Reproduction & The Nationalist Eugenic State
One common theme of discomfort for neoeugenicists is that as people become more successful, they have fewer children, leading to a negative replacement rate. The overall population falls in numbers as couples have fewer and fewer children. Then there is a call that if everyone did their part, and had more children, the crisis would be over.
Unfortunately, as we have learned from Garrett Hardin's brilliant essay The Tragedy of the Commons, we know that if humans acted in concert they could move mountains. The problem is, we are not ants who behave as identical automatons. We evolved as small bands and/or tribes with certain social obligations mandated by the tribe for survival. Much of that social control is lost today in larger social units. We feel more shame at being caught throwing litter than giving up having children for the good life of travel, fun, hot cars and a hot tub. The pendulum of social morality and control moves slowly, and it can only change through a vigorous enforcement of laws or repeated indoctrination from a central authority responsible for group think. But realistically, why is a nation's total number of people even of that much importance? If the population shrinks too greatly over time because of current conditions, why not just wait for the environment and/or economic system to change when people will once again find it beneficial to have more children?
The Forces Calling for an Expanded National Population.
We have an interesting contradiction at the level of the state. Nations such as Italy, Russia, Germany, Japan and many others have such low birth rates, for various reasons, that their populations are shrinking without the help of immigration. This is universally seen as a tragedy and something that must be prevented at any cost, including allowing for more immigration with the acknowledged loss of national racial identity.
At the other extreme, we have almost a universal mandate to reduce the world's population growth, though usually seen as only a third-world problem. So how can a rational policy call both for higher birth rates in modern states and reduced birth rates in backward states? There are several competing forces acting on these contradictions, as seen from a globalist's perspective. However, from a nationalist perspective these conflicts do not exist. The nationalist perspective does not concern itself with foreign sovereign nations, and can promote higher reproduction rates at home to prevent potential conflicts with neighboring states as well as preventing a declining population that will not be able to support the existing aging population; a financial concern that may or may not be real. So let's look at several competing forces for population densities.
First, there is the problem of every society's elite. Nationalists are quick to recognize within their midst alien races who are competitors or parasites, but they often fail to understand their own race-traitors at the very top. That is, there is an evolutionary principle that any nation's elite will turn their backs on the people they represent. They in essence bale-out of the common good when they reach a certain level of power. They make separate alliances with other nations, other races, and for other interests than the nation's. This subject has been discussed at length by Kevin MacDonald in his book A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, 1994. It was also briefly discussed in Indoctrinability, Ideology and Warfare: Evolutionary Perspectives, 1998, (Part V: Group Processes).
To be intellectually honest, we must then come to grips with this human dilemma. The very people who lead us are in fact not acting in the best interests of the people they represent. When industrialists, politicians, editorialists, movie stars, and musicians reach a certain level of success they begin to move in circles that are unique to the elite. They become jet-setters and globalists. Being elites, they turn their backs on their own tribe and seek success to the detriment of the nation they supposedly represent. This has been the fundamental cause of industrialists and their political puppets calling for increased immigration in many nations to keep labor costs low. These elites have absolutely no problem with selling out their own national unity for increased wealth and success, because they truly do not see themselves as part of the nation they are trying to manipulate for their own interests. After all, they can afford to live in gated-communities and hire a cadre of body guards to make their lives safe, no matter how many criminal elements they allow into the country. They are beyond the reach of their own consequences.
At the other extreme are the universal altruists or egalitarians who truly want multiracialism and diversity, a policy that is also promoted now by many Christian churches as well. They encourage immigration in lieu of a higher population growth rate because in their minds, seeing a people as genetically or culturally unique is anathema. And they see a compelling need to help people in other overcrowded nations seek a better life while destroying the nation they are invited in to.
Though I do not forgive this maladaptive altruism, I can almost understand it. Humans are easily manipulated and the elites and natural enemies of the nation's primary culture have an easy time convincing the masses that cultural determinism is the true ideology; that racial and cultural differences are either not real or are to be embraced as the-good. They have been able to convince the masses that diversity is beneficial, without any proof or substantiation whatsoever. This ideology was plucked from thin air, and serves primarily as a tool to get the dominant culture to literally give their nation away, under the control of the media that is owned too often by a culture's race traitors.
