A.N.U.S.

American Nihilist Underground Society

ANUS.COM: American Nihilist Underground Society (A.N.U.S.) at www.anus.com
RSS feed of ANUS.com opinions and news Mailing list:
Search anus.com:

Nihilism, Futurist Traditionalism and Conservationism

Proof of eugenics

31 05 12 - 09:38

They're downplaying this, but the proof that genetics works comes from the Ashkenazi Jewish population, one of the highest scorers in the average IQ game:


While several Ashkenazi Jewish mtDNA Hgs appear to derive from the Near East, there is also evidence for a low level of introgression from host European non-Jewish populations. HVS-1 sequence analysis revealed increased frequencies of Ashkenazi Jewish haplotypes that are rare or absent in other populations, and a reduced number of singletons in the Ashkenazi Jewish sample. These diversity patterns provide evidence for a prolonged period of low effective size in the history of the Ashkenazi population. The data best fit a model of an early bottleneck (approx100 generations ago), perhaps corresponding to initial migrations of ancestral Ashkenazim in the Near East or to Europe. A genetic bottleneck followed by the recent phenomenon of rapid population growth are likely to have produced the conditions that led to the high frequency of many genetic disease alleles in the Ashkenazi population. - European Journal of Human Genetics


The good part of this strategy: 100 generations ago, when it came time to choose those who were going into Europe, the Ashkenazis chose to take the top 10% of their population by intelligence. (This may have occurred naturally, as the richest traders took up new homes in their new target markets.)

Where they ran into some trouble was in the rapid expansion since; had they reproduced more slowly, there would have been more time between generations for mutations which would diminish some of those gnarly recessive traits.

If the Western world were to take its top 10% people by intelligence, health, vigor, morality and sense, and kill everyone else, the result would be a smaller Western population of much greater ability. If this population expanded slowly, it would not run into the penalties of inbreeding that we see here.

Either way, the naysayers are wrong. Eugenics works. Unless of course these naysayers want to live in a dumber population.

twelve comments

Brett Cuntens
I agree, although we should kill everyone but the top 0.005% and give those who remain a killer rad skateboard and a swimming pool.

Try to poke holes in my utopia, I dare you! Brett Cuntens - 31-05-’12 12:24
Perfect plan eh?
The top 10% of people by morality would be people who would never allow you to do this. So, for one thing, in the process you'd have to kill yourself.

But hopefully those 10% you were leaving alive would, through their intelligence, realize what you were doing; through their morality, resolve to stop you; and through their health and vigor, succeed in stopping you. Perfect plan eh? - 31-05-’12 14:55
I hate you
So, Perfect Plan, if I understand you correctly a person can only be moral if they subscribe to your moral code? I hate you - 31-05-’12 22:36
I'm glad you do.
Thinking there's something wrong with killing 90% of people for no proved wrongdoing on their parts is not just my moral code. It's pretty much universal, and it's certainly universal to the group that would meet any objective standards of morality that the OP is trying to use to judge it.

Now, if you disagree, then how exactly would YOU decide who are the "top 10% of people by morality"? People who agree with *your* moral code? That of ANUS (which as far as I can tell is nonexistant)? I'm glad you do. - 01-06-’12 00:45
voilà
merits, achievements, intelligence, character, usefulness, purpose of existence etc. There are enough criteria to choose from.

YES, basing the killings on the moral code of some highly intelligent human is better than the current state of affairs where you have tons of fat fucks multiplying into 10 other fat fucks and all of them pursuing their consumerist, Nature-destructive lifestyle.

Or do you think human life is holy ? Do you need absolutes to guide you ? I don't.

My problem is that:
1. is this idea (genocide) even feasible ?! I mean, can it really be achieved, or is it just Utopia forever ?
2. if it is Utopia, best to give it up, since it his highly psychotic and alienating for a normal human. voilà - 01-06-’12 07:17
Plan wouldnt work.
Well, for some reason the OP explicitly included "morality", as well as those kinds of criteria, for deciding who lives. Now if you don't believe in morality, that's fine. But if you do, it's hard to imagine a code of morality that allows for killing 90% of the people. What exactly *doesn't* it allow then?

Also, what do you mean by "do you need absolutes to guide you?"? What's the alternative, exactly? Having something relative to guide you? Or having nothing at all to guide you? As far as I can tell the latter are exactly the same thing, because if it's relative, then you can easily change things whenever you feel like it, and then it's not something guiding you at all.

1. No, it's not feasible. It has the handicap that it would be disapproved of by at least 90% of the people, for one, and probably another 9% more. Now, majorities have been stifled before, but not with that degree of success. Plan wouldnt work. - 01-06-’12 10:13
pure-fuckin-hate
You are confusing the term "morality" with some humanist ideal of non-violence except when necessary.

