All Episodes
March 22, 2021 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
11:11
Let’s Break a Taboo, Part 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, I'm Jared Taylor with American Renaissance.
My last video explained that eugenics simply means encouraging human genetic combinations that avoid bad traits and promote good traits.
The word was coined by the great British scientist Francis Galton, and eugenics was at its height during the first half of the 20th century.
Some famous supporters were Winston Churchill, Linus Pauling, John Maynard Keynes, Teddy Roosevelt, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Arthur Balfour, Luther Burbank, Alexander Graham Bell, Woodrow Wilson, the names go on and on.
By 1925, over 100 colleges offered courses in eugenics and most Ivy League universities provided massive funding for eugenics studies.
High school textbooks said eugenics was necessary to protect American society.
Scientists and women They promoted eugenics because they thought improving the nation's population would help the poor and reduce inequality.
H.G. Wells supported eugenics for that reason, and so did Bertrand Russell and Beatrice and Sidney Webb.
The Webbs founded Fabian Socialism.
Harold DeLasky, who later headed the British Labour Party, he was also a strong supporter.
Opposition to eugenics came from Catholics and from other conservatives who thought that decisions about mating should be left entirely up to individuals.
In the United States, it was common to give free lectures on eugenics, and eugenics societies held"fitter families" competitions, in which families were judged by experts on their desirable qualities.
Here's a family of three generations of winners with their trophies.
Encouraging people with good qualities to have children was not very controversial.
Sterilization to prevent reproduction was.
In 1907, Indiana was the first state to pass such a law, which was intended, and I quote, to prevent the procreation of confirmed criminals, idiots, imbeciles, and rapists.
By 1931, 30 states had eugenic sterilization laws.
Most people now associate eugenics with Nazis and the Holocaust, but Germany passed its own sterilization law relatively late, in 1933.
Many other European countries already had such laws, and as a percentage of the population, the Swedes sterilized twice as many people as the Germans did.
The policy against Jews was not a eugenics policy.
Nazis considered Jews an enemy people, not genetically inferior.
The Nazis also had a notorious euthanasia program under which 80,000 severely retarded and incurably insane people were killed to free up hospital beds.
But that wasn't part of the eugenics program either.
After the war, eugenics became so associated with Nazism That it drove people to take crazy positions.
Geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky of Columbia, he said there's no such thing as a bad gene.
J.D. Smith of the University of South Carolina wrote that we need to protect the genes from mental retardation because, quote, it is a human condition worthy of being valued.
Fortunately, few people are that nutty anymore.
But Americans are still very skittish about applying genetic principles to people.
Asians are much more realistic.
Japan didn't repeal its sterilization law until 1996.
The Chinese will not let you marry if you have any of a whole list of conditions.
In Singapore, the government gave tax incentives to better educated women to have more children.
The idea was that smart women marry smart men, and they have smart children.
The percentage of Singapore births that were to college-educated women rose from 37 to 48 percent.
Meanwhile, in the United States, trends are in the opposite direction.
Lower IQ people are having more children than higher IQ people.
If you test American children for IQ and then ask how many brothers and sisters they have, you get a clear correlation.
The higher the IQ, the fewer the siblings.
There is a negative correlation of.18 between child IQ and family size.
Who has probably studied this question more thoroughly than anyone else alive, concludes that this means the genetic basis for intelligence for white Americans is dropping at a rate of about one IQ point every generation.
For blacks, it's worse.
Black women are about twice as likely as black men to get a bachelor's degree and even more likely to get a master's degree.
Many educated black women never end up marrying.
While blacks on welfare have many children.
Professor Lin estimates that the genetic basis for intelligence for blacks is declining by about two IQ points per generation.
Professor Lin also notes that more than half of the single women on welfare in the United States are in the bottom 20% of the IQ range.
They are likely to be passing on other undesirable traits along with low intelligence.
Well, what can be done about this?
First, many people think that any woman on welfare should not bring more children into the world for the rest of us to feed, house, clothe, and try to educate.
Would it be wrong to require that women have implantable contraceptives for as long as they're on welfare?
Nobel Prize winner William Shockley had a different idea.
Offer people $1,000 for every IQ point below the average of 100 in exchange for voluntary sterilization.
A person with an IQ of 90, that's 10 points below the average, would get $10,000.
Now, some people would object that low IQ people aren't competent to make decisions like that.
But I don't hear them saying low IQ people aren't competent enough to vote, say.
If they can't make decisions, should they have children?
Well, what about promoting desirable traits?
Psychologist Raymond Cattell suggested that the government should seek out the most intelligent children in the country and pay their parents to have more children.
David Lichen of the University of Minnesota suggests that only people who are screened and licensed should have children.
Sociologist Hugh LaFollette points out that couples have to meet strict standards to adopt a child.
Why should it be any different for making a child?
In a healthy society, it would also be possible to promote the idea that smart, capable people should have many children and others should have fewer.
Well, as usual, in practical terms, the Asians are way ahead of us.
The Beijing Genomics Institute is the largest genetic research facility in China, probably in the whole world.
BGI is hunting very hard for the genes that influence intelligence and other traits.
And when they find them, they will do what's called embryo screening.
This is how it works.
You take, say, 100 eggs from a woman and fertilize them in vitro with sperm from her husband.
You screen the embryos and implant the one that is the most promising.
In intelligence alone, you would have a 30-point spread above and below the average child that that couple would have had.
So you could choose an embryo that was 15 points higher in IQ.
You would have a similar range of other traits, and it's only a matter of time before this technology is perfected.
Squeamish governments will certainly ban embryo screening for this purpose, but facilities for it will pop up on the Cayman Islands or maybe the Bahamas.
This means rich people will go to those places for designer babies and poor people won't have the choice.
What may turn out to be an even simpler procedure is CRISPR gene editing.
This involves making direct changes to the genome.
By removing undesirable genes and adding better ones.
In the West, scientists want to ban this technique for humans, not the Chinese.
They have a plan.
First, eliminate mental retardation, mental illness, and all genetic diseases.
Second, promote intelligence, diligence, and other favorable traits.
Any country that uses modern techniques on a large scale And China is determined to be the first, will shoot to the top in every field.
Francis Galton, who coined the term eugenics, saw this coming 100 years ago.
The nation which first subjects itself to rational eugenical disciplines, he said, is bound to inherit the earth.
One reason we refuse to take genetics seriously is that it would mean we could no longer pretend that all groups are equal, that blacks are genetically no different from whites or Asians.
Our refusal to accept genetic differences between races makes it hard to understand population genetics at all.
Asians don't have that problem, so they can think clearly about the long-term genetic future of their people.
So we have a choice.
Are we going to take modern science seriously?
Or are we going to keep pretending that preschool programs can turn every ghetto child into a nuclear physicist?
Do you or don't you care if our population continues to decline while other countries take a different course?
If you don't care, I have some advice.
Make sure your grandchildren learn Chinese.
Export Selection