This is an article I am about to expand on but I cannot find it below so it is repeated here:
— Genetic Morality
Has there ever been a book with this title?
According to all the “moral” teachers, there is no such thing as genetic morality.
There is a lot of disagreement on how much human life is influenced by heredit versus environment.
Right after World War II the dream world of social science was The Only True Science. That is, all human life was entirely a product of environment.
Hitler was for heredity so the World War II generation went to colleges that taught that the future was entirely a product of education, sociology, political science, historial determinism, in other words the social sciences.
The Obedient Generation, the Weakest Generation, known to itself as The Greatest Generation, accepted this without question.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, environment is NOT everything.
Genes matter. But the group that calls itself The Greatest Generation were told that unless you were Hitler environment was everything.
They believed everything they had been told, which was what they had been trained to do.
So I lived with that “fact,” the “fact that heredity was Hitler, throughout my youth. I wrote my first book in my own name, denouncing this among other things, in 1975-6.
Thirty years ago I pointed this out in detail in my first book in my own name.
The social scientists ordered the World War II gneration to believe that heredity didn’t exist. “Yes, Master,” they shouted, “Environment is everything!”
Our masters, said the Obedient Gneration in unison, cannot be biased.
But they could be. They could be biased toward environment because they were SELLING environment.
Environment IS social science. Leaving heredity and environment to social scientists is exactlyt like leaving the price of steel up to the Steel Trust. So the Weakest Generation, fresh from obedience training, was trained that heredity was nothing.
To every church that I am aware of, the term “genetic morality” is an oxymoron. If you are intelligent, you should spend your time on theology, not on having or raising children.
Chilren are a byproduct. You are not responsible for helping better people pass their GENES on, genes future generations will desperately need.
The first rule of post-World War II thinking is that there is no moral dimension whatsoever to genetics.
The discussion begins and ends with “some Hitlerites would say one should have BETTER children, WHATEVER “BETTER” Means.”
This is supposd to get rid of the whole argument and get us back to social programs and adopting the third world into the United States.
But when it comes to social science, there is never the slightest doubt as to what “better” means.
Look at the person who tells you, “Looks don’t matter.” How much do their clothes cost? Are they only wearing a minimum regardless of fashion or how the clothes look. I had a woman once tell me looks don’t matter but she had to end the conversation because she had an appointment at the beauty salon.
You see, the social scientists HAS to know what is “better” or he will not be able to make a living teaching students how they can achieve that “better” by putting money into social programs.
I am sure the lady who runing the beauty salon will tell you that looks don’t matter. I am sure the high-end cloting store ownders are putting money into programs based on the premise that there is no such thing as “better” looking children.
O’Reilly demands that test scores and not race should be the determinant of who gets into school. But, since his degree is in education, he will also tell you that no child is innately smarter than any other child.
He SAYS that!
It isn’t true.
I am not speaking of theory here. I am speaking of MORALITY.
My morality is still Odinist. That which is not true is evil.
So Bob has a genetic morality.
That is why I object so strongly to the word “aristocracy” as used today. Aristocracy means rule by the best. It has nothing to do iwth naciocracy, which is rule by birth.
Even social scientists now have to admit that heredity is important. Anything that is important to humanity has a MORAL dimension.
We are perfectly willing to restrict any human freedom to improve human beings by ENVIRONMENTAL means.
Except for libertarians. They just say they have no responsibility for anything.
I do not respect what passes for morality today because it has one blind eye. Everyone except extreme libertarians agree that businessmen do not have the right to do anything they want to to increase profits and they are perfectly willing to back the restrictions that are needed by force.
But anyone who is too irresponsible or unintelligent to keep down their number of children has a right to dump them on the rest of us. If countries can’t control their population, they have every right to dump them into vacant space left by white people.
But the critical point is NOT that this is not RIGHT. The point here is one no conservative and very few others have the guts to make.
The critical point is that this is IMMORAL.
No one dares to face down the screaming priest or preacher with this IMMORALITY.
If you do not have a genetic morality, you are an immoral person.
