ASPIRATIONAL EUGENICS & ARISTROCRACY FORMATION

Based Barrister 

The ideology of the Global American Empire (the GAE) consists in liberty and equality. When liberty and equality conflict the latter wins. Since ensuring equality of outcomes between those unequal in ability requires limits on the liberty of the exceptional, the result is bio-Leninism (or GNC), the GAE’s organizing principle. This dysgenic-regime has promoted the weak, ugly, deformed, idiotic, and depraved over the strong, beautiful, well-made, prudent, and self-possessed. It is no surprise then that the very idea of breeding thoroughbred humans is essentially unsayable in polite society—it violates the principle of equality. Heretical conceptions of Christianity have been used to fuel the slave-revolts in both morality and politics that have brought the West to this critical juncture. Sadly, the deeply un-Christian doctrine of radical equality of all persons holds many Christians back from fighting the future aimed at by GNC: Haitian-voodoo-slums for all.

The right-wing answer to the GAE and its GNC essence has been one of two worldviews, often assumed to be incompatible: traditional Christianity and Nietzscheanism (for lack of a better term). Instead of liberty and equality Christians seeks communion with God as the summum bonum, whereas for Nietzscheans the highest good is, roughly, phusis. Costin Alamariu explains in his dissertation Selective Breeding and the Birth of Philosophy that phusis did not mean merely “nature” for the Greeks but rather the revelation of “body, blood, biological breeding made apparent through great action.” In a word: eugenics.

Both God and phusis are supreme goods that trump nomos (convention or law). For Christians, an unjust law is no law at all and God demands martyrdom in lieu of blasphemy. For Nietzscheans, conventions are lies that tame man’s animal instincts, thereby obscuring fundamental truths about nature that only men bred for the purpose can see through and overcome. One thing the disciples of Christ and Nietzsche have in common is a mandate from a supreme authority to defy convention in favor of deeper truths. But this is true of any meta-narrative that posits a highest good. A deeper sympathy will be needed for these two camps to work together to supplant the GAE with a regime that is friendly to truth, beauty, and goodness.

In the following I outline one idea—though there are many others—that should bring Christians and Nietzscheans together in a union of power: the compatibility of Christianity with the goods of body and blood.


The organized minority always defeats the disorganized majority. The GAE-liberal-managerial regime remains in power only because no more well organized, smaller group has challenged their authority. But the most powerful organized minorities of history (Aryan, Hellenic, Roman) were selectively bred for their role as ruler-warriors and were bound tightly to one another in ethnic solidarity or asabiyyah. Therefore, those who despise the GAE and wish to see it replaced should be principally concerned with aristocracy formation—which at its height means breeding men fit to rule.

Thinking in aristocratic terms is a challenge for men who have been raised after the world was “made safe for democracy” and the later establishment of the Civil Rights Constitution. At least in the United States, those of us born after the slave-revolt that we now euphemistically call the Civil Rights Movement have been propagandized from childhood to think democratically. The liberal-democratic cultural milieu means that thinking clearly in genetic, racial, and elite-theory terms requires a heavy does of red-pills. Thankfully, the prescriptions are freely and plentifully available, and perhaps none timelier and more important than Selective Breeding which provides an ancient model of eugenics, hierarchy, and aristocracy formation.

Before applying the lessons of Hellenic eugenics to our own political aims and hopes for the future it is worth considering why the American eugenic project—which was widespread and popular—ultimately failed. Less than 100 years ago the scientific-progressive movement led by the WASP aristocracy was popular enough in the United States that government enforced sterilization of imbeciles was standard practice. When a purportedly dysgenic patient sued the state of Virginia for violating her “reproductive rights” the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the state’s authority to sterilize defective persons as well within the state’s police powers. Oliver Wendell Holmes, who served in the U.S. Army during the Civil War, summed up succinctly what was then a common feeling among the WASP aristocracy:

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices [i.e., sterilization], often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence.

Unfortunately, we are swamped with incompetence today despite Holmes’ noble intentions. The state-policy supported in Buck v. Bell and in many state laws—though described as eugenic at the time—was in fact, anti-dysgenic. Carrie Buck was not sterilized in order that she could produce superior offspring but only so that she would be unable to produce imbecile offspring. Twentieth century efforts at promoting the good of the race were mostly privative—trying to prevent an increase of inferior stock. The total effects of American eugenics were negligible: less than 100,000 persons sterilized at a time of dramatically increasing population. But even if the practice of sterilization had been more widespread, the essence of the progressive eugenic policy doomed it from the start: studs are not bred by sterilizing lesser specimens.

I call the breeding program that is concerned with culling the weakest members of the herd dysgenics-prevention. Today, 31 states in the U.S. practice forced sterilization and physicians advocate for trait selective pregnancy abortions with their patients based on prenatal diagnoses of a variety of disorders. But the total effects of this mostly informal, liberal dysgenic-prevention is de minimis. Alamariu’s dissertation, like Plato and Nietzsche before him, emphasizes the world-historical significance of another way: the application of sound husbandry to the human herd to positively work for the production of better stock.


Elite formation in the prehistorical period was not a matter of legislation. The way of life of pastoralist-nomads created evolutionary pressures that bred impressive warriors who would go on to conquer longhoused sedentary-agriculturalists with the technology (horse and chariot) that their bigger brains enabled them to discover. In Greece in particular, however, the longhoused peasants remained: the poleis formed by the conquerors were the unique mode of society that accommodated the pastoral-nomadic way of life within the settled confines of a city with a subordinate serf-class of agriculturalists underneath.

The form of life characteristic of the Greek polis carries within it the seed of its own destruction. If the pressures of life on the steppe created conditions conducive to the production of superior specimens of men than life on the farm, then life in the city would create countervailing evolutionary pressures creating weaker men less adept at the great deeds of their ancestors and less fit to rule. This is why the Hellenes—Pindar especially—praised the god Chiron. As Alamariu writes, “Chiron is responsible not only for the raising and training of heroes… but also for their breeding; for he has arranged Achilles’ very conception.” Breeding is superior to learning for Pindar and likely for the entire Greek aristocracy for whom he composed his poems. In the city, measures had to be taken to preserve the “inborn glory” of the ruling class—persistent eugenic decisions aimed at re-barbarization otherwise slowly undone by city-living.

Additionally, as between the traditions of the serf-agriculturalists and the aristocracy of conquerors another tension arises. The agriculturists lived under the dictatorship of nomos whereas the conquerors lived by phusis, or nature as breeding and heredity. This tension is with us still. The tyranny of the school marm, safetyism, masking, social distance, inoffensiveness, “being nice,” servile placation of BIPOC minorities, and following the science comprise the GAE’s version of nomos. These customs may be enough for bare survival but they dampen virtue and suffocate life.

Traditionalists today may look back at certain periods of time where the customs were relatively noble and therefore balk at the aristocratic disparagement of nomos. But all those traditionalists need do is realize the present state of custom to see how foolish a universal defense of custom is. When custom becomes cuckoldry, castration, and DEI, a breakthrough of nature against all custom is warranted. As Johann Kurtz has said, in an age where respectability rests on adherence to these vices, “you need to be less respectable.”

The eugenic re-barbarization practice of the Greeks embodied in the god Chiron and discovered in the idea of phusis, aimed at the promotion of the two Homeric virtues of andreia and phronesis, or martial courage and prudence in counsel (especially for war). The Hellenes espoused a positive vision of eugenics rooted in a moral vision of the ideal warrior-ruler. As we’ll see below, there is nothing stopping the Nietzscheans and Christians from coalescing around aspirational eugenics as one of many shared pillars in their platform of opposition to the forces of decay arrayed against them. The first step is identifying the desired traits for our future ruling elite.


