VII: Eugenics should not have been rejected:

"During the course of the twentieth century a profound change took place in scientific and public attitudes to eugenics. In the first half of the century, virtually all biological scientists and most social scientists supported eugenics and so did many of the informed public….in the last three decades of the century, eugenics became almost universally rejected. …there is nothing particularly unusual in the rejection of a scientific theory…What is unusual is the rejection of a theory that is essentially correct…this is what occurred in the twentieth century with regard to eugenics."

VII - VIII: The eight core propositions of eugenics:

"1. Certain human qualities are valuable. The most important of these are health, intelligence, and what was described by eugenicists as 'moral character,' which consists of a well-developed moral sense, self-discipline, strong work motivation, and social concern."

"2. These human qualities are valuable because they provide the foundation for a nation's intellectual and cultural achievements; its quality of life and its economic, scientific, and military strength.

3. Health, intelligence, and moral character are to a substantial extent genetically determined. Hence it would be possible to improve these qualities genetically. This would produce an improvement of what can be described as the 'genetic human capital" of the population. This is the objective of eugenics…

4. During the second half of the nineteenth century and throughout the twentieth century, the populations of the Western democracies and most of the rest of the world have been deteriorating genetically with respect to the three qualities of health, intelligence, and moral character. This process is known as dysgenics and poses a threat to the quality of civilization and culture and to the economic, scientific, and military strength of the nation state. The first objective of eugenics is to arrest and to reverse this process.

5. It would be feasible to improve the genetic quality of the population with respect to its health, intelligence, and moral character. There are two broad kinds of program by which this could be accomplished. These can be designated 'classical eugenics' and 'the new eugenics.' Classical eugenics consists of the application to humans of the methods used for many centuries by plant and animal breeders to produce plants and livestock of better quality by breeding from the better specimens. The application of such a selective breeding program to human populations would require policies for 'positive eugenics,' designed to increase the numbers of children of the healthy, the intelligent, and those with strong moral character; and for 'negative eugenics,' designed to reduce the numbers of children of the unhealthy and of those with low intelligence and weak moral character.

6. The new eugenics consists of the use of human biotechnology to achieve eugenic objectives. The techniques of human biotechnology comprise artificial insemination by donor (AID), prenatal diagnosis of genetic diseases and disorders, in vitro fertilization and preimplantation diagnosis, cloning, and genetic engineering by the implantation of new genes.

7. Eugenics serves the needs of individuals and of nation states. It serves the needs of individuals because people like to have children who are healthy and intelligent and of good moral character. It serves the needs of the nation state because a nation state whose population has good health, high intelligence, and good moral character is stronger and more likely to succeed in competition with other nation states.

8. Although there has been much discussion in the Western democracies about whether the biotechnologies of embryo selection, cloning, and the like are ethical and should be permitted, the prohibition of them will not be successful. No new technologies that serve human needs have ever been successfully suppressed. The important question about eugenics is not if it should be allowed, but where it will be developed and how to counter the threat this will present to the Western democracies."

IX: Eugenics will be used to develop a "world state"

"[Eugenics] is likely to be used for the development of national strength by authoritarian states, leading ultimately to the establishment of a world state."

1-2: Plato imagines a eugenic utopia + Francis Galton:

"Eugenics was first advanced by the Greek philosopher Plato in his book The Republic, written about 380 B.C. This book was a blueprint for a utopian state. The state would consist of three classes of rulers or 'guardians,' soldiers, and workers, each of which would be bred from the best individuals using the methodology of the selective breeding of livestock, which was well known in Athens in the fourth century B.C…

In modern times, eugenics was founded by the English statistician, biologist, psychologist, and polymath Sir Francis Galton (1820 – 1911), who coined the word eugenics and set out its basic principles…the word being constructed from the Greek to mean 'good breeding'…Galton, in 1883, wrote, 'We greatly want a brief word to express the science of improving stock which takes cognizance of all influences that tend in however remote a degree to give the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable than they would otherwise have had. The word eugenics would sufficiently express the idea…Eugenics was to be the study of agencies under social control that may improve or repair the racial qualities of future generations, either physically or mentally.'"

5-6: Galton tests his genetic theories + adopted sons don't do as well:

"First [Galton] constructed a number of family pedigrees of eminent men including lawyers, statesmen, scientists, writers, musicians, Cambridge scholars, and to cover physical capacities, wrestlers. He showed that eminence in these fields tends to run in families and is more likely to present among close relatives than among those who are more distant…[The percentages were] all high when compared with the presence of eminence in the general population…Hence Galton concluded that eminence is disproportionately represented in certain families. He argued that this, together with the greater frequency of eminence among close relatives as compared with more distant relatives, indicated genetic transmission.

Galton was aware of the possible objection that close relatives of eminent men would have environmental advantages that might explain these achievements. His second argument for evidence of a genetic basis for eminence was designed to counter this objection. The argument consisted of an examination of the lives of a number of the adopted sons of popes and showed that these did not achieve eminence to the same extent as the biological sons of eminent men…

Galton's third argument for a genetic basis for ability was that there are a number of exceptions to the general rule that high ability tends to run in families. He noted that quite frequently very gifted individuals have come from quite ordinary families…

Thus Galton demonstrated that achievement has a high heritability, as shown by its transmission in elite families and by its spontaneous appearance in ordinary families, and he argued that this implies that the underlying components of achievement must also have high heritability."

7: Dysgenics:

"Galton believed that the population of Britain and other Western nations had begun to deteriorate genetically. He was one of the first to understand the phenomenon, which was later to become known as dysgenics… 'One of the effects of civilization is to diminish the rigor of the application of the law of natural selection. It preserves weakly lives that would have perished in more barbarous lands.'

Four years later…Galton discussed a second way in which natural selection had broken down. This was the emergence of an inverse relationship between ability and fertility; that is to say, the more talented members of the population were having fewer children than the less talented. He argued that in the first stages of civilization, 'the more able and enterprising men' tended to have large numbers of children, but that as civilization matured, these began to have fewer children than the less able and enterprising.'"

8 - 9: Galton concludes that natural selection must be fixed:

"Forty years later, in one of his last papers written shortly before his death, he reiterated that 'it seems to be a tendency of high civilization to check fertility in the upper classes…'

The less fit were increasing in numbers through the reduction of their previous high mortality and through an increase in their fertility…Because natural selection was failing to keep human populations fit, it would be necessary, Galton wrote in his Memories shortly before his death, 'to replace natural selection by other processes.' The formulation and implementation of these processes was the objective of eugenics...

Galton was always conscious that proposals not only must be effective genetically, but also had to be acceptable to public opinion."

10: Decrease the fertility of the undesirables / negative eugenics:

"[Galton] suggested that it would be useful to distinguish three broad classes of individuals in the population: the 'desirables,' the 'passables,' and the 'undesirables.' The 'desirables' would be those who had an exceptional endowment of worth, consisting of health, intelligence, and character. The 'passables' would be those who had average endowment of these qualities. The 'undesirables' would be those in which these qualities were poor. He thought the best strategy for practical eugenics would be to attempt to increase the fertility of the desirables, and he proposed the term positive eugenics for policies designed to achieve this. At the same time, attempts should be made to discourage the fertility of the undesirables, which he designated negative eugenics. No action should be taken on the passables."

11: Positive eugenics:

"Positive eugenics was to consist of measures to encourage the procreation of the small elite of desirables. Galton made two proposals to advance this objective. The first was for the establishment of local eugenics associations, which would be staffed by eugenics enthusiasts to promote eugenic principles and policies in their localities."

11: Increase the fertility of "worthy families":

"Galton's second proposal for positive eugenics was that the desirable elite should be made conscious of their ethical duty to have children and thereby increase, or at least maintain, their numbers in future generations. To develop this consciousness, he proposed that families that had made valuable social contributions over several generations by virtue of their qualities of good health, abilities, and character should be identified, thus fostering their consciousness of being a genetic elite. Galton first floated the idea in 1883 when he wrote, 'My object is to build up by extensive inquiry and publication of results, a sentiment of caste among those who are naturally gifted.' Some 20 years later he returned to this proposal in a lecture…He announced on this occasion that he was funding a research fellowship at University College, London, to undertake the task of compiling pedigrees of elite families."

12: Use force to prevent undesirables from breeding:

"[Galton] doubted whether the undesirables could be induced to curtail their fertility by moral persuasion. Therefore, he believed that some kind of coercion would be required, writing that 'stern compulsion ought to be exerted to prevent the free propagation of the stock of those who are seriously afflicted by lunacy, feeble-mindedness, habitual criminality, and pauperism.' He was confident that 'our democracy will ultimately refuse consent to that liberty of propagating children which is now allowed to the undesirable classes,' but he did not specify the details of how this would be achieved. In the twentieth century, this prediction was realized by the sterilization laws that were widely implemented in many Western nations."

13 - 16: Galton's eugenic utopia "Kantsaywhere" comprised of self-perpetuating oligarchy, licenses for childbearing determined by your grade:

"Throughout most of his life, Galton considered it best to set out the principles of eugenics in general terms and was reluctant to propose a detailed policy program, which he thought would be likely to antagonize public opinion. Nevertheless, he departed from this principle in the last two years of his life, during which he wrote an account of a eugenic utopia. This was an imaginary republic that he called Kantsaywhere. He completed the manuscript in 1910…

Kantsaywhere is a small country of some ten thousand inhabitants. It is governed by the Eugenic College, which elects a Council to carry out the legislative and the executive functions of government…However, whereas the members of the British House of Commons are elected by the population in accordance with the principles of democracy, the members of the Eugenic College in Kantsaywhere are recruited by examination…The selection procedure ensures that the ruling elite in Kantsaywhere is a self-perpetuating oligarchy.

One of the functions of the Eugenic College is to preserve and enhance the genetic quality of the population. It does this by issuing licenses for parenthood. Couples wishing to have children are required to apply for a license to do so, and to obtain this they have to take an examination…The marks obtained by the couples are summed, and on the basis of the total they are classified into five grades…Those in grade one, the top grade, are permitted to have as many children as they wish; those in grade two are allowed to have three children; those in grade three may have two children; those in grade four are allowed one; while those in grade five, the bottom grade, are not allowed to have any children."

"Opinion surveys carried out in the second half of the twentieth century have shown that in the economically developed world, the great majority of people would like to have two children; so individuals in grades four and five would have their reproductive rights severely restricted. This restriction raises the problem of how it could be enforced. Galton proposed that couples who exceeded the permitted number of children would be punished by fines, long-term imprisonment, or deportation. It is doubtful whether the punishments would work effectively to deter childbearing among many of these couples because the couples in question would be those with low intelligence and conscientiousness, precisely the people for whom the prospect of punishment has little deterrent effect. If they were fined, many of them would probably not be able to pay and would have more children. Permanent incarceration in prisons or deportation would certainly prevent further transgressions, but these penalties would not be practical alternatives for what would probably be large numbers of offenders. A further problem with the scheme lies in securing the consent of the population in a democratic society. There can be little doubt that this would not be possible and that such a scheme could only be introduced in an authoritarian state…

Kantsaywhere is…not a democracy but an oligarchy run by a genetic elite. It is not difficult to see why Galton envisaged Kantsaywhere as an oligarchy. He must have come to the conclusion that his eugenic state would have to exert so much coercion on its citizens in the form of restricting the childbearing of some and increasing the childbearing of others that it would not be viable as a democracy."

17: Society is more important than individuals:

"Galton believed that eugenics would promote the interests of both individuals and society as a whole: 'eugenics covers for both.' Nevertheless, the principal objective of eugenics is to strengthen societies rather than to advance the well-being of individuals because, as he wrote at the conclusion of his Memories, 'individuals appear to me as detachments from the infinite ocean of being.'"

18 - 19: Worldwide acceptance of eugenics + Darwin on Eugenics:

"Francis Galton's ideas on eugenics won considerable acceptance in the late nineteenth century and in the early and middle decades of the twentieth century. The majority of biologists, geneticists, and social scientists and many informed laypeople, accepted Galton's arguments that the quality of civilization and national strength depended on the genetic quality of the population, that natural selection was no longer operating to keep the quality of the population sound in contemporary populations, and that eugenic policies were needed to counteract this deterioration…By the middle decades of the twentieth century, eugenics had become widely accepted throughout the whole of the economically developed world, with the exception of the Soviet Union where genetics was proscribed for ideological reasons…

Darwin spoke pessimistically about the large number of children being produced by 'the scum' and was 'very gloomy on the future of humanity, on the ground that in our modern civilization, natural selection had no place and the fittest did not survive.'"

20 - 21: The "less fit" are more fertile, civilizations collapse under dysgenics + Aldous Huxley and eugenics as "religion of the future":

"From the 1920s to the 1960s most of the leading biological and social scientists in Britain subscribed in varying degrees to eugenics. Among the biologists and geneticists, the foremost of these were Sir Ronald Fisher, Sir Julian Huxley (brother of Brave New World author, Aldous Huxley), Sir Peter Medawar, J.B.S. Haldane, and Francis Crick…Fisher discussed the breakdown of natural selection and the onset of genetic deterioration in his book The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection…Fisher argued that centuries of social mobility had led to a concentration of the genes for intelligence and moral character in the highest social classes and hence that their low fertility must entail genetic deterioration. He suggested that dysgenic fertility appears in all mature civilizations, giving as examples ancient Greece and Rome and Islam, and argued that dysgenic fertility was responsible for their ultimate collapse."

"Julian Huxley (1887 – 1975) was a biologist and geneticist who was successively chairman of the genetics department of Rice Institute in Texas, professor of physiology at Kings College, London, and director of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Huxley's major work was in the field of evolutionary biology [and he] was a leading member of the British Eugenics Society, of which he was president from 1959-62…He envisaged that eugenics would in due course become universally accepted and that 'once the full implications of evolutionary biology are grasped, eugenics will inevitably become part of the religion of the future.'"

