Eugenics, Past and Future

Ross Douthat, New York Times, June 9, 2012

The current issue of the Yale Alumni Magazine includes a portrait of Irving Fisher, a Yale economics professor in the 1920s and ‘30s and a giant of his field. The author, Richard Conniff, takes note of Fisher’s prodigious professional accomplishments and his private decency in order to foreground the real subject of his article: the economist’s role as one of his era’s highest-wattage proponents of eugenics.

The American elite’s pre-World War II commitment to breeding out the “unfit”—defined variously as racial minorities, low-I.Q. whites, the mentally and physically handicapped, and the criminally inclined—is a story that defies easy stereotypes about progress and enlightenment. {snip}

But these same eugenicists were often political and social liberals—advocates of social reform, partisans of science, critics of stasis and reaction. “They weren’t sinister characters out of some darkly lighted noir film about Nazi sympathizers,” Conniff writes of Fisher and his peers, “but environmentalists, peace activists, fitness buffs, healthy-living enthusiasts, inventors and family men.” {snip}

This progressive fascination with eugenics largely ended with World War II and the horrors wrought by National Socialism. {snip}

The eugenicists had very general ideas about genetics and heredity, very crude ideas about intelligence, and deeply poisonous ideas about racial hierarchies. They did not have, as we do, access to the genetic blueprints of individuals—including, most important, human beings still developing in utero, whose development can be legally interrupted by the intervention of an abortionist.

That access, until recently, has required invasive procedures like amniocentesis. But last week brought a remarkable breakthrough: a team of scientists mapped nearly an entire fetal genome using blood from the mother and saliva from the father.

The procedure costs tens of thousands of dollars today, but the price will surely fall. And it promises access to a wealth of information about the fetus’s biology and future prospects—information that carries obvious blessings, but also obvious temptations.


{snip} In 90 percent of cases, a positive test for Down syndrome leads to an abortion. It is hard to imagine that more expansive knowledge won’t lead to similar forms of prenatal selection on an ever-more-significant scale.

Is this sort of “liberal eugenics,” in which the agents of reproductive selection are parents rather than the state, entirely different from the eugenics of Fisher’s era, which forced sterilization on unwilling men and women? Like so many of our debates about reproductive ethics, that question hinges on what one thinks about the moral status of the fetus.



Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Eugenics by any other name is still eugenics and has been part of our culture since Francis Galton. 

    The Margaret Sanger strategy was to improve the human  stock by discouraging birth among the mentally (and, hence, economically) “infirm.” It turns out that the opposite happened: The most intelligent and prosperous begat the fewest children; a sad scenario egged on by the welfare rewards. 

    • holyflower

      “It turns out that the opposite happened: The most intelligent and prosperous begat the fewest children; a sad scenario egged on by the welfare rewards.”


      Precisely.  A slide (one of about 20) from Richard Lynn’s presentation, “Eugenics and Dysgenics: A Promise Denied,” 2012 American Renaissance conference at Montgomery Bell Park, Tennessee in March) illustrates your point:


      1. Invention of the rubber condom, 1865

      *“In every place, these were generally used only by the middle and upper classes due to both the expense and lack of sex education.” (Collier, Aine, The Humble Little Condom, 2007)

      *Once reliable contraception had been invented, dysgenic fertility became inevitable.

      2. Emancipation of women, entailing low fertility among high IQ career women

      3. Welfare.

      • Detroit_WASP

        There should be a family planning center/ abortion clinic in EVERY public housing complex in America.  They should pay these women a couple thousand dollars to have their tubes tied.

        A civilized eugenics program would improve every race and likely save the world.  As it stands now, I think the future of mankind if bleak. 

        • holyflower

          “I think the future of mankind if bleak. ”


          Professor Lynn sees the future of European peoples in pessimistic terms.  That’s  because democracies cannot adopt eugenic policies.   The prospects for eugenic policies are much brighter in China.  He sees civilization, such as it is, as suriving in authoritarian/oligarchic East Asia.  China does not have to contend with lowest-common-denominator focused democracies.  China — inadvertently — already has already adopted a powerful eugenic measure with its “one-child” policy — which effectively sterilizes 15-20 percent of the male population, those  not selected, and presumably less capable, by females for marriage.

          Detroit WASP, you would very much appreciate the details of Lynn’s 2012 lecture which can be ordered from AmRen. Incidentally,  a proposal such as yours to pay less responsible/less intelligent women to have fewer children has already been made.  From Lynn’s lecture:

          The critical legal case concerning compulsory sterilization was that of Buck vs.
          Bell.  Carrie Buck was a young mentally retarded woman who’d had a child who was
          assessed as mentally retarded.  Another was mentally retarded . . . It went [to]
          the Supreme Court who refused the appeal . . . with this famous statement,
          “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

          William Shockley . . . a
          famous Nobel Prize winner for physics turned eugenicist suggested a modification
          of this [sterilization] proposal . . . that we could offer financial incentives
          to those with low IQs below 100 to be sterilized.   So someone with an IQ of 99
          could have $1000 and someone with an IQ of 70 could have $30,000 . . . But it’s
          not proposal which was taken up.

          • Space4jan

            Excellent post – Lynn is always worth reading.

    • Detroit_WASP

      I have said it before and will say it again.  There  is a comedy movie called “idiocracy” which depicts a future earth where everyone is an idiot because all the dumbest people out-birthed everyone else.   The President of the United States is a black dude who was a former professional wrestler… named Mountain Dew.  Funny movie, strangley prophetic and is on Netflix.

  • holyflower

    “…last week brought a remarkable breakthrough: a team of scientists mapped nearly an entire fetal genome using blood from the mother and saliva from the father. The procedure costs tens of thousands of dollars today, but the price will surely fall. And it promises access to a wealth of information about the fetus’s biology and future prospects…”
    This is to call readers’ attention to the remarkable lecture of British IQ expert Richard Lynn at the 2012 American Renaissance conference earlier this year.  I would strongly urge purchase of the  DVD of Professor Lynn’s talk, which is entitled “Eugenics and Dysgenics: A Promise Denied.”
     Here, for example, are the professor’s remarks on a related procedure to the one described above by Douthat, “embryo selection”:
    The most promising development of positive eugenics, which lies in the
    future rather than the present, is that of embryo selection.  This procedure
    consists of a couple producing a number of embryos . . . as they are produced
    for IVF, in-vitro fertilization, and these embryos can be assessed for their
    genetic qualities . . . that [embryo] deemed the most desirable of the number
    that are grown is selected and implanted..
    This technique is carried out at the moment — certainly in Britain and
    possibly here and elsewhere — to select girls rather than boys when the couple
    is likely to have a child with a sex-linked genetic disorder which appears only
    in males, the most well-known and commonest of which is a defect of
    blood-clotting . . . hemophilia . . .
     . . . In Britain the couple can have the process carried out and the
    female is implanted.  However, this [embryo selection] is not permitted for
    other reasons.  You are not allowed to use this procedure if you just happened
    to want a girl or a want a boy.  This is perhaps rather curious for those who
    believe we live in a free society.  People should be allowed to choose whatever
    course of action they like as long as this does not cause social damage . . .
    However it is illegal in Britain and throughout Europe and, I should imagine, in
    the United States.
    In the future this will probably become available to assess these embryos
    genetically, not merely for their sex but for their intelligence and their moral
    character.  As the genes for these become identified, as inevitably they will,
    these embryos will be assessed for their intelligence and their moral character
    and perhaps for other things.  So then the doctor will say to the couple, well,
    here are the print-outs of all these embryos.  Which one do you want us to
    implant?  Most people would like to have intelligent children and children of
    sound moral character.
    So this will inevitably come to be used and
    this will have — if it’s used on a large scale — a very considerable eugenic
    effect.  Most couples produce children with a wide range of intelligence, as is
    known from everyday experience.  Siblings are not all that closely similar for
    intelligence.  In many cases, one sibling will have a high intelligence and one
    a substantially lower intelligence.  So if couples are able to implant the ones
    with high intelligence, well then the IQ of the population will increase
    This will probably be taken up initially only by small numbers of people. 
    As is the case with any technological invention, initially it’s taken up by a
    few who can afford it.  But eventually it trickles down to everyone, or most
    people . . . and the same can be anticipated for embryo selection — though
    rather slowly because probably the illegality will be retained . . .
    Nevertheless clinics will be set up somewhere in the world which will carry out
    this procedure and some couples will go to them to have it done.

  • seek

    Margaret Sanger actually was never all that big on abortion, something that pro-life radicals overlook.  For her, it was family planning of the last resort.  She also was a good friend of Barry Goldwater and actively campaigned for him in 1964.

    What real conservatives should NOT be doing is joining forces with MLK niece Alveda King who has made a crusade out of denouncing family planning as anti-black genocide.  Certain pro-life hysterics treat her as conservative royalty, when in fact she’s a black supremicist willing, for strategic purposes, to make common cause with the Religious Right.  

    • Thank you for those two very insightful comments. The Evangelical Protestant sub-culture, has been effectively ‘multiculted’ as witness the SBC’s electing a Black President, and asking for the Dream Act Ex. Order “amnesty” at the same time! As a conservative Christian, this is appaling. I always understood that Christendom (i.e., Europe) existed as a direct outgrowth of the Incarnation, not the other way around…..

  • Francis Galton

    I really don’t understand why eugenics is such a toxic concept; its ideas are implemented on livestock, crops, and pets everyday, with nary a peep from anybody–why should humans be any different?  Is its tenuous association with Nazism such a turnoff for most people that they shut down their brains whenever the dreaded “e-word” is uttered?

    What opponents of eugenics are essentially saying is that it’s better to have high levels of crime; debilitating and costly mental illnesses and genetic disorders; and a host of other negative human experiences and outcomes than it is to allow parents the OPTION of creating a so-called “designer” baby.  We’re not even touching upon forced sterilization or the like.

    Actually, any ostensibly eugenic measures taken at this point would simply be undoing about 50 years worth of DYSGENIC outcomes produced by the State’s welfare apparatus and the Not-So- Great Society programs (Hey, hey, LBJ, how many baby mamas did you create today!)  It would probably take at least another 50 years of proactive eugenic measures just to get back to where we were in the late 1950s/early 1960s. 

    Of course, the international community (yech!) needs to start thinking seriously about a global eugenics program for the Middle East and Africa, and particularly for African-Islamic combo deals like Niger (7.52 births per woman as of 2012!).

  • This is how I look at it:
    If you were to ask every living non-White on Earth if they would like to be White, (let’s say you had the genetic technology to give them access to a potion that could turn them into a White man/woman)– how many of them would trade places with you and become White?

    Guess what? Every non-White hand would shoot up. They would ALL, down to the last man, woman, child and tranny, become White if they could.

    There are alomst 7 billion people on Earth. If we in the U.S. had absolutley no border whatsoever (which isn’t a big stretch of the imagination) — what would our population be?

    Our population would be 7 billion.

    Our genes are the gold standard. We are Goldilocks: We are “just right. ”

    • My old thesis is that genetic engineering will have allowed most colored races to opt for Whiteness. I know it sounds sci-fi now, but in next 30-40 yrs ..

      • The primitive version of this engineering exists in the black desire to rape white women. I agree, people will begin tinkering with their genes soon.

        How many tall women have you ever seen dating/marrying a short man? How many beautiful White women have you ever seen with a Japanese man?

        I once saw a short, but very good-looking and well-dressed man with a tall, incredibly beautiful woman at Disneyland. I was told that he was a movie star from BattleStar Gallactica (Dr. Boltar)

        My point being– how many people, if given the choice to gene/race-swap would opt for the asian-to-black procedure???

        The White-to-latino procedure? The ANYTHING-to-black procedure?

        None. and None.

        • It will be- I speculate:

          * mostly White phenotype & genotype, with White physical “diversity” (eyes, hair,..)

          * taller

          * lower levels of neuroticism & higher IQ

          * genetic engineering elimination of obesity, baldness, Alzheimer (I hope), many auto-immune diseases, ..


          But- we’ll see. During 1950s they predicted controlled nuclear fusion in a decade. So far, nothing of it.

          Not only Blacks, but most Asians- despite their ethnocentrism- are dying to be White.

          • Rocky Bass,

            Test post

      • Absolutely. 

        When all the genes for intelligence are identified and isolated and if gene therapy is perfected, blacks are going to demand IQ genes.

        • Detroit_WASP

          High IQ blacks would be a hellava lot better than what the majority are presently.   

        • But this is assuming they are valid claimants to our race’s genetic predestination… something I vehemently deny to them. As does God. [Amos 3:2, Eph, 1:4, etc.]

      • StivD

        I wouldn’t expect or want any other race to desire to be white; just as I wouldn’t want other races to expect me, or demand, that I give up ‘whiteness’ on some level.

  • My stance toward the issue is a mixed one:

    * viscerally, I detest eugenics. Simply, life is life & most schemes for betterment end in disaster. I am not religious in any orthodox sense, but human beings should not be treated like domesticated animals

    * female fetuses will be aborted, no doubt, much more than the male ones.

    * on the other hand, Down syndrome & similar cases….there are terribly crippling diseases & conditions that prevent parents from leading an approximately normal life. In this case, I’m pro- abortion. As in the cases of rare, horrrible diseases I won’t even mention.

    * eugenicists’ main weakness is that they select small part of variables & would like to engineer human life based on a very insufficient knowledge of biological basis of life. Plus- there is something inhuman in all this. Nice, ordered, almost eliminated suffering,..- this is an antiseptic nightmare, not human life.

    • StivD

      I could see a lot of good, unique personality traits and people never coming to be because those traits aren’t considered the best or within the rigid norm. That would be only because the powers that be can’t use those traits for their own benefit. 

      On a private level, people being allowed to make the choice in their own offspring, so be it; but, I shudder at the prospect of ANY government, even a nationalist/race realist one having the power to control births to that degree. That would give them far more power than govts. that control nuclear weapons have today. 

      ‘* female fetuses will be aborted, no doubt, much more than the male ones. ‘

      Not in the U.S. or most of Europe. Males would be selected out first. 

  • mikejones91

    If something like this were to be put in place, who would be the “ditch diggers”? Who would work the minimum wage jobs? How would it work?

    • StivD

      Take a wild guess: all the normal intelligence people or at least sub-genius level people will have that honor. They won’t be given much choice in the matter because they won’t be given a chance to do anything else.

    • Kurt Plummer

      First off, a reality check:

      Four percent of human births are responsibe for thirty percent of the next generation’s retarded indviduals.  If you assume that the parents give up the child to institutionalization as it reaches young adulthood (Having a trisomy 21 youngster is a misery, not a joy, despite what the libiots would have you believe) then, even given a much shorter lifespan on the order of 40-50 years instead of 70+, you are talking about 40,000 dollars a year for at least 10-15 years to provide adequate, round the clock, supervision.  In an environment which will be frightening and often very crude.

      We treat felony convicts better than we do the chronically mentally ill and developmentally retarded.

      I read this in an online summary about the benefits of Eugenics and then had my laptop stolen by thugs so ‘good luck finding it’, Google was not helpful tonight.

      As for abortions, thanks to the incredible diversity of antigenic proteins (those which make it possible or not for sperm to penetrate the eggs outer shell and fertilize it), only about 25% of conceptions reach implantation stage (_The 10,000 Year Explosion_…).

      Now.  For ditch diggers, the obvious answer is that you don’t want them in a society where high technology goes hand in hand with high IQ to create decent social adjustment.

      Ditch diggers exist to create profit buying what they make or service.  In this, capitalists get both their labors and ‘their money back’ in a very rigidly controlled wage scale that is -designed- to never let the victim truly escape their economic condition.

      Nobody should want to relegate -any- member of their fellow society to this kind of existence.

      And robotics are the way out of this because (anthropomorphic) robotics let one man do the work of ten and -be paid- that amount.  For menial tasks.

      Exogenic Genomics are how we make ourselves reach the top end of our basic range.  For blacks, that’s 70-87.  A similiar 1MSD tradeup up would give most 100-103 IQ whites a developed IQ in the range of 115-118.

      A lot of this has to do with, not exactly changes to the genes so much as periodicity and intensity levels of development during tissue generation.  Hormones will help a lot here to turn things on/off without necessarily being ‘genetic engineering’ perse.  We already know how diseases like Tay Sachs act to influence the growth of high density, very robust, neurons (increasing intelligence, greatly) for instance.  The disease is debilitating and ultimately fatal but if it’s effects could be quickly and quietly analyzed among the Ashkenazim, we could likely instigate some equivalent developmental hormonal treatments.

      Negative Eugenics is like looking at an undeveloped piece of film and seeing the reversed (light -dark) contrast values in it.  Such a thing will _never matter_ to the wildly paranoid and essentially childlike selfish natures of the other sub-90 ethnies.  This includes much of rural China and India and virtually all of black Africa.  Yet you give these folks a decent working IQ and they suddenly have both a reason for playing the social conformity game (give a little to get a little) and the ability to understand the abstract ‘negative is good’ ideas in getting there.

      But it has to begin soon.  Because we have a _lot_ to do in unraveling a puzzle in which 20,000 genes are actually relatively little in engineering something as complex as the human organism.  Many of these genes are activated more than once to achieve different effects (the Dystrophin genes code for both muscle and brain tissue for instance) so that getting the balance right is critical.  Humans became more gracile at the end of the last ice age (in comparison with the Neanderthal) largely to make a tradeup from a robust body with lots of fight in it to an inquisitive mind.  The human metabolism cannot support both.

      And that is the kind of sliding-scale choice we have to learn to make well, quickly.  Because especially for those of us who do not see g-o-d peeking out from behind every bedpost, guarding us against our more dangerous notions; the realization strikes that we are _out of time_ for natural evolution to do for us in 2-3 generations what took literally a 1,000 or more to achieve begining in paleolithic Europe.

      If we don’t get on track with making _ourselves_ better, not our toys, tools or weapons, we will likely not survive as an advanced species to see 2200.

  • I remember reading a fictionalized “biography” of Marco Polo once. In it, when Polo is talking one day with Kublai Khan, the Chinese emperor,  Polo mentions that the conquests and wars of the Mongols have reduced the population of China proper from 100 million to 50 million. Kublai Khan acknowledges this, and says it is a good thing. In effect, he is saying that “thinning the herd,” even among human beings, sometimes helps the race in the long run.

    At the risk of sounding like one of those “Nazis” about whom New York Times writers are so horrified, I will say that, grisly as it sounds, I think the Great Khan was right. Eugenicists had a valid point. This notion that “every human life is precious” is essentially similar to arguments that “we must abolish poverty in the world.” Both propositions sound good, but neither works in practice. Sometimes, unfortunately, the herd must be thinned. The eugenicists knew this; but the horrors of World War II sent them all scurrying for cover. Yes, it was a tragedy and a monstrous crime that 6 million Jews (and millions of other people) died in the war. But it doesn’t necessarily make the eugenicists wrong.

    • JohnEngelman

      Modern war is too random to have a beneficial eugenic effect. By killing six million of the most talented racial group in the world Adolf Hitler damaged the human gene pool. 

      • Kurt Plummer


        Modern war is too random to have a beneficial eugenic effect. By killing six million of the most talented racial group in the world Adolf Hitler damaged the human gene pool.

        Jews have a range of social strata and associated IQs, much like any other group.  Those in Poland and Western Russia were mostly associated with small businesses and crafts not with the higher end finance, science and engineering which, in any case, they had only -just- begun to seriously contribute to with the end of the aristocratic phase brought on by the Napoleonic campaigns and modern scientific method (as Industrial Revolution precision tools to support it).

        Before this, even in the heart of their 800-1,600 era focus on moneylending, the Jews themselves were abstracted by a religious focus on Rabbinical Judaism which equates very well with our own Dark Ages period of Church dogmatism.  They literally -forbade- the study of the naturalistic sciences, including texts going all the way back to ancient Greece classical texts.

        Now add to this the fact that Auschwitz started out as being the center of a killing empire whose 4.4 million Jews killed was a number made up by the Russians on the basis counterbalancing their own little nightmare in the Katyn and yet modern day Polish maintainers of the site put up a plaque which lists the total at 1.25 million and you are suddenly in a position where, either a lot fewer Jews were -there- to be killed.  And/or those who were were quickly replaced, even in the wake of such enormous cataclysm (Germany lost 8.6 million) as to be unnoticed in the massive 50 year resurgence of a Germany and indeed Europe itself, denuded of ‘smarter’ Jews.

        I would like to add two other comments:

        1.  Modern War is anything but random.  We made it -seem- that way by essentially refusing to fight the battles which would have won the campaign in weeks, not years.  By denying Mexican oil and U.S. ballbearings through neutral ports for instance.  By hitting transformation/rectification facilities whose power lines were dead give aways and whose -masses- of copper windings would not have been replaceable.  By refusing to make the example of Hamburg a consistent campaign effort to dehouse German workers.  By refusing to take advantage of both Soviet and Ultra derived material, predicting the date of Kursk as a means to open a second front on a largely undefended France.  All of which was done with the sole intent of prolonging the war unnecessarily via side trips through North Africa and Italy.  See _Trading With The Enemy_ to understand that corporations, which often spanned both sides of the conflict used it to begin the final runup to OWG/NWO by filling their coffers with the bloody gold of our dead.

