"WOKE EUGENICS": MORE ALT-RIGHT NONSENSE

More brain rot for the alienated

by Colin Liddell

Yes, wokeism is just a backdoor to Nazi eugenics!

That's the latest theory being pushed by people on the Alt-Right. Sounds like a cope to me, bro. But could there be some truth in it?

First of all, the theory, pushed in a new book by Edward Dutton and J. Rayner-Hilles, is not that new and original anyway. 

In 2020 F. Bardamu's published "The New Dark Ages in Europe and North America" at the post-Alt-Right site Affirmative Right. This covered a lot of the same ground, so I will quote it first:

"Our only hope lies, not with any white awakening–a totally unrealistic fantasy at this point–but with natural selection. If even a few whites can resist the poison of cultural Marxism, by breeding selectively among themselves and preserving their own bloodlines from non-white intermixture, they may be able to give future whites the opportunity to rebuild a society of their very own upon the ashes of post-Western degeneracy."

This is essentially the same "idea space" that Dutton and Rayner-Hilles are exploring, but with a little more focus on enclavism or micro-organisation from Bardamu. Robert Stark ably sums up Dutton and Co's position in his bullet points for a recent podcast with Dutton:

⦿ Woke Eugenics’ thesis that wokeness is a Darwinian selection mechanism that will bring mankind back to being genetically healthy

⦿ How wokeness fast-tracks the civilization collapse in which genetically maladaptive people won’t survive to pass down their genes

⦿ How wokeness is exacerbating the fertility disparity between liberals and conservatives

⦿ How anti-White discrimination selects for Whites who are exceptional, as well as provoking a rightwing backlash

⦿ Why ethnocentric and religious people will survive the battle of group selection"

There is more than that in the book (and Stark's bullet points), but let's stick to the meat of the "woke eugenics" argument rather than the obfuscating side dishes that actually undercut the main argument -- ethnogenesis between Whites and Asians, AI keeping civilisation afloat, etc. 

First up, the main flaw is Dutton and Co's idea of "genetically maladaptive people" vs. "non-genetically maladaptive people." A corollary of this distinction is his idea of "spiteful mutants," essentially "genetically maladaptive people" with chips on their shoulders.

These ideas don't really stand up to simple logic.

Everybody alive today, even some of the biggest losers you can imagine, like Dutton himself (he had to go to the Arctic Circle to get wifed-up), is the result of millions of years of successful evolution. All Dutton's ancestors succeeded in breeding and passing down their genes, not just his parents and grandparents. Same for anyone reading this article. Same for the guy sleeping on cardboard, begging for small change.

Yes, even the biggest apparent fuck-ups you can imagine today are the result of an unbroken and successful chain of reproduction, duh! Of course, the chain may end with them, but that doesn't change the fact that they are all based on an unbroken chain of gene-passing success. 

Next, success in passing down genes doesn't always correlate to positive attributes. I shouldn't really need to explain that to Diss-Righters who are hyperventilating about being swamped by the Third World, but I will.

Sometimes the ability to put on weight and be a bloated lardass can be an incredibly successful adaptation to reality. It really depends on the food situation. Meanwhile, being a bright and intelligent person in certain societies has often been an absolute death sentence. Much of reality is complex and often counter-intuitive.

I would confidently predict that some of the most "maladaptive" types around today would, if not quite benefit from societal collapse, at least do less badly than expected, compared to what may presently seem to be more "adaptive" types.

In other words, Dutton's "genetically maladaptive" vs "non-genetically maladaptive" distinction is subjective, conditional, and transitory. Otherwise all the "freaks" he is pointing at would have been weeded out of the gene pool millennia ago. They haven't been. George Washington has, however. 

Next, Dutton and Co. predict that wokeness fast-tracks civilizational collapse. This is just more stupidity. There is no evidence for this. Wokeness, such as it is, is merely a pejorative construct that maps onto something called "inclusion" in societies characterised by high immigration and an amoral Post-Christian approach to sexual morality. By the way, there is still sexual morality. Trust me!

Post-Christianity is inevitable in any society that isn't a straw-sucking peasant society of witch-burners.

As written here at Neokrat, wokeness is actually a sign of "social integration" rather than "social disintegration." It is a response to the downside of the economic virility of liberalism:

"Wokeism is not an attack on the family. It is instead a reaction to the decay of the family and an attempt to compensate for it.

