|
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.
February 27, 2007 Hello
there, P.S. You have my full permission to use my letter. The truth must be heard. ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥
April 5, 2004 ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ August 3,
2005 ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ Dear
Future Generations: ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ 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 ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ Hello, ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ From: S. C.
¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ From: Roland
Strahle <Roland.Strahle@btinternet.com> 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
¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ From: harden
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
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.
¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ From: [OMITTED]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From: "Marian
Van Court" ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ From: Jessa-Lauren
Sobczuk 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 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> ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ Thursday,
June 15, 2000 10:28 PM 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, 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 ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ 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. Results: Explanation: 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 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, ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ 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 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. Warm Regards and thanks again. ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥
|
