The Case For Eugenics

Submitted by Howe Abbott-Hiss

All men are not created equal. Some people are better or worse than others, regardless of which qualities one is concerned with, and both the best and the worst traits tend to run in families. Given the prevailing egalitarian sentiments in society, this may be seen as the sneering of a villain from the Harry Potter series, but it is a painfully obvious fact. We all suffer by denying reality, and we would all benefit by facing it and acting accordingly.

Although there was great interest in eugenics throughout the West in the early 20th century, there is now a strange and powerful taboo against the field. It is as if any deliberate improvement to the human gene pool is capable of resurrecting National Socialist Germany. Such a worst-case scenario failed to materialize in any of the numerous other nations which had eugenic policies in place at the time, so the persistent horror towards the topic is difficult to defend. On the contrary, genes continue to be at the root of social problems today, and there is no reason to believe that we cannot act on this reality humanely.

There are exceptions to the general horror of eugenic policies among public figures, particularly regarding crime. Nicholas von Hoffman, a columnist for the New York Observer and Huffington Post, is quoted as saying “Free, cheap abortion is a policy of social defense. To save ourselves from being murdered in our beds and raped on the streets, we should do everything possible to encourage pregnant women who don’t want the baby and will not take care of it to get rid of the thing before it turns into a monster.” Conservative commentator Heather MacDonald expressed the view at a 2015 Manhattan Institute conference that, considering the horrible consequences of illegitimacy, “it is not true that everybody has the right to have a child,” although she did not advocate any policy to enforce this view.

On the subject of crime, the policies formerly known as the War on Drugs may be winding down in the near future. Judging from trends in popular opinion and state laws, marijuana will likely be legalized nationwide within our lifetimes. This one substance accounts for about half of the drug war in terms of arrests, so this will be a major shift to which the criminal justice system will need to adjust.

Although laws prohibiting several drugs had existed for decades, the more aggressive concept of a War on Drugs was introduced under President Nixon in an effort to crack down on a rising wave of crime, particularly among blacks. Although failing to significantly curb drug use, such policies have had some success in reducing non-drug crimes which incarcerated offenders might otherwise commit. A major downsizing of it, then, will limit law enforcement’s ability to deal with the rising crime rate, and should be counterbalanced with other interventions towards the same end. What is known as negative eugenics, meaning measures to prevent or discourage certain people from reproducing so as to stop the transmission of negative genetic traits, would be a useful tool here.

Criminals have proven remarkably resistant to efforts to reform them, and this has been noted for some time. In 1974 Public Interest published an article by Professor Robert Martinson entitled What Works?in which the author concurred with the 1973 Presidential Advisory Commission conclusion that “[t]he prison, the reformatory and the jail have achieved only a shocking level of failure.”1This attitude towards “rehabilitation” persists today, supported by very high rates of recidivism. It is not impossible to reform some criminals,2 but many interventions to this effect miss the root of the problem, which is a personality type influenced by genetics.

Criminals tend to have a personality which stands out from the norm. For violent criminals in particular, psychologist Steven Pinker notes that this includes being “impulsive, low in intelligence, hyperactive, and attention-deficient. They are described as having an “oppositional temperament”: they are vindictive, easily angered, resistant to control, deliberately annoying, and likely to blame everything on other people.”3 Psychologist Stanton Samenow notes that criminals tend to be especially “self-centered, controlling, dishonest, irresponsible, and callous,”4 and adds that they feel entitled to respect from others despite consistently terrible behavior.

These traits are not exactly conducive to educational or occupational success. On the contrary, they lead the criminal to reject opportunities to become a productive member of society,5 so although wealthy criminals do exist, offenders are often relatively poor. Given long-standing racial differences in intelligenceand temperament, they are also disproportionately black. Cracking down on them, then, will have a “disparate impact” on blacks and the poor. Commentators who are aloof from the human realities of the situation will find it easy to see a “racist” and “classist” motive in this, but it is only what follows from responsibly judging people by their actions.

Outside of platitudes about universal human equality and “racism,” it is hard to imagine any reason why we should consider all of these people fit to pass on their genes and raise children. While genes do not explain 100% of the connection, criminals certainly tend to produce children similar to themselves, and everyone should be able to agree that society would be better off with less of the personality traits and behaviors in question.

