I was browsing through the Dark Enlightenment subreddit the other day when I clicked on one of the required reading links put up by one of the moderators there. I was pretty impressed by the word biotemperance coined in the post. I have had more or less a similar idea, undefined, in mind when considering how a good eugenics policy might by structured. Obviously, such a policy should aim to not result in increasing suffering. Here is the relevant part of the post excerpted:

In the context of game and relationships there is a disparity between what men tend to want in terms of love and relationships and what women are able to provide. (read this[1] , then this[2] , then this[3] for more detail) Taking the red pill involves the understanding and acceptance that due to biological instincts women act in certain consistent ways which often lead to frustration in men. By understanding the biological imperatives of women, a man can work within that framework to then create more fulfilling relationships. Men gain an understanding and acceptance of biological determinism in mating with the intent of improving the quality of his life and that of the woman or women he is with. Women can’t be blamed or hated for having the instincts that they do because the man would never, ever be able to form fulfilling relationships with that kind of baggage. Moreover, natural selection has endowed women with these instincts for a reason: it improves her odds of being successful in reproduction. Therefore not only is it necessary to not hold onto hate or blame from a quality of life perspective, it is also irrational in the context of evolution.

In the general case, a good definition of biotemperance:

biotemperance is when the pursuit of knowledge of biological differences between human groups is guided by a moderate temperament and desire for benevolent outcomes for both the pursuer and group under consideration.

I do not suggest that one group should make sacrifices for the sake of another (see Atlas Shrugged for more details).

I feel the concept is important for the growth of this sub. Western culture is irrationally afraid of HBD as part of the aftermath of World War II. Racial conflict and mass murder figured greatly into all the theatres of that war. After it was over, it is understandable that intellectuals would try to craft the culture in such a way as to prevent such things from happening again. Preventing genocide is a desirable goal. Unfortunately, they resorted to a fiction of complete egalitarianism which, being untrue, is also very unstable. To quote Anthony Edwards[4]

“It is a dangerous mistake to premise the moral equality of human beings on biological similarity because dissimilarity, once revealed, then becomes an argument for moral inequality.”

Biotemperance, if genuinely accepted by neoreaction, should allay the neurotic fears many people have that even talking about HBD is one step away from genocide. Most people have a knee-jerk reaction of fascism when they read this sub, I want to do whatever I can to get rid of that impression.

If and when the egalitarian bubble pops, and neoreaction grows significantly, biotemperance should ensure that whatever realistic steps are taken to improve order in society do so in a humane way.

Wanting to reduce the perceived association of neoreaction from the leftist movement that was national socialism seems reasonable. Certainly the movement gave a bad name to eugenics as a result of its irrational desire for genocide. Rather than attributing the genocidal delirium to the irrational mob who elected Hitler, they blame eugenics. On the topic of Nazism as a leftist product of democracy, I recommend the great three part series from the social pathologist on the topic (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3).

Edit:

Part 1 of the Eugenics series: Why we need Eugenics.

Related posts:

Why we need Eugenics Compassionate Eugenics Avoid Monoculture Institutional Capture and The Eugenic Monarchy What is a leftoid? R vs. K selection