The owner of this site allows reposting of his literature, here are his words regarding this from http://www.neoeugenics.com/ "Any of the following articles that I have written are free for redistribution or republication. This includes editing, shortening, or elaborating on articles as desired to accomplish eugenic goals. Nothing else matters but the future." And from http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/mission.htm "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." The following is from http://www.neoeugenics.com/ "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 disobey's America or possesses resources that America wants. 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 eugenics. 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. As a result, the Jewish people dominate areas of society which require high intelligence, such as the media, government, acadamia, finance, the industrial/business world, law, medicine, etc. I therefore believe that Jewish eugenics serves as a model for all other races to follow. 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 Jewish business sense is not a matter breeding... they are an organization with a lot of power. To buy into the concept that their business sense is GENETIC is a mistake that merely strengthens the SOCIAL position that permits their success. Israel's buy-in to the biotechnology boom is also no more than an indication that they are more interested in the results (medical &c.) than they are in the USA's arm-waving criticism of biotech. The US government's criticisms of stem cell research are largely of the "We can't play God" sort, which are appeals to emotion.
Where is the biotech??? If you want to make the world perfect through neo-eugenics (by the way neo-eugenics is the use of biotechnology instead of conventional breeding to make better children) you’re going to need to genetically remove the ability to hate and get mad and make people loving goody-two-shoes that are total altruist and love everything and everyone.
Professor Kevin MacDonald http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/ is the leading scientist studying historical Jewish eugenics practices, which was actually promoted in the religion of Judaism. But today, most Jews are secular, they don't follow the Talmudic breeding laws anymore. Rabbi Max Reichler discusses Jewish eugenics: [The following is the first essay from Jewish Eugenics and Other Essays, Three Papers Read Before the New York Board of Jewish Ministers, 1915, Bloch Publishing Company, New York, 1916.] Jewish Eugenics By Rabbi Max Reichler Who knows the cause of Israel's survival? Why did the Jew survive the onslaughts of Time, when others, numerically and politically stronger, succumbed? Obedience to the Law of Life, declares the modern student of eugenics, was the saving quality which rendered the Jewish race immune from disease and destruction. "The Jews, ancient and modern," says Dr. Stanton Coit, "have always understood the science of eugenics, and have governed themselves in accordance with it; hence the preservation of the Jewish race."1 I. Jewish Attitude To be sure eugenics as a science could hardly have existed among the ancient Jews; but many eugenic rules were certainly incorporated in the large collection of Biblical and Rabbinical laws. Indeed there are clear indications of a conscious effort to utilize all influences that might improve the inborn qualities of the Jewish race, and to guard against any practice that might vitiate the purity of the race, or "impair the racial qualities of future generations" either physically, mentally, or morally.2 The Jew approached the matter of sex relationship neither with the horror of the prude, nor with the passionate eagerness of the pagan, but with the sane and sound attitude of the far-seeing prophet. His goal was the creation of the ideal home, which to him meant the abode of purity and happiness, the source of strength and vigor for body and mind.4 Complete text is at http://groups.google.com/groups?q=r...TF-8&selm=b7j8f9$5qi$1@reader08.wxs.nl&rnum=1 Judith
The whole neo-eugenics movement seems to based on the assumption that a more intelligent human being is a better human being (in the sense that a more intelligent human being is better suited for the 'future). Guess what? It is an assumption made by a not so extremely intelligent person. Let's have a look at the extremely intelligent fringe of out society and see in what way they deal better with modern society, or how they deal with improving the future of the human species. I guess I don't have to answer that one.
"Better" is a personal value judgement. My opinion is that higher intelligence is "better" than lower intelligence. Others think that being stupid is better than being smart. To each his own. "The extremely intelligent fringe of our society," to quote you, create the pillars of civilizations: they invent all the sciences, all the technologies, they set moral/ethical standards for the sheep masses to follow, they decide political ideologies for the rest, they guide the national ethos. I would choose to have every person be very intelligent, as opposed to a small handful of geniuses guiding the "mindless" average sheep masses.
it is just your opinion. There is no scientific basis for assuming more intelligent is better. Unintelligent organisms tend to do quite well in this world. Just examine your own stool sample.
I haven't read this yet, I just wanted to comment on this: I love that policy and hold this person in high regard right off the bat based on that alone.
And what a mess they have made so far of this world. Maybe we should give the stupid people a chance.