The decay of the family can be expressed as falling marriage rates, increasing divorce rates, rising incelism, and plummeting fertility. All these factors are an expression of rising living standards and the economic security that all working class people have craved and striven towards since the Tolpuddle Martyrs got their come-uppance.

These factors create in formerly White, family-based societies the main client groups of wokeism, namely increasing numbers of non-Whites and the gender-confused. Gender-confused, in my view, not only includes LGBTQ+ people, but incels, single career women, and even the sexually promiscuous poor; although most of the spotlight seems to be on drag queens and transgenders, possibly because this is better trigger bait in our attention driven economy."

In short, wokeness is a stabilising force that aims to overcome polarisation, tribalism, civil war, and collapse that would undercut the efficiency of a modern Western (or Eastern) society. 

Society may collapse for all sorts of potential reasons -- geopolitical (WWIII), environmental, a meteorite, falling birth rates, AI insanity, etc. -- but it won't collapse because we avoid insulting immigrant workers drafted in to wipe the arses of White boomers in care homes or allow men in dresses to visit libraries. 

The next "big gun" in the Dutton armoury is that "wokeness is exacerbating the fertility disparity between liberals and conservatives." 

These are not two different species of animal competing for the same ecological niche. "Liberals," I have found, are often related to "conservatives" and even "eugenic-obsessed fascists."

A "liberal" in many cases is just a rich kid who wants to spend the money his "conservative" parents have built up after decades of hard work and scrimping and saving, on drugs, whores, or possibly a sex-change operation. In other words, the apparently dysgenic effect of liberalism is just the general tendency of all humans to behave like lazy, entitled, self-obsessed shits once the pressures of poverty have been removed. Something to do with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs perhaps.

I predict that today's "conservatives," who are actually much, much more liberal than yesterday's conservatives, will simply breed tomorrow's "liberals," who might actually be less liberal than today's liberals. 

Here we see the weakness of much dissident right thinking: it is tied to rigid and absolutist constructs, rather than realising the tentative, transitory, and mutable nature of many of these categories. 

The same could be said about Dutton and Co's concept of "ethnocentric" and "religious" peoples who are supposedly inherently fitted to "survive the battle of group selection." Again we have these fake fixed constructs. There is no such thing as an inherently "ethnocentric" and "religious" people. These are conditional responses to situations.

150 years ago we were pretty much all "religious peoples." WTF happened?

Likewise ethnocentrism doesn't survive long if there are incentives for it to break down. In modern liberal, individualist societies there are plenty of incentives. 110 years ago, people from the supposedly "ethno-uncentred" West were quite willing to die for "King and Country" by throwing themselves into meat wave attacks against a slightly different version of European man. It doesn't get more "ethnocentric" than the Somme.

"We refuse to pickle our blasted cabbage!"

The final point of Dutton and Co, that I will address in this article is that "anti-White discrimination supposedly selects for "Whites who are exceptional," as well as "provoking a right-wing backlash."

This is clearly  designed to make Dutton's audience feel good about themselves, while living with the failure that probably predisposed them towards his ideas in the first place. Essentially these "ideas," such as they are, have an emotional appeal, rather than an intellectual one.

Wokeness, as explained above, is a kind of "inclusion" and amelioration of social divisions. Depicting it as "anti-White discrimination" is rather hysterical.

But society is at least partially a zero-sum game. More money, jobs, and promotion for women, gays, and minorities means less for straight White men. When this process goes too far, it does indeed create an occasional backlash, but this just allows the system to be recalibrated and become more efficient. Thus it strengthens it.

There is certainly no effective counter-argument to inclusion going on here, except to moan that it occasionally goes too far. Alas, even the Dissident Right seems reluctant to argue that all the top jobs should go to straight White men. If they were, perhaps I would respect them a little bit more.

All in all, Dutton and Co's ideas smell mainly of "cope" for self-victimising losers who are too cowardly to push outright for the LARPy Nazi eugenics they crave, or engage in the hopeless heroism this would require. Instead they hope to have the last laugh, Alan Partridge style, by a backdoor victory that will never happen.

____________________

Follow @cbliddell

Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Neokrat and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying it here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia).