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