Return to the NeoEugenics' Home Page

Eugenics is Back! Will the next 100 years bring about new super-human species with the rest of mankind enslaved or dead?

Eugenics is back! A new species looms on the horizon. Eugenics is alive and well, and especially in countries that are free of liberalism and the roadblocks put up by the radical environmentalists. They see it as a challenge to their own intellectual dominance as well as a threat to the established dogma that all people are alike, except for opportunity.

Eugenics in the West is being practiced at the prenatal stage, where genetic disease is tested for and the child aborted if it is abnormal. But this is a form of negative eugenics and for me at least not very exciting in the whole of eugenics. It would be a much better world if we could eliminate many genetic diseases; especially childhood diseases that cost society so much in resources that could be better spent on children that can someday contribute fully to the nation's well being. We need productive citizens that can pay for the life that they have been given. On the other side -- positive eugenics -- forward thinking couples will chose mates that are compatible for raising intelligent and healthy children. Fundamentally this means looking at your mate's intelligence and health, including looking at their family history to see if they are unique or typical. If typical for the family the better chance the genes have been filtered through generations of quality breeding and not just a statistical fluke.

But none of the above will do much to increase the overall average intelligence of the nation when the nations average IQ is declining as it is from a policy of social dysgenics. Large numbers of immigrants with an average low IQ are allowed into the United States each year. And the underclass already here, with a low IQ, is supported by the taxpayers to have as many children as they want, without any concern about the social costs of having children that will never be productive in a highly technical world. America is in decline, but other nations are on the rise.

China, with 1/6 of the World's population is pursuing social eugenics in an aggressive way (as are Taiwan and Singapore also). Free of liberalism and the decadence of the West, and also free of the radical environmentalism once promoted by the Jewish controlled Soviet form of Communism, the more nationalist Chinese are determined to have a strong and vital workforce to the detriment of other competing nations. I came across several articles that highlight the differences between eugenics in the West and in the East. The first one is entitled "A plan for controlling the ratio of sexes" by Professor Xiong Ping. Professor Ping has an interesting approach to increasing intelligence and health in the Peoples Republic of China (PRC). This vision of a race of supermen is not idle dreaming in China, as we shall see.

Professor Ping proposes that two children be allowed for each family. The first child will be a natural birth without choosing the sex, but the second birth will be controlled such that the number of excess males will equal the number of physically and mentally disabled, a proportion of about 10%. The logic is, that males are freely chosen by females, and with an excess of males, females will not choose mentally or physically handicapped mates and these undesirable male types will not reproduce, an aggressive but in some ways passive form of state mandated eugenics. The important point is that China is aggressively pursuing a social eugenics program that far surpasses any other that I am aware of. They seem to be free of Western egalitarian dogma that ignores the nation's cognitive capital. Professor Ping says, "China's government asks parents to give birth only to well-developed children, but we are far from the goal. It is of great importance to lower the quantity and improve the quality, which has much to do with the prosperity of the Chinese people, the future of the human race, and the happiness of millions of families. Modern civilizations also have negative effects on the question of population quality. In the past, medical conditions were very poor. Human society evolved according to Darwin's theory of 'survival of the fittest.' The most weak and disabled children died before reaching reproductive age. But now, with superior medical techniques, they can survive and produce another generation. Unavoidably there will be a degeneration in human genes, which will result in the decrease of population quality." It is clear that the Chinese fully understand the transitional nature of human evolutionary progress and realize that to compete internationally means to promote progress in a nation's genetic quality. At present, China has laws banning low-IQ people from having children, but they are hard to enforce.

It seems that in the future, if they are really intent on instituting an aggressive eugenics program, that new methods of chemical sterilization of females, after being tested for intelligence, would be a cheap and effective way of eliminating in every generation the least intelligent (say 20%) from the bell curve. This would increase the average intelligence for the entire nation very quickly over a few generations, and make China the New World power. It is obvious that the West is on the verge of going into serious decline if we are left behind in this new genetic arms race. What is also clear is that this policy is a combination of nationalism and communitarianism, not unlike National Socialism. And the West will be extremely aggressive in trying to stop it for these reasons -- not because they are communist. The old Jewish Marxists in the United States cheered when Stalin slaughtered 20 to 40 million people to make the world safe for Jews, but now that China is pursuing a policy that is too nationalistic for their liking it will be fought with great intensity under the ruse of human rights.