Human cultures are living organisms with a life-cycle. In the broad sweep of history cycles of birth and growth, decline and fall recur in a parade of forms most varied. Yet from the limited epistemic vantage point of any present with no knowledge of the future man cannot say with certainty when he has reached the zenith of a period of growth nor when he has reached the bottom of a long decline. Though man has the ability to know which side of the bell curve he is on—and today, one unifying theme of our frens on the right is an acknowledgement that the West is in deep decline. What man cannot say, unfortunately, is how near the end of this decline he is. Those who believe we are near the end are correct to advocate for accelerationism—a faster steeper decline—in hopes of living to see the spring that waits on the other side of collapse. Those who, on the other hand, assert that we have a very long way to go, so long in fact that we can hope for a period of resurgence or at least stabilization, rightly infer that in this case working to restore order will make the decline we expect to live through more tolerable.

Since we cannot know which of these prophets are correct (collapse now or collapse later) our planning and breeding must be done with these two possible futures in mind. Fortunately, the difference is not one that makes much of a difference and debates about the precise level of the West’s decline are therefore not politically crucial (though undoubtedly very interesting). Given the right’s relative weakness compared to the managerial regime, any strategy must be long term. The scope of the problem (the regime’s considerable power) and the time of its collapse (uncertain) means that we must work toward either “total, permanent defeat of the Left” as Charles Haywood often says or else be prepared to pick up the pieces and rebuild if this regime collapses under its own internal contradictions.

Either of these scenarios requires preparation along many fronts: physical, mental, and spiritual preparation for the dark times ahead and practical acquisition of skill and know-how for ruling either sooner or later, coalition building, preserving the ways of life that the regime seeks to destroy, and not least of all re-barbarizing ourselves and our progeny.

Physical prowess and prudence—the Archaic Hellenic virtues—are crucial to surviving the decline that our late-stage civilization faces. In a footnote of Selective Breeding that encapsulates the core teaching of Alamariu’s dissertation and the wisdom of Archaic Greece, we find the central point around which much of the intellectual excitement for the ideas of the right turn as well as the promise of its future:

To beget and breed a man is easier than to put into him a noble mind; none hath ever devised means whereby he hath made a fool wise and a bad man good. If God had given the Children of Asclepius the art of healing a man’s badness and base wit, they would receive wages much and great; and if thought could be made and put into us, the son of a good father would never become bad, because he would be persuaded by good counsel. But by teaching never shalt thou make the bad man good. Theognis, quoted in Alamariu, Selective Breeding, footnote 41.

This is a hard saying, especially for the weak. If you were not born with courage and cunning you will not acquire them no matter how profound a teacher you have. Nature is the greatest teacher. Neither book learning nor hard training can make a sage out of an imbecile or a lion out of a lamb. GAE liberal-democratic politics have elided this fact for over 70 years. But the truth, phusis, is being rediscovered.

In the more distant future, when we’ve won—and we will win—there will be time for subtilizing the breeding technique here advocated to include the virtues of Plato’s philosopher-kings who are “by nature good at remembering, quick to learn, high-minded, graceful, and a friend and relative of truth, justice, courage, and moderation.” Republic, 487a. Before reaching those heights, we need to claw our way out of the depths. The traits of Plato’s warriors are more essential in our age of decline: ability to recognize friends and enemies, thumos or spirit, speed, and strength (see Republic 375a–376c for Plato at his most Schmittian). Neither Pindar, Plato, Nietzsche, or Alamariu hope for physicians or educators able to make bad, weak, slow, lethargic, foolish men good. Neither should we.

There are, however, a good number of sensitive young men who have a noble nature that has been suppressed and neutered by the regime who await the proper shock to awaken them from their effete acquiescence in their own castration. Elementary and high schools are designed almost exclusively for this purpose—promoting as they do stories about a brown girl with glasses searching to find her identity rather than the adventures of heroes that slay the beast, save the virgin, and inherit the kingdom. To these men, teaching is not needed, but an awakening of their inner nature. Events will do this before an essay can. Government sponsored lockdowns, feminist witch-hunts against male-sexuality, the sanctioned anarcho-tyranny of the summer of love, or flagrant ostracizing of white men from large corporations and the academy, will do more than anything I or anyone else can write to help the hitherto concealed nobility of the born-warriors in our midst burst forth in concentrated exertions of power.

