A third path does exist. Adopting the worldview of an educated Northerner of the early twentieth century could be an effective alternative to the false dichotomy of Millennial candyland and Zoomer oral culture. It is probably unfortunate that the great Liberal Consensus collapsed at the same time as American attention spans. That said, you are correct in asserting that the science regarding racial differences in intelligence quotient distributions will probably provide little benefit to those too dumb to know the difference between a bell curve and a Dirac delta function. However, the myriad studies demonstrating complete progressive domination of fields such as anthropology strongly imply that much work remains to consign tabula rasa to its rightful grave. Therefore, this information must be presented in a way that appeals to the serious student of social sciences, rather than the Tik-tok addled brain possessed by the lower orders of Zoomer.
Hanania's take was the best. The word 'eugenics' got poisoned because a bunch of German's gassed my fourth cousins 80 years ago. Just say "reproductive technology" or some white people shit like that
I am extremely grateful that Substack gives me an outlet for my mentally ill urges to say completely self destructive things, so I can spend the rest of my life using my Straussian approaches to gain power.
"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" I would have gotten a doctor's note from Hans Asperger actually
* Immigration restrictionism, for which a “we have to appease the populist masses” or a inglehart culture map approach works best in my experience
* Reducing SSA birth rates, for which Bill Gates style family planning works best. You can work in the field, or donate, use liberal or feminist rethoric.
* Biotech kind of stuff. Polarize with conservatives/populists, put it in same category as abortion/euthanasia, and LGBT rights if you can. Enhancing human (female) autonomy.
This stuff actually works, and is what smart eugenicists (lesswrong crowd) do. But for the loser-in-life type you describe, sounding like a liberal or, God forbid, donating is too much to ask. The point of eugenics is the edginess, if you turn it into a practical project it loses its appeal. As for the donating, the online right offers mid-tier tech workers and other spiritual lower middle class folks a simulated sense of expansiveness. But underneath all the Nietzsche and adventure and horseriding aesthetics there is petty material anxiety, status resentment, small minded xenophobia and crude selfishness. You could not get these people to significantly sacrifice in a million years, unless they somehow get to feel as the main hero in the story.
Read half way, got bored, and I'm just going to say this here: make sterilization mandatory for receiving welfare, that's all I want as an eugenicist, or for God's sake, stop making welfare payouts be tied directly to the number of children had.
Also, 1st cousin marriages/kids absolutely need to be banned and prosecuted especially amoung those already inbred, with the severity of the punishment being directly corallated with how inbred the pairings are.
I skimmed a few spots. Yeah, people are eugenicists anyway. Yeah, it's antisocial to bring that into public discourse (public-public, online public isn't so bad). But also I don't know that eugenics as top-down policy is really a big thing. In a monarchy or similar static government, it would be good to try to reverse dysgenic trends caused by, say, population and lifestyle distributions. But you wouldn't say that you were doing that.
see if even my second most spergy and engaged Zoomer reader can't sit and read the whole thing what hope do the rest of you have? We need to send you niggers to concentration camps to literally make you concentrate.
Ultimately I am narrating the Zoomer impulse as I experience it--which is to say from the perspective of a solipsistic theory unc--under which it definitely feels like foreclosure. But I can see how from the Zoomer male interiority it seems like something completely different.
The thing I want Zoomer boys to understand is that a better world is possible.
Yes AWALT--but some are a LOT more Like That than others and the best Millennial chicks were probably the least Like That in history. But you never saw that because you grew up listening to Millennial guys who got dealt a bad hand and didn't nab a chick our age at a time when they were still sweet and pliable, but plenty of guys did and essentially became happy boomers in 2012. Hell, a bunch of them married the best of your women during covid and caught the last chopper out of 'nam, and if I hadn't been such a narcissistic pusshound in those years I'd have done the same and would sound like Peter Banks or Drunk Wisconsin.
Point is if we do a hard reign in of porn and swipe apps and short form video and infinite scroll we actually could create a world for Gen Beta (your kids and at this point mine as well) that is closer to the one I grew up in than the one you and your successors grew up in and is thus still gay and unfair and hellish cause that's life nigga but also slightly less so which is very obviously desirable.
Yeah I tend to think of Zillennials / High Zoomers as just slightly more neurotic and less narcissistic Late Millennials and if anything probs closer to my experience than I am to the avg 1993 guy given my own Peter Pan tendencies. But the post-9/11 cohort is different qualitatively in very deep and unsettling ways.
A third path does exist. Adopting the worldview of an educated Northerner of the early twentieth century could be an effective alternative to the false dichotomy of Millennial candyland and Zoomer oral culture. It is probably unfortunate that the great Liberal Consensus collapsed at the same time as American attention spans. That said, you are correct in asserting that the science regarding racial differences in intelligence quotient distributions will probably provide little benefit to those too dumb to know the difference between a bell curve and a Dirac delta function. However, the myriad studies demonstrating complete progressive domination of fields such as anthropology strongly imply that much work remains to consign tabula rasa to its rightful grave. Therefore, this information must be presented in a way that appeals to the serious student of social sciences, rather than the Tik-tok addled brain possessed by the lower orders of Zoomer.
