Wolfgang Mozart

Hi again, I was wondering if anyone believes eugenics, if applied in a manner most would accept as humane and ethical, would be a good idea. A few years ago when searching the internet for why I personally was not really that bright and had to stuggle in school and in college right now, while my sibling was extremely intelligent and quickly and without difficulty earned a Bachelor's Degree in science, I came across the site of http://www.neoeugenics.com/ I read about IQ, psychometrics, personality types, eugenics/dysgenics, genetic engineering, cloning, and similar topics. I found out that IQ is mostly genetic and that this is why I personally was not as successful as many others. So, I ask myself, why not try to help future children by making sure they all get the best of genes available? I, from personal experience, knew what it felt like to have learning disorders and just an average IQ at best, and felt resentful at how smarter people took for granted their higher intellect without really appreciating it. The consensus among the smart is that it is good to have stupid people and that they deserve to be as such and that they are needed to clean the toilets and take out the garbage of the smart people, so thus it would not be in the best interest of smart people to support eugenics. The problem of course is that eugenics is often tied to stories of genocide and greatly inhumane acts. But, if we look at the history of religion, medicine, and the like, everything can be taken to extremes, but it does not have to be. Eugenics can be mild: we can encourage brighter people to have more children and the welfare class to have fewer children. Also, with the emerging genetic engineering technology and cloning, all parents can have bright children. As a non-White person, I of course don't support race-based eugenics, but rather one in which smart people, regardless of race, is valued, and less intelligent people, regardless of race, is something people would wish they could help to become more intelligent, if technology would allow. What are your thoughts? Regards, Wolfgang Mozart

I am all for cloning for organs. Regarding reproductive cloning, the usefulness I find in this is when replicating rare genetic patterns. For example, it is quite rare that an Isaac Newton or Wolfgang Mozart or Niels Bohr or Charles Darwin is born. These geniuses have very unique genetic codes and I would support cloning them to increase the amount of creative geniuses. ---------------------------------------------------- The Case FOR Cloning By Roger Pearson Institute for the Study of Man This paper originally appeared in The Mankind Quarterly , vol. 38, number 3, pp. 69-73 Scott-Townsend Publishers, Washington DC., Spring 1998 With advances in medical research it would now seem possible to apply cloning techniques to human beings, and C. Richard Seed of Chicago has announced his intention of proceeding with a pilot scheme to implant embryos containing the genes of donor adults into the wombs of surrogate mothers. Because human reproduction has in the past involved a constant intergenerational reassortment of genes, public opinion has been encouraged to react against voluntary reproduction by means of cloning on the grounds that this would produce exact replicas of living individuals. The vailidity of these objections is discussed in this article, and it is pointed out that such objections also constitute an affront against the dignity of identical twins. KEY WORDS: Cloning, bioethics, identical twins, birth control, positive eugenics, intelligence. Citing a "national consensus" that human cloning is "morally unacceptable," President Clinton has come out in support of a recommendation of the National Bioethics Commission (created in 1995) to effectively outlaw introduction of the new technique. But as we all know, consensus does not necessarily signify unanimity, and the reason the Bioethics Commission deemed such a law necessary is that many scientists are only too eager to begin work in the area. If they were not, there would be no need for legislation. If a country decides to restrict scientific activity in this area, there are in fact several legislative options: to ban all research into human cloning, to try to regulate future research, or third, to ban the actual production of human babies by cloning. Complete text at http://www.eugenics.net/papers/RPCLONE.htm

From my readings, there is no average sex differences in IQ. But, there are differences in some certain skills, for example, according to the American Psychological Association, men on average are better at visio-spatial abilities. I can't remember what women were better at, but I think it was the use of language and multi-tasking.

