created that way, or that they are jealous, or that they are resentful because Jews are closer to god, but still, many Jews say that somewhere deep inside it is simply natural for non-Jews to dislike Jews... and they may even believe that this stress and persecution has actually been part of their success... forcing them to work harder and be more cunning and manipulative than the non-Jews. 

There is another group which seems to be just naturally hated by many (but not all), innately hated, even though it can also be learned, and those are homosexuals. Like Jews, some people say homosexuals have certain personality tendencies among them which they find distasteful. But like it is with Jews, there is also a slight fear of homosexuals becoming overrepresented. Those who oppose homosexuals are usually not only afraid of the feminization of society (though effeminate homosexuals are only one side of the coin) but are also afraid of a sort of homosexual militarism or gay fascism where homosexuals become the dominant force in society which can even be physically threatening. 

It might be true that if left unchecked, both Jews and homosexuals will naturally gain a disproportionate amount of control and influence in society, but should these two phenomena be viewed the same?  What is the difference between Jews and homosexuals?  Jews are by definition a different people... they have a different genealogy generally than the people they live amongst and a different religion and culture. Homosexuals however are of the same race and culture of the people amongst whom they are born... they are the sons of the nation's mothers and fathers. 

Anti-homosexual Christians are quick to point out the role homosexuals had in the fertility cults of Mesopotamia, homosexual priests-prostitutes were viewed as a spiritual nuisance to the Israelites invading Canaan and they placed a great deal of emphasis on wiping out homosexuality particularly. Homosexual spirituality was seen as almost a competing force with the Jewish religion, a natural antagonist.

When homosexuals are integrated into society, when they have mystery cults and castes where they are specifically relegated, they do not become an opposing force to mainstream society, when they are integrated they are much more adept at promoting and protecting their race and culture against invasion, as they were doing in Canaan against the Jews. 

But there is also this just natural hatred for homosexuals that many people have... they seem to some degree to be born to be harassed. The harassment of Jews does indeed make them work harder, work smarter, be more clannish, be more manipulative, and wizened... opposition makes people fight harder. Like Jews, homosexuals need to be more creative than the general public if they are going to succeed, they need to out-think and out-maneuver those who would dispose of them. Because of this, homosexuals gain some of the more cunning tendencies of Jews, and when they are smart, they work together in groups which is only facilitated by their sexual desires for one another. 

The only reason today so many find that homosexuals are aligned with Jews is because homosexuals have traditionally been harassed in Christian culture and no place has been made for them. Jews who need allies are clever enough to exploit homosexual misfortune for themselves, offering an alliance where homosexuals can find equal footing in society. But if homosexuals had been integrated from the start, this would not be the case, indeed homosexuals would view Jews as competition more than allies. 

It is likely true that if any general dislike for homosexuals is controlled, that yes homosexuals would become overrepresented in seats of power and culture, and yes even in the military, militant homosexuals can be particularly limitless. But these represent more benevolent despots than the Jews who are of another people... homosexuals would be leading among their own fathers and mothers and brothers and sister, not some alien race and culture. To keep at least equal footing, homosexuals would and will have to work twice as hard, and only the best could be at the top, there would be no room for mediocre leadership amongst a pseudo-elite who needed to watch their backs, homosexuals would act like Jews, but Jews of their own race, not of another alien and invasive species. 

People notice there is a tendency in homosexuals to be dedicated to culture, and when they are scientists and politicians and military leaders they can very easily reach the top of these fields as well, just like Jews do. Homosexuals are the natural Jews of their own race, partially hated because they do have unique talents that others do not possess, and this harassment forces them to work smarter and harder and together to get to the top. But when homosexuals have a degree of governing power over the society they rule it as a member of their own race and religion, not as a foreigner. Homosexuals have many talents, not that they should dominate, but when allowed to be brought to the forefront to a degree, and when channeled for racial and social betterment, homosexuals do become a sort of elite who can, though some disagree, use their talents to advance society, especially if these sentiments are purposefully engrained in them. 

Not everyone should practice selective breeding, and for good reason

 

Some people get offended by the suggestion that humans should practice intensive selective breeding, they think it is only something for animals and they cannot get over their need for an emotional commitment to someone with whom they will have a child... many if not most people want to live with and love the person which whom they breed. But some people are the opposite, they are not opposed to using the science of animal breeding upon themselves and others... it is a personal value, and one which will soon divide the human race into those who have been honed by eugenics, and those who have not. 

Most people would not want their dogs to be bred with genetic diseases and everyone knows that a dog's temperament is important in creating a desirable pet... dogs that have asocial personalities are excluded from breeding programs because we know that that personality can be passed on... but too many sentimental people refuse to understand that this same principle works in humans. Marital breeding is haphazard and is based on emotion, and emotion can cloud judgment. A woman or a man may become smitten by their partner's looks to the point that they overlook many detrimental mental flaws, or worse still some people are attracted to otherwise asocial people as they have a desire to nurture them. Many otherwise healthy bloodlines can become damaged by mating dependent upon lust or emotion. 

However, eugenicists since the inception of the idea have lamented the "middle-class bias" of eugenics, desiring such things as good test grades and amiability, industriousness, and a positive attitude. While these traits are necessary for a stable society, it is also important to have the opposite end of the spectrum, people who might have a more malicious temperament. It would be hopeful that any selective breeding program would understand that the middle-class bias should not be exclusive... other otherwise deemed antisocial personalities should be considered. However, to those who are systematic enough to engage in selective breeding, it might be hard to overcome the impulse not to breed people who seem less industrious, less intelligent, more quarrelsome, and dependent. Indeed many eugenicists said that birth control was a good thing because the bohemian classes were availing themselves of it the most, but the more clever eugenicists said this was not necessarily a good thing, that we need eccentric people and shy people and ill-tempered people as well. The genius and enthusiastic eugenicist Nikola Tesla new that you cannot have a complete human without their weaknesses, their weaknesses help them excel into who they are, just as much as their strength. 

Selective breeding needs to make many types of humans, humans in the same line would likely have similar personalities, traits, abilities, and preferences to some degree. In order for it to work, we would need diversity, and that means we would need scores of different kinds of bloodlines, and then we would need to continuously make new bloodlines by hybridizing different lines, this way we can always make new lines and also bring forth novel and unique humans. However, there is something to be said about random haphazard family building and acculturation. Random genetic mixing will produce humans that no selective breeding program could ever produce and sometimes dysfunctional families bring forth the greatest geniuses as they are detached from the norms of society and can think outside the box. 

