Our Readers Write

The letters printed here are selected on the basis of interest and relevance. Future Generations doesn't necessarily endorse all statements they contain.

      

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 2:08 AM
Subject: Thank You - A Black Woman's Perspective

Good day, Marian Van Court,

Thank you so much for writing your articles on Eugenics. Your website has been thoroughly insightful for me. I write to you as someone who is genetically more predisposed to have qualities that do not naturally promote human betterment - I am a black woman. I know that separate from lower IQ, I am more likely to procreate children with undesirable qualities that would undermine the purpose of eugenics. I also know that my race is twice as likely as Whites to engage in criminal activity, a result, more than likely, from lower IQ that can lead to crime and more social problems.

If there is any truth to Margaret Sanger's Negro Project, I admit that I do understand why she and others would have encouraged this. In an attempt to salvage human civilization, society should be thankful for her contributions.

That said, I often wonder what more I can do as a black woman to support eugenics. Separate from trying to provide whatever donations I can to The Pioneer Fund, the Milbank Memorial Fund and women clinic's in developing countries that encourage abortion and sterilization within dysgenic societies, I recently made the decision to voluntarily sterilize myself as to prevent the increase risk of adding to a human population of degenerates. I will be completely honest and admit that I wish more black women agreed to voluntary sterilization. For the most part, we have added little to society.

I am most comfortable with this decision in my life and while others may call it black genocide, I call it taking a pre-emptive step in helping the cause of eugenics and betterment of society.

I still have so much to read on this subject, but I want to relay that some of us are taking steps to entirely prevent procreation that adds nothing to society. I am forever grateful in knowing my decision, though difficult, is the right one.

Thanks for your time, and I look forward to reading more of your contributions!

 

- Rachel

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 9:10 PM
Subject: Future Generations

Hello!

I recently found your website and it was a breath of fresh air. Society is going downhill and egalitarianism is largely to blame. People in modern times seem to view everyone as their own island, connected to no one except through self-chosen relationships, but of course this is not so; we are all part of a larger family tree, and that defines who we are in so many ways! There was a time when people recognized this, but now, it seems that most do not. Our family trees show us so much about our personality, our intelligence, our abilities, and, naturally, how we look.

I've read most of the articles on there, and while I agree in theory with the concept of entirely voluntary eugenics for the betterment of society, I'm wondering if you have any suggestions of how to put this into effect practically. Please understand, I'm not trying to challenge you, I really am curious. I know one of the articles mentioned paying certain people to reproduce; is this the ideal method, in your opinion?

Thank you for your time.

N.B.

P.S. Please feel free to publish this email on your website if you'd like to, but I ask that you kindly keep my name and email address private.

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

 

Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 9:55 AM
Dear Marian,

I cannot speak openly about my ordeal because I would be criticized harshly by most for my opinions. I never really understood about the mental retardation in my family, but looking back, it was there. My husband is from a very nutty, dysfunctional maternal family, with a very questionable paternal heritage. I always wanted to have only one child so that I could lead a more free and financially stable life. My husband and I could not reach a decision regarding this matter, and as a Christian, I was forced to defer to his leadership. After our first son was born, he was diagnosed with autism. I took him to a psychiatrist who told me that there was absolutely no genetic link in autism, that it was a fluke. If I had been taught in the 2 psychology courses that I took in college about the genetic link, I would have probably been sterilized. My husband wanted more children.

To make the story short, I had 3 more children. One was later diagnosed with severe psychoses and autism. The other two are functional, but with some degree of autism. My husband (lower IQ) left us for his pregnant girlfriend before my last was born. The school system has failed us, and even though I have an advanced degree, I am forced to homeschool the children, living off welfare, so that I can try to make productive citizens from them.

I love my children because they are mine. I am very proud of their accomplishments. They have, however, suffered a great deal for their deficiencies. They are rejected by their peers. One of them is functionally unable to leave the house. They are good kids, but they suffer terribly due to their genetic defects. Who will care for them when I am no longer able? Their useless father has abandoned them.

I applaud you for your efforts. I wish I had met you 20 years ago. A lot of suffering might have been avoided.

Anonymous Mother, PhD

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

 

Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 12:51 PM
Dear Marian van Court,

        MANY THANKS for your excellent blog on Eugenics! I have been a firm believer in Eugenics for decades, and I fully support your amazing efforts to rehabilitate this Science, which will play an ESSENTIAL ROLE in the betterment of Humanity. We must END once and for all the BIG LIE of « Human equality »! This evil lie has done IMMENSE HARM to all Human groups, most especially White Europeans, whose average genetical quality today is APPALLING, compared to that of their great Ancestors!… Please keep up the good work in favor of Eugenics: I will always support courageous people like you Many thanks again for your great blog!

      Sincerely Yours,

      M L

 

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2013 8:02 PM
Subject: Eugenics

I applaud your courageous efforts in the face of narrow-minded criticism to further the cause of human betterment. Please keep up the good work and ignore the hate mail from ignorant people! L. A.

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

May 1, 2013
Hello,

I would like to thank you for this website. It is absolutely fascinating.

I am simply terrified of dysgenics. We are staring down the barrel of civilizational collapse. And no one is doing anything about it. This is doubly so because of the horrific animal abuse committed daily in factory farms. High IQ promotes empathy and low tribalism, so the lowering of IQ through dysgenics will perpetuate this monstrous line of work.

What can I do to help? You mention Pioneer in previous emails, but they've folded. Donate to the Ulster Institute, perhaps?

Thanks
Frank

Editor's note: The Pioneer Fund is alive and well! Please see "How Can I Help?" for details on how to donate.

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

February 27, 2007

Hello there,

I have visited your Eugenics website and I must say it is excellent. It is very in depth and it says things that the majority of those sites run by simplistic lemmings will not say. I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of eugenics. I have went through hell and back over the choices of my parents.

I have numerous genetic defects. First and foremost, I have a condition called hidradenitis supurativa which causes scarring boils with severe pain to appear in the armpits and the groin. These lesions smell, leak and there's no cure only management as the condition will definitely recur. I am plagued by the scarring and I am very much ashamed of my body. The condition causes such severe pain that I once thought about killing myself. I have had painful surgery only for the condition to recur. It first began when I was about 13 years old and since modern medicine could only give me expensive antibiotics which ruined my immune system and helped none, I turned to alternative medicine. I am going better now thanks to my own ingenuity but because of the condition, I decided when I was 16 not to have children.

Since I was about 2 years old I've had severe allergies and asthma problems. Some of my first memories are of caregivers jamming nasty smelling and tasting steroidal nasal sprays up my nose when I was in a high chair. I have endured surgery, countless years of allergy shots, countless emergency room visits, years of nasty tasting and smelling steroidal nasal sprays that stunted my growth and could cause me cataracts in the future. I never could run and play with the other kids. I missed countless days of school. I took inhalers which also were steroidal and messed up my height potential. Even to this day, I have constant breath issues and a nasty taste in my mouth so that I cannot enjoy my meals. I cannot sleep due to the constant stuffiness and my school performance has greatly suffered due to my lack of sleep. This lack of sleep has me crabby a lot of the times and also has lowered my resistance to infection. I am stuck paying high fees for medicines and doctors to control the issue (just go to www.walgreens.com and look up the drugs Nasonex, Singulair and Zyrtec if you don't believe me.) The drugs also contribute to my tiredness. I am a walking zombie. And the drugs still do not help much with the allergy symptoms.