Hi, Instead of starting a bunch of threads, I'm going to post a small collection of articles I've recently read. Some of the articles I found interesting, and some I am skeptical about and need further information, such as the works of Professor Kevin MacDonald: ______________________________________________________________ Mainstream Science on Intelligence The Wall Street Journal December 13, 1994 Since the publication of "The Bell Curve," many commentators have offered opinions about human intelligence that misstate current scientific evidence. Some conclusions dismissed in the media as discredited are actually firmly supported. This statement outlines conclusions regarded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence, in particular, on the nature, origins, and practical consequences of individual and group differences in intelligence. Its aim is to promote more reasoned discussion of the vexing phenomenon that the research has revealed in recent decades. The following conclusions are fully described in the major textbooks, professional journals and encyclopedias in intelligence. Complete text at http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/bell-curve/support-bell-curve.html _______________________________________________________________ Intelligence and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations RICHARD LYNN University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland TATU VANHANEN University of Helsinki, Finland SUMMARY. National IQs assessed by the Progressive Matrices were calculated for 60 nations and examined in relation to per capita incomes in the late 1990s and to post World War Two rates of economic growth. It was found that national IQs are correlated at 0.757 with real GDP (Gross Domestic Product) per capita 1998 and 0.706 with per capita GNP (Gross National Product) 1998; and at 0.605 with the growth of per capita GDP 1950-90 and 0.643 with growth of per capita GNP 1976-98. The results are interpreted in terms of a causal model in which population IQs are the major determinant of the wealth and poverty of nations in the contemporary world. Complete text at http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/1.htm _______________________________________________________________ The General Intelligence Factor Despite some popular assertions, a single factor for intelligence, called g, can be measured with IQ tests and does predict success in life by Linda S. Gottfredson No subject in psychology has provoked more intense public controversy than the study of human intelligence. From its beginning, research on how and why people differ in overall mental ability has fallen prey to political and social agendas that obscure or distort even the most well-established scientific findings. Journalists, too, often present a view of intelligence research that is exactly the opposite of what most intelligence experts believe. For these and other reasons, public understanding of intelligence falls far short of public concern about it. The IQ experts discussing their work in the public arena can feel as though they have fallen down the rabbit hole into Alice's Wonderland. The debate over intelligence and intelligence testing focuses on the question of whether it is useful or meaningful to evaluate people according to a single major dimension of cognitive competence. Is there indeed a general mental ability we commonly call "intelligence," and is it important in the practical affairs of life? The answer, based on decades of intelligence research, is an unequivocal yes. No matter their form or content, tests of mental skills invariably point to the existence of a global factor that permeates all aspects of cognition. And this factor seems to have considerable influence on a person's practical quality of life. Intelligence as measured by IQ tests is the single most effective predictor known of individual performance at school and on the job. It also predicts many other aspects of well-being, including a person's chances of divorcing, dropping out of high school, being unemployed or having illegitimate children [see illustration]. Complete article at http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/1198gottfred.html ________________________________________________________________ Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations by Richard Lynn - Praeger, 1996 237pp., $59.95 1-800-225-5800 (for 20% off mention F238) reviewed by Marian Van Court [A somewhat abbreviated version of this review appeared in the Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies, Volume 23, Number 2, Summer 1998. MVC] Countless volumes have been written about the past evolution of the human species, yet hardly any attention has been paid to the crucial question, "Where are we evolving now?" Richard Lynn, of the University of Ulster in Northern Ireland, courageously addresses this question in his controversial book Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations. Professor Lynn presents compelling evidence that much of the world is deteriorating in its genetic potential for intelligence, health, and conscientiousness (or good character). The word for this is "dysgenics," the opposite of "eugenics." Complete text at http://www.eugenics.net/papers/lynnrev.html ________________________________________________________________ In Defense of Eugenics The high-stakes race for a better future. reviewed by Thomas Jackson Richard Lynn, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Ulster in Northern Ireland, is one of those rare social scientists who not only understand genetics but are willing to draw conclusions about how biology affects society. This volume builds upon his 1996 Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations (reviewed in AR, April, 1997), and lays out the clear choice science now sets before all developed nations: whether to let the genetic quality of their populations continue to deteriorate, or use a combination of old and new techniques to improve it. In Prof. Lynn’s view, this is a high-stakes game, in which those who refuse to play will be certain losers. This careful analysis unquestionably establishes the author as the foremost eugenicist of our time. Eugenics is an exhaustive treatment that includes a history of the movement, its objectives, its successes and failures, moral arguments for and against it, and a bold prediction of how eugenics will dictate the balance of world power in the 21st century. This book will offend many people, but they will find its relentless logic difficult to refute. The age of widespread population engineering is upon us, and to begin with Prof. Lynn’s concluding quotation from Francis Galton, “the nation which first subjects itself to rational eugenical disciplines is bound to inherit the earth.” You can read the full article at http://www.amren.com/0111issue/0111issue.htm#article1 _____________________________________________________________ Preface to the First Paperback Edition of The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements Originally published in 1998 by Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT © 2001 Kevin MacDonald Department of Psychology California State University-Long Beach Long Beach, CA 90840-0901 kmacd@csulb.edu November 2001 The Culture of Critique (hereafter, CofC) was originally published in 1998 by Praeger Publishers, an imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. The thesis of the book is a difficult one indeed, not only because it is difficult to establish, but also because it challenges many fundamental assumptions about our contemporary intellectual and political existence. CofC describes how Jewish intellectuals initiated and advanced a number of important intellectual and political movements during the 20th century. I argue that these movements are attempts to alter Western societies in a manner that would neutralize or end anti-Semitism and enhance the prospects for Jewish group continuity either in an overt or in a semi-cryptic manner. Several of these Jewish movements (e.g., the shift in immigration policy favoring non-European peoples) have attempted to weaken the power of their perceived competitors—the European peoples who early in the 20th century had assumed a dominant position not only in their traditional homelands in Europe, but also in the United States, Canada, and Australia. At a theoretical level, these movements are viewed as the outcome of conflicts of interest between Jews and non-Jews in the construction of culture and in various public policy issues. Ultimately, these movements are viewed as the expression of a group evolutionary strategy by Jews in their competition for social, political and cultural dominance with non-Jews. Complete text at http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/Preface.htm

