The owner of this site allows reposting of his literature, here are his words regarding this from

“Any of the following articles that I have written are free for redistribution or republication. This includes editing, shortening, or elaborating on articles as desired to accomplish eugenic goals. Nothing else matters but the future.”

And from

“The NeoEugenic Web Site was developed solely by Matt Nuenke, as a private project. Any material on this site can be used for the dissemination of these ideas and a eugenics’ program without my permission.”

The following is from

“Playing God is indeed playing with fire. But that is what we mortals have done since Prometheus, the patron saint of dangerous discovery. We play with fire and take the consequences, because the alternative is cowardice in the face of the unknown.” (Dworkin, 2000)

Humans are very much like our primate ancestors. Unfortunately, with our larger intelligent brains, we have acquired the ability to foresee our deaths as soon as we are able to understand life, at a very young age. With this horror, we have instead of facing life with knowledge that we have a brief time to live - a time to be made the most of - we have turned back to our primitive instincts and succumbed to religion, false beliefs, and submission to dominance by others.

The answer to this dilemma during most of this century, has been to try and change human culture, assuming it is infinitely malleable, leading to the agony of communism and the short comings of egalitarian democracies. And in the rest of the world, despotism reigns under numerous doctrines, with little hope for the people subjected to the state’s propaganda. This web page is dedicated to putting forth the view that to change the human condition we must change the innate nature of humans, that is, we must encourage the breeding of people with a higher intellect, people better able to understand what motivates them and who can eventually revolt against the subjugation by the state or the controlling elite.

So umm… did you propose a debate, or just re-post this person’s literature?



Well, I thought this topic could trigger a debate. Here are my ideas:

Natural selection today favors the stupid: the brightest have the fewest children, the dumbest have the most. We see the results with respect to dropping IQs, dropping school and SAT performance, higher crime, higher poverty levels, etc. So, what can be done to reverse this trend?

Firstly, you can’t get an agrreement even among scientist of what intelligence is, much less how to measure it.

Birth rates tend to be correlated with socio-economic class. (With the obvious exception of groups like the LDS, for whom large families is part of the culture.) You’ll have to provide us with some data to back up your point about a correlation with intelligence.

Show us the data that IQs are dropping and that poverty levels are increasing. You’re going to need to convice us that there is a problem before you get people to engage in looking for solutions.

And unless you give data from reputable, peer-reviewed scientific sources (as opposed to some guy who happens to have a web site), you’re not going to get very far around here.

Oh yeah, once you get your science straightened out, you’ll have to convice us how you’re going to re-write the constitution of the US (assuming you are a US poster) to accomodate your eugenics plans.

I think there are a few problems with your analysis.

For one thing, there is more at work with respect to the number of kids people have than simple natural selection. The fact that some individuals leave more offspring is not a sufficient case for natural selection; to be directly attributable, the reasons behind differential reproduction must be the result of heritable traits possessed by the parents.

This is not necessarily the case for humans these days. Poverty levels, rather than any intrinsic “fitness”, play a major part in how many offspring a couple might have. Many such couples operate under the assumption that more offspring means a (somewhat) better life for the parents once the offspring reach a sufficient age to work, for example. It’s an economic, rather than a biological thing: more kids working means more help, whether it be with miscellaneous chores, money, or whatever.

Secondly, there is no guarantee that having more offspring means more of your genes floating around in the gene pool. In areas of extreme poverty, few of those children may actually survive to adulthood, so having more offspring may simply be a means to help ensure that at least one does.

Thirdly, crime, poverty and SAT scores are not necessarily geneticly determined. Consequently, even if you were to implement some sort of eugenics program, you would have absolutely no guarantee that any of those would somehow be “fixed”.

Ahh… ok, I think providing ideas (or your own viewpoints) on an idea, usually help trigger a debate here in GD.

I will have to ask for some kind of cite for the “brighter people generally have fewer children” argument.

As for Natural Selection favoring the stupid… I would be inclined to think about it the other way around, actually. For example (a very generic example)-- Person goes to college (or makes some good career choices), and makes way to CEO of a company. A person who did not make some good career choices* ends up flipping burgers at Burger World. Now, even though the “weaker” (or stupid) portion of the species is not dying off, it seems the “stronger” (or smart) portion is more prosperous. So I would think Natural Selection seems to be favoring the smart, in this situation.

Maybe I misunderstood some of your points, though…?