        2.  Jews of the Greco-Roman period were well documented in the writings of the dominant cultures.  While greeks were often seen as ‘quiet clever’, even by the Egyptians, the Jews were not.  On a relative evolutionary timescale, this makes their acquisition of heightened IQ, along with massively corruptive genetic diseases and a highly insular, venal, ‘is it good for the Jews’ attitude, a relatively recent event.

        One which could and indeed -would- have been massively bettered had Hitler and Himmler’s quest for a _superior people_ been pursued through active genetics studies immediately after a German victory in the European theater.  Rather than by fits and starts as a means to resolve diseases only (get a smarter individual and the ability to do the research which makes new medical discoveries happen automatically begins to synnergize…).

        We ALL need to be a great deal smarter John.  If we don’t realize that, if we don’t end our class structure subservience to our elite masters, we will be no better off than if we are overrun by low IQ blacks and hispanics.  Up or Out.  It certainly looks like we are on the pathway to oblivion.

  • JohnEngelman

    When genes for crime are discovered the presence or absence of those genes will influence sentencing for criminals, and decisions by parole boards on which convicts to release from prison. In my opinion this will be a positive development. 

  • Liberals are still pushing eugenics. It’s call abortion on demand. Liberals are culling themselves from humanity. Unfortunately, there are far more liberals being born to take their place.

  • Rocky Bass,

     Stop AID, mother nature IS the Government for these regions. Sub Saharan population explosion is the fault of the west, and we need to stop causing this misery multiplication, the sooner the better.

    • robinbishop34

      Even as a child I wondered why developed nations tripped over themselves to keep people that lived in poverty alive just to simply perpetuate further poverty and misery.

      • SarahConnor

        I agree. I have always wondered why all the aid to keep them alive just to increase the number of people in poverty. 

        I had to laugh reading this from Stanford The do gooders want cleaner cooking even if the people have no food.

         Then the article after this one on Stanford’s site Is stating population control is needed.

        I am also of the school of let nature take it course. I am happy Mrs. Bill Gates has switched from immunizations for the world to population control for the world.

  • StivD

    To some people,  some whites, who consider themselves the cream of the white race, other whites could be expendable. People with 90 or 100 IQ “who needs ’em”.  Even fetuses with the potential to be born with a slight rebellious streak or some eccentricity could be thought of as undesirable.

    It should be used to make certain that all babies born are robustly healthy, no mental retardation, and with long lifespans, but after they perfect that procedure, they won’t leave well enough alone. Genetic engineering is in it’s infancy but people are already thinking about ways to change people to suit their ideal of a human being, with little to no variety allowed.

  • I think that paying the poor, drug addicts, mentally handicapped, etc. to be sterilized is a good idea.  Irresponsible breeders need to be controlled.

    • Southern__Hoosier

       We have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but no where does it say we have the right to breed.

    • StivD

      Do you believe that poor whites are automatically irresponsible?

  • Southern__Hoosier

    ” It is hard to imagine that more expansive knowledge won’t lead to
    similar forms of prenatal selection on an ever-more-significant scale.”

    You mean like abort gays and liberals?

  • Baptist Press issued a release that speaks to this topic. 

    WASHINGTON (BP) — A new blood test that might empower physicians to screen unborn children for more than 3,000 genetic disorders will result in a “death sentence” for many, a Southern Baptist bioethicist says. 

  • Video on TED ▼
    Juan Enriquez: Will our kids be a different species?

    This is an enlightening (though brief) talk by genomics expert Juan Enriquez who informs us that genetic manipulation may well produce a new human species casting the race question in an entirely new light. 

  • Space4jan

    The Chinese already have a eugenics policy.
    The problem is that the White West has nothing to match it.
    The leftwing biologist Steve Jones says the more practicable eugenics has become, the less desirable it is to implement!!!

  • holyflower

    Tom P: “What are the chances the Chinese will “come around” to some sort of practice like this??”


    The Chinese are already doing extensive research on the genetics of intelligence, with Western qualms associated with the implications for different racial groups.  That they would take the next step and apply what they are learning seems highly likely.

  • SarahConnor

    Some are fighting it with voter ID and anti- immigration knowing this is their last chance but will the votes and funds just go to proving more for the industrial-war complex and the loss of individual freedoms?

  • StivD

    Who gave you the inalienable right to stop them or manipulate human genes to suit you?

  • Everything this depends on general world-view. Regarding the ultimate stuff like homo sapiens fundamental change, people who don’t believe in any variant of God may host a variety of opinions, from bad to good, depending on their prognostication tendencies. Religious people, on the other hand, tend to be wary, because for them Big Guy up there or Emerson’s force or anything similar- will ultimately crush preposterous efforts of these small creatures who insolently crossed the boundaries of their lot.

    Emerson’s address to the graduating class in 1838, Harvard’s Divinity College:

    “If you love and serve men, you cannot by any hiding or stratagem escape
    the remuneration. Secret retributions are always restoring the level,
    when disturbed, of the divine justice. It is impossible to tilt the
    beam. All the tyrants and proprietors and monopolists of the world in
    vain set their shoulders to heave the bar. Settles forevermore the
    ponderous equator to its line, and man and mote, and star and sun, must
    range to it, or be pulverized by the recoil.”

  • StivD

    I think this is an excellent time to bow out and a great example of an article to leave ‘on’. 

    Not that it matters, but I beginning to believe in this way of thinking and these ideals less and less. I don’t believe in elitism or have an all-consuming appreciation for high IQ, never did. I have nothing in common with and don’t feel the slightest kinship with people who do espouse those things. 