The recent election for the presidency between Bush and Gore, now in its third week of contestation, brought this maladaptive altruism in clear view for me. My wife's relatives are Chicago Irish, and continue to vote Democratic, even though it is a detriment to their own self interests. They will not change their vote, even though they universally despise affirmative action, set asides, high taxes, and a corrupt political machine that routinely sells out the Irish for elite interests. But, thanks to indoctrination and blind obedience to both culture and the Roman Catholic Church, they will vote as they are told.
So economically, does a nation have to maintain an expanding population? No, it does not. There are many alternatives. I will outline methods below for increasing the level of reproduction through measures that can be instituted below, but first I want to debunk the common arguments for an ever increasing population density.
There are several arguments for increasing a nation's population. One is that it is required for either cheap labor to fill a shortage, or there is a need for technical workers or specialists that are in short supply. But both arguments are specious. First, if there is a shortage of cheap unskilled labor, in its place would be substituted a more automated work force using the labor that is available. Last night I went to McDonald's to get hamburgers for my dogs and a couple fish fillets for myself. And again they were short four hamburgers for my dogs. All Hispanic, they were unable to meet the simple request for ten hamburgers and two fish. And this is typical (and I should know by now I have to check every order before leaving, or better yet stop patronizing such establishments. Eating out only encourages immigration). Without this cheap labor, the nation would adjust easily enough to use the labor we have, do things differently, and in the end be better off with a more technically advanced society that does not rely on cheap labor and the costs incurred. Remember, every one of those low paid Hispanics is going to have several children, and every one of those children are going to cost taxpayers between eight and twelve thousand dollars a year to educate. It is a net loss to society, but a net gain for McDonald's and other users of cheap labor.
At the other extreme it is argued that there is a shortage of technically skilled nationals to fill an ever more technically demanding work force. This is an argument now taking place in Germany and the United States, where the high-tech industry says it does not have enough qualified people to fill open positions. Now look at the contradictions. Germany still has a high level of unemployment, they have an educated work force, but not enough to fill demand. The irony of this is that it flies in the face of what the cultural determinists preach, that everyone has the same potential if only they were educated adequately. There is no recognition that there are limits to intelligence based on one's genetic potential. So the genetic capital of Asian nations is appropriated to keep the corporations ripe with cheap high-skilled labor.
This does not have to be the case however. Rather than bring immigrants into a country, the industries could just as easily go to the countries that have the labor that is needed. That is, rather than destroy a nation's racial harmony, move some industries to other countries. There could also be small pockets of highly industrialized regions of a nation where immigration could be open without destroying the entire country. The United States could easily set aside some small regions of Texas for example where Mexicans could enter to work in American factories without the benefits of citizenship, and move back and forth as desired. I realize it would be difficult for me to have my lawn shipped to these regions for mowing, but even this problem can be solved. There is some promising work being done in grass-inhibitors that allow lawns to grow up to a point and then cease, obviating the need for mowing the grass regularly. Also note that Japan has not submitted to importing workers, but has been very successful in exporting their industries instead, to the irritation of many Marxists in the West who see immigration as the solution to any nationalist resurgence.
Finally then, it seems that a stable population or at least a very gradually expanding population would hold numerous social benefits by reducing overcrowding, suburban sprawl, and the high costs of building new homes. Housing overall would be much more affordable, neighborhoods more stable, and more money could be directed to better the common good and the eugenic quality of the state.
