Saturday, March 18, 2017

Jewish eugenics

Sparked by Steve Sailer's recent post, the following graph and table show the percentages of GSS respondents, by religious affiliation, who support eugenics at the practical, functional level.

The term is used accurately in this context. The question reads "Suppose a test shows the baby has a serious genetic defect. Would you (yourself want to/want your partner to) have an abortion if a test shows the baby has a serious genetic defect?"

The survey is not asking about policy prescriptions, questions of legality, or moral attitudes towards the idea of abortion or eugenics--it is directly asking if the respondent if he/she would abort his/her own unborn baby if it testing in the womb found that it had "a serious genetic defect".

Results (n = 4,006; the Jewish sample is only 77):

No affiliation50.8
Other traditions44.3

GSS variables used: GENEABRT(1-2), RELIG(1,2,3,4,5-13)


akarlin said...

menaquinone4's autistic Jewasian elite here we come! ;)

Audacious Epigone said...


Good stuff, thanks.

It looks like higher fertility = less likely to say they'd abort a defective fetus.

I'd abort if the question was posed to me.

But there's no way around the observation, that pokes its head out here, that the future belongs to those who show up.

Feryl said...

The Res16 variable says it all. Jews are for more likely to grow up in big cities and super big cities. What's also illuminating is that, contra 1960's dreams of an integrated society, Protestant Americans (founding stock Brit/Ulster Scots Americans and their closest allies, the Germans, French, and Dutch) continue to dominate the heartland/more rural areas. In fact, the further one is genetically from Protestant NW Euros the more likely one is to be in a big city. I ran a whites only test to make sure that "Catholics" didn't include Hispanics. And sure enough, white Catholics alone are 12% less likely to grow on a farm and about 10% more likely to be from a very big city.

To the extent that this is ever talked about, it's generally only in the most derogatory way (what kind of cretin wants to live in the woods of Maine, Western PA, Central MN, West Virginia, etc.). Prots. are shamed for not being welcoming towards outsiders (a moronic claim, seeing as how their countries have always had the most open immigration policies). There's a contradiction here, where Protestants are supposed to simultaneously be gracious towards outsiders, making accommodations, while invaders are not supposed to forget their roots culture. And god forbid you point out that even "ethnic" whites (read: those without Anglo, Scots, or Teutonic ancestry) continue to be unwilling or unable to adapt to the culture of founding stock whites (whereas Lutherans established industry and small towns/farms alongside Anglo/Scots people in the Midwest, PA, and West, albeit language differences remained a source of contention for several generations).

Non-Euros, as you might imagine, are utterly hostile towards smaller areas. The failure of different ethnics to live in the same neighborhoods really busts apart the intensifying stream of multi-cultural propaganda that we've heard since the Ellis Island days. No matter what Boomers say about the importance of individual character and choice, people overwhelmingly prefer their own kind. Among native born Americans, mobility has actually declined since the mid 80's, suggesting that the 1950's-early 80's were a unique time for (young Boomers in particular) people experimenting with diversity. Keep in mind that moving to the South or wherever from another region, even if you're a white person moving to a white neighborhood, still qualifies as experimenting with diversity since whites differ ethnically from one area to another. But the strain of not being among your own is difficult, which people realized by the later 80's. So these periods are exceptional. Notable that the 70's was the peak of whites fetishizing foreign and non-white things (Bruce Lee, crying Indians, black disco/funk/soul artists were really popular, etc.) Even by the early 80's, MTV avoiding showing too many black artists out of fear that Middle American cable systems would drop the channel. The fact that androgynous and flamboyant Brit new-wavers would set trends for 80's fashion says a lot about how race tends to be the deal breaker above all else. 1980's Alabama was more accepting of Boy George than in your face black worship. After all, Boy George wasn't going to impregnate or rape your daughter. Things did get more PC in the 90's, but even then, fashion and music tended to uniformly put "white" culture in one box and black culture in another, unlike the 50's-70's Silent/Boomer trend of blurring the two cultures.

Feryl said...

The wiki article on German Americans contains little discussion of "negative stereotypes", because Germans have fully assimilated to Anglo/Scots American norms, whereas the Irish-American one gives the impression that Ellis Island peoples and guilt-ridden Prots. haven't gotten over the mean things said about Irish immigrants and urban crowding, alcoholism, violence, and crime.

