(This article was originally written in July, 2019.)

Unfortunately, the world of today is in some ways in quite a poor state.

The humanity of the present day is not as morally righteous and intellectually sound as the people of past centuries. If one can read and comprehend (and I am aware how few people read and can understand classic works nowadays) some of the books from the 19th and early 20th centuries, or before that period – one realizes these books would not be able to receive popularity today or even get published. Why? Because more than 99 percent of 21st century humanity is dull and uninformed, and believes rather than knows. That, and the fact that the world is controlled by a certain race (or species?) called the Jews.

Since Jews control the world, they must also control the message. And since Jews control the message, they must control the media. And, of course, since Jews control the media, they must control over the publishing companies. These creatures are the ones responsible for our current state of grave immorality. It is to a large extent because of the covert actions of this miserable people that the world is in the state that it’s in.

Society is not operating the way Nature intended the world to operate. We are letting the weak and defective elements of society, those who would have perished had they lived in a natural setting, to prosper. This is due partly to the “humanitarian” outlook advised to us by the depraved rulers of the world, the Jews. The world is increasingly occupied by defectives and degenerates, and no longer is nature permitted its role of eliminating the innately unfit stocks.

Besides that, what was seen as antisocial in the past is now viewed as socially acceptable by Jewish-controlled society. For example, homosexuality, sexual extravagance, the use of “indecent” language or slang, and tattooism, were recognized as acts of disgrace by the public as recently as the early 1900s. These attitudes and behaviors need to be viewed by society as antisocial in nature and the social “norms” will need to be changed to designate these expressions as inherently deviant. What we need is further research into eugenics and the environmental, social, and hereditary causes of such deviance, and to re-examine works on eugenics from a scientific rather than sentimental view. We must immediately put laws proscribing these degenerate practices as a society, and for anyone who continues to act in degenerate ways his or her family and social history should be studied in the attempt to find the causes of the deviant behavior.

Francis Galton proposed dividing the British population into desirables, acceptables, and undesirables. According to him, the desirables composed five to ten percent of the population. But it is possible that the population of England by the latter half of the 19th century had already decayed significantly and was markedly inferior compared to the people who had inhabited the land in past centuries.

Most people think they are more significant than they really are, and that their current status was determined largely by an ignoble social condition. The truth, however, is that the best of the people will always find a way to succeed where the mediocre and inferior types continually fail. The world is filled with people who think they could have achieved something far greater than what their current situation would propose, if only they were given a proper education, or had they not “missed their opportunity”. The reality is that the best of the population will find ways around the shortcomings which the masses are faced with within their lives.

I will tell all of you this much: If I had the power to, I would make 99.9 percent of all human inhabitants of the Earth today disappear, if it could be achieved without great suffering on their part. Only the intellectually and morally sound members of humanity should be allowed to bear children. In that sense, my guess is that only the top 0.1 percent of people today are fit to reproduce.

We must recognize that not only do human races substantially differ in their capacities and abilities, but that within the races there are still greater differences in mental and moral capacities. Professor William Kellicott correctly states, “In all of the discussion of ‘race suicide’ and the value to the State of the large family, how seldom do we hear any mention of quality! To plan the organization and conduct of a State without regulating and controlling the quality of its membership is like adopting plans and elevations for a costly building without making any specifications as to materials” (The Social Direction of Human Evolution: An Outline of the Science of Eugenics, 1911).

Our Jewish-controlled world is becoming increasingly neurotic and tainted by unsound stocks, with these defects fully expressing themselves through the Jewish promotion of degenerate behavior throughout the world. We must see that the innately best of the races should reproduce the most; and inferior, degenerative elements – the alcoholic, the prostitute, the idler, the tramp, the nymphomaniac, the womanizer, the insane, the unstable, the congenitally deformed, the blind, the deaf-mute, the epileptic, the feeble-minded, the antisocial, the moral imbecile – should be restricted from producing children. 

It would probably be wise to limit reproduction among such types even in cases where heredity is not proven to be a factor in degeneracy.

William Kellicott, discussing an outline of a rather conservative eugenic program, states that there “must be an extensive collection of exact data – of the facts regarding all the varied aspects of racial history and evolution. These facts must be collected with great care and under the strictest scientific conditions. In this matter particularly must we ‘desert verbal discussion for statistical facts.’ Figures can’t lie, but liars can figure. What we need first of all is the accumulation of masses of cold, hard facts, uncolored by any point of view, untinged by any propaganda: facts regarding the net fertility of all classes; facts regarding the racial effects of all sorts of environmental and occupational conditions; facts regarding variability and variation in the race; facts regarding human heredity of normal and pathological conditions, of physical and psychical traits. We have merely scratched the surface of the great masses of such data to be had for the looking.” That we “have merely scratched the surface” on data concerning heredity must be realized even today. We must discard much of the writing from the past few decades on the subject, which is the product of Jewish deception, and start from the early works of the eugenics movement. It will be a difficult process, surely – but it is the best plan that we have.

I will end this post with another quotation, and a warning – now a warning from the past whose truth can probably be witnessed more today than ever before – by Lothrop Stoddard, from his 1922 book The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under-Man. I strongly recommend people read this work. I started reading it with reluctance as it was one of the first eugenic books I encountered, but I read through it and found myself eager to go through its pages again. It is a monumental work concerning the problem of Nature vs. Nurture: (I have written a review of The Revolt Against Civilization here.)

