Part 2 of 2
I first met J. Philippe Rushton at a luncheon sponsored by the Pioneer Fund in New York, circa 1987. He gave a brief presentation about his research, and I talked to him afterwards. Like most illnesses, mine waxed and waned, but on this particular day I was just starting a “bad spell,” so when it was over, I walked out to the street and I suddenly found myself in a dream world, a chaotic swirl of noise and movement. As soon as I figured out where I was and what was going on, I realized that I needed one of those yellow cars that drive people around so I could go to the airport, but I couldn’t think of how to get one, or even what they were called! That’s how disoriented I was.*
I knew Rushton wasn’t married, and I imagined he must be suffering from all kinds of vicious attacks because of his research on race differences in IQ – and there he was, all alone!
he was a very nice guy, he had an English accent, and he was good-looking to boot! (He looked a bit like a taller, more slender
version of the original Clark Kent/Superman.) So I decided to call him on the phone. I identified myself, and I told him I was just calling to see how he was
getting along. He sounded really glad to
hear from me. Most people called him
Phil, but I asked him if I could call him Philippe (the French pronunciation)
just for fun, and he said sure. Anyway,
this was the beginning of long, week-end phone calls that lasted years. It turned out that he was not being attacked for his research on
race the way Jensen had been. I couldn’t understand it. His colleagues in the Psychology Department
at the University of Western Ontario knew all about his research on racial
differences in IQ, and apparently, they were fine with it. He said he got along well with all his
colleagues. I thought to myself, Gee, isn’t that amazing, that Canadians could
be so different from Americans?
*Note: When I got home to Memphis, I realized that I had an appointment to meet with Harry Weyher, the president of the Pioneer Fund, after the luncheon – but I forgot! I should have called him up immediately and apologized – but this never even occurred to me! So I did nothing. Eeech! I’ve done my very best to compensate, but the truth is that I haven’t been “myself” since that fateful day in 1984 when I first got sick. Navigating the social world through this “brain fog” has not been easy! I shudder to think about all the other things I must have forgotten, all my gaffes, screw-ups, inadvertent insults or slights, over-reactions, failure take a hint, bad judgement, assorted blunders, and misunderstandings. I’ve probably messed up hundreds or even thousands of things – socially and otherwise – all because I’ve been drugged by that lousy virus. Subjectively, it’s a little bit like being drunk, except that it’s decidedly dysphoric.
Not long afterwards, however, Philippe went to an AAAS conference in San Francisco (American Association for the Advancement of Science) where he presented a paper on his research. The newspapers got wind of it, and suddenly he was being lambasted by the American media, and this spread to the Canadian media. When he got back home to Toronto, suddenly all his colleagues in the Psychology Department shunned him! Because the newspapers became harshly critical of his research – which members of the department had known about and accepted for years – when they passed him in the hall, all of a sudden they looked the other way instead of saying hello. Presumably these were grown men and women with above-average intelligence. In my opinion, this behavior was absolutely revolting – cowardly, dishonorable, rude, cruel, stupid, and disloyal – all at the same time. What a bunch of morally worthless, despicable, low-life bums! This marked the beginning of many years of trouble for Philippe.
When I was having a “good spell,” we’d sometimes meet at a conference. Once Philippe came to visit me in Memphis, and my grandmother put him up at the Memphis Country Club. We had a great time together. He asked me if we could go see Graceland, the home of Elvis, and I said sure, but I thought it was kind of funny that such a brilliant guy was an Elvis fan.
I remember we were talking on the phone one day, and he asked my advice about a career decision he was mulling over. I told him that I needed to know what his long term goal was in order to give good advice. He paused for a moment, and then he said in total seriousness, “I guess my ultimate objective is to alter the course of human evolution.” “Well,” I laughed in surprise, “no one can ever accuse you of lacking ambition!”
For Philippe to apply the r-K theory of reproductive strategies in animals to different races was a stroke of genius. His other major contribution was the genetic similarity theory. It applies to animals and people, that altruism is strongest towards those who are most closely related genetically, and this makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective.