Also, another genetic issue is my weight. I don't eat much and I never have. I exercise faithfully everyday for at least 30-45 minutes in my proper target heart rate zone and I still am overweight. I remember times when I have exercised for 2-3 hours a day and fasted and I still wouldn't lose. I've been fat every since I could remember and I was taunted by the jeering and tactlessness of my peers and adults alike. Members of my own family taunted me because of my weight issue. I was going to weight counselors at hospitals by the time I was 4 years old. I've been taking diet pills since the age of 11-12 (paid for by my mother at the time). I have done everything from Slim Fast to actual fasting to infinity and still remain overweight. Don't let the media brainwash you--if all it takes to be a slender healthy weight is eating less and moving more (as the lemmings croak), then everyone who wanted to be slim would be slim. Look at the numbers...the majority of people who actually do outsmart their genes and lose weight will gain it right back with interest. You cannot fight your genes. They are too powerful. Prevention is the only option.

In addition to this, I have jaw and tooth alignment issues that years of braces and appliances and headgear wouldn't correct all the way.

I can look right at my family tree and see all of these problems staring me right back in the face. I inherited them from my parents, mainly my father and his side of the family. The only good genetic trait that I have is my intelligence but I'm not having kids because the bitter with the sweet will get passed on and I don't have the right to pass onto others what I don't want myself. My father also has major retardation and mental illness on his side of the family and I thank God I didn't inherit that one thing from him.

If it were just one or two genetic issues, I could deal more but oftentimes it gets overwhelming. You have to be careful who you have kids with as their health and whether they are a burden or not on society's pocketbook depends on it. You have to look at the amount of genetic problems a person has and whether or not your family has the same issues before you have kids. People only take genetic flaws seriously when the child is on a ventilator. People don't even look at the "functioning" genetic problems that people like me have. No, you have to have severe hemophilia or be retarded before they take heed and even then they don't go the eugenics way even though it is the most sensible way.

I want you all to continue preaching the truth for it shall set all of us free!

~Kay

P.S. You have my full permission to use my letter. The truth must be heard.

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

 

April 5, 2004

Eugenics is a great idea. All we have to do is figure out a way to kill off all those inferior types now that our beloved Fuehrer is gone--just kidding! My sense of humor gets a little macabre at times. The Nazis did forcibly sterilize a lot of people who were retarded, mentally ill, severe alcoholics, or with other problems (we Americans also forcibly sterilized about 100,000 of our citizens, and Sweden kept forcibly sterilizing its defective citizens until the 1970's--social democracy is pure evil, I tell you), but the Nazis' killings of various unfortunate persons, such as people who were permanently hospitalized, were done for economic reasons. Now that we know what economics leads to, I can't believe that economics and accounting are still taught in our colleges. The discredited pseudo-sciences of economics and accouting are proven slippery slopes to mass murder, world war, genocide, and, ultimately and worst of all THE HOLOCAUST. Economists and accountants are just pure evil. They're closet Nazis for sure. No decent, respectable person would have anything to do with tainted eccentricities like economics and accounting.

If this sounds a little nutty, remember it's the "reasoning" that typically lies behind kneejerk denunciations of "eugenics," but this reasoning applies much better to economics and accounting than it does to eugenics. So when people find out that the Nazi executions of incompetent persons that they attribute to eugenics was really motivated by economics and accounting, why don't they shift their sense of horror and repulsion from eugenics to economics and accounting? And then there were the notorious experiments of Dr. Mengele--a brilliant physician, but clearly high on psychopathy (which is not at all unusual for creative scientists); these inhuman experiments were not motivated by eugenics either, but by medical research. Medical science is evil! End it now! It can only lead to THE HOLOCAUST!

Okay, enough sarcasm. If people think eugenics is scary, try presenting the evidence for *dysgenics* to them. As if increasing rates of disease, obesity, etc. were not enough, it appears clear that the genes for intelligence must also be declining. Fortunately (in a perverse sort of way) peoples around the world (and even within the borders of the same country many times) have widely varying IQ's. For the moment, it doesn't matter whether these average IQ's vary due to genetic differences or depressed environments. The fact is, they do vary, and low IQ has the same consequences regardless of its causes. We can look at these countries with low IQ's and very low IQ's and see where western civilization is ultimately headed--and there is reason to think we're headed there much faster than most people assume. So if eugenics worries people, they need to consider the alternative.

Unfortunately, people come to this topic with a strong bias in favor of environmental determinism. In most people's minds, the default explanation for human differences, consciously or unconsciously, is not the sensible "genes plus environment," but "environment alone until proven otherwise," which is just as silly as "genes alone until proven otherwise." Yet hardly anyone believes this second silliness (contrary to what one may hear from various ignoramuses), yet hundreds of millions, maybe even billions, believe the first silliness. The good news is that there's a vast amount of data that supports a large role for genes in most human behaviors, abilities, and other traits. The bad news is that people have a lot to learn, and a lot of faulty assumptions to unlearn, and this takes time and, alas, a certain amount of effort.

~Alypius

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

August 3, 2005

Dear Sir or Ma'am:

I have just discovered eugenics, and I have found something that summarizes the feelings I've had for years. I'm very interested in this subject and wish to learn more. I wish this movement was still going strong, because it makes so much sense. My top complaints about our society include people having too many children who can't care for them, my taxpayer money funding programs for these types of people, and the media's portrayal of whites as the "bad people" and a dying race.

I often wonder if, had people been able to see into America's future from, say, the 1920's, if things would have turned out the way they did. I don't know where things got so turned around, but it's truly unbelievable.

It makes me sad to see the country that my family helped to build turning into such a mess. My ancestors arrived here in the 1700s from England, and I am extremely proud of their accomplishments and my link to such amazing people. I often wish I had been born several generations ago (I'm 30) so I could have avoided many of the social ills that now plague us.

I live in Miami, and am constantly being reminded that my culture is "dead", I'm not anything special because I'm not of a mixed race or Hispanic, and that it's just not "cool" to be white. I have even had my education mocked in job interviews. I've been told, "Why did you bother going to college? Trade school would have been a better choice. You wasted four years." Incredible. Apparently these days, education isn't given the high priority it deserves.

Thank you for providing your website, which I will be reading in depth, and it's nice to know that I'm not the only one who feels this way.


Sincerely,

Sarah

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

Dear Future Generations:

The last large group of institutional Eugenicists were the Nazis. They didn't survive very long. From that I must conclude that belief in Eugenics is a maladaptive trait resulting from inferior genes.