Not all offenders are identical, of course; some are more prolific, violent and dysfunctional than others. Judging from professional analysis of their personalities and criminal records, authorities could identify those least fit to become parents. Intervention based on these judgments could see massive reductions in crime, savings in criminal justice costs, and a healthier social fabric for future generations.

Whatever your position on abortion, most would presumably be pleased with a policy which reduces the number of abortions along with the number of unwanted children. Sterilization, or even long-term birth control which could if needed be reversed, would accomplish this. If this seems politically impossible, it is worth mentioning that two notable examples of such intervention are already in effect within the United States.

Project Prevention, a non-governmental organization operating in the state of California, has had significant success in cutting down reproduction by those manifestly unfit to have children. Over the past 20 years they have provided long-term birth control methods such as tubal ligation, intrauterine devices and vasectomies to over 6,800 drug addicts and alcoholics. Patients are offered small cash incentives to agree to these procedures, meaning a savings over the costs to society of children who would likely be placed in foster care and have a variety of behavioral problems throughout their lives.

A similar program aimed at teenagers and poor women has had success in Colorado, reducing both births and abortions dramatically by providing free birth control implants and intrauterine devices. Within the space of four years, the state’s teenage demographic saw a 40% reduction in births and a 42% reduction in abortions, along with a similar drop in births for single young women who have not finished high school. Like Project Prevention, it is not conceived of as a eugenics project, but given the higher crime rates among the poor and the children of single mothers, it has likely had such an effect.

The above examples have been implemented on a voluntary basis and not as part of the criminal justice system, but it is possible to imagine applying these measures to criminals. Judge Sam Benningfield of White County, Tennessee has recently offered offenders a 30-day reduction in their sentence if they will agree to vasectomies for men or the temporary birth-control implant Nexplanon for women.

There is already broad support for eugenics on the alt-right. British activist Andrew Joyce of Richard Spencer’s National Policy Institute has endorsed integrating sterilization into the criminal justice system, as does Swedish alt-right figurehead Daniel Friberg of Arktos Media.6 Jared Taylor has recently released a pair of videos endorsing the general concept of deliberately improving the gene pool, while expressing wariness about coercive government programs to this end.

Negative eugenics is even attractive to at least one libertarian; the YouTube commentator going by the name Libertarian Realist suggests that rapists be sterilized, or at least offered parole on the condition that they be sterilized. “If we don’t sterilize our worst criminals,” as he puts it, “there is a risk that they will keep breeding, and as we know, crime is largely genetic, so [sterilization] would have a eugenic…effect.” But the wider society continues to see “eugenics” as a bad word.

Crucially, a serious eugenics program would also serve a spiritual need of our people. The liberal narrative of progress throughout history may seem absurd in its current-year incarnation, but it has a deep appeal more widespread than the mindset of professional victims. Alt-right commentator Millennial Woes asks his viewers to “imagine improvement.” He is not speaking of technological progress, but of social and cultural advancement, of “celebrities more refined than their predecessors, children better educated than their ancestors, a government one can trust, social systems that work and do not corrupt, economic systems that can last – a present that is better than the past.”

One does not need to be left-wing to find this vision appealing. Indeed, there is something in the soul of Western white men which has long striven for progress, to a degree which has distinguished us from others. Minimizing some of the worst elements in our gene pool can form a key component of this struggle.



  1. Moskos, Peter. In Defense of Flogging. New York: Basic Books, 2011. p. 15.
  2. Samenow, Stanton E., PhD. Inside the Criminal Mind. Revised and updated ed., New York: Broadway Books, 2014. pp. 291-330 Samenow discusses a program initiated by psychologist Samuel Yochelson in Washington, D.C. at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in 1961. Yochelson rejected the dominant paradigm in criminal justice, using regular individual and group sessions which focused the offender on correcting his own dysfunctional thinking and behavior rather than sociological explanations which would allow him to deflect blame onto others. For some participants this resulted in totally abandoning crime and leading responsible lives.
  3. Pinker, Steven. The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. London: Penguin Books, 2003. p. 315.
  4. Samenow, pp. 5-6.
  5. Both made these statements in their respective AMA (Ask Me Anything) threads on the now banned section of known as /r/altright.
  6. Same now goes into detail on how criminals tend to reject education, employment and social contact with more respectable people. He argues that such people, rather than being unfairly marginalized by authorities or peers, knowingly reject the mainstream society for which they have contempt from an early age.
Guest Writer
the authorGuest Writer


  • What. The. Fuck.

