Posted by Kelly on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 22:23 | #

It is my strongly held opinion that W. D. Hamilton is correct in ”Innate Social Aptitudes of Man” when he asserts:

...civilization probably slowly reduces its altruism of all kinds, including the kinds needed for cultural creativity…

Interestingly enough, a new article in Scientific American covers a recent study that finds a decline in empathy among young people in the US:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-me-care

The research, led by Sara H. Konrath of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and published online in August in Personality and Social Psychology Review, found that college students’ self-reported empathy has declined since 1980, with an especially steep drop in the past 10 years. To make matters worse, during this same period students’ self-reported narcissism has reached new heights, according to research by Jean M. Twenge, a psychologist at San Diego State University.

While this study is specifically about empathy I suspect that empathy and altruism are intrinsically linked.  Some amount of empathy is probably a necessary condition for altruism to take place.

Posted by president barbicane on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 22:28 | #

My eugenics position would be this:

1.  Welfare reform.  The current welfare system in the United States encourages dysgenic fertility patterns, and it’s not entirely effective as an anti-poverty program.  So I would change the welfare system in the following ways:
    a.  There is a large waiting list to get on welfare.  I would eliminate the waiting list for people who have never been on welfare before.  This would make it a much more effective anti-poverty program.
    b.  The benefits would be time-limited (perhaps six months).  There would be a waiting period to get an extension.  (this would prevent multi-generational welfare families which have such extreme dysgenic fertility patterns)
    c.  Single mothers would not get more benefits than married mothers.  (ending incentives for dysgenic mating)
    d.  Having a child while on welfare would not increase your welfare benefits.  If one starts the program as a single woman, one would *always* get single-woman benefits, no excuses. This would discourage women on welfare from having children.  To receive welfare benefits for her children a woman would have
to be off welfare for a certain period of time (perhaps a year) so that she would be entirely restarting the program, not merely extending benefits she had before.

2.  Armed forces fertility.  People serving in the armed forces in the United States:
  -do not have diseases like diabetes or obesity
  -periodically have to complete a physical test
  -do not have criminal records
  -are selected based on a g-loaded test (the AFQT)
  In other words they are the perfect population to encourage fertility in for eugenic purposes.  So, I would change the service such that:
    a.  Soldiers with large families would get paid more.
    b.  Soldiers with large families would get higher priority for housing.
    c.  A veteran who has a large family would get a very generous pension.
    d.  Any other fertility enhancements you can think of that I’ve missed.
However, I would have to eliminate all forms of affirmative action in the armed services (I have heard affirmative action is rampant in the army.  This should end immediately.)

Of course, if I were seriously pursuing a eugenic program, I would do more research into fertility.  Women in western society have notoriously low birthrates.  I would do some serious investigation into why (it would have to be based on observations of behavior, not based on surveys or something like that.  I strongly suspect that when one asks someone why he or she hasn’t had kids, one gets mostly rationalizations, not the real reasons).

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 01:05 | #

Polygamy would be a good start. The move from polygamy to monogamy (and monotony) for the elite was maladaptive.

Posted by Stephen Wordsworth on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 02:03 | #

Someone with multiple conviction is extremely unlikey to be a misconvicted swo anyone with two or more convictions would have no right to apeal and recieve a mandatory minimum death sentence. Reduce the age of criminal responcibility to 6 the personality is pretty well formed by that stage.

Give soldiers extra pay for each wife and child.

Sterilise everyone with an IQ below 95. Legalise drugs and sterilize drug addicts and drunkards.

All welfare will be paid in food stamps that can be used for essentials only. Sterilise anyone who stays on welfare for more than 2 years. The time limit can be modified acording to economic conditions.

Zero imigration with subsidised repatriation.

Posted by Drifter on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 03:24 | #

It seems an effective operational approach to eugenics is unattainable without a more comprehensive civilization design view.

Posted by Adolf's Only Descendent on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 04:08 | #

I agree with everything Stephen Wordsworth said.

Posted by Brett Stevens on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 04:39 | #

1. IQ test the population and give them each a brief work and social history survey. Add their criminal histories to the stack.
2. If people are unskilled, or have bad scores on 2 of those 4 areas, exile them.
3. Subsidize our high performers to have extra kids.
4. Remove all welfare and well-intentioned programs designed to save idiots from themselves.

Posted by Hail on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 04:46 | #

Kelly wrote (quoting Scientific-American):
College students’ self-reported empathy has declined since 1980, with an especially steep drop in the past 10 years

I read somewhere that the average IQ of college students was 115 in 1960, and 105 today. Something like that. (It’s because a lot more people go to college now. “Everyone should go to college!”)

Lower IQ, lower empathy?

Posted by Hail on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 04:54 | #

Drifter wrote:
We need to consider licensing to bear offspring

Dr. Elmer Pendell made the case persuasively for this in his classic 1967 “Sex Versus Civilization”. The policy section of that little book is as solid and serious a treatment of the OP question as one will find.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 05:25 | #

College students’ self-reported empathy has declined since 1980

1) This study was done at University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.

2)  Where self-reported narcissism also skyrocketed.

These data indicate a more incisive question:

Where was renneR?

Posted by Frank on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 05:50 | #

Reward those who win at academic and athletic competitions with funding for any children they choose to have. Segregate classes according to ability / desire; Give the example of the Greeks choosing as carefully as one selects a horse - or give R. E. Lee’s marriage quote.

Raise wage pressures (e.g. no immigration and raise trade barriers), and then remove the welfare state. Offer free health care to any who’ll allow themselves to be neutered, e.g. a child born with some defect who’d otherwise not survive.

Similarly reward heroes of the nation with child support. Make such into a great honour..

Screen people for genetic diseases, and bring them to their attention when found…

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 06:16 | #

Drifter observes: It seems an effective operational approach to eugenics is unattainable without a more comprehensive civilization design view.

Yes and that is largely my point about operational definitions.  The best proposals here have fallen short on this count in that the operations presuppose an enormous social infrastructure that somehow appears deus ex machina.  I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt in that I presuppose those who are presupposing such social infrastructure have some—as yet unarticulated—operational definition of how it comes into being and avoids corruption.  If undeserving of the benefit, they are a form of wishful thinking I’ve left here for illustration of the point.  (I won’t even describe the wishful thinking that I’ve deleted.)

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 06:18 | #

Hail, could you sketch out Pendell’s proposed operations?

Posted by G on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 12:42 | #

There is what I would call “The Natural Way” of looking at it.
The basis on which you can extract large sums of money in tax and pay it out in benefits is that most people think the recipients are people like themselves, facing difficulties which they themselves could face. If values become more diverse, if lifestyles become more differentiated, then it becomes more difficult to sustain the legitimacy of a universal risk-pooling welfare state. People ask, ‘Why should I pay for them when they are doing things I wouldn’t do? This is America versus Sweden. You can have a Swedish welfare state provided that you are a homogeneous society with intensely shared values. In the US you have a very diverse, individualistic society where people feel fewer obligations to fellow citizens. Progressives want diversity but they thereby undermine part of the moral consensus on which a large welfare state rests.”
Thinking about the conflict between solidarity and diversity is another way of asking a question as old as human society itself: who is my brother? With whom do I share mutual obligations? The traditional conservative Burkean view is that our affinities ripple out from our families and localities, to the nation and not very far beyond. That view is pitted against a liberal universalist one which sees us in some sense equally obligated to all human beings. This idea is associated with the universalist aspects of Christianity and Islam, with Kantian universalism and with left-wing internationalism.
We have natural bonds with our families, a responsibility for them and a duty to them. We also have a duty to pass on what we have inherited to our children, as they, in turn, will have a duty to their children. We owe a debt to our ancestors who bequeathed to us our nation and culture, and we must honour that.

In the wise words of General George S.Patton, ”All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood.”

Our loyalties begin with affection within families and this emanates outward to neighbourhood and nation. Men and women are distinctive sexual beings within their inherited collective identity. We belong to our kin, above strangers, and this affects the type of community we create.??The family, community and nation, are parts of a natural, organic state as opposed to an artificial one based on planning. The French Revolution, like those in the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia, was an attempt to recreate human nature and refashion a people. The modern world is dominated by artificial empires, global corporations and bureaucracies, which treat human beings as abstract entities. However, tribalism is re-emerging and the future belongs to these human scale structures which develop over time, not instant and artificial creations.