This trend toward nationalism is also seen in a recent article about Russian Cossacks. It seems they have made an alliance with the Communists in the Krasnodar region and are now enforcing a "law and order" vigilantism to restore order. This new brand of Communist is also more nationalistic and extremely anti-Semitic, giving up internationalist communism for a new form of ethnic communism, again leaning more towards National Socialism than towards Western democracy. Though I would like to see more democratic ethnostates, it is understandable that these transitional forms must be supported given their history and suppression under Jewish Marxism and its suppression of the Russian people. Russia and other old Eastern Block states may well lead the West out of liberalism and into a new era of cooperative nationalism, where nationalists work together to support each other's efforts for a homogeneous populace that can strive together for hierarchical harmony, ethnic egalitarianism, social eugenics to improve the nation's genetic quality, and friendly competition between states while recognizing each other's autonomy.

Contrast this with the West's multiculturalism and penchant for genetic destruction. A report by the American Society of Human Genetics entitled "Eugenics and The Misuse of Genetic Information to Restrict Reproductive Freedom" is a good example of the West's self-destructive attitudes. They admit that eugenics includes numerous means of controlling reproduction, but decry any coercion by government. And yet, by the government making available costly programs to care for the genetically defective child, and by the financial support it provides to children of low intelligence, the very same coercion is used to enforce its citizens to pay for these dysgenic programs. So the government does use coercion for dysgenics but not for eugenics. A terrible ignorance of population genetics and the ultimate consequences.

But what is really frightening about this so-called coercive reluctance against reproductive freedom is the egalitarian position that coercion against nations is perfectly acceptable. That is, they will make the unilateral decision that social eugenics will not be practiced anywhere on earth -- national autonomy be damned. These are the people who embrace cultural relativism with the same hypocrisy. This is the New World Order where a small elite of Western socialists will tell the world how to live their lives.

The above article does make mention of the eugenic programs in Taiwan, Singapore, China and especially "the caste system in India may represent the largest such eugenic program ever [attempting to separate gene pools], spanning 2500 years." If India's religion and cultural structure was a eugenic one, then what would you call the Judaic formulations for blood purity and separation? How is Judaism different from the caste system? And yet I have heard people claim that Jewish high intelligence could not be due to eugenic practices because people did not know the mechanisms involved. But one only has to look at several thousand years of eugenic dog breeding to see that humans knew full well the effects of selecting for genetic traits, including behavior and intelligence as well as outward appearance. Today, breeds of dogs vary widely in innate intelligence and behavioral traits, from simple eugenic programs.

The report concludes, "Efforts to implement programs that restrict reproductive freedom based on genetic information are scientifically and ethically unacceptable and should be challenged. While it is sometimes possible to ascertain the risk of bearing a child with a genetic disorder, for the majority of pregnancies it is not possible to make predictions about a future child's health or other capacities. Misguided efforts to do so devalue humanity." There are several egregious errors in this statement. First, nothing is scientifically and ethically unacceptable. Science has no link to ethics, and ethics is not a viably universal set of rules. Ethics statements are voluntary. No philosophically moral or ethical system has ever been formulated. Nature has no concept of morality outside of reproductive success (like tribal morality). So any attempt to make an ethical position universal is absurd. The second error is the often-heard lament of "devaluing humanity." This is another unsustainable position because humans, as just another species, cannot be devalued. It is a hollow and meaningless term outside the individual. I find eugenics, including social eugenics, highly value laden. To disagree is your personal feeling, but not universal. I like cats and you like dogs. There is no universal in this. And likewise, one form of government may appeal to some, but not to others. These statements just show how absurd the anti-eugenic egalitarians have sunk in trying to oppose it, using meaningless buzz words and scare tactics.