22: Francis Crick: Tax kids so poor can't have them

"Francis Crick is a geneticist who in 1953, in collaboration with James Watson, discovered the double-helix structure of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), for which they were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize…He suggested that a possible solution would be to levy a tax on children, payable by their parents, which would deter the reproduction of the poor more than that of the rich. This suggestion was premised on the assumption that the rich were in general better endowed with the genetically desirable qualities of intelligence and character than the poor were."

22: Only those who score high on cognitive tests should be permitted to vote and have children:

"Many of the leading British psychologists of the early and middle decades of the twentieth century supported eugenics…Charles Spearman (1863 – 1945) was professor of psychology at University College, London, and is remembered for his formulation of the construct of g, the general factor present in the performance of all cognitive tests. Spearman was a member of the British Eugenics Society, and in 1912 he wrote a paper in which he proposed that only those individuals who scored reasonably highly on g should be permitted to vote and to have children.

22 – 23: Other prominent proponents

"Cyril Burt (1883 – 1971) was also professor of psychology at University College, London. He carried out one of the first studies on the heritability of intelligence, in which he collected a set of identical twins who were separated shortly after birth and were reared in different families. He found they were closely similar for intelligence…Burt also did some of the early work on the calculation of the rate of decline of intelligence in Britain. He collected data on the tendency of the intelligence of children to fall with increasing family size, from which he inferred that parents with low IQs were having large numbers of children and from which he calculated that the mean IQ in Britain was declining at a rate of approximately two IQ points a generation.

Sir Godfrey Thomson...also worked on the decline of intelligence in Britain…and reached the same conclusions as Burt on the rate of deterioration.

Raymond Cattell also collected data on the association between the intelligence of children and the numbers of their siblings and also found that it was significantly negative. He estimated that the deterioration of the national intelligence was 3.2 IQ points per generation."

23 - 24: Bertrand Russell, Marie Stopes

"Leading British geneticists and psychologists were not the only ones who supported eugenics in the middle decades of the twentieth century. Many prominent academics in other specialties and many laypeople supported eugenics. They included Bertrand Russell, the philosopher whose Principia Mathematica set out the logical foundations of mathematics and who wrote, 'There can be no doubt that the civilization produced by the white races…become sterile. The most civilized are the most sterile, the least civilized are the most fertile, and between the two there is a continuous gradation. At present the most intelligent sections of the Western nations are dying out.'

Other prominent individuals who supported eugenics included Marie Stopes, the indefatigable birth control campaigner who established the first family planning clinics in London in 1921 in order to spread the knowledge and practice of contraception to the working classes."

24: H.G. Wells:

"H.G. Wells...A Modern Utopia described a utopian state based on eugenic and socialist principles. In Well's utopian society the citizens are not permitted to have children until they have worked for a certain number of years and are free of debts. Genetic undesirables are identified as 'idiots and lunatics, perverse and incompetent persons, people of weak character who become drunkards, drug takers, and the like, and persons tainted with certain foul and transmissible diseases. All of these people spoil the world for others. They may become parents, and with most of them there is manifestly nothing to be done but to seclude them from the great body of the population.'"

24 – 25: Eugenics in the United States:

"Eugenics was taken up in the United States in the first decade of the twentieth century. In 1906, the American Breeders' Association, renamed the American Genetics Association in 1913, set up a Committee on Eugenics to promote work on the concept; and in 1910 the Eugenics Record Office was established at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island, New York, as a center for eugenic research and publication. The American Eugenics Society was formed in 1923. Many prominent American biological and social scientists subscribed to eugenics in the early middle decades of the twentieth century. Biologists included Charles Davenport, Harry Laughlin, Hermann Muller, Linus Pauling, and Joshua Lederberg.

Charles Davenport was a geneticist and was the first director of the Eugenics Record Office, where he carried out early research on the action of dominant and recessive genes in humans. His book Heredity in Relation to Eugenics was the first major statement of the case for eugenics to be made in the United States. In 1910 Davenport invited Harry Laughlin to become superintendent of the Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor. Laughlin…was responsible for drafting and promoting a number of the sterilization laws introduced in a number of U.S. states from the time of World War I onward.

Herman Muller (1890 – 1967) was one of the foremost geneticists of the middle decades of the twentieth century. His principal work was on the effect of X rays on increasing the number of genetic mutations, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize. Muller believed the rate of mutations was increasing in industrial societies as a result of a variety of pollutants, such as the use of pesticides on crops. He argued that as most mutations are harmful, this was increasing the number of adverse genes and was having a dysgenic effect. He was also concerned about dysgenic fertility in respect to intelligence and character qualities, and proposed the establishment of an elite semen bank, which women would be encouraged to use to produce genetically superior children. Muller drew up 'The Geneticists' Manifesto,' which addressed the issue of how the world's population might be improved genetically…The manifesto was signed by a number of leading geneticists of the time, including J.B.S. Haldane and Julian Huxley…

Another American biologist who subscribed to eugenics was Linus Pauling (1901 – 1994). In 1959 he wrote the 'human germ plasm, which determines the nature of the human race, is deteriorating…Defective genes are not being eliminated from the pool of human germ plasm so rapidly as in the past, because we have made medical progress and have developed feelings of compassion such as to make it possible for us to permit the individuals who carry the bad genes to have more progeny than in the past. [In 1968] Pauling suggested that carriers of the sickle cell anemia gene should be branded on the forehead so that they could identify other carriers and be careful to avoid having children with them…Pauling's major research achievement was his discovery of the biochemical abnormality of the hemoglobin molecule in the gene responsible for sickle cell anemia, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1954.

Another eminent American geneticist who supported eugenics was Joshua Lederberg, head of the department of genetics at Stanford University from 1959 – 1978…He went on to discuss possible eugenic solutions to the problem of genetic deterioration and suggested that in the future genetic engineering might be the best way ahead, rather than the traditional eugenic proposals for altering fertility. In 1958 Lederberg was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work on genetic engineering in bacteria by the introduction of new genes."

27: More prominent names (Roosevelt, Oliver Wendell Holmes, the president of Harvard and Yale, Margaret Sanger, etc.)

"Support for eugenics in the United States was not confined to academic specialists in population biology, genetics, and psychology. As was the case in Britain, many prominent nonspecialists in the United States supported eugenics. They included Theodore Roosevelt, U.S. president from 1901 – 1909; Charles Wilson, president of Harvard; Irving Fisher, president of Yale, who was also president of the Eugenics Research Association in the 1920s; Margaret Sanger, the feminist and birth control campaigner who established the first family planning clinics in New York City; and many leading judges who were in favor of sterilization on eugenic grounds, such as Oliver Wendell Holmes (Holmes delivered the verdict of the Supreme Court supporting the sterilization of the mentally retarded teenage mother Carrie Buck in 1927 in Buck v. Bell). Several of the major U.S. foundations supported eugenic research, including the Carnegie Institution, which funded Davenport's eugenic studies at Cold Spring Harbor, and the Rockefeller Foundation, which gave grants in the 1930s for eugenic research to the Galton Laboratory at University College in London and to the Cornell Medical School in New York."

28: German eugenic sterilization, euthanasia + Sweden sterilized more than Nazi Germany:

"The Nazi program of sterilization was heavily criticized in the later decades of the twentieth century, but it did not differ in principle from similar programs that had been in place in a number of the states of the United States since World War I, and also in a number of countries in Europe. As a proportion of the population more sterilizations were carried out in Sweden than in Nazi Germany."

29 - 30: Author claims that killing Jews was unrelated to eugenics:

"In 1941 the Nazis set up the concentration camps for the killing of the Jews. It has often been asserted that the killing of the Jews was motivated by eugenics and indeed that eugenics inevitably leads in due course to the killing of "undesirables."…Contrary to this frequent assertion, the Nazis did not kill the Jews on eugenic grounds. It is true that Hitler and the Nazis and many of the German academic and scientific eugenicists of the Nazi era were anti-Semitic, but they did not assert that the Jews were intellectually inferior."

"Although it was frequently asserted in the later decades of the twentieth century that the Holocaust was motivated by eugenics, it is doubtful whether eugenics had anything to do with the extermination of the Jews."

32 - 33: Eugenicists successfully achieved implementation of birth control, sterilization, and immigration control:

"The eugenicists were successful in achieving the implementation of three principle policies. These were, first, the promotion of knowledge of birth control; second, the sterilization of those with genetic diseases and disorders, low intelligence, and weak moral character; and third, the control of immigration…

[Eugenicists believed it was necessary to promote] knowledge about contraception to the less intelligent, the less well informed, and the less responsible and to provide family planning clinics in which these people could obtain contraceptives and contraceptive information…

In the United States the leading campaigner for the legalization and provision of birth control was Margaret Sanger, who set up the first family planning clinic in New York City during World War I. The clinic was declared illegal, and Margaret Sanger was imprisoned for contravention of the obscenity laws. Nevertheless, after further campaigning, the legal impediments to the provision of family planning advice were overcome…By the 1940s, contraception had been legalized in all states except Connecticut and Massachusetts…

In Britain the leading campaigner for the dissemination of knowledge about birth control in the early decades of the twentieth century was Marie Stopes. Like Margaret Sanger, Stopes was a keen eugenicist. She summarized here objective as 'more children from the fit, less from the unfit – that is the chief issue of birth control…'

The promotion of the knowledge and the use of birth control among lower socioeconomic status groups made a significant contribution to the reduction of dysgenic fertility and was a major policy achievement for eugenics."

34: Sterilization:

"The eugenicists' second major policy achievement was securing the legalization and implementation of the sterilization of the mentally retarded, the insane, and criminals…"

"The eugenicists' objective of securing the sterilization of these groups achieved its first success in the United States in 1907, when the state legislature of Indiana passed a law 'to prevent the procreation of confirmed criminals, idiots, imbeciles, and rapists' by sterilizing them…By 1913 this law had been adopted by 12 states; and by 1931, by 30 states, and these laws were implemented on a substantial scale. Orders for sterilization were sometimes challenged in the courts. In 1927 a landmark decision on the sterilization of the mentally retarded in the United States was made in the Supreme Court in Buck v. Bell. The case concerned the legality of sterilizing a young woman named Carrie Buck on the grounds that she was mentally retarded. The decision of the Virginia court to permit the sterilization was upheld by the Supreme Court."

"It has been estimated…that by 1935 about 20,000 sterilizations had been carried out and that by 1970 this figure had risen to about 60,000, of whom about half were mentally retarded and half were psychiatric patients and criminals."

35: Immigration:

"Eugenicists in the United States secured a third success in the control of immigration in the 1924 Immigration Act. From the 1880s onward there had been a large influx of immigrants into the United States from southern and eastern Europe, and eugenicists of the time were concerned that these people were of inferior genetic stock…The major provision of the act was that annual immigration from each European nation should be limited to 2 percent of U.S. residents born in that country. Since the great majority of Americans were from northwest Europe, the effect of this was to greatly reduce immigration from eastern and southern Europe."

36: Earnings indicate intelligence and character, therefore southern and eastern European immigrants were fine:

"The average earnings of Americans of southern and eastern European origin have been about the same as those of northwestern European origin and sometimes higher…Earnings are a good proxy for intelligence and character, and hence these data show that immigrants from southern and eastern Europe have not been inferior to those from northern and western Europe."

37 - 37: Blacks and Hispanics are less intelligent, so the immigration restrictions were effective in that case:

"While the restriction of immigration from eastern and southern Europe imposed by the 1924 Act cannot be justified on eugenic grounds, the fact that the act also imposed tight restrictions on immigration of Hispanics and blacks from the Caribbean and Africa was a eugenic achievement because there is considerable evidence that the intelligence levels of these peoples are lower than those of whites."

37: Eugenics societies change their name:

"In the 1960s, support for eugenics began to decline. All over the world eugenics societies put themselves into voluntary liquidation. A critical year was 1969, in which the American Eugenics Society ended publication of its journal Eugenics Quarterly and replaced it with Social Biology, and the British Eugenics Society ended publication of the Eugenics Review and replaced it with the Journal of Biological Science…In 1972 the American Eugenics Society changed its name to The Society for the Study of Social Biology and dissociated itself from eugenics. Two years later the president of the new society, Frederick Osborn, wrote of this change, "The society was groping for a wholly new definition of purpose. It was no longer thinking in terms of 'superior' individuals, 'superior' family stocks, or even of social conditions that would bring about a 'better' distribution of births. It was thinking in terms of diversity, in terms of the genetic attributes appropriate to different kinds of physical and social environments." This amounted to a total repudiation of eugenics. The British Eugenics Society lasted another two decades before it, too, distanced itself from eugenics in 1988 by changing its name to the Galton Institute."

37 – 39: Those who reject eugenics are irrational, social rights are more important than individual rights:

"With respect to eugenics's intellectual basis, it came to be increasingly asserted that the principal propositions of eugenics were wrong, that eugenics is a 'pseudoscience,' that the eugenicists did not understand genetics, that all genes are equally valuable, that intelligence and personality traits have no genetic basis, and that eugenic policies would not work because they are based on false genetics. I have discussed these misconceived criticisms of eugenics in my book Dysgenics and will not consider them again here. These criticisms have an emotive rather than a rational basis and are expressions of a value system hostile to eugenics."

"The essence of this value system opposed to eugenics lies in the increasing precedence accorded to individual rights over social rights in the later decades of the twentieth century. In all societies, a balance has to be struck between individual rights and social rights. Individual rights consist of the personal liberties of individuals, whereas social rights consist of the rights of society to curtail the liberties of individuals in the interests of the society."

"One of the most striking expressions of the priority accorded to individual rights over social rights in the second half of the twentieth century was the freedom allowed to those with HIV and AIDS…in the late twentieth century, people with HIV and AIDS were allowed complete liberty in the Western democracies, including the liberty of infecting others, and were allowed to travel freely and to enter the countries without any checks on whether they had HIV or AIDS."

