Since Hitler, unapologetic eugenics has been beyond the Pale in mainstream political and academic discourse, although it chunters along unnamed in abortions for the genetically unfit and raises its head occasionally in books such as The Bell Curve which explores the effects of differential breeding, mainly in the USA, and concludes that there is a risk of a serious dysgenic effect on national IQs.
The dysgenic effects feared by the Eugenics movement in white societies in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were that much higher breeding rates of the less able (in practice defined as the poor) would bring about the degradation of the human stock of nations. This was a false fear in the context of the racial make up of white societies of the time because there is a phenomenon known as reversion to the norm. This means that higher IQ parents will tend to have children with lower IQs than their own, while lower IQ parents, i.e., those below the mean, will tend to have children with IQs higher than those of the parents. The effect of this would be to roughly maintain the distribution of IQ in a population. Thus, if the poor, less able, call them what you will, in a population breed more freely than the more able, the long-term loss of intellectual resources in a population should be slight going on non-existent. However, there is a nasty fly in the ointment: each racial group maintains its own IQ distribution regardless of where a particular population lives – the Japanese in America have the same IQ distribution as Japanese in Japan, blacks in Jamaica a similar distribution to those of sub-Saharan blacks. Hence, a low IQ racial group will remain trapped in its inferior IQ distribution Moreover, even with inter-racial breeding the average IQ will still be depressed to a degree when people from lower IQ racial groups breed with a higher IQ group.
If a low IQ minority increases through immigration or breeding at a faster rate than the high IQ majority three effects will be felt: (1) the intellectual resources of the country will decline, (2) an ever more substantial part of the resources of the high IQ majority will have to be devoted to containing the effects of the low IQ minority and (3) there will be a tendency for members of the high IQ majority to emigrate to countries where there is either a smaller low IQ minority or the natural resources (especially land) of the country are greater, the consequence being to further reduce the intellectual resources of the country they are leaving. Increasing white flight from Britain in the first decade of the 21st century is a good example of this trait.
If the aggregate level of intelligence is what matters to the maintenance of a sophisticated society, there must be a point at which the society cannot be sustained if the aggregate IQ is reduced below whatever is the minimum level. This is the danger which faces advanced countries which have experienced and are experiencing large-scale immigration of low IQ races.
The different personality traits of blacks, whites and Asians may mean that the efficiency of a society composed of two or more of the races would be less than that of one composed of only one the race. One race may perform better in a racially homogenous society than another, for example, perhaps it is more important for blacks to be in a homogenous society than whites or Asians because the IQ difference is simply too great for blacks to operate efficiently in a high IQ society. Perhaps Asians with their reduced sociability have a greater need for formal order and find it difficult to integrate into the comparatively free wheeling societies of whites, although their superior IQ allows them to find strategies to live within such societies without integration. It may be that the marrying of relatively high sociability and high average IQ amongst whites means that they are best able of the three major racial groups to function with large minorities of the other racial groups within their society because the social forms they naturally create are more flexible than the societies created by blacks and Asians. However, even if true, that would not mean that a mixed society is beneficial to whites, merely those whites are better able to accommodate minorities and mitigate their ill effects. (It is worth noting that the economic, political and cultural dominance of whites over the past 500 years has been accomplished by societies which enjoyed a very large degree of racial homogeneity).
Where one of the groups in a population is much smaller than the other the larger will naturally dominate, especially in public matters such as politics. But where neither can naturally dominate how will things such as the political system be determined? Because of innate personality biases one racial group may naturally favour representative government, the other some form of authoritarian government. There is no obvious way of deciding the matter short of violence.