A similar article from The Center for Bioethics entitled "What's Morally Wrong With Eugenics?" includes many of the same errors, omissions, and fuzzy logic. It starts, "The topic of eugenics cannot be discussed for long without encountering the Holocaust. This is as it should be. When contemporary geneticists, genetics counselors and clinical geneticists wonder, as they sometimes do, why it is that genetics receives special attention from those concerned with ethics, the answer is simple--history." Well if eugenics is thousands of years old, then why is the Holocaust the reason for so much concern? Nazi Germany was a combination of post-war poverty, hatred for the Jews not because they were inferior but because they were Bolsheviks, and a growing nationalism with a desire for all things German, etc. The Holocaust was not due to eugenics, though there was a strong eugenics program at the time that affected others. The two issues were separate. They did not doubt the superior intelligence of the Jews, nor were the Gypsies killed for the same reasons as the Jews. Homosexuals were killed for eugenic reasons because it was felt they could not breed (pretty stupid reasoning to me). But the Holocaust is about gentile-Jew antagonism -- not eugenics.

But let's take this logic a step further. If as MacDonald points out in Separation and its Discontents, (see my home page for a link to a review of his books) that Russian Bolsheviks were primarily Jews intent on making the world safe for Jews everywhere by enforcing a Communist ideology on the masses, enforcing concepts contrary to eugenics that promoted a radical egalitarianism, then it is safe to say that radical egalitarianism is responsible for from 20 million to 50 million lives lost under Jewish/Stalinist terror. This makes the Holocaust pale in comparison, and makes radical environmentalism far more deadly than eugenics using the same logic.

The article continues: "Nazi race hygiene theories were false. There is no evidence to support the biological views of the inherent inferiority of races or the biological superiority of specific ethnic groups which underlay the eugenics efforts of the Third Reich. There is not even any firm basis for differentiating groups into races on the basis of genetics. The negative eugenics programs race hygiene spawned were not only patently unethical, since they were completely involuntary and coercive, they were also based upon assumptions about genes and race that are not true. The Nazi drive to design future generations based on what can now be understood as invalid science skewed by racism led to concentration camps, forced sterilization, infanticide and genocide". Of course this is absurd, but we hear it over and over again. No one that I am aware of in the eugenics movement states that one race is superior to another. Even in David Duke's book "My Awakening", I have not read anything that comes close to making such a claim. And yet these same people admit that personal eugenics is ok and couples have every right to want their children to be intelligent and healthy. Do you see the double-speak? They seem to admit that intelligence is a desirable trait that most people would like bestowed upon their children. The concept of desirable traits has absolutely nothing to do with superiority or inferiority. These are subjective desires and values that are not shared with nature's evolutionary way of doing business. The statement is simply false. The article's second error about races simply is not true. If you don't like the term race, just substitute breeding population group and you can divide groups as many ways as you want and look for genetic differences. Again this is a red herring. Behavior genetics looks at many population groups including left- versus right-handedness, ethnicity, religious persuasion, myopia (they are more intelligent), etc. Aggregation, disaggregation -- these are all ways of looking at genetic differences between population groups. And there is absolutely no equivocation among mainstream scientists that sub-Saharan Africans have an average IQ of about 75 while Whites have and average IQ of 103. And this has nothing to do with any definition of race or value with regards to intelligence, it is merely and observable fact that has not changed since IQ testing was started over 100 years ago.

This reminds me of a bill that was to be passed to register rottweilers and pit bulls because of their reputation for attacking humans. Now how does one do that? What is a pit bull exactly? Are there any firm genetic markers? How does one determine a pit bull from a poodle? And what if I breed a pit bull with a rottweiler, is it now just a dog? And if I need to register a pit bull based entirely on the dog's appearance, why is it wrong for me to avoid blacks based on their appearance and documented violence against whites? Given the same situation, if you used the egalitarian arguments above when discussing breeds of dogs you would be laughed at. And again, no one says that one dog breed is any better than another is, it all depends on what you want in a dog. Sometimes a dumb dog is a better dog. It may just never go fetch a paper for you.

Again we get the standard universal moralist argument, "Certainly it is morally objectionable for governments or institutions to compel or coerce the reproductive behavior of persons. The right to reproduce without interference from third parties is one of the fundamental freedoms recognized by international law and moral theories from a host of ethical traditions. It is also morally wrong to allow the state to impose its vision of the future by force. However, the goal of obtaining perfection or pursuing health with respect to individual eugenics is not made objectionable by these arguments. What is morally wrong is coercion, compulsion or the use of force with respect to reproductive decisions."