For the sake of brevity, from here on out I'm going to call Anglo/Scots/Teutonic Americans "blonde-Americans". BTW, according to Agnostic and geo. blondeness rates, blondeness is closely associated with flatter geography/extensive farming and higher trust levels. So if Catholic=dark/red hair, then duh, no wonder they don't farm alongside blondes in America.

The Catholic Ellis Island (and duh, non-white immigrants) peoples were the first earnest attack on our culture in the 1800's/early 1900's.

Audacious Epigone said...

Residence at age 16, % yes to abort for genetic defect:

Non-farm Rural -- 34.2%
Farm -- 39.1%
Small town (LT 50k pop) -- 37.0%
Large town (50k-250k) -- 36.7%
Big city suburbs -- 38.2%
Cities (250k+) -- 46.5%

Joshua Sinistar said...

Let this be a lesson to you. The enemy purposely gives you bad advice. Discrimination for me but not for thee. No apes here, but not enough apes at your daughter's school. Yep.

Two can play this game boys. From now on ideology is mental masturbation. I don't care about the wherefores and whatnots. From now on and ever after:

IS IT GOOD FOR US. Take your ideology and hit the road jackoff. IS IT GOOD FOR WHITES.

There you go.

Anonymous said...


It's harder to apply your line of thinking to white people than it is for other peoples. You're forgetting that whites are an extremely high standard deviation race. Whereas it's easy to figure out what blacks are like, or what their interests are (and you can replace "black" with any other colored group), there is no single white interest, because whites have such a high standard deviation, and are bifurcating.

I'm not going to speculate on what's good for obese low IQ prole whites who live in flyover country. I can only speak to my own experiences and the interests of the people in my own community. So I'm going to talk about high IQ, upper middle class whites who live on the coasts: most SWPLs prefer to live in a town that is at least 60% SWPL but no more than 90% SWPL. We want some kinds of diversity but not others. We don't want blacks, hispanics, australoids, pacific islanders, southeast asians, or prole whites.

Anonymous said...

@Joshua Sinistar

Your comment only makes sense if Jews were advocating against abortion but allowing it for themselves. Afaik Jews are among the most reliable pro-choice groups in the US. So how exactly is this discrimination for me but not for thee?

Audacious Epigone said...

Joshua Sinistar,

Interests over principles. WEIRDOs are the only ones who care about principles. Non-WEIRDOs use that self-imposed handicap against WEIRDOs to devastating effect.


Wrt to eugenics, it's hard not to notice that the most vociferous, emphatic criticisms of eugenics come from elite Jews, yet they don't appear to have any problem acting eugenically when it comes to their own progeny. I think that's what he's getting at.

Audacious Epigone said...

The assertion that high-IQ whites primarily live on the coasts isn't accurate, at least not in higher concentrations than other places in the country. The gradient is more North-South than anything else.

Audacious Epigone said...

See here.

Feryl said...

There's definitely a correlation between white IQ and cost of living. Biggest exceptions: California, home of many ditzy dreamers, bums, cranks, and air head trophy wives who presumably depress the IQ of off-spring. And Texas which is a huge pancake flat state with little scenic beauty to inspire NIMBYISM.

The index ignoring the cost of finding a "good" school for your kids seems like a huge mistake. If it were taken into account, states with large populations of ill-behaved NAMs would get dinged big time (most glaring offender: dystopian California) while the Northern Plains, the Upper Midwest, upper New England, and Appalachia would look better.

BTW, WRT family formation, the GOP should be slapped silly for allowing high levels of immigration which served to not only depress the actual number of whites in the NE and West Coast, but even more crucially, drove up living expenses in states that already are either:

- densely populated, or
- geographically small, or
- have rugged terrain, lots of shoreline, and lots of NIMBYism

Places that used to have a lot of All-American middle class white families now, in terms of white people, instead have empty nest early Boomers clueless about America's demographic ticking time bomb, late Boomers and early X-ers with dependent Millennials some of whom still live at home, and late X-ers/Millennials many of whom couldn't afford to start a family even if they wanted to. One has to wonder if Boomers who either didn't have kids, or had them before the 80's, even understand what white parents now have to face in a country in which, for the last 50 years, the % of whites born has gradually diminished while the cost of almost everything's been jacked up while good jobs have evaporated. It's more and more spendy to find a good place for your kids even though people are increasingly strapped.

Of the 16 most expensive states, 15 (!) of them voted for Hillary. 'Nuff said.

Feryl said...

TX and Cali are very instructive. California does not, I repeat, does not, represent the future. TX, thanks to having about a 3 pt advantage in IQ and culture that does not actively preach against traditional Western Civ., remains much more livable.