    My main belief and motivation is in a white folk revival without the rest that surrounds it. I only care that they are decent, loyal, conscientious whites with a love for their own.  That’s why their social, educational, etc, pedigree is completely irrelevant to me. It doesn’t matter how accomplished they are, or lack thereof.  So, I think this movement (barely)isn’t all that I thought it was.  

    A degree of common sense egalitarianism isn’t always a bad thing. 

    That’s the end of my speech. 

    • Southern__Hoosier

       Most of the so called elitists are nothing more than low life scum that are full of crap and are stuck on themselves. And if you don’t believe they are elite, just ask them they will tell you.

      There are true elites. There is a very appropriate Bible verse. “By their fruits you will know them.” You don’t have to ask them and if you did, they’d just brush it off.

    • Kurt Plummer


      Not that it matters, but I beginning to believe in this way of thinking and these ideals less and less. I don’t believe in elitism or have an all-consuming appreciation for high IQ, never did. I have nothing in common with and don’t feel the slightest kinship with people who do espouse those things.

      Higher IQ is not ‘elitism’.  Because you should not look at it as an ability to do more than everyone else.  That is -your- guilt at work.  Stop it.

      Instead, envision Higher IQ as what -brings down- the level of difficulty in given tasks so that you no longer need intermediaries who act as interpreters to ideas.  But rather, can take largely whole ontology concepts and break them up, compare them and resynthesize various alternatives.

      Why is this important?  Because we are now operating at daily levels of life critical input which, formerly, would have required weeks and months of discussion by ‘experts’ to form a consensus attitude whose packaging would then be put before a politician whose IQ, ironically, was less than that of his advisors but more than our own.  So that he could sell the concept.

      The problem with this is that it’s prone to corruption and misidentification of imagery constructs in it’s simplified form.  You can be led to a false conclusion about the necessities of everything from accomodating minority interests as social backsteps to going to war over a set of conditions that don’t merit the commitment of our reputation or our blood.

      Yet if you -cannot- get the gist of an argument by reading about it (or whatever) you are dependent on those who make emotional hooks into your deep-ugly (dumb, instinctive, R-brained) psychopathologies to yank out an emotive conclusion.  Which is how -everyone- gets used.

      Because, dumb as we are, we are afraid to offend other people more than we are to hurt them with misapplications of intentful will.  A smart person, natively, (biologically) will not do this.  Because they _innately_ comprehend the concept as it is, or as they ask questions about it from a first reading.  And so refuse to be gulled by political hacks, commentators and social figures of all kinds.

      Why is this important?

      1.  Transhumanism may see us moving towards the equivalent of internal broadband as means to coordinate groups of (perhaps) racially distinct analytical and inductive and emotive cognition.  Especially as we shift towards a more social rather than purely science-for-itself understanding of complex systems, one of the potential new forms of employment for those not interested in being ditch diggers but not bright enough to be pioneers in how we think could well be a form of synthetic telepathy driven ‘work group’ by which everyone within a given peerage of capabilities shared extremely nuanced concepts by which the raw actions of a given event (building a bridge, fighting a war, teaching a generation) were managed.  The smarter your base abilities, the better (higher up) the scale of these working groups you will go.

      2.  Other nations as peoples will do it if we don’t.  China just purchased something like 4,000 gene sequencer hoods.  Half are being held in Hong Kong as a lure to international cooperation.  Half are at a secret site in China proper.  They additionally do a _lot_ more to track the performance of their youth through medical and scholastic optimization programs which tailor everything from their education to their breeding habits.  If you start to see Jewish like achievements (23% of Nobel Laureats IIRC) in the latter half of this century, shifting towards Chinese genius, it will be -because- they have taken the search for IQ more seriously than we have. 

      3.  It’s the hardware, not the software.  Something to keep in mind, when you understand that we switch out computers every 1-3 years, simply because their performance is no longer cutting edge.  But the -data- we take from platform to platform is retained.  Both socially (as a **living** resource for whites) and genetically as a continued starting point for additional improvements.  But, just because you have some gift doesn’t mean that you have the only one or that others not as  gifted as you in some area cannot be better or at least -adequately competent- to enjoy life in their own sphere of interest.  On a good day, the brain takes as much as 20% of the body’s caloric intake.  It creates a LOT of heat.  And it’s massively parallel processing network (think lite brite as a series of pixellated sub elements in a knowledge set that forms the ‘whole picture’ as a synthesis) architecture is such that you really cannot be dominant at all things.  Which leaves openings for others to have their own specializations.

      We are not the HG people which the blacks have cognitively restrictively specialized themselves to with their reproductive bias to tighten generational intervals in the face of the incredibly hostile environment of Africa.  We are not the people of Achaean Age Greece who went to grab Helen back from the Trojans.  We are not even the people of the late Renaissance Era 1600s who began to see abstract understandings of their own soul and dramatically evoke them in the drama of theater.  All those moments in time are lost, like drops in the rain.  What we can continue to be, as whites, is the conceptualist advanced guard who dare to ask:  “Okay, what next?”

      We win the right to sustain our own evolutionary pathway -as whites-.  Now what?  It is intrinsic to our nature as explorers and inventors to ask this question.  Because more than any other people, we have always realized that our ability to alter the state of things the future-shaping pathway of our children’s inheritance.

      Is ours to choose.