"A component of this general trend was an increasing acceptance of the right of those with genetic diseases and disorders, those with mental retardation, and criminals to have children, despite the social costs imposed by the genetic transmission of these pathologies; and this right came to be regarded as more legitimate than the social right of society to curtail the reproductive liberties of these groups."

"The fact that social rights ultimately involve the welfare of actual human beings was overlooked."

"Eugenics is premised on the assertion of social rights and in particular the right of the state to curtail reproductive liberties in the interests of preserving and promoting the genetic quality of the population."

39: Pay people to be sterilized:

"Shockley pondered on how dysgenic fertility might be overcome and suggested in what he called 'a thinking exercise' that everyone with an IQ of less than 100 should be offered a payment to be sterilized."

41: Eugenics in China; women forced to abort babies that have "genetic disorders," 92% of Chinese physicians would give "slanted advice" to convince a woman to abort:

"A Eugenic Law of 1994 made it compulsory for pregnant women to undergo prenatal diagnosis for the presence of genetic and congenital disorders in the fetus and to have abortions where these disorders have been diagnosed. Chinese physicians and geneticists are much more sympathetic to eugenics than are those in Western democracies…Between 92 percent and 98 percent of Chinese physicians and geneticists in [a] survey supported the termination of pregnancies where the father was diagnosed as having a serious genetic or congenital disorder and said they would give slanted advice to the women concerned to persuade them to consent to this, whereas only about 5 percent of physicians and geneticists in the Western democracies said they would do this. The reason for this difference between China and the West is that greater priority is given to social rights in China, whereas greater priority is given to individual rights in the Western democracies."

42: Author Claims that 60,000 sterilizations in the United States represented only .1 percent of the "mentally retarded and psychopathic":

"The sterilization programs had only a small eugenic impact. In the United States, the 60,000 or so sterilizations amounted to less than 0.1 percent of the mentally retarded and psychopathic, so the effect on the prevalence of mental retardation and psychopathic personality must have been negligible."

42 -43: The "right of society to protect itself"

"This reversal in attitudes towards eugenics was due principally to the increasing priority accorded to individual rights over social rights, in particular the right of those with genetic disorders and mental retardation and criminals to have an unlimited number of children and to transmit their disabilities and pathologies to future generations at the expense of social rights, one of which is the right of society to protect itself against the social costs incurred when these groups have children."

48: Galton saw eugenics as a way to strengthen "moral character":

"[By 'moral character,' Galton] meant honesty, integrity, self-discipline, the capacity for sustained work effort, and a sense of social obligation and commitment."

50: Create smarter people so they can create better weapons:

"There is confusion in Blacker's reservation that some of the more intelligent people produced by eugenic measures might devote their intelligence to the production of destructive weapons…one of the major arguments for eugenics is precisely that a more intelligent population would be able to produce more effective weapons and hence to succeed in the competitive struggles between nations that frequently erupt into warfare…it is doubtful whether the enhancement of 'serenity and contentment' would make any contribution to the quality of civilization or to the strength of the nation state, the two primary objectives of eugenics as formulated by Galton."

52: Having accepted that humans should be engineered, the author decides to tackle whether he and his fellow engineers should make everyone beautiful:

"It cannot be claimed that an increase in the physical beauty of the population would make any contribution to the quality of civilization as expressed in the production of high-quality achievements in science, the arts, and public life or to the strengthening of the economic, scientific, or military base of society. It can be inferred that Cavalli-Sforza and Bodmer have a broader concept of the objectives of eugenics, a concept that includes the quality of life of the population, and that they believe that a eugenically contrived increase of beauty would contribute to this."

"In defense of [their] position, it has to be conceded that many of our fellow citizens are not beautiful. However, it is doubtful whether this causes significant psychic distress or whether the quality of our lives would be appreciably increased if the general level of beauty were to be increased."

55: The individual essentially exists for the good of the state; the "benefits of a eugenic state override the loss of happiness to the "small number" of individuals concerned:

"The promotion of happiness should be regarded as a subsidiary objective of eugenics or, in certain instances, as a desirable byproduct…Measures to reduce…genetic disorders would fulfill the primary eugenic objective of strengthening the nation state and at the same time would achieve the minor eugenic objective of reducing unhappiness. In certain other cases, eugenic measures that strengthen the nation state may simultaneously cause unhappiness to individuals. The most obvious example is the sterilization of those with genetically undesirable qualities…In these instances the benefits of a eugenic program for the nation state should override the loss of happiness to the small number of individuals concerned."

55 - 56: Governments around the world should compete with one another to design the most successful eugenic program…the winner could then force the rest of the world to adopt its policies:

"The leading exponent of universalist eugenics has been Cattell, who advocated a world system of which he called 'cooperative competition,' in which each nation would adopt its own unique eugenic program….This competition would involve both biological and social selection. The nations that were biologically and socially more successful in producing superior civilizations would either replace the less successful nations or force them to adopt the eugenic policies and social structure of the more successful…

Cattell envisioned that some nations might evolve genetically enhanced populations that became so genetically different from others [that] they would form new species of Homo sapiens that were no longer able to interbreed and produce offspring with other Homo species…

In the twenty-first century, the major competition between social systems is likely to be between the democracies of the West and the authoritarian oligarchy of China…The universalist (sic?) eugenicist is indifferent to which nation wins, taking the view that as long as one nation adopts eugenics it will be so successful in developing its economic, scientific, cultural, and military strength that either it will force its rivals to adopt their own eugenic programs in order to compete or it will take control of the world and implement a program of global eugenics. It does not matter greatly to the universal eugenicist which nation does this because over the long term the results will be the adoption of eugenics throughout much of the world."

57: Blacks and Hispanics are intellectually inferior and are going to reduce average intelligence:

"Dysgenic fertility is not the only dysgenic process in the Western democracies. A second dysgenic factor that has been identified in the United States…is the immigration of large numbers of Hispanics and Africans, whose mean IQs Hernstein and Murray estimate at 91 and 84, respectively, as compared to a mean IQ of 100 for white Americans. The increasing proportions of Hispanics and Africans in the United States will inevitably reduce the average intelligence level of the population."

58: We must do something now because, otherwise, the human race will go extinct:

"Dysgenic fertility has begun to appear in sub-Saharan Africa and is likely to become more pronounced as the demographic transition to lower fertility gets under way and appears first among the most intelligent and the best educated.

Dysgenic fertility has become a worldwide problem. The dysgenic process of differential fertility and immigration are both likely to prove exceedingly difficult to correct. Indeed, Pearson envisions that it may prove impossible to halt these processes and that the result may be the eventual extinction of the human species.

An alternative scenario is that although these dysgenic processes may well prove impossible to counter in the liberal Western democracies, some more authoritarian states are likely to find ways of correcting them."

67: People with handicapped children hate their kids:

"It is sometimes said that the parents of children with genetic diseases and disorders derive great satisfaction from rearing them, and that these children are therefore valuable and should be welcomed…A study of the lives of parents of children with genetic disorders has been published by Berit Brinchmann, a lecturer in nursing at Bodo University in Norway. She concludes that these parents have an extremely tough life and that although they love their handicapped children, at the same time they hate them."

69: Insulin, antibiotics, and medical advances in general contribute to dysgenics because they keep weak and defective humans alive:

"Dysgenic trends consist of medical advances that have preserved the lives of those with these disorders, enabling them to have children to whom they transmit the deleterious genes…These dysgenic medical advances are of three principal types: surgical treatments, pharmacological treatments, and improved treatments of critically ill newborns…

The development of pharmacological treatments has…contributed to dysgenics. For instance, the development of insulin in the 1920s made it possible to treat insulin-dependent diabetes, and the development of antibiotics in the mid-twentieth century made it possible to treat cystic fibrosis and other illnesses with some genetic component."

73 - 75: Prevalence of "mental illness" among creative people:

"In the first half of the twentieth century, eugenicists viewed mental illness as largely genetically determined and wholly undesirable, and they believed measures should be taken to eliminate it. To achieve this objective, programs were introduced to sterilize the mentally ill in the United States and in much of Continental Europe…

Reservations about the view that mental illnesses are wholly undesirable have arisen because some evidence suggests that the genes responsible for them make a contribution to creative achievement…One of the first to make this claim was the German psychiatrist Juda, who studied the lives of 294 Germans who had demonstrated great creativity. Juda concluded that they had a much higher incidence of psychoses than the general population. This conclusion has been supported by the Icelandic psychiatrist Karlsson, who estimated that the rate of psychosis is 25 percent for great mathematicians, 30 percent for great novelists, 35 percent for great painters and poets, and 40 percent for great philosophers…

A subsequent study reaching the same conclusion was made by Ludwig of 1,005 outstanding Americans of the twentieth century. He found that writers and artists had two or three times the rate of psychosis and suicide attempts as successful people in business, science, and public life and in the normal population. A similar investigation was carried out by Jamison of 36 British poets born between 1705 and 1805, in which she concluded that they were 30 times more likely to have had manic-depressive illness than their contemporaries and 20 times more likely to have been committed to an asylum…

A second strand of evidence for an association between mental illness and creative achievement comes from studies of living writers and artists. Several studies of this kind have found a high incidence of depression and manic-depressive psychosis…Ludwig studied 59 creative writers and a matched control group of professional people and found that the writers had about five times greater lifetime prevalence of depression, mania, and anxiety states."

77: “Taken together, these…strands of evidence constitute a reasonably strong case for an association between creativity and subclinical depression and manic-depressive psychosis, suggesting that the genes for mental illness have some positive value. Hence, the complete elimination of these genes should not be an objective of eugenics.”

85: Low IQ kids feel alienated and turn to crime:

“The alienation theory states that adolescents with low IQs tend to do poorly at school and either get only badly paid jobs or find no employment at all. This makes them disaffected and alienated from society, as a result of which they are likely to turn to crime.”

(What is the elite’s excuse for turning to crime?)

“On the basis of this theory, an increase in the level of intelligence of the population would be somewhat less likely to produce a fall in the crime rate because no matter how great the increase of intelligence, there would continue to be a distribution from more intelligent to less intelligent, and these latter would do poorly, feel resentful and alienated, and often turn to crime. Probably both the cognitive deficit and the alienation theories are partially correct…an increase in the intelligence of the population would produce some reduction in crime.”

90: The most intelligent populations will develop weapons that enable them to subjugate others:

“In the twenty-first century, scientific and technological supremacy will become increasingly decisive in military conflicts. Just as in the closing stages of World War II the United States was able to defeat Japan by the use of nuclear bombs…”

(Bullshit. From page 862 of Tragedy and Hope: “…Director of Military Intelligence for the Pacific Theater of War Alfred McCormack, who was probably in as good position as anyone for judging the situation, felt that the Japanese surrender could have been obtained in a few weeks by blockade alone: ‘The Japanese had no longer enough food in stock, and their fuel reserves were practically exhausted. We had begun a secret process of mining all their harbors, which was steadily isolating them from the rest of the world. If we had brought this project to its logical conclusion, the destruction of Japan’s cities with incendiary and other bombs would have been quite unnecessary.’”)

“…so in the future a nation with superior nuclear weapons and delivery systems, and perhaps also biological weapons, will be able to defeat and subjugate other nations by the use, or by merely the threat, of its superior weaponry.”

(Sounds like Utopia…when can we get started?)

91: Claims that IQ increased over a period of 20 years in the United States; this seems to contradict his assertion that immigration and “dysgenics” are driving IQs down:

“Intelligence in the United States increased by approximately six IQ points over the 20-year period 1974 – 1994, so evidently an increase in the intelligence level of the population over time does not necessarily produce a concomitant increase in happiness.”

92: We shouldn’t make everyone smart; social stability requires dumb people and a small elite to rule over them:

“Nevertheless, it has often been argued that it would be a mistake for a society to raise the intelligence level of its population because societies need unintelligent people to do simple jobs just as much as they need intelligent people to do cognitively demanding jobs. It is asserted that if the general intelligence level of the population were to be increased, there would not be sufficient numbers of unintelligent people to do the simple, routine jobs for which nature has fitted them…

This argument has also been put forward by the German geneticist Volkmar Weiss. He posits a genetical system for intelligence in which there are three genetic types – the first consisting of approximately 5 percent highly intelligent individuals (IQs of 130), the second of about 27 percent average-level individuals (IQs of 112), and the third of about 68 percent dull individuals (IQs of 94). He suggests that societies need this kind of intelligence distribution to maintain social stability. Societies need a small elite to occupy the top positions, a greater number of executives to carry out the instructions of the elite, and a large number of people to do the humdrum work.”

93: Another reference to rising IQs; contradicting earlier claims of “deteriorating” intelligence due to dysgenics:

“Second, intelligence levels of the populations of the economically developed nations rose by about 18 IQ points from the 1930s to the year 2000, but this has not caused any problems of there being too few people to do humdrum jobs like delivering the milk. On the contrary, there are still too many people who are only able to do jobs of this kind in relation to the diminishing numbers of jobs available.”

109: Begins describing a list of “personality traits” and debates the “desirability” of using eugenics to alter them. The traits listed are: Neuroticism, Introversion – Extroversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Psychopathic Personality.

111: Don’t need “creative” people as plumbers, police officers, tax officials…they just need to follow the rules:

“Society needs creative people to promote innovation, but it also needs noncreative people to carry out routine administrative work and skilled trades. Society does not need creative tax officials, police officers, electricians, and plumbers. It is preferable that those working in these and many similar occupations work according to the rule book. Hence no eugenic measures should be attempted to alter this trait.”

(Obviously, when elite criminals have written the “rule book,” it’s especially useful for them to have plenty of “noncreative” police officers, tax officials, educators, military men, etc. to administer their “rules” without question.)