As alarming as increasing non-whiteness is, how this is manifested will be different from state to state. Since West coast whites are such gutless liberals and so lightly rooted in any sense of stewardship of wholesome Western culture, their states would already be diseased and threatening even in the absence of demo. changes. Note that the West Coast, in the golden age of white serial killers (the late 60's-80's), produced far more white serial killers than any other region after adjusting for population.

Oregon and Washington have a victim rate above their per capita population, while Cali, at #1 in both victims and population, has 2X more actual victims than New York (the 2nd most populous state). Tellingly, MN, Iowa, and Wisc. are vastly underrepresented, more so if you exclude black killers. I guess it's the Nords minding their own business? Outside of those states, other under-represented states include New Hampshire, Hawaii, and Arizona, in a bit of an upset.

Feryl said...

Sorry, I rushed thru the pop. stats mentioned above. NY hasn't been the 2nd most populous for a while. Still, I'd wager that if CA and NY had equal populations for the last 50 years, CA would have more serial killers. Especially if we just looked at whites, who attain peak nuttiness on the West Coast. I heard a special FX guy say that after he had a kid, he moved back to his home state of Ohio. Didn't really explain why in great detail, but then again, why does Corey Feldman still avoid naming names?

I've heard stories from late Boomers/X-ers who grew up on the West Coast. About encountering kittie porn shoots (!) unexpectedly out in the woods and mountains.

WeAreTheWest said...

Weapons grade shiv for cucked Evangelicals. Will use. Thanks!

Anonymous said...


what Boomers understand is what Big Media shows (+ schoolbooks/teachers) them.
It's offered in different packaging for people of different curiosity, intelligence, education, character and political bias. The substance is identical from package to package, of course.

You look into one of those boxes, and can see who is actually governing, and what future their envision for the governed.

Leviathan and its Enemies by Francis is an excellent book if you look for a complete explanation.
The first luxury high-intelligence white people want, soon as they can afford it, is signalling. "Altruistic punishment," some have called it.

Audacious Epigone said...


Tellingly, MN, Iowa, and Wisc. are vastly underrepresented, more so if you exclude black killers.

The movie Fargo was a hit job on stolid upper Midwestern Americans of German descent.

Feryl said...

BTW, the serial killing stats are another good measure of how in the US, the further North and East you go the "better" the white people are. Also interesting that such wonderful whites attract such awful blacks. Presumably if you deleted Ellis Island white people from the Northeast, we'd see characteristics of whites and blacks closer to the Upper Midwest.

The Ulster Scots whites of the South/Appalachia/Lower Midwest will never either be as well behaved as the Upper Midwest or create the generous social welfare policies and cultural climate that attracts the worst blacks.

Feryl said...

WRT Fargo, the Cohen bros grew up in a heavily Jewish Twin Cities suburb. As you might imagine, non-founding stock Americans from the urban Midwest often disdain the hinterlands (they once called central-northern MN "Siberia with family restaurants").

Audacious Epigone said...


The Ulster Scots whites of the South/Appalachia/Lower Midwest will never either be as well behaved as the Upper Midwest or create the generous social welfare policies and cultural climate that attracts the worst blacks.

Similar to the Western/Eastern European divide in many ways.

Joseph said...

OTOH, people with genetic defects rarely have children, so the abortions will have no effect on the gene pool.

Unknown said...

I don't see a problem with this. Serious genetic defects are a drain on everyone, and a child doesn't deserve to live a short life without proper interaction with their world. Catholics in general have a strange obsession with Down Syndrome children, and actually celebrate when they give birth to them.

Perhaps Jews may be called out as hypocrites for their stances on eugenics, but Catholics and some Christians should end their celebration of giving birth to children with known chromosomal disorders. I can't fault the Jews on their choices on this matter.

Legate of Judea said...

Joseph - the problem is that many genetic diseases are recessive. You need to get two copies of the gene to have the disease, if you have only one copy you are just a carrier. Jews are more likely than the general population to have conditions where we appear normal, but have a higher likelihood of having a child with a genetic disease.

Unknown - I'm not seeing the any hypocrisy. Jews in the survey are supporting abortion to prevent children from being born with genetic diseases. That is not typically what people mean when they say eugenics, although I suppose if you were aborting a fetus that was also a carrier for a gene, that might be considered eugenics. If we had some kind of eugenic motivation, you would expect to see Jews have replacement level fertility or above. The motivation is just to prevent suffering