In that regard, by your own paradigm, you folks should be the first to be euthanized so as to eliminate from the Human gene pool those particular highly antisocial genes which you apparently possess. Removal of your patently antisocial genes from the Human gene pool would be a very good first, last and final process of applied Eugenics.

Your next historical example and object lesson shall be the current self-destruction of Israel, which like the Nazis were, is also composed largely of a small group of people who are gravely mistaken in the belief that somehow they are superior to other Humans.

Here are some philosophical terms and concepts you need to study and learn about, so as to relieve your ignorance. I suggest you do it before it is too late for you.

-altruism.
-fatalism.
-jingoism.

Everyone born has something to offer. If your goal is to prevent unwanted birth defects, there exist plenty of opportunities to educate the medically ignorant on ways to avoid pregnancy with an unsuitable mate. But if that were to succeed, doctors would be much the poorer as a result, and we all know the AMA can't have that, can they?

Sincerely,

Tom Lowe
Borrego Springs, CA

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

October 16, 2004

I can't believe people like you still exist in the world, hopefully by your case for Eugenics, if you're what you perceive as being 'Intelligent' types such as yourself will be bred out by the 'dysgenics' of the world. I'd still prefer someone that I could relate to not based on a number from a test, but in terms of views and acceptance - to any person claiming to be 'intelligent.' It's the year 2004, the world doesn't need people who believe in sterilizing others for the sake of humanity, or what ever bullshit you believe it's for, we need people who don't slander others, and who believe that everyone should have the right to equality. You're the only f*cking dysgenic in the world. By the way, I scored 116 on an IQ test, it doesn't mean shit.

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

July 20, 2004

Even before I knew that the idea of eugenics existed, I knew that it wasn't a good idea for people like me to breed. I have "depression with psychosis." It's genetic. My dad hears voices, my sister is paranoid-schitzophrenic, and my mom is a "neurotic narcissicist." On top of that, diseases like cancer and heart disease run rampant on both sides of the family. I'm not even a pretty person. It's bad when six-year-olds yell "hey ugly girl" at you when you're taking a jog around the neighborhood.

I know it would be unfair to let my genes spread, allowing myself to make descendants who suffer like me. I don't want them to experience the things I do, like seeing and hearing things, or to be like my sister, who is highly obsessed with "catching" the "spies" who are "out to get" her--for instance she covers up the vents in her room because she thinks people watch her through them. However, it's too bad that my genius IQ won't be passed on.

I found out about eugenics from a History Channel program which portrayed eugenics as something only "evil Nazis" believe in. But that didn't sway me from my beliefs. I was happy when I found out from the internet that other people believe the same way that I do.

Kittie

P.S. If you happen to put this on your letters page, please don't display my e-mail address. Thank you.

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

Hello,

I think I agree that the world is dumbing down. The Flynn Effect is not, however, a barrier to this thesis. The Effect disappears when one realizes that its problematic conclusion follows merely from asking the wrong question. As Flynn presents it, the question is whether the mean IQ of later populations is greater than the mean of earlier ones--which is to say, whether you or I, if dropped in our present state among test-takers of the past, would be able to up our percentile rank among the ancient plodders. And the obvious and correct answer to this wrong question is that it should be and we would but that doesn't tell us anything worth knowing because each generation can only devise tests according to cues given the neural circuitry by the education, materials, and circumstance of the life of its time; and if the life of its time is more adjusted to, or more difficult with respect to, certain problems (however petty) the neural circuitry will be more cued to deal with those problems (however petty) and the tests, which of course are designed expressly to produce a bell curve sort of distribution of results, will be adjusted accordingly; and it is merely in the nature of change that the cues of today might include most of the cues of yesterday, but not vice versa ( because one reviews--perhaps unconsciously-- the past, not the future) especially given the naivety of the test devisers of the the past. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that earlier IQ tests are easier than later ones. This conclusion should direct one away from Flynn's path, not along it. The real question, the only interesting one, is whether you or I, if born and raised among the test takers of the past, could solve the problems of that time any easier than we can, in our present circumstance, solve the problems of our own time. However, this question, too, has an obvious answer: Probably Not, for the obvious reason that our problem-solving circuitry would be cued to the world as it was then. The obverse is the question whether Thomas Jefferson, if born as Thomas Jefferson but born today, would rise to great heights and do great things or just be a stockroom clerk. And again, the answer is obvious: he would probably do something notable because his problem solving circuitry would be cued to present times--and he would still be Thomas Jefferson. (This is an elitist view, I know, but I am an elitist.)

Of course, with respect to a Jefferson and those others who do or have done (as opposed to those who merely talk about it), "the pudding" (as in "the proof") always trumps any IQ test. In other words, if I prove the Riemann Conjecture all other tests of my math ability become irelevant. Therefore, while it may well be true that a knowledgeable physicist of today could explain certain things to Isaac Newton, the Flynn effect readjustment of Newton's intelligence downward is idiotic, to put it mildly.

No, my own strongly held opinion is that people are indeed getting stupider. Recently I had occasion to remark upon how glad I was to get out of junior high fifty years ago. But then, it all seems like junior high today, and the idiots I despised then are running the world. (At least, they are giving us the news.)

Here is a subject that I opine may well be connected to the dumbing of the species: the ballistics of the human brain. Have you perhaps noticed that very few persons today can speak even a single sentence without a continual jerking of the brain container. I would be interested in the neuropsychiatry of this phenomenom, which is self-evident in modern movies, almost absent in old movies, and positively correlates, I would guess, with stupidity.

Regards,

Michael O'Hair

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥


From: Robert Davis
To: vancourt@eugenics.net
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 7:53 AM
Subject: Eugenics


Dear Marian,

My grandfather was a philosopher, and a liberal of his day, but he purposely selected a wife based on intelligence and health, for the purpose of endowing the next generation with these qualities. Without ever mentioning the word "eugenics", he advised me to do the same. I followed his advice, with the result that my first daughter just graduated from Harvard, and my second daughter is even more intelligent. My last two children are in the gifted programs at school, do little work, but earn nearly all A's.

It is a lonely and frustrating world when the truth cannot be spoken because of political taboos! I am at a loss to discover why I am paying for someone else of low intelligence to reproduce and multiply! It is not irresponsible of poor people to multiply. It is their duty to themselves. Many of these people cannot feed themselves, but because they are propped up on government subsidies, they can reproduce. We should not be angry with these people, but we should realize that we need to humanely manage their population growth if we do not want to be overrun.

We should not be too concerned with the loss of unskilled labor. We should look to replace repetitive and low skill jobs with robotic machines.

It is my view that unless we can encourage and facilitate the upper classes to bear more children, and the lower classes to bear less, America will embark on its' path from world leader to Third World Country.

Is there something that I can do to help? Are there social and political clubs that support this concept?

Keep the torch of truth burning,
Sincerely,

Robert Davis.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

From: "Marian Van Court"
To: "Robert Davis"
Subject: Re: Eugenics
Date sent: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 16:12:42 -0800

Dear Robert,

Thank you for your thoughtful letter, and your kind words about Future Generations. You might be interested in reading Richard Lynn's new book, Eugenics: A Reassessment, which is mentioned at the top of the home page of FG. I'm writing a review of it now.