The ONLY valid argument I can see for a rapidly expanding population is the one where a large work force is needed to support an aging retired population. As people live longer, more and more working people are needed to provide for these retirees. But this also is not valid, because at some point the world population will have to stabilize. And again, there are many ways to solve this supposed dilemma. The first is stop wasting money and resources on the non-productive underclass and immigrants. Another is to have healthy old people continue to work for a few more years. If we live longer, why shouldn't we work a few more years to help out rather than expecting a handout? And, why not make sure that every person who retires has invested adequately and must live on their own money rather than take from others? Social Security as it stands is just another welfare program for the aged. They put in far less than they take out when adjusted for inflation. And finally, limit end-of-life expenses. Over 90% of all medical costs come at the very end of a persons life, usually a life not worth living at some point because of disease. Cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and many other diseases cost incredible amounts of money for the last few months or years of some people's lives when there really is no life at all to enjoy. Note, I am not calling for forced euthanasia. But if each person has set aside resources in combination with family support, then it is a rational choice to be made by each family to what extent the old will be kept alive beyond any hope of enjoyment or recovery. The state merely needs to recuse itself from this social responsibility to make it work. That is, reject the welfare state for the resource-rich state that is needed to improve the genetic capital of its people to compete with other nations.
What we have learned about reproduction from evolution.
Having debunked the need for anything but a gradually increasing population, how does a homogeneous nation assure that they are breeding enough high quality children to keep the nation stable? Well here we have learned a lot recently from evolutionary investigations into why people have children, who has children, etc. Simply stated, our evolutionary desires and goals have been subverted with the introduction of birth control, abortion, etc. But even before birth control became readily accessible to all, in the past our ancestors practiced infanticide to limit reproduction. It seems that humans have the ability to opt for quantity versus quality when selecting reproductive goals, including never having children. There is good evidence that sexual desires were sufficient to have children. The desire for children just was not that strong in itself. Far more children were born because men wanted to have sex, not children. So what do we do now, given that having children is not a very strong desire in humans?
Several recent books shed a lot of light on this subject: Adaptation and Human Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective (numerous authors) and Mother Nature: A History of Mothers, Infants, and Natural Selection by Sarah Hrdy. These two books are excellent resources (though the first is highly biased towards egalitarianism). And the message is clear. The interplay of economic resources, reproductive strategies, the biasing of quality of children rather than the number of children by the middle class, etc. makes it highly unlikely that the state is going to be able to increase the number of children by the middle and upper classes through simple sloganeering and special pleading. It will just not work as people make decisions that are best for them, not what is supposedly best for society. But the state does have readily available options if it has the will.
There is evidence that people will accept economic incentives to have more children. But in the past these have been too few and too little to have any meaningful impact. But it seems only fair that if the state wants individuals to make the sacrifices necessary to have more children, then the state must take measures necessary to meet these goals. In this way people still have the freedom to do what is best for them without excessive coercion.
Reproductive incentives in the nationalist-eugenic state.
I will not try to come up with every available incentive but will instead just put forth a few that I think are viable, leaving alternative measures to the imagination of others. But it seems that as a very minimum, we must look at the cost of children in relation to the cost to society. If resources could be diverted directly into the pockets of genetically superior parents who are willing to have [more] children, then the evidence has shown they will respond, on average. That is, not everyone will be willing to change their reproductive goals but enough people will participate to make up the reproductive deficit. And I would argue it is exactly as necessary as procuring a sufficient budget for national defense, it takes whatever it takes to defend the nation. (I believe however that the United States has put way too much money into the military and has become an aggressor state with its primary function being one of projecting the ethos of Western cultural determinism onto the rest of the world.)
So here is my simple proposal. We now have good evidence that knowledge and skills are more a matter of innate intelligence in children than has been admitted to by the academics. Research has shown children are genetically programmed to learn, and that it does little good to try and forcibly enrich their environments beyond the basic essentials necessary for development. Programs like "Head Start" add little to a child's eventual worth to society because promoters are merely trying to close the genetic gap between Whites and Blacks in the basic skills. So why do we put so much money into programs that are economic failures? Essentially because society is unwilling to admit that our schools fail because we are trying to educate children who are genetically of low intelligence. There is NO evidence that an enhanced environment adds but a miniscule amount of additional knowledge or talent to a child's future basic "three R's" repertoire of skills when they grow up.
