As long as it remains possible, ideas are taken to their logical conclusion. In S.M. Stirling’s Domination of the Draka series, we follow Eric von Shrakenberg, a highly self-aware member of the Will to Power-driven slaver society who perceives what he sees as the “evil” of his civilization. However, he can’t help loving his people and fighting for them.

He knows the logic of his society is leading to an inevitable conflict that will either destroy our species through war or so transform it that “humanity” itself will no longer exist. He pursues power to prevent such a future, achieves the highest rank of state, and, in the end, is still the one who unleashes the Final War that leads to the Draka taking control of a devastated planet.

After the victory, the Domination eventually uses genetic engineering to create the Final Society and transform their slaves and themselves into different species, homo servus and the superhuman homo drakenis. While drakenis is aggressive, dominant, and practically immortal, servus is so genetically predisposed to nonaggression and servility that a slave rebellion becomes literally impossible. Humanity all but ceases to exist and barring disputes among themselves, the Draka domination of the planet is assured forever. They have achieved the dream of every ruling class, that of total control.

Not long ago, there were confident predictions among White advocates that technology would break the grip of the media conglomerates that consistently incite hatred against Europeans worldwide. Though the Internet has allowed ideas to be circulated more broadly, it has also led to increased social control.

While some have suggested the Internet has made pro-White activists more passive (posting on message boards instead of marching in the streets), it seems likely that the Internet has just made it easier for dissenters to be policed. If even someone as well-spoken and restrained as Jared Taylor obtains a radio interview on a mainstream station, within moments extremely coordinated and well-funded campaigns will ensure the interview is canceled, the reporters and producers are punished and/or fired, and access is cut off in the future.

It wasn’t long ago that American Renaissance conferences were covered on CSPAN. Today, the only way to get press coverage that doesn’t just consist of reprinting an SPLC press release is to provoke an international incident. The more technology we have to utilize “free speech,” the less actual ability people have to use it without facing severe social (and more importantly) economic punishment. Even as racial realists and Identitarians generate more content and analysis, it remains in an information ghetto, as most people know not even to link to it.

And slowly, methodically, the SPLC and other such groups are moving to cut off the miniscule financial support that sustains what little counter-culture is left. Access to dissident sites and resources will also be increasingly restricted, meaning more time will need to be spent raising money and assembling technical expertise to ensure information remains available. On balance, technology may be more of a curse than a blessing when it comes to dissident movements of the Right.

Orwell suggested that the manipulation of language could render rebellion impossible. Certainly, we know conservatives are doomed to destruction because their political movement lacks even the vocabulary to identify and resist the demographic dispossession of their White base.

But even Newspeak can’t rob someone of their feelings and impulses, what George Orwell called the “mute protest of your bones” that things are supposed to be different. Only biology can do that. And the intersection of biology and technology is where the critical battles of the 21st century will be fought.

A sign of things to come came with the news that Chinese scientists (as one would expect) edited the human genome. Though they were unsuccessful, the precedent is now set, and those who lecture us on morality are already calling for a ban. Pioneering SJW rent seekers have even emerged to secure a living complaining that people should not be allowed to better themselves. One Jessica Cussins of the Center of the Genetics and Society (who is, naturally, published by The Huffington Post) even called for a band with the forced hashtag #ThisIsEugenicAsFuck. (Would make a cool T-shirt).

Some of these objections are obviously well founded, as modifying the human genome in ways that are not fully understood could have disastrous, unforeseen consequences on the future development of the species. But others have their objections rooted in egalitarian morality. David King of Human Genetics in the United Kingdom (also as one would expect), intones, “It is critical that we avoid a eugenic future in which the rich can buy themselves a baby with built-in genetic advantages.”

But that’s going to happen. Indeed, it’s already happening among liberal celebrities and eminently respectable rich people with conventional opinions who nonetheless draw on theories that would fit within the Ahnenerbe when it comes to what they want their own kids to look like. The difference is that this is done quietly, not defended, and not even discussed. If genetic engineering is perfected, whatever society’s views on it, it will be exploited by those same elites who will pass legislation banning its use by everyone else.

