Return to the NeoEugenics' Home Page

Following is the introduction to the Eugenics Watch web site (  I downloaded all of their pages including a book-length history, but then realized it was just the same old history regurgitated in hundreds of other books, and not worth commenting on.  But the introduction was filled with what can only be described as an apoplectic defense of Roman Catholic doctrine disguised in some paranoid rationalized drivel (my comments are in "Times New Roman" font):

Introduction: Eugenics is dedicated to the proposition that all men are created unequal and the food is running short; that, in the struggle for food, those who have an inherited advantage prevail and pass the advantage on to their children who prevail even more; that this is how evolution, Yale and the English aristocracy happened.

Quite a stumbling start! As far as I can tell from my cohorts in the eugenics' movement, we give little concern to a shortage of food.  We assume I think that a severe shortage will probably help our cause in the end, by making people less maladaptively altruistic.  And like all parents, I guess we do want to pass on any advantages we have to our children--a pretty universal drive as shown by studies from cultures around the world.  And as for inequality, this is a fact for any species that is evolving.  The spotted leopard has lost most of its biological diversity due to a severe bottleneck effect and loss of numbers, and they are no longer very fertile.  So do eugenicists believe people, races, and almost any group can be measured on a multiple of traits and found to be different?  Well yes, but then this observation is shared by almost everyone who has even a basic understanding of genetics and the evolutionary process.

A further belief is that, at this point in evolution, the more evolved must take destiny and the less evolved in hand. Selection must not be left to chance for chance is cruel, capricious and, all too often, expensive but must instead be led by the kindly elite-Harvard professors, British aristocrats, Serbian psychiatrists, Aryans and so on. But death control, which has been the main method used by natural selection or chance, for termination of useless populations, must be replaced by birth control which is cheaper, and, as Charles Darwin pointed out in The Descent of Man, more effective.

Well, wrong again.  The eugenicists that I communicate with have little interest in "taking the less evolved in hand." We simply think they are irrelevant as are all races as a new species will be coming out of our eugenics' program, and I cannot see how anyone will be able to stop it.  Unless there is a one-world totalitarian system that suppresses all research and advancement in genetics, within a couple of decades we will be able to alter the germline genetic code, resulting in a new species far in advance of Homo sapien.  And we do not do this to be benevolent necessarily, but to improve the human condition for those who make the transition.  And we do it because it is OUR religion and belief that evolution will prevail over religious or egalitarian dogmas.  As for "death control," that is how evolution has brought us to this point in time.  Mix up genes, test, the failures die and the winners breed, on average.  That is the algorithm and none other has been found that can account for human existence.

The problem is that the masses will not dedicate themselves unselfishly to the production and protection of an elite while exterminating their own posterity. Over and over the eugenicists roll this rock up the hill and over and over it rolls down—often on them. Outstanding classics of scientific racism, such as The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy or The Passing: of the Great Race, The Bell Curve or The g Factor are rejected in favor of “sentimental slogans” such as “All men are created equal” or “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its Constitution”.

Well, again as for the masses, we don't much care what they dedicate themselves to as long as they stay out of our way.  In fact, as long as they live and die by their own wits and talents, eugenicists are quite unconcerned about the masses. The main problem with the masses is that the so-called elite pays for the masses well-being rather than the other way around.  Welfare is in fact a dysgenic program that seems to go unnoticed, while eugenics is decried by the stumbling incompetent masses.  But the fact is, the masses have always and will always do what they are told to do by the media and the elites who are in control.  The problem is that there are far more elites in the socialist camp telling the masses how to vote and how haves owe them a living.  And as to charges of racist books, I shall let Michael Levin answer: "Calling claims of genetic race differences 'racist,' in particular, begs not one but four questions: (1) Are race differences in themselves bad? (2) Is believing in race differences bad? (3) Is saying there are race differences bad? (4) Is studying race differences bad? Once it is realized that an affirmative answer to each of these questions must be established before the charge of racism can be made to stick, the charge itself collapses."  Michael Levin in Why Race Matters: Race Differences and What They Mean, 1997.  The charge of racism is leveled at one and all who dare not to accept the cultural determinism of Marxists, and it no longer has any impact on any but the uneducated masses.

Governments with eugenic policies come to power in Germany, South Africa, Rumania, or Alabania and the world rises against them. Then it’s all to do again.