Oops, forgot to add:

*- This doesn’t mean all people who work at a Burger World have made bad career choices. :slight_smile:


The idea that selective breeding is useful in general is flawed at its foundation. Sure, we breed thoroubred horses that can run really fast. In that case, and in all cases of selective breeding, we breed for specific traits irrespective of their overall survival merit because we are here to take care of the output with medical and other care. Thoroubred horses are afllicted with a number of medical problems which we take care of through veterinary medicine. Those problems are, however, antisurvival.

So, as others have pointed out, we really don’t know what constitutes “intelligence” and we certainly don’t know what specific traits are good for survivial in the long run.

Actually, today, most brain specialists agree on intelligence. Here are a few mainstream facts:


  1. Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other
    things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think
    abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from
    experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or
    test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability
    for comprehending our surroundings–“catching on,” “making sense” of
    things, or “figuring out” what to do.

  2. Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests
    measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms,
    reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do
    not measure creativity, character personality, or other important
    differences among individuals, nor are they intended to.

  3. While there are different types of intelligence tests, they all measure
    the same intelligence. Some use words or numbers and require specific
    cultural knowledge (like vocabulary). Others do not, and instead use
    shapes or designs and require knowledge of only simple, universal
    concepts (many/few, open/closed, up/down).

Visit the link for additional data.

And from

Moreover, research on the physiology and genetics of g has uncovered biological correlates of this psychological phenomenon. In the past decade, studies by teams of researchers in North America and Europe have linked several attributes of the brain to general intelligence. After taking into account gender and physical stature, brain size as determined by magnetic resonance imaging is moderately correlated with IQ (about 0.4 on a scale of 0 to 1). So is the speed of nerve conduction. The brains of bright people also use less energy during problem solving than do those of their less able peers. And various qualities of brain waves correlate strongly (about 0.5 to 0.7) with IQ: the brain waves of individuals with higher IQs, for example, respond more promptly and consistently to simple sensory stimuli such as audible clicks. These observations have led some investigators to posit that differences in g result from differences in the speed and efficiency of neural processing.

Visit link for more data.

I came across Harvard University article:

Professor Rushton:
Professor Richard Lynn:
Professor Gottfredson:
Professor Kevin MacDonald:
Evolutionary Psychology:
Professor Rushton’s free online book:
Professor Chris Brand’s free online book: and his website:
American Psychological Association:

General Cognitive Ability is Related to Success in Multiple Domains, According to Research Review:

See above links/data

Professor Richard Lynn in his book "Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations, a review of the book is at And a rebuttal to the Flynn Effect:

And I believe you guys are entitled to such an opinion. It is your choice to agree with me or not.

Who the heck follows the Constitution? Hell, most Americans and most politicians consider it a useless piece of crap witten by radical dead White men 250 years ago that have no bearing on today’s times. Only the very small groups, the Libertarians and the Constitution Party, who make up less than 5% of america, are true Constitution supporters.

John Ashcroft himself said that supporting the Constitution only helps the terrorists. The American Constitution has been long dead.

I’m sure “most Americans and most politicians” would find that a most interesting fact about themselves. I’m sure you will take it upon yourself to enlighten them. The fact that you’re using a psuedo-fascist like Ashcroft to defend your conjecture speaks volumes. Sometimes overexposure to ideas can be a bad thing. Perhaps you think they are all new, revolutionary ideas.

You go out of your way to define what intelligence is, without defining its role in society. The concept of intelligence by your definition does nothing to include the concepts of philosophy, law, arts, etc, as evidenced quite clearly in your own cite. Your theory, if I understand it correctly (I am clearly not intelligent under this definition), is for a managed, logical society of measured intellect. I would presume that you leave no room in this world for artistic or, in fact, political endeavors (given your own flippant dismissal of system of government). I further presume that you lean towards either anarchy or, more likely, authoritarian government - namely, a rule by the elite.

Such reasoning, while perhaps logical, is fatally flawed by what it rejects - that is, the illogical nature of humanity. It relies on base assumptions like, “religion can be destroyed” and that emotion is a flaw to be bred out. The ignorance of how human society and the desires of individuals works, not to mention the careful balance that leadership takes - actually, you know what, this is rather silly.

So far, all of your spamming these forums with other people’s elitist, classist, and rather racist babblings has been fairly sad. You are quite free to attempt a commune of superior breeding for “intelligence” and have a race of super-genius problem solvers that may well perform adequately scientifically. I’d hate to be a member of said society, however, because it would disintegrate rather rapidly. Suffice to say that the old cliche of there being a difference between wisdom and intelligence will prove itself true enough.