Notice the logic here again: 1) It is morally objectionable for governments to coerce reproductive behavior. 2) The freedom to reproduce freely is a fundamental international law and moral theory from a host of ethical traditions. 3) It is morally wrong for the state to impose its vision of the future by force. I submit that none of the above are defensible. We are a world of differing laws, customs, ethical systems, and reproductive practices. If there is a world standard, then somewhere, at some time, we have slipped into a world totalitarian state, as I am sure the Bolsheviks would love to see. It is apparent that Communism was to be the global mechanism to make the world conform to totalitarian doctrines from the left. Now that they have failed they are using their own coercion to try and scare the public into condemning scientific knowledge that does not conform to their dogma. For example, to say that no state should coerce a vision of the future by force says that I should not be taxed! Or that Bosnia should not be bombed by American troops because of a future vision of danger. Or that we should not coerce Brazil into saving the rain forests by economic force. Force is a very broad term that includes monetary and political force. It is obvious that the left is bankrupt in their objectionable arguments against eugenics, but in the lock-step conformity of these old Marxists, logic doesn't count for very much.

And finally, "Some who find the pursuit of perfection morally objectionable worry about more than coercion. They note that it is simply not clear which traits or attributes are properly perceived as perfect or optimal. The decision about what trait or behavior is good or healthy depends upon the environment and circumstances that a child will face. To pick traits, features or attributes in the abstract is to simply reify prejudice as optimality." Of course this too is nonsense. If this were true, we wouldn't spend so much time trying to educate children because we are not sure what environment they will end up in: artist, athlete, lawyer, garbage collector, or welfare recipient. Also if this were true, and I pointed out the intelligence difference between Blacks and Whites, then no one should complain, because it doesn't matter under this proposal. That is, if one does not need intelligence why worry about it. And finally, if perfection is something that communities or governments cannot seek to achieve, then why have Jewish communities promoted at a level of communal coercion scholarly learning of Jewish texts? This practice over hundreds if not thousands of years has led to an Ashkenazi Jewish IQ that is the most asymmetrical of any other group -- an average verbal IQ of 127 and an average visual-spatial IQ of 103. No other documented group has such an imbalance, due to the eugenic practice of extreme verbal-scholarship competition with its door-opening to the upper Jewish classes (see MacDonald above). Eugenics seems to have paid-off mighty well for the Jews. The average Ashkenazi Jew in the United States has nine times the wealth of the average American, and they dominate academics, the arts, politics, and the media.

But even if a nation is not perfect in selecting those traits most desired, such as intelligence, conscientiousness, sobriety, etc., the competition between nations will allow evolution and diversity to continue. What better way to increase diversity than to allow different nations to pursue their own forms of eugenics, and see which ones fair better than the others do? If human diversity is a good thing, then why not increase diversity in genotypes by allowing experimentation. And it does not need to be coercive beyond the economic incentives and national indoctrination level. That is, the individual could buck the system, as long as they are willing to accept the consequences of moral approbation and economic hardships. This is not any different now from the moral approbation that European-Americans have to endure, trying to regain equal rights with minorities, while suffering the economic consequences of taxation to benefit these same minorities to the detriment of white reproductive success. So even in the United States we do in fact practice a coercive form of dysgenics rather than eugenics.

What is really exciting about nationalism surging up around the world in small and large countries alike is that eugenics models can be developed, tested, and compared to find out which ones work the best. Some may be failures, but others will succeed and move mankind to the next higher level, which brings me to the last article I stumbled across.