What?  The world has never risen against any country because of their eugenics policies that I am aware of.  Singapore is now an openly eugenic country. China has a eugenic program.  The above statement is just wishful thinking.  Sovereign nations can adopt eugenic programs anytime they want, and there is no international mechanism to stop them--yet.

But like the ants, which these social biologists believe we resemble (or should resemble), the eugenicists toil away in their dark underground passages. For they always have a new plan. Put your head down and listen, and you can hear their latest and the greatest plan: “The ideas of eugenics are based on the assumption that men are unequal, while democracy is based on the assumption that they are equal. It is therefore, politically very difficult to carry out eugenic ideas in a democratic community when those ideas take the form, not of suggesting that there is a minority of inferior people, such as imbeciles, but of admitting that there is a minority of superior people. The former is pleasing to the majority, the latter unpleasing. Measures embodying the former fact can therefore win the support of the majority, while measures embodying the latter cannot.” (from The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law)

More nonsense. The eugenics' movement existed openly in about 40 democratic countries in the West for over 80 years.  There was no underground plan or conspiracy, and eugenicists from the left and the right openly discussed the many ways it should be implemented.  These all took place in democracies.  In fact, eugenic principles have been the standard except for the brief interval from about 1950 after the German defeat when it was mistakenly tied to the war atrocities and Jewish genocide.  The Holocaust was NOT a eugenics' program.  The Jews were killed because they were perceived to be enemies of the German nation, not because they were considered to be inferior.  But because of this, and because of the Boasian school of cultural determinism that ensued after the war, genetics was eschewed for a radical environmentalist perspective that now is seen as a total fabrication and failure.  And that is why eugenic practices are back--because they are tied to a scientific empirical understanding of how humans evolved.

These are the words of Bertrand Russell, who is being quoted by Professor Glanville Williams. Williams is the Rous Ball Professor of English law at Cambridge University, a fellow of the English Eugenics Society, and, for the last twenty three years, head of the English Abortion Law Reform Association. What Williams is saying is that the elitist ideas of eugenics can come to power in democracies by encouraging attacks on minorities, much as Hitler came to power by scapegoating the Jews.

Again, eugenics' programs were advocated by socialists and conservatives alike. And how does one account for the eugenics' program in China? Just what minority are the Chinese attacking to bring this about?  No, eugenics' programs not only don't need minorities to succeed, but they are in fact easier to implement in homogeneous nation-states that want to increase the genetic quality of their citizens.  The screeching that comes from minorities only gets in the way of the program.

The quotation expresses an attitude typical to the book, The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law, in which it is found. It is therefore distressing to find that this book is cited twice in the Roe v. Wade decision and used as the unacknowledged basis for most [of] Justice Blackmun’s account of the history of abortion and of the personhood of the unborn child in that decision.

For if eugenic ideas lie behind the Roe v. Wade discussion of personhood, then antidemocratic and unconstitutional ideas lie behind it. Furthermore, Bertrand Russell, speaking of eugenics in the Thirties, said: “Democracy stands in the way”. This underlines the point that attempts to advance eugenics include, as a component detail, attempts to undermine democracy.

This is an incredible stretch of the imagination, since the same liberals who have promoted abortion are the same liberals who decry eugenics' practices and aspirations.  There are many eugenicists who want to roll back Roe v. Wade because of the fear that the best and brightest are not having children and we are in a dysgenic decline.  There just is no correlation or linkage between eugenics and abortion.  This diatribe is just some Roman Catholic fantasy that sees some sinister plot under every eugenic rock.  But the fact is, eugenicists and abortion rights advocates for the most part are antagonists on the right and the left respectively, and are usually bitter enemies.  Pretty hard to muster a major underground subversive plot with these two antagonistic groups.

And what are we to make of the fact that Planned Parenthood which runs 49 abortion clinics, was founded by eugenicists—Margaret Sanger, Abraham Stone, Mrs. Louis de B. Moore, Dorothy Brush and many others? What does it mean that the Association for the Study of Abortion was founded by Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood, a former vice-president of the American Eugenic Society? Or that the Population Council was founded by Frederick Osborn a former president of both the Pioneer Fund and the American Eugenic Society? Or that NARAL was founded by Lawrence Lader of the Population Council? Or that the Catholics cited in Roe v. Wade, John Noonan and Daniel Callahan, were members of the Population Council, a eugenic front group? Above all, what does it mean that 25% of all abortions in America are performed on black women when blacks are twelve percent of the population? Why are fertile black women decreasing to post Civil War-Ku Klux Klan era levels? Why are the pictures of those who “need” abortion so frequently pictures of blacks?