In 1989, there was a debate about race and IQ between Philippe and David Suzuki, a geneticist. It was quite extraordinary that such a debate took place at all, and nothing short of a miracle that it was broadcast live in prime-time on Canadian TV. It was held at the University of Western Ontario where Philippe was on the faculty. He mailed me a video of the debate which I watched with great interest. (I watched it again yesterday and it’s still interesting!) There was a large university crowd, and great excitement in the air. Philippe looked handsome as always, and he had a remarkable presence. He was composed, he didn’t appear to be the slightest bit nervous, and he gave a very cogent statement about his theory of r-K differences between the races. By contrast, Suzuki was clearly upset, but he didn’t have anything concrete to disprove Philippe’s theory. There were a number of black students in the front row who looked sullen and angry. I found myself getting frightened for Philippe’s safety, and I had to remind myself that the debate was already over.
One of the last things Philippe did in the way of research was a study with Art Jensen on the “Flynn Effect.” Both men were getting older and not in the best of health, and I believe they chose their last research carefully. James Flynn, a New Zealand political scientist, had reported “massive gains” of 3 IQ points per decade in much of the Western world over a large swath of the 20th century. This sounds highly implausible on the face of it, especially in light of dysgenic fertility, and Flynn himself was not at all sure it was “real.” Most of my colleagues puzzled over this for years – is it really real? And if so, what could possibly account for such a big increase? Improved nutrition? Outbreeding? Better test-taking skills? I’d been pondering this question, too – I thought it was next-to-impossible that it was real, but I didn’t have a clue as to what might account for his findings. Art was in correspondence with Flynn, who seemed like a serious and honorable man, and he told me that Flynn wanted to discredit IQ in order to make the black-white difference meaningless. At any rate, I was delighted when Philippe and Art (both psychometricians) refuted Flynn’s hypothesis. They analyzed the data themselves and reported that the IQ subtests in his study that improved over time had zero or even negative g loadings (which means that intelligence itself has absolutely not improved). The title to their paper aptly began, “The Rise and Fall of the Flynn Effect.”
[Quick medical update: Over the years, I tried dozens of medical treatments – from traditional to alternative to downright bizarre (such as honey bee stings) (which actually helped me!) I’d estimate that not quite 20% produced some detectable improvement, making the entire odyssey worthwhile from my point of view. Also, I discovered the wonderful world of palliatives. By 1997, I was still sick, but my condition had improved just to the point that I could live independently, so I moved to an apartment not far from Boston because it has exceptionally good medical care. By a great stroke of luck, I ran into the same super-smart immunologist there in Boston who had originally diagnosed me in Denver many years before.]
Between 1995 and 1998, I read Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy, including The Culture of Critique, and David Duke’s book, My Awakening, and this changed my life forever. I was profoundly shocked. I remember reading along, positively enthralled, and then becoming so horrified, I was forced to put the book down. But I’d be compelled to pick it up again because it was fascinating, but after a while I’d become angry and depressed about all the vicious and deceitful things the Jews had done, so I’d have to stop reading. It was a roller coaster ride, an intellectual-emotional experience like no other. It reminded me of watching horror movies when I was a little girl – I used to cover my eyes with both hands, until only a thin sliver of the scene was visible through my fingers. Ironically, I can’t recall any terrifying, ghoulish creatures at the movies that chilled me to the bone quite like the reality we now face today – that of being infiltrated by a hostile alien species.
So many things suddenly made sense after learning about the Jews. I finally began to understand why the Western world had gone insane over race, egalitarianism and eugenics. It was a tremendous relief to be liberated from confusion. Confusion is so unpleasant! It’s oppressive, and frustrating, and it involves anxiety and a great deal of tension and turmoil – whereas understanding is such a smooth, light, free feeling! Like taking in a deep breath on a beautiful Spring morning, or soaring through the sky like a bird! The brilliance of MacDonald’s works can be measured by the enormity of the social and political landscape they explain, which otherwise would be chaos.
I didn’t tell just anyone what I was reading about, but I did tell several close friends and family members, and they were somewhat alarmed, I guess understandably. I suspect they were gossiping about me over the phone: “Well, she’s really gone off the deep end now!” But that’s because they didn’t know all I knew. It would have been easy for them to learn, but they were too terrified even to hold such books in their hands. (The Thought Police might burst in at any moment!) I offered to send each of them a copy of My Awakening as a gift because it’s very well-written and easy to read, making it perfect for a naive person to get an overview of the Jewish question. But they said “No, thank you!”
I genuinely wish that what MacDonald and Duke wrote about the Jews were untrue – and I’ll wager that they wish this, too – that we could all wake up tomorrow morning and discover that it was only a dreadful nightmare.
