[Bret L]

Genetic Morality


"Has there ever been a book with this title?

According to all the “moral” teachers, there is no such thing as
genetic morality.

There is a lot of disagreement on how much human life is influenced by
our genes. Right after World War II the dream world of social science
was science. That is, all human life was entirely a product of
environment.

Hitler was for heredity so the World War II generation went to
colleges that taught that the future was entirely a product of
education, sociology, political science, historical determinism, in
other words the social sciences.

Thirty years ago I pointed this out in detail in my first book in my
own name.

Environment IS social science. Leaving heredity and environment to
social scientists is exactly like leaving the price of steel up to the
Steel Trust. So the Weakest Generation, fresh from obedience training,
was trained that heredity was nothing.

To every church that I am aware of, the term “genetic morality” is an
oxymoron. If you are intelligent, you should spend your time on
theology, not on having or raising children.

Chilren are a byproduct. You are not responsible for helping better
people pass their GENES on, genes future generations will desperately
need.

The first rule of post-World War II thinking is that there is no moral
dimension whatsoever to genetics.

The discussion begins and ends with “some Hitlerites would say one
should have BETTER children, WHATEVER “BETTER” Means.”

This is supposed to get rid of the whole argument and get us back to
social programs and adopting the third world into the United States.

But when it comes to social science, there is never the slightest
doubt as to what “better” means.

Look at the person who tells you, “Looks don’t matter.” How much do
their clothes cost? Are they only wearing a minimum regardless of
fashion or how the clothes look. I had a woman once tell me looks
don’t matter but she had to end the conversation because she had an
appointment at the beauty salon.

You see, the social scientists HAS to know what is “better” or he will
not be able to make a living teaching students how they can achieve
that “better” by putting money into social programs.

I am sure the lady who running the beauty salon will tell you that
looks don’t matter. I am sure the high-end clothing store owners are
putting money into programs based on the premise that there is no such
thing as “better” looking children.

O’Reilly demands that test scores and not race should be the
determinant of who gets into school. But, since his degree is in
education, he will also tell you that no child is innately smarter
than any other child.

He SAYS that!

It isn’t true.

I am not speaking of theory here. I am speaking of MORALITY.

My morality is still Odinist. That which is not true is evil.

So Bob has a genetic morality.

That is why I object so strongly to the word “aristocracy” as used
today. Aristocracy means rule by the best. It has nothing to do with
naciocracy, which is rule by birth.

Even social scientists now have to admit that heredity is important.
Anything that is important to humanity has a MORAL dimension.

We are perfectly willing to restrict any human freedom to improve
human beings by ENVIRONMENTAL means.

Except for libertarians. They just say they have no responsibility for
anything.

I do not respect what passes for morality today because it has one
blind eye. Everyone except extreme libertarians agree that businessmen
do not have the right to do anything they want to to increase profits
and they are perfectly willing to back the restrictions that are
needed by force.

But anyone who is too irresponsible or unintelligent to keep down
their number of children has a right to dump them on the rest of us.
If countries can’t control their population, they have every right to
dump them into vacant space left by white people.

But the critical point is NOT that this is not RIGHT. The point here
is one no conservative and very few others have the guts to make.

The critical point is that this is IMMORAL.

No one dares to face down the screaming priest or preacher with this
IMMORALITY.

If you do not have a genetic morality, you are an immoral person.

You can whip yourself in a Trappist Monastery or hold revivals or hold
a professorship in Ethics at Harvard University. But you an immoral
person if you do not have a clear-cut GENETIC morality.

On Judgment Day, I doubt seriously whether you will only be asked
about your morality on one aspect of life and never questioned on the
other.

The hungry will have to be fed in future generations. The naked will
have to be clothed in the future. Only a genetically healthy society
can do that. You can sacrifice and whip your skin off in this
generation, but it won’t do the future any good.

All they will have is their genes.

There are only two excuses for ignoring a genetic morality:

1) The future won’t happen or

2) Genes really don’t matter.

Joe, I don’t think ANYBODY believes either of those things except
those who expect Judgment Day in the near future.

But the environmentalists, whose whole program is based on the future,
have no genetic morality at all.

This is not just wrong. It is immoral.

All the churches disagree. But they will not avoid being judged on the
Golden Rule.

You can go to Hell straight through the church door.

All the philosophies and pretences at Ethics in the world and all the
incantations of “HITLER!” cannot protect you from your moral
obligation in this world or in the next."


http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2...ic-morality-3/