Eugenicists Are Maladaptive

And no one should listen to them

In practice everyone is a eugenicist.

Everything about you is the result of genes interacting with the environment, and it’s analytically obvious that nothing is either 100% genetic or 100% environmental. Yes some traits e.g. IQ and height and hair color are far more genetic than others, but ecology always plays a role, hence the Irish no longer having an IQ in the low 90s and blondes getting more blonde the more they go outside and Chinese guys not being five feet tall anymore. Other things e.g. fatness are far more environmental, but plainly genetic on a second order basis downstream of genes for conscientiousness, addictive tendencies, and metabolic rate. That includes things like psychopathy and pedophilia.

The vast majority of meaningful human interaction that isn’t specifically between autistic men debating something abstract over the internet occurs precognitively at a bodily level, and with neurotypical young women in particular this reality effectively forecloses the possibility of cognitive adjudication. They’re ruled by vibes and icks—visceral signals of danger, opportunity, and genetic health—and the vast majority of normie men and lower order sorts of autist go along with their preferences for pussy or to mitigate reputational risk. Basically nothing important in society is adjudicated autistically on first order merits alone, and that’s a good thing because that would induce enormous cognitive load and literally nothing would get done.

The upshot is that in practice literally all civilizations are eugenic just tautologically, because it’s impossible to coordinate literally anything at scale without actuarially baking in the precognitive foreclosure of highly maladaptive traits and behavior.

That said civilization also bakes in a countervailing impulse to enforce higher order truths on the world that are quite literally counter-intuitive because they run counter to our visceral animal instincts—things like fairness, empathy, equality, and justice.

The best way to understand the Left-Right spectrum as it’s existed for the last few centuries of Western civilization is that the Left is trying to dam the river while the Right is attempting to irrigate with it. That is to say, the Left wants to constrain our middle school bully impulses and create a New Soviet Man while the Right is trying to channel them more productively towards some specific end. Communism can thus be seen as the logical endpoint of Leftism and Fascism the endpoint of Rightism, with different flavors of Liberal Democracy all being centrist viewpoints between them.

---

The twentieth century illustrates the failure modes of each approach.

Communism is hopelessly idealistic, and while tiny homogenous nation-states like Sweden can effectively implement something pretty close to the ideal it also turns society effeminate and sclerotic in very short order.

Fascism, meanwhile, burns too hot; highly ordered and disciplined societies like Germany and Japan can pull off something impressive for a time, but structurally it bakes in a certain degree of backstabbing and coordination failure, and also demands regular purges of otherwise useful talent—plus you can’t afford to ever look weak, which changes the risk calculus around writing checks your ass can’t necessarily cash.

Liberal Democracy outcompetes both in the short term—and it’s not especially close—by essentially backsolving for whatever emergent order makes shit work.

That’s a problem because over the long term you start to see pretty dire failure modes as said emergent order prevents the containment of entropic tech like algorithmically optimized infinite scroll, short form video content, hyper-arousing porn, and swipe-based dating apps that precipitate a regression back to paleolithic courtship norms, all of which increasingly make the future a choice between The Matrix and Wall-E.

The one tenable road out of that future seems to be some kind of “Great Filter” where 90% of people become dopamine morlocks and the remaining 10% ascend towards increasingly asymmetric ubermensch status—an outcome already at odds with at least the extended form of liberal democracy pursued through Nixon Tapes Straussianism by paternalistic WASP elites in the second half of the twentieth century, and which increasingly makes even the barebones eighteenth century version seem tenable only in an autistic teenage boy sense with a resting point of basically Carthage (which interestingly is what the French once called Britain during their 18th century rivalry).

The fibromyalgia aunts and xanax bunnies on the Far Left see a different future of luxury gay space communism powered by some funny money UBI thing, which of course is what will turn them into dopamine morlocks.

You see something different on the Far Right with the shift towards formalist eugenics.

---

I’ve already written pretty extensively at this point about the Zoomer Oral Culture, and if you want the tea as they say you can check out The Great Unbinding.

But long story short is that among the bottom 90% or so of Zoomers no one really has the attention span to care about evidence / receipts or to not judge a book by its cover. The men parse theoretics as longwinded and overly abstruse and instantly dismiss any sort of explanation or justification as cope and cringe, while the first thing Zoomettes notice about a man is how much other chicks are into him, with after that height / face / money / status being hyper-salient compared to Millennial chicks. Most old people who don’t interact with Zoomers on a regular basis have no idea how bad it’s gotten.

A big part of this is that the Zoomer Right—and most particularly the women in the Zoomer Right, to the extent they exist—are by and large rabid eugenicists who mostly became Right-Wing so they could be mean to older women and fat people.

Now this is partly just a reaction to the insane degree of obligate social-constructivist obscurantism on race/gender pushed by the Millennial Left and its undeniable excesses like fat acceptance and slutwalks and maximalist neurodivergence advocacy; mostly it should be viewed as an unserious and silly dialectical force pulling the culture back towards something a little less retarded in the middle.

But there are also certain people who take it a lot more seriously than they should.

---

There’s a reason the Boomer Truth Regime lasted so long.

In some sense that sort of disciplined precognitive shame apparatus was the keystone of an enduring liberal democracy under late stage capitalism—one which eventually, in the 2010s, ended up cannibalized by its own contradictions.

And I’ll always be proud to have played a role in that.