A straight child with heterosexual thoughts who have homosexual parents as a guide and role-model? Lot's of psychological confusion conflict upon the child.

Recently I read “Race, Evolution and Behavior” by J. Philippe Rushton, 3rd Ed., see http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushton.html and http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/JP_Rushton/Race.htm In addition, I decided that there were some interesting ideas I would like to expose readers here to, as well as discuss. In chapter 10 of this book, he goes into what evolutionary biologists call life history theory. This theory is a way that biologists theorize what sort of adaptations different species, or sub-species as in races, make to adapt to various environmental stimuli. In his book, he details how the three major racial groups have various genotypic, phenotypic and behavioral differences. Some major examples would be brain size and IQ scores (with a correlation between the two as larger brains equals more neurons), gamete production (sperm cells and eggs), hormonal differences (testosterone production for example) and what I will mostly touch on here: reproductive strategies. Reproductive strategies can be classified into two major types: r and k strategies. Species which practice r-strategies usually emphasize gamete production, mating behavior, low parental care, and high reproductive rates. Species, which practice k-strategies, conversely emphasize high parental care, lower reproductive rates, resource acquisition and a higher degree of social complexity. The k-strategy requires a more complex nervous system as well as larger brains than the primarily r-strategist species do. In nature, we can see the difference between extreme cases of r and k strategist species. For example, an oyster can produce 500 million eggs a year, while the great apes can reproduce only one infant every 5 or 6 years. Thus, the oyster will have reproduced itself 2500 million times, by the time a great ape will have reproduced itself once. The oyster will not spend any time “parenting” over its offspring, while the great ape will put much time and energy into nurturing their offspring. While primates in general are the most k-strategist of all of the species, there still remain differences between them. For example, a lemur is more r-strategist than a gorilla. In fact, going across the primate spectrum, research has shown that primates become more k-strategist with increasing brain size, with a correlation of .98. While humans are primarily k-selected, again differences appear in sub-groups like races as they did within species. As the increased brain size in primates is indicative of k-strategist over r-strategist species, brain size in racial groups also shows a correlation between increased brain size and k-strategist reproductive strategies. Different means of measuring brain size have been used to gain the average brain size of the three main racial groups that anthropologists usually classify. The methods involve measuring the skull size and estimating brain size, volume displacement of skulls( I.e. filling up an empty skull with a substance and measuring the volume of the skull), autopsy measurements, and more recently, (and the most effective form) MRI. No matter what methods used, the results consistently come out as Mongoloids and Caucasoids both having larger brain sizes than Negroids, with Mongoloids having a slightly larger brain size than Caucasoids who in turn, have much larger brains than Negroids. The mean listed for all of the measurements, to give you an example of the differences of brain size are: Mongoloids 1,364 cm^3, Caucasoids 1,347 cm^3 and Negroids 1,267 cm^3. The phenotypic, genotypic and behavioral differences between the races are a result of adaptation to environmental stimuli. So what kind of environmental stimuli are responsible for the adaptation of r vs. k strategies and brain size, and what sort of relation are there between the two? Rushton and others postulate the Single Origin theory. This theory is that Caucasoid and