Of course, much of society today is built around agitating against those with built-in genetic advantages. And science suggests that genetics and biology don’t just determine intelligence but even personality and other characteristics that comprise a person’s identity. Furthermore, these traits vary among racial groups, as well as among individuals.

Spengler writes in Man and Technics that “technics is not to be understood in terms of the implement. What matters is not how one fashions things, but what one does with them; not the weapon but the battle.” As genetic engineering advances, it will be used not to elevate the human race but to break down those barriers to evolution created by nature, the ultimate fascist. After all, even when commentators recognize the objective reality of ethnocentric bias within our own brains, it is used as a rationale to double down on egalitarian propaganda and increased repression.

Some physicists believe we exist as part of a “multiverse,” a set of possible universes that may extend to infinity. I don’t know if that’s true, but I do know one thing: There is no scenario, even hypothetically, where you could have been born a different race, a different sex, or at a different time. The question, “What if you had been born a different race?” is meaningless and impossible. You can only be what you are.

Again, Spengler,

It is not within our power to choose whether we would like to be sons of an Egyptian peasant of 3000 B.C., of a Persian king, or of a present-day tramp. This destiny is something to which we have to adapt ourselves. It dooms us to certain situations, views, and actions. There are no “men-in-themselves” such as the philosophers talk about, but only men of a time, of a locality, of a race, of a personal cast, who contend in battle with a given world and win through or fail, while the universe around them moves slowly on with a godlike unconcern. This battle is life — life, indeed, in the Nietzschean sense, a grim, pitiless, no-quarter battle of the Will-to-Power. 

Yet this goes behind our heritage, time in history, and place. As anyone knows who has seen a loved one struggle with Alzheimer’s or watched a friend recover from a brain injury, personality, spirituality, and identity are subject to the grim forces of materialism. Something as core to a person’s identity as faith can be changed following trauma. Even pedophilia, all but universally regarded as sick and immoral (well, now anyway, the Left could rehabilitate it) was famously caused by brain tumors in one case, with the subject’s perversity “cured” after surgery.

Sam Harris has used to such findings to argue for a “scientific” approach to crime and morality, explicitly making the case that, given sufficient knowledge, brain scans and other investigative tools could be used to understand (and, it is implied, deconstruct) cultural beliefs that are held to be harmful. His eagerly distributed books and lectures prepare the way for nothing less than unlimited social conditioning through biological restructuring. And, as you might expect, research has already begun trying to deconstruct problematic beliefs like racism. As Steve Sailer jibes, “I suspect there will be big money to be made in developing witch-sniffing gear to suss out racists using brain scans so they can be properly punished.”

More than that, we can already expect efforts at a “cure.” Governments are already urging citizens to “report” racists; if this horrible social disease can be “cured,” who would argue against it? Witness the celebration when researchers found the drug propranolol reduced “implicit bias.” If such a drug was proved more effective and devoid of side effects, there can be little doubt it would eventually be made mandatory or at least necessary to be hired in certain industries or participate in certain areas of society.

This, of course, is pretty close to conspiracy theory type rhetoric. One can already hear the screams of “paranoia” from leftists…the same people who worry about the “troubling implications” of finding a genetic basis for homosexuality, an important subtext in the X-Men movies. For that matter, progressives are already worried about “designer babies” which would be unacceptably smart, attractive, and blond.

The Left requires populations that can be characterized as permanently oppressed and they aren’t going to allow the removal of a constituency. Just as “conversion” therapy is being banned, one can imagine a chemical “cure” for homosexuality would be banned by the same people who would be demanding chemical treatments for racism, sexism, or other unacceptable attitudes. For that matter, people are similarly offended at the idea of cures for autism, Down’s Syndrome, and even deafness. The Left knows such technology can be turned into a social weapon. They just don’t want it used to “eliminate” their client populations.

