Reproduction and The Nationalist Eugenic State

by Matt Nuenke

The minority creates, the majority procreates. The smart create the conditions that make possible the proliferation of the stupid -- who in turn destroy those conditions, leaving a nasty, stupid, ill-dressed mass of humanity no more comprehending of or prepared to sustain the conditions of its lives than gerbils in an aquarium. Devolution of art, manners, literacy, race, etc., follows as the night the day. Freedom and discipline, the preconditions of cultural flowering, give way to the licentiousness and grossness that form the natural atmosphere of the newly dominant professional-wrestling crowd. This is the paradox we face in the West, where it seems a Gresham's Law of demographics points inevitably to menticidal, multicultural morass as our tomorrow. It's the eugenic equivalent of the poet's plaint that 'the best lack all conviction' while the idiots are filled with furious intensity. Can this future be avoided? It is possible, but it will take a great deal of will and careful thought.

The essential problem is how to bring about a racially homogeneous society in which the superior are encouraged to breed and the inferior to refrain. Garrett Hardin's brilliant essay The Tragedy of the Commons taught us that if humans acted in concert they could move mountains. The problem is, we are not ants who behave as identical automatons. We evolved as small bands or tribes with certain social obligations mandatory to ensure survival. Much of that social control is lost today in larger social units. We feel more shame at littering than giving up children for the good life of hot cars, hot tubs, and hot women because nothing or very little in our society encourages us to think of ourselves as part of a greater whole. Rather, our potty little selves and their incessant, idiotic demands are the measure of all things. Can this be changed? Well, the pendulum of social morality and control moves slowly, and it can only change direction through a vigorous enforcement of laws and repeated indoctrination from a central authority. In a society of atomized individuals encouraged to consumerism by the most powerful amplifier the world has ever seen, there are few forces encouraging the durable virtues that produce happy, healthy and large families. Today everybody except a few diehards and fundamentalist religions pushes "do your own thing," "self-expression," "rebelliousness" and "crossing the lines" as the only way to live, or at least the only cool way to live. These vaunted virtues come at the expense of family, community, nation and ultimately race -- costs that are none too apparent at the dawn of the New Morality.

We face a paradox: On one hand everybody wants to control global population levels, which are rapidly climbing toward 10 billion, primarily due to colored fecundity. On the other hand, the men and women who make up the nations of the civilized world -- the White West -- are scarcely bothering to reproduce at all. From Russia to England, including France, Italy and Germany, the birth rate per woman is closer to 1 than 2. And anything under 2.1 means overall population will drop. Although this may not sound like that big a deal, in practice it means precipitous decline, with each succeeding generation scarecely 60% as big as the previous. It means, believe it or not, that White Western Europe will die off entirely within a couple hundred years unless something changes. But for now, the simple fact is that outside of Utah and Ireland, White people don't breed.

Of course, the global elite have a solution: massive immigration from the Third World. Millions and millions of dusky folk streaming northward from the dank holes of Africa and the dusty sandpits of Araby to replace the White babies that were never born. Call this the Camp of the Saints solution, after the novel by Jean Raspail predicting just such a demographic onslaught (and the White man's moral inability to resist). Yet this is a "solution" that's worse than the problem. The White race, after all, is worth preserving exactly for that reason: Whites can't be swapped out for darklings without losing something -- the very thing that needs to be preserved in the first place. Hard to define, but let's call it whatever separates Detroit from a civilized city. The difference between, to take another example, Britain and Botswana or Bangladesh lies in the genes of the people, no matter how many Jews like David Horowitz lie that it is the result of bad culture alone. Whites everywhere instinctively recognize this and move away from the colored invaders, whether they are invading Southern France or Southern California. They vote racist and pro-White with their feet and their dollars and their children's futures. When pollsters call them on the phone they give the Semitically Correct answers about race -- the ones the media has trained us all to parrot: 'Diversity is our greatest strength' and similar lies. But in our heart and in the soles of our feet, we know better. Black influx, Mexican invasion -- these spell doom for civilization. These folks are not our equals, and they have no business among us. The problem is that the average White, European or American, is stuck between the rock of Jewish political interests and the hard place of global free trade. Yes, this unholy tag team has got him trapped in the corner and is pounding him to death, and won't stop until it has beaten him into a raceless mulatto slave willing to work for the global hourly wage of, say, $5 a day.