It would be foolish to selective breed all humans, actually, it would be foolish to selective breed most humans... selective breeding should be done by the few who can accept this system and want to engage in it, but there should always be random genetic and cultural material from which to draw from... new types of bloodlines always need to be drawn into the breeding system for undirected sources. This same principle applies to genetic engineering, it is probably best to leave the majority of the population natural. Only through this wisdom can a eugenic program truly work, the selectively bred need to lead upon a randomly bred population. 

 

If we can drop bombs on infants in war, we can abort babies for the eugenic war

Join My Facebook Group:
 Genetic Engineering, Eugenics, Cloning & Non-Traditional Breeding Programs

How many people who are opposed to abortion are opposed to war? I am sure there are some who are opposed to both war and abortion, but they are probably not the average. How many conservative-leaning American people say it was a mistake to drop the bomb on Japan? How many Nazi anti-abortionist opposed Hitler's attack on Poland... or anywhere where civilians died? How many Christians and Jews condemn god for ordering his soldiers to kill the women and children of Canaan? Probably very few of you condemn these acts. Isn't it true that day-old infants are killed in war? Isn't it true that babies still in the womb are killed during war? Doesn't war seem to justify the taking of life... even that of infant life, born and unborn?

I am not sure, but I would say maybe most people agree that killing children is moral when deemed necessary in war to prevent even worse things from happening.  Who brought us birth control? It was the eugenicists. It is a well-known fact that the early birth control movement was staffed, led and funded nearly entirely by eugencists. Yes emancipating women did have a lot to do with, as well as the practical means of responsible family planning regardless, but perhaps the main goal, at least as expressed by many radical birth control advocates like Margaret Sanger and Marie Stopes, was eugnics. 

The idea of birth control was to reduce the numbers of the needly class. Eugenicists believed that the more well-to-do classes always had small families, while those who were in need of greater assistance in life, had large families, even beyond what they could bare. In the 1910s-1940s the reformers believed it would be nearly impossible to get the upper-classes to have more children, and they were also concerned about overpopulation, instead, they believed that it would be best to reduce the numbers of the lower classes to even out the numbers so that the needy did not become dominant in society. The eugenic idea of birth control was to even out the classes. 

Abortion as a method of birth control only began to arrive in the 1960s, and again it was first promoted by eugencists. Alan Frank Guttmacher who not only was president of Planned Parenthood but also vice-president of the American Eugenics Society, it was likely Guttmacher's dedication to eugenics which pushed him to launch the Association for the Study of Abortion in 1964. Vera Houghton was Vice President of the British Eugenics Society, Executive Secretary of Internaitonal Planned Parenthood Federation, and Chair of the Abortion Law Reform Association... yes again eugenicists brought you abortion. 

Birth control and abortion are both about negative eugenics, reducing the numbers of people who would be the dependent class. There certainly now needs to be a push for positive eugenics, that is promoting the breeding of the industrious class, but that is a different matter. Birth control and abortion are doing their job well, most abortions are performed on women of lower economic status. Eugenics is a war, it is a war for the advancement if civilization, and the threat to civilization by dysgenics is no less real or urgent than the attacking armies of a tyrant. If we can drop bombs on infants, we can abort babies.

If liberals used Margaret Sanger's arguments in Roe v Wade, they would have much of the right on their side

Join My Facebook Group:
Genetic Engineering, Eugenics, Cloning & Non-Traditional Breeding Programs

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is dead and now liberals are fretting that Trump will appoint a pro-life justice and Roe v Wade will be overturned. The idea of abortion is usually considered to be a strict left vs right issue, the left is always pro-choice, the right is always pro-life, but could the division be being created by the way the liberals argue for abortion rights? 

Pro-lifers, usually Christians, try to tie abortion back into the original birth control movement founded by Margaret Sanger, even though Sanger herself was very anti-abortion and only promoted the use of birth control to maintain population control. But many of those who were in the birth control movement were no liberals as would be considered today, no they were dyed-in-the-wool eugencists who openly sought to maintain the population of certain classes (Margaret Sanger herself was not a racist and did not promote birth control on racial grounds, only economic). While eugenics could have been seen as a liberal agenda in the 1920s-1940s, with the support of many socialists, today it is usually considered just the opposite with liberals shunning the eugenics movement while it now finds support more among the right-wing, particularly those in the right-wing who are not particularly Christian. 

Now, Margaret Sanger herself was not an advocate of abortion, but her organization Planned Parenthood would soon begin the process of entering abortion into the eugenics debate.  Alan Frank Guttmacher who not only was president of Planned Parenthood but also vice-president of the American Eugenics Society, it was likely Guttmacher's dedication to eugenics which pushed him to launch the Association for the Study of Abortion in 1964. Today, Planned Parenthood actively performs "search and destroy" abortions where the fetus is tested for genetic abnormalities for the purpose of aborting those which would be genetically diseased. If this is not eugenics then nothing is. Frederick Osborn, a founding member of the American Eugenics Society, said in 1973 "Birth control and abortion are turning out to be the greatest eugenic advances of our time", and he was right!

In her work "The Pivot of Civilization", Margaret Sanger dedicates an entire chapter to anti-Communism. Sanger, in a more right-wing-like argument states that the proletariate are actually responsible for their own exploitation in part to the fact that they breed too incessantly, and that because they are superfluous they are cheap and expendable. Indeed, Communists were very averse to birth control in Sanger's time because they believed that birth control would ease the suffering of the masses and that would snuff out the flame of revolution. Today the Western world is again on the brink of revolution, and again it is due partially in part to the fact that the underclasses have bred beyond their means to afford their children, the poor still breed faster than the well-to-do and this drives the march of revolution. Sanger's answer to this would be more access to birth control and especially abortion as those who cannot afford birth control would more likely become pregnant and need the abortion in the first place. Abortion must become associated with anti-Communism rather than leftism as it is today. 

Sanger also spoke of "cradle competition", again the fact that the socially unfortunate breed faster than the haves of society. It is very hard to get intelligent people who are conscientious of how many children they have to have more children, at least under the current system. Yes a mechanism must be produced to increase the numbers of the industrious classes, but as of yet we are not fully ready for the feat. If the less fortunate are allowed to breed at a rapid rate they will overcome those who are more fortunate and thus change the color of society. People with means already have more access to birth control and that is why they need less abortions, abortions are more prominent among the poor, and that is where they are needed most so as to even out the numbers of the classes until a sufficient system can be produced to increase the numbers of those who would otherwise be too wise to have too many children. 

