Search? Click Here
Join the BUGS Team! Post on the internet along with us to fight White Genocide!

Genetic Morality

Posted by Bob on June 16th, 2009 under Blasts from the Past, Coaching Session


Posted by Bob on January 6, 2006 at 8:24 pm

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 our genes. Right after World War II the dream world of social science was 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, historical determinism, in other words the social sciences.

Thirty years ago I pointed this out in detail in my first book in my own name.

Environment IS social science. Leaving heredity and environment to social scientists is exactly 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 supposed 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 running the beauty salon will tell you that looks don’t matter. I am sure the high-end clothing store owners 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 with 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 Judgment 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 Judgment Day in the near future.

But the environmentalists, whose whole program is based on the future, have no genetic morality at all.

This is not 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.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
  1. #1 by Dave on 06/16/2009 - 12:42 pm

    Just as the greatest crimes in life are not against the law, life’s greatest imperatives tend to be unwritten and rest unsaid.

    Political Correctness not only turns a blind eye to the importance of heredity and genetics, IT IS IN MILITANT DENIAL.

    Thus disproving its own case.

  2. #2 by Simmons on 06/16/2009 - 3:02 pm

    Even Limbaugh a perfect exemplar of conservatism, childless ideological and fanatically wordist cannot save the quasi scientific theories of Enviromental Materialism. As Horus mentions “natural law”, it cannot be, those circles cannot be squared.

    And can Jesus really be for breeding more morons? I think not.

  3. #3 by shari on 06/16/2009 - 4:00 pm

    Genetic immorality, has got to be seen as excedingly sinful, now that the world is so small. Maybe that’s why it’s taken 50yrs. of steady decline,while evil grows unavoidable.

  4. #4 by Tim on 06/16/2009 - 5:08 pm

    Genetic Immorality. That phrase works well Shari.

    It seems like the last century (and especially the last half of this century), the planet and in particular the Aryan leadership have declared WAR on Nature. Of course, the Hebrew leadership was all too happy to lead the battle charge.
    The obvious result has been the bankruptcy (at least on paper) of America and the UK and an attempted dispossession of the European Genotype.

    Ironically, men like George Soros have decried the survival of the fittest. Unfortunately, Mother Nature shows no other way. Mr Soros’s own tribe in Israel will attest to this one way or another —one day or another. And sooner rather than later.

    Aryans seem to have a huge propensity to live out fantasies that go against Natural Law. Whether it be in Scientific Materialism or as Horus calls our system of Scientific Racism. Both systems try to square circles and 50 years from now both will have gone the way of Magellan….. history.

    Most racialist like Jared Taylor at Amren have noted this propensity for fantasy among Aryans. Our reversion to the mean will probably be remembered a whole lot more than the Soviet System crashing. What is comedy is that we do this so often and actually live to tell about it.

  5. #5 by 1Reader on 06/24/2009 - 11:14 am

    One paragraph got me thinking about an issue in particular. And that is the free market, in my opinion, a free market cannot possibly exist without personal rights and democracy. As noted in the article, pretty much everyone would agree that entrepreneurs should not be allowed to do anything. A free market does not equal to an anarchic market. As has been noted before, public power misuse and private power misuse is no different in end results. Democracy hence gives an opportunity to practice regulation, an effective form of consumer choice on the market. It is based on collective interests, it is undeniable. A free market does not exist for its own sake, it exists for a purpose, because it is considered beneficial to the society (and there are certainly some things that go ahead others and thus less important things are or ought to be very discussable based on their end results, like certain aspects of copyright legislation for example, but this is not the place to delve into that (in the EU it was recently prolonged from 40 to 70 years. What is the difference between 40 and 70? Why not 700? Why should someone several generations down get stimulated by something good people way back did)). This practice of democracy is based on the very premise that there is a collective social interest, and indeed there is, we do not live alone in the world, how can we possibly ignore that without developing a society based on myth?

    Whilst practicly everyone would agree with democracy, I have experienced many of those same people claim that expression of ethnical awareness, ethnical considerations are bad because they are “collectivist” or what have you. It is blatantly hypocritical to make such a statement and they do not even realise it, so it seems. At one hand they support and talk up democracy, which is based on basicly common interests, collective interests. On the other hand they shun the issue of the ethnical factor and its importance because it is “collectivism” to care about race/ethnicity. Maybe someone else can untangle for me their reasoning, because I do not get it.

    We can certainly and undoubtedly discuss the implementation of democracy itself. The early states, as we are all aware of, had much more state sovereignty, the national government was like a foreign forum, that was lost and it affected immigration. But the awareness of ethnical heritage kept strong, as evident by the immigration laws in the 20’s, specificly authored to keep the demographics of the US, in other words, keep it a largely European nation. Since then, the multiethnical enforcements have gone full blown (not to talk about majority illegal immigration since the end of WW2), and caring for your people and their future is nowadays considered “hateful” (at least if you are a European in North America or otherwere, you are expected to commit genocide on yourself to be acceptable).

    The genetic morality especially in the US needs to be expressed. In the wake of the discriminations whites face; “affirmative action”, forced “integration”, massive ethnical crime on whites. It is nothing but ethnically moral to take steps such as being your own entrepreneur preferably, buying only from whites. From pro-whites is even better, but most important is to buy only from whites. It is sensible, reasonable and fully legal to react in that way, it is a healthy reaction needed against the discrimination European Americans face, and can minimize the impact of those discriminatory measures. It is the geneticly moral thing to do.

    The problem with all of what is going on, for the people who actively try to suppress any natural ethnical awareness and responsibility, is like Dr. Kevin MacDonald said in a radio program recently. That one one hand they try to get through this myth that race does not matter. But on the other hand they are also active with campaigns such as affirmative action to name the most obvious but far from only one, and what is this based on? It is not based on class, geography, enironment, income etc. It is based on race. So they try to spread this myth that race doesnt matter or does not even exist, but at the same time they have a problem in that they run policies that are based on nothing but just that, race, and which only purpose is to affect racial issues.

    It sure must be hard for them to fight a battle against nature and reality.

You must be logged in to post a comment.