If there had ever been any hope of my returning to “polite society” (there was never really any hope!) it vanished after I read those books. Not only was I a eugenicist and a race realist, I was now (according to some people’s definition) an anti-Semite as well.
Sometimes I wonder how Nathaniel and Sylvia Weyl would have reacted to the extremely negative revelations about the Jews, and to my paper on the (Jewish) anti-eugenics hoax. Would they have been deeply offended? Would they have tried to deny the truth? Or would they have faced it? My guess is that initially Nathaniel would have been angry, before he completely understood, and then the facts would sink in, and they’d both be devastated, and terribly, terribly depressed. Then they would have slowly recovered and joined the ranks of the “good Jews” like Israel Shahak, Gilad Atzmon, Norman Finkelstein, Israel Shamir, Victor Ostrovsky, and others who work hard and suffer much abuse in order to warn the world about the crimes of the Jews. That would be my hope, anyway.
I have no recollection of when I first got in touch with Richard Lynn except to say that it was a very long time ago. I remember mailing him various papers and clippings that I thought might be helpful to him at least as early as 1980 – I’ve always felt it was my “civic duty” to help Richard in any way I can, because he was, and is, the world’s foremost eugenicist.
In 1990, I finally met Richard in person at a small conference in New York sponsored by the Pioneer Fund. As soon as I got there, I realized that it was a terrific bunch of people. There was Richard, Philippe, Art Jensen, also Hans J. Eysenck, Helmuth Nyborg, Chris Brand, Roger Pearson, Linda Gottfredson, and Dan Vining. Everyone seemed happy to see one another. Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray were there, who later went on to write The Bell Curve, a brilliant and wonderfully readable book. I was the youngest person present, and it was exciting for me to meet all these people whose work I’d long admired. On the last day of the conference, I suggested that we take a group photo, so we all marched outside and stood on the steps of a statue. I set up a tripod and aimed the camera, then I scooted back to be with the rest of the group, while Barbara Jensen took the picture. (This photo is on my website, www.eugenics.net, along with some mildly-amusing out-takes.)
Over the years, Richard and I frequently corresponded by email, and we saw each other a few times at conferences. Then in 1999, Richard invited me to visit him in England and to go to the Galton Society Conference in London. It just so happened that finally, for the first time since 1984, a medical treatment gave me a significant but precarious state of improved health – I could sit up in a chair for several hours, and even walk 5 or 6 blocks at one time. At first I declined the invitation because I still feared the trip would be too much for me. But Richard persisted, and he understood that I’d have to rest a lot. At this point, I had hardly seen my colleagues, or had any fun at all, in years, so I threw caution to the wind.
I was delighted to see Richard again. On our first day in London, we visited Westminster Abbey, which was magnificent. We were reading the inscription on one elaborately decorated tombstone, when all of a sudden I realized it belonged to one of my distant ancestors! How cool is that?! I made a mental note to be sure to tell my relatives. Just walking along down cobblestone streets again was lovely, and I felt more “at home” in England than I do in America, possibly due to my predominantly English ancestry.
At the conference, I was also very glad to see Art Jensen, Chris Brand, and Glayde Whitney. Glayde Whitney may not be as well known as some of the others, but he was a behavior geneticist at Florida State University who did some great work. He also wrote the introduction to David Duke’s book, which took considerable courage, and for years, he generously answered my numerous email questions about behavior genetics.
Richard and Glayde both presented papers the first day of the conference. The second day, I stayed in my hotel room and rested, but Richard later filled me in on all the details. Apparently, there was a protest in which about a dozen people barged into the lecture hall and marched up on the stage, wielding a giant banner which read “Diversity not Discrimination” (prompting eye-rolling from the audience). The intruders refused to leave, so that was the end of that. I honestly don’t understand how the organizers failed to anticipate and prevent such a disruption. At any rate, most of us got together for a lively dinner that night at the Oxford and Cambridge Club. When I returned to Boston, I adopted an adorable kitten, and I decided to name him “Richard.”
Some years ago, Richard published a fascinating little book entitled Educational Achievement in Japan: Lessons for the West. Their entire system stands in stark contrast to education in the West, especially that in America. The children are all polite, and they work hard. At every level, there are incentives to excel, for students, teachers, principals, and schools. Competition is strongly encouraged. They compete in a variety of ways, between rows, between classrooms, and between schools. They spend less money per pupil and get better results, often with large class sizes. The children keep the school clean themselves, and the brighter children help the slower ones. It’s a model of what school should be.