117 - 118: Antisocial / psychopathic personality disorder:

“The amoral, antisocial, and aggressive nature of the psychopathic personality has been elaborated by the APA [American Psychiatric Association] in its 1994 edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). It lists eleven features of the condition, now renamed antisocial personality disorder. These are: (1) inability to sustain consistent work behavior; (2) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behavior; (3) irritability and aggressivity, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults; (4) repeated failure to honor financial obligations; (5) failure to plan ahead, or impulsivity; (6) no regard for truth, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or ‘conning’ others; (7) recklessness regarding one’s own or others’ personal safety, as indicated by driving while intoxicated or recurrent speeding; (8) inability to function as a responsible parent; (9) failure to sustain a monogamous relationship for more than one year; (10) lacking remorse; (11) the presence of conduct disorder in childhood…

(So, let’s just have a look at a handful of these. Number (2): “failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behavior.” Would the men and women who engaged in unlawful behavior, by assisting escaped slaves, be labeled with this disorder? How about those men and women who acted outside the “social norms” in Hitler’s Germany, Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, or Mussolini’s Italy? When the law makers are themselves lawless, I would argue that it is the political elite and their supporters, not the opposition, who are afflicted with a mental disorder. Number (3): Does never-ending war abroad and ever-escalating police militarization at home qualify as “aggressivity?” Number (4): Repeated failure to honor financial obligations?  The ruling class only “honors” its financial obligations when it can print or seize the money it needs. This hardly counts. Number (6): No regard for the truth? Is there anyone guiltier of this than the political elite? Number (7): Recurrent speeding? Really? Number (10): Lacking remorse? Again, this tends to apply to our rulers more than any other class.)

The symptoms of psychopathic personality virtually always appear quite early in childhood, when they are expressed as conduct disorders consisting principally of aggressiveness, hyperactivity, and persistent disobedience.

123: Teenagers who have children are “psychopaths”:

“Female psychopaths inflict damage on society principally by becoming unmarried teenage mothers. Hardly any teenagers become pregnant and bear children intentionally. In the United States it has been found that approximately 98 percent of teenage pregnancies are unintended, and similar results have been found in Britain. Teenage pregnancies occur through casual, unplanned, and unprotected sex, all of which are characteristic of psychopaths. Teenage mothers also have other typically psychopathic characteristics…They are typically drug and alcohol abusers, cigarette smokers, and delinquents; have poor educational records; have negative attitudes to school; are school dropouts; and have below-average intelligence.

Among teenage single mothers, there is a hard core who have repeated pregnancies and give birth to more than one child…In Colorado, they interviewed 200 low-income, pregnant, unmarried teenagers during their third trimester of pregnancy and found that 12 percent of these had become pregnant on at least one previous occasion. Compared with the others, these were more likely to be school dropouts, to have used illicit drugs, to say they had no intention of using a contraceptive implant in the future, and to express no regrets about having a child. Most of these irresponsible young women are psychopaths…Teenage fathers have the same psychopathic characteristics as teenage mothers.”

128: The underclass:

“The two dysgenic problems of low intelligence and psychopathic personality coalesce in a sector of society that has become known as the underclass. This subculture is typically located in impoverished inner-city districts and is characterized by poor educational attainment; high levels of long-term unemployment; and high rates of crime, drug addiction, welfare dependency, and single motherhood…

The underclass is perpetuated through the transmission of low intelligence and psychopathic personality, from generation to generation, from parents to children. This transmission takes place through genetic and environmental processes. The genetic processes consist of the inheritance of low intelligence and psychopathic personality. The environmental processes consist of the poor childrearing techniques of parents with low intelligence and psychopathic personality and of the social influence of the psychopathic subculture.”

135:  Classic Eugenics VS Biotech Eugenics:

“We have now completed our examination of the objectives of eugenics and concluded that they consist of the reduction or elimination of genetic diseases and disorders, mental retardation and psychopathic personality, and the increase of intelligence and the personality traits of agreeableness and conscientiousness. It is now time to consider how these objectives could be achieved. There are two broad strategies for the promotion of eugenics. These consist of the classical eugenics of selective reproduction and the new eugenics of human biotechnology. We discuss classical eugenics first and turn to the new eugenics in Part IV.

Classical eugenics attempts to apply to humans the selective breeding techniques used for centuries on animals and plants to produce improved strains by breeding from the best individuals. The way this should be applied to humans was set out by Galton. He proposed that the population should be divided into three categories which he designated the ‘desirables,’ the ‘passables,’ and the ‘undesirables.’ The ‘desirables’ were those endowed with the qualities of health, intelligence, and moral character and, therefore, whose fertility it would be the objective of eugenics to increase. Galton called this ‘positive eugenics.’ The ‘undesirables’ were those particularly poorly endowed within contemporary terms, Galton’s ‘undesirables’ are those with genetic disorders, the mentally retarded, the unintelligent, and those with low agreeableness and conscientiousness consisting of criminals and psychopaths. Galton’s ‘desirables’ are the healthy, the intelligent and those with the personality traits of high agreeableness and conscientiousness.”

138 - 139: Mendel discovers eugenics observing plants:

“The basic genetic processes were discovered in the 1860s by the Czechoslovak monk Gregor Mendel, but his discoveries were so far ahead of his time that no one understood them until 1900. Mendel worked out the principles of inheritance on plants, but the principles apply quite generally to plants, animals, and humans. The first essential point of Mendel’s discoveries was that genes normally come in pairs. Each member of these pairs is called an allele; so normally everyone has two alleles for each genetically determined characteristic. People frequently write of ‘genes’ when, strictly speaking, they mean ‘alleles.’

There are four kinds of alleles: additive, dominant, recessive, and X-linked. Additive alleles both contribute equally and therefore additively to the expression of the characteristics they affect. Dominant alleles are so-called because they dominate, or overpower, the recessive allele with which they are paired, so that the recessive has no effect or, sometimes, just a small effect. Conversely, recessive alleles are dominated, or overpowered, by the dominant genes with which they are paired. X-linked alleles are an exception to the general rule that genes come in pairs. They come singly on the X chromosome. Males have only one X chromosome, and thus only one of any X-linked alleles…

When people mate, they transmit one of their two alleles to their children. The children therefore receive one allele from their father and one from their mother, giving them two alleles…Suppose that for a particular characteristic there are two alleles, labeled A and B, in the population. In one kind of mating, both father and mother have two A alleles. These are designated AA and are both said to be ‘homozygous’ for this gene. Their children will inherit one A from their father and one A from their mother, so they will also be AA. Thus, all the children of this kind of mating are the same as the parents, and all the siblings are the same as each other. A parallel result would happen if both parents were BB, in which case all their children would be BB…

If all genetic inheritance were like this, eugenics would be easy. If the A allele is desirable and the B allele is undesirable, perhaps because it is responsible for a genetic disorder, all that a eugenic program would have to do would be to sterilize the BBs. The BB genes would be eliminated from the population and the undesirable characteristic caused by the B allele would also be eliminated.

However, eugenics programs are not so straightforward as this. In another kind of mating, both parents will have one A and one B allele – they are both AB. These couples will produce four allele combinations in their children. (1) child will inherit an A from the father and an A from its mother and be an AA; (2) the second will inherit a B from its father and a B from its mother and be a BB; (3) the third will inherit an A from its father and a B from its mother and be an AB; (4) the fourth will inherit a B from its father and an A from its mother and be a BA. But a BA is exactly the same as an AB, so there are only three different genotypes in the population; the AAs, the BBs, and the ABs.

(Why do I get the feeling that this ignores a mountain of information and variables that aren’t yet known, let alone understood?)

142: Ordinary folks sometimes produce gifted children:

“The German geneticist Otmar von Verschuer examined the family pedigree of the composer Robert Schumann. He found that the Schumann family had been quite ordinary artisans for many generations and that neither Robert’s father nor mother, nor any of his 136 ancestors or relatives, had displayed any musical talent. This illustrates the principle that highly gifted individuals not infrequently appear as a result of the inheritance of an unusually favorable combination of genes carried by average parents.”

(I’d like to see this type of study done with many of the great contributors…especially those like Einstein, Da Vinci, Newton, Tesla, etc. Which parents among these men, even if “very smart,” demonstrated the genetic ability to produce such genius? More importantly, how many of the parents or grandparents might have expressed “undesirable” genes that, in the eugenicists’ world, might have justified sterilization long before the “unusually favorable combination of genes” had an opportunity to manifest?)

143: Who to sterilize:

“In the real world neither the genetic elite nor the genetic underclass breeds entirely true. The genetic elite produces some children whose intelligence is lower than that of the parents, while the genetic underclass produces some children whose intelligence is higher than that of the parents.”

(I need to point this out again: The so-called “genetic underclass” with their “lower intelligence” has produced billions of hard working / honest people. As the author admits, lower intelligence does not necessarily result in the creation of lower-intelligence children…What he fails to admit is that it doesn’t necessarily result in children who contribute less to society either. I’d be willing to bet there are far more sociopaths among the more intelligent genetic elite, especially those who obtain positions of power within the ruling class.

We mustn’t forget that it is the elite who murdered hundreds of millions of human beings over the past 100 years. They, in line with the author’s eugenicist view, probably consider their democide little more than a “good start.”

Continuing: After explaining a theory that states M1 M1 allele pairs produce the highest intelligence, and M2 M2 allele pairs produce the lowest, the author proposes a negative eugenic solution.)

“A program of negative eugenics would reduce the number of children produced by the M2M2s….In terms of the mating model shown in Table 10.1, the program could be implemented by the sterilization of the M2M2s. This would prevent the reproduction of the mating combinations in the bottom three rows of the table and would prevent the birth of a lot of M2M2 children. The effect of this would be that a much higher proportion of children would be M1M1 or M1M2 children and that the intelligence level of the child generation would rise. Some M2M2 children would continue to be born from M1M2 – M1M2 matings (from parents of average intelligence) because a quarter of the children of these [would be born] M2M2…Nevertheless, sterilization of all M2M2s would have a large eugenic impact in reducing the numbers of low-intelligence children. Although some of these would continue to be born with M1M2-M1M2 matings, a continuation of such a policy over several generations would progressively weed out the M2 allele, and the intelligence level of the population would increase in each generation.”

146: Forced abortions?

“Dominant genes for diseases and disorders are, in principle, easily eliminated from the population by eugenic intervention. All that is required is to prevent those with the disorders from having children, either by genetic counseling or sterilization…In the rare cases in which the disorder does not express itself until middle age, as is the case with Huntington’s Chorea, there is a problem because affected individuals are likely to have children before the disease appears. The problem could be overcome if all the children of those with Huntington’s disease, each of whom has a 50 percent risk of carrying the gene, remain childless or have prenatal genetic testing for the presence of the harmful gene and pregnancy terminations in cases where the gene is identified.”

152-153: Breeding “bright rats” and “dull rats” over 6 generations + “highest ability” will not increase:

“In the course of the twentieth century, a number of psychologists have shown that it is possible to breed animals for intelligence and temperament. The classical study of breeding for increased intelligence in rats was carried out by Tryon (1940). He measured rats’ intelligence by their ability to learn how to run through a maze without making errors of turning into cul-de-sacs. He began by selecting a group of ‘brights,’ who did well at this task, and a group of ‘dulls,’ who did poorly. He bred from these two groups over 21 generations and obtained two genetically different strains. A similar study was carried out by W.R. Thompson (1954). He found that over six generations the strains of bright and dull rats progressively diverged. The bright rats became progressively brighter and reduced their average errors in the maze from 190 to 142, while the dull rats became progressively duller…

The owners of thoroughbreds breed them in the hope of obtaining an exceptionally fast horse that will win races and earn lots of money. They use the traditional method of selective breeding and typically breed from the fastest 10 percent of stallions and the fastest 50 percent of mares. These selective breeding programs have produced an improved population of thoroughbreds whose average running speeds increased by about 1 percent a year from 1952 to 1977. What has happened is that the genes (alleles) contributing to fast running speeds have been increased in the thoroughbred population and that at the same time the alternative forms of these genes (alleles) for poorer running speeds have been reduced. This has led to an improvement in the average running speed of the entire population.

However, although the average running speed of the thoroughbreds has increased, there has been no improvement in the fastest running speeds, which have remained the same for about a century. Records are not broken virtually every year, as they are in Olympic events…”

 (This is Interesting. First, it calls into question the validity of the 1954 rat study that claimed bright rats became brighter. Second, it raises the following question: What if this breeding approach, while increasing “average” ability, inevitably leads to stagnation in the gene pool? What if it increases “average ability,” but no longer produces genetic combinations that lead to exceptional ability / progress? In short: Why have thoroughbreds stopped becoming stronger and faster, but our Olympic athletes have not?)

“The experience of the breeding of thoroughbreds over the past two centuries serves as a useful model for what could be anticipated if eugenic measures were introduced for humans. In the case of intelligence, there would not be any increase in the highest intelligence hitherto achieved…This is because all the right genes and the most favorable environmental conditions have already appeared from time to time and produced people like Pascal and Galton. What a eugenic program would accomplish would be the reduction or elimination of the genes for low intelligence. The average intelligence level of the population would be improved, just as the average running speed of thoroughbreds has been improved; but there would be no increase of the highest IQs, just as there has been no improvement in the running speeds of the fastest thoroughbreds.” 

160 - 163: Regression to the mean:

“It has often been asserted that eugenic policies would not work because of regression to the mean. The phenomenon of regression to the mean is the tendency of parents at the extremes of continuously distributed traits, such as intelligence, to have children who are less extreme than themselves. In other words, the children regress toward the mean. Thus highly intelligent parents have children who are, on average, less intelligent than themselves; and mentally retarded parents have children who are on average less retarded than themselves…

These assertions that regression to the mean would render a eugenic program ineffective…are obviously wrong because if they were true the selective breeding of plants and animals, of which a number of examples have been given in the first two sections of this chapter, would not work. If these assertions were correct, improvements brought about by selective breeding would disappear after several generations through regression to the mean. Furthermore, natural selection would not work either because evolution by the survival of the fittest could not take place through the regression of the descendants of the fittest back to the population mean.”