Edmund Burke’s famous definition of society is that it is a continuous community of the living, the dead and those who are yet to be born. Each man and woman is part of a larger body. The individual dies, but descendents live on. Tradition is a surer guide to action than abstract reason.??A nation’s manners, morals, religions, political institutions and social structure, are inherited from ancestors and develop from the character of the people at that time.

Government from Brussels, economic control by global corporations and Afro-Asian colonization is part of the progressives’ new dream for an ideal future, but in practice it disinherits our children of those rights and freedoms we are duty bound to preserve for them .??It is this ceding of territory to the colonialists that demonstrates the weakness and effeteness of our rulers.

Throughout history wars have been fought for territory and by allowing newcomers to stake claims, our emasculated ‘elite’ are encouraging them to fight for yet more. In The Territorial Imperative Robert Ardry explains how much having a country of their own has boosted the confidence of Israelis, but our rulers are handing our ancestral homeland to invaders and protecting their welfare over and above that of our own people.

The new elites promote a version of progress and see the past as obsolete. Edmund Burke accurately summed these dreamers up: “ You think you are combating prejudice but you are at war with nature.”? The attitude of the current batch of moral and intellectual inferiors who control public life is to transfer power away from their own people and disinherit their descendants for the benefit of rival communities.? We are morally obliged to put our people first, as we do with our families, even when foreigners are more in need of our help. Supporting outsiders against our own people is morally wrong.

Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 13:28 | #

Bowery, why have you deleted my posts?

Posted by Frank on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 13:33 | #

He’s carefully editing out only the material he thinks is directly relevant.

Everyone’s posts are being edited. This one will soon disappear too.

Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 14:12 | #

I actually have no idea what Bowery is ‘getting on’ about.

Posted by Jane on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 14:23 | #

The main problem right now is the negative birth rate of the White race.  Quality will have to be sacrificed to some extent to increase quantity.  Health is of at least as much importance as intelligence.  Decades of modern medicine have thwarted natural selection and weakened our stock.

The ideal number of children per woman for the race to stay healthy must average at least 6 and I am probably underestimating the number. 

I suggest that assessment chooses out women who must bear at least this number of children and will be given incentives and disincentives to that end.  The chosen women (with concern as well for the male fertilising them) will be chosen for having a required minimum level of health and intelligence .  As long as they are not “retarded” they qualify in terms of intelligence – health requirements are more stringent.  Those who should not breed will be discouraged or prevented from so doing.  All non-Europeans in western societies should only be allowed to stay on condition they are sterilised.

We must try to achieve the results of natural selection but in a humane fashion which allows medicine and does not require premature death.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 14:42 | #

James,

If you are going to delete comments on other than legal or nuisance grounds, at the very least offer an apology to the poster and a comment-specific explanation.  This:

I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt in that I presuppose those who are presupposing such social infrastructure have some—as yet unarticulated—operational definition of how it comes into being and avoids corruption.

... does not cut it, since you know perfectly well that most if not all the commentariat have a vision of a life that is good, and cannot be expected to propose in full how, in place of a direct operational line from here to the eugenic there, a complex societal revolution must be enacted - a revolution so broad it is known in America by the name White Nationalism, and sometimes in a different context, the White Ethno-State.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 16:45 | #

The original invitation did state the ground rule: “As host of this thread, I will delete anything that smacks of a critique or wish-list.” Perhaps it should have been at the beginning and end in bold italics given its departure from normal practice here.

I will cease deletions and abandon my ambitions for this thread.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 17:05 | #

James,

Please delete this on grounds of sentimentality.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 17:19 | #

C’mon, GW. It’s a culling metaphor, and its harmless. Nobody’s lost a firstborn.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 19:26 | #

If the medium is the message, nothing could more demonstrative than the evolution of this thread.

Golden rule of eugenics:

Authoritarian dictatorship is a pre-requisite.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 20:37 | #

Jimmy,

I would have thought that the golden rule of eugenics was that all is driven by love.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 21:18 | #

The iron rule of eugenics is that the future is controlled by birth and death in the present.  Sterilization is not enough since extended phenotypes are part of the mix.  Sometimes it is necessary to kill the cricket before it complete’s the parasite’s lifecycle.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 21:40 | #

Aye, James:

And I think you’ve transmuted base metal into gold with a double noggin knocker.