So what is the difference between Sanger's argument and those of liberals today? Sanger's arguments were mostly about the good of society at large (though she did care for the suffering of those who had too many children to feed) while the liberals of today who want to keep Roe v. Wade are more interested in arguing from the position of individual rights. Sanger did speak about individual rights but her broader message was about the eugenic uplift of the entire society. Abortion is a touchy subject, even liberals struggle with the idea of abortion at times. To couch the entire thing in the light of individual freedoms cannot speak to the masses at large, only to the individual and particularly only to women usually. If liberals want to bring some of the right-wing to their side they need to use eugenic arguments to show they have a broader and collectivist agenda that will benefit the nation and this will hopefully overcome the right-wing's personal objections to abortion. 

Blacks should be thanking Margaret Sanger for her eugenics, not demonizing her

Recently the most famous Planned Parenthood clinic in perhaps the world, the one located in Margaret Sanger Square in Manhattan, announced that it would be removing Margaret Sanger's name from their facility and that they would also be petitioning to change the name of Margaret Sanger Square itself. Planned Parenthood announced it made the decision to distance itself from the eugenics of Margaret Sanger and to demonstrate its recognition of the so-called "reproductive harm" Planned Parenthood has done to communities of color. Many have alluded to the fact that the announcement was made in response to the social changes being brought about by the Black Lives Matter movement. 

"Reproductive harm", is this some kind of sick joke? For decades ignorant Blacks and their shills have tried to paint Margaret Sanger as a racist who wanted to abort Blacks out of existence. First, Margaret Sanger was anti-abortion, she opposed it her whole life, she only promoted birth control, so the idea that it was her plan to abort Black babies is a joke. Margaret Sanger wanted all women, of every race, to have access to birth control, and she made that happen for Black people in her lifetime with the "negro project" which she launched with the support of W.E.B Dubois and other Black leaders. Some Blacks use Margarets Sanger's quote "we don’t want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population" as evidence she wanted to get rid of Blacks, but when read in context it is obvious she is saying that she did not want Black people getting the wrong idea about why she was offering them birth control; with the aid of Black doctors and ministers might I add; are Blacks saying those who worked with Margaret Sanger were stupid?

The truth is that Margaret Sanger never anywhere said that she was focusing in on Blacks with her birth control propaganda. In response to Nazi sterilization programs Margaret Sanger specifically said that she did not approve of using sterilization based on race or religion. Margaret Sanger wanted White women using birth control as well to facilitate the spacing of their births so that each child could be incubated in a womb of nutrition and health and that there would not be too many children once they were born for them not to get the attention they needed to grow and prosper. Yes, she wanted all women to space their births of the general racial health of the human stock, Whites and Blacks.

But now today, despite Margaret Sanger's wishes, Planned Parenthood offers abortions. Sanger might have been too idealistic in her crusade to raise the overall health of the human race in that she did not realize that all too often many women either have no access to birth control or don't avail themselves of it. Those who do have access to birth control (including condoms) yet don't control their sexual impulses are obviously less contentious than those who do and yes their abortion rates should be higher for the community's sake. Many Blacks lament that while they only make up 13% of the population, they represent one-third of the abortions. Why is this? Because Black people have higher rates of poverty than Whites, Blacks simply need more abortion in order to create a stable economic and social environment for themselves. If Blacks did not have abortion they would be twice as poor and their children would get half the attention they do now, obviously raising crime and social problems. 

No one forces Blacks with a gun to get abortions, they do this of their own because they know if they didn't their situation would be much worse. Planned Parenthood facilities are located more often in the neighborhoods of people of color because people of color more often avail themselves of Planned Parenthood's services and it is generally easier for Whites to travel long distances than people of color who are economically disadvantaged. Margaret Sanger did not want to eliminate Blacks but wanted them to use birth control (and now abortion) to practice eugenics and selective breeding in order to improve their race, just as she wanted for Whites. To deprive Blacks of abortion, who need it most, would do them a eugenic disservice... eugenics is not just for Whites. Few have done more to emancipate Black people than Margaret Sanger, and now she is being vilified with lies and purposeful misrepresentation. I am not going to sit by while the greatest woman who ever lived is driven from the public square by ingrates. If you hate Margaret Sanger put your money where your mouth is, stop using birth control and abortion, see where that gets you. 

The new Dune movie is an opportunity to promote eugenics, we can't let this opportunity go by

The trailer for the new Dune movie 2020 looks horrible, and my guess is that most people who are fans of the science fiction novels by Frank Herbert won't be impressed. The Problem is that Dune is way too long and complex of a story to put into a two-hour or three-hour or even four-hour movie, it needs to be an entire miniseries (longer than the one the SyFy channel put out), indeed it needs to be an entire series and this time it needs to go beyond the first book and include everything up until the sixth and final book Chapterhouse: Dune. But for those who love the books, they really love the books, and for many, including myself, it is what converted them to the pseudo-religion and science of eugenics. 

The Dune series has almost everything to do with eugenics, but not the boring type of eugenics we saw coming out of America in the 1920s based on monogamy, no this is a totally new and futuristic eugenics which would better suit our modern and feminist age. The crux of the Dune series lays with a mystery school called the Bene Gesserit, an all-female order who are trying to breed a messiah. The Bene Gesserit train their minds and bodies so that they have abilities which almost seem like witchcraft to outsiders. They do this so that their life's preparation can be passed on to their children through the science of epigenetics, we now know that a woman's life experiences change her DNA and that this is passed on to her offspring. The Bene Gesserit make sure to have many more daughters than they do sons so that their daughters bloodlines can be honed deeper and deeper in preparation for the coming male messiah, as well as to create useful designer humans along the way. 

The series starts out with the son of a Bene Gesserit who was married into a royal house in order to accumulate the royal family's genes. It is believed by the Bene Gesserit that the messiah is only one generation away, that the daughter of the Bene Gesserit Jessica and the Duke Leto Atreides would be married to the son of the royal house Harkonnen and that is male child would be the messiah. However, the Bene Gesserit Jessica defies her orders to have a daughter and instead bares a son, who turns out to have these messianic powers a generation too early which wreaks havoc in the universe and spoils the Bene Gesserit's plans. 