(“Survival of the fittest” is hardly a good example. It continues to evolve “forward” precisely because of the synergistic effect of many different genes and characteristics combining to yield evolutionary advantages. It isn’t a rigid process that favors one specific set of “genes” over another.

Regarding “improvements brought about by selective breeding,” the “improvements” are seen in higher averages, but what about real improvements; as in breaking previous levels of achievement? Contrary to the author’s assertion, these do seem to “disappear.” And when everyone has an IQ of 120, doesn’t 120 now become the new average IQ? (The equivalent of 100?) Although this might not count, strictly speaking, as “regression to the mean,” it could be seen as a regression nonetheless because it eliminates the natural rise in ability that might have otherwise occurred.)

169: Other ways of dealing with unplanned births:

“There are three broad strategies for attempting to reduce the number of unplanned births. The first is to try to persuade teenage girls not to have sexual intercourse; the second is to try to induce women who do not wish to become pregnant to use contraception more efficiently; and the third is to try to induce women who become unintentionally pregnant to have their pregnancies terminated.”

 --- 181: “Wealthy philanthropist” and GD Searle develops “the pill” and 70% of birth control funding comes from government + he suggests prohibiting “damages” for any drug that has received FDA approval:

“The initial discovery on which the pill was based was made in 1937 when Makepeace found that progesterone suppresses ovulation in rabbits. In 1951 Gregory Pincus of the Worcester Institute met the wealthy philanthropist Mrs. Stanley McCormick, and together they worked out the program of research and development for the contraceptive pill. Mrs. McCormick donated about $2 million, and additional grants were obtained from the G.D. Searle Company and the Syntax Corporation. It took nine years to bring the pill to market, which took place in 1960, at a total cost of approximately $6 million, equivalent to around $60 million in real terms in the year 2000.

Costs of this magnitude are considerable even for the large U.S. foundations and corporations. Hence in recent years, around 70 percent of the funding for research on contraception in the United States has come from the government. In the world as a whole, about 75 percent of research on contraception is carried out in the United States. It is therefore largely in the United States that the difficulties in the way of research on contraception need to be reduced. The principal changes required are the simplification of the FDA testing requirements, and increase in the patent-protection period, and a reduction in the potential financial losses pharmaceutical companies are likely to incur through litigation. The losses from litigation could be reduced by placing a limit on the amount of damages so that compensation was given for economic loss and for pain and suffering; but punitive damages could not be awarded except in the rare cases where the manufacturer could be shown to have acted recklessly. Alternatively, actions for damages against drugs for which FDA approval has been given could be prohibited...”

183: Use abortion to decrease the number of undesirables:

“There is substantial evidence that women who have unplanned pregnancies and request abortions are predominantly less the intelligent (sic) and the more psychopathic…A British study…examined the relationship between the numbers of pregnancy terminations per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 in 90 English regions in relation to a deprivation index obtained from the percentage of the population on welfare. The correlation between the two measures was .61, indicating that the greater the deprivation in a region, the higher the abortion rate. Since deprivation is associated with low intelligence and high psychopathic personality, the impact of abortion is to reduce the birth rate of the less intelligent and more psychopathic. For this reason, abortion needs to be made free and easily available.

The eugenic impact of abortion in the United States has been demonstrated by Steven Levitt, an economist at the University of Chicago, and John Donohue, a lawyer at Stanford University. They noted that following the Supreme Court decision in 1973 effectively legalizing abortion throughout the United States, the annual numbers of abortions increased from approximately 750,000 in 1962 to approximately 1.6 million in 1980. They also noted that most of this large increase in the numbers of abortions occurred among the poor, blacks, and the underclass, who produce the greatest numbers of criminals. Hence, they conclude that approximately 1 million potential criminals who would previously have been born were aborted. They estimate that this explains about half of the reduction in crime that occurred between 1991 and 1997. In further support of this thesis, they found that states with the highest abortion rates after 1973 experienced the greatest reduction in crime some 20 years later…This study demonstrates the considerable eugenic benefits accruing from the legalization of abortion.”

(What about the ones who do the really hardcore damage in this world? What about the thieving, lying, war-mongering elite? What’s the best way to reduce their numbers?)

 

184: Confidentiality is better, it leads to more abortions:

“The impact of the parental notification laws is illustrated by the experience in Minnesota, where a parental notification law was introduced in 1981. The abortion rate for 15- to 17-year olds in the preceding three years (1978-1980) was 18.8 per 1,000 young women. Following the new law, the abortion rate fell to 12.8 per 1,000 young women in 1982. The lesson to be drawn from this is that teenagers’ abortions should be confidential.”

188: Paying low IQ individuals to be sterilized + people who don’t want to pay taxes are psychopaths:

“A possible approach to the problem of reducing dysgenic fertility is to offer those with low intelligence and psychopathic personality financial incentives not to have children. A proposal of this kind was advanced in the early 1970’s by William Shockley and received quite a lot of publicity because of Shockley’s fame as a Nobel laureate for the discovery of the transistor.

Shockley’s proposal was to offer payments for sterilization to all nontaxpayers with IQs below 100. Most people with IQs below 100, who comprise half the population, pay taxes; so perhaps about 10 percent to 20 percent of the total population would be eligible for the payments…Although the scheme was designed primarily to attract those with low IQs, the stipulation that those eligible for the payments would have to be nontaxpayers would also attract a certain number of those with psychopathic personality, one characteristic of which is antipathy to…paying taxes.”

(Sure…because “antipathy” toward funding psychopaths in government is surely “psychopathic.”)

“The payments proposed were $1,000 for each IQ point below 100. Thus, for example, someone with an IQ of 70 would be paid $30,000…Payments of $30,000 to those with IQs of 70 in 1972 would need to be adjusted about 10-fold for inflation and would amount to about $300,000 for the early twenty-first century…”

(In the author’s defense, he points out the obvious problem of people intentionally scoring as low as possible on the IQ test so that they could receive an even larger payment. He suggests dropping the IQ-rated payment scale and just offering a flat-rate payment to all nontaxpayers, stating that many would accept something much lower; “perhaps as low as a few hundred dollars.”)

192: Women having babies to earn their living:

“A variant of offering girls and women on welfare incentives not to become pregnant is to remove the welfare payments to unemployed women who have babies. The thinking behind this proposal is that a number of women in the underclass have babies because this enables them to live on welfare, which is preferable to working. Charles Murray argued that the increasing generosity of welfare provision in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s made having babies a rational option for women with low intelligence, no educational qualifications, and poor employment prospects…To many [of these women], a preferable option is to have babies. These enable them to live on welfare, which provides them with an income, accommodation, and greater freedom and leisure…welfare provides a satisfactory lifestyle compared with the alternatives. The effect of this is that they do not mind becoming pregnant, do not take measures to avoid this, and do not have their pregnancies terminated…”

196: Child support, sterilization, or jail:

“In the Ohio scheme for offering welfare mothers payments for the use of contraception, one requirement was that the welfare mothers should identify the fathers of their children and that these would be offered the options of paying child support, of carrying out community service work, of being sterilized and receiving a payment of $1,000, or of serving two years in prison.

This is a commendable scheme and would be better still if the option of carrying out community service were removed. The scheme could usefully be expanded to all men on welfare after some limited period of, say, four months. The provisions would be similar to those for welfare mothers and would require sterilization as a condition of receiving welfare. This scheme would not prevent these men from having children in the future, which could be accomplished by the removal of sperm from the testes and the use of artificial insemination; so sterilization could not be regarded as too onerous a requirement.”

197: Recap of the number of sterilizations performed in the United States and in other countries

202: Castrate “sex offenders”:

“A further study on this issue in Denmark concerned 738 sexual offenders castrated between 1929 and 1959. This study found that their reoffending rate was 1.8 percent, as compared with a reoffending rate of 9.7 percent among noncastrated offenders. This result has been confirmed in Germany, where a 1970 law allowed judges to offer convicted offenders the option of a reduced term of imprisonment conditional on castration. About 400 castrations were carried out from 1970 to 1986. Wille and Beier followed up 99 of them for 11 years after their release from prison and found that 3 percent of them reoffended, as compared with 46 percent among a matched group of sex offenders who had not been castrated.”

(Alright, just a few points here: First, there is a huge difference between the first statistic from Denmark where more than 90 percent did not reoffend despite not being castrated VS the study in Germany where only 54 percent did not reoffend. This really calls into question the criteria for labeling a person a “sex offender.” Mandatory castration could easily be abused through the creation of ridiculous laws, selectively enforced, to achieve eugenic ends. For instance, an 18-year old who has consensual sex with his 16-year old girlfriend could be categorized a “sex offender” just the same as a man who puts a gun to a woman’s head and rapes her. Last but not least, there is the problem of how easily false allegations can be made or how different charges can be chosen by prosecutors to force a plea deal and win a conviction. The idea of innocent individuals being subjected to a punishment that will alter them forever should make every thinking individual pause.)

205: License required for children:

“As an alternative to the series of piecemeal measures of negative eugenics discussed in Chapters 12 and 13, we will now consider proposals for comprehensive parental licensing programs…These licenses would be granted only to those regarded as fit to be parents, and the criteria for fitness for parenthood would include both the genetic qualities and the suitability of the couples concerned.”

(Again, “fitness” and “suitability” would be determined by the ruling class and these designations could be granted or withheld based on anything. Try to imagine having men, like the author of this book, determine that you are to be eliminated from the gene pool…imagine having no say in the matter because the mere fact that you have been refused the right to have children is seen as proof enough that you’re too ignorant and / or “unfit” to be taken seriously.)

208: Revoking licenses and taking children away from parents:

“Parents who obtained a license but subsequently neglected or abused their children would have their license suspended and would be placed under supervision, or their children put into foster care. The parents would be given further instruction in proper child rearing. If they failed to improve, their license would be revoked, and their children would be permanently removed on the grounds that incompetent parents inflict considerable social damage and that society has a right to protect itself against this…children have a right to competent parenting, and if this is not provided by their biological parents, society should ensure that it is provided by adoptive or foster parents.”

(Teaching your children that the eugenic state is unjust and its rulers are corrupt would surely constitute “incompetent” parenting that inflicts “considerable social damage.” Your license, and your children, would be confiscated on the grounds that “society” has a right to protect itself against radicals like yourself and that your children have a right to be raised properly.)

212 - 213: Sterilize all children at 12 years old:

“The second way to prevent unlicensed couples from having babies would be to sterilize all children at around the age of 12. This is probably the only method for making the plan effective. When the children grow up and wish to have children, they would be required to obtain the license and could then have the sterilization reversed. There are several ways in which the sterilization and its later reversal could be carried out. At the age of 12, girls could be required to have some form of long lasting contraception, such as an IUD (intrauterine device) or Norplant. At appropriate intervals they would be required to have their IUD checked or their Norplant capsules replaced…

Boys would have to be sterilized by vasectomy. When they became adults and found partners with whom they wanted to have children, they would have to apply for parental licenses. If these were granted, the vasectomies would be reversed…The mandatory sterilization of boys is more contentious than the requirement of long-lasting contraception for girls, but it could well come to be recognized as the best solution to the otherwise intractable problem of irresponsible men who do not care if they get girls pregnant or who take pride in fathering numerous children whom they frequently abandon.”

(By all means, sterilize all men because a handful (5 percent? 10 percent?) are irresponsible and don’t care about how many children they father.)

“In time, the mandatory sterilization of boys might come to seem no more objectionable than inoculations against infectious diseases, which are taken for granted as desirable. Alternatively, technological developments may provide a means for sterilizing boys for a temporary period, which would be more acceptable to public opinion than vasectomy. A possible development of this kind would be the production of a virus causing temporary sterilization.

Contraceptive viruses were developed in Australia in 1997 for the sterilization of rabbits, kangaroos, and other pests. Different viruses can produce sterilization for varying lengths of time. The ideal for humans would be a contraceptive virus acting for about 10 years that could be given to 12-year-old boys. When they were aged 22, they could apply for licenses for parenthood. If they failed to obtain these, they could be vasectomized.”

216 – 218: Tax incentives for genetic desirables to have children:

“A number of subsequent eugenicists advanced a variety of proposals by which the state would provide financial incentives for the genetically desirable to have children…Fisher proposed…that the state should give allowances for children proportional to their fathers’ incomes, such that fathers with high incomes would receive higher allowances per child than fathers with low incomes. This would provide incentives for high-earning fathers, assumed to have high intelligence and desirable personality traits, to have more children, while avoiding the provision of similar incentives to low-earning fathers…

Another strategy for positive eugenics would be to increase the taxation of the childless. These taxes should be progressive, as they normally are, so that those with the highest incomes would be the most heavily taxed…Although this plan has not been advanced in the contemporary world, it would seem to have some promise as a means of inducing high earners to increase their fertility. Such a proposal would be relatively easy to introduce politically because childless high earners are few in number and would not be expected to receive much public sympathy if they were taxed more heavily. A program of this kind has much to recommend it, particularly if it were introduced in conjunction with tax allowances for children, thereby providing higher earners with both a carrot and a stick to increase their fertility.”

222: If Hitler would have simply taken advantage of high Jewish IQs he could have ruled the world:

“The contribution of Jewish immigrants to the United States is strikingly exemplified by the development of the atom bomb over the period 1939 – 1945. The principal physicists responsible for building the atom bomb in the Manhattan Project were Albert Einstein (whose letter to President Franklin Roosevelt in 1939 was responsible for the president instigating the project), Enrico Fermi, Leo Szilard, and Klaus Fuchs, all of whom were Jewish immigrants from Central Europe; and Julius Oppenheimer, whose family were Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe.