Planned parenthood may have been the seed for abortion rights many decades ago, but over the last fifty years abortion rights have been promoted almost entirely by feminists who do not wish to carry, by force, an unwanted parasite.  And as for Blacks, it is no wonder they have more abortions than Whites. They are far less intelligent on average, more reckless, more promiscuous, and therefore end up turning to abortion rather than preventing the pregnancy in the first place the way more intelligent and responsible people do.

The Eugenicists: The eugenicists, as I see them, are the men behind Hitler, the men behind Josef Mengele, the men behind apartheid, the men behind segregation, the men behind the Rumanian orphanages. Nazism, apartheid, segregation and Ceaucescu’s “orphanages” were all eugenically based schemes for social salvation. The failure of these schemes has discredited eugenics but not the eugenicists. This is because no one really knew who they are. But since they are professors, journalists, economists, gynecologists, psychiatrists and sociologists and since they have been left in place, they have continued to mold society. The difference is that in the Thirties they worked openly whereas now they work in obscurity.

Paranoid rantings?  Was there some sinister plot by a group of eugenicists who manipulated Hitler?  How about the other 39 countries that were practicing eugenics but did not start a war?  And who were these evil geniuses?  And were they any more manipulative than say the Roman Catholic Church, who had thousands of propagandists preaching to the masses that they will go to hell if they practice birth control?  Yup, this web site is based on paranoid delusions about some sinister plot against the papacy, a plot that has not wavered since about 1870.  It just looks really different from decade to decade.

However, the need to hide actually works to their advantage. Recall that their goal is the destruction of democracy and the creation of an elite. Obviously this goal will be more easily achieved in a democratic society by deception than by open statement. Thus, in all democracies, the post war eugenic strategy differs from the pre-war strategy in that it relies on deception rather than force.

Sorry to inform you that us neoeugenicists are right out in the open, in your face, and have no desire to give up democracy to create our new species.  We can do it quite readily with existing freedoms.  In fact, the only thing that can stop us is a world totalitarian government that suppresses all research and progress.  And I might point out that like Marxism and liberalism, the Roman Catholic Church also has no time for individual freedom and open democracy.  Democracy was originally advocated and promoted primarily by free thinkers, NOT the Roman Catholic Church who wanted total domination and control of the masses.  So it seems to me this is a case of the stove calling the kettle black.

A description of the eugenic societies and a description of their present strategy is the goal of the work of Eugenics Watch. The description is in the form of lists of members of the societies together with the groups they control and the books they have written so far as the Eugenics Watch has been able to determine this. The lists include selected quotations. The membership lists come from the journals published by the groups themselves; information on the members comes from many sources, all publicly available. The chief source is Who’s Who; next in importance are obituaries and eugenic journals. Information on books written by eugenic society members comes chiefly from Who’s Who, from the Science Citation Index and from computerized library catalogs.

By means of these lists, the Eugenics Watch tries to expose the eugenic strategy, particularly the secretive post war strategy. Just as the Krupp company rearmed the Germans in the Thirties by building warplanes piecemeal at scattered sites (see The Arms of Krupp by William Manchester), so these “Nazis of the soul” are rebuilding eugenics piecemeal as a series of apparently scattered projects. One group, the Pioneer Fund, maintains the Aryan! White supremacist ideology; another works to legalize abortion world wide (Planned Parenthood), another to develop contraceptives (Population Council), another to rename control of Third World resources “conservation” as prelude to regaining control of these resources under the guise of “green protectorates”, another to control the teaching of biology (BCSC), and so on. Then, in a book, such as The Bell Curve, these scattered pieces are proposed as social policy.

This organization corresponds to that of the largest modern corporations in which all activities are the outgrowth of staff work which is meshed together by committees at ever higher levels. (see The New Industrial State by John Kenneth Galbraith for description of this process). Using this model we see the American Eugenics Society as the corporation; its directors are the highest level committee within the US. These directors of course, consult frequently with their “bankers”, the large foundations, such as the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations; and the Society has international interests. The difference is that the Society does not seek name recognition even though a distinctive, eye catching, slogan generating logo, namely the swastika, is available to it. (“For a cleaner, whiter, brighter population, use RU-486—from the makers of Zyklon-B”, “Isn’t it time for white supremacy?”, etc.)