Mongoloid peoples dispersed out of Africa about 100,000 years ago and migrated to the colder, northern environments, while the Negroid peoples remained in Africa in their warmer environment. About 41,000 years ago, there was a split between Mongoloid and Caucasoid peoples, with the Mongoloid peoples splitting migrating towards and even colder environment than the Caucasoid peoples. Another theory related to the Single Origin theory is one that I will call the bio-energy theory. The bio-energy theory is that each developing sub-species possess a similar amount of bio-energy that a sub-species will expend to act adapt to their environment. In colder, northern environments, Whites and Asians had to hunt for their food, provide shelter and put more mental energy into survival and social structure than in the sub-Saharan environments of Africa, where the warm weather and abundance of food required less mental energy to be put into survival, I.e. tool building, constructing shelter, farming, etc. Because of these environmental stimuli, Whites and Asians grew bigger brains to deal with this harsh northern environment. A word that evolutionary biologists used to describe this phenomenon is encephalization. Encephalization is an increase in brain size during the evolution of a species, with no concomitant increase in body-size. While Whites and Asians expended their respective bio-energy on encephalization as response to their environment, blacks on the other hand, adapted r-survival reproductive strategies and used their bio-energy on reproductive efforts. In his book, Rushton details how blacks have higher intercourse frequencies than Whites, who in turn have higher ones than Asians, have a higher developmental precocity (age of first intercourse, first pregnancy) and higher primary and secondary characteristics ( genital size, salient voice, muscularity, buttocks, etc.) than Whites and Asians. They also produce more hormones than Whites or Asians and have more permissive attitudes to pre-marital sex than Whites or Asians and have differing biological behavioral control than Whites or Asians (I.e. length of menstrual cycle, periodicity of sexual response, etc.) In fact, all of these behaviors show a correlation with both brain size and r vs. k selection, with Asians being more k selected than Whites who are more k selected than Blacks; with the abovementioned brain sizes: Asians> Whites> Blacks. Another interesting component of r vs. k reproductive strategies are some of the social system characteristics. R strategists tend to show low social organization and low altruism while k-strategists tend to favor higher social organization and higher altruism.

Take the quiz: http://www.transtopia.org/quiz.html I took the quiz and scored "perfect": "MEMETIC SHOCK LEVEL 04 (0-4): the pinnacle. Transtopian, or pretty close to it. Progressive and hardcore with very few taboos. Looks like we have a WINNER here (either that or a major CHEAT)!"

Well, the scientific method requires evidence, but what if the human brain is not intelligent enough to understand all evidence or to acquire all evidence? And what if there are some truths that are not predictable and thus invalid from the scientific point of view? Sorry if I don't make sense here.

What is Racism? by Thomas Jackson The following article was Originally Published in American Renaissance, Vol 2, No. 8, see http://www.amren.com/ What is Racism? Everyone talks about "racism" but no one ever defines it. AR's assistant editor has given it a try. by Thomas Jackson There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" in greater horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable texture of American life. "Racism" is never shrugged off. For example, when a white Georgetown Law School student reports that black students are less well qualified than white students, it sets off a booming, national controversy about "racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he would have attracted far less attention and criticism. Complete text at http://www.commonsenseclub.com/racism.html