Paradoxically, if Hitler had pursued a eugenic policy of building good relations with the Jews, the first four of these and many other gifted Jews would have remained in Europe, and Hitler could have recruited them to work on the development of a German atom bomb. When this had been built, it would have enabled him to coerce the rest of the world into submission and achieve his ambition for Germany to secure world domination.”

(Isn’t this proof that “intelligence” alone isn’t the best way to measure the value of human beings? Or should we accept that an “intelligent leader” like Hitler is perfectly fit to rule the world, provided he (using “intelligence”) secures the power to do so? “Moral character” be damned!)

227: If “government” deems it is good, then it is impossible to object on ethical grounds:

“A number of state subsidies are made for the benefit of the elites rather than for the general population. This is the case, for example, in the provision of subsidies for universities, opera, and the arts. Political leaders believe that it is in the public interest for these things to be subsidized; and although some people may disagree, it is impossible to make an ethical objection. Similarly, if governments believe that it would be in the public interest for elites to have more children, there can be no ethical objection in democratic societies to the offer of subsidies for them to do so.” 

(Impossible to make an ethical objection? How about this: Forcing people to pay for policies that they do not support – policies that are actually aimed at eliminating them from the gene pool – is wrong.)

228: Subsidize negative eugenics:

“Incentives may also be offered, either by the state or by private agencies, to promote negative eugenics. As with incentives for positive eugenics, these incentives would normally consist of financial offers to those with undesirable characteristics not to have children…No ethical objections can be made to programs of this kind because the individuals to whom the offers are made are free to either accept or reject them.”

(I agree that this is better than forced sterilizations, but disagree that there can be “no ethical objections.” To name a few: The targeted undesirables can be manipulated by those who are more intelligent, their financial situation can be altered (on a massive scale) by those who direct the economy and / or they’re more likely to be desperate for money in the first place.)

229 - 231: Mandatory sterilization:

“One of the most ethically contentious forms of eugenics is mandatory sterilization, as was extensively carried out on the mentally retarded and criminals in the United States, Japan, and a number of European countries in the early and middle decades of the twentieth century. [Emphasis added] From the 1970s onwards, sterilization was widely condemned as ethically unacceptable. For instance, one U.S. biologist, Lee Silver, wrote that ‘forced sterilizations in America were wrong because they restricted the reproductive liberties of innocent people.’ Jacques Testart, a French geneticist, wrote that ‘negative eugenics, imposed in opposition to human liberty and dignity, has become unacceptable in the majority of democratic societies.’ And Matt Ridley, and English sociobiologist, wrote that eugenic sterilization ‘was oppressive and cruel because it required the full power of the state to be asserted over the rights of the individual.’

These objections to the ethical legitimacy of sterilization fail to recognize that there are social rights as well as individual rights. While there are individual rights of freedom of expression and behavior, there are also social rights to restrict these freedoms where the exercise of them is socially damaging.” 

(This is an example of putting the cart before the horse. So called “social rights” stem from individual rights. Society can’t kill an innocent person and “part out” their body simply because it has determined it would be socially beneficial to do so. Besides, this concept of “social rights” is itself a lie; a creation of INDIVIDUAL elites who seek to dominate, not empower, the society they claim to serve.)

“Thus, in terms of general principle, it is unquestionably ethically legitimate for societies to curtail individual rights when the exercise of these is judged likely to inflict social damage. This is the principle underlying the restriction of individual liberties in the Western democracies and, no doubt, in authoritarian states as well. The liberties that are curtailed can be ordered along a continuum ranging from behaviors that indisputably cause social damage to those for which there is a probability or possibility that they may cause social damage…For instance, no one disputes that the rights to liberty of those convicted of serious crimes should be curtailed by imprisonment in the interests of preserving the rights of other citizens to be protected from crime.”

(Those who have committed a serious crime have already violated the rights of another person. There is a huge difference between limiting a person’s freedom because they have provably abused that freedom VS limiting a person’s freedom when they have done nothing to violate the rights of another.)

“It has sometimes been argued that sterilization is not justified because normally there is not a certainty but only a possibility that social problem groups will transmit their characteristics to their children. For example, Adrian Raine, a psychologist at the University of California who specializes in the psychology of crime, wrote that ‘current research indicates a genetic predisposition to crime only; individuals are not born to commit crime; there can be no genetic destiny for crime as such. Eugenic solutions are not supported by the findings of genetic research.’ This argument against eugenic sterilization to curtail the reproduction of criminals cannot be accepted.

Society prohibits many behaviors on the basis that there is some actuarial possibility that they may inflict social harm, but no certainty that they will do so. For instance, societies impose speed limits for driving on public roads and highways. There is no certainty that driving faster than the speed limit will cause any harm and a probability that in most cases it will not. Nevertheless, there is an enhanced possibility that it will do so, and on these grounds society legitimately prohibits it…The same actuarial argument applies to the children produced by criminals and the mentally retarded and provides the ethical legitimacy for their sterilization.”

(First: Does anyone honestly believe that receiving a speeding ticket is comparable to being forcibly sterilized? Second, speeders are only punished after they have been caught speeding. The government doesn’t look at all drivers and decide, prior to any violation, which drivers should have their license preemptively suspended. Maybe they should, huh? Maybe if the parent is a chronic speeder, the child should be prevented from ever getting their license based on the “enhanced possibility” that the child will speed too…)

232: Carrie Buck’s sterilization and Oliver Wendell Holmes:

“In 1924 the physicians at the state institution where Carrie Buck was confined recommended that she should be sterilized. This recommendation was challenged in the Virginia high court by a group of conservative Christians who held it was a violation of individual rights. The Virginia court upheld the decision to sterilize. In 1927, the case went to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which decided by a vote of eight to one in favor of sterilization. The Supreme Court’s decision was read by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes:  

‘We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the state for these lesser sacrifices…in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit for continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.’

Following this judgment, Carrie Buck was sterilized. It is evident that in his justification for the Supreme Court’s decision, Oliver Wendell Holmes was relying on the principle that there are social rights that may sometimes override the individual’s rights to have children. He noted that the state requires its citizens to give their lives, in time of war, for the benefit of their country and that it requires infants to be vaccinated in the social interest of preventing the spread of contagious diseases. He pointed out that the mentally retarded impose costs on society and that any children they have are likely to be mentally retarded; and that to avert the likely social costs of these future children, the mentally retarded can legitimately be sterilized.”

(As mentioned earlier, neither Carrie Buck nor her child was “mentally retarded.” So, not even the landmark case, put forward to justify the state’s right to perform compulsory sterilization, met the so-called legitimate requirements for sterilization. How many others, falsely designated and sterilized, had their rights violated as well?

As a side note, the author disputes the fact that Carrie Buck was not retarded and, of her child, he says “The school records show that she obtained predominantly C grades and was required to repeat a term in one class…Her intelligence was not tested, but the fact that she was required to repeat a term indicates that she was backward. Just how backward she was cannot be determined with any degree of confidence.” For more information, there is a short article on Carrie Buck available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Buck )   

237: Competing groups are weaker than united groups:

“Multicultural societies are less well governed and have poorer economic performance than ethnically and racially homogenous societies because the competing ethnic and racial groups expend too much of their energy and resources in trying to advance the interests of their own group.”

(It seems that this principle applies to politics as well…keep the people divided into “left VS right” and they’re unlikely to unite against the criminals that are exploiting them.)

238: The author again asserts that Hitler was not practicing eugenics against the Jews:

“These arguments [that Hitler exterminated Jews for eugenical reasons] cannot be accepted. First, eugenics does not require the extermination of undesirables. It is sufficient for eugenics that the mentally retarded and recidivist criminals should be sterilized. Second, eugenic considerations did not play any significant role in the Nazi program for the extermination of the Jews. Hitler did not regard the Jews as genetically inferior.”

(Again, this is a completely disingenuous argument. Hitler did not have to see the Jews as “inferior” in order to see them as “undesirable.” The concept of eugenics – that it aims to increase “desirables” and decrease “undesirables” – leaves the definition of both terms open to interpretation. Worse, their definitions are driven by the overarching goal of eugenics which, according to the author himself, is to increase the power of the nation state to a point that one group of elite will dominate the world. No such global elite could allow any group (whether the group was intelligent, talented, or otherwise), to challenge their power. Any group that did challenge their power would be immediately categorized as undesirable…This is common sense.)

240 - 241: Even if Hitler was practicing Eugenics, he just did it wrong:

“If eugenic views had contributed to the Nazis’ extermination of the Jews, gypsies, and others, this would certainly have been an ethically unacceptable misapplication of eugenics. Nevertheless, the fact that a social philosophy has been unethically applied does not imply that such a misapplication is inevitable or that the social philosophy must be rejected on this account. Numerous social philosophies that are in general commendable have, on occasion, been misapplied. For instance, Christianity consists of a generally acceptable social philosophy, and the application of Christian principles has led to many desirable outcomes, such as…the establishment of welfare provision for the destitute…”

(It’s quite ironic that the author chooses the example of providing “welfare provisions” to destitute individuals as something that makes Christianity good. It would seem this practice of providing welfare for the destitute would clearly constitute a dysgenic policy.)

“Nevertheless, Christianity has sometimes been misapplied. The Christian church has burned at the stake numerous people who disagreed with some of its tenets; and it has waged wars against unbelievers in which abhorrent brutalities have been committed, such as the Crusades in which the Christian crusaders slaughtered large numbers of women and children. These killings must be condemned. However, these deplorable episodes do not justify the total rejection of Christianity or the conclusion that an acceptance of Christianity is the beginning of a slippery slope that inevitably leads to the extermination of those who do not accept its doctrines.

Similarly, the social philosophy of socialism evolved in the Soviet Union into a tyranny…Nevertheless, it would be wrong to conclude that socialism inevitably leads to such an outcome and that socialist ideals of equality, fraternity, and the like must be condemned because these principles were applied in ethically unacceptable ways…”

(It’s pretty simple, really. Let’s assume we have two groups:

Group #1 believes that it has the right to force all others to live a certain way (or even forfeit their progeny) because they have deemed it “desirable.” They aggress against non-aggressors without any concern for the rights of their victims.

Group #2 believes that it has a right to live in a way that it deems desirable, provided that its choices do not violate the rights of others. Unlike the first group, Group #2 only uses force against those who have actually aggressed against them.

In this scenario, the first group is clearly wrong. It makes no difference if the group hides behind “god” or “the state” or “bettering society” to justify its acts of aggression. There is no “slippery slope” to discuss here because the doctrine itself (of using force against innocent human beings) is founded on an “ethically unacceptable” principle. It isn’t that this type of system could become a tyranny; it already is a tyranny. And the longer it is permitted to exist, the more tyrannical it will inevitably become.

Appealing to “moral objectives” without considering the morality of the methods used to obtain them is ridiculous.)

“A number of the opponents of eugenics have resorted to the slippery slope argument, which states that although a number of eugenic measures are unobjectionable in themselves, they could lead to further measures that would be unethical. This argument is unpersuasive because all sorts of measures that are acceptable might, if taken to extremes, lead to other measures that are unacceptable. For example, once society permits the practice of religion, it may be argued, it sets foot on the beginning of a slippery slope that will eventually permit unethical religions that practice human sacrifice…”

(If only the author understood and accepted the concept of individual rights, he’d realize how ridiculous his argument is. No society founded on the concept of individual rights would “permit unethical religions that practice human sacrifice” because, clearly, murdering people is a violation of an individual’s rights! However, a society that resembled the author’s utopia – where powerful groups can violate the rights of the individual whenever they see fit – is a different story altogether.)

 262 - 263: Defective fetuses:

“The major ethical justification for prenatal diagnosis and the termination of pregnancies in cases where a genetic disorder in the fetus has been diagnosed lies in the general principle that in a free society individuals are permitted to make their own decisions concerning the conduct of their lives, unless there is a reasonable case that their behavior is likely to cause social harm. The abortion of a genetically disordered fetus cannot be regarded as likely to cause social harm and hence is ethically justified…

[Another ethical issue] raised by prenatal diagnosis is whether it is ethical for women to refuse to have the procedure carried out. Where the genetic disorder is serious, there is a strong case that such women are acting unethically because they are bringing into the world a child whose health will be seriously impaired, causing distress to itself and to its family, and whose maintenance imposes significant costs on society. This argument can be applied to children with Down’s syndrome, most of whom will never be able to look after themselves or make any positive contribution to society and who will incur medical and welfare resources that could be better directed elsewhere.

To incur the risk of giving birth to such a child by refusing to have a prenatal diagnosis can reasonably be argued as unethical. This is the view taken by the American Society of Human Genetics, which posed the question of ‘whether or not a defective fetus should be allowed to be born,’ and suggested that the ethical answer is that it should not. This view has been endorsed by Robert Edwards, a British physician who carries out prenatal diagnosis and pregnancy terminations and who said in 1999 that ‘soon it will be a sin of parents to have a child that carries the heavy burden of genetic disease.’ He urged that all pregnant women should be tested for Down’s syndrome and common genetic disorders and that it would be unethical for women to refuse to have these tests carried out and to refuse to have fetuses with serious disorders terminated…

There is a strong case that women have an ethical obligation to have these procedures carried out and that women who refuse to allow this and subsequently bring into the world children with serious genetic disorders are behaving unethically.”

(That this author actually believes he’s qualified to use the word “unethical” against others is pretty laughable.)

275: Acceptance of eugenics will make a comeback:

“A further portent of the reappearance of eugenic thinking occurred in 1998 when James Watson, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, spoke at the Congress of Molecular Medicine and advocated the greater use of prenatal diagnosis and termination of fetuses with genetic disorders. He asserted, ‘The truly relevant question for most families is whether an obvious good to them will come from having a child with a major handicap. From this perspective, seeing the bright side of being handicapped is like praising the virtues of extreme poverty.’ Although somewhat opaquely expressed, this can only be construed as an endorsement of eugenics. Once eugenics comes to be accepted again by the scientific community, it will come to be accepted by informed public opinion and the media.”

