Return to the NeoEugenics' Web Site
Playing God is indeed playing with fire. But that is what we mortals have done since Prometheus, the patron saint of dangerous discovery. We play with fire and take the consequences, because the alternative is cowardice in the face of the unknown. (Dworkin, 2000)
Humans are very much like our primate ancestors. Unfortunately, with our larger intelligent brains, we have acquired the ability to foresee our deaths as soon as we are able to understand life, at a very young age. With this horror, we have instead of facing life with knowledge that we have a brief time to live - a time to be made the most of - we have turned back to our primitive instincts and succumbed to religion, false beliefs, and submission to dominance by others.
The answer to this dilemma during most of this century, has been to try and change human culture, assuming it is infinitely malleable, leading to the agony of communism and the short comings of egalitarian democracies. And in the rest of the world, despotism reigns under numerous doctrines, with little hope for the people subjected to the state's propaganda. This web page is dedicated to putting forth the view that to change the human condition we must change the innate nature of humans, that is, we must encourage the breeding of people with a higher intellect, people better able to understand what motivates them and who can eventually revolt against the subjugation by the state or the controlling elite.
It is my contention that this can be done by focusing on innate human traits we want to promote through a better understanding of behavior genetics. But to promote eugenics as a secular religion, it becomes necessary to begin with a political agenda to bring it about. Much of what I advocate, in keeping with the understanding that evolution occurs at the genetic, individual and group levels, has to do with advancing both individual eugenics and group eugenics. That is, it appears that eugenics can only be advanced in a world where nations are free to advance their own interests without interference.
Anyone who is familiar with the United Nations, NATO, the European Economic Union, and the New World Order knows that we are on the brink of giving up national sovereignty for world totalitarianism, where a central committee will dictate to the masses how to think and behave. We see this happening now in Afghanistan and Iraq, where the United States has decided that it can attack any nation that harbors terrorists, of course forgetting that terrorism is how states often come into existence. I advocate two primary future viable options for eugenics: a return to nationalism, where competing nations will experiment with various social and scientific agendas to raise their peoples to higher levels of intelligence, followed by other traits the population desires to promote; and/or, to increase group solidarity and practice eugenics without borders. The second one has been practiced by Jews for thousands of years, but it can be a dangerous road to follow for it invariably leads to group conflict in the nations where Jews dominate. Much of my writing has to do therefore not with the technology of eugenics but with human nature and how we react as competing groups.
Eugenics is here to stay, and the only question now is how severely will political forces try to stamp it out and what group or nation will be the victor in the end. But a more highly evolved human will be the result and this process will continue unabated into the future. Nietzsche's supermen are right around the corner waiting for their creator to begin the task. We are their creator; they are our children.
Finally, you may ask why so many of my articles are intertwined with the Jewish approach to eugenics and why I use them over and over again to make numerous points about human behavior AND about the need for racial consciousness. First, Jews are one of the few identifiable groups (actually, the Ashkenazi Jews specifically) who have practiced eugenics with tenacious success that has raised their intelligence to a remarkably high level, along with increasing group cohesiveness leading to extreme ethnocentrism or xenophobia. Several issues arise from this achievement. Because of the form of their genetic selection process, they have primarily developed their verbal skills, making them uniquely adept at manipulation, deception, propaganda, academics, the media, etc. This would not normally be a problem, except that they have managed with this verbal skill to control politics and national policy, while those with other skills have built the technological foundations of great nations in Europe and America. That is, the Jewish contribution may not have been very great or even negative, as their accumulation of far greater wealth than any other ethnic group has to do with their abilities in manipulation of other people through the power of words rather than through constructing or building industry. Skilled craftsmen and technicians are as important as lawyers, politicians, academics or journalists; but the rewards have gone to the elite who have the power of the word over the skill of the craftsmen.
Second, Jews have been at the forefront of promoting multiculturalism, diversity, globalism, etc., while trying to block nationalism for others, while embracing Zionism themselves. If Jews could unite with White nationalists, we could cooperate together for a common goal to preserve each other's genetic interests, instead of wasting time and energy fighting each other. My objection to Jewish influence in America therefore is strictly political and aimed at the Jewish Left, not the empirical Jewish Right, and there are many of them who reject multiculturalism and genetic assimilation. These Jews I embrace, those that are on the side of eugenics and human advancement.
And from the East, I also see an emerging nationalism. It may be that the eugenic program I envision will take place in countries like Japan, Korea, China, Singapore, India, etc. They may be able to overcome the individualism and lack of solidarity found in the Christian West. Christianity may only be the expression of a people who are creative and intelligent, but lack Nietzsche's concept of "the will to power" necessary to turn against destructive sentimentality that prevails in the West. We have much to learn about what is genetic, and what is cultural. But if Christian morality is made up of a genetic weakness then a new species of human will have to come from the East, or from a hybridization of East and West. This issue will be taken up in detail as we learn more about what contributes to each civilization's inability to apply eugenics effectively. But competition between groups for intellectual superiority will be the driving force of eugenics - and nationalism is the formula for this friendly competition.