To those yet to be born the living have an obligation—or at least an imperative of
political necessity—to ensure that the next generations will not only preserve the heart of a warrior but enlarge and strengthen those virtues that are necessary for the survival of order, rank, beauty, and nobility of soul in the bones of individuals and in the structure of society. Given the heritability of the virtues needed to defeat the left and restore order (either before or after a collapse), given the heritability of political and religious belief, given the inherent strength of ethnic-tribal loyalty over loyalty to a proposition, and given that this fight is multi-generational, it is imperative for every well-born man to produce as many offspring as he can reasonably produce.

Procreation is not a battle of numbers. The global south will swamp the descendants of the West in a pure numbers battle. We fight against the reign of quantity for a higher quality. And since the organized minority will prevail, our smaller numbers are no disadvantage. The Spartans lorded it over the Helots despite being outnumbered 20:1. We must prepare ourselves and breed our children to be qualitatively superior to our enemies by a similar factor. Whoever neglects to do this betrays himself, his race, his culture, and his God.


For now the various factions on the right can remain safely allied with one another in their shared contempt for the liberal-managerial regime that they oppose despite their purported differences in belief. NEOTR (no enemies on the right) will continue to be an expedient political principle for the right, helping to surmount the frequent debates between Christians and Nietzscheans on Twatter. But not forever. Some Nietzscheans believe that the Christians are cucked-regime-lackies while many Christians believe that the Nietzscheans are demon possessed pagans ready to wage war against all that is holy. This essay is not the place to reconcile all of their differences—though I believe their differences are rhetorical and not substantive or else based on misunderstandings. Instead, both sides can and should adopt the practice of aspirational eugenics and an admiration of phusis.

The still incredible spectacle of Bronze Age Pervert interviewing Bishop Richard Williamson about Holocaustianity on Caribbean Rhythms remains a hopeful symbol of a future synthesis. In an effort to begin to make that symbol a reality, I argue that aristocratic principles of selective breeding are fully compatible with a proper understanding of Christian doctrine shed of its heretical, liberal encrustations.

The basics of Catholic teaching on sex and reproduction are widely known: birth control, abortion, extramarital sex, polygamy, infanticide, and sterilization are all forbidden. But eugenics, often thought to be forbidden as well—was only rejected by the Church in its privative form of dysgenics-prevention. Positive, aspirational eugenics or selective breeding for the improvement of the race has not been rejected by the Church. On the contrary, in 1930 Pope Pius XI in Casti Conubii wrote,

For there are some who over solicitous for the cause of eugenics, not only give salutary counsel for more certainly procuring the strength and health of the future child—which, indeed, is not contrary to right reason—but put eugenics before aims of a higher order, and by public authority wish to prevent from marrying all those whom, even though naturally fit for marriage, they consider, according to the norms and conjectures of their investigations, would, through hereditary transmission, bring forth defective offspring. [emphasis added]

There is nothing irrational or wrong with promoting the “strength and health” of future generations by selective breeding, so long as all goods are treated according to their true rank. For the individual, entering and remaining in the state of sanctifying grace is paramount. But that state is fully compatible with prudent marriages that look to the future of the race.

Christians should not make an idol out of breeding, but to purposefully discount prudent husbandry is folly. The leftist managerial-regime is out to destroy both Christianity and achieve the total corruption of the children of Christians. To do anything less than wage all out war against this evil is a dereliction of Christian duty to society and to future generations. Insofar as Chiron represents prudence in breeding practices, Christians should befriend him (but not worship him). And if an internet anon called Bronze Age Pervert ends up being the man who summoned the men of the West to grasp their patrimony through aspirational eugenics then it requires only a small leap of the imagination to envision a Saint Pervert entering the communion of the blessed. When the norms of a society have become deeply evil, to “pervert” them is to fight that evil.

Some would-be Christians, who would do well not to speak at all, will no doubt object to what has been argued for so far on the grounds that “Christianity is all about equality man, everyone is the same in the eyes of God.” I answer: hierarchy is as natural a fact as any. Hierarchy is present in all of nature and human nature. Hierarchy is even found in the arrangement of the saints and angels in heaven. God not only knows about inequality but has created it Himself.