The Bene Gesserit are not the only people to breed designer humans though. Many other guilds focus in on special talents like medicine or logic and breed men and women so that these skills can be honed and cultivated so that the training of these individuals is easier and more efficient. The Bene Gesserit often lend their wombs to these projects to create designer humans as they had already been honing their bloodlines for these purposes (and they also want to collect the amplified genes for themselves). 

Another school that participates in eugenics and is trying to make a messiah is the mostly male order of the Bene Tleilaxu, though rather than focusing on selective breeding like the Bene Gesserit they use genetic engineering. The Bene Tleilaxu pay their way through the universe by breeding all kinds of humans with amplified powers like musicians and those developed in the sexual arts, along with reincarnating useful characters who have passed away like military leaders. 

These schools don't only breed for physical and mental traits, they also breed for metaphysics, they have detected that certain bloodlines have certain destinies and they try to work with these occult forces to help the human race evolve out of evolutionary stagnation. The Dune series is a good tool for lubricating the minds of the modern age which will hopefully be more receptive to eugenics and these non-traditional methods of creating humans. The West and especially the White race is dying out and we are no longer mentally in the place to create traditional families... and that won't work fast enough to reverse or dysgenic decline. We must use the new Dune movie to introduce these topics to a new generation, we are running out of time. 

Join my facebook group on eugenics: https://www.facebook.com/groups/geebp

Why Himmler was the only respectable anti-homosexual and his critique of the hypocrisy of the White Right

One of the most repulsive things on earth is the all too common phenomena of men who spend an inordinate amount of time discussing their aversion to homosexuality and propagating a generally negative image of the behavior in society, and then, in fact, they turn out to be homosexuals... this has in modern society become an all too true stereotype. I am not talking about the man who, every once in a while, makes it clear he disagrees with homosexuality... men who make the statement once and then leave the subject are not the type of men I am talking about, I am talking about men who make it a constant topic of conversation and joke, most especially when a homosexual is present. I am talking about the type of man, when a homosexual is in there midst, cannot stop obsessing over gay sex acts, even if he relieves his obsession in the form of trying to humiliate the homosexual... he is still obsessed, that is who I am talking about. I am talking about the man who makes denunciation of homosexuality 50% of his propaganda when not even 50% of the population is gay, I am talking about men who put 90% of their effort into what they view as only 10% of the problem... men who cannot stop focusing in on homosexuality constantly. 

This constant obsession with homosexuality was present in Nazi Germany, but even they were far less preoccupied with the subject than the White Right is today. On this blog before I have reviewed the book "The Pink Swastika" (here) which documents the number of homosexuals who held key positions in the Nazi Party, the book may have been written by a Christian and a Jew, but that does not change the facts of their research. One Jewish strategy against the Nazi party was to publish the names of their homosexual members in newspapers so as to highlight the hypocrisy and homosexualization of the party. Most Nazis and members of the White Right today would simply gloss over these internal hypocrisies, but Heinrich Himmler did not.  In 1937 Himmler gave a speech at a Nuremberg party rally on the homosexual threat to civilization (text below). Most people have heard of "gaydar", meaning the phenomena that gays (and some straights) can tell if a person is gay from a glance, from a picture, or from their writing. It is from William Shakespeare's play Hamlet that we get the phrase in English "she doth protest too much"... a phrase used to mean that it is believed that someone is being insincere because they seem to be overly dramatic in their denial or disapproval of something... it leads to a suspicion in the minds of others that the person denouncing either does not believe what they are saying or are guilty of the offense they are condemning. Typically, preachers or anti-homosexual political activists who condemn homosexuality do it in this "she doth protest too much" manner... it is dramatic and dogged, but most importantly it points all the blame on others totally and disconnects it from anything associated with the speaker, his religion, his political party or whatever other organization he is speaking for. None of this is present in Himmler's denunciation of homosexuals. As a homosexual I can say that reading through this speech my "gaydar" does not go off, this does not sound like a homosexual who is overcompensating, this is a heterosexual man with a critique of homosexuality, he did not protest too much. 

Yes Himmler does make negative stereotypes about homosexuals and he does condemn it in the strongest terms, but he does something that I have never ever heard any White Right-Wing man do before and that was to direct the criticism at his own people, his own party and its very ideology. Yes, Himmler actually believed that certain social elements of the Nazi party were attracting and creating homosexuals. It is the common experience today that the White Right is also more heavily populated by homosexual, though crypto-homosexuals, than the general population. Today's White Right and the Nazis have something in common which Himmler condemned as homosexuality, and that is over-masculinization and a low opinion of women.  Himmler chastised the Nazi order for being too male-focused, or exclusively male-focused. He did not like the culture being brewed were young boys in the Hitler Youth needed to tell their mothers or sisters not to wave to them while on parade because the other boys would make fun of them, that to have a soft spot for your mother or sister was a bad thing for sissy boys. He did not like that the Nazi party did not create enough intersex events where young boys could meet girls in a setting outside of the military where they could practice being chivalrous, he wanted the Nazi boys going to dances. He blamed the generally low opinion for women in the society on the Roman Church and the beginnings of Christianity. He said it was a low opinion of women which eventually led to the celibacy of Catholic priests whom he accused of being 90-100% homosexual. It is a breath a fresh air to see that Himmler admitted that the priests had special protections against being accused of homosexuality, but he said that if these social restrictions of accusation were removed that there would be hundreds of trials in Germany. It is very characteristic of Christians and the White Right to become extremely defensive when you point out much of the homosexual and pedophilia issues comes from within their own priesthood... most of them are only concerned with going after the self-proclaimed free homosexuals in the general population, but they keep a safe watch over the homosexuals and pedophiles who run their own institutions... Himmler saw through this hypocrisy and called it out. 

What would Himmler think if he saw the White Right today? They want to be men's men, they want to spend most of their time together and to exclude women, there is very little effort among them to include women in the movement or to attract them to it... Himmler said this did not help the Nazi Party gain any women supporters. Women are generally spoken of by the White Right in a negative manner, just like the early Catholic Church which equated women with sin... if you look too down on women it becomes hard to be attracted to them. Himmler in his speech made it clear that it was women and not men who bore the brunt of the Church's persecutions with witch burnings... unlike most the White Right today, he spiritually elevated women. Still, the White Right is obsessed with over-masculinization, they want to hyper-masculinize society, and that means less feminine understanding among them, more brutishness, less respect for women, less inclusion of women, and more homosexuality. Please read Himmler's speech below.   

