Many white racialists are eugenics enthusiasts. But despite a shared, underlying genetic and hereditarian orientation, there is less of a connection between these two ideas than meets the eye. Certainly, eugenics and white racialism are not coextensive. The two ideas can even be squarely at odds.
It is indeed true that eugenics and “racism” (pro-white views) have been inextricably linked together in post-WWII myth and dogma. Political Correctness decrees: “Eugenics is bad. Evil White People advocate eugenics. Nazis advocated eugenics. Eugenicists are Nazis.”
Here, for example, is Microsoft’s Encarta World English Dictionary‘s complete definition of the term: “Selective breeding as proposed human improvement: the proposed improvement of the human species by encouraging or permitting reproduction of only those individuals with genetic characteristics judged desirable. It has been regarded with disfavor since the Nazi period.”
Eugenics Contra Race
However, eugenics does not necessarily advance white racial interests. In the wrong hands, it can even destroy a race. Eugenics is fundamentally an ideology of (supposed) human and social betterment through genetics, heredity, and rationally-planned reproduction.
Writing in 1940, American racialist Lothrop Stoddard mistakenly assumed that eugenics was inherently racial in nature. Commendably, he felt that it was vitally important to maintain the purity of our race. He called this racialism.
In contrast, “improvements within the racial stock are recognized everywhere as constituting the modern science of eugenics, or race betterment.”
But it is incorrect to assume (never mind to baldly assert) that eugenics is fundamentally a right-wing phenomenon. Historically, it has been just as much a movement of the anti-white, philo-Semitic, totalitarian Left.
Eugenics beliefs were formerly widespread among Left-wing elites. Hermann J. Muller, who will be discussed momentarily, epitomizes such views.
Even when viewed from a less sinister perspective than Muller’s, we can readily see that IQ is more important than race to many eugenicists. To a large number of scientists and social planners, “eugenics” does not signify improvement within our racial stock, as Stoddard believed, but interracial, or species, maximization of IQ.
Muller, for example, at an early date proposed using frozen semen from outstanding men to artificially inseminate selected women. He was convinced that no woman would refuse to bear a child of the fiend Lenin; later he nominated Jewish Stalinist Albert Einstein, Pasteur, Descartes, Leonardo, and Lincoln as ideal donors.
Later, Robert Klark Graham, the millionaire inventor of shatter-proof plastic eyeglass lenses, attempted to implement Muller’s non-racialist vision by founding the Repository for Germinal Choice (1980–1999), a sperm bank for geniuses commonly known as the “Nobel Prize Sperm Bank,” even though only one Nobel laureate (William Shockley) actually donated—once. (Thank journalistic hysteria for the false hype.)
In fact, Graham first named his enterprise the Hermann J. Muller Repository for Germinal Choice. Nevertheless, he was universally reviled and viciously assaulted as a “racist” and “Nazi” by Jews, neo-communist elites, and those curiously ubiquitous Left-wing thugs who have all of their expenses paid and invariably enjoy a free ride from the police, FBI, Homeland Security, Joint Terrorism Task Forces, prosecutors, judges, and the controlled media.
Quarter-Jew Arthur Jensen, “something of a demi-god” in scientific IQ circles, “very conscious of dysgenic trends” and “worried that the great achievements of Western civilization were going to be lost,” was likewise indifferent to race. Jensen told American Renaissance’s Jared Taylor:
I’m merely interested in the preservation of civilization, regardless of where it is. Some people are so afraid, of say, the Asians taking over in this country. Well if they can take over and do a better job than the rest of us, if they preserve the great things of both Western and Asian civilization, I don’t think the world will be worse off. Race and color and national origin and that sort of thing, don’t really matter much to me at all.
Richard Lynn, the ostensibly “racist” author of Dysgenics: Deterioration in Modern Populations (1996) and Eugenics: A Reassessment (2001) has made similar comments about Asians in connection with the impending demise of Western civilization.
In sum, concern with IQ overshadows concern for white survival and betterment for many eugenicists. It is imperative to be clear about this. Lothrop Stoddard was badly mistaken when he assumed—as many people still do—that eugenic activism or concern for IQ necessarily has anything to do with white racial betterment.
As in Stoddard’s case, it might, but all too often it does not.
A Unique Sin of the Right?
Eugenics represents belief in the efficacy and morality of centralized, top-down social planning by an authoritarian elite. Selfishness and lust for power play a role as well.
Eugenics implies, indeed demands, state interference in the family and reproduction.
As Hitler stated in his discussion of eugenics in Mein Kampf, “The State must come forward as the trustee of a millennial future, in face of which the egotistic desires of individuals count for nothing. Such individuals will have to bow to the State in such matters.”
The deep similarity here with Jewish and Left-wing beliefs can scarcely be missed. Therefore, it is not surprising to find so many Communist and Fabian Socialist advocates of eugenics before WWII. “Bolshevik Eugenics” flourished in both Britain and the US.
Prominent names included Marxist Karl Pearson, Beatrice and Sidney Webb, George Bernard Shaw, Havelock Ellis, British Communists Eden and Cedar Paul, H. J. Laski (Jewish), Graham Wallas, Emma Goldman (Jewish), H. G. Wells, communist Edward Aveling (the common law husband of Karl Marx’s Jewish daughter, Eleanor Marx), J. B. S. Haldane (a member of the Executive Committee of the Communist Party of Great Britain who in 1962 described Stalin as “a very great man who did a very good job”; an aristocratic Scotsman who married a Jew), Julian Huxley, Joseph Needham, C. P. Snow, and communist biologist Paul Kammerer (Jewish).
Of special note in this regard is Jewish Nobel Prize-winning Stalinist geneticist Hermann J. Muller, whose ideas have been praised by present-day Jewish eugenics advocate John Glad.
It has been conveniently forgotten that Muller’s beloved Communism—beloved as well by most of the people listed above—was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people, and the enslavement, impoverishment, and dehumanization of millions more. But virtually all of the victims were white, and Left-wing totalitarianism, of which Communism is a variant, is still the religion of the earth’s cosmopolitan elite.
That is why the technical downfall of Communism lacked an equivalent to de-Nazification. The same people stayed in power everywhere: Russia’s Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin, Germany’s Angela Merkel, academics, journalists, and leaders of the European Union and the United Nations.
A final fact that cannot (honestly) be denied is that the largest eugenics program in the postwar era is the purposive, systematic screening and counseling for Tay-Sachs and other genetically-transmitted diseases within Jewish populations.
Israel vigorously pursues a wide range of eugenic initiatives, as do Jewish communal organizations in the United States and elsewhere, despite the fact that most institutes in all locations are probably subsidized directly or indirectly by non-Jewish taxpayers.
Utopianism Run Amuck
Hermann J. Muller is the scientist most prominently associated with the development of Communist genetics. His eugenics manifesto, Out of the Night: A Biologist’s View of the Future (1935), was published by New York City’s neo-communist Vanguard Press, distributed in England by the Left Book Club, and translated into Russian expressly for dictator Joseph Stalin.
Muller was Senior Geneticist at the Institute of Genetics of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences under Stalin. He also aided the Communists in Spain against that country’s embattled Christian defenders.
An ardent feminist, Muller demanded that women work outside the home and have access to birth control, including abortions. Doctors, he charged, ignored the pain of childbirth because they were mostly men who regarded it as obligatory, “or even sadistically look upon [it] as desirable.” (Possibly he was thinking of Jewish doctors.)
Muller railed against “the vicious doctrine of ‘Race Purity’ employed by the Nazis.” With the exception of Jews (we must assume), he opposed the use of eugenics to better any race, particularly whites’.
Muller’s blueprint, he explained in his 1936 Letter to Stalin, “represents quite the antithesis of the ‘Race Purification’ and so-called ‘Eugenics’ of the Nazis and their Kin . . .” Communist eugenics “works for a surplus [population] reproduction that combines the highest endowments of every race, as found in a classless society.” (Emphases added.)
The fact that there is no such thing as a classless society, never has been, and never will be, hardly mattered.
“As a scientist with confidence in the ultimate Bolshevik triumph throughout all possible spheres of human endeavor,” Muller informed Stalin, “I come to you with a matter of vital importance . . . The matter is none less than that of the conscious control of human biological evolution . . .”
Muller wanted the Communist State to use its unparalleled power over the captive population to conduct a gigantic genetic experiment on the Russian people in ways deemed beneficial to the Party and the worldwide Communist movement.
Muller gave free rein to the utopian fantasies of the true zealot:
[I]t will be possible within only a few generations to bestow the gift even of so-called “genius” upon practically every individual in the population—in fact, to raise all the masses to the level at which now stand our most gifted individuals . . . And even this need be only the beginning.
Looking at the matter with a longer time view, it can be the beginning of a biological progression of hitherto unparalleled speed and sureness of objective, that passes from height to height. Such a progression will come as a result of the substitutions of conscious socialized control, founded on intelligent theory, in place of the accidental, wavering and painful processes of natural selection prevalent in the distant past, and in place of the shortsighted, blundering, and often deleterious interference with nature practiced by men in their pre-socialized [pre-Communist] stages.
Muller even envisioned a human form of cuckoo parasitism, in which many wives would be artificially inseminated not with the sperm of their husbands, but with donor sperm containing “unusually high genetic equipment.” The couples would then raise the half-alien children as their own. “There is no natural law,” Muller asserted, “which rules that a person instinctively wants and loves exactly the product of his own sperm and egg.”
One can imagine the consequences of such a policy in the hands of Left-wing zealots determined to destroy races via intermixture—or even of people like Arthur Jensen and Robert Klark Graham who are indifferent to the fate of the white race and care only about “intelligence.”
Theoretically, there are numerous phenotypes and behavioral traits that could be eugenically selected for: height, weight, strength, relative freedom from cardiovascular disease (but prone—unintentionally—to what else?), different skin, hair, and eye colors, and so on.
Or one might breed for outstanding athletic prowess in tennis, baseball, or football. Society could breed a new John Elway, or an athlete superior to John Elway.
Alternatively, it could breed for exceptional artistic, musical, or mathematical skills.
Artificial selection for individual traits such as these appears to be feasible. But is it desirable? Ethical? Should these or other highly specific outcomes be State-mandated—selected, prioritized, and imposed by society’s ruling class, whoever it happens to be?
It is unclear why anyone, apart from absolute conformists or the blindly obedient, would feel confident that their particular values would reign supreme, or remain so.
But, anyway, traits such as these do not appear to rank high on intellectuals’ and planners’ priority lists. Virtually everyone assumes that eugenic policies should select for high intelligence, possibly as measured by the g factor or some similar criterion. It seems that everyone fixates on it, pro or con.
This is probably also why intelligence, or IQ, is the only reasonably well-studied (though still rudimentarily understood) topic in behavioral genetics.
Thus, it is taken for granted by eugenics enthusiasts that human beings can and should be bred for intelligence in a systematic, planned way by an elite corps of intellectuals backed by the power of the state.
Considering the relatively limited achievements of artificial selection among animals, and the blithe approach most advocates take toward the problem of breeding for intelligence, its feasibility seems highly doubtful.
Intelligence is a complex trait involving the unknown interactions of many genes which also serve other functions. Assuming a fixed, explicit, operational definition of intelligence could be agreed upon, what else might go wrong in the total organism—mental, spiritual, and physical? The Jews serve as a salutary, if foreboding, warning. Who would want to create such an abortion?
Long ago Arthur Jensen persuasively argued that academics — who, as a class, are repulsive — are high IQ individuals. This points up a problem that Revilo Oliver identified long ago: Intelligence is not enough.
He termed Left-wing intellectuals “mattoids”—men and women possessed of an unbalanced mentality. He noted with puzzlement that those who urge us to foster “superior intellect” or “genius” through eugenics completely ignore the mattoid phenomenon.