Happy New Year!

Posted by Dubrovin on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 21:48 | #

Sterilization is not enough since extended phenotypes are part of the mix.

Good point.  Homosexuals for example are de facto sterile but they still have their effects.

Posted by Kievsky on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 22:39 | #

Raising our kids to be mathematicians and scientists and to compete for slots at graduate schools of science against Indians and Chinese.

Here’s the eugenics I see Indians doing.  They own convenience stores and liquor stores, and their kids study in the back of the store while the parents rake in the bucks.  Unlike white parents, the Indian store owners are able to actualy raise their kids and partially homeschool them.

I am not homeschooling my kid, but I have her do supplemental math and science with me, so you could call it partial home schooling.  And it’s working very good—1/2 hour a day of math, and maybe 10 -15 minutes of reading and discussing some science concept (we are doing chem right now), 5 days a week, it makes a huge difference.  the school will end up treating the kid differently, as one of the “stars,” because it appears to the teachers that the kids learns real easily, when what really happened is he or she already knew the stuff ahead of time.

Here’s the thing I discovered about learning—do it in short but frequent sessions.  It’s real easy to O.D. on math - you can’t cram it.  You have to do a little bit every day.  But that adds up, and I think it changes the way you think.  I see math as exercise for the brain the way weight lifting is for the body.

We and our progeny alraedy have the “selective breeding” part, but the other half of eugenics is accomplishing things with these genes and this IQ.  If you don’t make accomplishments, it’s not eugenics.  Even show dogs actually have to go to shows and perform, for heavens sake!  Show horses have to do their show stuff.  There’s too much focus on just the selective breeding part and not enough on accomplishments.  Jews and Asians are doing the accomplishments.  We do too but not enough.

I think the culture of pessimism and rock and roll got to us.  I think it’s the reason we aren’t producing Henry Fords and Thomas Edisons anymore—the Frankfurst school “culture of pessimism” really took over our culture.  For example, they perfected the blink rate on televisions, and there has certainly been a DELIBERATE DUMBING DOWN.

What’s that tell you?  If they deliberately made us stupid, then the solution for us is to be like Francis Bacon or Leonardo or Edison.  The spirit of optimism and the Faustian spirit of curiosity for curiosity’s sake.  That’s what will save us.

So study math and science for the joy of it, and then for the utility of it.  That’s my solution.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 22:51 | #

This may sound Foreign to those who haven’t listened to popular music for the last fifty years.

Nevertheless, I must present the long-haired Iowan, JJ, as he pounds out Head Knocker.

Posted by General on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 15:52 | #

I propose immediate termination of all things human.  It’s the only surefire way to improve the world.

Posted by AWwesome on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 16:13 | #

I just wanted to say that, im impressed of what u do here, keep the good job up!

Posted by coldequation on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 17:35 | #

On the negative side: welfare should come with birth control. It’s the only way short of letting the kids starve on the street. Even if you cut off women who continue to have babies on welfare, or get rid of welfare entirely they’ll still have them and they’ll just end up burdening foster care facilities.

On the positive side: Create a market for children. Allow people to invest in parents they think would have productive children, so that smart people who don’t want to be poor can get money by having kids instead of pursuing education and careers until they’re at an age when they need fertility treatments to crank out one kid. Imagine what would happen if a smart woman could get rich by having 10 kids instead of going to med school. A smart man could do both, because he would make enough money to take care of those kids before graduating, which is very difficult now.

I wrote about this earlier in the context of slavery, which would make it easy to get a return on your investment. But it would be possible to establish a market in good children without slavery.

Posted by Frank on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 17:54 | #

Cold,

slavery would have gone away… It would have become unprofitable. One of the great concerns we had then was: if the Negroes are freed, will they cause crime and will they lower working-class white wages?

It wasn’t so much that we wanted profit as we feared freeing them.

Posted by coldequation on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 18:09 | #

Frank,

Slavery was in the CSA’s Constitution so it would not have gone away. They would have been as sentimentally attached to it as rural whites are to guns or horses now, which are also unprofitable. Slavery would have persisted as a sentimentality at miniumum.

