Thread: Eugenics: Why are "racist" white countries so much richer?

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

No, I am proud of my heritage.

but we should also be proud of our future Asian overlords al hail the master race of the east

Originally Posted by stig42

but we should also be proud of our future Asian overlords al hail the master race of the east

Hitler didn't call the Japanese the "Aryans of the East" for nothin!

Hitler was clearly a buffoon the Germans were at best the Japanese of the west silly Hitler but he was only white so i can’t be too hard on him

Sweden is regarded as having one of the world's highest standards of living. How did they accomplish that?

Sweden's relationship with forced sterilization goes way back. In 1997 journalist Maciej Zaremba, a reporter for Dagens Nyheter, discovered that over 60,000 people between 1935 and 1976 were sterilized against their will, including "mixed race individuals, single mothers with many children, deviants, Gypsies, and other vagabonds."

Then, like now, the less desirable groups had to sacrifice their reproductive freedom in exchange for government handouts. According to an article in the Columbia Journalism Review about Zaremba's investigation: "The person concerned was either declared 'of unsound mind' or was subjected to strong pressure. Sign this or we'll take the children, sign this or there'll be no social benefit, no flat, no leave… and so on. Sweden went furthest in the way of legalized coercion."

This sounds pretty similar to the arguments used by Nazis in Nazi Germany...

It's called Social Darwinism, and it was definitely disproved when we started to map the human genome.

The richest country on earth, the USA, never had any eugenics policy. Comparing European or colonial countries to 3rd world countries is stupid. You should compare them with similar countries, which had no eugenics policies, and then you see that the basis of the OP is non-existent.

Early Australian's misguided dabblings in eugenics are a stain on our history, and were of course, like all such policies, ultimately a complete failure that achieved nothing.

William Shockley, the man who also coincidentally invented the transistor, argued that the higher rate of reproduction among the less intelligent was having a dysgenic effect, and that a drop in average intelligence would ultimately lead to a decline in civilization. Shockley advocated that the scientific community should seriously investigate questions of heredity, intelligence, and demographic trends, and suggest policy changes if he was proven right. He proposed that individuals with IQs below 100 be paid to undergo voluntary sterilization.

Most striking, William Shockley, later in his life, described his work into the genetic future of the human species as "the most important work of his career"! This from a man that had already invented the transistor, had been appointed Director of the Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory at Beckman Instruments, and had been awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. Shockley Semiconductor and the companies formed by Shockley's former employees would go on to form the nucleus of what became Silicon Valley, leading to the world-wide computer revolution.

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

The richest country on earth, the USA, never had any eugenics policy.

Obviously you do not know your history. Several of the states had eugenic policies.

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

Early Australian's misguided dabblings in eugenics are a stain on our history, and were of course, like all such policies, ultimately a complete failure that achieved nothing.

How do you know? Perhaps it made some small but significant contribution to the country's success.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

Obviously you do not know your history. Several of the states had eugenic policies.

It is not "my history", I am not American. And I was referring to racial eugenics, which is what is mentioned in the OP. I don't believe the USA has ever had such a policy, but by all means feel free to provide evidence that they have.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

How do you know? Perhaps it made some small but significant contribution to the country's success.

Is this a serious question?

It's interesting how the vulgar science of neo-Nazi mythmakers crumbles at the most superficial examination.

The modern world was founded by Britain, probably the world's most ethically diverse nation for its time, full of jutes, angles, saxons, italians, africans, normans, celts, picts, scots, vikings and jews in the eighteenth century and further racially enriched thereafter. Pax Brittanica, or the system of global governance that gave the world English as its international language, and liberal capitalism as its dominant political system, passed to Pax Americana. This was even more ethnically diverse than Britain, where global dominance, wealth and technology was driven by a "mongrel nation" that was so ethically diverse that the Nazis hated it with a vengeance.

It is certainly true that British and American intercation with new races has involved much bloodshed, tyranny and oppression. But it is equally true that it has been the thrilling opening of their societies and economies to these different racial types that has enabled them to flourish like no other. Ultimately Britain and the US triumphed over the monoracial hegemonies of Germany and Japan. Progress has been spurred on sharply by racial diversity and will continue to be so. This makes sense, because the de-stabilizing exposure of one culture to another shakes up the pot and innovation will inevitably emerge. The individuals who have led this have invariably been immigrants as well.

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

If Eugenics do not matter, as most politicians and ivory tower academics would have you believe, why are the countries that historically employed Eugenic policies (Germany, Canada, Australia, etc.) so much better off than countries where Eugenic policies were never in place (Mexico, Brazil, the Caribbean, etc.)?

>>>

Could it be that centuries of smart, scientific breeding, as opposed to the wanton race-mixing festivals of the lower latitudes, gave certain European and North Asian peoples genetic advantages that aided in the spreading of their respective civilizations?

>>>

Look at how rich the non race-mixing Anglosphere is. Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and America were all very proactive in promoting white immigration while at the same time banning all miscegenation.

Now, compare this to the Hispanosphere: Mexico, Brazil, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Bolivia, Peru, etc.


Ah, the good old days...

Tell me about the eugenics policies of Australia.