Barring some sort of cultural reinvigoration, some renewed faith in White meaning and White promise and White future, such a "solution" is all but inevitable. It will be a real "final solution" to the White question -- the destruction of the White homeland, the White continent, Europe, along with the new White continent, America. An ironic mirror of the "final solution" Jews claim Hitler tried to carry out on their race. More people than you would believe intend and would applaud this result -- just as many people applauded Hitler's efforts to rid Germany and civilized Europe of the influence of the Jew. One of them was following the right policy, to be sure. Use your mind and the evidence here presented to decide which one...

At the same time as this consternation over getting European populations to grow, there is great uproar over the need to reduce overall global population growth as it climbs toward ten billion, primarily due to Third-World fecundity. So how can a rational policy call both for higher birth rates in modern states and reduced birth rates in backward states? There are several competing forces driving these apparent contradictions from the globalist perspective. But from a nationalist perspective these conflicts do not exist, because the nationalist perspective does not concern itself with foreign sovereign nations, and can promote higher reproduction rates at home to get the upper hand in conflicts with neighboring states and/or to support its growing ranks of elderly, which might otherwise impose a heavy burden on state resources. But even subtler forces are at work: nations are not made up of ideologically uniform individual components, even in states that are racially homogenous. There is an in-built incentive, in fact, for elites to separate off from the commoners, both physically and mentally -- and eventually racially, if they remain an elite for a long enough time.

The problem of the elite

Nationalists are quick to recognize within their midst alien races who are competitors or parasites, but they often fail to understand their own race-traitors at the very top. That is, there is an evolutionary principle that any nation's elite will turn their backs on the people they represent. They in essence bail out of the common good when they reach a certain level of power. They make separate alliances with other nations, other races, and become driven by other interests than their nation's. This subject has been discussed at length by Kevin MacDonald in his book A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, (1994). It was also briefly discussed in Indoctrinability, Ideology and Warfare: Evolutionary Perspectives, (1998), (Part V: Group Processes).

We must come to grips with this human dilemma: the very people who lead us are not acting in the best interests of the people they represent. When industrialists, politicians, editorialists, movie stars, and musicians reach a certain level of success, they begin to move in circles that are unique to the elite, much in the way the royalty of Europe move in the same circles and have more in common with each other than with the commoners of their respective countries. They become jet-setters and globalists. They turn their backs on their own tribe and seek success at the expense of the nation they supposedly represent. Thus we see industrialists and their political puppets in America and Europe calling for increased colored immigration to depress labor costs: i.e., benefiting the few at the expense of the many in the name of that or the other universalist conceit (e.g., "We are all citizens of the world," or the "global free market"). These elites have no problem with selling out their national unity for increased wealth and success because they do not see themselves as part of the nation they are trying to manipulate for their own interests. Rather, they see themselves as citizens of the world, or loyal to some exalted abstraction rather than heirs and links of the flesh-and-blood communities from which they sprang. After all, they can afford to live in gated communities and hire bodyguards to ensure their safety, no matter how many criminal aliens their policies let into the country. They are, for now at least, beyond the range of the consequences of their actions, which is always the key ingredient in allowing people to maintain illusions.

At the other extreme are the universal altruists; the egalitarians who might be called True Believers in multiracialism and diversity, the trendy dogmas promoted by Christian churches, the government and the media alike. They encourage immigration in lieu of a higher native growth rate because in their minds seeing a people as genetically or culturally unique is anathema. Moreover, they see a compelling need to help people in other overcrowded nations seek a better life, regardless of the effects on the host. They aren't forthright enough to admit that their charges destroy the countries they emigrate to. Instead they pretend these Third World coloreds are enriching the White countries as bearers of the magical gift of diversity. In other words, the emperor is still parading around naked, and it's still against the law to notice.

Though I do not forgive this maladaptive altruism, I can almost understand it. Humans are easily manipulated, and the elites and natural enemies of the nation's primary culture have an easy time propagandizing the masses to accept the lie of cultural determinism, namely, that racial and cultural differences between influxing aliens and Whites are not real (hence can be changed by altering institutions or reforming education) or that it is morally and intellectually indefensible to prefer one's own people's beliefs and practices to those of another. The powers-that-be have been able to persuade the masses that diversity is beneficial, without any proof or substantiation whatsoever, merely by repetition and conditioning through media/education/government amplifiers -- coupled with prison sentences for those who actively resist ("hate" crimes) and social sanctions for those who speak out.