And I doubt that slavery would be unprofitable. I think that’s one of those oft-repeated but wrong memes like “eugenics is discredited.” Masses of cotton-picking black slaves would no longer have been profitable, but if you’re creative you can think of some uses for slaves. Even today liberal white expats in Dubai are happy to have passportless all-but-slaves as domestic help.

Posted by Frank on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 19:17 | #

“Even today liberal white expats in Dubai are happy to have passportless all-but-slaves as domestic help.”

Perhaps they’d fill a role as domestic servants and meat packers and such, but increasingly skilled labor is what’s of value. There is a paternal view of blacks, but eventually the cost of managing them would grow too high for most I suspect. And eventually the freed slaves would accumulate and cause problems.

Most of the slaves were held by only a few. If those few couldn’t find a rewarding use for the slaves, they’d free them.

Blacks are so violent and irresponsible that they’re really more of a burden than a help, especially the men. You can hire whites to work for you and gain much more value.

Posted by Frank on Sat, 01 Jan 2011 19:24 | #

“Even today liberal white expats in Dubai are happy to have passportless all-but-slaves as domestic help.”

I wonder if they fear ending up as slaves themselves.

I suspect slavery will make a global comeback now that Europe (America) is falling from power. But I’m doubtful blacks will ever be of much use.

-

You know what might win you more support? Uphold monarchy rather than slavery. A monarch views his kingdom as his own, as its owner.

Posted by Hail on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 00:01 | #

James Bowery wrote:
Could you sketch out Pendell’s proposed operations?

Here it goes.

My sincere apologies for the length of this post.

[Note too that another of Pendell’s works, the early-1970s “Why Civilizations Self-Destruct”, still being sold, also contains a version of this Marriage Plan.]

.

_____________________________________________
Dr. Elmer Pendell’s Proposed Marriage Law
[Reproduced from “Sex Versus Civilization”, 1967, ch. 8]

.

There is one other formulation you may wish to ponder, as better than Nature’s law raw. This one is gentle too, and more thorough in its processing than any of the others: a proposed marriage law. Read first a synopsis:

The purpose of the proposed State Law is to protect and improve the quality of the State’s population, and to stabilize its quantity.

In the proposal, almost anybody is permitted to marry, but in some cases, only after sterilization.

An exception is that persons with a communicable venereal disease are not permitted to marry under any circumstances.

Couples permitted to marry only if one of a couple’s members has been sterilized are (a) those ignorant of contraceptive methods, (b) those who cannot earn a living, (c) those of very low IQ’s or less than four years of education, and (d) those with a defect or disease or addiction, which in case of offspring, might lead to low quality of offspring.

All adults except the small minority above-mentioned may marry without previous sterilization.

At the time of a marriage the number of children which the marrying couple are permitted to have is determined according to the degree of merit demonstrated by IQ tests and educational achievements, or by non-standard but demonstrated and socially-valuable qualities. As a couple’s quota of offspring is reached, one person of the two is to be sterilized, except as by that time an enlargement of the quota is justified by a showing of improvement of qualifications.

Clauses of the law put applicable responsibility on unmarried persons and on persons temporarily in the State.

The administration of the proposed law is to be the responsibility of salaried licensing officers employed by the State, appointed and supervised by a board, three members of which are highly educated and have a knowledge of genetics.

MARRIAGE LAW
WHEREAS, unfavorable differences in birthrates have existed in earlier civilizations and seem to have been a basic cause of the collapse of those civilizations, and

WHEREAS, as shown by United States census figures unfavorable differences in birthrates prevail in this State, and

WHEREAS, we believe that both the heredity and the home influences of our citizenry are deteriorating as a result of the existing unfavorable differences in birthrates, and

WHEREAS, any State, by the nature of its marriage provisions, necessarily determines in large part the heredity and the home influences of its future citizens—

THEREFORE, as this State’s Marriage Law, be it enacted:

1. That this Act shall not in any way affect marriages heretofore consummated; that the organization for the law’s operation shall be established as soon as efficiently possible and before a date nine months after the passing of this Act; and, that after the establishment of the Marriage Organization all marriages must take place under the terms of this Act; that persons who marry between the date of the passing of the Act and the setting up of the organization for its operation are to be tested and assigned offspring quotas as promptly as possible.

2. That no marriage have validity except as it follows a license.

3a. That licensing officers be few enough so that the collection of information concerning marriage candidates, the granting of licenses and the keeping of records, can be their entire work, in order that they can know their duties and their responsibilities.

