The Coming Chinese Superstate:
Written by Paul Fromm
Tuesday, 12 April 2011 03:45
*The Coming Chinese Superstate:
Richard Lynn’s Eugenics*

Posted By *Richard Hoste* On April 7, 2011 @ 12:00 am In *North American New
Right* | *Comments

[1]2,481 words

Richard Lynn
*Eugenics: A Reassessment<>
Westport, Conn.: Praeger Publishers 2001

One of the only valid points made by the critics of *Bell
[3]* was that if the science was accepted, then eugenics, which Hernstein
and Murray refused to endorse, becomes the rational solution to society’s
ills. Steven Pinker, the next major public thinker associated with the
hereditarian position, likewise refused to follow his own logic far enough.
One scholar who doesn’t flinch is psychologist Richard Lynn. Eugenics is not
only right, but we have a duty to increase the frequency of genes for
positive traits and reduce the frequency of genes for negative traits. Once
you determine that something is a genetic problem it cries out for a genetic
solution. *Eugenics: A Reassessment* looks at the history of eugenics, the
ethical case for it and its future. Here Lynn goes beyond his role as a
psychologist and gives us his own theory of the coming end of history.

*The Rise and Fall of Eugenics*

Eugenic ideas existed long before the publications of Darwin’s *On the
Origin of Species* and *The Descent of Man*. In *The Republic*, Plato
pictured a society where rulers, soldiers, and workers would be bred on the
same principles of the breeding of plants and livestock, about which much
must have been known in 380 B.C. Still, it was the discovery of evolution
that was the catalyst of these ideas taking off in the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries. Biologist, statistician, and psychologist Sir
Francis Galton was the main prophet of eugenics. He spent his life forming
organizations, writing, and spreading the word about humanity’s potential
for improvement. He carried out the first studies that showed nature to be
more important than nurture in determining intelligence and character.

By the early 1900s eugenics was endorsed by practically all biologists and
geneticists, politicians such as Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, Woodrow
Wilson, and Winston Churchill, and thinkers across the political spectrum,
including Bertrand Russell, H. L. Mencken, and George Bernard Shaw. Lynn
makes the distinction between positive eugenics, encouragement given to
society’s best to produce children, and negative eugenics, trying to set
limits on the breeding of the inferior. It was the latter that was easier to
legislate on.

The first American sterilization law was passed in Indiana in 1907 “to
prevent the procreation of confirmed criminals, idiots, imbeciles, and
rapists.” By 1913 similar acts had been passed in 12 states and a further 19
had laws on the books by 1931. The constitutionality of these laws was
challenged in court and in 1927 *Buck v. Bell* went to the supreme court.
The case centered around a mentally retarded woman who was born to a
mentally retarded mother and gave birth to yet another retard. Her hospital
applied to have her sterilized, and Christian groups protested. The court
ruled 8-1 in favor of sterilization. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the
following in the famous decision.

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best
citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon
those who already sap the strength of the state for these lesser sacrifices
. . . in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better
for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute the degenerate offspring
of crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent
those who are manifestly unfit for continuing their kind. The principle that
sustains compulsory vaccinations is broad enough to cover cutting the
Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

Unfortunately, over the twentieth century only about 60,000 American
sterilizations would take place, which amounted to less than 0.1 percent of
mentally retarded and psychopathic people. Sweden did a little better,
sterilizing the same amount, totaling one percent of the entire population.
In Japan, 16,520 women met the same fate until their law was repealed in
1996. In Denmark, a third of all retards over a ten year span.
Unsurprisingly, the all-time champions of sterilization were the Germans,
who sterilized 300,000 people after their sterilization law was passed in

As Lynn points out, it’s not all that unusual for a scientific theory to be
accepted and then rejected. What makes eugenics unique is that it’s a
rejected theory that turned out to be true. While the importance of heredity
in determining individual and group traits is well-established, by the end
of the twentieth century to call something eugenic was to condemn it. The
author blames horror at the crimes of Nazi Germany and the increasing value
given to individual over social rights. In recent years courts in the US and
Britain have said that parents can have retarded women in their care
sterilized, ruling against civil liberties organizations who’ve joined with
Christian groups in arguing that all people have a right to as many children
as they can produce. While these legal decisions aren’t made on eugenic
grounds, we should be thankful for the effect.

