I just finished reading Eugenics: A Very Short Introduction on the history of eugenics. The surprising thing I learned is that eugenics was basically a progressive movement which was opposed by religious conservatives. But after thinking about what progressive and conservative really mean, this now makes sense to me.
Eugenics began with Francis Galton. His view seems quite reasonable, focusing on breeding better people. Eugenics quickly became politically popular and progressives pushed government eugenics programs that included compulsory sterilization, racial planning, pushing contraception, and pushing feminism (considered to be eugenic). Of course this contrasts with the current leftist position against eugenics, but this raises the fundamental question of what it really means to be progressive/leftist versus conservative/rightist.
I think the core difference between progressives and conservatives isn't so much their positions on specific issues as it is their general approach to thinking about issues. Progressives have infinite faith in human reason, so they have no problem using government programs and government coercion to pursue their "logical" goals. Progressives tend to be reductionist and will reduce an issue to a set of causes and then act on those perceived causes. In effect, progressives want Man to play God and to micromanage everything. In contrast, conservatives are more humble and more skeptical about human reason. Conservatives would rather trust what has proven to be true over time, and would rather trust God or the forces of nature than trust human management.
Now let's apply this to eugenics. Suppose you wanted to organize a running team. How do you select members? The progressive would study running in detail and find everything that may cause good runners, or at least what correlates with good runners. They may notice, for example, that blacks are faster on average than whites, so they would select blacks. They may look for genes that are found in fast runners and select people with these genes. All this fits the progressive approach that I just described. How would a conservative select team members? A true conservative would just time candidates and select the fastest ones without worrying about any other factors. The factors that cause fast runners can be left to God or nature, the conservative doesn't care and just wants fast runners. Jesus well expressed this conservative view in Matthew 7:16-20.
We can take this one step further and ask how can one breed a population of fast runners. The answers would again be like what I just described, with progressives using complex reductionist approaches, while conservatives would just add fast runners to the breeding group, and remove slow runners.
I am purely a conservative and I detest the progressive approach to everything. The general view on eugenics is that the Nazis ruined the reputation of eugenics and this is why it lost favor. But my view is that the progressives had already ruined eugenics before the Nazis and that the conservative opposition (especially Catholic opposition) to eugenics was based on eugenicists playing God. I don't think these conservatives opposed animal breeding and I don't think they would have opposed a conservative form of eugenics which would be similar to animal breeding.
My Arkian Ethnicity idea is essentially an intentional eugenic ethnicity. Its eugenic methods are extremely conservative, more conservative than any other eugenic proposal that I have seen. These methods involve no coercion and try to avoid reductionism as much as possible. One example of avoiding reductionism is not using IQ tests for selection. IQ was very popular among eugenicists but is flawed exactly because it only tests one factor. Real natural selection always tests whether a combination of factors can produce the desired result. This why the Arkian approach uses Go as a test instead of IQ, because Go tests for intelligence and many other talents in combination to judge how mentally effective a person is overall. The other two selection criteria test for religiousness and ethnocentrism which are critical factors for members of such a group. Of course, like the runners example above, the Arkian approach ignores race and individual genes.
I wish had a time machine so that I could be back in time to before humanity became retarded and propose the Arkian idea to people with enough intelligence to understand it. In today's idiocracy, explaining the Arkian approach is challenging to say the least. Those few people left who support eugenics tend to focus on genetic engineering or race, neither of which will work. Today's conservatives tend to accept modern idiocracy as the will of God, and they tend to be idiots themselves. The only good news is that the Arkian idea would only need a very few people to work, and this would produce a eugenic group that could escape idiocracy.
Richard Lynn doesn't say anything that isn't covered in the intro of the movie Idiocracy. On the other hand:
R.C. Christian wrote
Your method is basically what everyone always does: individuals select based on their own preferences.
Not true. My method creates a separate gene pool of non-morons. Individuals who want their genes to be in that gene pool must select based on its rules. If they select to mate with a moron, then their children probably won't remain in the Arkian gene pool.
The problem isn't just that idiots breed faster, but also that they dilute the genes of non-idiots. This is what the Arkian ethnicity prevents. As long as intelligent people can survive in a distinct gene pool, the dysgenic problem will eventually self-correct. When society collapses, natural selection will reassert itself and the idiots will die off. The low reproduction rate of intelligent people will also self-correct in a distinct gene pool since this will naturally be selected against.
Morons keep churning out kids. People who mate with morons by their own choice can't be called non-moronic. Intelligent people are already hunting for mates similar enough to them, but it's getting increasingly harder in a population with fast breeding morons. The very problem is that your community has a hard time finding members. Offering certain medication against a disease that only morons will take, then blaming the negative results on the disease seems like a well thought out strategy.
In the West, intelligent moral men are all incel. So they will tend to accept any woman who isn't a total bitch. This is dysgenic. One of the things that I can do for Arkian men is to help them find reasonably intelligent wives abroad. If Arkians grow to a reasonable number, then internal marriages will help preserve good genes.
While I hope that the covid vaccine kills enough of the morons who take it to have a significant eugenic effect, the number of deaths currently isn't nearly high enough to make much of a difference.
I think a rapid mass extinction would look very suspicious even with the pandemic-narrative. It's probably more about infertility then killing them, at least in the case of relatively healthier and younger morons.