      Dare to look at IQ as the enabler to that.  Because that is what it is.  A tool to enable us to act beyond the genetics of ca. 50,000 years ago when we left Africa.  It is the ability, in one swoop, to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps.  And live, mentally, genetically, in the modern era.

      If this seems hubris that we think like gods about our peoples configuration to meet the future, do it anyway.  Because only a considered choice is a real one that you can live with.  A refusal to make -any- choice, while itself still a decision, is one that you will have to explain to those kids and grandkids of yours.  As an act of fear denying them their most fundamental of post-21 enabled abilities.

  • Lopearedgaloot


    Of course the Nazi policy against the Jews was ‘eugenic’.  For the Germans.  That’s what people fear.  Because it means looking at their own position as the tanks run over their bootlaces and saying: “Yes, since my culture has chosen to live a pastoral or agro based lifestyle in tune more with the 1800s if not the 1600s, it makes sense that a stronger, more developed, culture would seek to buy it’s people into it’s own social strata with a rewards system for increased resource allocation as tax base and productive growth.”

    Hitler’s three Kommissariats in Russia would have done exactly that, bringing massive amounts of farming, petroleum and white ‘Germanic’ (or Germanicizeable) cultures under the dominance of a cultural leadership which had, in his view, shown itself to be superior as a -genetics- (he who breeds the most sets the pathways of the alleles to spread from) basis of further evolution.

    Don’t agree?  Fine.  But consider that the Hitler did nothing different from what we did in defeating the Native Americans.  We just brought several boatloads of smallpox, malaria falciparum and other Old Word diseases to the Americas such that early Spanish ‘explorers’ in both south, central and -north- America went back a few decades after the first contact and discovered entire -regions- depopulated, their cities and dwellings left as ghosttowns.  By disease.

    By some estimates (_The 10,000 Year Explosion_) this dieoff was equivalent to 90% of the populations of the local populations.  Which means a 60 million, 10,000 tribe, area is suddenly going to look like 6 million, scattered over an open landscape.  All for the simple reason that the LKA3 human antigen (immune system coder) which we have -thousands- of variant forms of, was largely unmodified in the Native American peoples.

    Now, take this back to Europe and look at the Neanderthal vs. Aurignacian cultures.  Does it make sense that modern humans went everywhere that Neanderthal lived and butchered them all?  Or would it be more likely that they brought an African disease or three, and casual contact spread it until only minor fragment populations of Neanderthal lived, each isolated in fear of the Moderns who gladly rolled into whereever the Neanderthal retreated from?

    Given what EU-rope looks like today.  Given the ethnic identities of the extreme ‘Universalist’ influence which is pushing it.  The world as whites know it would have been infinitely better off if Hitler and the Nazis had won WWII.

    Why?  Because birthrates would not have tanked but rather been wildly rejoiceful (think hispanics in America after the last amnesty, 4.4 TFR or better) and the American population would have hardly been touched with less than 500,000 deaths.

    We would also have been facing an enemy whose top scientists (Manfred Von Ardenne) had just invented the scanning electron microscope which would show us the first glimpses of the DNA helix.  While companies like chemical giant IG Farben would have quickly synthesized the base pair chemical make up of.

    Forcing the United States to do the same.

    In combination with early digital computers (yup, the Germans had the first one of those too) and a general need to _not_ play ‘who’s the better socialist’ games as a function of white guilt over the Holocaust, we would have been vastly better off in terms of competing in peacetime with each other than we were pretending the Russians were our equals.

    Eugenic/Dysgenic conditions depend largely on who is measuring what from what perspective.  The 20th century was Europe’s time to stand up as a continental nation state while the U.S. stood off and let the weak die and be overrun that the amalgamated whole might be a stronger representative of humanity.

    Instead, you see Colonial Europe blown to pieces (far beyond what was needed to win the war) _solely_ for the purposes of destroying them as a superpower.  While creating economic skews which chase us, even now, as the shifting of absolute power away from white innovation and genius to asian dominance.

    And for _what_?

    To say that we defeated a living Satan named Hitler?  Please.

    The only time one man is ever a threat to the many is when the many let him be so.  Hitler would have died.  The Jews would have been _disenfranchised_ (the proper translation of the term he used at Nuremburg), much like the Native Americans were and Europe would have consolidated her powerbase with that of Africa, leaving Japan to mouse-eats-elephant with China.

    While, because the identification of PEOPLE with nation would have prevailed, there woudl not now be the sense of overwhelming cynicism which drives globalist corporatism away from the bloodline identities of whites for whites.

    WWII was dysgenic.  Only because we stuck our noses in what wasn’t any of our business on the basis of forcing an economically convenient outcome which equates to zero-threat non-competition.  Without competition, America has become soft to the point where we are giving away what no other race on the planet has a right to take.

  • Old-style Eugenics did not kill the living, or the unborn. It merely deemed those who were intellectually, morally, or ethnically unfit (mixd-race unions, due to rape, etc.) for a viable existence to continue the ‘sins of their fathers.’ 

    Stopping the ‘wages of sin’ is far, FAR more ‘Christian’ than allowing/countenancing abortion, or the genocide of an entire race (i.e., the White one) by some misguided Marxist ‘dribble down’ theories.

    Now that we know of One Standard deviation, Avdeyev’s work via “Raciology,” the ‘Color of Crime’ and a whole host of data that are ‘color blind,’ why should we even CAVIL over the necessity and the beneficient nature of old-school eugenics, rather than the travesty of Abortion? Stop the sin before it is incarnated, rather than seek to steal from moral Whites, to finance the ‘Great Society’ that is anything but?

