Saturday, January 04, 2014

Negro Genocide? Childress thinks so.

I write this in response to Rev. Clenard Childress' complaint about Obamacare causing Negro Genocide through the eugenics of abortion.

Eugenics programs provided humane methods of preventing the stupid and irresponsible from infecting innocent babies with the genetic and cultural curses, respectively, of stupidity and irresponsibility. Society generally saw such infections as crimes against humanity.

About half of American Negroes haven't the cognitive ability to graduate from high school, a condition that afflicts less than 17% of the Caucasians of the land.  Because of that, America has a disproportionate percentage of Negroes on the welfare roles, and of course, the productive people of the land pay the tab, or government imposes the debt on future Americans by simply printing up the the welfare money.

Obviously, a benign eugenics program would reduce the percentage of Negroes disproportionately in the US population because it would prevent the births of a higher percentage of Negroes than of Caucasians, because a higher percentage of prospective Negro parents suffer from either stupidity or irresponsibility.  Don't shoot me for saying that.  I'm just the messenger with a message of reality.*

*    "The Bell Curve (1994) stated that the average IQ of African Americans was 85, Latinos 89, whites 103, East Asians 106, and Ashkenazi Jews 113. Asians score relatively higher on visuospatial than on verbal subtests. The few Amerindian populations who have been systematically tested, including Arctic Natives, tend to score worse on average than white populations but better on average than black populations."

Some might wrongly spin such benign eugenics program as genocide, but that would seriously lack accuracy.   Genocide means KILLING  members of a gene group.  It does not mean PREVENTING THE UNWISE BIRTHS of members of that group.  Detractors of eugenics programs neglect to mention that the programs generally cut across all racial groups, affecting each in proportion to its percentage of stupid and irresponsible members of society.

Such programs underpin no more evil intents than do programs to cultivate strains of cotton that boll weevils don't want to eat.  Human eugenics programs provide similar benefits.  They can diminish the number of offspring of stupid and irresponsible parents of all racial groups.  Because stupidity and irresponsibility have both genetic and cultural causes, preventing the birth stupid children to stupid parents will reduce the number of stupid parents who would, unrestrained, procreate stupid children in the future.  That will do future America a lot of good because it will result in fewer people on welfare roles, and fewer criminals who become criminals because their stupidity or irresponsibility makes it impossible for them otherwise to compete effectively against smarter people.  In other words, the stupid and irresponsible often, if not generally, resort to crime and welfare abuse to get by.

So, as for eugenics programs, I'm all for them, so long as they eliminate the grossly degenerate and inferior from society and from the US gene pool.

America's selfish "liberals" seem to share my view, but for a different reason and in a different way.  They do anything and everything to ensure that irresponsible women who get pregnant by accident have the right to abort their babies.  They thereby rabidly support unsystematic quasi-eugenics through slaughter of the unborn.  Their sentiment guarantees that society will tolerate the extermination of many of the fetuses of such irresponsible, often child, females. They think neither society nor the baby nor the sire, but only the mother, should have any say in the matter.  Maybe they are wrong for the right reason, and vice versa.

Apparently Reverend Clenard Childress doesn't see it the way I see it. On his site he denounces Obamacare because it encourages Negro abortions.  He considers abortions a form of genocide and spins it as eugenics.  And because a disproportionate number of Negroes opt to abort their fetuses, he doesn't like it.  He worries that the Negro race will disappear or diminish into insignificance because of it. 

Meanwhile, an enormous number of Caucasians fear America's becoming swamped by Negroes and Mexicans and other non-Causian Hispanics until Caucasians become a minority race and suffer a backlash of discrimination that turns former Caucasian discrimination against Negroes and non-Causian Hispanics into a hiney-pat by comparison.  Many Caucasians wish the Negro race would diminish in number, toward or into insignificance.  And vice versa.  Stop and consider why.  Just look at the impact of America's largest racial groups on each other in the past 100 years. Notice how it has changed for better and worse.  Then YOU devise solutions for the corresponding problems.  Negro abortions might seem bad, but I consider them vastly preferable to the alternative.  And so would Rev Childress if he thought about it for long.

I personally believe strongly in biodiversity.  But I don't embrace it to the extent of wishing to strengthen clearly inferior genetic strains of humans.  Of all the human characteristics that provide substantive value to civilization, none provides as much value as intelligence.  And so I believe that should become the number one factor in determining whether a person' procreative prerogative should become a candidate for eugenic control.  Other factors include susceptibility to debilitating diseases, serious chemical imbalance, brain dysfunction, and the like.  I believe scientists should work to eliminate those bad characteristics from the human genome while improving average intelligence, ability to learn and apply knowledge, and factors that encourage greater degrees of individual responsibility.

Unlike Rev Childress, and his worry that Obamacare exterminates Negroes through quick and easy abortions of irresponsible women's fetuses, I don't fear that my personal gene-type will disappear because of eugenics programs.  I definitely could have better genetic characteristics.

This debate reminds me of a man's resistance to his wife's control.  A philosopher once tried to make the point that "there's good control and no control."  So what if my wife seems bossy?  What do I care.  If she tries to boss me and I consider the point, I usually agree with her because she has a lot of common sense and pays attention to many things I ignore.  And I figure she just wants me to become perfect.  If her bossing me results in a more nearly perfect ME, then I'm all for it.

In other words, my wife's efforts to control me like she does other influences in her environment often makes good sense and relieves me of many concerns.  Over the years I have calibrated her.  And I know that she does a pretty good job.  She might make a mistake now and then, but I'm her safety net after all, so I generally don't buck against her efforts to run an efficient household. 

To put it another way, I wear the pants in our family... as soon as she takes them off.

People worry too much about possible negative consequences of eugenics programs.  I consider them essentially good for society and for innocent children for a variety of reasons.  I believe the states should implement them by requiring sterilization of all welfare recipients until 5 years of self-sufficiency.  Yes, fewer Negroes will experience birth, and so will fewer Caucasians, Mexicans, and Heinz-fifty-sevens.  But the world will become a better place with far less poverty, crime, and welfare abuse.

And that will be a good thing.

We'll always fall short of perfection, but I see nothing wrong with becoming as perfect as possible, and doing the same with our gene pool.


Bob Hurt         Blog 1 2 3   f  t  
2460 Persian Drive #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
Email; Call: (727) 669-5511
Law Studies: 
Donate   Subscribe
Learn to Litigate with 


No comments: