Eugenics

The norns Urðr, Verðandi, and Skuld
beneath the world tree Yggdrasil (ᚢᚴᛏᚱᛅᛋᛁᛚ)

Eugenics |
Monday – May 11, 2026

Eugenics is on my mind, not because I believe that the concepts of eugenics are any more salient today than say a century ago, but because the question of modifying humanity, read "Transhumanism", is very salient. Of course, you may dismiss the concept of Eugenics as something that once was salient, but the fact is that a lot of people still believe, rather foolishly, in these principles, and yes partly because they are stupid and misinformed but also because most people believe, read "The Case For Education", all sorts of stuff, because when people do not know of the world they are very easily influenced, and in those moments cynicism tends to prevail, particularly in the internet age, which is somewhat of an indication of the mentality of most people, and another argument against democracy of course, but that is a point for another time. I should mention as well that while most people fail to understand the slightest thing about even profane science, they still do tend to hold very strong opinions about all sorts of matters metaphysical as well as profane, and really what matters at the end of the day seems entirely to be up to the course of "free inquiry"; in other words you are better off with a megaphone these days. Who really cares about facts, again profane or metaphysical? Though, the concept of facts is somewhat redundant when it comes to true qualification, but I guess the efficacy of facts has to do with "free inquiry" and "open discourse"; really the object in mind for most of these "debaters" is to convince people, but they far too often fail this and the entire "debate" instead tends to be reduced to rhetoric, which is another indication of how stupid most people indeed are. Are people moved by profane so-called "facts"? Hardly, but they are moved by the soothing rhythms of sentimentalism, even though sentimentalism lacks any real intellectual depth. What I am attempting to explain is this: what most people, the so-called average man, thinks about the matter of Eugenics or anything else really is of no use, since the average man is completely unable to contend with ideas and certainly unable to reach beyond the corporeal, and this is unfortunately why this particular subject, Eugenics, is so infested with all of these opinions, read "What About All the Noise?" that, again, are of no value, and besides people do not form their opinions based on any kind of intellectuality; most people form their opinions based on nonsense, read "What Are Demons?".

    It is easy to understand why so many men fell for the concept of Eugenics and indeed why so many would be susceptible to go down that path again here in the 21st century. After all, would it not be quite good if man could control not only his own destiny, but the destiny of humanity? Indeed, would it not be quite good if man could change the shape of things to come? Yes, men fell for this idea and they will fall for it again. Of course, to the extent that that undesirable traits can be eliminated, read "Left-handedness", Eugenics is quite right, but the approach is evil and quite frankly Satanic for the cause of something such as "Left-handedness" is not yet known to all of these confused profane practitioners of "science", read "Sacred Medicine", but to any man with a his third eye fully open the causes of all of these human disturbances are actually quite clear, read "Global Warming" and "Divine Inspiration", and most of these so-called "traits" would indeed be eliminated if humanity had a proper understanding of the doctrine and the sacred principles of which much could be stated but that is also outside the scope of this post. Besides these points, Eugenics must be understood as another attempt to solidify humanity, because after all what is the difference between complete subjugation to the reign of quantity and Eugenics? How is it righteous to reduce a man to quantifiable traits, and who has the proper authority to decide which of these traits should be allowable and which should be eliminated? No man could possibly claim this kind of dominion over humanity, but again it is somewhat understandable that men should be motivated by the very clear and attractive temptation, read "Addiction", that is complete and totalizing control over his destiny, but again all of these impulses are Satanic. Is life worth living? Seriously, is life worth living? Well, most men would probably assert, in true humanitarian fashion, that indeed each life is inalienable, read "My Views on the 'Rights of Man'", and that the principles of Egalitarianism extends some kind of curtsy to the feeble and weak, read "Is Might Right?", in order to balance the scales of justice. It would, for these people, be an act of justice to lower each man to the level of the most feeble, the most primitive, and the most ignorant, instead of recognizing the Hierarchical structure of life. In other words: if men cannot be perfected, then they are better off feeble. Of course, this is not some kind of rule or law, but it is the consequence of Eugenics because Eugenics and egalitarianism are simply the same thing. Yes, Eugenics and egalitarianism are not the same thing in the exoteric sense, they do adopt quantitatively different aesthetics, but they are symptoms of the same thing: an attempt to essentially solve the human condition, read "My Views on the Hubris of Modern Man".

    Also, I should mention that most profane scientists, today at any rate, recognize, though from a profane point of view, the errors in assuming that man is capable and qualified to decide what "traits" are better than other traits, for really it would seem quite obvious, probably to the layman even, that the principles of Eugenics stand in stark contrast with even the most basic application of Darwinian naturalism, for if every member of a species, if some species could be defined in this example, have the same "traits", then it would be quite right to consider that species completely solidified and each member therein identical with every other member, which would leave that species very vulnerable, since after all the Naturalist argument is that resilience and adaptability are the cornerstones of survival, not uniform sameness. Besides, in what kind species would each member be identical? At that point the term species would fail to apply, and really the closest term, not that such a thing would be possible in the manifested world, would be organism, as in one organism. Indeed, one organism completely solidified beyond the limit of the manifested world, read "The End of History". Lastly, man will never overcome providence – this is quite impossible!

Reginald Drax – May 11, 2026.