Over his lifetime, Richard has been extraordinarily prolific. The bulk of his research falls squarely in the realm of differential psychology – genetic and environmental influences on race differences, sex differences, and individual differences in IQ, personality, and behavior. He usually tackles the big questions, questions that matter to the world, whereas a good deal of psychological research deals with minutiae. (This may be deliberate because there’s refuge from the PC Police in insignificance.) The third salient characteristic of Richard’s work is that almost all of it is very interesting (objectively speaking!) Some of his major works include Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Society, and Eugenics: A Reassessment (both a “must read” for serious eugenicists), and (with Tatu Vanhannen) IQ & the Wealth of Nations, in which they report that over 185 countries, the average IQ of the population is the single most important predictor of the economic prosperity of a nation, with free enterprise and presence of natural resources ranked second and third, respectively.
Demographers routinely omit under-class men from their fertility studies because they tend to be promiscuous, so they really don’t know all their offspring. However, Richard did a study of the fertility of London criminals using the number of children they reported, and even with what was surely an underestimate, and despite their lengthy sojourns in prison, London criminals still had more children, on average, than other Londoners. Then, using the heritability of criminality, he calculated how much their excess fertility would be expected to increase crime in London in the future. I’ve always thought this was a terrific little study, and I think it’s a shame that political correctness forbids anything about genetics and behavior from getting to the public because so much of it is both fascinating and enlightening.
Richard and I did a research study together on fertility and IQ which essentially replicated my 1984 study (with Frank Bean) using the General Social Survey, but with additional, more recent data collected between 1990 and 1996. The results were quite similar, and we calculated a loss of .9 IQ points per generation. Like the original study, we also published our report in the journal Intelligence Our results show that genetic deterioration is not only a problem that will exist in the future, rather, that it has existed in the recent past, and that it exists today.
While working with the GSS, we ran across an interesting question about values: “Which of these traits would you most want to see in your children?” The following 13 choices are written on a card and handed to each respondent: “good manners, tries to succeed, honest, neat and clean, good sense and sound judgement, obedient, self-control, behaves appropriate to gender, responsible, considerate, studious, interested in how and why things happen.” Of particular interest to me is honesty. There are some tests of honesty which employers use in an attempt to screen prospective employees, but their validity is uncertain. The GSS question is revealing, however, because it tells us what the respondents value most – what their priorities are. In one of Richard’s GSS studies about the Jews (with Satoshi Kanazawa), they found that those who placed honesty first were: Protestants 38%, Catholics 34%, and Jews 26% It’s almost axiomatic that people who value honesty highly will be more honest themselves.
In recent years, Richard has done research reporting that men, on average, are somewhat more intelligent than women. He asked me a while back if I would find this upsetting, and I said, “Of course not! What’s true is true!” secretly hoping that by some screwball twist of logic this might make me smarter. Boys and girls average the same IQ until puberty, but after puberty, boys gradually become somewhat smarter than girls, between 2½ and 5 IQ points, depending on the test. This conclusion is a radical departure from a century of IQ testing, and, like Richard’s work as a whole, it’s highly original. Richard used meta-analysis to combine many studies so that differences which may not be statistically significant with a small sample became significant. I haven’t studied this question in depth, but with what little I know about it, I’m inclined to agree with him.
As far as I know, I agree with Richard on just about everything else, except that I believe in God and an afterlife (he doesn’t), and I think the Jews are destroying the Western world (he doesn’t – even after reading MacDonald! He thinks I’m paranoid!). He thinks China is going to take over the world, and he may be right (with eugenics and phenomenal economic growth rate, how could it be otherwise?) But Richard doesn’t care a great deal, whereas I care plenty. Everyone agrees that people of European descent have made a vast and unique contribution to the world, and if they die out, it will be a terrible loss. The Chinese could never write Shakespeare’s plays or compose Verdi’s La Traviata because it’s not in their DNA. But quite frankly, I’m not nearly as concerned about the poor rest-of-the-world having to do without them (us) – I’m concerned about us! I’m concerned about our not being there! Our dying out (or becoming marginalized) would be the disaster, pure and simple. For one thing, people of European descent are physically the most beautiful people on earth, and most other races will concede this if they’re honest. I realize full well that this point may seem superficial, but it’s not, because beauty matters! Not only sunsets and rainbows, but beautiful faces! More importantly, they (we) are the most creative, altruistic, idealistic, generous, noble, and inventive. Imagine if we celebrated “European-American Week” in the United States – we wouldn’t have to make up things to be proud of because people of European ancestry have already invented most of the things worth inventing.