Heinrich Himmler at
Nuremberg Party Rally in 1937

https://carolynyeager.net/himmlers-speech-ss-leaders-homosexuality

Himmler speech to the SS Group Leaders on Feb. 18, 1937
Translated especially for “Neues Europa” by G.F.H.


When we took over power in 1933, we came across the gay clubs. The registered members totaled two million; conservative estimates by processing officials go as high as two to four million homosexuals in Germany. Personally I think the number was not that high because I do not believe that all those who were in the clubs really were personally homosexual. On the other hand, of course I am convinced that not all homosexuals were registered in the clubs. I estimate that there were between one and two million. A million is really the minimum which we must assume; that is the smallest and mildest estimate that is allowed in this matter.

I ask you to keep this in mind. We have in Germany according to the latest census probably 67 to 68 million people, which means, counting very roughly, about 34 million men. Therefore there are approximately 20 million sexually potent men (i.e. men over 16 years old). The estimated number may be off by a million, but that does not matter.

If I assume the number of one to two million homosexuals, it is clear that about 7 or 8 or 10% of the men in Germany are homosexual. If this remains the case, it means that our nation (Volk) will be destroyed (lit. “go kaputt”) by this plague. A nation will not endure in the long run if the balance and equilibrium between the sexes is disrupted in this manner.

Furthermore if you take into consideration the fact, which I have not yet mentioned, that, with the number of women remaining constant, we have around two million men too few (that many having died in the war), then you can imagine how the enormity of two million homosexuals and two million dead, therefore altogether of around four million missing from the number of men capable of having sex, upsets the balance of the sexes in Germany and is leading to catastrophe.

I would like to go over with you a couple of ideas on the issue of homosexuality. Among the homosexuals there are those who take the view: what I do is nobody else's business, it is a purely private matter. However, all things which happen in the sexual sphere are not the private affair of the individual, but impinge upon the life and death of the nation and mean world power or swissification. A people which has many children has the qualifications for world power and world domination. A people of good race which has too few children has a sure ticket for the grave, for insignificance in 50 to 100 years, for burial in two hundred and fifty years.

However, even apart from this number - I have taken up only the numerical issue - this nation can go kaputt from something else. We are a men - state (Männerstaat), and, with all the faults which this men - state has, we must staunchly hold on to it, for the constitution of the men - state is the better one.

There have also been in history women - states. You have surely heard of the word matriarchy. There were Amazon - states not only in fable but in fact. There were matriarchal constitutions in the friezes - especially among maritime peoples (lit. “sea - peoples”). We can follow their traces and emergence even up to our time. It is no mere coincidence that Holland gladly lets itself be ruled by a queen and that in Holland the birth of a daughter, the Queen, is more welcomed than the birth of a son. This is no peculiarity, but derives from the ancient instincts of maritime peoples. [Translator’s note: Among maritime peoples the men are often away at sea, and hence the women tend to be unusually independent, if not actually to rule. This tendency has been noted by observers of Iceland after the banking crisis in 2007. It was primarily the women there who rose up and demanded punishment of the bankers.]

For centuries, for millennia, the Germanic peoples and especially the German people have been officially ruled by men. This men - state, however, is now in the process of going kaputt on account of homosexuality. In the field of government I see the main error in the following: the state, the organization of the people, the army and whatever else is connected with state institutions, [people in] all these attain their positions based on merits, apart from human shortcomings [sc. of the selectioners]. Even the occasional quite unrealistic attainment of an official post after the "First" (Einser) in the judicial examinations is nevertheless still a selection based on merit. The selection in this case is made according to merit because first the First is taken, and then the Bruckeinser [exam] and finally the Second [exam], etc., are taken.

In the positions of the state and the economy, in which women are employed, no honest man will be able to claim that the position is gained purely on the basis of merit. For be honest - there are only men here, therefore one can say it very calmly - in the moment when you choose a typist and you have two candidates before you, a very ugly 50 - year old one who types 300 syllables [per minute], almost a genius in this field, and another who is 20 years old, racially sound (gutrassige), and pretty and who types only 150 syllables, you will - I would have to misjudge you all completely [sc. to think otherwise] - probably with earnest mien and a thousand moral justifications because the other is old and could so easily get sick and whatever, take the pretty young 20 - year old candidate who types fewer syllables.

Well, one can laugh, for this is harmless and proves meaningless because, if she is pretty, she will soon get married; and besides the position of stenographer is not crucial for the state; it now has others to choose from.

But in the moment when this principle, not to pick purely on merit - I want to say this now in all seriousness - an erotic principle, a male - female, a sexual principle takes root in the men - state from one man to another, the destruction of state begins. I will take an example from life. I want to emphasize that I say: from life. I want to interject here in this matter that I doubt that any place on the present inhabited earth has gained so much experience in the field of homosexuality, abortion, etc., as we have in Germany as the Secret State Police. I believe that we can really speak as the most experienced people in the field.

Councilor X is homosexual and is not selecting on the basis of the merit - principle the assessors that he needs for his office in the government. He will not choose the best lawyer, he will not say that assessor X may not be the best lawyer, but he has received a good score, has been in the practice [of law], and, what is much more significant, looks good racially and is ideologically in order. No, he does not take a well qualified and good looking assessor, but rather seeks out the one who is also a homosexual. These people know each other with a glance across a room. If at a dance you have 500 men, within a half hour they have mutually picked out those who have the same disposition as they. How that happens, we normal people cannot at all imagine.

The councilor seeks out the assessor who has the worst score and who is also ideologically out of order. He does not ask about his performance, but recommends him to the director of the ministry for appointment. He praises him and justifies his recommendation in detail. The assessor is now hired, for it will never occur to the director of the ministry to ask for greater details and to examine the hiring more closely because from the outset as an old official he assumes that the councilor’s recommendation is based on merit. The idea that the assessor has been recommended due to the similarity of his sexual predisposition does not enter the head of a normal man.

It does not stop with these two because the assessor, who is now a governmental official, will proceed on the same principle. If in a men - state you have a man with such a disposition in any position of authority, you are sure to find there three, four, eight, ten or even more men of a similar disposition; for one draws in another, and watch out if there are one or two normal men among these people; they are basically damned, they can do what they want but they will be ruined. Let me give you an example of a comrade from this very circle, for whom it went like this. SS - Obergruppenführer von Woyrsch was present in Silesia at the time of his struggle with the homosexual SA - Gruppenführer Heine and the homosexual Gauleiter and Oberpräsident Brückner. Since he was the man who upset this wonderful accord, he was persecuted not because, as was said, he is not like us, but always on moral, political, ideological - nationalsocialist grounds.