“The idea of ‘Natural Equality’ is one of the most pernicious delusions that has ever afflicted mankind. It is a figment of the human imagination. Nature knows no equality. The most cursory examination of natural phenomena reveals the presence of a Law of Inequality as universal and inflexible as the Law of Gravitation. The evolution of life is the most striking instance of this fundamental truth. Evolution is a process of differentiation – of increasing differentiation – from the simple one-celled bit of protoplasm to the infinitely differentiated, complex life forms of the present day.

“And the evolutionary process is not merely quantitative; it is qualitative as well. These successive differentiations imply increasing inequalities. Nobody but a madman could seriously contend that the microscopic speck of protoplasmic jelly floating in the tepid waters of the Palaeozoic Sea was ‘equal’ to a human being.

“But this is only the beginning of the story. Not only are the various life types profoundly unequal in qualities and capacities; the individual members of each type are similarly differentiated among themselves. No two individuals are ever precisely alike. We have already seen how greatly this dual process of differentiation both of type and individual has affected the human species, and how basic a factor it has been in human progress. Furthermore, individual inequalities steadily increase as we ascend the biological scale. The amoeba differs very little from his fellows; the dog much more so; man most of all. And inequalities between men likewise become ever more pronounced. The innate differences between members of a low-grade savage tribe are as nothing compared with the abyss sundering the idiot and the genius who coexist in a high-grade civilization.

“Thus, we see that evolution means a process of ever-growing inequality. There is, in fact, no such word as ‘equality’ in nature’s lexicon. With an increasingly uneven hand she distributes health, beauty, vigor, intelligence, genius – all the qualities which confer on their possessors superiority over their fellows.

“Now, in the face of all this, how has the delusion of ‘natural equality’ obtained – and retained – so stubborn a hold on mankind? As to both its antiquity and persistency there can be no shadow of doubt. The slogan of ‘equality’ was raised far back in the remote past, and, instead of lessening, was never more loudly trumpeted than to-day. It is a curious fact that just when the advance of knowledge and the increasing complexity of civilization have enhanced individual differences and rendered superior capacities supremely important, the cry for equality should have become fiercer than ever, should have been embodied in all sorts of levelling doctrines, and should have been actually attempted in Bolshevik Russia with the most fanatical fury and the most appalling results.

“Here is obviously something requiring careful analysis. As a matter of fact, the passion for ‘natural equality’ seems to spring primarily from certain impulses of the ego, the self, particularly from the impulses of self-preservation and self-esteem. Every individual is inevitably the centre of his world, and instinctively tends to regard his own existence and well-being as matters of supreme importance. This instinctive egoism is, of course, modified by experience, observation, and reflection, and may be so overlaid that it becomes scarcely recognizable even by the individual himself. Nevertheless, it remains, and subtly colors every thought and attitude. In his heart of hearts, each individual feels that he is really a person of importance. No matter how low may be his capacities, no matter how egregious his failures, no matter how unfavorable the judgment of his fellows; still his inborn instincts of self-preservation and self-love whisper that he should survive and prosper, that ‘things are not right,’ and that if the world were properly ordered he would be much better placed.

“Fear and wounded vanity thus inspire the individual to resent unfavorable status, and this resentment tends to take the form of protest against ‘injustice.’ Injustice of what? Of ‘fate,’ ‘nature,’ ‘circumstances,’ perhaps, yet, more often, injustice of persons – individually or collectively (i.e., ‘society’). But (argues the discontented ego), since all this is unjust, those better placed persons have no ‘right’ to succeed where he fails. Though more fortunate, they are not really his superiors. He is ‘as good as they are.’ Hence, either he should be up with them – or they should be down with him. ‘We are all men. We are all equal!’

“Such, in a nutshell, is the train of thought – or rather of feeling – underlying the idea of ‘natural equality.’ It is, of course, evident that the idea springs primarily from the emotions, however much it may ‘rationalize’ itself by intellectual arguments. Being basically emotional, it is impervious to reason, and when confronted by hard facts it takes refuge in mystic faith. All levelling doctrines (including, of course, the various brands of modern Socialism) are, in the last analysis, not intellectual concepts, but religious cults. This is strikingly shown by recent events. During the past ten years biology and kindred sciences have refuted practically all the intellectual arguments on which the doctrine of ‘natural equality’ relies. But has this destroyed the doctrine? Not at all. Its devoted followers either ignore biology, or elaborate pseudo-biological fallacies, or, lastly, lose their tempers, show their teeth, and swear to kill their opponents and get their own way somehow – which is just what the extreme ‘proletarian’ ragings mean. Quite useless to point out to such zealots the inequalities of nature. Their answer is that superior endowment is itself a basic injustice (‘injustice’ of nature!) which it is society’s duty to remedy by equalizing rewards regardless of ability or service. This is exemplified by that stock Socialist formula: Distribution according to ‘needs.’

“Such are the emotional bases of the doctrine of natural equality. But, as we have already stated, these emotional bases have been buttressed by many intellectual arguments of great apparent force. Indeed, down to our own days, when the new biological revelation (for it is nothing short of that) has taught us the supreme importance of heredity, mankind tended to believe that environment rather than heredity was the main factor in human existence. We simply cannot overestimate the change which biology is effecting in our whole outlook on life.”