The arguments against eugenics don’t hold up. First is the claim that we
can’t decide what positive and negative traits are. It’s hard to argue with
Galton’s original three characteristics of intelligence, health, and
character (close enough to conscientiousness in modern psychology) being
desirable. Who would argue that disease could be preferable to health or
stupidity to genius? It’s a case of moral relativism taken to the extreme.

Lynn looks at other characteristics we may select for but doesn’t find any
beyond Galton’s original three. Society needs a wide range of people on the
continuum of extraverted/introverted and neurotic/relaxed in a way that it
doesn’t need a wide range of propensity to break the law or catch diseases.
He also says that beauty provides no social good, and people have different
definitions of it. Here is the only place I part ways with the author. Among
environmentalists (people who care about the environment, not
anti-hereditarians), beauty is seen as a legitimate reason to preserve
certain forests and trees that provide no economic good. It’s why we save
redwood trees but not swamps. As far as the lack of a universal standard,
Peter Frost demolishes that as a PC myth. Even if everyone didn’t agree that
blue eyes and white skin were the most beautiful, every race could select
based on their own standards.

The idea that eugenics wouldn’t work is also answered here. If we determined
that it wouldn’t be possible to select for certain traits in living
organisms, then not only eugenics but horticulture, animal domestication and
even evolution itself would all have to be rejected too. As a matter of
fact, heritability of running speed among horses has been found to be
between 15 and 35 percent heritable, lower than the lowest estimates for
intelligence or psychopathy among humans. Any trait that is passed on
genetically can be made more or less common or enhanced among a population.

*Classical Eugenics*

Lynn differentiates between classical eugenics and new eugenics, the use of
biotechnology. A section is given to each.

The only country to practice classical positive eugenics in the modern world
has been Singapore, under the leadership of Lee Kuan Yew. Higher earners
were given tax breaks for children and a government unit was set up to bring
college graduates together in social settings like dances and cruises to
encourage relationships and procreation. In three short years, the results
were impressive.

*Births in Singapore*

*Education Level of Mother* *1987* *1990* Number Percent Number
Percent Below
Secondary 26,719 61.3 26,718 52.3 Secondary and above 16,012 36.7 24,411

Between 1987 and 1990, births to college educated women went from 36.7
percent of all births to 47.7. Obviously, it’s not hopeless, and the problem
of dysgenics can be corrected if a government sets its mind to it. In Nazi
Germany, loans were given to couples determined to be of good genetic stock.
For each child they produced, 25 percent of the loan would be written off.
Whether such things can be done in a democracy, especially a multi-racial
one, is a different question.

The biggest victory for negative eugenics has been the liberalization of
abortion laws. Although justified as based on a “woman’s right to choose,”
those who have unintended pregnancies are usually of low intelligence and
those with anti-social tendencies. Thus, increasing the availability of
abortion is eugenic. Those who are concerned about good breeding should
support causes traditionally associated with the left like abortion on
demand and making birth control freely available.

*The Promise of Biotechnology*

The most exciting part of this book is the section on the new eugenics, and
how biotechnology may make all the questions raised here obsolete. Prenatal
diagnosis can now screen for some of the most common genetic diseases, and
the fetuses can be aborted. In the 1990s, this was estimated to reduce
incidences of genetic disorders at birth by 5 percent. As the technology
becomes better and more widely available we can expect the rate of genetic
disease to drop. It’s a matter of time before embryos can be screened for
other traits like beauty and intelligence.

Gene therapy is the attempt to help an individual by inserting genes for
positive traits. These genes are then passed on to offspring. In the 1980s,
this technology was used on mice to treat a heredity disease and by the
1990s was used to treat human disorders. Like prenatal screening, it’s only
a matter of time before this technology can be used for the selection of
whatever parents desire.