Homosexuality therefore undoes in the state every merit, every basis for merit, and destroys the state in its foundations. That is not all: the homosexual is a thoroughly mentally - ill man. He is soft, he is in every crucial regard a coward. I believe that he can be brave here or there in war; in the field of civil courage however they are the most cowardly men that there are.

Interconnected with this is the fact that the homosexual lies pathologically. He is not lying - to take an extreme example - as a Jesuit. The Jesuit lies for a purpose. He says anything whatever with a beaming face and knows that he is deceiving you. He has a moral foundation: for the glory of God; majorum dei gloriam. The end justifies the means. There is a whole moral philosophy, a moral doctrine that Saint Ignatius worked out.

The Jesuit therefore is lying and knows it; he does not forget for a moment that he is lying. The homosexual however lies and believes it himself. If you ask a homosexual about something: Have you done that? Answer: No. I know of cases where homosexuals interviewed by us said: with my sacred oath, in honor of my mother, or may I immediately drop dead here if this is not true. Three minutes afterwards, when with the help of our evidence we said to him, “Please, and this?” [this = the irrefutable evidence], he unfortunately did not topple over, but is still alive.

I never understood that in the beginning. In the years 1933 - 34 we approached these matters like ignorant fools because that was and is a world which to a normal man is so strange that he can hardly imagine it. Gruppenführer Heydrich and I and some other people had to really learn in the field and only thanks to bad experiences. I asked myself at the beginning if the fellows were lying. Today it is quite clear to me that they cannot help it. I therefore think no more of asking a homosexual: can you give me your word? I do not anymore because I know that I will get a false word. At the moment in which he says something with watery eyes, the homosexual is convinced that it is true. In my experience homosexuality leads to an absolute, I would almost say, mental insanity and madness.

The homosexual is of course the most appropriate object for every kind of extortion, firstly because he is himself liable to arrest, but secondly also because he is a soft fellow and thirdly because he lacks will and nerve.

The homosexual has besides - I will show you just a few things in this area - an insatiable desire to communicate in all areas, especially in the sexual area. You usually find that the one who gets caught then tells you uncontrollably all the names he knows. Since there is - I must speak from their point of view - no fidelity in the love of man for man, as there is otherwise fidelity among men, although homosexuals pretend to love each other. The homosexual tells everything unrestrainably and does so in the hope that he can perhaps save his own skin thereby.

We need to be clear about this, if we continue to have this vice in Germany without being able to fight it, then that is the end of Germany, the end of the Germanic world. Unfortunately we do not have it as easy as our ancestors. With them these select few individual cases were of an abnormal kind. The homosexual, who was called Urning, was sunk in the swamp. The professors who find these bodies in the swamp are determined to not realize that in ninety out of a hundred cases they have before them a homosexual who with his robe and all was sunk in the swamp. That was not a penalty, but rather just the extinction of an abnormal life. That had to be removed, as we pull out nettles and throw them in a pile and burn them. There was no feeling of revenge, but the person in question had to go.

So it was with our ancestors. With us unfortunately that is, I have to say, no longer possible. Within the framework of the SS I would like to explain very clearly the following. I stress this point: I know exactly what I am saying. This of course is not intended for leaders’ meetings, but you can repeat it conversationally in individual discussions with one person or another:

In the SS today we still have about one case of homosexuality a month. In the entire SS in a whole year approximately eight to ten cases occur. I have now decided upon the following: in each case these people naturally will be publicly degraded, expelled, and handed over to the courts. Following completion of the punishment laid down by the court, by my orders they will be sent to a concentration camp, and they will be shot in the concentration camp while trying to escape. I will make this known by order to the unit to which the person in question belonged. I hope thereby finally to have done with persons of this type in the SS, so that we will at least keep pure the good blood which we have in the SS and the ongoing recovery of the kind of blood which we are cultivating for Germany.

But this does not solve the problem for all of Germany. One should harbor no illusions about the following. If I bring the homosexual to court and have him locked up, the case then is not finished, for the homosexual comes out of prison just as homosexual as he went in. Therefore the whole issue is not cleared up. It is cleared up only to the extent that this vice has been denounced, in contrast to the years before our seizure of power. Although we had the paragraphs before the war, during the war, and after the war, in reality nothing happened. I can best make that clear by an example: in the first six weeks of our activity in this area in 1934 we brought more cases to court than had the entire police department in Berlin in 25 years. No one should come and say that the problem got big only because of Rohm. He of course was a big setback, but the problem flourished before the war, during the war, and even after the war.

Now you see you can regulate everything possible with state and police measures. One can manage the prostitute problem which in and of itself is quite harmless in comparison to this other problem. That is a matter that by certain measures can be brought under sustainable control for a civilized nation. We will be exceedingly generous in this matter because one cannot, on the one hand, want to prevent all the youth from drifting toward homosexuality and, on the other hand, block for them every [sexual] outlet. That is madness. In the end every blocked opportunity to meet up with girls in big cities - even if it is for money - has therefore a big downside.

Amid all these considerations we must not forget that Germany has unfortunately become (up to two - thirds of it) an urban nation. The village does not have these problems. The village has its natural and healthy regulation of all these issues. There despite the clergyman, despite Christian morality, despite a thousand years of religious education, the youth climbs through the bedroom window of the girl. The problem is thus put in order. There are a few children born out of wedlock; a few of them are sprinkled about the village, and the minister is glad of it, for that gives him a topic for the pulpit. The boys do the same thing as before and - do not be fooled - as was done in our past. The whole theory which one has rightly built up that the Germanic girl, if she is unlucky enough not to get married until 26 or 30 - years old, lived up to that time as a nun, is a myth. The blood laws, however, were strict, that no guy and no girl was allowed to mess around with someone of inferior blood. That law was relentlessly and strictly observed. Furthermore this was strict: marital fidelity. If that was broken by the woman, the death penalty was imposed. For from that there was a danger that foreign blood come in.

That was all natural; the social order then was clean and decent and acted in accordance with the laws of nature and not as our order today against the laws of nature.

As I said, the questions which belong to this sector can somehow be brought into order. The more that we facilitate early marriage, that our men can get married at the age of 25, the more the other problem decreases: it then takes care of itself.