The Religion of Eugenics

"Can you imagine any greater personal tragedy than evolution aborting you as a Neanderthal or monkey or germ -- or mere human being?"(Campbell)

The Moral Imperative of Our Future Evolution by John H. Campbell (available at http://www.neoeugenics.net/camp.htm ) is one of those rare gems just sitting out there on the Internet to read and ponder. He begins, "What has the future in store for humanity? Will our descendants succumb to pollution, the population explosion, exhausted resources or grinding poverty? Might they arrive at permanent prosperity or enter the golden age of leisure? Each vision has its advocates and ethical implications. I predict that human destiny is to elevate itself to the status of a god and beyond. We will transform ourselves by evolution, the same creative process which raised our branch of life to the level of Homo sapiens. This advancement is hard upon us. In a dozen generations people well may advance as far above our contemporary form as we surpass the apes. Descendants of another dozen generations may regard our mental capacities as we do the mind of a mole. When they have progressed as far beyond us as you and I have over a mushroom surely our descendants will match more closely our images of minor gods, if not Jupiter Himself, than humans. This prediction may raise eyebrows. Certainly it goes beyond any precedent from the past. Only some remarkable historical change could encourage us to expect the glacial pace of evolution of the past thousand years to wax to a torrent during the next millennium. Indeed, such a development is taking place. We have discovered the material basis of life. Geneticists are laying open our heredity like the circuit board of a radio and fashioning the biological wrenches, pliers, connectors and ohm meters to rewire sections at will. Embryologists, neurophysiologists and cytologists promise soon to show us how to work any improvement in our phenotypes that we wish. We shall be able to redesign our biological selves at will."

He discusses what anyone knows who is interested in humanity as a transitional form, to be directed to higher levels of evolutionary progress from our current stasis or dysgenic state, to a higher level closer to the gods. That is, there is no limit to the level of intelligence (and other human attributes) some human genotypes will be able to achieve with modern genetic engineering, and with the philosophical yearning to move beyond our present condition. Nations, scientific cults, or individuals will begin the process of super-accelerated evolution in spite of society's reluctance to venture into this creative endeavor. And yet it will not matter, because whoever reaches for the brass ring first and becomes the master's of their own destiny in a viable way will win, and begin the process of speciation where Nietzsche's superman becomes a reality.

This new opportunity also challenges the very basis of our moral and philosophical underpinnings. As we leave our present state of confusion about freedom, family values, what it means to be human, is a life worth living and how do we know -- these imponderable metaphysical conundrums will be apparent to those with the intellect to solve these problems. But more importantly, these first generation mental giants will be able to formulate the computer algorithms that will be able to "design" the next level of superhuman based on our understanding of the human genome. From there, the cycle of evolution will accelerate at a phenomenal rate, and will not be limited to generational improvements. We have the technology today to test the quality of very young children, and if they are exceptional we can combine their genes through artificial insemination and have the next generation born in about five years. Life cycles will be compressed as well as radical evolutionary advancements during each cycle. Gould's vision of punctuated equilibrium will become observable in our lifetime.

The above is not a prescription for elevating all of humanity up to higher and higher levels. As a new ideological war breaks about between the egalitarian left that wants to depress or reverse the evolution of humanity to the lowest common denominator, versus the nationalist right that wants to elevate man to a new level, there will be numerous attempts to stop eugenics. This will primarily come from attempts at a world government or the New World Order so that individual renegade nations will not be allowed the autonomy to have their own culture without world oppression from the outside.

In addition, this new superhuman eugenics program will probably include a very small group of people, and will probably include many different groups looking for the best mechanism and results. This means, some will parish or come to an evolutionary dead end, but some will be successful and will accelerate to higher and higher levels. They will be not only genetically improved, but will be indoctrinated with the moral imperative to improve even further the generations that follow. And thus will begin the self-directed process of human speciation. As these new superior intellects find that they have nothing in common with the old species of human, there will be splits in Homo sapiens, leaving the now archaic species behind. Once this happens, never again will one be able to say "but we're all just part of the human race" because it will no longer be true. This will open up the probability that the existing human species will become extinct or at a minimum a ward of the new species in some master-slave arrangement.