The following is from http://www.amconmag.com/ March 24, 2003 issue Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative Whose War? A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest. by Patrick J. Buchanan The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been exposed and its motives challenged. In a rare moment in U.S. journalism, Tim Russert put this question directly to Richard Perle: “Can you assure American viewers ... that we’re in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?” Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our neoconservative friends are doing what comes naturally, seeking student deferments from political combat by claiming the status of a persecuted minority group. People who claim to be writing the foreign policy of the world superpower, one would think, would be a little more manly in the schoolyard of politics. Not so. Complete text at http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

The following is from http://www.vdare.com/ September 18, 2003 Thinking About Neoconservatism By Kevin MacDonald Over the last year, there’s been a torrent of articles on neoconservatism raising (usually implicitly) some vexing issues: Are neoconservatives different from other conservatives? Is neoconservatism a Jewish movement? Is it “anti-Semitic” to say so? The dispute between the neocons and more traditional conservatives — “paleoconservatives” — is especially important because the latter now find themselves on the outside, looking in on the conservative power structure. Complete text at http://www.vdare.com/misc/macdonald_neoconservatism.htm

Sure, why not. Of course, how does one tell for sure if a young kid is homosexual or not when they are at the pre-pubescent age?

Well, I'll try a philosophical approach to this: Does the Scientific Method uncover all truths, or is it just a method of uncovering some truths, truth being defined as that which can be validated using the Scientific Method? What if truths exist that are beyond the realm of the scientific method? Do we humans assume we understand everything and can say for sure that truth is only that which can be validated by the scientific method? How do we even know our world is real? If I may use Hollwood as an example, have you seen the movie "The Thirteenth Floor" in which a city was just a computer simulation and the citizens didn't know? It was created by a higher civilization, who was also secretly just another computer simulation created by another higher level civilization which may yet be just another computer simulation. The point is that I don't think we can ever know if anything we perceive is real, rather we can just use what we perceive as being practical and producing desired results, such as the scientific method, without really ever knowing for sure if the results represents truth or rather perceived truths, even if these perceived truths show predictability and repeatability. Regards, Wolfgang Mozart

Drake's Equation is used to show that chances are that intelligent life evolved in other parts of the universe. Then I consider the possibility of Superstring Theory: alternative universes/dimensions where we would be completely oblivious to any intelligent life there. And consider our limited intelligence: we may not have the cognitive abilities to see what is really out there, similar to how lower animals cannot know what humans know. Reputable news sources, such as the History Channel, document many UFOs which to date have not been identified. Stories about actual contact with ETs. Paranormality/UFO/ET sources: http://www.rense.com/ufo/ufo.htm http://www.rense.com/historic/hist.htm http://www.rense.com/general44/nmxx.htm http://www.rense.com/general41/dayfo.htm http://www.rense.com/general41/flying.htm http://www.rense.com/general41/flying.htm http://www.rense.com/general32/rapidflight.htm http://www.rense.com/general31/woods1A.htm http://www.rense.com/general32/rend.htm http://www.rense.com/general43/orig.htm http://www.rense.com/ufo4/historyofufo.htm So, do I "believe"? Well, I am agnostic, as I think any rational person would be. But, I will say that I do find Earth very boring and hope that there is more to the universe. Regards, Wolfgang Mozart

Hi, Wow, lots of really smart people here, sorry if my replies don't measure up, but here goes: First, I believe that homosexuals are born that way. It may be genetic and/or it may be the uteral environment during fetal development (I read that hormonal unbalance during fetal development can cause homosexuality). Also, I believe the American Psychological Association's new book "Behavioral Genetics In the Post Genomic Era: http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/bgpe.htm or MIT Brain Department Professor Steven Pinker: http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/tbs.htm found that homosexuals have unique brain structure. So, since I believe homosexuals are born this way, I think they should be allowed to live in whatever way they are happy, just like I would want for people born with any other types of biological defects (yes, in my opinion, homosexuality is not normal but rather an undesirable biological defect). As such, I believe they should be able to get married, but I would be against them adopting a heterosexual kid because of the psychological trauma it would cause the straight child. Anyway, I'm glad to have found this forum! I think I'll start strong by posting several articles that I have recently found very interesting. Regards, Wolfgang Mozart (an alias, of course)