3b. That the licensing officers be on salaries and not on a fee basis. If on a fee basis a licensing officer might be tempted to grant a license when to do so would be contrary to the public interest. He might also be tempted to neglect the collection of information and keeping of records.

4. That no woman under the age of 50 years, or man of any age unless he marry a woman over the age of 50 years, be given a license to marry unless he or she give ample evidence in an examination conducted by the licensing officer or a member of his or her staff that the person is well informed in contraceptive technique. That this limitation be not applied if one or both of the prospective marriage partners are sterilized.

5. That no woman under the age of 50 years, or man of any age unless he marry a woman over the age of 50 years, be given a license to marry except as she or he, or her or his prospective spouse, is employed at a net return per month before taxes which is at least as high in purchasing-power as $150 in December 1965 [=$1,000/month gross, 2009 dollars], with a reasonable prospect of continuing to be employed at a return at least that high. That this limitation be not applied if one or both of the prospective marriage partners are sterilized, or if, on any other ground, a convincing case is made before a licensing officer who certifies his conviction that no social burden will result from the marriage.

6. That no person be given a license to marry except as he or she presents to the licensing officer a physician’s certificate evidencing (a) that he or she has had a blood test and such other tests as are necessary to disclose venereal disease; that he or she has no venereal disease, or, if he or she has, it is not in a communicable form or a form that can become communicable; (b) that he or she has no other serious disease.

7. That no woman under the age of 50 years, or man of any age unless he marry a woman over the age of 50 years, be granted a license to marry except as he or she pass a standard IQ test in the 20th percentile or above, and except as he or she pass, satisfactorily, examinations demonstrating an education at least equivalent to that which an average student would acquire in four years of schooling, the examinations to be administered by a board set up for that purpose. That this limitation be not applied if one or both of the prospective marriage partners are sterilized.

8. That no woman under the age of 50 years, or man of any age unless he marry a woman over the age of 50 years, be granted a license to marry, if he or she is an habitual criminal, habitual drunkard, or a drug addict. That this limitation be not applied if the candidate for marriage is sterilized.

9. That no woman under the age of 50 years, or man of any age unless he marry a woman over the age of 50 years, be granted a license to marry if the person be, through heredity, blind, deaf since early infancy, dumb, deformed in serious degree, or insane. That every candidate for marriage be examined for these characteristics by an approved examining board, and that the licensing officer be not authorized to issue the license except as a favorable certificate from the said board is in his possession. That these limitations be not applied if the candidate for marriage is sterilized.

10. That any unmarried person who engenders a child, or who becomes pregnant, shall be examined by the licensing officer and the other officials above designated, concerning his or her eligibility for marriage, and if he or she is not eligible, except if sterilized, he or she shall be sterilized through arrangements made by the licensing officer, to prevent a repetition of society’s misfortune. It shall be the duty of any physician or nurse under whose care the person comes, and of any state, county or city employee learning of the circumstances, to report such cases to the licensing officer.

11. A person entering this state from another jurisdiction must register within one month with a licensing officer and conform with this law as a citizen would have to, except as he or she can show that residence within the state is temporary and that she will not give birth to a child while in the state. Reports every two months to, the nearest licensing officer are required, with the alternative of being treated as a citizen of this state.

12. That each couple who are given a license to marry must have stipulated on the license and on the state’s records, by the licensing officer, a maximum number of children permitted the couple under the laws of this state. They are required to report each child to the office of the licensing officer six months before it is born and at the time of its birth. After the conception of the final child for which the couple are authorized, but before it is born, they may submit to the licensing officer the records of any qualifications which they think may entitle them to a still larger number of children. If the couple qualify for a larger number, they are to be given, by the licensing officer, a certificate indicating the new maximum. If they submit no evidence, or having submitted evidence, still do not qualify for a larger number, they or either one of them may, at that time or later, if they so desire, be sterilized at the expense of the state. Arrangements for the sterilization are to be made by the licensing officer. If, in any case, they have a child in excess of their authorized maximum, then at the time of its birth the parent with the lesser qualification is to be sterilized. In case a child has died before its parents’ quota is complete, it is not to be counted in determining the completion of the quota.