    Such an evil, Godless concept. Pushed by madmen and those who hate humanity.

    But yes, let’s introduce this to the AltRight at the time when we know that ZOG controls absolutely. every. Western Government.

    There is no nation that is not beholden to these people who murder children without conscience so let’s start talking about sterilising those children that weren’t aborted that we find troublesome. Let’s remove that problem child before it is born to question ZOG at all.

    Imagine if the British had done this in Ireland 200 years ago. Whoops. Did I go there?

    Fuck you. And fuck the jewish horse you rode in on.

  • Here’s an idea for you: If you are a RACIST or ALT-Right disciple, you shouldn’t be allowed to have kids.

  • To continue the subject of eugenics is like dropping a NUKE on our movement. It will be the death of us before our movement really got off the ground.
    The focus should always be on achieving ethno-states for all, this is a message many people can get behind as the crimes against Whites, for simply being White increase.
    This Eugenics subject will turn off many “”would be”” White Nationalist and cancel out any chance we had of achieving separate states by peaceful means.

  • Preventing white births is complete bullshit right now. In our future trad-society with a birth rate of 4 healthy children per couple our people will be so indoctrinated with wisdom and truth, so healthy from lack of alcohol and complete lack of drugs and tabacco you will hardly see the deviance but rather people who are content with their place in society. And we will have a proper phyciatry using harmless substances to give all our people a chance to trive, find a job and have a family. Smart people would only chose a compatable mate so you don’t have to worry about losing certain traits in a bad mix. In a new society with less brain damaging health care I think you’ll need to throughly reassess your basis for promoting eugenics but if it turns out that there is still whites displaying criminal behaviour then maybe we have a weak link. You can’t properly identufy genetic weak links in this enviroment with so much negitive epigenetic input.

  • Subsidize intelligent healthy people to have children. Quit subsidizing druggies and generational welfare recipients. Right now we are doing the opposite. If you are middle class or above it costs an arm and a leg to have a child in the hospital. I know a heroin addict who has had 3 children. They were all planned. The state paid for everything from her prenatal groceries, to her apartment, hospital bills, methadone, drug counseling, etc. Her baby-daddy was a felon.

    • THAT is the way to do it. Those high IQ women from functional (not divorced) families? At the moment they are under attack from their employers and the IRS. They are the ones who should be subsidised to have large litters of high IQ children.

  • the issue as i see it for the alt-right is how would you apply eugenics in a multiracial society. one position would be universalist eugenics that is “colour blind”. the other position would be anti-miscegenation. you could argue universalist eugenics would be more effective because you have a much bigger pool of genes to select from. Raymond cattel however argues theirs inherent advantages in applying eugenics only within racial groups. “Cattell also feared “mixture of the blood between racial groups.” He claimed that “[i]n a pure race, the inheritance of impulses in each individual is bound to be well balanced. The innate forces which are the innate material of character-building must have reached a certain compatibility and potential power of good integration. If two such races inter-breed, the resulting re-shuffling of impulses and psychic forces throws together in each individual a number of items which may or may not be compatible of being organized into a stable unit.” so there you have it. a strong argument from a first rate scientist that we should be applying eugenics only within groups. since were in a struggle for survival against other groups i would argue we shouldn’t be helping any other groups with eugenics or maybe even discouraging it.

    • I think the case against it is really about whether the State should be destroying anyone’s fertility. DNA is passed on for many reasons, and a lot of them don’t involve any sound considered choice.

  • Ok, quick question on the idea of eugenics. So not to disagree at all with purifying ethnic-European races its a must in order to maintain the western world, but I do see a large gap in the idea from my perspective. What do you do with the other races, like the Mexicans and African-Americans? I know Mr. Spencer outlines that they need us but not too specific on what we should do about them. I have already designed my own ethnic designed country meant to keep races from mixing, but the United States is so multi-ethnic, that is just weird to think of it as predominately white. That’s not to say that Europeans have led the way for the past 250 years of Americas history, but to get to the point what do we do with the good and bad ‘other races’?

  • the only way to ethically engage in eugenics is to make it a voluntary “religion”.A society of people who have the power to disinvite anyone they don’t want and make such a thing just another transnational culture like Judaism.