This official ideology of Cultural Indifferentism certainly isn't held by the Jews (to take the most representative subset of the elite we are discussing), who firmly believe in their own genetic and cultural superiority, and are by no means disposed to abandon it in the name of a vague universalist abstraction. Its value to them isn't as a moral guide, the way they present it to Whites; no, for them it is functional, instrumental. To them the "Diversity" isn't the only Morally Acceptable belief system, it is a tool for cracking the hegemony of Civilized White America. It enables the Jews, as a class, to dominate other classes in society. It is the triumph of quick-talking Groucho Marxes over the ponderous, self-important White dolts they mock/think circles around. It has served them well. It continues to serve them well. They advance their particularist interests in universalist guise -- and most White saps aren't even aware they're being taken for a ride. They just dumbly perceive -- after watching a few thousand hours of TV each year -- what they are and aren't allowed to say.

The recent election brought this maladaptive altruism home on a personal level. My wife's relatives are Chicago Irish, and continue to vote Democratic even though it goes against their self-interest. They will not change their vote even though they despise affirmative action, set asides, high taxes, and a corrupt political machine that routinely sells out the Irish for elite interests. No, thanks to indoctrination and blind obedience to both culture and the Roman Catholic Church, they will vote as they are told.

* * *

Is there an economic imperative to maintain an expanding population? No, there is not. There are many alternatives. I will outline below methods for increasing the level of reproduction, but first I want to debunk the common arguments for an ever-increasing population density.

We often hear the claims that rapidly expanding population/open immigration is required for either cheap labor or to fill a shortage (of specialists or technical workers, say). Both arguments are specious. Automation can be substituted for labor. An example: Last night, I went to McDonald's to get hamburgers for my dogs and a couple fish fillets for myself. And the workers screwed up my order, shorting me four burgers. All Hispanic, they were unable to meet the simple request for ten hamburgers and two fish. And this is typical (and I should know by now I have to check every order before leaving, or better yet stop patronizing such establishments. Eating out only encourages immigration). Without this cheap labor, the nation would adjust easily enough to use the labor we have, do things differently, and in the end be better off with a more technically advanced society that did not rely on cheap labor, nor suffer its unhappy side-effects -- the infamous 'negative externalities' (think graffitti, gang wars, bastardy) beloved of economists. Remember, every one of those low-paid Hispanics is going to have several children, and every one of those children is going to cost taxpayers between eight and twelve thousand dollars a year to educate. It is a net loss to society, but a net gain for McDonald's and other users of cheap labor.

At the high end, the same argument is offered: not enough technically skilled natives to meet employer demand. In Germany and the United States, the computer industry and government both claim foreign workers are essential to fill open slots. But look at the contradictions. Germany has some of the best educated workers in the world. It also has a high unemployment rate (as does much of Europe). Yet somehow the cultural-determinists reverse themselves and claim demand can't be fitted to supply. No, retraining/reeducation/institutional reform suddenly isn't the answer here like it is everywhere else; no, the only solution is to import the needed technical skills from the Third World. So the genetic capital of Asian nations is appropriated to keep the corporations ripe with cheap high-skilled labor. Thus are the political goals (discoloring a White country) and the economic goals (lower-cost labor) served by the policy of imported labor -- side effects and national interests and cultural integrity be damned. Because those are quaint and outmoded notions in a global economy.

Rather than bring immigrants into a country, the industries could just as easily go to the countries that have the labor that is needed. That is, rather than destroy a nation's racial harmony, move some industries to other countries. There could also be small pockets of highly industrialized regions of a nation where immigration could be open without destroying the entire country. The United States could easily set aside some small regions of Texas for example where Mexicans could enter to work in American factories without the benefits of citizenship, and move back and forth as desired. I realize it would be difficult for me to have my lawn shipped to these regions for mowing, but even this problem can be solved. There is some promising work being done in grass-inhibitors that allow lawns to grow up to a point and then stop, obviating the need for regular mows. Also note that Japan has not submitted to importing workers, but has been very successful in exporting its industries instead, thus serving as a standing counter-example, to the irritation of many Marxists in the West who see immigration as the solution to any nationalist resurgence. Japan's anti-immigrant stance shows that immigration isn't Inevitable, as the Jewish media usually portray it; American immigration shows that it isn't Good -- the other dishonest claim always advanced in its favor...

A stable population or at least a very gradually expanding population is desirable for a number of reasons: less crowding, less suburban sprawl, lower costs for building new homes. Housing would be much more affordable, neighborhoods more stable, and more money could be directed to better the common good and the eugenic quality of the state rather than cleaning up after our discolored neighbors.