13. That the licensing officer make arrangements for the sterilization without fee of persons for whom it is required under Articles 10, 11, and 12, of this Act, and of such persons as request it for compliance with the provisions of Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9.

14. Couples complying with other legal requirements are to be authorized for reproduction according to the following scale:

If a candidate for marriage has been exposed to education at a level in which a high attainment would have raised his offspring quota, but in which his actual achievement was insufficient for that result, the largest number of children for which his IQ and previous educational record have qualified him shall be his quota.

15. There shall be a State Board of Human Genetics, composed of three members appointed by the Governor, one for 1 year, one for 2 years, and one for 3 years. Thereafter, each appointment is to be for 3 years. Each appointee must be well-trained in genetics, must have a doctor’s degree from an institution accredited by the Association of American Universities, and must, as prerequisite to taking office, publicly declare his or her approval of the purposes and method of this law, in the administration of which he or she is to participate. He of she need not previously have been a resident of this state.

16. The Board shall appoint the licensing officers, and shall oversee their work. It shall keep such records and conduct such studies as it thinks appropriate. Funds shall be allocated to its use for the purposes herein set forth.

17. Persons with socially-beneficial qualifications which are not regularly allowed for in the foregoing provisions may apply to The Genetics Board for a higher quota of children than that dependent on their IQ and educational attainment. Musical ability, special achievement in the sciences or the liberal arts, in mechanical invention or in organization, are illustrative. The Board shall consider each case in view of the employment conditions, and the number of special allocations already made, as well as of the likelihood of social contribution by the prospective children. Always the burden of proof is on the applicant, to justify a deviation from the standard quota. Not more than a tenth as many children are to be authorized in any one year by special action of the Board as the number that is authorized under the IQ and educational provisions. However, with the rule of law as an objective, it is provided that the Genetics Board shall not have power to reduce the number of children which a person may have under the law. The Board shall have power only to enlarge a person’s quota. But the Board is invited to recommend to the legislature, when it sees fit, any changes in the classifications and quotas which its members believe would be of benefit to the State, setting in writing the recommendations and the reasons
for them.
______________________________

There are other possible programs; especially there are various steps that would retard the worsening of our plight—such as the correction of recent errors like the 1965 immigration law. All the propositions presented in this chapter and some besides, except the Denmark Program, were discussed in my population class. Near the end of the Spring semester of 1965 I handed out ballots, giving my students an opportunity to vote or not to vote on propositions they had discussed. In the formulations there were some overlaps. The students were to score each proposition from zero to 10 according to their conclusions as to its merits. The ballots were unsigned. There were 36 of them.

Here are the results of the balloting:

88% Sterilization as under the Jesse Hartman Plan; free to the poor by private philanthropy, administered through state agencies.

88% Higher than present requirements for immigration.

86% Sterilization free to the poor at State or National expense.

86% Tie foreign aid money to population control programs.

82% Free voluntary sterilization to all who apply—no matter how provided.

76% The Marriage Law.

73% The Mencken Plan: a bonus to those who volunteer for sterilization, to be paid by State or National government or by private philanthropy, or the theory that the bonus would be most alluring to inadequate persons.

70% Minimum wage payable by State or National government, but applicant agrees not to have children, and if he breaks his promise he is to be sterilized. A person may if he prefers receive a substandard work permit.

The marriage law would actually reverse the birth rate differences so that the dumber couples are, the fewer children they would have, and the more intelligent they are, the more children they would have. With such a law in operation, every additional child would be another incentive to fill the yard with them. Yet some of the partial measures, as you see, got a more favorable response from the students. I don’t know why. [...] But even the marriage law, if our class had been a legislative body, could very handily, if necessary, have over-ridden a veto.

Posted by Frank on Sun, 02 Jan 2011 19:07 | #

Al Ross: “Polygamy would be a good start. The move from polygamy to monogamy (and monotony) for the elite was maladaptive.”

I wouldn’t worry. As whites continue to take on Semitic and black genes, polygamy will reign supreme. Apparently none can resist the third world’s “rivers of sperm”.

It’s a very white thing to pursue higher goals in life than sex.

Posted by Ken Day on Mon, 03 Jan 2011 13:25 | #

http://thebritishresistance.co.uk/the-editor/541-stalins-jews