Obama’s egalitarian eugenics program

Ed H. writes:

It occurs to me that the Chuck Hagel appointment was made in pursuance of what I will call the “Biden Plan of Dystopic Eugenics.” Have you noticed that Obama seems to search out and elevate white men on the basis of their low intelligence and dullness? Obama surrounds himself with dedicated liberals, and liberalism is an ideology that precludes inquisitive or moral thinking, but there seems to be something more at work here.

If the goal is to achieve universal equality between the races there are two ways to do it. Find and elevate exceptional blacks, and make them a model for other blacks, a path that has largely failed. Or find and promote whites of exceptional dullness, lavishing them with power, praise, money, and open careers that reward sub-mediocrity. This is a much more promising means to transform America. The supply of dull, stupid, careerist whites is much larger than the supply of talented blacks. So what we have is a policy of political eugenics, aimed at achieving an egalitarian and dyfunctional state and society. But it has a flaw. The best plans still rely on some discipline and some presence of mind, and stupid people fail even at that.

LA replies:

First, Ed’s overall point is absolutely correct. You cannot achieve equality between the races by raising the level of blacks, you can only do it by lowering the level of whites, and that is what liberalism has been doing in a multitude of ways for the last four decades.

Second, not only is Hagel remarkably dull, but Obama has picked for Secretary of State John Kerry who is equally dull, though he was seen as superior to Susan Rice.

Finally, Ed had written “open careers that reward mediocrity.” I changed that to “sub-mediocrity.” The original meaning of mediocre is average or ordinary. The more recent meaning is second rate. However, when people use mediocre, what they really mean is worse than average, worse than second rate; they mean poor, of low quality. But that is not the correct dictionary meaning of the word. Since Hagel is certainly worse than average or second rate, I call him sub-mediocre.

- end of initial entry -

Gintas writes:

America is a Procrustean state, except we’ve given up on forcing equality by stretching out blacks some and cutting down whites some; now we only cut down whites, as much as needed.

Gintas writes:

I wouldn’t say it is Obama’s program, but America’s program, since America believes in Equality, Equality, Equality (contra the French, who believe in Liberty, Equality, Fraternity).

Kurt Vonnegut wrote a short story in 1961, “Harrison Bergeron,” a dystopia of full equality. As Wikipedia describes it:

It is the year 2081. Because of Amendments to the Constitution, every American is fully equal, meaning that no one is smarter, better-looking, stronger, or faster than anyone else. The Handicapper General and a team of agents ensure that the laws of equality are enforced. The government forces citizens to wear “handicaps” (a mask if they are too handsome or beautiful, earphones with deafening radio signals to make intelligent people unable to concentrate and form thoughts, and heavy weights to slow down those who are too strong or fast).

Richard S. writes:

And yet the apparently mediocre Obama and his team of dullards, as Ed H. would term them, are delivering the GOP humiliating defeats that the ultra-smart Clintons and their all-star advisors and sycophants couldn’t have dreamed of. All with one hand (the House) tied behind his back. At this point in his presidency, Clinton was whimpering, barely hanging on to power, and had given up all his major legislative dreams (and had been strong-armed into enacting welfare reform). But Obama has rammed through several nation-changing pieces of legislation and has his foes in complete disarray. And that was just the stuff he got done when he had to worry about re-election.

This reminds me of all the descriptions of Obama and his team as incompetent. It would ring more true if he weren’t consistently running rings around his opponents. The image this conjures is of the GOP on the ropes, barely able to stand, and weakly shouting “incompetent!” before going down for the final count.

You may not like what Obama does, but he does it very well.

LA replies:

Yes. I myself have often made the same argument as you—how could Obama be so incompetent, as the Republicans/conservatives were always obsessing that he was, given his remarkable, revolutionary successes?

However, Ed did not say that Obama is incompetent; he said Obama appoints dull white men to high positions.

Also, maybe it’s the difference between domestic and foreign policy. His nation-changing thrust is in domestic policy. In foreign policy, it’s more a matter that he doesn’t give a damn.

Also, there is a combination of actively seeking to ruin America, and lazily letting America be ruined. Revolutionary destructiveness on one hand, and simple incompetence on the other, can be made to cooperate toward the same end.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 08, 2013 11:26 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):