This post war strategy must be understood as an attempt to reach the pre-war goals of eugenics without being hung at Nuremberg or elsewhere for crimes against humanity or genocide.

Here I have been a eugenicist for years now and I have failed to realize that I was part of a vast conspiracy.  Now I'm really pissed.  Where is my money for books, a new computer, maybe a couple of clerks, etc. Here I have been doing this all on my own, not knowing I was part of a fantastic underground cabal.  Does the above sound like the infamous Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion?  In addition, I didn't realize that I was in lock-step agreement with factions from the left who I thought were my enemies!  Boy, have I been enlightened now.  I better get a letter off to Gloria Steinem asking her for direction and guidance.  Here I thought I was acting on my own, never knowing I was being manipulated by some unknown universal force of almost Satanic proportions. 

The Eugenic Strategy: The strategy has several parts; each part must be understood in order to understand the whole.

First. The eugenicists still appeal to racism but the appeal is well disguised—going by such code names as “gene frequency”, which is a legitimate term in genetics. This intellectual camouflage is adaptive behavior in the service of survival, a technique which the eugenicists have apparently learned from the animals they strive to emulate.

Again, if races do not exist like the left proclaims, then how can there be racism?  But more importantly, the concept of race and racial differences are so grounded in evolutionary principles that all we know of biology would cease to make sense if there were not differences in genetic allele frequencies between different population groups.  This is true of man and every other creature on earth.  So is science to be abandoned?  For what?  A return to the Middle Ages with its fear, oppression, and intolerance!  No thanks.

Second. The eugenicists adopted a policy of “crypto-eugenics” following World War II. “Crypto-eugenics” means working through other organizations, such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

Maybe it was necessary to go underground in an intolerant world.  Researchers are still harassed, condemned, and censored for holding opinions of fact that do not accord with political correctness.  If they did go underground, it was because of intellectual intolerance and for no other reason. 

Third. The eugenicists adopted the tactic of finding and using ambiguities and loopholes in the law. Ambiguities or loopholes found by eugenic lawyers such as Glanville Williams (ES) and Harriet Pilpel are exploited to allow eugenical doctors such as Dugald Baird (ES), Leonard Arthur (ES) and Alan Guttmacher (AES) to introduce the desired eugenic activity as a normal medical procedure, done at the patient’s request. Introducing the eugenic activity as a normal medical procedure allows it to be shrouded in medical privacy—an extra layer of haze in addition to that gained by working through other organizations.

Sounds to me like the same tactic used by every group or organization in the United States to get their way.  I am writing this while waiting to see if Gore or Bush is successful in getting the courts to intervene in the presidential results.  My, they must be evil like those nasty eugenicists.  How dare they use the courts to serve their own ends!

Four. The eugenicists use the techniques of modern advertising to rally support. Since the goal is antidemocratic and the means involves secrecy and legal quibbles, only advertising is really suitable as a means of, well, of advertising. After all, people have to find out somehow that steroids are available for their girlfriends, abortions and infanticide for their children, starvation for their injured relatives and a suicide machine for their elderly parents. Only advertising knows how to motivate people’s wallets while bypassing their heart and brain.

Apparently it is acceptable for others to  advertise, including the Roman Catholic Church, but not for eugenicists.  And again, why is the goal antidemocratic? I see no indication that a eugenics' program is anymore tied to democracy or totalitarianism than say building a high quality motor car.  It just doesn't correlate or make any sense.  They have nothing to do with each other.

And how successful eugenic advertising has been! People who would scorn to be caught believing in the Marlboro Man or to repeating “It’s the real thing” without ironic overtones, will absorb complete little fantasies from condom and abortion ads. They mouth empty slogans such as “it’s a woman’s choice” or “safe sex” with a devotion that must bring tears of ecstasy to the poll takers and ad men involved. Slogans and demons are preferred to reasons. Campaigns based on fostering hatred of the Roman Catholic hierarchy have proved very successful in persuading women to take cancer causing steroids. In another triumph, the word “selection” used by Josef Mengele at Auschwitz has been metamorphosed into “choice” and gained the support of the American Hebrew Union.

Yup, this guy is a certified paranoid alright.