But in the wisdom of my hoary midlife I’ve also come to appreciate why exactly the Greatest Generation thought it necessary to institute that kind of obscurantism on matters like race and IQ—namely, that if you calibrated state policy in an actuarially sound way the disparities between blacks and other races would be so vast as to make it practically impossible to avoid an ossification into a hard and intractable caste system e.g. Jim Crow. Hell, with regards to criminality in particular, even permitting the formation of experientially correct individual heuristics would inevitably end up with a society of Archie Bunkers as unremarkable normies pass around IQ charts to make themselves feel better about personally being a loser—note this is how the Alt Right degenerated into a wignat hellscape and the manosphere became full of incels.

That means if you’re an autistic racist who’s individually nice to black people you’ll get society closest to your individual preferences via some amount of lying to normies.

It’s also just obviously better for individual life outcomes to avoid thinking overly deterministically, hence swarthy deterministic rando flood/monsoon cultures tending to produce lazy fatalists while predictable seasonality yields the Protestant work ethic. It’s almost never adaptive at the individual level to view your life as an actuarial model because chances are unless you’re literally Bruce Wayne or high on copium it’s going to make you kind of depressed and unagentic and wanting to kill yourself as you fall behind the grindset guys full of Adderall, pre-workout, and tard verve.

You need clean and actionable heuristics that balance stern eugenic harshness with higher order antibrutalism—that’s why Jordan Peterson played such a huge role in helping overly ruminative Millennial men shape up in the late 2010s.

The problem with the Zoomer Right is that it thinks of literally all antibrutalism as faggoty millennial softness because they’ve never experienced a society that wasn’t kind of all about cumming. It isn’t their fault per se as they’re plainly just responding to incentives (and if you think of anything over ~150 people in moralistic terms you kind of have Down Syndrome tbh) but to my mind it’s important for society to land somewhere between them and Millennials on the question of eugenic formalism if we’re going to slide toward Carthage with at least a modicum of grace.

But the biggest problem with overt eugenicism is frankly just that it’s cringe.

---

At the highest echelons of status and power basically no one punches down.

That’s not because noblesse oblige is particularly earnest; in practice most elites just kind of ambiently dehumanize their inferiors and see them as furniture.

But they basically never punch down themselves, and typically experience intense revulsion at high-midstatus people punching down at low-midstatus people for status in mid-ponds and will almost always use this as a cue to pull up the ladder on them.

More importantly it serves as moral justification—because, of course, it’s most adaptive to believe your own bullshit and play high-and-low-against-the-middle games by way of scalable legible slave morality narratives, which btw is why women and WASPs are far and away the best adapted for modernity.

That means when you’re an open eugenicist you’re kind of just telling the world that you’re defective in some way, and Hitler himself would have killed you.

In Mein Kampf he constantly foregrounds the centrality of pragmatism and message discipline, and while a eugenicist platform was entirely scalable in the early twentieth century given genetic knowledge was very limited at the time and eugenics extremely in vogue among the middle classes it’s a hell of a lot less so today, and if you put Hitler in modern America he would probably just look like a much more competent Trump.

Now obviously I’m not saying anything new here—this is kind of just that eskimo’s Luxury Beliefs framework in different clothing.

But what I will say is that being able to navigate the halls of power and ackshully seize resources and influence for yourself and your progeny even in an entropic regime is tautologically a sign of genetic fitness, and just in a long-term civilizational sense we shouldn’t really care about the opinion of anyone who isn’t both rich and powerful and at least planning to be individually procreative.

Now basically everyone these days is maximally brutalist in their sexual and romantic choices and at least moderately brutalist in most other lifestyle decisions, but it’s easy to keep that shit esoteric even to oneself with lunch lady bromides. Exoterically we clearly need a mild degree of societal brutalism sustained mostly through dialectic.

Where the game theoretics get interesting are at the individual level. Liemaxxing is optimal for climbing most institutional status hierarchies, but if my time at Deloitte taught me anything it’s that 99% of people are nowhere near capable of carrying that degree of cognitive load unless they have a Kamala Harris coconut brain or are some kind of Buttigieg azathoth, whereas Diogenesmaxxing is only partially adaptive in certain subcultures if you’re me-level talented or a hot and sexy baby and for a normal person will leave them eating ass at the gas station. Everyone in the real world adopts a golden mean approach, and when they see someone too far in one direction registers the former as untrustworthy / scawy and the latter as crazy / autistic / low status.

So essentially what I’m saying here is that if you see someone advocating for formalist eugenics they’re basically always going to be one of the following:

• someone too mentally ill to maintain ambient casual grandma straussianism

• someone who’s a loser in the very literal sense of having lost some kind of major status competition and is coping by saying the “formal system” is rigged, usually by leaning on an inborn trait like looks / IQ because they don’t have both things at once like actual elites or do but per the above are too cwazy to liemaxx properly

• a retarded teenage girl seeking attention + moral license to be mean to fat people

I’ve literally never known one single solitary exception to this heuristic, and you can bet your tuchus everyone who gets Mad at this article will be one of the above.

Now I don’t exempt myself from that rule at all; clearly I wouldn’t Diogenesmax if I didn’t fancy myself a Misunderstood Genius on some level. I’m just intellectually honest enough to stuff the snake’s ass in its mouth.

For the rest of you I encourage the cultivation of a careful, managed deconstruction of the Boomer Truth Regime aimed at creating something a little less gay than the 2010s Millennial candyland but a lot more dignified than the 2020s Zoomer Oral Culture.