Philosophically speaking, "morality" = a theory of action.

Whether this action is good, bad, violent for no purpose etc... is irrelevant.

You asked who gets to decide and on what criteria - I said do you believe in absolutes ? If no, then you have no God, and humans are God, thus humans, like you and me, get to decide on what is moral or not and what they want to do about it.

Last point: you are again thinking in democratic terms - e.g. you need a majority to approve a plan etc. Life is overflowing with evil, and if a real fanatic wanted and circumstances would help him, maybe it could be done. pure-fuckin-hate - 01-06-’12 12:02
I bet you also have some bones and stuff in there along with the hate.
No, I'm not confusing anything. An idea of non-violence except when necessary is indeed part of many proposed systems of morality, though it's not a necessary part of morality. But I don't know of *any* system of morality that permits this.

No, philosophically speaking "morality" = a theory of which actions are permitted and which are not. So whether the action is good or bad is relevant by definition.

A system of morality *constrains* action, again by definition. Now yes, you could have a system of morality that constrained some actions, but not killing 90% of the population, but no system of morality actually proposed by any scholar fits the bill, and it's hard to imagine one that fit anyone's idea of what the correct system of morality should look like.

Your 3rd paragraph is quite confused. One can believe in absolutes without believing in God, for one thing. For another, of humans can just arbitrarily decide what is moral and what is not, then that's not morality. That's just doing what you want, and giving it a name. So if that's what you're advocating, then just admit you don't believe in morality at all.

Last point, no, I'm not thinking in democratic terms but practical ones. Even the most tyrannical government would have trouble accomplishing this once people got wind of what they were doing. Especially if they really chose the best and brightest people to survive, because they're the ones who would be against it (even if you took morality out of the equation.)

As for the last part, that's a pretty big if. I bet you also have some bones and stuff in there along with the hate. - 01-06-’12 14:32
hatredisvoid
I agree, I was a little shallow in definitions - it's just a fuckin comment... And you pinpoint the details of an abstract definition of morality, which is OK.

Unfortunately though, ALL your objections can be reduced to: I don't know of any moral system so cruel, therefore, it mustn't (shouldn't) exist; or: I have not seen any other human being whose opinions I respect propose something so cruel, therefore it is wrong... whatever.

Second point: well, if morality is not a human construct, damn... I'm dying to know what it is, can you please explain ?

I believe values are created by humans, and moral systems which define good and bad actions are also made by humans, for humans, often with specific purposes in mind. ...Homo homini lupus...

Lastly: most of the highly intelligent people I have met have a healthy contempt of others below them - although at times they seem to feel pity too.
I don't know why you are so sure you know exactly what those hypothetical 9% believe in... most successful criminals are above average intelligence I believe.

And yes, that IS a big IF, I could give you some examples tough, but fuck it, it's just a comment :) hatredisvoid - 01-06-’12 15:22
enjoyyourvoidthenihearitsgreat
Well, it's debated whether morality is a human construct or if it is just a fact about the world that humans merely discover. For example, Kant believed that absolute morals exist for any rational being. The fact that only humans are subjected to it is simply because humans are the only known rational species.

But many believe that no absolute moral system can be proven to exist. So perhaps it is a human construct. But then there's a paradox: if morality is to have any force, it has to be absolute.

If, as you say, morals are created by humans with specific purposes in mind, then what exactly are morals in the first place? Constraints on our behavior? No, because if we want to behave in a way contrary to the morals we've created, we can simply change the morals. And if people disagree, then no one is more right than any other.

Lastly, that may be true about the highly intelligent you've met, but I'll bet none of them want to kill anyone. None of the highly intelligent people *I* know have that kind of contempt at all.

Yes, I am quite sure that those 9% would not believe in killing 90% of people, and that's not the same as "knowing exactly what they believe"; it's a pretty safe bet. And I'm thinking the OP did NOT intend to include criminals in his list. And also no, most successful criminals do NOT have particularly high intelligence. enjoyyourvoidthenihearitsgreat - 01-06-’12 16:31
Bent Cuntens
Has anyone pointed out the obvious yet? That what happened to the Ashkenazi Jews WAS NOT EUGENICS? Bent Cuntens - 07-06-’12 21:59
wow gold
I am very happy to read this. This is the type of manual that needs to be given and not the random misinformation that is at the other blogs. Appreciate your sharing this greatest doc. wow gold (URL) - 26-01-’13 15:55


(optional field)
(optional field)

Remember personal info?
Small print: All html tags except <b> and <i> will be removed from your comment. You can make links by just typing the url or mail-address.