[Edit: this post was written at a time when I was still reluctant to say publicly that I was both atavisionary and nemester but I still wanted to include this work here. I have since revealed this information, but I have left this post as was originally written.]
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 bio temperance 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:
There has recently been some confusion about how discussions about different ethnic groups can be conducted in this subreddit. Frank and open discussion on any and all ethnicities is and will be tolerated. Period.
However, there is a common concept or principle in the manosphere that is equally applicable to this situation (slightly modified) which I will refer to as biotemperance. 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, then this, then this 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
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. (I am not using the liberal definition. For example, it would have been far more humane for Belgium to have maintained control over the Congo so it could have imposed order. Imposing order through force by colonial powers would have clearly been more humane when compared with the suffering, deaths, rapes and other atrocities since the country became “independent”.)
Biotemperance will be treated as a guideline or suggestion and not a rule. It is not mandatory that you agree with it. You should feel free to disagree with the concept and perhaps post a better alternative if you have one. In terms of moderation, biotemperance will be my main guide for evaluating whether posts are trolls or, less likely, shills. If experience of /r/theredpill is any indication, there are people who would like to create havoc here because they strongly disagree with the DE. One of the tactics employed is to post extreme crazy ideas in order to discredit the overall sub to outsiders. This problem hasn’t happened yet, but if the sub grows it will likely be something that needs to be addressed. If a post strongly deviates from biotemperance (IE advocating genocide) it would be removed. However, I only anticipate applying this in very extreme and obvious cases.
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).
Part 1 of the Eugenics series: Why we need Eugenics.
Add to favorites