    That said, genetics is nothing without rearing.

  • So, you want to exterminate the annoying, the ignorant, the outlaws, and the thugs? Well, then we’d never have had to deal with David Duke, Nathan Damigo, Chris Cantwell, “Based Stickman” Kyle Chapman, Mike Enoch, and Don Black. Damn! For once, there’s a potential benefit to your evil and discredited pseudoscience!

    • Ethics aside eugenics is just controlling evolution over a couple generations so how is it pseudoscience? Liberals don’t believe in evolution?

      • Have become?

        American history is one long string of weird, pseudo religious cults largely emanating from the Northeast. Puritanism, The Second Great Awakening, Seventh Day Adventism, Mormonism, Abolitionism, Progressivism, the Civil Rights Movement, Social Justice….

        • well if you consider that the left has prided itself on social liberalism and consider itself the torchbearer of science… I dont think my highlight is off base. However, I think the root of their retardation is the primacy of empiricism or materialism in their worldview.

          tell me, what separates a religious cult from a pseudo-religious cult?

  • “the war on drugs is a war on people”
    that’s right – a war on all the RIGHT people!

  • The only thing I worry about is it will back fire & (((they))) will use it to further White genocide. Definitely start with criminals & also in Africa.

  • Current selective forces are actually divergent when it comes to blacks and whites globally and in spite of losing the numbers in the short term, whites are benefiting from strong selective headwinds placed upon their breeding success. While blacks encounter little to no selective pressure at all. This means the former’s gene pool continues to improve while the latter’s declines dramatically. History will bear out that Bill and Melinda will be worse for the black race than anyone had imagined. Just be patient. Nature is working for us.

    • Rubbish. The problem with Blacks is not that they lack “fitness” when it comes to “fighting with Nature”. (They are particularly adapted to living in the climate of the African continent where they evolved.) The problem with Blacks is that they cannot adapt to living (not as parasites) in a complex society like that of the West. It is not “Nature” that will get us rid of the Blacks.

      • Oh just wait until there’s a serious economic downturn. That’s what we wait for. Let the National debt go wild, let the pension liabilities balloon. Once the entitlements dry up, things will change quickly. All the demographic bloat we’re enduring now is a function of our easy credit line. The credit will run out. Stay prepared.

  • I am a big supporter of abortion–for blacks and browns.These two groups have abortions at over twice the rate of Whites.I would like to have an abortion clinic on every corner in minority neighborhoods.Free.subsidized abortion for the poor.

  • Most people spend alot of their waking time thinking about eugenics, ie, how to get and hold on to the most desireable partner they possibly can. Leave eugenics to the experts, ie, the people concerned. Instead of dabbling with with state programs. If you do not trust us to be what we are, what are you even doing in politics, on behalf of whom are you politicing to begin with? If you want to improve eugenics, end all wellfare. That has a eugenics effect all by itself, without the disaster of collective Peter selecting for elected Paul.

  • Most people spend alot of their waking time thinking about eugenics, ie, how to procure and keep the the most desireable partner they possibly can. Leave eugenics to the experts, ie, the people concerned. Instead of dabbling with with state programs. If you want to improve eugenics, end all wellfare. That has a eugenics effect all by itself, without the horror of Peter selecting for Paul.

  • The Jared Taylor vid below presents a balanced view on this topic. Highly recommended viewing.

    Let’s Break a Taboo, Part 2 …I watched this one a couple of days ago and only went back to view part one just now. Part 2 cuts to the chase.

  • Under a WN state, breeding new children should be licensed. Just as those who are high school dropouts should not be granted a license to drive a car (under a WN government) those of 90 IQ or lower should not be legally allowed to have children. Those with an IQ ranging from 91 to 109 should only legally be allowed to have one child. Those with my IQ, on the other hand, should be allowed unlimited children.

  • Crucially, a serious eugenics program would also serve a spiritual need of our people.

    Biology shows the problem with Cartesian dualism. How can manipulating the gross matter of human genes result in spiritually better (or worse) people?

    Because a lot of our religious and philosophical ideas predate modern biology, of course, and they need revision in light of our better knowledge of how the world works.

  • Ironically the original, liberal-utopian Star Trek series put the truth in the mouth of a genetically enhanced villain:

    Nothing ever changes, except man. Your technical accomplishments? Improve a mechanical device and you may double productivity, but improve man and you gain a thousandfold.