 276: Too much emphasis on “individual rights” and not enough on “social rights:”

“By the end of the twentieth century, two social changes had occurred throughout the Western democracies that made it more difficult for governments to introduce eugenic measures than it was in the first half of the century. The first of these was that the balance between individual and social rights, which all societies have to strike, had swung strongly in favor of strengthening individual rights at the expense of social rights. Individual rights consist of the freedom of individual citizens to behave as they choose, while social rights consist of the right of societies, acting through their governments, to restrict individual rights in the interests of general social well-being.”

(Once again, this is totally inaccurate and almost certainly an intentional mischaracterization of the issue.

“Individual rights” consist of the freedom of individual citizens to behave as they choose, provided that those individual citizens DO NOT BEHAVE IN A WAY THAT VIOLATES THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. Nowhere in the concept of “individual rights” is it implied that individuals can “behave as they choose” without regard for the rights of others…The entire point of protecting individual rights is that it leads to the social balance that the author claims to seek. The statement “your rights end where my rights begin” is instructive.

Simply stated, when individual rights are protected, so-called “social rights” will be protected as well. The same cannot be said when the process is reversed. When a government claims the authority to violate the rights of innocent individuals, it simultaneously seizes the power to violate the rights of the society it claims to serve.)

277: Ignorant / criminal “blacks and Hispanics” will resist eugenics because they’ll be targeted:

“A second special interest group that would be expected to oppose any attempt to rehabilitate eugenics is the racial and ethnic minorities that would be disproportionately affected by eugenic policies. Foremost among these are African Americans and Hispanics in the United States and Africans in Europe, whose low average intelligence and high crime rates would make them disproportionately subject to sterilization...”

277- 278: Educational and facilitative eugenics:

“Although it has become impossible at the turn of the millennium for governments in the Western democracies to revive the classical state-mandated eugenics of the first half of the twentieth century (and it must be considered highly improbable that any Western governments will attempt to do this in the foreseeable future), it is probable that they will continue to support educational and facilitative eugenics consisting of the provision of sex education in schools, information about contraception, and financial support for birth control clinics and abortion. This support will be provided to promote the health and well-being of women. Probably these services and facilities will gradually come to be used more efficiently as knowledge of them grows, as the morning-after pill becomes more widely known and more easily available, and as more effective forms of contraception are developed. Probably also the welfare support for underclass women to have babies by providing them with welfare incomes and housing will be reduced as understanding grows that these act as perverse incentives for childbearing among the least desirable section of the population.”

279: Don’t use your husband’s sperm; use artificial insemination by donor (AID)…wouldn’t you rather bear a child by Lenin or Darwin?

“This idea was advanced in Britain in the 1930s by Brewer, who coined the term eutelegenesis (breeding from afar) for this eugenic use of AID. The scheme was also advocated at about the same time by the American eugenicist Hermann Muller. Muller proposed that the semen of ‘excellent men’ would be stored and women who wanted children would be encouraged to use it, rather than that of their husbands. The ‘excellent men’ selected for this purpose would possess high intelligence and have socially valuable personality qualities, such as a strong moral sense, self-discipline, a strong sense of civic obligation, and energy. ‘How many women,’ Muller asked rhetorically in his book Out of the Night, ‘would be eager and proud to bear and rear a child of Lenin or Darwin?’ The answer to the rhetorical question has turned out to be ‘virtually none.’ The proposal that men could be persuaded to have their wives or female partners inseminated by elite sperm taken from a semen bank rather than by themselves ignores a fundamental theorem of evolutionary psychology, that people are motivated to transmit their own genes. This stumbling block cannot be expected to change. We must therefore conclude that AID from elite donors is unlikely to have any significant eugenic impact in democratic societies.”

(Note that the author says AID wouldn’t have a “significant eugenic impact in democratic societies.” I suppose in a society that was more to the author’s liking, women wouldn’t have much choice in the matter. If they wanted to have children, they would have to accept the sperm offered…for the “good of society,” of course.)

283 - 284: Embryo selection:

“In the twenty-first century it will become possible to test embryos for the presence of genes affecting numerous other characteristics, including late-onset diseases and disorders; intelligence; special cognitive abilities, such as mathematical, linguistic, and musical aptitudes; personality traits; athletic abilities; height; body build; and physical appearance. It will then be possible for couples to examine the genetic printouts of a number of embryos and select for implantation the ones they regard as having the most desirable genetic characteristics.

Before this becomes possible, three problems will have to be solved. The first is that most of the genes for which couples can be expected to select have yet to be identified. But progress in the identification of these genes is proceeding rapidly, and the functions of their most common alleles should be discovered by the first two or three decades of the twenty-first century.

The second problem is that in the recent past it has been feasible to grow only a relatively small number of embryos in vitro…Couples presented with the genetic printout of 12 of their embryos would have only a limited choice and might have to make some difficult decisions. For instance, the embryo with the best set of genes for intelligence might also have the genes for the probable development of cancer or heart disease in middle age or the genes for undesirable personality, predisposing the embryo to grow into an intelligent criminal.”

(How long before a eugenics-based society mandates that all embryos must be “selected” in this way? Or, if not that far, how long before mandatory prenatal screening ensures that all “undesirable fetuses” (as determined by the ruling class) must be aborted?  Could anything be more dangerous than granting some “experts” the authority to terminate an embryo / fetus based on their assertion that it is “predisposed” to crime?

In this case, there is the obvious problem of who defines “criminal.” (Independent thinkers could be viewed as “predisposed” to crime in a society where independent thought is frowned upon.)

Next, there is the issue of laymen having no idea whatsoever whether or not there is any science at all behind the claims of the experts; or if the so-called “criminal” genes are even present. (If the population accepts a diagnosis of “criminal genes” as sufficient cause for termination, then every fetus the elite deem “undesirable” will, of course, be said to possess criminal genes.)

Last but not least, there is the issue of suggesting that something as complex as human behavior can be reduced to an equation that relies on nothing more than genes! The idea that nature would rigidly “fix” behavioral traits that are adaptable, and necessarily so for survival, is ridiculous.)

“When this procedure becomes widespread, it will become evident that embryo-selected children are virtually always superior to naturally conceived children with respect to their health, intelligence, and personality. This knowledge will spread by word of mouth and through the media.

Couples who can conceive by normal intercourse will choose to have children by embryo selection as a means of ensuring genetically better children than those conceived normally. At first, embryo selection will be used by only a few intelligent, well-informed, farsighted, and affluent couples; but over the course of time increasing numbers of couples will use it, as its advantages become increasingly apparent and understood.”

 

288: A “new genetic underclass” will emerge:

“The eventual adoption of embryo selection by substantial proportions of the population should be regarded as inevitable in the Western democracies. This will be the major avenue for the advancement of eugenics in the twenty-first century…Embryo selection will eventually be adopted by 80 percent to 90 percent of the population and will stabilize at this level.”

(Well, here is another angle to consider: what if authoritarian elites decide that only they should enjoy the advantages of this technology? It isn’t very difficult to imagine. Why would they allow the creation of human beings that could compete with them when, instead, they could gradually create an insurmountable “genetic advantage” over their subjects?)

“The remaining 10 percent to 20 percent of babies will continue to be conceived by sexual intercourse. These will be born largely to couples with low intelligence and psychopathic personality who conceive by accident and do not have their unplanned pregnancies terminated.

When this point is reached, the two populations will begin to diverge genetically. A gulf will open up between the embryo-selected children and the ‘unplanned,’ as those conceived by sexual intercourse may come to be known. If, as seems probable, the parents of the unplanned come from the bottom 10 percent to 20 percent of the population for intelligence, their mean IQ would be around 80 and the mean IQs of their children around 84. The remaining 80 percent to 90 percent of the population who had their children by embryo selection would have a mean IQ of about 110. By using Embryo selection they could have children with IQs about 15 points higher than their own, giving their children a mean IQ of around 125. Thus, in the first generation there would be a difference of around 40 IQ points between the average IQ of the embryo-selected and that of the unplanned. This gap would increase by around 15 IQ points in each subsequent generation because the embryo-selected would continue to have children whose IQs would be around 15 IQ points higher than their own, while the IQs of the unplanned would remain the same...”

(It sounds like the author is now arguing that a continuous increase in IQ would occur. This contradicts his earlier claim, referenced on 152 – 153, that “In the case of intelligence, there would not be any increase in the highest intelligence hitherto achieved…This is because all the right genes and the most favorable environmental conditions have already appeared from time to time and produced people like Pascal and Galton… The average intelligence level of the population would be improved, just as the average running speed of thoroughbreds has been improved; but there would be no increase of the highest IQs, just as there has been no improvement in the running speeds of the fastest thoroughbreds.”) 

“This would give the embryo-selected children a huge advantage in schools, colleges, occupations, and incomes…This will lead to the emergence of a caste society containing two genetically differentiated castes – the embryo-selected and the unplanned. The two castes will live in different areas, attend different schools and colleges, and hardly meet socially. They will normally marry and mate only within their own group, transmitting their differentiated sets of genes to their children. Virtually all the professional, white-collar, and skilled jobs would be performed by the embryo-selected. Some of the unplanned would work in unskilled and undemanding jobs, but many of them would be unemployed and unemployable. These would be a genetic underclass…They would be a social problem, just as their parents and grandparents of the old underclass were; and they would live in a ghettoized underworld of chronic unemployment, crime, drug addiction, single motherhood, and welfare dependency. Eventually, despite strong ideological opposition, it would come to be understood that the underclass of the unplanned was primarily a genetic problem and would require genetic interventions.”

292-293: Authoritarian states will recognize the benefits of eugenics:

“We should anticipate that in the twenty-first century, the political leaders of some authoritarian states will realize that eugenics could be used as a means for the promotion of national strength and will embark on a eugenic program as a means of advancing this objective.”

(Perhaps if these authoritarian leaders are really “intelligent,” they’ll recognize the benefits of breeding a completely sociopathic military class. Nothing wrong with that, just so long as it promotes “national strength,” right?)

294: Leaders still believe in eugenics, but can’t admit it:

“By the end of the twentieth century, political leaders in the Western democracies had become aware that it is politically hazardous to express ideas of this kind. Nevertheless, a number of political leaders in the Western democracies have been aware of the potential of eugenics for enhancing national power, and no doubt many of them are still aware of this, even though they realize that it has become politically impossible to express these ideas publicly or to implement eugenic programs on a significant scale.”

295: Forced abortions in China:

“The most favorable attitudes toward eugenics were found among geneticists and physicians in China, where the political leaders also favor eugenics and have already begun to implement eugenic programs…In 1993 the Chinese government passed the Eugenics and Health Protection Law, which prohibited the marriage of people with mental illness, venereal diseases, and hepatitis with the express intention of preventing them from having children. A further Act of 1994 authorized the compulsory sterilization of the mentally retarded and of those with serious genetic diseases and disorders, the mandatory prenatal testing of pregnant women, and compulsory abortion in cases where a disorder is identified. These laws applied to the entire country of China.”

297: Sterilize anyone labeled “retarded, psychopathic, or criminal” + all 12 year old girls (sexually active or not) should be fitted with IUDs:

“Authoritarian states intent on implementing eugenics are likely to introduce both the classical eugenics of selective reproduction and the new eugenics of the human biotechnologies. In regard to classical eugenics, they would be expected to introduce programs for the sterilization of the mentally retarded and of criminals and psychopaths. These may well be carried out on a more robust scale than was attempted in the Western democracies in the early and middle decades of the twentieth century...They would also be expected to introduce some form of parental licensing scheme of the kind discussed in Chapter 14. To make this effective and to prevent the birth of unlicensed babies, we can envision that all 12-year-old girls would be required to be fitted with contraception.

There have already been calls for this to be done in some of the Western democracies as a means of preventing teenage pregnancies by irresponsible young women. For instance, in Britain, John Guillebaud, medical director of the Margaret Pyke Family Planning Center in London, made this proposal in February 1990: ‘In the future, and as a social policy, when you have an area with a huge rate of teenage pregnancies, you could go into a school, obviously with the consent of the parents, and fit this device so that everybody would start out not being able to have a baby.’ The same scheme is implicit in the American psychologist David Lykken’s proposal for licenses for parenthood, because the only feasible way of enforcing the proposal would be to make it compulsory for young girls to be fitted with long-term contraception, which could be removed once the license for parenthood had been obtained.”

298: Teaching the “genetic elite” their role in society:

“Authoritarian eugenic states would also be expected to implement programs of classical positive eugenics, designed to encourage their elites to have more children. There are two strategies by which it is likely that this would be attempted. These are by the provision of financial incentives and by promoting the concept that elites have an ethical obligation to society to have children. The financial incentives for having and rearing children could be made very considerable because authoritarian states need not be concerned with the notions of social justice that exist in democracies…”

(But wait, isn’t eugenics supposed to be about “social rights?” …Maybe the fact that eugenics is easier to implement in authoritarian states provides sufficient proof that it has nothing to do with the rights of society.) 

“In addition to the provision of financial incentives for child rearing, eugenic authoritarian states would also be expected to promote the idea that their elites have an ethical obligation to have children. One way they might do this would be by requiring university students, taken for practical purposes as the elite, to take courses in eugenics, such as were given in a number of U.S. universities in the 1920s and 1930s, and based on the model of the courses in Marxism-Leninism that were compulsory for students in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe during the years of communist rule. These courses would be designed to imbue the young elite with a sense of the eugenic mission of the state and of their own obligation to contribute to this by having several children.”

