“The mass of ignorant Negroes still breed carelessly and disastrously, so that the increase among Negroes, even more than the increase among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear their children properly.”
NAACP founder W.E.B. Dubois.
The question being begged here is why. What inner force compels this http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=4376 the damage their behavior causes, why don’t they change? It’s time to ask whether they can, given the current approaches. Perhaps Dubois had a point after all.
Do “racist” whites have a vested interest in black underachievement? It is a horrible accusation, and with Kinists certainly untrue in the extreme. But what procrustean method has not yet been tried to “make them fit?” Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that culture is more than intelligence. The eugenic sentiments of Dubois cannot be discussed in polite circles because it underscores some impolite realities: the achievement gap is at least partly genetically based and selectivity in breeding is something that the black community apparently has either no interest in promoting or they see them as contrary to their interests (whether due to powerful “influences” from black leaders or what have you). By contrast, the “negative eugenics” of selectivity in mating is something reflexively practiced among the Caucasian and Oriental peoples. There appears to be irresistible power in diminished expectations, but the real tragedy is that no one can talk about why black men abandon their offspring at a rate approaching 70% and what can be done about it, that is, without fear of reprisal, unless the answer is “programs,” meaning white money. And the reprisals are terrifying. Reductio ad eugenics is one of the WMD’s of public discourse. It can be and often is career-shattering, specially when leveled at whites. Nevertheless, much the same has been uttered by figures ranging from Louis Farrakhan to Bill Cosby. But who among mainstream blacks is listening? One thing is certain, greater selectivity among black females in their choice of partners couldn’t hurt. But a related question is this: where is the black church in promoting these values, and what is it about the black church that renders it so ineffective at doing what churches are supposed to do, that is, having a morally salutary effect on their communities? What, we might legitimately inquire, is being http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=3888 in black churches? Kinists are the only Christian sect speaking openly about these issues, but many obstacles lie in their path, not the least of which is the stigma surrounding the topic of genetics itself, as it reveals that more and more things that make us unique are at least partially hard-wired in the genes at conception. Beyond the ordinary stigma, there is especial opprobrium aimed at Christians who talk about the relationship between biology and behavior. A short list of things Christians are not supposed to talk about: physical anthropology (that unfortunate science), behavorial genetics, psychometrics, or sociobiology. But their mundane corollaries are affirmative action, immigration, and even tax cuts. Things shouted down by the left as tantamount to [ahem eugenics, or given the more alarming nom de scare of “ethnic cleansing” which is the precise reverse of what is actually occurring, namely ethnic cleansing of whites and “whiteness.” Science is beginning to reveal that far from being some rhetorical abstraction, there is real substance behind the notions of “blackness” and “whiteness.”
Christians have plead for centuries that all men are equal, but what was meant by that statement a hundred years ago is vastly different than what is meant by it now. Equality before God and equality before the law are vastly different matters than equality of culture, of potential, or fitness or of accomplishment. Historically, the church has always distinguished between these. In the first century AD, the negative eugenics of arranged marriage operated within the context of spiritual “equality,” and the principal of equal yoking of Christian with Christian. A spiritual eugenics, perhaps? Genetics, psychometry, physical anthropology are each revealing our important differences in distinct ways. Those differences are far from being limited to intelligence. Kinists are often accused of a latent Darwinism, but this could not be farther from the truth. Indeed, Kinists would believe exactly as they do whether there were genetic differences between ethnicities or not. Cultural differences created by centuries of behavioral patterns, collective memory engendered by folkways, these alone would be enough to recommend separation to us. Not separation from hatred, but from love; not separation with dependence, but separation leading the way to a new dignity for all peoples alike. It’s time that blacks, whites, orientals, and Hispanics went their separate ways to the mutual benefit and appreciation of each. We can only hope that the reflexive and common sense negative eugenics of selectivity and fidelity will find its way into wide practice in the black community.
http://www.kinism.net/index.php/weblog/more/web_dubois_on_negro_fecundity/