You write: It is a lonely and frustrating world when the truth cannot be spoken because of political taboos! I am at a loss to discover why I am paying for someone else of low intelligence to reproduce and multiply!

Until recently, I said I didn't know why ideas went in and out of fashion. But now I know why eugenics has become a taboo subject. The answer will shock you, I'm sure. It's not some gigantic, ridiculous fluke -- eugenics is a taboo subject because people who feel it's in their best interests have *made* it a taboo subject.

There are 2 books that you can read and suddenly you will understand why the Western world has essentially gone insane in embracing 'multiculturalism', 'diversity,' etc, in its insistence that blacks and whites are exactly equal in IQ, and in its total rejection of eugenics. The first is David Duke's book, My Awakening. I read it because he's the only political figure who endorses eugenics, but I was not prepared for what I would find. It's a brilliant book, wonderfully well-written, and extremely well-documented. The media have portrayed Duke as a madman, but he's closer to a genius. I don't blame you if you're skeptical -- you just have to read it to see. Then I read Kevin MacDonald's book, The Culture of Critique. And then I understood the whole picture.

You write: Is there something that I can do to help? Are there social and political clubs that support this concept?

You could make a donation to The Pioneer Fund. They support research on race and eugenics. They're located in NYC, and I'll get you their address if you like. American Renaissance is a good group to get involved with (listed in Links section on FG website). If you really want to make an additional contribution to this cause, let me know because I'm sure I can think of more things. Please feel free to contact me again in the future.

Best wishes,

Marian

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

From: S. C.
To: vancourt@eugenics.net
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 3:16 PM
Subject: We could use some improvement.


Dear Mr [sic] Vancourt-

Why do so many of us humans have no problem breeding other animals to improve the line or avoid genetic defects but refuse to do so to ourselves? I have seen too much suffering by those with genetic defects that could have been prevented.

The worse thing we are doing to our future is to help those with serious, debilitating defects to reproduce and pass on that suffering to yet another generation. Are we insane?? Do we really need more children with cystic fibrosis, type 1 diabetes, cranio-facial defects, mental retardation, heart defects or worse?

It's very humane of us to help these people lead as full a life as possible but it's foolish to let them reproduce their defect into the next generation.

What parent doesn't want a healthy, intelligent NORMAL child? Why do those who KNOW they carry a serious genetic defect want to take the chance of giving birth to a child carrying that defect? Don't they love children? Do they want to see it suffer and perhaps die a early death? Does misery REALLY love company?

I think it's our duty to work toward having children who are healthy, intelligent and without genetic defects. To continue to reproduce serious genetic defects that could be prevented is stupid, foolish, shortsighted and cruel.

Surely we can do better.

Sincerely, S. C.

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

From: Roland Strahle <Roland.Strahle@btinternet.com>
To: <vancourt@eugenics.net>
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 4:37 PM


I would like to point out that your 'plan' for improving the gene pool is simple a thinly veiled exercise in your own racial and social prejudices, although doubtless you will label me a left-wing liberalist (which I am and Proud of) and accuse me of being emotive etc etc.

However, it is a well known fact that it is not some innate quality that is inborn but the conditions that that child is born into that affects its life prospects, as was demonstrated by J W B Douglas as well as many other sociologists have demonstated. Moreover, it has been shown that IQ is affected by the birth-weight of children and the diet of children, which again enforces the class bias.

Moreover you seem to believe that we live in a meritocracy which makes your plans for social enginnering acceptable; however we do not live in a merictracy, which was been shown through studies of the elite, and self recruitment etc etc

Moreover, a degree of eugenics was practised in the past, when the upper classes only breed with one another, which resulted in desease etc (ie hemophilia in the bloodline from Victoria) While you will no doubt argue that your plan is based on 'logis' and 'science' rather than the snobberies of the class system, thsy boil down to the same issues; what is valued today will become valueless tomorrow; besides which they also believed they had some superiority to the rest of socieity, which they believed was bestowed by god but which you believe was genetically passed to you.

you are simply a group of snobs, who wish to force your agenda on the rest of socieity. that some of your present yourself as Christians, who should value all of humanity, simply disgusts me


Yours
Oliver Strahle

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

From: harden
To: vancourt@eugenics.net
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 6:46 PM
Subject: THANK YOU

Dear Ms Van Court,

Wow, what a great web page. As a long time reader of the Urantia book, I have always thought that we as a human species could learn a lot from animal breeders. How can we justyfy letting sub-humans procreate unfit, defective, degenerate, and antisocial people, when we wouldn't even think of doing it with an animal? Are we or are we not more advanced than that?

Yes, like you I am sometimes spoken to harshly when I bring up the subject of eugenics, but 99% of the time I can show people the logic of my thoughts. The people with whom I can not get are usually part of the problem, I.E. people who think the world owes them a free lunch simply because they exist. My thoughts and prayers go to you and your group trying to make this a saner world.

your friend

Paul C Harden

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

 

From: RAMDAS
To: vancourt@eugenics.net
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 7:55 AM
Subject: interesting and honest,keep it up.


While researching for a seminar in my college on the topic of "genetics and health," I came across your site. Unlike quite a few sites supporting eugenics, this one came up as a sane and humane effort.

Personally speaking, having known a few people with hereditary disorders like mental retardation and schizophrenia which are too obviously and painfully a work of inheritance than any fatalistic idea of Godly punishment etc., I am morally bound to support "good intentioned and individually voluntary" eugenics by each and every human being on this planet.


Consider this fact, that many of the so called "natural" abortions occur due to genetic non-viability of the "naturally"conceived babies. The anti -abortion "pro- life" and largely unscientific retro groups like the Roman Catholic Church, which lampoons every scientific effort for the betterment of humans as "scientists trying to play God," have a moral obligation to support an effort that is going to eliminate any need to "abort" a foetus at all! What can be more "pro-life" than genetically enabled children?


Where one is going to do away with all that emotional, physical, not to speak of economic burden of rearing mentally/physically handicapped people? (I' ve had enough of the "politically correct" euphemisms associated with these poor people.)


Considering the fact that almost every disease known to man, from recognised hereditary disorders (like schizophrenia, blood groups and disorders, diabetes mellitus etc which even the lay public has at least some idea of its being heredity at fault) to genetically influenced diseases on the other end of the spectrum -(infectious diseases against which immunity is again a genetic factor.) - are influenced by the genes that we carry, it is quite logical to support an effort that yearns to give us the very best of human life.


I am all for a situation in the future where couples voluntarily give their children the best in genes and upbringing, both. Of course there are chances of things going out of hand if state effort is brought into this critical matter but nothing is going to stop an honest, unbiased parent from "artificially" concieving a genetically enabled child in the near future.


I fully support your effort.
J.B.