You can whip yourself in a Trappist Monastery or hold revivals or hold a professorship in Ethics at Harvard University. But you an immoral person if you do not have a clear-cut GENETIC morality.
On Judgement Day, I doubt seriously whether you will only be asked about your morality on one aspect of life and never questioned on the other.
The hungry will have to be fed in future generations. The naked will have to be clothed in the future. Only a genetically healthy society can do that. You can sacrifice and whip your skin off in this generation, but it won’t do the future any good.
All they will have is their genes.
There are only two excuses for ignoring a genetic morality:
1) The future won’t happen or
2) Genes really don’t matter.
Joe, I don’t think ANYBODY believes either of those things except those who expect Judgement Day in the near future.
But the environmentalists, whose whole program is based on the future, have no genetic morality at all.
This is jnot just wrong. It is immoral.
All the churches disagree. But they will not avoid being judged on the Golden Rule.
You can go to Hell straight through the church door.
All the philosophies and pretences at Ethics in the world and all the incantations of “HITLER!” cannot protect you from your moral obligation in this world or in the next.
#1 by joe rorke on 01/15/2006 - 8:40 pm
How can I put this? The people who raised me were born in 1888 and 1895 respectively. They were good people. Germans. They talked about something called “stock” all the time. I didn’t really understand what they were talking about until later in life but there were certain implications that I think I understood. They did their best to raise me. I learned to love them. Still do. At least the memory. Nobody ever talked about the environment. A good many years later, after I left that home and had a heap of experiences, I managed to slip in a college door somewhere. That’s when I learned that environment was everything. I studied it, believed it, lived it and only many years later discovered that it was a confidence game. While I was a Marxist I didn’t know it was a confidence game. It all seemed to make sense to me. My circumstances were such that it made sense to me that it should make sense to me. Their game is much more concentrated and consistent than the “Christians” game. The “Christians” game only gets played for a couple of hours a week. The Marxist game gets played every day all day long. That’s the way it seemed to me anyway. Gives a certain purpose to life that the preachers can’t give. Till you find out it’s a con game. Then I began to understand the importance that genes plays in the life of a person. The Marxists I dealt with did mention genetics in passing but it was always at the bottom of the list of factors influencing human behaviour. In later years, as I became an older and more experienced man, I decided to put genetics on the top of the list as opposed to the bottom of the list where the Marxists had placefd it. This, too, is simple. But it requires the courage to see it and, perhaps, proclaim it or at least allege it. In the final analysis, they’re not going to get away from the truth of genetics. It’s a confidence game that is pretty easy to see through and the evidence for it is everywhere.
#2 by Dave on 01/15/2006 - 9:53 pm
I just want to say on genetic morality that whenever I have pointed out somebody’s genetic defects many fighting words get said before the blood and bruises. Nevertheless I think it would be great if dueling came back. Dueling did a great job of flushing the gene pool of genetic defects.
Jennifer Flowers told me that she was proud of her Playboy magazine centerfold photo. I took a look at it and said I’d be proud too. She then pointed out that Hillary Clinton could never do this seeing how it would be impossible to fit a photo of Hillary’s butt on the two pages of a Playboy centerfold. (In other words, Jennifer got directly to what drives Hillary’s ambition.) I replied to Jennifer: “Have a heart! Do you have any idea of what means to always have to back out of a room? “
I completely agree with genetic morality. Face it, if you are born dumb and ugly you are going to be dumb and ugly the rest of your life. Get used to it and don’t have kids! Don’t be like the Clinton’s and turn out a product like Chelsea who has to go through life looking like thug mashed her face in with a sack of nickels. Have a heart. Also, stay away from chicks with big butts.
#3 by Peter on 01/17/2006 - 12:24 am
Dave,
Bob prophesies that dear old Hilary will be our first Presidentette. Seeing how the news is making so much of the election of a presidentette to an irrelevant country and a Hollywood award for an irrelevant TV show about a presidentette, I think we shall soon be seeing a lot of sweet Hillary’s fat ass.