And the Left would be joined by many conservative Christians. After all, even conservative Catholics are reduced to arguing the Church is still relevant because, in H.W. Crocker III’s phrase, it “is the only substantial institution with a well-articulated philosophy opposed to artificial genetic engineering of humans.” The Left may find such arguments tactically helpful now, but neuroscientists are already talking about religious fundamentalism as an “illness” to be “cured.”

Biology and genetic engineering offers a way to create a permanent (and likely irreversible) structural imbalance between the rulers and the ruled. It is going to be used. The only questions are by whom and against whom?

Our system works best when people are weak. It would be far too destabilizing to global democracy to permit ordinary people to radically increase intelligence, lifespan, aggressiveness, or physical strength. At the same time, because the rich and powerful will want to ensure they can live longer and avoid disease, it is inevitable this research will continue and will eventually be utilized. How will this contradiction play out?

The same way it does now. There may be complaints about the “underprivileged” not getting access to this technology, but this will play out in the same way there complaints about the low status of blacks in the United States. They’ll be the occasional charity or token lifted up, but the end result of these kinds of social programs and moralpreeening will actually increase the gap between the rich and what’s left of the middle class.

Just as progressives fly fuel-guzzling private jets to lecture the world about global warming and whine about racism from their gated estates, so will genetic engineering and other technologies be utilized by the same people who ritualistically defend egalitarianism. This will be coupled by exploiting technology to supervise and control a deliberately weakened and divided population.

To some extent, this has already occurred. One of the unexplored causes of the decline in “masculinity” is the fall in testosterone over the last few decades. As physical strength is generally linked by researchers to the political Right, the end of masculinity naturally benefits progressives. Some may say this is deliberate, but it seems more likely that much of it is being driven by the modern lifestyle. After all, the nation where there seems to be the most anecdotal evidence of male decline is Japan, a still quasi-nationalist country governed by ethnic Japanese, nonetheless populated by an increasing number of “herbivore men” who shun sex, money, and ambition. These sad creatures eerily resemble men who have lost testosterone for medical reasons, and with it, any sense of desire not just for sex, but for accomplishment.

But take it a bit farther. If you can link testosterone to violence (which you can, quite easily), how would anyone in this culture argue against a plan to subtly reduce it? Take another step. How would one argue against “common sense” behavior modification that would eliminate traits like psychopathy or murderous aggression? And how would one prevent that from being expanded to genetically eliminating “racism” or “sexism” without falling back on tired clichés about “freedom?” After all, we’re trying to save lives. Check your neuro-privilege, shitlord.

As conservatives never learn, in a debate between process and morality, morality is going to win. The Left is pushing on an open door.

The world we are moving toward is one where spectacular technology may allow certain people to achieve the power of gods in intelligence, health, strength, and potentially even lifespan. But unlike in Elysium, it won’t be scornful supremacists gazing down at a fallen world from behind their fortified walls, but the flotsam of a degenerate society newly empowered. Christ, our worthless rich celebrities wouldn’t even die anymore.

The Final Society would resemble something far worse than the “dystopia” of the Draka. It would be an entire planet of homo servus. Even those ruling us with terrifying power would somehow manage to remain unedifying. Dissent wouldn’t just be financially ruinous or socially disastrous, but biologically inconceivable. And the worst part is no one would even know about it. It would simply be assumed that this is how things are supposed to be.

“Ideas have consequences,” goes the saying, and “waging the battle of ideas” is what we say we are doing. But ideas are secondary to Identity, as, with some exceptions, most people generally find the ideas to defend what they already believe. What is truly worrying is that Identity is largely an outgrowth of biology. And if that can be controlled by those hostile to us, the struggle is rendered infinitely more difficult.

Francis Galton said that the first country to undertake a dedicated program of eugenics would conquer the world. But the same could be said about a country or party that could impose a program of dysgenics on its opponents. Arguably, we’ve been on the receiving end of a blunt and imprecise program for more than a half-century. Once the technology exists for enemies who desire our extinction to ensure it, there can be no doubt they will use it.