Five. The great enemy of eugenics is and always has been the Roman Catholic Church. The eugenics societies therefore expend great energy on destroying or neutralizing this Church’s opposition. For example, in the early sixties, while eugenic journals were filled with discussions of how best to change society in the eugenic direction, eugenicists engaged certain deluded Catholics, such as Fr. John O’Brien of Notre Dame, in solemn discussions about “not imposing morality”. These unhappy souls were then persuaded to work to prevent the Church from taking a stand on eugenic issues because “it was not right for the Church to impose its moral values on others”. Thus, as the eugenicists worked to change society and impose their disastrous morality on everyone, (see for example, Population Policy, Kingsley Davis, Science, v. 158, 1967, p. 730 with its sequels “Beyond Family Planning”, John D. Rockefeller III, Bucharest, 1974 and the proposed Cairo Protocols 1994) they had the satisfaction of seeing the Catholic Church divided and weakened in its opposition to them by some Catholic bishops, priests, papers and magazines. And even today some “Catholics”, such as Daniel Callahan of the American eugenics society, do every thing they can to keep the Church from effectively opposing the imposition of eugenic morality on everyone.  That’s the basic eugenic strategy.

Again, many of the people who are opposing the Roman Catholic Church are anti-eugenicists.  Socialists, egalitarians, Marxists, and liberals of all sorts like neither religion or eugenics.  Both are equally anathema to many of these people.  The fact is, eugenicists can come in all flavors.  My own opinion is that many of the neoeugenicists are not religious.  But only because religion does not have much of a foundation anymore.  Likewise, around the turn of the century, most of the conservative eugenicists were very religious or at least religious moralists.  So the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other.  These are just delusional rantings by someone who cannot tolerate the demise of religion because of progress in understanding evolution and behavior genetics.  Science is beyond their grasps.

Democracy or Eugenics: It's Everyone's Choice: It is a matter of historical fact that the Catholic Church is the only international organization run by a group of well educated, dedicated men, which opposes eugenics. Why this is so is a mystery. And the demonic delight the eugenicists feel in attacking the Catholic Church is a mystery too.

It is really no mystery. Eugenicists tend to be grounded in science, not in mythology.  For that reason many do tend to hold all religions and cults with some contempt.  But the Catholic Church is also antidemocratic.  Since when did Catholics vote for the pope?  And since when was the Roman Catholic Church such a great advocate of democracy?  Seems to me they were a little behind the rest of the world when it came to individual freedom and tolerance.  They seem to have preferred drawing-and-quartering heretics who actually wanted to pursue the truth no matter where it led.  Eugenicists on the other hand know that they must absolutely maintain freedom of expression and creation, and are intolerant of any government that is oppressive.  Eugenicists therefore realize that not only must democracy be maintained, but national sovereignty must prevail in many places to assure that freedom prevails.  A single world moral system is simply totalitarianism all over again.  We will lose all freedom of expression and creativity because a few want to control the masses with their visions of a single moral system.  Eugenicists want competitive programs of human systems to see which ones are the best.  That is, we are not afraid of competition in the realm of ideas and social programs to see which ones work the best.  Something that religions have always fought against, alternative life histories to suit different peoples wishes.

But with each passing day the issue becomes clearer: eugenics or democracy. On one side are the rich and powerful eugenicists, the followers of Malthus by way of Darwin. These Scrooges think that there are too many sick, too many old, too many inferior, too many Chinese, too many Indians, too many, too many, too many people. They want to take evolution into their own qualified, elite, wonderful hands; they don’t believe in the sanctity of life or in democracy, its political expression; and they have learned nothing from the series of social disasters which their policies have inflicted on this century—except to be careful not to get caught. That’s one choice.

And on the other side, there are the orthodox Catholics who believe that the world was made by a great and loving Creator on behalf of persons, all of whom are immortal souls from the moment of conception. Catholics believe that the world has a Redeemer, Jesus Christ; and a mother to teach it unselfishness—the great Mother of God, Mary most holy. Therefore they oppose that degradation of human beings which is eugenics and support democracy. That’s another choice.

Between these two organized camps lie most of the people of the world. In obscure ways over the next thirty years they will choose between the two. This decision will be the first global decision.

Well, its looking better for eugenics already.  The new human species we create will be able to understand simple logic, and will be free of the genetic religiosity, self-deception, and paranoid conspiratorial delusions so prevalent in the masses today.  For only a few "elites" are capable of stepping into the future with a superior intelligence that is required to understand this very complex world.  It is pretty obvious the world is already way too complex for Eugenics Watch.

This essay was brought to you by Matthew Nuenke, who was too lazy tonight to write something more consequential.  But it was fun. November, 2000.