299 - 300: Screening and compulsory abortions + mandatory embryo selection:

“Authoritarian eugenic states would be expected to extend the use of prenatal diagnosis of genetic diseases and disorders by making diagnosis more efficient and by making the abortion of disordered fetuses compulsory…”

(And as the “screening” bureaucracy expands, and as the list of “disorders” grows too, no common parent will be safe from selectively enforced compulsory abortions.)

“In the medium-term future, authoritarian eugenic states would be likely to use embryo selection as the principal means for advancing their eugenic agendas…Procreation by the haphazard means of sexual intercourse would be made illegal. This would be enforced by requiring all 12-year-old girls to have some form of long-lasting contraception…

Once the eugenic state had made embryo selection mandatory, it would be faced with the problem of whether couples would be allowed a free choice of which embryos to select or whether the selection would be regulated. It would be preferable to allow couples freedom of choice on the grounds of allowing the population the greatest possible personal liberties in the interests of ensuring their acceptance of the oligarchic constitution.”

303: Cloning the elite:

“Eugenic states would be expected to confine cloning to the reproduction of quite small numbers of their scientific, military, and political elites….The cloning of elites would give eugenic states a large advantage over the Western democracies in the development of national economic, scientific, and military power. Important scientific advances are typically made by small numbers of highly gifted individuals who have hitherto appeared as a result of very unusual combinations of genes and favorable environmental conditions. Authoritarian eugenic states could produce hundreds or thousands of replicas of these highly gifted individuals by cloning and could have them reared in the most favorable family and educational environments. The cloning of political and military elites would make it possible for power to be transmitted from capable elites to their clones and would solve the succession problem that has so frequently led to the downfall of oligarchies. The cloning of elites would give authoritarian eugenic states considerable advantages because, as noted in Chapter 19, it cannot be envisioned that elites would be cloned in the Western democracies.”

(I doubt that cloning would solve the “succession problem.” I believe this so-called “problem” of oligarchies falling apart has more to do with the experience of the rulers than the genetics of the rulers. Those who established the oligarchy / empire had to fight for and develop the strength needed to acquire and maintain it. Those who inherit an already established empire had it much easier. As such, they not only lack the experience necessary to create such a thing, they lack the understanding necessary to maintain it. They are thrown into a position that not even their predecessor, absent the “building” process, could have handled.)

305: All governments want to enhance their national strength, increase the quality of their populations:

“In the twenty-first century, one or more authoritarian states are likely to develop eugenic programs as a means of improving their economic, scientific, and military strength. This is probable because virtually all governments have the enhancement of their national strength as one of their principal objectives. Political leaders understand that the quality of their populations is a significant factor in national strength, and they normally seek to enhance the quality of their populations by measures designed to improve their health, education, cognitive abilities, and moral standards.”

(The only reason rulers want to “enhance national strength” is because, by extension, it enhances their own strength. If rulers see an educated class as a threat to their power, like the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia, it will slaughter them. You could argue that rulers might still want to have highly intelligent / able people within their own ranks, but that does not translate to the population at large. For authoritarians, an “educated” citizen is just smart enough to understand the importance of keeping their head down and submitting to authority. Now, expand this general rule to a group of elite that seeks to dominate the world; this group has no incentive to improve / strengthen the “cognitive abilities” of the global population. In fact, it doesn’t even have an incentive to allow most of the global population to exist.) 

306: More on the advantages of authoritarianism:

“Authoritarian states are not constrained by internal opposition, which can easily be suppressed. An authoritarian eugenic state that used its genetically enhanced population to develop a decisive military advantage would be likely to use it to establish world domination.”

(It’s very likely that these statements are an attempt to manipulate Western “leaders” into reinstituting eugenics. By appealing to fear (“if the enemy creates superior humans, and you don’t, you will be conquered by them”) and by constantly stressing the inevitability of a single world government, the subtext is clear: “A global eugenic state is inevitable; it’s just a matter of who will run it...act fast, or it isn’t going to be the West.”)

309:  Poorly educated / less intelligent women only have kids because they want welfare or don’t know how to use contraception:

“The most recent evidence shows that dysgenic fertility is still present in the United States. This is likely to persist as significant numbers of well-educated and intelligent women opt to remain childless in order to further their careers and to preserve their affluent lifestyles, while poorly educated and less intelligent women continue to have children either because of their inefficient use of contraception or deliberately in order to live on welfare as a preferable alternative to working.”

(Is it possible that the “less intelligent” women have children because they want to experience the joy of raising a family? Is it possible that “building a career,” instead of building a family, isn’t appealing to them? Or do only “intelligent women” possess the necessary IQ to determine whether motherhood would be more fulfilling than a job in the corporate world?)

309 – 311 Immigration: Ignorant blacks and Hispanics are going to destroy the United States:

“As Hispanics and blacks become an increasing proportion of the U.S. population, there will be three predictable consequences. First, because Hispanics and blacks have lower intelligence levels than whites at approximately 92 and 85 IQ points, respectively, the intelligence level of the population will fall, causing economic productivity to decline and generating a number of social problems associated with low intelligence…”

(Interesting theory…so, whenever “economic productivity” declines in a nation, it can’t possibly have anything to do with monetary policy, fiscal policy, regulatory policy, changes in trade relations, emerging competition, etc. Nope, it’s because “intelligence levels” have fallen.

…This might be a convenient story for a eugenicist who wants to place blame at the feet of some groups he’d like to see less of, but it isn’t a very compelling argument. The author has already admitted that IQ levels are rising, not falling, and it isn’t like immigration into the United States is a new phenomenon.)

“Crime rates will escalate because Hispanics and blacks have much higher rates of crime than whites and Asians. For instance, in 1996, incarceration rates calculated by the U.S. Department of Justice per 100,000 population were 193 for whites, 688 for Hispanics, and 1,571 for blacks…”

(“What percentage of these crimes are nonviolent? I think that’s an important question because laws can be written to target certain groups or communities and be selectively enforced. And on that note, what percentage of white offenders would escape incarceration for the same crimes or receive much lighter sentences?

I find it curious that right about the time sterilization of undesirables became fully discredited in the United States (the 1970s), that’s when incarceration rates absolutely exploded. …Did the prison system become a eugenic tool; a way to prevent millions of “undesirables” from reproducing?)

“To escape black and Hispanic crime, there will be increasing white flight and also ‘Asian flight’ from the black-Hispanic cities to white and Asian communities in suburbs and satellite towns where whites and Asians will increasingly come to live in fortified estates. The legal system will break down as judges and juries increasingly return perverse verdicts favoring their own racial and ethnic groups, as has already occurred in parts of New York in what has become known as a Bronx jury.”

(A question for the author: Have white “judges and juries” ever returned “perverse verdicts favoring their own racial” group? I’m not justifying corruption; just pointing out that the handful of “Bronx-jury” cases that you can dig up will certainly pale in comparison to the number of cases where minorities have experienced the same injustice. For some reason, I don’t think the author has given equal thought to the counter example.)

“Some people have predicted that as the quality of life for whites and Asians deteriorates, interracial conflicts will become so severe that they will lead to civil wars between different racial groups and the eventual breakup of the United States into racially homogenous independent states…A more likely scenario is that the United States will continue as one country, become increasingly Hispanicized, and come to resemble the Hispanic republics of Latin America. As this happens, the United States will experience growing lawlessness, political anarchy, racial conflict, and huge disparities in wealth between rich and poor…However the details of the decline of the United States work out, it will forfeit its position as the leading world economic, scientific, and military power and eventually cease to be a major force in global politics.”

313: Eugenics in Asia:

“There are [multiple] reasons for anticipating [sophisticated eugenics programs in East Asia.] The political leaders and the peoples of these countries do not share the high priority accorded to individual rights at the expense of social rights that developed during the second half of the twentieth century in Western nations and that has been principally responsible for the rejection of eugenics. Throughout East Asia there is a greater acceptance of the legitimacy of social rights, which provide the political and ethical legitimacy for eugenics…The political rulers of Singapore and China had already introduced eugenic programs in the last two decades of the twentieth century, suggesting a willingness to implement further eugenic measures…

The political leaders of at least some of these countries are likely to have the political will to implement serious eugenic programs. This is suggested by the draconian one-child policy introduced in China in 1979, which stipulated that couples were only permitted to have one child. This edict was enforced by the compulsory fitting of IUDs, compulsory abortions, and, as a further deterrent, the imposition of heavy fines amounting to approximately half of annual earnings for couples having a second child. At the same time, couples complying with the policy were given rewards in the form of cash payments and better housing, food rations, and child health care.

By the early 1990s these policies had reduced the total fertility rate in China to 1.9. A state that succeeds in imposing population policies of this kind should not have any difficulty in introducing programs of both classical eugenics and the new eugenics of the human biotechnologies.”

(Hooray for China. Maybe they can drop their fertility rate all the way down to “1.” At that point, producing less than half of the number of human beings needed to sustain their population, they can experience a whole new set of problems.)

314 – 316: China is going to rule the world:

“As China gains supremacy over Europe in economic, scientific, and military strength sometime in the second half of the twenty-first century, China can be expected to use its power to take control of the world and establish a world state…

Once China has developed a superior military capability, it will probably not be necessary to use this to establish world domination. The mere threat of its use should be sufficient to coerce the rest of the world into submission. If, however, some stubborn states refused to be coerced, it would become necessary to use some of these weapons on those countries to demonstrate their effectiveness and to enforce submission, in the same way as the United States dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to force the surrender of Japan in 1945. One or two examples of this kind should be sufficient to coerce the world into acceptance of Chinese authority…

The Chinese world state would not permit the manufacture or possession of weapons, except by its own peoples or by others under strict supervision. These weapons would be used to supply the military detachments that it would maintain throughout its colonies to suppress insurrection that would be likely to erupt from time to time. Apart from these minor confrontations, there would be world peace. This will bring to an end the long period of warfare between independent nation states and will be one of the benefits of the world state.

The Chinese oligarchy would be expected to retain its autocratic character. It would realize that it would be impossible to run a world state as a democracy. If a democratic constitution were established, with countries given independence and voting powers along the lines of the United Nations, the oligarchy controlling the world state would find itself outvoted. It would be deprived of its authority, and the independent countries would form coalitions to promote their own self-interest. The oligarchy would see no reason to allow this to happen and to forego the advantages gained from having secured world power. It would view democracy as an experiment that was tried by Europeans for a century or so and failed. It would learn this lesson of history and would not regard the democratic experiment as worth repeating.”

(Bravo. We finally arrive at the truth which is that none of this ever had anything to do with so-called “social rights.” It’s about having a handful of rulers impose their will, against the wishes and rights of “society,” on a global scale. The ruling oligarchy will decide what it wants and the rest of the world will obey; world peace, indeed.)

317: The Chinese might allow the more creative / psychopathic Europeans to preserve their kind through cloning:

“The Chinese may well also introduce the cloning of the elites of the European peoples. The Chinese will be aware that while they and other Oriental peoples have a higher average intelligence, the European peoples have a greater capacity for creative achievement, probably arising from a higher level of psychopathic personality, enabling them more easily to challenge existing ways of thinking and to produce creative innovations. This will be part of human genetic diversity that the Chinese will be keen to preserve and foster.”

(The author states this as if he actually knows it’s true. Based on what? Nobody can possibly know what might transpire during a move for eugenic global domination. Why should a Chinese oligarchy be expected to place any value on the lives of the “inferior” enemy in the conflict? Unless the Chinese are simply puppets, secretly controlled by the existing Anglo-American elite power structure, I see no reason why they would allow this.)

319 – 320: The end of history, world government arrives:

“In the United States there is likely to be a continuation of dysgenic fertility and, more serious, large-scale dysgenic immigration that will produce a Hispanic-black majority in the second half of the century. This may lead to the breakup of the United States along racial lines, with the secession of some northern and Midwestern states with large white majorities to form an independent, largely white state and of southern states with Hispanic majorities to form another independent state or to join up with Mexico. More probably, the United States will remain a single nation in which deteriorating population quality and racial conflict will progressively weaken its position as a leading world power…”

(The Anglo-American elite, operating both inside and outside of the United States, have been working to establish a global government / “New World Order” since the turn of the twentieth century. The United States, in its sovereign “constitutional” form, has been steadily weakened to facilitate this. Assuming the Anglo-American elite truly believe what the author has written above, it helps explain why the United States, unlike its neighbors around the world, has wide open borders.)

“China will continue its rapid economic development and will emerge as a new superpower in the early middle decades of the twenty-first century. Chinese economic, scientific, and military strength is likely to be increased by further development of the eugenic programs introduced in the 1980s and 1990s and particularly by the introduction of the new eugenics of embryo selection and the cloning of elites. As the power of the United States declines, China and Europe will emerge as the two superpowers. A global conflict will develop between them in which Europe will become progressively weakened by dysgenic forces and China progressively strengthened by eugenic programs.

This conflict will eventually be won by China, which will use its power to assume control of the world and to establish a world state. This event will become known as ‘the end of history.’ Once China has established a world state, it can be expected to administer this on the same lines as former colonial empires by appointing Chinese governors and senior military and administrative support staff in charge of the provinces of its world empire or by allowing nationals of its subject peoples to administer the provinces under Chinese supervision. The establishment of a Chinese world state will inevitably not be welcomed by the peoples of the rest of the world, who will become colonized populations governed by an oligarchy based in Beijing. There will be no democracy, and a number of freedoms will be curtailed, including the freedom to publish seditious material and to have unlimited numbers of children…

This scenario for the twenty-first century, in which China assumes world domination and establishes a world eugenic state, may well be considered an unattractive future. But this is not really the point. Rather, it should be regarded as the inevitable result of Francis Galton’s (1909) prediction…that ‘the nation which first subjects itself to a rational eugenical discipline is bound to inherit the earth.’”

 

(So, a final warning to leaders in the West who refuse to implement eugenics: continue to respect individual rights and democratic principles at your own peril. The most successful authoritarian elite shall inherit the earth.)