Embryo selection consists of taking a number of eggs from a woman,
fertilizing them with the sperm of a partner *in vitro*, testing each for
desirable traits and inserting the best embryo. The second, third, and
fourth best can be saved for possible future use and the rest discarded.
When Lynn’s book was written in 2001, it was possible to test for sex and
thousands of genetic diseases.

In the twenty-first century it will become possible to test embryos for the
presence of genes affecting numerous other characteristics, including
late-onset diseases and disorders; intelligence; special cognitive
abilities, such as mathematical, linguistic, and musical aptitudes;
personality traits; athletic abilities; height; body build; and physical
appearance. It will then be possible for couples to examine the genetic
printouts of a number of embryos and select for implantation the ones they
regard as having the most desirable genetic characteristics.

Before this happens some technical issues need to be addressed, such as
identifying the desirable genes. That’s going to happen over the next few
decades. Right now it’s possible to hormonally stimulate a woman to produce
around 25 embryos at one time. With this technology, even parents of poor
stock will be able to produce at least average children. Couples can be
expected to produce embryos within a range of 30 IQ points; 15 over the
parents‘ average to 15 below. With embryo selection the IQ of a population
will have the potential to be raised 15 points in a single generation.
Average intelligence can be expected to keep increasing until we hit our
limit and new mutations pop up, the way average speed among thoroughbreds
has been rising without the fastest times doing so in decades. In 2001, *in
vitro* fertilization cost between $40,000 and $200,000 in the US and $3,000
to $4,000 in Britain, due to lower health care costs in general. Today, it’s
a fraction of that. Like all technology, the quality can be expected to
improve and the price to drop.

Western governments may outlaw all these technologies, but they will be
legal somewhere, and as these options became cheaper and better known more
couples will travel to take advantage of them. The situation will be similar
to when abortion was only available in certain US states or European
countries, and women desiring to have one would simply take a bus.

Not everybody will be able to afford biotechnology, and some ethicists
reject it on those grounds. Of course, there are all kinds of things that
rich people can afford that the poor can’t; we don’t outlaw them all. Lynn
optimistically points out that no technology that can help humanity has ever
been successfully suppressed. The inherent quality gap between the
genetically engineered upper class and the ‘natural’ lower class will
continue to grow until the former decides to sterilize the latter or forces
them to use biotechnology themselves.

*Why China is the Future*

In 1994 China passed the Eugenic Law. All pregnant women were required to
undergo embryo screening and abort fetuses with genetic disorders. This was
a follow-up to the famous one-child policy introduced in 1979 that brought
the birth rate down to 1.9 per woman.

Attitudes of elites and those who work in the relevant fields are likely to
determine what technologies are accepted and how liberally they’ll be used.
A survey was conducted between 1994 and 1996 asking geneticists and
physicians around the world whether they agreed with the statement “An
important goal of genetic counseling is to reduce the number of deleterious
genes in the population.”
*Country* *Percentage of Geneticists and Physicians Agreeing with Eugenic
Goals* China 100 India 87 Turkey 73 Peru 71 Spain 67 Poland 66 Russia 58
Greece 58 Cuba 57 Mexico 52 Major



In addition to the negative attitudes of the elites towards anything
eugenic, other reasons we can expect these ideas not to win fast acceptance
in the West are the value placed on individual rights, democracy, and the
existence of low IQ minorities who would be disproportionately affected by
any measures aimed at improving the genetic quality of the population. While
many countries in the third world might feel positively about eugenic
measures, the attitudes in China are the most favorable and when that is
combined with the advantages of an authoritarian government, a lack of
dysgenic immigration, and a high IQ starting point it’s not hard to believe
that the Chinese will continue to be the most enthusiastic and efficient
users of biotechnology.

So how will this nation of a billion people treat the rest of the world
after it’s raised its IQ to 150+? Lynn might be too optimistic here. He
believes the Chinese will colonize the world and try to improve the IQs and
living standards of their subjects. The Europeans will be kept around for
their biological uniqueness and admired for their cultural accomplishments,
the way that the Romans subjugated the Greeks but appreciated their
philosophy and art. If the Chinese decide that the Europeans should be
preserved they’d be doing more for them than whites are currently doing for
themselves. A global eugenic superstate led by by the Chinese will be the
“end of history.”