The issue of homosexuality, however, cannot bring itself into order. Obviously I can - an issue that we often bandied back and forth - lock up all the male prostitutes in Germany and put them in a camp. This can be done forthwith. I only pose to myself the question: if I lock up 20,000 hustlers from the big cities, will I bring back to a normal way of life the maybe three or four thousand of these who are young enough (17 to 18) to be brought back by means of discipline, order, sports, and work; it has been done successfully in quite a number of cases. But the moment when the hustlers are not there - I am not going to lock up the homosexuals - then there is a risk that the millions of homosexuals will seek new victims for themselves. So this is a sword that cuts both ways.

We will gather up all of these 17 to18 - years old boys, except for those who are already totally spoiled, and bring them into a camp. We will try to make these boys reasonable again, something which, as I said, has already been done successfully in a large number of cases.

All this does not solve the whole problem. The only solution I see is as follows: we cannot let the qualities of the men - state and the benefits of male society diminish through errors. We have overall , in my opinion, a much too strong masculinization of our whole life; this has proceeded so far that we militarize impossible things [sc. things that cannot be militarized], that we - I may say it openly here - can attain perfection in nothing, whether it is to line people up in formation or to organize them or to have them pack knapsacks. I feel as though I were witnessing a catastrophe when I see girls and women - especially girls - who march through the area with wonderfully well packed knapsacks. That can lead to trouble. I view it as a catastrophe when women's organizations, communities of women, and women's federations become active in an area; that destroys all feminine charm, all feminine dignity and grace. I view it as a disaster if–I am talking about things in general, for it does not apply to us [in the SS] directly - we foolish men want to turn women into logical instruments of thought and educate them in everything, which is only possible if we so masculinize them that in time the difference between the sexes, the polarity, disappears. Then the path to homosexuality is not far.



I see it as a disaster if, for example, just as in previous years it was the work of the students union - to pick out an example from the movement - to pack knapsacks wonderfully well and to drill. Clearly, I do not need a students union for that.

I recently spoke with the new student union leader and told him: "My dear Scheel, if I catch you doing military drills with your comrades, then you absolutely have me as an enemy. In student houses you have to work mentally and to lead intellectually and bring society into order."

I once saw a student newspaper - it was, I believe, the newspaper of the Saxon Student Association; on the front page of this newspaper for the mental work of young academics, eight men were shown who were lined up in two rows, while the spiritual leader checked the direction (Richtung). That in itself is the work of the non - commissioned officer, the sergeant, the company commander, or the battalion chief if he just has a tic to always check the direction. However, this is definitely not the work of a intellectual institution. If we are told from abroad, "You can really be nothing more than military," that is then partly not too inaccurate.

The question now is posed: the SS says it is an order. The party also says it is an order. These claims are not at all mutually exclusive. We are very clearly and expressly a National Socialist order - and now comes the racial determination - of definitely Nordic men and a sworn community of their kin (Sippe). We are firstly a soldier order, not the, but a National Socialist soldier order, bound by rearing and blood to Nordic blood, a tribal community (Sippengemeinschaft), if you will. Previously one would have said: an association of nobles (Adelsgenossenschaft). I do not purposely use this expression. But I want to say by using it that our task has to do with the breeding and rearing of people (das Menschenzüchterische), while the task of the political order has to do with the political leading of the people.

The moment in which it is clear to me that the party is a political order, it must take on more and more a spiritual meaning [lit. “content”] and less and less a military meaning, that of packed knapsacks and falling in line, etc. That applies right down to individual nuances.

I have spoken a lot about these things with party member Ley who has a great understanding of them. I asked him, for example, after the really beautiful rally of political leaders at Nuremberg: “Why do you give a command? I would not do it.” There were 100,000 political leaders on the field. They would have to be very well drilled soldiers, if the commands: Attention! Raise the flags! Lower the flags! should be well carried out by 100,000 men.

"Why do not you speak in speech like this: and now we raise the flags, and [now we] lower the flags!" It is exactly the same thing, but it is not an overly virile, soldiery, military form [of speaking]. Why do orders have to be given in such matters? These are just a few thoughts on this issue.

I come back to this point again. I said we are masculinizing all of life too much. I will cite a few examples, to which you can probably add some drawn from your personal experience and from experience with different children.

I view it as disastrous for a people when boys tell their mothers: “When we are marching in the Hitler Youth, see to it that you do not pass by. I would greet you, yes, but the others would laugh, I would then be considered a mama's boy and a weakling.” I view it as disastrous for a people when a boy is ashamed of his sister and his mother or is directed to be ashamed of women, in this case of the women who are closest to him, of his mother and of his sister who is becoming a woman. When a boy who is in love with a girl is mocked more than the normal amount, is designated as not fully respectable and as a sissy, and if one says to him: a guy does not bother with girls, he won’t bother with them. There are then only friendships with other youths. Men dominate in the world: so the next step [lit. level] is homosexuality.

These are the thoughts of Herr Blüher [a notorious pederast], which then prove that: “In general, the greatest form of love is not between man and woman; with that there are children; that is something animalistic. The greatest form is the sublimated love between man and man. It is only from this that the greatest things in world history have come about.” But that is the outrageous hypocrisy of these people who stake claim to Alexander the Great and Bismarck. There are no great men whom the homosexuals do not claim for themselves: Caesar, Sulla, etc. I think Don Juan is not yet claimed, but otherwise pretty much all. That is now served up in palatable form to the young people who are already in a hugely masculinized movement and because of the men - camps have no opportunity to get together with girls. In my opinion we need not be surprised that we have gone down the road to homosexuality.

I see a fundamental change only through the following:

1) This is something particularly urgent for us in the SS: we absolutely must re - educate the SS man and boy - to the extent that we have influence on them - to become a chivalrous man or a young gentleman. That is the only way in which we can draw the line very clearly so that we do not fall into Anglo - Saxon and American conditions. I once told an English woman who had said that she found it terrible that men greet women first: “With you probably the hens do the courtship display around the rooster! Does this seem with you to be different from normal?” A consequence of the over - privileged woman is that in America no man any more dares to look at a girl, since otherwise he will be brought before the marriage court and made to pay for it. In America homosexuality is absolutely a defensive measure for the men because they have fallen into such slavery to the women. The woman can behave like an ax there: she just starts hacking away on something. She is never rebuked: the best example of a tyranny by women!