Eugenics at the individual level has been practiced for decades now, as intelligent people are going to college, understand genetics, and - on average - select those mates that have high intelligence and are free of genetic disease. This is assortative mating, and it will increase as equality of opportunity spreads, genetic testing becomes readily available, and knowledge of how genes make us what we are displaces the old notions of an infinitely malleable human nature. Much of what I write therefore, is an attempt to overthrow the grip that Marxist academics, religious fundamentalists, political egalitarians, and the media have over us - denying our genetic contribution to who we are. On the one hand, the press gives us numerous stories about genetics, while denying that it has any significance in who we ultimately become. This web site lays out the evidence, much of it recent, that shows that nature has a far more important role than nurture. This is meant to increase the awareness of individuals who will be having children with regards to the importance of genes, as well bringing about policy changes that are realistic goals for society. One indicator will be President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" program. When the polity finally accepts that educational attainment is as much genetics as it is money spent, then we will have turned the corner back to towards a balance between nature and nurture.
Eugenics at the group level has been active intellectually, and will follow in practice when enough people take up eugenics at a personal level to want to form groups for advancing their own group interests. Of course, eugenics has been practiced by the Jews as a group for over 2000 years, and can serve as a model for other groups to follow. The recently formed Raelians are another successful group, but their goal seems to be messianic as much as it is eugenic. Nevertheless, they are well funded, and well organized, to clone the first humans - an important tool for eugenics. Other groups will follow as the number of people interested in eugenics grows, along with the scientific advancements in genetic engineering and behavioral genetics.
Eugenics at the national level - that is one promoted by the state - is occurring in many countries from Singapore and China in the east to Sweden in the West. These programs are primarily monetary incentives, and often are targeted for increasing the overall number of births to at least replacement levels - or 2.1 children per couple, on average. In homogeneous societies, these eugenic programs can be carried out without the shrill cry of "racism," and can increasingly promote eugenics. For example, those with low intelligence can be offered economic incentives to be sterilized. Assuming that a welfare mom will have four children, and it will cost about $8,000 per year, per child, to try and educate the children as well as keep them out of prison - it would be cost effective for the state to pay close to $400,000 for voluntary sterilization. Likewise, tax incentives can be given to the most economically successful people who have children. The success of such a eugenics program is dependent on how aggressively it is pursued - meaning that competition between nations will accelerate the need for state sponsored eugenics programs in order to compete. Nations with a higher average intelligence, will be more competitive economically and more successful at promoting democracy - including direct democracy and the abolition of managerial state. As will be shown in the Middle East, democracies cannot be sustained without a high level of intelligence. So by increasing intelligence, it is my firm belief based on the empirical evidence, that humans can go beyond representative democracy and the welfare state to where violence, warfare, and class divisions can be greatly reduced. It may not be utopia, but it seems fairly universal that it is a world that most people are striving for - a world without class or racial conflict.
The NeoEugenic Web Site was developed solely by Matt Nuenke, as a private project. Any material on this site can be used for the dissemination of these ideas and a eugenics' program without my permission.
Who am I? (appended April, 2005)
I have always felt that science stands on its own merits, regardless of a personal worldview. That seems to be the consensus of what science is all about, so who I am as a person is irrelevant with regards to what is in fact true about the world as we know it. Aside from that, it sometimes does help to understand a person's motives to better understand new perspectives—so a bit about who I am.
I was born and raised in Wisconsin as part of the baby boom generation, to an average family that was not remarkable in any way other than being so remarkably like everyone else. My father nattered on about politics and lazy civil servants, but he never read or pondered anything beyond what he found in the newspaper. My mother might have been a bit more intellectual, but there were few opportunities to express opinions that ran contrary to what was expected from church-going-folk. Yet, at a very early age, I looked around me and felt that humans seemed to be irrational and not very perceptive—not that I had any answers or understanding of the world myself. But something did seem to be amiss.
After graduating from the University of Wisconsin in engineering, and getting my professional engineering license, I went about the business of working, partying, and having as good of a time as I could. Still, I always felt that somehow I did not fit the part that I was playing; it was too shallow and unengaging in terms of intellect.
In the fall of 1994, while taking continuing education courses, one class assignment led me to read and review The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray—and I returned to my thoughts on Jensen and Shockley who were vilified when I was in college for daring to speak about racial genetic differences. I was appalled that once again, science could not get a fair hearing. It motivated me to get involved and to take back my rights from those who would like to destroy Western culture and the White race—the most dangerous being self-hating Whites.
Since then, I have spent most of my time reading preferably academic books and plotting the trends in science, those provisional truths that hold until ever more data is collected. From my perspective, genetics is winning out over radical environmentalism in science, but politically irrational man is winning out in common culture. The world is again slipping into simplistic notions of good and evil, them against us, right from wrong, etc., when nature rolls along completely unaware of such notions. So I have chosen a side to fight for—a more adaptive human. Adaptive, not in terms of reproduction, but in terms of coming to grips with our tragedy and our most distinguishing trait—our awareness of our own existence.