The ONLY valid argument I can see for a rapidly expanding population is that a large work force is needed to support the old. As people live longer, more and more working people are needed to provide for these retirees. But this also is invalid, because at some point the world population will have to stabilize. And again, there are many ways to solve this supposed dilemma. The first is stop wasting money and resources on the non-productive underclass and immigrants. Another is to have healthy older workers delay retirement. If we live longer, why shouldn't we work a few more years to help out rather than expecting a handout? And, why not make sure that every person who retires has invested adequately and must live on his own money rather than take from others? Social Security as it stands is just another welfare program for the aged. They put in far less than they take out when adjusted for inflation. And finally, limit end-of-life expenses. Over 90% of all medical costs come at the very end of a person's life, usually a life not worth living at some point because of disease. Cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and many other diseases cost incredible amounts of money for the last few months or years of some people's lives when there really is no life at all to enjoy. I am not calling for forced euthanasia, but if each person has set aside resources in combination with family support, then it is a rational choice to be made by each family to what lengths the old will be kept alive beyond any hope of enjoyment or recovery. The state merely needs to recuse itself from this social responsibility to make it work. That is, reject the welfare state for the resource-rich state that is needed to improve the genetic capital of its people to compete with other nations.

What we have learned about reproduction from evolution

Having debunked the need for anything but a gradually increasing population, we can now turn to the question of how a homogeneous nation can insure enough quality children are bred to insure stability. Here we have learned a lot from recent evolutionary research into why people have children. We should begin by noting our evolutionary desires and goals have been subverted with the introduction of birth control, abortion, etc. Yet even before birth control became readily accessible, our ancestors practiced infanticide to limit reproduction. It seems that humans have the ability to opt for quantity versus quality when it comes to reproduction, and that eschewing children entirely is also an option. There is good evidence that sexual desires alone are sufficient to explain the presence of many if not most children. That is, it is less the case that people are innately overwhelmed with desire to reproduce than simply overwhelmed with desire. Sex tends to produce children, but even at that high cost, men are willing to pay it. That is, far more children were born because men wanted to have sex than because they wanted children. So what do we do now, given that having children is not as strong a desire in humans as we might have thought?

Two recent books shed light on this subject: Adaptation and Human Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective (multiple authors) and Mother Nature: A History of Mothers, Infants, and Natural Selection by Sarah Hrdy. Both are are excellent resources (though the first is highly biased towards egalitarianism). And their message is clear. The interplay of economic resources, reproductive strategies and the middle-class bias in favor of quality over quantity, etc., makes it highly unlikely that the state is going to be able to increase the number of children by the middle and upper classes through simple sloganeering and special pleading. Only very tasty carrots or very sharp sticks will change this engrained behavior.

For example, there is evidence that people will respond to economic incentives to have more children. But in the past these enticements have been too few and too little to have any large-scale impact. But it seems only fair that if the state wants individuals to make the sacrifices necessary to have more children, then the state must provide appropriate rewards (or punishments). In this way people still have the freedom to do what is best for them without excessive coercion.

Reproductive incentives in the nationalist-eugenic state I will not try to come up with every available incentive but will instead put forth just a few that I think are viable, leaving alternative measures to the imagination of others. But it seems that at the minimum, we must look at the cost of children in relation to the cost to society. If resources could be diverted directly into the pockets of genetically superior parents who were willing to have [more] children, then the evidence has shown they will respond, on average. That is, not everyone will be willing to change his reproductive goals but enough people will participate to make up the reproductive deficit. And I would argue that population stability and quality are as necessary as providing a national defense, indeed integral to the provision of such a defense.

So here is my simple proposal. We now have good evidence that knowledge and skills are more a matter of innate intelligence in children than has been admitted to by the academics. Research has shown children are genetically programmed to learn, and that it does little good to try to forcibly enrich their environments beyond the essentials necessary for development. Programs like "Head Start" add little to a child's eventual worth to society because promoters are merely trying to close the genetic gap between Whites and Blacks in the basic skills. So why do we put so much money into programs that are economic failures? Essentially because society is unwilling to admit that our schools fail because we are trying to educate children who are genetically ineducable. There is NO evidence that an enhanced environment can make genetically dumb kids average, let alone smart. All these programs do is soak up money from the Whites who earned it and might put it to better use (say, raising their higher-IQ children) and create a selfish and self-interested bureaucracy bent on further impoverishing the rest of us to perpetuate itself and its anti-factual ideology.