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

From: [OMITTED]
To: vancourt@eugenics.net
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 4:51 PM
Subject: Eugenics and Sterilization


If human kind is to prosper, your ideas must die. Do you really expect to
be able to breed humans like lab rats? Do you know what kind of infringement
on personal liberty and autonomy that would take? For your ideas ever to
work, you would need to have breeding programs that are strictly enforced.
That means no love. No choice. No "unfit" breeders. Who will decide this?
You? If you think that you will ever persuade real people to go along with
this, once proven disastrous concept, you are wrong. These are not ideas of
love and compassion for humanity, these are an attack on humanity. Go
sterilize yourself and start your "cleansing" of the gene pool today. Thank
you.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

From: "Marian Van Court"
To: [OMITTED]
Date sent: Wed, 23 May 2001 20:36:07 -0700

Hi,

Thanks for your email. I can't explain every single misconception, but I hope you will take the time to read a bit more on our website. You will see that we do not support coercion. We do not want to breed human beings. We are worried about the fact that we are evolving to become less intelligent, more violent, more psychologically disturbed, and more sickly. This all adds up to a great deal more suffering. It's a terribly serious problem, and nobody is doing anything about it. Please don't simply imagine what you think I probably advocate -- read what we do, in fact, advocate before passing judgment.

Best regards,

Marian Van Court

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

From: Jessa-Lauren Sobczuk
To: <vancourt@eugenics.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 10:58 PM
Subject: (no subject)

I think that you should really reevaluate your degree of intelligence because it is quite obvious that you are just trying to settle for the easy answer. I am not saying that you don't have a right to your opinion, you do! But I think that it is very hard to still agree with those opinions after actually looking into the problems that different societies and different races face.

It is very easy to say that we are better than someone else, and it is very easy to come up with an answer than states that you are better than everyone else, but it is very hard to look deeper and face the facts. Everyone is not equal, but in a field that someone excels in could be your downfall and vice versa. It doesn't depend on race or sex or age. Everyone has their strong points and everyone has their weak points.

I know this sounds like "a stupid emotional letter" and I'm sure it is quite incoherent, well maybe I should be sterilized, but for Heaven's sake, can you not see that you are just copping out? I think that for someone who obviously thinks that they are a superior being it is suprising to think that you do not have more understanding for the worlds problems.

Oh and by the way, in response to one of your letters that you received, I think that $2000 for being sterilized is NOT a good trade off!! How can you put a price on the right to have children? Do you think that $2000 is a lot of money? It's nothing! It's two months rent instead of children.

How dare you tell people if they have the right to bring life into this world or not. I think that for someone who thinks that they are so smart, you wouldn't be stuck with such old ideas that obviously stunt human progression. So although I know my letter will not be posted, at least I know that someone will read this and although I doubt it will make much of a difference, I hope that it will challenge you to look at your faults, because it seems that you just can't face them.

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 10:29 PM

Ms. Vancourt-
I have just ended a quick perusal of your website. I wanted to let you know that I find most of your arguments to be flat and illogical. While I agree with you that intelligence is a desirable characteristic, your apocalyptic concept of the gradual decline of intelligence is absolutely preposterous. You appeal to fear and the inflated egos of the intelligent to make your points.

Do you really believe that an artificial measure of IQ is all there is to a person? Is one's life and value to society truly defined solely based on a test score? I think not.

Even if your assertions were correct, the inflamatory and offensive manner in which you state them removes all force and legitimacy from your argument. I invite you to reexamine the issue of eugenics from a less bigoted and opinionated perspective.

DRJ

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

From: Todd Ellner <tellner@cs.pdx.edu>
To: <vancourt@eugenics.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 12:45 PM
Subject: The solution is obvious

I note that most of your articles concentrate on one end of the scale - the
lower scores of Blacks when compared with Whites. In doing this you make a
classic mistake, ignoring uncomfortable realities and concentrating only on
those data which support your position. I had expected better of scientists
such as yourselves.

Let's take a look at the other end of the curve. East Asians, particularly
Chinese and Japanese, score significantly higher on standardized tests than
do Whites. Jews score higher than Chinese and Japanese. In order to improve
the human race the course is obvious. The shockingly low rate of Jewish and
Japanese births must be reversed by whatever means are necessary. Japan
needs room. The Jewish State needs security. Both need financial incentives
to pass on their superior genetic complement. China's one-child policy must
be abolished.

There is room for a few Whites in this new world. In order to free Jewish
and Asian women from the rigors of raising children a few Europeans will be
needed to provide child care. And since men can produce children faster than
women the White race can be improved by supplying fertile women. After a few
generations of breeding with genetically superior Chinese and Jewish men the
European race will be almost on a par with the more intellectually gifted
breeds.

I look forward to your comments.

Regards,
Todd Ellner

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

What an arrogant expression of Jewish supremacism!! People who merely acknowledge the scientific fact of Black-White differences in IQ are often erroneously referred to as 'racists,' but none of them even hints of Blacks become breeding slaves for Whites, for God's sake, so this makes you about the most virulent racist on the planet. And face it -- you don't really care about the Chinese. The race-slavery you fondly envision may be found in the Talmud, but it is not eugenics, and it would never be permitted by the large number of people who don't put quotes around loyalty, truth, honor, and courage -- namely Whites, who have created the civilization that you benefit from every day.

Most Gentiles are shocked when they discover the contents of the Talmud relating to Gentiles (that Jesus should be boiled in excrement, that it is right for Jews to cheat Gentiles, that only Jews are human beings, that Gentiles are merely animals who God created to look like humans so Jews would have someone to wait on them (so no kindness or honestly need be accorded them), that the Virgin Mary was a whore, that the lives of even the best Gentiles are not worth saving, etc.). According to the Talmud, when the Messiah comes, Jews will own all the gold in the world and each Jew will have 2800 Gentile slaves. *If* there's any validity to the Talmud's predictions, your sick fantasy may come true some day, although you may have to wait a few thousand more years. *Do* hold your breath.

Marian Van Court

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

Thursday, June 15, 2000 10:28 PM
Subject: Hi, I have a question

I think that today, for the first time, I am changing my mind to agree with your basic premise that there really IS a difference in intelligence, as well as other important traits, among the races of mankind. I had been quite indoctrinated by the media, and frankly, quite confused by it all. However, I substitute teach in public schools, and so I see a wide variety of races of kids. I'd have to be in total denial not to admit that there are large differences along the lines of race in children's learning ability, as well as their behaviour/maturity levels.

Up until today, I had been in denial about it. But in finding and reading a few articles on your website, you've confirmed what I guess I really knew all along, but was just reluctant to admit.

So, my question is, what can we do about it? Do eugenists have plan of action?

Thanks,
JB

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: Re: Hi, I have a question

Hi JB,

Thanks for your interesting message. I know what you mean about not wanting to face the truth about race. It's not just that we've been indoctrinated -- although it's been relentless from the media for decades -- but I think kind and fair-minded people don't want to believe that any group is inherently less well-endowed genetically, on average. We want to see blacks succeed. But above all else, we must be brave and face facts if we want to be of any help at all to blacks and to whites. The illusion of equality has cost us a lot -- young black men are taught to think that the only reason they're poor is because whites have exploited them, and their anger causes serious consequences.

