Globalists have used social engineering to procure power and profits in the Western world. Social engineering can be described as psychological persuasion with rewards and repercussions. It’s a form of manipulation that’s based on deception, and gift wrapped as propaganda. Propaganda always has a target audience. For the globalists, it’s primarily White people.
Oddly enough, these self-identified haters of hate, who love White-shaming, proudly march under their inclusive banner of tolerance. For them, progress means a world with White people at the back of the line. And for some, including the UMass professor, it even means a world without White people.

If you are a white male, you don’t deserve to live. You are a cancer, you’re a disease, white males have never contributed anything positive to the world! They only murder, exploit and oppress non-whites! At least a White woman are having sex with Black men and making mulatto babies. But White men don’t seem attracted to Black women. They’re good for nothing.

Unlike their nonsensical memes, a world with fewer White people isn’t just an anti-White’s fantasy. It’s an observable phenomenon. The percentage of the world’s White population will reach single digits by 2060, down from almost 30% in 1950:

As a percentage of world inhabitants, the white population will plummet to a single digit (9.76%) by 2060 from a high-water mark of 27.98% in 1950.

But as the globalist’s attempt to socially engineer White Genocide, scientists are busy perfecting genetic engineering, which could ironically reverse the rapid decline of the world’s White population:

Humanity was reluctantly dragged into a new era this week.

In a video posted on YouTube, Chinese scientist He Jiankui announced to the world that he successfully used the gene-editing tool CRISPR-Cas9 to modify the DNA of two embryos before birth, essentially creating the world’s first genetically modified humans.
The news, delivered on the eve of a high-profile scientific meeting in Hong Kong on human gene editing, left the science community in shock. “I see it as one of those moments that happens once every few decades,” said William Hurlbut, Senior Research Scholar at Stanford University Medical Center’s Department of Neurobiology. “Where someone does something that so dramatically changes the landscape that the world will never be the same again.”

Gene-editing via technology like CRISPR is going to alter humanity as we know it. Just as evolution dethroned creation, biotechnology will ultimately supplant evolution. And we aren’t just talking about the elimination of cancer, or immunity to the flu. This technology will not only change how we view race, but how we view the human race. At some point there will likely be a GMO race of humans that will be superior in many ways to non-GMO humans.

If the non-White world is able to affordably choose the genetics of their children, how many would opt for White features? (Regardless of what People magazine says, blond hair, blue eyes and pale skin is the gold standard of beauty.) And even though virtue-signaling actors/actresses would probably still adopt Africans to pose with on the cover of magazines, many people, including the wealthy and powerful, would opt for genetically modified children who look White.

It’s possible to foresee a genesis generation of elite designer GMO babies. They’ll have some variance of White features, disease immunity, excellent athletic ability, chiseled physical attributes, charming personalities, high IQs and lifelong 20/20 vision (unless myopia is an inevitable genetic by-product of high IQ).

Of course, such individuals would not really be White. If one were to include them in a population genetic study, they would inevitably group with their racial/ethnic group that their parents came from because the vast majority of their autosomes would not be manipulated and would remain typical of other members of their parents genetic background. It would be an illusory version of Whiteness.

Consider this: Because of the inevitable role of traits like IQ, conscientiousness, and good looks in upward mobility, these children will be prone to attaining and remaining among the elite. How will this generation of GMO elites influence the world? Well, it depends on how they are programmed.

What if, besides traits like IQ and conscientiousness, these people were programmed for sociopathy — a trait that makes people more likely to exploit others and certainly has a genetic basis? Lots of sociopaths are quite successful—Bill and Hillary Clinton come to mind. Sociopaths who are impulsive and stupid are prone to getting caught. But a high-IQ, conscientious sociopath could be a future president of the United States. Such a combination of traits would make the person unscrupulous in pursuing fame and fortune, without a trace of guilt. And he or she would have the intelligence and work ethic to succeed at it, so that such a person would be likely to become a card-carrying member of our hostile elite. We would essentially be creating a master-race of power-hungry, unscrupulous  individuals intent on world dominion.

And if such people were also prone to be ethnocentric (also genetically influenced), we would have created people who would be willing to direct their sociopathy at exploiting and dominating outgroups while favoring their ingroup. Indeed, this is a remarkably accurate portray of many members of our current hostile elite—the Jewish billionaires who dominate the political donor class and favor candidates willing to promote the dispossession of White America while also supporting their ethnostate in the Middle East. It is certainly not far-fetched to suppose that selection for particular traits within the Jewish community over hundreds of years has in fact produced people with exactly these traits: high IQ, conscientiousness, ethnocentrism, and willingness to exploit and dominate outgroups.

Let’s return to our White-looking GMO with an autosomal base from some other racial/ethnic group. Then let’s imagine a scientist willing and able to include genes that would effectively promote White ethnocentrism. There is research showing that the beginnings of ethnocentrism occur when babies experience the family members around them — the people who are most likely to look like them (here, pp. 37-38).. Such genes would make people prone to help people and identify with people who look like themselves. Since people from the traditional European homelands of the White race would look our putative genetic creation, they would grow up to be ethnocentric White people bent on helping others with a European genetic background. And if they were sociopathic, they would be willing to do so even at the expense of non-White outgroups. This would essentially create people who are quite analogous to many members of our current hostile elite, except that they would favor White people.

Unfortunately, the most likely scenario is that such a master race would be created by the Chinese rather than Europeans. The Chinese, freed from the post-World War II taboos on eugenics that dominate the West, are the world leaders in genome research. The Chinese government spent a record $254 billion on research and development in 2017. That amount, and their fertile ground for research, has lured the world’s leading scientists to come (or return) to China. Read more

The second monthly TOQlive will be on Sunday, December 2 at 8PM Eastern time (click here to access). As always, it will be a live show, with the last half hour devoted to answering audience questions and comments. Our guest will be F. Roger Devlin who is well known to readers of TOQ and TOO, particularly for his writing on gender issues (click here for his 17 articles on TOO). His book, Sexual Utopia in Power is a classic deconstruction of the sexual revolution that began in the 1960s: He “explores today’s sexual dystopia, with its loose morals and confused sexual roles; its soaring rates of divorce, celibacy, and childlessness; and the increasingly arbitrary and punitive attempts to regulate and police it. Devlin shows that the breakdown of monogamy results in promiscuity for the few, loneliness for the majority, and unhappiness for all.”

His most recent article for TOO is a masterful review of Stephen Baskerville’s The New Politics of Sex which expands on the themes of Sexual Utopia in Power. As he notes, we are now at the point of the criminalizing masculinity:

The sexual revolution did not usher in prolonged anarchy; it replaced a voluntary system of self-control according to principles equally applicable to all with the bureaucratically enforced “empowerment” of one sex at the expense of the other. Thanks to recent headlines, it is finally beginning to dawn on even the dimmest conservatives that the sexual revolution has not “liberated male sexuality,” but subjected men to an arbitrary and hostile regime from which none of them is safe.

There is nothing “ironic” about the cheek-by-jowl existence of a casual sex scene and a bureaucracy dedicated to punishing the men who participate in it: the former acts as a necessary feeder for the latter. The proof is that no feminist has ever encouraged young women behave in ways which would prevent their getting hurt in the first place. Feminists find the hook-up scene far too useful to shut down.

Should be a great discussion.