Richard publishes books and papers faster than I can read them. I envy his extraordinary capacity for sustained intellectual work. And after working all day, he devours novels at night. His brain should be studied! As of today, Richard is 85-years-old, and still going strong. Recently I suggested to him that he save some of his DNA for the future, because almost certainly cloning will be perfected someday, and the world would benefit greatly with lots more of him. Then I sent him an email with a simple plan for how he could accomplish this – by pulling out a little bit of his hair with pliers (cut hair is no good – it has to have the roots to get DNA), placing it in a clear plastic bag, and giving it to his daughter for safe keeping. (He agreed.) Note: This may be a good plan of action for great creative minds in any field!
A number of other brilliant scientists who’ve done research in differential psychology and behavior genetics – such as Jensen, Rushton, Whitney, and Cattell – are now gone. We honor their memories, along with their invaluable research, made all the more precious by the fact that it may well be the last of such work for quite some time. Recently the coffers of the Pioneer Fund, the source of grants for this research, have shrunk. Richard Lynn, Michael Woodley and others are still doing important and fascinating work, but the quantity of such research is already diminishing, and could dry up entirely in the foreseeable future.
Because the universities in the West are no longer free, the “science contingent” of our movement is getting old and dying off with no graduate students waiting in the wings. The “activism contingent” has sustained several serious losses, but on the whole it seems to be thriving with some frankly impressive brainpower, drive, and guts, and it’s actively working to promote eugenics and to free us from the yoke of the Jews, so therein lies hope.
The question of why the opponents of eugenics have tried so hard to discredit it has tormented me for decades. I began to understand after reading MacDonald. Then, finally, I stumbled upon the last pieces to the puzzle in 2014, and I was thrilled. What I discovered was monstrous, of course. But there was a sense of “coming full circle,” having begun my life’s work in a state of total naivete´, discovering dysgenics over 20th century America, and then finally figuring out why this devastating blow has befallen us all. I excitedly wrote up the paper, but then it seems that nobody wanted to publish it! Finally I sent it to Greg Johnson, which turned out to be a most fortuitous act.
It’s clear that the Jews want eugenics for themselves, and dysgenics for everyone else, especially whites of European descent, both in North America, Europe, and elsewhere. (When I write “Jews” here, I do not mean all Jews, or even most Jews, I mean a very small, very powerful core of Jews. But it’s important to note that this core (amazingly) endures from generation to generation, or, put more accurately, it is replenished, and that a vastly larger number of Jews willingly cooperate with it.) At the present time in America, we don’t control our own destinies because we don’t live in a democracy, it’s more like an oligarchy. The crime that the Jews have committed (and continue to commit) against us – that of deliberately causing the genetic deterioration of millions of our people by perpetrating the anti-eugenics hoax – is almost incomprehensible because the suffering it inflicts is incalculable. It is positively surreal, the struggle we face. We need to remind ourselves that there have been countless oppressive regimes since the beginning of time that appeared completely impenetrable until unforseen events conspired to break them wide open. There’s really nothing else to do but to soldier on. But having righteousness on our side hardly means that we will prevail. History is replete with struggles in which Good fails to triumph over Evil.
Beyond our own innate strengths, what is there to give us reason for hope? I’d be glad to be proven wrong, but I doubt moral goodness has any inherent power whatsoever. Despite being indispensable to all honorable people, in terms of helping to achieve power, it may well be a net liability. Imagine a fight-to-the-death between twins who are identical in every respect except that one is a psychopath, and the other is an honorable man. The smart money would be on the psychopath. But many people have cared about righteousness in the past, and will continue to care in the future – add this to the fact that there’s power in numbers – so maybe this constitutes an advantage for us.