There is no danger among us, however, that the chivalry of the man be overplayed and exploited by the other side, since the women in Germany by habit and education are not inclined to do that. In any case we must educate our young always to be chivalrous men, men (Menschen) who stand up for women.

I recently said to a Hitler Youth leader: "You are usually so un - Christian, but your attitude toward women is the purest Christianity that is at all possible.” 150 years ago someone at a Catholic university wrote a doctoral thesis with the title: “Does a woman have a soul?” From this the whole tendency of Christianity emerges: it is directed at the absolute destruction of women and at emphasizing the inferiority of women. The entire substance of the priesthood and of the whole of Christianity is, I am firmly convinced, an erotic union of men (Männerbund) for the erection and maintenance of this 2000 - year old Bolshevism. I reach that conclusion because I know very well the history of Christianity in Rome. I am of the conviction that the Roman emperors, who eradicated (ausrotteten) the first Christians, did exactly the same thing that we are doing with the communists. These Christians were then the worst yeast which the great city contained, the worst Jewish people, the worst Bolsheviks that there were.

The Bolshevism of that time had now the power to become great on the carcass of the dying Rome. The priesthood of the Christian church which later subjugated the Aryan church in unending conflicts goes on, since the 4th or 5th Century, to long for the celibacy of priests. It relies on Paul and the very first apostles who derogate the woman as something sinful and permit or recommend marriage as merely a legal way out of prostitution - that is in the Bible - and derogate the procreation of children as a necessary evil. This priesthood continues along in this way for several centuries until in 1139 the celibacy of priests is fully implemented.

I am furthermore convinced that the way out for the few who do not want to yield to this homosexuality, especially for the country parsons, the majority of whom - more than 50 % - I estimate not to be gay, is to procure for themselves in confession the necessary married and single women; I assume that in the monasteries the homosexuality ranges from 90 or 95 to100 %.

If today the trials that concern homosexuality among priests went on again and if we would treat the priests as [we do] any citizen in Germany, then I would undertake to guarantee for the next three to four years 200 or more such trials. The realization of the trials fails to take place not because there is a lack of cases, but because we just do not have as many officials and judges as we would need to employ. Within the next four years very conclusive evidence will be produced - I hope - that the Church organization in its leadership, its priesthood, is for the most part a homosexual erotic men - union (Männerbund) that on this basis has been terrorizing humanity for the past 1800 years, demands from it the greatest blood sacrifice, and has been sadistically perverse in its utterances in the past. I need only to recall the witch and heretic trials.

The attitude about the inferiority of women is a typical Christian attitude, and we also who have been national socialists up to this day - many even who are strict heathens - have unwittingly adopted this set of ideas. I know even today very many party members who believe they have to prove the special firmness of their world - view (Weltanschauung) and their own special masculinity through very rowdy and truculent behavior toward women.

I recognize furthermore a certain tendency in our ranks to exclude women from all events and celebrations. These same people complain then about the fact that women cling here and there to the church, or are not absolutely 100 percent won over for National Socialism. They however ought not to complain since they treat women as second class citizens and keep them from all our inner life. No one needs be surprised then if they are not fully won over for this inner life. We must be clear about that: the movement, the Weltanschauung has lasting stability if it is supported by the woman, for men comprehend all things with the mind, while the woman comprehends all things with feeling. The German woman, not the man, has borne the greater sacrifice of blood in the witch and heretic trials. The priests knew exactly why they burned 5000 - 6000 women: exactly because they emotionally held fast to the old knowledge and the old doctrine and emotionally and instinctively could not be dissuaded from them, while the man had already converted by logic and thought: “There is no point. We are going under politically. I adapt, I let myself be baptized.”

I come back to our issue. I see in the whole movement an excessive masculinization and in this excessive masculinization the seedbed for homosexuality.

I ask you now, if you have the opportunity to discuss these ideas in detail - but not before the entire officer corps - but to talk about these things with one man or another. - Please make sure that our men - as it has been initiated by me - come together at the summer solstice celebration with the girls to dance. I think it absolutely is right that we now and then arrange a dance for the young candidates in the winter to which we now invite not girls who are in any way bad, but rather the very best, and where we give the SS - man the opportunity to dance with girls and to be happy and merry with them. I think this is particularly important for the single reason that [it helps to assure that] no one ever come down the wrong road in the direction of homosexuality. That would be a negative reason. But I think it important also for a positive reason: we should not be surprised if this or that SS - man marries a completely wrong and racially worthless girl if we do not give the men the opportunity to get to know worthy, racially sound girls.

With the youth I see the need absolutely to take care that the boy of 16 - 17 years come together with girls for a dancing lesson or some other event during communal evenings. The age of 15 - 16 years - that is a fact from experience - is the age at which the boy is on the tipping point. If he has a dancing lesson heartthrob or a childhood crush on some girl, he is won over, he has been drawn away from the dangerous plane [i.e. from the danger of tipping over]. In Germany we do not really need to be concerned - this is a serious question about which one has previously spoken only with laughter, witty remarks, and dirty jokes, but that, thank God, has stopped - that we bring the boy and girl together too early and encourage sexual intercourse. No, in our climate, with our race and our people, it is the case that the 16 - year old boy sees that [i.e. sexual interocurse] as his purest, cleanest and most ideal love, and [it is the case] that for him from the moment in which he is totally nuts about a girl - I must say it again clearly - a communal masturbating with mates, a communal friendship of a sexual nature with men or boys, is out of the question because he is generally shy before the girl. He is humanly bound (menschlich gebunden).

So in that moment the danger is past. We now need to give the opportunity for that to take place. We must put a stop to the whole tendency, which we have today in youth and which we may also have in the SS, to mock a man who walks with a girl, a man who is respectful toward his mother, and a boy who is gentlemanly toward his sister. That is the seedbed for homosexuality.

I thought myself obliged to speak to you once on these issues, my group leaders. This matter is deadly serious and cannot be solved with tracts and moral theories. Merely by saying: “God, are our people so bad? It is terrible that they have become so morally depraved,” one does not solve this issue. If we answer this question with a Yes, then I must ask why are we still making an effort at all on this one point. Or we answer the question with a No; then we must admit that something in our people has been very wrongly directed in this area....

Gentlemen! A misguided sexuality brings about the craziest thing that the mind can imagine. To say we are animalistic is an insult to animals, for animals do not do such things. So, this question about properly guided sexuality is a question of life [or death] for every people.~