Mattoids exhibit extreme talent, often genius, in one kind of mental activity — mathematics, say, or social science — while other parts of their minds reside at the level of imbecility or insanity.
Objectively, liberal intellectuals have very high IQs. But they also harbor organic feelings of resentment and loathing against Western civilization. They exhibit a strain of atavism or degeneracy, hatred of mankind, a lust for evil for its own sake.
These “superannuated children,” according to Oliver, possess a combination of “lachrymose sentimentality and thoughtless cruelty that one so often finds in children before they become capable of the rational morality of adults.”
Indeed, academia is a hotbed of anti-white racism, narrow-minded bigotry, neo-communist extremism, and fanatical commitment to pure evil.
Despite obvious limitations, artificial selection in plants and animals should provide many valuable real-world insights, though eugenics advocates rarely seem to know anything about the subject.
In what sense does experience with artificial selection supply strong support for its application to human beings?
Dogs, horses, cattle, and many other plants and animals have undergone intensive artificial selection by man. Phenotype is most obviously shaped in this way (e.g., dog breeds). But, behaviorally, foxes have been bred to be tame, and dogs imbued with highly developed instincts for hunting, retrieving, herding, and so forth. But how does this apply to the human world? The results do not seem particularly promising.
Famed Yankee geneticist Sewall Wright, though not opposed to eugenics in principle, was dubious about its ability to achieve hoped-for real-world results. Unlike most eugenicists, Wright possessed extensive knowledge of, and actual experience with, animal breeding. Wright willingly supplied detailed, multi-page scientific notes about the genetics of race crossing to former University of Wisconsin biology and heredity extension lecturer and eugenics popularizer Albert E. Wiggam.
But, again, based on his sophisticated knowledge of theoretical genetics and experience with animal breeding, he did not believe eugenics would achieve the intended results. (William B. Provine, Sewall Wright and Evolutionary Biology [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986], p. 110)
Initially a eugenics enthusiast, Left-wing geneticist J. B. S. Haldane became disillusioned with sweeping proposals, including Muller’s high-IQ sperm bank idea, to massively reshape humanity through eugenic means. Shortly before his death in 1964 he expressed skepticism that any scheme “we can devise at present would greatly improve the genetical make-up of our species. . . . I do not think we know much more about how to bring it about than Galileo or Newton knew about how to fly.” (Quoted by Jewish author Diane B. Paul in “Eugenics and the Left,” Journal of the History of Ideas [Oct.-Dec. 1984], p. 575, n. 21.)
Another check on unrestrained enthusiasm over eugenics is posed by the phenomenon of the Jews.
If, as some experts maintain, Jews are indeed the product of eugenic practices that molded them over the millennia into what they are today, that is an almost overwhelming argument against applying eugenics to the human realm.
Apart from their heavy load of genetic diseases, the possible result of excessive inbreeding, who in his right mind would want any human population to resemble, even remotely, the Jews?
Too often eugenics is conceived of as a sweeping program of alleged “improvement” rooted in utopian impulses shared by intellectuals and ambitious, power-hungry elites, when it should be a cautious, studiously empirical, feedback-sensitive, realistic, piecemeal approach to human betterment.
One might question on moral, social, religious, or political grounds whether such a program ought to be implemented at all. Given widely-varying value systems among individuals, groups, and races, you must be pretty confident that your particular value system will be the one that is ultimately adopted, and maintained, by present or future elites. Any realist must be hesitant on this score.
There is also the question of whether such a program is truly feasible, whether the genetic mechanisms involved are well enough understood, and sufficiently malleable, to achieve the sweeping results enthusiasts expect.
For now, the best approach would be to establish a clear demarcation between whites and non-whites, and to begin seriously reproducing our own kind. This requires the re-establishment of conscious, sustainable, long-lasting marriages, families, and child-rearing practices, together with the removal of anti-family laws and cultural practices, and the ideologies that maintain them.
At the very least, evidence and common sense suggest that eugenics is not the road to Utopia. Too often, proponents of Utopia end up creating dystopia.