In an interesting twist on Gould's evolutionary obstructionism, Campbell writes, "Three supradarwinian characteristics of evolution make simple Darwinism almost irrelevant to the forthcoming changes of our lineage. First off, paleontologists have finally convinced most evolutionists that species have not arisen by slow, gradual change over geological time as Darwinists, new and old, proclaimed (Eldredge and Gould, 1972; Somit and Peterson, 1989). Instead, new species generally appear abruptly in the fossil record. They then remain essentially invariant for their several millions of years or so of existence until they die out. New classes and phyla of animals also appear suddenly as though by revolution instead of gradual modification. Biologists suspect that new forms evolve rapidly from very tiny outgroups of individuals at the fringe of an existing species". This lends support that directed evolution is highly probable when a "small" population group breaks away and becomes unique . Not by finding some magic gene necessarily, or even a packet of highly sought after genes, but merely by selecting for the phenotypes that are observed as highly beneficial in a radically paring of people who possess those genes in a highly filtered form. Campbell notes that, "Adaptive evolution turns on a single imperative, survival of the fittest. Generative evolution makes two demands on the life forms of its frontier: 1) The successful lineage must survive and 2) It must advance its capability to evolve faster than its competitors." Has this been the Jewish eugenic program for success? We know that over the last 10,000 years man has been breeding plants and animals and evolving new variants at a phenomenal rate. What isn't well recognized is that we have had a direct impact on breeding ourselves also. We have selectively decided who should survive, breed, be outcast from the group, who to enslave, and who to set free. Even the decision to conquer by force foreign peoples has radically changed the genetic make-up of the conqueror and the conquered. And decisions were often made with knowledge of how these actions would change the people themselves, just as they were breeding their livestock and canine companions.

Campbell does not discuss the possibility of small nationalist states promoting eugenics with homogenous populations, but he does discuss a close cousin. That is, thousands of small groups of highly intelligent and rational scientific cults coming together in an almost religious fanaticism for directing the evolution of distinct groups. These groups could be based on a myriad of goals and objectives. For example, even if I did not have any children, I would like to participate in a small eugenic group that would produce designer children followed up by support for schooling and indoctrination to make them into the next generation of leaders for eugenic nationalism. This is similar to what the Hasidic Jews practice in maintaining their isolation, and especially in their indoctrination of their children to hate gentiles and to obey Jewish law absolutely. But I would hope any eugenics religion would be free of the elitist hatred found in these Jewish cults, and promote a scientific openness and thrill of adventure, rather than severe ethnocentrism. But we can learn a lot from the Jewish experience of eugenics and indoctrination as a sustainable sub-culture within other alien cultures.

Finally, the reason for this futuristic adventure is not because it is "good" or "moral" or because the new evolved humans will possess superior traits or values. Each generations value system will change in response to the environment. The reason we will proceed with this adventure is because it is there, just like going to the moon. And in the process we will learn and advance our cultures to newer highs. It must be done because it can be done, and man is a creator. We are the seeds of the gods to come! Campbell concludes, "[L]et me reiterate that private autoevolution is not a possibility for a distant future nor is it a science fiction. It is with us now, albeit at an early enough phase to have escaped most people's attention. Autocatalytic self-evolution is poised to engage us immediately. It falls within our time-scale of concern. Expect it. I have mentioned several of its generative facets; genetic alteration, technological development, information acquisition, cultural development, and ethics. The most significant legacy of our age will not be nuclear power, computers, political achievements or a static ethics for a 'sustainable' society. It will be the closure of our rational intellect around our evolution. The statues of the 21st century will celebrate the fathers of Homo autocatalyticus who brought evolution under its own reason. The world waits to see whose faces will adorn them."

A final document I found was "Where's America's Gene Pool Heading?" by Oscar Falconi (http://www.nutri.com/wn/gp.html). He points out in tabular form how the average intelligence of the Japanese is 107 with a standard deviation of 12.5 while the average intelligence in the United States is 98 with a standard deviation of 15. These numbers provide both nations with exactly 0.027% of the population with IQs above 150. Reading this article reveals how very few people in a country are responsible for providing scientific, philosophical, and political leadership to make a country great. The same numbers also show that we have about ten times the percentage of people than the Japanese with IQs above 180. What the author claims is that this makes the Japanese workforce superior to ours, but we are superior in innovations provided by the very select elite in intelligence. And my point is, even if a small group of people would pool their resources and breed children that would have IQs in the above 180 group, these few children with the right training and dedication would be the driving force for change and human advancement. Just one child with an IQ above 180 and with the conscientiousness to use it, is worth a thousand average children with the best education money can buy. That is why we must invest in an aggressive autoevolutionary eugenics program, or others will and WE will be the ones who are destined for extinction or slavery.