Imagine all the smart people leaving America. That means, no physicians, no dentists, no lawyers, no scientists, no architects, no University or high school professors, no optomotrists, no economists, no CEOs, etc. The nation would become third world. To look at it another way, smart people can do all the things stupid people can, but stupid people can't do all the things smart people can. A world full of only smart people can do just fine at the least, but a world full of stupid people will remain at extreme third world level. Judith
ALL evidence shows that high IQ highly correlates with success in a technologically advanced first world nation. IQ and success have been researched for decades by psychologists. On the other hand, "better" is a value judgement. Is it "better" to be successful than to be a failure? Judith
…..I would be very happy if the ‘smart’ people in America left, with Bush first. . .oh, I forgot, his IQ score is crap… Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Being a biologist myself I know that science is really just a big parasite on the face of society. I'm not going to pretend I am doing something useful. And you don't really have to be terribly smart to be a dentist or doctor. I think that this is a myth. What is left then? Economists? What the fuck do we need them for? Ever looked outside at the homeless people? Why don't they solve that problem if they are so smart. CEOs? You need a college degree to know how to fill your own pockets and fuck over the worker? On the opposite side of the spectrum we have the humble garbage man. Did you ever see what happens when the garbage men go on strike? Yes, it is the end of civilization. Did you ever know what happens when a CEO goes on strike? Nothing. He is not needed. And who is going to clean up the garbage if your precious world is filled with mensa material? Someone with an IQ of 200? Do you think he is stupid?
Like what evidence? I just told you the opposite based on the evidence of your stool sample. That would exclude your statement of ALL evidence.
Isaac: the "psychologists" are now telling us that a high IQ is no guarantee of success, and that "EQ" is now more important. They say that highly educated people tend to throw tantrums and fly into rages... Usually success is inherited, and education comes along with it. It might be more accurate to say that "high IQ is associated with success", because rich people are more likely to educate their kids properly. The public conception of intelligence being genetically determined is a deeply flawed one, since the nature of intelligence is poorly understood. Looking for an allele associated with greater intelligence is chasing rainbows.
I posted two thread on how important IQ is considered by mainstream psychologists: Mainstream Science on Intelligence: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32802 The General Intelligence Factor: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32803 I am not an expert of course, but at least from what I have read, I am convinced that the cultural determinists are wrong and the biological determinists are right. Latest research are now just ignored by the cultural derterminist experts, I am assuming because they cannot debunk it. Or when offered to challenge the data, they can't. Judith
Do you know that if you tell someone to think of supermodels they do worse on IQ tests, than if you tell them to think of academics…. The more you take IQ tests, the better you get…. The idea of IQ posed in one of the articles seems to be totally missing the point that culture and biology can’t be separated. The moment you’re born, your brain is not fully formed, and how it forms depends on your ‘culture’ (nutrients, care, environment and stimulation). To show a difference in IQ between classes you would have to have a mass inter racial adoption policy. Unfortunately following the sperm banks wont work because ether every one wants one type of sperm and its restricted to those that can pay, and I doubt that inter racial sperm donation exists. This does not mean that at 18 a type of IQ can not be measured, but it isn’t set in 1 year old. Your argument seems bizarre because to rate someone’s expected success all you’d have to do is make a bunch of questions, find some correlation between high ranking individuals and then test collage students for the same type of answers. Of course asking them if they like bunny rabbits isn’t going to quite work, but something along the idea of ‘do you value money, power or family…’. And assuming their all white middle class and from certain US clusters… All this is in my option of course.
Yes, I read that if a person takes the same types of IQ tests over and over again, they actually learn that test, thus invalidating the score. So, tests should be fresh or altered each time. Plus, there are non-written types of tests, such as reaction time tests. Research shows that environment accounts for only 20% of IQ, which the environment of the womb (parents who don't eat healthy or intake alcohol or tobacco will affect the offspring's IQ). The rest is genetic, 80% of it. Interracial adoption studies have been done: Black offspring that are adopted by White parents still on average have IQ's near the mean score of Blacks, not Whites. And EAst Asian adopted offspring adopted by Whites have IQs on average near the mean score for East Asians: 108, compared to the mean score for Whites: 100 (Black mean score is 70). And in general, adopted offspring have IQs similar to their biological parents and not their foster parents. This has all been researched, see http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream for an archive of research articles.
Neoeugenics is not based on any concept of "better." It is based on 100 years of research that shows high intelligence has high predictive validity. This recent meta-analysis sums it up well: "This meta-analysis addresses the question of whether 1 general cognitive ability measure developed for predicting academic performance is valid for predicting performance in both educational and work domains. The validity of the Miller Analogies Test (MAT; W. S. Miller, 1960) for predicting 18 academic and work-related criteria was examined. MAT correlations with other cognitive tests (e.g., Raven’s Matrices [J. C. Raven, 1965]; Graduate Record Examinations) also were meta-analyzed. The results indicate that the abilities measured by the MAT are shared with other cognitive ability instruments and that these abilities are generalizably valid predictors of academic and vocational criteria, as well as evaluations of career potential and creativity. These findings contradict the notion that intelligence at work is wholly different from intelligence at school, extending the voluminous literature that supports the broad importance of general cognitive ability (g)." The above is from The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 86 No. 1) and is just one example of research showing how high intelligence is highly valued in a technological society. (I just happened to be converting the PDF file into Word.) No one can prove that humans will be happier, more fertile, kinder, etc. because humans like all organisms have no real purpose. Eugenicists merely use data to show that intelligence has been and will continue to be highly valued, and for those who care to pursue it, it can be increased through human genetic engineering and/or good breeding. By the way, liberal Rawlsians and other egalitarians recognize this fact also, and are now jumping on the band wagon to make sure that everyone benefits, not just the elite.