  • Good breeding is one thing; gmo humans and cyborgs are another. Come on guys, let’s secure the homelands first!

  • Eugenics is such utter inhuman shit! It has no meaning and place in the struggle for European survival, its just old immoral perverse crap. Most likely judeo-masonic in its origin.

    • You have a point there. I mean why are we worried about getting RID of white children before they are ever born when we don’t even have our countries to ourselves at this point? Why advocate for whites to be sterilized temporarily or permanently when we need all the white children we can get into this world. We’re being invaded right now and overrun. We need to control our lands first and then worry about imposing such measures onto anti-whites and non-whites.

      • I think people have a tendency to exaggerate the implications of eugenics. Basically if you’re not a criminal or mentally retarded you’d have nothing to fear. Nobody’s arguing for a spartan policy.

    • Can you please explain how it is a bad idea? Why is it wrong to clean up our gene pool and prevent inferior beings from being reproduced and thus inhibiting the advance of Aryan civilization? We could end human suffering with science. Why not do this?

      • If we are talking about limiting, however we do that, retarded people (proven retarded people) from having children then that is one thing. If we are talking about gmo humans that is another.

        I used to ride to work with the special ed teacher who taught not down’s syndrome retards but just simple minded people. She was 100% for sterilizing them. She told me how they are smart enough to work the welfare system and girls would have 4 children starting as a teenager without marrying in order to get maximum welfare benefits. These were all white people in the rural South. Taking away said welfare would go a long way towards thwarting that.

        But this is a NON ISSUE until we have secured The Nations.

      • OK, i deem you unfit, now would you like to off yourself or would you like someone from my government to kill you? What’s the problem champ, sure you do not doubt our decision making in our process that deemed you unfit, remember GOVERNMENT ALWAYS KNOWS BEST, RIGHT?
        Separate us Whites to our own societies and the majority of our social and financial problems will disappear.
        You will always have a few slackers in society but hey, someone has to swing from the back of that garbage truck and collect the rubbish, if he won’t even put forth that much effort that i am fine with him starving, let’s call it a self imposed eugenics, BUT NO GOVERNMENT mandated killing fields.

    • Just let nature take its course. There’s nothing immoral about wolves eating weak and diseased deer. It’s better for the herd. Right now, the bloat of the human race is so evident the sheep have no wolves on the grassland and they are going to desertify the grasslands very soon. Predators have a critical role to play. Peace and tolerance and a world without consequences does not make genetic realities go away. It simply means we’re suppressing the fire, building the fuel, and a very big blaze is coming.

    • Exactly.

      This is some bolshevik-tier evil, like those who thought Ukrainian Christians were ‘unfit’ for the New World.
      Whoever thinks he’s fit to decide and REGULATE human sexuality is bolshevik scum. This is some Anglo-Masonic Talmud-tier amorality. And this is peddled as a ‘white thing to do’? Smells like a jewish trap for huwhite ‘intellectuals’.

  • I’ve noticed some counter-productive ideas regarding eugenics (or the lack of it) on the altright. For instance in response to falling fertility rates and mass immigration many argue that we need to breed as many white children as possible with no consideration for their education, or who does the breeding. I think it defeats the whole point of ethnocentrism. Building a better ethnic future includes bettering our own kind as well as excluding foreigners. Every white child needs to be a net benefit and needs to be nurtured and cared for properly.

  • It seems the issue of children which have negative consequences for society has two solutions.
    – Abortion, sterilization, execution, and selective eugenics.
    – Or, draconian controls on sexual behavior, legal, cultural, or otherwise.

    I tend to prefer the latter as an option (its basically what every healthy culture has done in history), since the first would seem to be an exercise in deliberately encouraging degenerate behavior by removing responsibility. I also have to sigh whenever anyone talks about ‘progress’. This concept is toxic to cultural permanence through time. Cultures do not progress, they survive.

    • Myth of Progress.

      And in an organic world the lower orders of man (what we now call low IQ) would not have much in the way of fertility. A few offspring but not a brood of idiots being feed by everyone else.

    • A healthy society needs both sets of strictures, and contrary to your belief there is indeed progress in society, but it is only possible when the best of men lead the way and the dregs are done away with.

Leave a Reply