So here are the numbers: Every child will cost roughly about $10,000 a year to educate. And the less fit, the handicapped, and the dysfunctional will cost even more. So what do we get for this money? Very little in fact. The Montessori schools are very undisciplined and unstructured, and they produce some of the smartest and most creative adults (Noam Chomsky comes to mind). I propose that instead of spending very much money on educating children, we put them into environments where they can happily learn on their own. Computers, home schooling, neighborhood or small communal schools; these methods can teach these bright students easily for far less money. But let me clarify what I mean by education. This also includes more parental involvement in exposing intelligent children in ways of creating, the arts, the skills of debate, critical thinking, etc. That is, after they have finished their basic training via a computer simulator, you do not let the children go watch television for the rest of the day. No, that is when parents and other children interact to expand their learning beyond the basics, as well as developing useful skills including the martial arts, I am afraid to say. Every child in a multiculturalist society---one that is becoming ever more violent---must be taught how to defend themselves if they are to be safe.
So here is the proposal. For every intelligent child a couple [or single mom] has, the state will grant them from $5,000 to $30,000 per year, depending on each child's IQ, to educate and take care of their children as they see fit. That is, if they can set up small communal schools and show that their children are learning, they can use the money however they wish. Some parents will continue to work while a few of the more nurturing moms and dads will stay behind to run the schools. But as these children are naturally bright, they will not require any elaborate educational program. And again, much of the boring rote learning can be turned over to computers, while adults enhance the children's inquisitiveness about subjects that often go unexplored in our schools (like the real meaning of race and nationhood).
At the other extreme, the state will still maintain [privatized] public schools to teach the below average children. As these children will never be able to repay the state for anything but a nominal education, the costs can be diverted to financing the proposal above. This seems to me to be the best balance between meeting both the state's goals and the financial and reproductive goals of families. And it has a natural free enterprise component of paying families whatever it takes to supply the necessary children for the future work force, while giving families the help they need for having a good life while taking on the burden of having children. And of course, numerous other benefits could be given to families with children including more holidays, vacation days, etc. But never to the point of disrupting the robustness of the economy. A nationalist state must never become the managerial state where socialism means where even limited socialism or egalitarianism becomes economically disruptive. Economic viability must always be maintained to provide the resources for achieving the goal of improving the genetic quality of the population.
Reproductive incentives in the nationalist-eugenic diaspora state.
Well, back to earth. The pendulum has begun to swing back towards nationalism and eugenic concerns, but we have powerful forces to fight to achieve that end. The Marxists, Bolsheviks, egalitarians, cultural determinists, socialists, postmodernists, et al. have not let up even with the fall of Communism. They are there, united in force to keep people from achieving their communitarian goals, even if it means global totalitarianism. Most of us may never see a viable nation-state again---Israel being the tolerated exception---thanks to international monetary and military pressures brought about by the new socialist Western nations. We have seen what has happened to countries like Austria and Germany when they have tried to buck the multiculturalist trend. Their freedoms are curtailed as they are quickly stomped into submission. National sovereignty is a meaningless concept in the West.
For that reason, we must start building our own eugenic nationalism within the existing states where we are forced to reside. There really is no where to flee. But that is no reason to despair. The Jewish eugenic diaspora state has been very successful and we can use parts of their program as a model. That is we can learn from their proven record of breeding for higher intelligence, maintaining their allegiance to the tribe rather than to the nation that they live in, and their abhorrence of the other. That is, tolerance and compassion are never wasted outside of the tribe.
What this means then is that the diaspora eugenic state must dig in even deeper, to allocate resources for success even when we are forced to transfer much of our wealth to other racial groups. That means, becoming less materialistic for immediate gratification and allocating resources towards our own people. It means developing a racialist ethos that rejects obscene materialism when it ends up in the pockets of our enemies. It means spending less on clothes, restaurants, cosmetics, fast cars, and hot tubs. It means spending more money on real property and in the stock market. It means socializing in groups who enjoy political activism, knowledge, and the art of intellectual warfare more than an evening of social display to impress others. It is giving some meaning back to what it means to belong to a community. But foremost, it means coalescing into communities of like-minded people. And that seems to be the most difficult for many of us, because we are so few and spread so thin. But as we grow, communities will form and we will be able to find our people again. We will come home to the racially aware, and turn our backs on the race traitors we have had too often to call our kin, because we had no where else to turn. That is when we will have begun to revive our dying race.
Written 11/23/2000 by Matthew Nuenke