I don't know of anything that can be done about the IQ gap. What's worse is that it's slowly getting larger because blacks have even more severe dysgenic reproduction than whites have.

MVC

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

ATE: 09-10-99 05:02 PM

Dear Marian,

In reading through your letters section, I came across a post from a reader who felt a little too much emphasis was placed on intelligence in the various writings you make available. I tend to agree. I know from reading your response that you are quite sympathetic with this view, but feel forced to focus on IQ because currently it is the only desirable trait that is reliably quantifiable. I have a few thoughts on that subject I'd like to share, in case they may be of use.

I wouldn't argue that it is difficult to test for courage, sociability, loyalty, etc. in the same sense that we can test for IQ. That is, it is difficult or impossible to create a test that will give us a specific numeric outcome. However, it is quite possible to test for it in the sense of *selecting* for it, and to do so with a good deal of reliability.

The best example I know of for this is the various types of tests and exercises used in selecting Special Operations soldiers (Rangers, Green Berets, SEALs, etc.) for the U.S. military. Selection includes the usual IQ and fitness tests, but goes far beyond that. Psychological/behavioral factors play a major part in selection, and plenty of fit, intelligent people are nonetheless turned away for purely behavioral reasons--and not just usual "bad behavior". I won't go into it in detail, but if you are not familiar with how such things are done it is worth checking out. The Green Berets place a special emphasis on character and are especially worth looking into.

Of course many of the tests and exercises used are quite incompatible with civilian life, at least in their immediate form. Nonetheless I think that the general principle of the matter could have significant implications for eugenic action.

It seems to me that the type of person that a eugenics program would want to encourage in reproduction would be someone with the highest possible *average* of traits. They probably would not be *the* strongest, nor *the* smartest, nor the healthiest, nor most social, but they would combine all of these traits (and others) at a higher level than others. I believe some individuals used to be called "Aristocrats of Labor", the idea being that they possessed the high degree of *general* competence found in the genuinely aristocratic element of the upper classes. Of course, Thomas Jefferson often spoke of the Natural Aristocracy. It seems to me that a proper eugenics program would foster the reproduction of the aristocratic element (i.e. the best well rounded individuals) of all human groups. I don't think you'd disagree with this. The reason I mention it is that while I think those of us who care about such things know of and respect such individuals, it is going to be a long, long time before we are going to be able to completely quantify it--if we ever can. I don't think we have time to wait.

My main point is that however useful numeric data can be, I think we are going to have to get comfortable with the fact that we won't be able to base our judgments purely (or even mostly) along such lines. However, this we can still devise many objective tests that can greatly aid the objectivity of our judgments even though they do not necessarily grade numerically.

I hope this was useful. You are in my prayers. Thank you for your work.

Carl Ramm
Anchorage, Alaska

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

DATE: 09-17-99 02:37 AM

RE: I love this site

Well done! You have done a fantastic job, how refreshing it is to click about this site unencumbered by stupidity and emotional outbursts. It makes me feel happy to know others feel the same way. Keep up the fine work.

R. H.

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

 

DATE: 09-02-99 06:13 PM

RE: A Humane and Compassionate Eugenics Program

Marian Van Court,

I have never seen any one come up with a Humane and Compassionate Eugenics Program. One of the biggest problems about eugenics is that people think that eugenics is forced sterilization and genocide like Hitler. Eugenics does not have to be that way.

A Humane and Compassionate Eugenics Program:

-Government gives a $2000 bonus to anyone 18-25 that gets sterilized.
-Government gives a $200 bonus to the top 1% of Intelligent, Healthy people to give sperm or eggs.
-Government gives a $2000 bonus to any woman who gets In Vetro Fertilization from the top 1%

Results:
-Government saves money on Welfare
-Government saves money on Health care
-Government saves money on Criminal justice system
-Lower taxes for everyone
-More intelligent and healthy workforce
-Economy booms
-Nobody gets hurt, everyone that participates is a volunteer
-Future generations have better genetics
-Everyone wins

Explanation:
The $2000 bonuses will be very appealing to Unhealthy, low IQ, unproductive people with low incomes and bad genetics. With this program for the first time they will has the opportunity to make money and have children with the genetic advantage of the top 1%. We can actually use our technology to give future generations better genetics instead of worse. There is no point in offering sterilization incentives after 25 years of age because many people become sterilized with out an incentive. The children of women that get impregnated by the top 1% are much less likely to need medical attention, be on welfare, or commit crimes during there lifetimes, which will save the government(taxpayers) money. The $2000 bonuses will likely not be appealing to most people because they will probably want to have kids with their own genes. The only effect this Humane and Compassionate Eugenics Program will have on the average person is lower taxes and a booming economy. The greatest impact of this program will be on future generations. The will have the cumulative effect of better genetics, instead of worse, every generation.

Keep up the good work,

Duane

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

 

DATE: 08-19-99 09:26 PM

RE: Where are we evolving now?

Where are we evolving now? Well we are not evolving now. We are degenerating. The next step in evolution for homo sapiens is Eugenicsman. Some of us are there already. Eugenicsman is someone that can see that we need a Eugenics program and has the courage to do something about it. After Eugenicsman the nest step in evolution is GOD. The bible says that on the sixth day God created man in his image. That sixth day is today. God will not rest until we are in his image. I am Eugenicsman I have been evolving for millions of years to get to this point and now I have the intelligence to have a direct conscious decision of my evolution. I am not going to let millions of years of evolution go to waste. Implementing a Eugenics program is the most important and difficult undertaking ever in the history of our race. It is time for us to take our place in the history books and implement a Eugenics program. We must do everything in our power. No matter what the cost.

Duane

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

DATE: 07-09-99 05:25 PM

Dear Marian Van Court,

I am a medical student who has been making the same arguments as those listed on your web-site to my friends and family for years now, and it is with immense gratitude that I give you my whole-hearted thanks for having the honesty, integrity, and courage to take your message to the public. Not only are you true to scientific fact, but you also take your message a step further and how eugenics is by far the most humane, merciful application of biological knowledge to humans possible.

And, in terms important to the medical sector, think of the reduction in disease, suffering, and overall cost of health care with public encouragement of the practice of eugenics.

Society has everything to gain through eugenics. It gives me great hope to finally hear someone speak of it.

Thank you once again,

df

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

DATE: 08-14-99 05:35 PM

RE: Eugenics

Regarding your web page on Eugenics:

You obviously put a lot of work and thought into this.

However, I think you are overlooking a number of things in order to reach the conclusion that you do.

I was raised as a scientific rationalist, but I later found faith in God.

Your Eugenics approach is devoid of compassion and human caring.

You appear to be very deceived, and blinded by the facts, as it were.

Your movement assumes that greater money or material things makes people happier. Many poor ("less intelligent" by your measure) people are happier than those in the wealthier, "more civilized" lands whom you champion. They do not commit suicide as much, nor do they divorce every few years and break their commitments at the drop of a hat.