St. Thomas advocates for the divinity of inequality in Part One, Question 47, Article 2 of the Summa Theologiae, “Therefore it must be said that as the wisdom of God is the cause of the distinction of things, so the same wisdom is the cause of their inequality.” Do you comprehend that libtard-would-be-Christians? God is the source of inequality since he is the source of nature itself. St. Thomas goes on to explain how the inequality in nature is part of its goodness—the leveling of differences espoused by egalitarians is not only contrary to reason, it is contrary to God’s divine wisdom. Jesus Christ Himself said, “Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword.” Matthew 10:34. The sword divides man from man, better from worse, disciple of the Lord from unrepentant sinner. But when we juxtapose divine inequality with Theognis’ saying about the supremacy of nature over education, we cannot miss the necessary inference: if you would worship God well then you must produce offspring (if such is within your power) constitutionally capable of worshipping him well—“the harvest indeed is great, but the laborers are few.” Matthew 9:37.


The ideal is not our concern in politics, but the best, given the circumstances. We cannot content ourselves with hypothetical reasoning about mating in an ideal city as Socrates and Glaucon do in Republic. The new eugenics must aim at no less than the re-barbarization of the race to save nobility from the dysgenic liberal-managerial regime and from invasions by third world hordes with strong ethnic-in-group-preferences. Super-alpha, giga-Chad bros need to marry and reproduce. It is no harm to our project if some of us are cosmopolitan playboys. But other frens on our side must marry and later arrange for the marriages of their children. No one should enter marriage exclusively for this purpose—the bonds of marriage are too deep and serious to be subsumed in the political. But there is not only nothing wrong with thinking about marriage politically, entire empires were founded on this basis (see the Habsburgs). In our age of rot, arranging marriage strategically is an imperative. Liberal marriage arrangements have been a disaster and must be utterly rejected by all of us in our own lives and as parents.

While the genius-marriages of Holy Roman Emperor Maximillian I won for him and his descendants a world empire upon which the sun never set, our ambitions must be equally shrewd though with a different aim. Without political power, with powerful enemies arrayed against us, and with a collapse either immanent or in the more distant future, the re-barbarization of the race—in the form of the cultivation of andreia and phronesis as well as in group solidarity or asabiyyah—will determine whether our great grandchildren can read the Gospels and Homer’s Iliad or not, worship God in the tradition of Christianity or not, retain their genitals through puberty or not.

The Aryans who conquered Greece and India did not write pamphlets or articles about
selective breeding. It was just something they did intuitively. We should trust our intuitions in these matters as well, but we can supplement our marital decisions with knowledge of genetics. Temperament and political beliefs are heritable like height and skin-color. By knowing who we are and refusing to copulate with the enemy, we deprive them of their future (Sorry BAP, making babies with Dasha is forbidden).

No doubt the pattern of life I have described cannot thrive widely in the present legal regime with women’s liberation a basic pillar of the entire system. But neither does it need to be widespread. A tight knit minority on the right, sufficiently bound by marriage, blood, and race, will be enough to defeat the increasingly disorganized liberal-managerial regime as its own principles of liberty and equality sap its strength.

The Nietzscheans and manosphere-pilled womanizers (with whom I have great sympathy) will object that marriage is so over and that men should instead form warrior-bands of frens that aim at seizing power. I do not object to their criticisms of gynocratic family courts nor do I object to any rightist’s Männerbund. The ideal of single-men joining a modern warrior band freed from the constraints of home and hearth (though these are overstated) will appeal to some and be helpful. The power that ambitious men seek is not ultimately sought for the sake of power itself but for great deeds, the preservation of the race, and begetting beauty. Sooner or latter men of power will heed the call of phusis, consult Chiron, and ensure that the future will be pregnant with their virtues in the form of their children. Catholics are most suited to infiltrate the regime because of their ability to appear respectable. Whereas Nietzscheans will be more inclined to form separate silos of power in their sacred bands. So much the better. Use all avenues of attack. And don’t relent until the left is completely and permanently broken.