    • Kurt Plummer


      Old-style Eugenics did not kill the living, or the unborn. It merely deemed those who were intellectually, morally, or ethnically unfit (mixd-race unions, due to rape, etc.) for a viable existence to continue the ‘sins of their fathers.’

      By implied function it does.  Giving blacks and hispanics no foothold in our nation by preventing their massively disproportionate TFRs is effectively killing their ability to take control over our country as a function of negate eugenics.

      Stopping the ‘wages of sin’ is far, FAR more ‘Christian’ than allowing/countenancing abortion, or the genocide of an entire race (i.e., the White one) by some misguided Marxist ‘dribble down’ theories.

      To make that viable would require a system on the order of Hitler’s Maternal Order Society (I believe that was the name) whereby women were given medals and compensation for leaving the work force and each additional child past two that they had.

      Except that, today, to generate such a return to traditional roles would require monetary incentives, not of a few thousands or even tens of thousands (child costs something like 25,000 dollars just to deliver) but something closer to an ‘incentivized 401K’ plan which started out at 250,000 and ended around 750,000 with the specific condition that females remove themselves from the labor pool for at least 10 years ‘or until their last child was at least 8’.

      This would further encourage them to avoid conventional pairing through marriage, make men even more competitively isolated between the PUA/dad factions (and the remaining, free-range, females) and generally require a pre-50 commitment to Social Security level breeding incentives.  Which this nation simply cannot afford without massive tax increases, across the board.

      Now that we know of One Standard deviation, Avdeyev’s work via “Raciology,” the ‘Color of Crime’ and a whole host of data that are ‘color blind,’ why should we even CAVIL over the necessity and the beneficient nature of old-school eugenics, rather than the travesty of Abortion? Stop the sin before it is incarnated, rather than seek to steal from moral Whites, to finance the ‘Great Society’ that is anything but?

      One might as well ask ‘And how do you get them back on the farm once they’ve seen gay Paree?’  Liberated women who are now free to choose between:

      1.  Flapper style living for the 15 years they are pretty and have access to near 100% fertility
           control + flying to Mexico for an abortion.
      2. Asexual or homosexual relationships without societal condemnation while remaining
      3. Being ‘taken care of’ in a traditional relationship where the liberated economics of -everyone
           else- drives their husband’s wages down to starvation welfare dependent levels.
      4.  Existing in a two-spouse working household where all the -traditional- female roles
           (childbearing and housekeeping) cannot be equally divided while providing proper family
           environment for any children.

      Are likely going to choose 1 or 2.  Because they have been taught that the have been slaves to their species replenishment role for so long that they ‘deserve better’.  Of course, when they are 30-40 and that certain instinct kicks in _real hard_ and they find that all the best guys are looking a lot younger for their trophy brides (better fertility among other things) it will be too late.

      But then again, that’s the whole point.  By the time the next generation discovers that they have partied away their youths, it’s too late.  Being too late to get back to a traditional family model of 3 children and parents in their 20s, young enough to support them.  And so you are left with 40-50% of females who will either never reproduce or will have kids in a single parent family environment which sucks up their accumulated funds and leaves their kids estranged to any social imprinting from -either- parent.  As mom works feverishly to keep them under-roof and fed.  And dad’s commitment stopped at the sperm bank.

      As important as IQ is (R=.72 for job success) you have to have a keyed imprint to activate it as a success driven model of confidence deriving from early experience of familial safety, intimacy and encouragement.

      Which is exactly what those who seek to slaughter the white race are determined must not happen.

      It is also why my view is different.  Pull from women the loss of looks and the loss of job time and the uncertainty factor of how good looking, disease free and smart their kids are going to be, via exogenic genomics, and you -can- have it both ways.  Because mom can continue to be a social whore and successful careerist because she is not ruining her body to have those 3 kids and take the 2 years+ off for each one which effectively zeroes her work experience and puts an unfair strain on her employer in keeping her on the books as well.

      I als0 believe that we have to think -beyond- simple capitalism as economic model.  Because there is no reason to sustain a system which doesn’t uplift everyone so much as invite foreign ethnies to undercut the established populations to maintain a class-separated, wage slave, consumer market.

      If we have to sustain the U.S., as it is, by importing the dregs of the third world, it’s time for the U.S. to go.  My problem is that I know that the nation state model is still viable.  It is for the benefit of the ROW and a global elite that our country is being torn apart to make room for a corporate socialist world.

      And I do not believe whites owe other races anything.  No matter what our bleeding heart or greedy betters may think.

      With this in mind, the notion of the U.S. population shrinking back to 60-100 million is not a bad thing because it simply means that, _provided we improve the baseline IQ_ we are getting rid of the blue collar population mass which is no longer compatible with a society run 90% on the shoulders of automation and robotics.

      But that is _not_ the model we are seeing.  We are seeing the disappearance of lower/middle class whites as our own genetic bookmarks by which to sustain true diversity in our genome.  And being forced to accept a secondary population of lesser mestizo and blacks as their breed-like-rabbits replacement.

      This will only continue to sustain the consumerist model of ‘mass quantities’ junk production until our resources are completely depleted and our environment ruined.  Post Peak on oil is likely less than 10 years away people.  That’s Power, Production, Propulsion as the keys to distributionist-centrist capitalism all being functionally cut off.

      We are better than the other races _because_ we can control our population numbers.  And that superiority is being used against us, to drag us down to their pigs-in-wallow-like-being-muddy level.