Just because less intelligent, "less civilized" people as you call them, do not value things on the same scale that north Europeans do, you look down on them and desire to remove them from the earth.

What a disgrace. What a narrow point of view.

I am far far far from being a liberal or a leftist. You wear the label of right wing for some reason. All I can see is a very contrived program of evil, justified by some mumbo jumbo science!

B. C.

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

August 14, 1999

We have a 21 year old daughter with a 45 IQ. We talked her into getting her tubes tied. No one can ever convince us that we did something wrong. She will be living in a supervised setting soon, and we will not be there to watch over her. She can barely care for her basic daily needs, and she really likes boys. So the left wing, Marxist, ultra-liberal, radical egalitarian, middle eastern religious intellectuals can wring their hands all they want. We have spared a child/some children, our daughter, ourselves, and America lot of pain and grief.

If the University of Iowa Marxist Sociology Department would have discussed genetics in the 70's, instead of raising their brows at me I likely would have gotten my cords cut and not produced three daughters with low IQ's. I could have looked at my and my wife's families and known that I was a fluke. Not until I began breeding dogs for work and show, did I begin to understand. Of course those chemicals that we so ignorantly played with in the military in the 60's probably didn't help. We often used benzene to wash the engines down. No gloves-no masks. We were tough.

We know how painful it is for a slow child to simply get through the day, being made fun of, not understanding, unable to be like the other kids. Our oldest is twenty three today. Married with very intelligent son. We help support her. It is an economic and emotional strain. She has little to reciprocate to society. She is honest, moral, and works at being a good mother, but a 75 IQ puts everything against her. We all hurt. Our youngest is near average IQ, but has a memory, reading, and math problem. She is making it though. She is 17, honest, moral, works hard, gets "A's" in even the mainstream classes on occasion. Three boyfriends have dumped her because she won't put out. She wants to be married first. They seem to believe that she should be easy because she is slow. All her friends are.

I have always thought that it was IQ. I grew up in a violent criminal environment with dad in and out of prison, both parents alcoholics, mom manic-depressive, father paranoid-schizo. Father introduced me to crime very early. I am the smartest of four. I made it through the military, through prison, and about 260 semester hours. The stress killed my mother at 56. She was slow. One sister is in an institution. She is slow.

Another sister is deaf, and slow. Her life just makes me want to cry. The middle sister is the brightest of the girls, but she got the side of her faced torn off in a really low intelligent car crash situation when she was thirteen. Nothing but scar tissue. Amazingly she has three little girls and is making it. It has to be intelligence.

Another point, I have just read an article somewhere suggesting that morality is inherited. Both my grand parents and my wife's grandparents were really hard working good honest people. My parents and my wife's parents were all the weakest of their litters. Curious, that I lived years of crime and went to prison, my honesty is beyond question with people who know me. my father did teach a very rigid code though. "You never steal from a relative, friend, or someone who trusts you. And you never snitch." I lived by that code. Later, I kept the process and gradually internalized middle class content, which was sort of there all along. I know that it is intelligence.

Sorry about rambling. Thanks

E. B.

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

RE: Critique of ideals
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 04:14:05 EST
To: vancourt@compuserve.com

I am not too modest to declare myself a person of higher than average intelligence, as well as a better than average physical specimen. Throughout my life I have been guided by a combination of both of these aspects, so that instead of becoming an academic or a "blue collar" worker, I found careers which catered to both.

In short, I earned an academic scholarship to attend a university, while still maintaining a very active schedule of exercise and contact sports. After graduation, I joined the military, and earned a commision as an infantry officer. I started a family, left the military, and became a police officer - a career which requires investigative ability, logic, quick-thinking, literacy, and, surprisingly often, the ability to physically dominate a situation.

After reading your articles at this website, I wonder why so much attention is paid to intelligence only, and so little is paid to combining that intelligence with physicality, command presence, decisiveness, bravery, and some positive form of aggression. Just as intelligence is largely hereditary, so are these other qualities. These qualities are just as important as intelligence in improving the human race, for, where would society be without the small amounts of them that we have today?

In layman's terms, these qualities separate the "men" from the "boys". An example I will give is the chief of my police department. He was formerly a brilliant attorney, and is a very gifted administrator...definitely a high IQ individual. As far as being a leader, however, he is as inspiring and charismatic as Al Gore. I also remember once he arrived at the scene of a large fight in progress. There he had, what I believe was, his first contact with an angry adult male, and he nearly lost control of his sphincter muscles until a few of us arrived. His conduct reflected contemptible flaws in his character.

Just as physicality with no intelligence makes us atavistic knuckle- draggers, intelligence with no physicality leaves us panicky, indecisive, and dry. I would like to see the development of both aspects together become the dominant doctrine in the eugenics movements.

S.M.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Editor's Note: I've often wished psychologists placed more emphasis on the study of honesty, kindness, and courage. The problem is that they're very difficult to measure. Imagine trying to devise an accurate pencil-and-paper test of courage. It would have to be validated, so that a person's score on the test would actually reflect how brave he was in the real world, not just how brave he said he was. To my knowledge, no such test exists, but I don't claim to be an expert on this subject.

Everyone agrees courage is extremely important, but until there's a reliable and valid test of it, we won't know if it's increasing, decreasing, or staying the same in the population. When a good test of courage is devised, then it will be possible to look for specific genes which are associated with high scores, the same way scientists are looking for high-IQ genes. When these are found, prospective parents using in vitro fertilization may be able to chose an embryo with this gene.

The reason IQ is stressed is not only because it's tremendously important, but also because it can be measured so well. Our intelligence is a major part of our human-ness, and it's positively correlated with a number of good traits (educational and occupational success, law-abidingness, even ethical behavior to a small extent). However, the reason eugenics is a taboo subject today proably has more to do with courage, or lack thereof, than with intelligence.

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

January, 1999

I do not consider this a major infraction but it does a bit offend my intellect. On your homepage [Table of Contents, Page 2] you depict evolution of man from the ape. I am a proud believer and proponent of eugenics and heredity. However, it has to date been mixed with an excess of rubbish and bad science.

Their has never been any evidence shown of evolution taking place from the ape species to current man. Only theories have been proposed but never scientific proof. I think it would benefit all if we are careful in our claims so we do not need to one day admit our error.

I have also found that eugenics has gained many opponents from those that believe in a creation that has a creator. And yet, to my mind, the influence of genetics does not contradict the involvement of a loving creator. Nor that the influence of an all powerful creator would negate the truth of genetics. Just don't make claims for it that can not be proven.

In fact in some of my past studies of the Essenes, of which Jesus was a member, there is evidence that Jesus himself was a product of selective breeding over several generations within the Essene culture. Essenes were one the prevailing sects of the Jewish culture in those times.

The worst thing that ever happened to genetics was when that egomaniac and scoundrel, Hitler, claimed to be using eugenics. Now we all suffer as a result of the junk logic of the uneducated. Hitler also walked and talked, but we do not now say, we will not walk or talk because Hitler did.