Lying is boring though
Hanania's take was the best. The word 'eugenics' got poisoned because a bunch of German's gassed my fourth cousins 80 years ago. Just say "reproductive technology" or some white people shit like that
I am extremely grateful that Substack gives me an outlet for my mentally ill urges to say completely self destructive things, so I can spend the rest of my life using my Straussian approaches to gain power.
"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" I would have gotten a doctor's note from Hans Asperger actually
All persistent civilizational orders are eugenic. Short-term you may have a maladaptive one (e.g. now)
There are 3 practical approaches for eugenics:
* Immigration restrictionism, for which a “we have to appease the populist masses” or a inglehart culture map approach works best in my experience
* Reducing SSA birth rates, for which Bill Gates style family planning works best. You can work in the field, or donate, use liberal or feminist rethoric.
* Biotech kind of stuff. Polarize with conservatives/populists, put it in same category as abortion/euthanasia, and LGBT rights if you can. Enhancing human (female) autonomy.
This stuff actually works, and is what smart eugenicists (lesswrong crowd) do. But for the loser-in-life type you describe, sounding like a liberal or, God forbid, donating is too much to ask. The point of eugenics is the edginess, if you turn it into a practical project it loses its appeal. As for the donating, the online right offers mid-tier tech workers and other spiritual lower middle class folks a simulated sense of expansiveness. But underneath all the Nietzsche and adventure and horseriding aesthetics there is petty material anxiety, status resentment, small minded xenophobia and crude selfishness. You could not get these people to significantly sacrifice in a million years, unless they somehow get to feel as the main hero in the story.
Read half way, got bored, and I'm just going to say this here: make sterilization mandatory for receiving welfare, that's all I want as an eugenicist, or for God's sake, stop making welfare payouts be tied directly to the number of children had.
Also, 1st cousin marriages/kids absolutely need to be banned and prosecuted especially amoung those already inbred, with the severity of the punishment being directly corallated with how inbred the pairings are.
TRVTH TSVR BVMBA
I skimmed a few spots. Yeah, people are eugenicists anyway. Yeah, it's antisocial to bring that into public discourse (public-public, online public isn't so bad). But also I don't know that eugenics as top-down policy is really a big thing. In a monarchy or similar static government, it would be good to try to reverse dysgenic trends caused by, say, population and lifestyle distributions. But you wouldn't say that you were doing that.
>I skimmed a few spots
see if even my second most spergy and engaged Zoomer reader can't sit and read the whole thing what hope do the rest of you have? We need to send you niggers to concentration camps to literally make you concentrate.
I'll read your Elliot Rodger article as penance.
I agree. We do. I do. We all need to read Wittgenstein for 6 months and come up with original innovations or whatever you said recently.
But my disengagement here is more about the topic. Feels like punching eugenicists gets obligate applause, and it's not that popular anyway, is it?
fair point and yeah I'm lowkey kind of just trying to see if a 2024-style WB article can still go viral or if I'm in an inmendham ghetto
It can. The experiment is worth conducting.
Online anon, anyway. Online named is a good way to bring it right into public-public.
Extremely useful feedback.
Ultimately I am narrating the Zoomer impulse as I experience it--which is to say from the perspective of a solipsistic theory unc--under which it definitely feels like foreclosure. But I can see how from the Zoomer male interiority it seems like something completely different.
The thing I want Zoomer boys to understand is that a better world is possible.
Yes AWALT--but some are a LOT more Like That than others and the best Millennial chicks were probably the least Like That in history. But you never saw that because you grew up listening to Millennial guys who got dealt a bad hand and didn't nab a chick our age at a time when they were still sweet and pliable, but plenty of guys did and essentially became happy boomers in 2012. Hell, a bunch of them married the best of your women during covid and caught the last chopper out of 'nam, and if I hadn't been such a narcissistic pusshound in those years I'd have done the same and would sound like Peter Banks or Drunk Wisconsin.
Point is if we do a hard reign in of porn and swipe apps and short form video and infinite scroll we actually could create a world for Gen Beta (your kids and at this point mine as well) that is closer to the one I grew up in than the one you and your successors grew up in and is thus still gay and unfair and hellish cause that's life nigga but also slightly less so which is very obviously desirable.
Yeah I tend to think of Zillennials / High Zoomers as just slightly more neurotic and less narcissistic Late Millennials and if anything probs closer to my experience than I am to the avg 1993 guy given my own Peter Pan tendencies. But the post-9/11 cohort is different qualitatively in very deep and unsettling ways.