So here are the numbers: Each child will cost roughly $10,000 a year to educate. And the less fit, the handicapped, and the dysfunctional will cost even more. So what do we get for this money? Very little. The Montessori schools are very undisciplined and unstructured, and they produce some of the smartest and most creative adults (Noam Chomsky comes to mind). I propose that instead of spending so much on educating children, we put them into environments where they can happily learn on their own. Computers, home schooling, neighborhood or small communal schools -- these methods can teach these bright students more easily and for far less money. But let me clarify what I mean by education. Not just the usual, but more parental involvement in exposing intelligent children in ways of creating, the arts, the skills of debate, critical thinking, etc. That is, after they have finished their basic training via a computer simulator, you do not let the children go watch television for the rest of the day. No, that is when parents and other children interact to expand their learning beyond the basics, as well as developing useful skills including the martial arts, I am afraid to say. Every child in a multiculturalist society -- by its nature full of conflicts, and many of these violent -- must be taught how to defend himself.

So here is the proposal: For every intelligent child a couple [or single mom] has, the state will grant them from $5,000 to $30,000 per year, depending on each child's IQ, to educate and take care of their children as they see fit. That is, if they can set up small communal schools and show that their children are learning, they can use the money however they wish. Some parents will continue to work while a few of the more nurturing moms and dads will stay behind to run the schools. But as these children are naturally bright, they will not require any elaborate educational program. And again, much of the boring rote learning can be turned over to computers, while adults enhance the children's inquisitiveness about subjects that often go unexplored in our schools (like the real meaning of race and nationhood).

At the other extreme, the state will still maintain [privatized] public schools to teach the below average children. As these children will never be able to repay the state for anything but a nominal education, the costs can be diverted to financing the proposal above. This seems to me to be the best balance between meeting both the state's goals and the financial and reproductive goals of families. And it has a natural free enterprise component of paying families whatever it takes to supply the necessary children for the future work force, while giving families the help they need for having a good life while taking on the burden of having children. And of course, numerous other benefits could be given to families with children including more holidays, vacation days, etc. But never to the point of disrupting the robustness of the economy. A nationalist state must never become socialistic, but must be economically viable first to achieve its goals of improving the genetic quality of its population.

Reproductive incentives in the nationalist-eugenic diaspora state

Well, back to earth. The pendulum has begun to swing back towards nationalism and eugenic concerns, but we have powerful forces to fight to achieve that end. The Marxists, Bolsheviks, egalitarians, cultural determinists, socialists, postmodernists, et al. have not let up even with the fall of communism. They are there, united in force to keep people from achieving their communitarian goals, even if it means global totalitarianism. Most of us may never see a viable nation-state again -- Israel being the tolerated exception -- thanks to international monetary and military pressures brought about by the neo-socialist Western nations. We have seen what has happened to countries like Austria and Germany when they have tried to buck the multiculturalist trend. Their freedoms are curtailed as they are quickly stomped into submission. National sovereignty is a meaningless concept in the West.

For that reason, we must start building our own eugenic nationalism within the existing states in which we reside. There really is nowhere to flee. But that is no reason to despair. The Jewish eugenic diaspora state has been very successful, and we can use parts of their program as a model. That is, we can learn from their proven record of breeding for higher intelligence, maintaining their allegiance to the tribe rather than to the nation that they live in, and their abhorrence of the other. That is, tolerance and compassion are never wasted outside of the tribe. Is it good for Whites? must become our mantra, just as Is it good for Jews? is theirs...

What this means then is that the diaspora eugenic state must dig in even deeper to allocate resources for success even when we are forced to transfer much of our wealth to other racial groups. That means becoming less materialistic, less demand for immediate gratification -- and resources allocated to the preservation and strengthening of our own people. It means developing a racialist ethos that rejects obscene materialism when the lucre ends up in the pockets of our enemies. It means spending less on clothes, restaurants, cosmetics, fast cars, and hot tubs. It means spending more money on real property and in the stock market. It means socializing in groups that enjoy political activism, knowledge, and the art of intellectual warfare more than an evening of social display to impress others. But foremost, it means coalescing into communities of like-minded people. And that seems to be the most difficult for many of us, because we are so few and spread so thin. But as we grow, communities will form and we will be able to find our people again. We will come home to the racially aware, and turn our backs on the race traitors we too often have had to call our kin because we had nowhere else to turn. That is when we will have begun to revive our dying race.

Back to VNN Main Page