I just hope we continue to be true to the actual scientific methodology, not making unfounded statements, and thereby not make needless opponents of those who choose a spiritual center for their life. The two viewpoints can and should live harmoniously together.

R.W.

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

June 15, 1998

Your web site is fascinating and, in my opinion, terribly, terribly important, not just to Homo sapiens, but to all other living things. In this country, we see hundreds, perhaps thousands of small to large groups of concerned people who are aware that an evil monster exists, but devote all their energies to an attack upon only one of its parts.

If only we could unify our probable millions to a single focus, I think we still could win. I think our Constitution could be such a rallying point. It is almost gone, so time is short.

I hope your site has many, many hits that are increasing exponentially. You bring to mind the character, dedication and courage that imbued the founders of this nation.

Best regards,
B.K., MD

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

Sun, 18 Jan 1998

Thank you for your wonderful, brave and informative site.

This document is one of the best and most useful introductions that I have read on the subject. The feeling of "being lied to" in the discussion parallels my own experience. I read Jensen's Harvard Educational Review article years ago and felt betrayed. It was obvious to me after a careful reading of that article that systematic supression of facts was commonplace in the media and academia. I have since observed that most anyone who publicly challenges egalitarianism is cruely treated, often destroyed professionally by the media and others.

As many people as possible should have access to this document in its intended form. I hope this contibutes to that goal.

Warm Regards and thanks again.

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

Sun, 11 Jan 1998

I got your e-mail address off of your "Future Generations" website and am an avid supporter of eugenics policies. I am a pre-med student at Princeton majoring in biology, and plan to have a practice in family planning and do genetics research also.

In my opinion eugenics is the key to ridding society of all of its problems, for it is necessary to increase the intelligence of the population if we are ever to have true civilization. It puzzles me as to why a family would bring a child into this world that is mentally retarded or physically handicapped. Genetic defects are just that a "defect" and should not be accepted as just a fact of life when it does not have to be that way. If the left-wing were truly as "tolerant" as they claim to be than they would tolerate allowing human beings to have the right to be born free of genetic defects which hinder a person of real success throughout their life-time.

As a student I am particularly interested in studying genetic engineering and cloning which I think have vast potential that the eugenics movement never had before. Not only can we prevent the spread of dysgenic traits through controlling births, but now we may be able to actually rid an unborn fetus of a defect before birth and even enhance genetic qualities both physically and mentally. Genetic testing of unborn fetuses ought to be mandatory.

Anyway, I just wanted to let you know how much I enjoyed your website and got a lot of good information out of it. Please let me know if there are currently any opportunities to get involved in the eugenics movement or research. Are their any scientific research organizations that support eugenics or internship/ job opportunities surrounded eugenics research? Please keep me updated as to any ways I can be of help.

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

[Editor's note: The following email letter came as a response to one from me in which I referred to a poem entitled "A Portrait" by my great-grandmother, Catherine Van Court. I found a copy in the attic a few years ago, and I was fascinated to discover that she expressed much the same sentiment that fuels my lifelong devotion to eugenics. In the poem, she writes about a painting of HER great-grandmother, which provided her with inspiration. I quote part of it here:

From out a gold-framed canvas rare
Her soft grey eyes ne'er looked astray.
The shadowy background makes more fair
Her snow-white shoulders bright display.
So great-grandmother looks today.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
For years she has been there to see,
She o'er the mantle, I below.
Gay eyes, grey eyes, say to me:
"You must go on and on, tho
Snow and ice your heart benumb.
To other lives, give strength, and
Carry on, for high, for low, for
Lives we ne'er may see!"

Sun, 11 Jan 1998

Greetings Marian, When your great-grandmother wrote that poem, she was speaking of your children whom she probably never saw. Your great-grandmother, and most people of her generation, clearly understood a principal that is incomprehensible to the great majority of people today. And that principal is this: each one of us is a genetic link in a chain that extends back into the misty past and extends forward into the future. If we care about our families, and therefore our race, then we must understand the responsibility we have to our ancestors and the duty we have to our future progeny.

The laws of genetics allow only two alternatives: 1) eugenics, genetic improvement, or 2) dysgenics, genetic corruption. People who understand the importance and necessity of eugenics are the most compassionate, caring people on earth because they want a better, improved civilization for their grand- children and great-grandchildren--lives they ne'er may see. People who support dysgenics--egalitarians, liberals, socialists, diversity cultists, race-mixers, multiculturalists, etc.--are the most cruel, short-sighted people on earth. If the dysgenicists prevail, civilization in the future will stagnate and collapse.

The truth of eugenics is almost always harsh, and it is almost always politically incorrect. But we, like your great-grandmother, must carry on for the sake of "lives we ne'er may see."

Stewart Chamberlain

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

Fri, 12 Dec 1997

Dear Sir,

I just read your Q & A page and I cannot express how much I agree with what you say. My little brother, Steven, was born a paranoid schizophrenic. He was a delightful child, although he was hyperactive, but that all changed when he became a young man. He drank heavily, used other drugs as well (self-medicating), and even raped a young girl. (Fortunately she did not become pregnant.) We all did everything we could to help him. Family members would pull what few strings they had in order to get him a job, a car, and an apartment. Usually within a month he had stopped showing up for work, had somehow damaged or sold the car, and had been kicked out of his apartment. Steven was usually homeless, which was a constant worry for us. He seldom bathed and you could smell it. He would occasionally engage in petty crime. Although he was very intelligent, he thought people were out to get him and you could not convince him otherwise. He never killed anyone, but he did express a desire to kill certain people. A year and a half ago he hung himself in his jail cell. It was a wrenching experience for all involved. The only good point about it was that his suffering was over.

Now I am faced with the dilemma of having children. Since my brother was schizophrenic and my father is mildly schizophrenic, the chances are at least 10% that any child I sire will be schizophrenic as well. After what I went through with Steven, I would do everything in my power to spare the mother of my children this pain. I don't generally believe in abortion, but I would certainly try to abort my child if I knew it would have this terrible disease. Right now I am seriously thinking of getting myself sterilized because perhaps it is the socially responsible thing to do.

Good luck with your work.

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

Sun, 18 Jan 1998

Thank you for your wonderful, brave and informative site.

Wanting your site to be as useful and successful as possible, I draw your attention to a small, easily fixed problem on your site:

The file ".../papers/Q&a" is an HTML file . . . The fix is simple. . .

This document is one of the best and most useful introductions that I have read on the subject. The feeling of "being lied to" in the discussion parallels my own experience. I read Jensen's Harvard Educational Review article years ago and felt betrayed. It was obvious to me after a carefully reading of that article that systematic supression of facts was commonplace in the media and academia. I have since observed that most anyone who publicly challenges egalitarianism is cruely treated, often destroyed professionally by the media and others.

As many people as possible should have access to this document in its intended form. I hope this contibutes to that goal.

Warm Regards and thanks again.

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