The fact that half of the argument in your OP is based on the “Jewish dominance” of every “intellectual” pursuit just makes it all the more flawed.

Shouldn’t you be running along maturbating to Rand by now?

The OP looks oddly familiar.

To see how something similar to this was handled on the JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation) forum:

PS. I’m new here…I hope this doesn’t violate any rules.

Good catch! Looks like “Rationalist” and our “Science Girl” are one and the same. And funny, she’s getting the same arguments here she got over on that other forum. Guess she didn’t get enough before…

Most Americans are too stupid to even realize it. First, half of Americans are Democrats and they don’t care for the Second Amendment. The other half, the Republicans, don’t care for the First Amendment. John Ashcroft, the man who wants to burn the constitution, is supported by half of Americans.

Most Americans support laws that are not supposed to be laws according to the Constitution.

You think I will contact all 300 million Americans and tell them they don’t support the Constitution?

Research shows that genetics plays a role in every human inclination. So if you alter the genes, you alter the inclinations.

Ahh, so since you don’t agree with me, you throw the ad hominem attack of “spammer” upon me. Let the record show that you threw the first name-calling/insult. I never do that though, it’s not my thing. But, maybe you can be more creative in your insults. I spend time in lots of different forums and insults get pretty creative. “Racist” is overdone, maybe use new words like “you troublesome ethnocentrist” or something like that.

Man, you sure are shooting your emotional load at me. I’m just a poor colored school girl.

Jews themselves admit they are very successful, more so than any other group, see and

Ian Rand was a Jewish woman who invented Objectivism to help fight anti-Semetism. Now, maybe I can masturbate to Freddie Prinze, Jr., a sexy Jewish MAN with great abs and what I can imagine to be a very long. . . . .

But, I think I know why you are all pissy, it’s because I posted credible links to university sites and such. That happens often to me: I say something politically incorrect, and the forum members are all calm and polite and smug. But then as soon as I actually post credible sources, they get all angry because I shake their world views and most people don’t want to be ever proven wrong, me neither actually, but I try to keep an open mind and be objective.

Not the first time someone has jumped around various boards spewing their poorly thought out arguments and moving along instead of defending them.

That is complete BS, and you know it. They may interpret the ammendments differently - that does not mean that they discard them entirely.

Their support for the Bush administration does not necessarily follow that they want to burn the Constitution. As you point out, most Americans are stupid, and don’t comprehend what is really happening.

That depends largely on interpretation of the document, as well as ignoring the very basic concept that the Constitution is a living document that is further ammended by findings of the Courts.

Ah, now you are getting into grey territory. Are you a pre-determinationist?

Go ahead and let them. The fact that you’ve posted a handful of rather spurious posts based on copy and pasting other people’s beliefs, the same way you have on perhaps countless other boards, supports the statement as a fact rather than attack. Let the “record” show that you acknowledged it.

Good for you. I’m just a poor colored graduate. Good defense.

Shake their world views? You are full of yourself. I think the main point is that most people who post on this board are asleep right now. I’m sure someone more “intelligent” than myself will come along in due course. Like I said, I’m just a poor colored lad. As far as being proven “wrong,” you are more than welcome to. You still have yet to define how intelligence equates to social structure, and I anxiously await your interpretation of it.

You’ve certainly shown your rock-solid positions and debating skills in the “12 indisputable facts” thread, and again your handiness with presenting an arguable case here, largely by shedding fake tears and victimizing yourself. Don’t you have more links to copy and paste from other people’s articles, or are you done for now?

I believe, based on research, that genes affect human behavior.

I was being flippant. Are you Hindu? You seem to have a Hindu personality.

I don’t understand you. What do you mean, “full of myself?” Are you saying I am a self-eating cannibal?

Cool. And I’ll go invite some very smart eugenicists as well, much smarter than I, to come participate in this thread.

Intelligence and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations

University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland

University of Helsinki, Finland

National IQ averages affect societal advancement.

I’m sorry I had to be so tough, but I always kick butt when need be.

I did not cry.

What do you mean?

Yes, I got TONS more:

Did anyone else find this amusing?

I don’t have any time for a detailed post right now… but aren’t Science Girl’s positions exactly what the SD has been about “since 1973”? I don’t think we should just dismiss what she says and wait for her to move on. I know there’s about a 1 billionth percent chance that we’ll bring her over from the Dark Side, but isn’t that chance what this community is supposed to be about?

Just my $0.02. Hopefully I can make it back later to give some of her points an actual answer…