Lynn’s forecasts the next 100 years with a stone-cold detachment. The first
government to utilize the power of biotechnology will take over the world.
Thanks to third world immigration and egalitarianism, the decline of the
West seems inevitable and eugenic policies unlikely. The future of humanity
being in the hands of the dictators in Beijing may not be the most
comforting idea in the world, but at least the reader of Eugenics may be
convinced that intelligence and civilization will continue somewhere.

For a review of Richard Lynn’s *Dysgenics *see

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: **

URL to article: *

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: *

[2] Eugenics: A Reassessment: *

[3] Bell Curve: *

[4] here: **
Paul Fromm to Challenge Jason Kenney in Calgary Southeast – “Immigration IS the Issue
Written by Paul Fromm
Tuesday, 12 April 2011 03:43
*Paul Fromm to Challenge Jason Kenney in Calgary Southeast – “Immigration IS
the Issue”*
*Elect Paul Fromm in Calgary Southeast*

April 10, 2011

*Paul Fromm to Challenge Jason Kenney in Calgary Southeast – “Immigration IS
the Issue”*

* *

*For Immediate Release*

“Immigration is the issue,” says Western Block Party candidate Paul Fromm,
“and the incumbent Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has done a lousy job.”

Fromm, 62, filed his nomination papers Friday and is challenging Mr. Kenney
in Calgary Southeast, The publisher of the *Canadian Immigration Hotline*,
Mr. Fromm is one of Canada’s best known immigration critics and lectures
extensively across Canada, the U.S. and abroad.

“Poorly screened immigration is a huge drain on our economy costing us over
$2-billion a year,” Mr. Fromm charges. “We’re coming out of the worst
recession since the 1930s, and still the government imports over 260,000
people a year. We have official unemployment of 7.7 per cent. Any
immigration at all, at this time, is immoral,” says Fromm, “and a slap at
the unemployed.”

“We need a moratorium – a freeze – on immigration until we get Albertans,
indeed all Canadians, back to work,” he urges.

Mr. Fromm also notes the more than 150,000 temporary immigration work visas
issued yearly. “This is bad for Albertans and the thousands of our own
unemployed tradesmen,” says Mr.. Fromm.

The present government has bought into a policy of mindless growth and
massive immigration is part of this programme, Mr. Fromm charges. The bad
effects can be seen in rush hour traffic gridlock in Toronto, Vsancouver and
Calgary, he adds. “The average commute in Calgary is 67 minutes and getting
worse. It’s wearing on our nerves and affecting our economy,” says Mr.
Fromm. Calgary received a D ranking from the Board of Trade for its
commuting gridlock.

“What’s the government’s answer? “ – More immigration!

Mr. Fromm wants to challenge Jason Kenney and the government’s record on

“We desperately need a public debate on immigration. Who comes to this
country will shape our future. It’s time we had a say,” Mr. Fromm adds.

“The Western Block Party is strongly committed to citizen initiative
referendum,” he explains.

The retired English lecturer also works as an Internet radio broadcaster.


*Phone: 403-542-8426; E-mail [email protected]; *

*Facebook Paul Fromm for MP In Calgary Southeast*
Hear Paul Fromm on Voice of Reason Radio -- The Fighting Side of Me: An Exposé of Gr
Written by Paul Fromm
Sunday, 10 April 2011 03:16
Hear Paul Fromm on Voice of Reason Radio -- The Fighting Side of Me: An
Exposé of Greed

April 5, 2011 · Print This Article
[image: Jacob Zuma]

*Paul Fromm discusses:*

- *Canadian disgraced “public integrity commission” is forced to resign
her $230,000 plus annual job and receives $600,000 severance tied to gag
order; *
- *Nuns challenge Goldman Sachs to justify CEO Lloyd Blankfein’s
$4-million bonus as part of $14.1-milion pay package, despite poor returns.
“Bonus” for what, despite low pay for lower workers and massive layoff; *
- *Race really matters. ANC in uproar in spat between Negro racists and
“coloureds” (mixed race) within the party. *


13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 57 min.
Page 388 of 454
Powered by MMS Blog