Also, our side possesses truth, which has a peculiar habit (almost an internal impetus) of popping up when it’s suppressed. Truth seems to possess some power, maybe because people just naturally seek it out, since truth is a far better foundation for making decisions than falsehoods or ignorance. Finally, historically, the Jews have made many mistakes, often borne of arrogance, so we can expect them to make more in the future. Currently they have a near-stranglehold on government, the media, and academia, but not on the internet, our last bastion of freedom, and the world is getting wise to them. There’s been an increasing number of books, articles, websites, videos, radio programs and conferences exposing their many crimes including their role in instigating the Iraq War, the Jewish origin of Communism, and the tens of millions they murdered. Even the formerly sacrosanct Holocaust (or “Holohoax,” as it’s sometimes called) is beginning to stagger under the growing weight of historical facts, common sense, and scientific evidence.
As eugenicists, our biggest asset will always be the basic concept of eugenics itself, which is a gem. It’s common sense backed up by a mountain of unassailable scientific evidence, and it’s elegant in its simplicity. Most people find it compelling when they are told the truth – that’s why it used to be very popular, and that’s why it may well be popular again someday. Bear in mind that eugenics didn’t fizzle out because of inherent defects or failure to inspire – it had to be murdered in a heinous plot. Eugenics offers a unique and powerful way to improve the world and alleviate suffering, and our desire to do those things has existed for thousands of years, and shows no sign of letting up.
As long as the egalitarian, anti-eugenics Lie Machine rolls on, however, it’s next-to-impossible for us to implement a comprehensive nation-wide eugenics program like the one in Israel, for example, so we need to do all we can to expose the tyranny of the Jews (any and all tyrannies), and specifically the anti-eugenics hoax. That’s a tall order, and it could take years or even decades to free ourselves from their yoke and turn public opinion around.
In the meantime, there are components of eugenics – in more circumscribed realms – which we can influence. Of course, a “eugenics ethic” means that the bright and healthy among us should have as many children as we can afford. In addition, our most accomplished men should think about becoming sperm donors (and comparable young women may likewise consider becoming egg donors). A eugenics ethic also suggests that we consider expanding our paternal or maternal embrace to include our extended family, especially as we get older, taking what steps we can (financially or with child care) to help bright young relatives who want to have large or medium-sized families.
Recently, Republicans have taken control of many state governments in America, and they’ve been shutting down women’s clinics and limiting access to contraception, which is horribly, horribly dysgenic. Smart, responsible women with initiative and drive will always find a way to get contraception and abortions, whereas less-capable women often do not, so they end up having many unplanned, unwanted children who have both genetic and environmental disadvantages. “Pro-life” is a superficially attractive slogan that really means unequal access to contraception and abortion, which invariably causes genetic deterioration. Eugenicists support Planned Parenthood, and vigorously oppose “Pro-Life” candidates and the preposterous “Personhood” amendments.
I became a eugenicist not only because I care about intelligence, but because (just like when I was 12-years-old), I also care about honesty and kindness. The anti-eugenicists were flagrantly dishonest, I could see that from the beginning. It was obvious that they weren’t so stupid as to believe the lies they were peddling, and their lies were hurting real people. Dysgenics is cruelty on a scale far too vast to grasp at one time, more than worthy of the word Evil. And in my opinion, the natural and appropriate response of any honorable person to dishonesty and cruelty is anger. Anger is a good and necessary emotion when it motivates people to fight against tyranny.
Readers might assume that my interest in eugenics stems from my father’s influence, but it only amounted to that one brief conversation when I was a child, and there were a number of other things I was told back then (such as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny) that I had no problem rejecting. I suspect that my father’s father believed in eugenics, too, so at least an equally good case can be made that my interest is the result of a genetic predisposition.
Today, I’m still writing about eugenics, but I’m also finishing up a futuristic novel. It’s going to be a toss-up as I round the last turn going “into the stretch” as to which one gets there first – the onset of doddering senility, or finally finishing the damn novel! I remember when I first started it long, long ago, I wasn’t sure I had the talent to write fiction because I’d never even written a short story. But now I’m far enough along that the end is in sight. It takes place 30 years in the future. The protagonist is a Nobel Prize winning geneticist who runs an immense Repository, a vast facility in Siberia which contains the germinal material of all Russian citizens. Another character is the 15-year-old son of a rabbi who realizes he can never be a Jew, so he escapes from Israel to Russia. Like George Orwell’s 1984, it has something to say beyond just an interesting story. I’ve made it action-packed and shockingly risque! to entice lots of people to read it, but there’s a message in there somewhere – amid murder, mayhem, and heaving bosoms!