What is certain is that racially mixed societies will be less cohesive than racially homogenous ones. The reason is obvious: the natural sense of “tribal” solidarity is fractured. People feel at best less natural sympathy with other racial groups and at worst a suspicion and antipathy to them. Of course, it is not only racial difference which creates such a situation for ethnic differences, whether historical or cultural, can have a strong divisive quality. But there is a fundamental difference between cultural and biological difference: the former is susceptible to change on a human time scale; the latter is not. An immigrant of the same racial type as the majority population of the receiving country but of a different ethnicity can have children who can be assimilated within a generation to the point where they are indistinguishable from the native majority. An immigrant of a different racial type can remain set apart from the receiving country’s majority population indefinitely if they and their descendents retain their racial type by breeding with others of the same race.
Ethnic solidarity is essential to the coherence and survival of a population. In his “On Genetic Interests”, Frank Salter concludes “Territory is a collective fundamental good for harmonising familial and ethnic genetic interests and securing long-term genetic continuity”. This goes to the heart of ethnic solidarity and survival. The dictum applies to a large degree even where a population does not have formal control of the territory because numerical dominance on the ground is nine parts of the biological law. Britain provides a first rate example with the Welsh and Scots maintaining de facto territorial control of their territory.
The societies most at risk at present are white societies, because it is they which have experienced and are continuing to experience mass immigration of racial groups which differ from their own majority populations. Whites are also displaying low fertility rates, most below replacement level, while immigrant groups are generally breeding above replacement level, often well above replacement level.
Why are whites showing such a disinclination to breed? In part it is selfishness. In pre-modern societies (including many still extant) Man has frequently acted to restrict population at the level of the individual, particularly by infanticide, a very widespread behaviour throughout history. It is not that great a leap in human behaviour for individuals to move from “I must kill this baby because I do not have the resources to raise it” or “to try to raise the child will lessen the chances of my other children” to “I will not have a child because to do so will lessen my own chances of satisfying my own desires”.
This mentality is bolstered by any political ideology which exalts the individual and diminishes the coherence and importance of the ethnic group, whether that is a band, tribe or a nation. Liberal Internationalism is such a creed, which adds to overt individualist propaganda the effects of mass immigration and so-called free trade and free markets, all of which attack the economic and territorial security of nations. This increases the insecurity of whites who breed less freely as a consequence.
But the position is more complex than simple ideology. Even in the more prosperous developing countries – where attitudes to breeding are still traditional – demographics are shifting towards the advanced country distribution. Clearly, increased prosperity and security is an important driver of reproductive change. Longer life spans also probably have an effect, although exactly what is difficult to assess – if I had to venture a guess the effect would be that the longer the life the less feeling of urgency in the individual to breed.
There is also the question of what constitutes genetic inheritance from a human standpoint – note I say from the human standpoint not what genetics may tell us. Because sexually reproducing organisms halve their genetic transfer every generation (more or less), the genetic inheritance of any individual is soon diffused to the point of practical non-existence within the context of the ethnic group, although a significant genetic similarity between members of an ethnic group and more broadly within a racial group continues. Human beings unlike animals can be aware of this. Such people breed regardless of this fact and tend to favour to others genetically related to them tenuously if at all by blood, such as in-laws and great grandchildren or grand nieces and, of course, if the individual is not aware of the rapid genetic dilution he or she still shows such favour to those who are not genetically close. What matters to the individual is the continuing of the genealogical line regardless of the genetic content of the line. It is the cultural transfer which counts. No other animal has such an imperative.
Whatever the reason for white demographic decline, it does raise the question of what would be the objective consequences if whites became greatly diminished in numbers and power in the world or even vanished as a distinct race. Judged by the history of the world to date it would in all probability remove from the world the race most capable of imaginative thought and invention. That could mean the future development of Man took a much narrower and more limited course.
It is also true that white majority societies have been the only ones which have meaningfully honoured the liberal with a small “l” values which have ameliorated the cruelty which is a normal part of most societies. If white dominated societies ceased to exist through whites becoming the minority in them or because they have been so fragmented by immigration that the values are extinguished by ethnic strife, there can be no confidence that the values would survive at all.