As I look back over my life as a eugenicist, I’m enormously glad that I was able to devote myself to one profoundly misunderstood cause in desperate need of a champion. Even though it’s resulted in a great deal of trouble over a very long time, I’d do it again without hesitation. I’ve paid a price, but so does most everyone who tells the truth in an age of lies, and my troubles have been trivial compared to those of Robert Faurisson, Ernst Zundel, and countless others who have been beaten up and imprisoned. I’m proud to have been able to shine a light on the disastrous, century-long dysgenic fertility in the United States, and to have exposed the anti-eugenics hoax. I’m grateful for the opportunity to have known some brilliant and fascinating men, and I’ve experienced much joy and satisfaction in my research and my writing.
Unfortunately, however, I can’t claim to have had a great deal of success – in fact, I can’t claim much success at all! When I was in my 20s, my long-term goal was to see eugenics programs implemented, and I fully expected this would come to pass. It never occurred to me that before we could even talk about eugenics calmly and rationally, we must first free ourselves from political oppression by a tiny ethnic minority! This came as a complete shock – and a huge disappointment! I thought we lived in a free country! Now I realize that as long as we’re under Jewish domination, a nation-wide eugenics program in North America or Europe is virtually impossible.
There’s no denying that the overall picture for eugenics today in the West is bleak, but there are still a few pieces of good news: (1) Research in genetics has been proceeding at a dizzying pace in the recent past, and it continues to do so today. Now, prospective parents can avoid literally thousands of disorders in their children, whether by in vitro testing or pre-natal testing. (2) New improvements in contraception, such as the patch, the cap, and tubal ligation, have also been made. The IUD (intra-uterine device) has been perfected over the past 40 years – after being inserted by a doctor, it can prevent pregnancy for as long as 10 years. This is important because it doesn’t require the woman to do anything, and it’s covered under The Affordable Care Act and Medicaid in most states. (3) There’s been a significant increase in the use of artificial insemination, and this has been quite eugenic for several reasons. To begin with, mothers who plan their pregnancies tend to be a good deal brighter than mothers who have children because of a series of “accidents,” so the former (on average) provide both better heredity and better environments for their offspring. Obviously, all pregnancies by artificial insemination are planned, so this gives these children several advantages from the outset. Even more importantly, there’s been a dramatic improvement in the quality of sperm donors as a result of the path-breaking Repository for Germinal Choice. It’s shocking to consider the laxity of artificial insemination before the Repository, back when sperm was just sperm, as if it made little difference whether the donor was a drunken bum or a Nobel Prize winner. The Repository showed that there’s enormous demand for high-quality sperm, and this revolutionized artificial insemination. Now all sperm banks are eugenics sperm banks, with over a million births and counting.
I’d like to leave the reader with one final thought. It’s natural for courageous people engaged in a noble fight to succumb to despair and hopelessness from time to time, especially when they confront seemingly-insurmountable obstacles, and when their goals take decades to achieve.
But fortunately, eugenics is not an “all or nothing” endeavor – in fact, it’s just the opposite– so that every minuscule bit of progress we make helps real people, and when we improve our species genetically, the benefits extend for generations. Today, we need to step back for a moment and reflect on the fact that we are linked to a long succession of generations reaching far back to the distant past, and forward far into the future, and this bestows upon us responsibility – and opportunity! No matter how good our situation is now – or how bad – we can always make things better in concrete ways that improve the world and alleviate suffering, and soon. This is almost mystical, because it means that every effort we make to that end, large or small, is meaningful.
Compare this to working to elect a political candidate, for example – which may be very worthwhile and important. Maybe he wins, that’s great. Or say he loses – well, that’s all there is to that. Or trying to get a bill passed in the legislature – if it doesn’t pass, or is never brought to a vote – there’s a sense of futility, a feeling that all that hard work was wasted. Not so with eugenics. Keeping one more women’s clinic open is worth fighting for! Spreading the word, contributing regularly to pro-eugenics websites, exposing Jewish treachery, supporting Planned Parenthood, voting out the Pro-Lifers, helping bright young couples and their families – all these have value and meaning. The realization that our efforts are not in vain is heartening and uplifting. Even if we can only reduce the severity of dysgenics for now, this is a totally worthwhile endeavor because many lives will be improved.
1 Van Court, Marian, and Bean, Frank, (1984) New evidence of dysgenic fertility for intelligence in the United States: 1912 to 1982, Intelligence, pp. 193-201