The owner of this site allows reposting of his literature, here are his words regarding this from http://neoeugenics.home.comcast.net/
"Any of the following articles that I have written are free for redistribution or republication. This includes editing, shortening, or elaborating on articles as desired to accomplish eugenic goals."
And from http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/mission.htm
"Any material on this site can be used for the dissemination of these ideas and a eugenics' program without my permission."
The following is from http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/dogs.htm
The Intelligence of Man versus Dog
I recently read two "popular" books about intelligence. The first one was "The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life" by Charles Murray and the late Richard Herrnstein. The second was "The Intelligence of Dogs: Canine Consciousness and Capabilities" by Stanley Coren. Both books were best sellers in 1994 and both books were heavily reviewed in magazines and newspapers.
When "The Bell Curve" first came out, I retrieved about 200 pages of commentary from newspapers and magazines via an online database to see how the media would review the book. The primary means used to rebut its research results was to dismiss heredity as the cause for the differences in the IQ scores of people. Over and over again it was pointed out, "if only the disadvantaged had the same upbringing as the privileged they would also score high on IQ tests." It was obvious to me that dogma could not allow honest research about the differences in IQ. The social agenda for promoting the equality of condition over the past 30 years would be in jeopardy. At any cost to open scholarly debate, the results of "The Bell Curve" must be refuted by any means available. To me, the acceptance that IQ was inherited was so commonly accepted by the public and academicians alike, how could this serious work be so robustly and virulently attacked and still become a best seller? I sought a way to test the validity that the media truly believed IQ was 100% environmentally determined.
With some similarities, "The Intelligence of Dogs" was reviewed with trepidation, not wanting to learn that "my dog" was not rated as intelligent. Like humans, dogs all belong to the same species. Different breeds were developed by selecting the desired attributes of a dog and breeding like dogs together, always keeping a perfect archetypical prototype in mind of the desired goal. Humans do not practice overt eugenics (breeding), but we know that the brains of canines and humans have the same structure and the rules of genetics are the same. Humans practice assortative mating, and studies going back to the 1940's show that IQs of spouses correlate powerfully. That is, like people marry. In general, the smart marry the smart, especially since the advent of the birth control pill, universal higher education, and increased mobility.
In stark contrast, "The Intelligence of Dogs" reviewers totally and completely bought into the concept that the difference between the intelligence of different breeds was heredity, not the environment that the dog was raised in. The book listed the Border collie as the most intelligent (a working dog) and the Afghan hound the least intelligent (the pampered pet of choice for the elite rich). Without a single dissention or even a glimmer of doubt the wide gaps in intelligence between breeds of dogs was readily accepted. Not one critic wrote that if only the Afghan had the right social economic opportunity as the typical Border collie, it too could be smart. Maybe those rich folks and all that pampering makes them stupid. Not once did I read that "a dog's home, neighborhood, training, duties-- the sum of the dog's life experiences -- are equally if not more important than heredity." Not once did I read "if environment plays a role of anywhere from 20 percent to 50 percent in determining a dog's brainpower, such factors as adequate nutrition, stable family life, a moral life and a safe community to grow up in might make the crucial difference that ensures a dog will have a productive adulthood." Not once did I read "No such group genetic comparisons can be fair until Afghans and Border collies grow up in comparable environments for several generations." Not once did I read "Coren makes no effort to measure or quantify or assess the powerful role of environment or to consider how it can mitigate their grim predictions of underclass disaster for the poor Afghans."
Only a highly distorted view of humans, a view that anthropocentrically separates us from all other creatures, could sustain the media's denial of basic scientific concepts. Book after book dealing with human nature, sociobiology, human ecology, ethology, or evolution condemns such views. The media on the other hand has always been a tool of culture rather than an unbiased observer of scientific facts. And the fact that the rules of genetics are the same for humans as they are for other animals, including the distribution of cognitive abilities within each species, is denied to protect the underclass from facts well known to scientists. Not everyone is smart enough to be adequately educated to be productive in a technological society. But the politicians and social scientists want the public to believe that it is just a matter of investment and everyone can be as smart as the next.
In summary, the media treated the same subject matter differently because the innate difference in the breeds of dogs is not taboo or threatening to the egalitarian status quo. There is an agenda to suppress all scientific investigation into inheritable intelligence so that all differences between people can be attributed to socioeconomic status. If scientific investigation means anything it must be based on "let the chips fall where they may." Humans have a long way to go to "get over themselves."
"Any of the following articles that I have written are free for redistribution or republication. This includes editing, shortening, or elaborating on articles as desired to accomplish eugenic goals."
And from http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/mission.htm
"Any material on this site can be used for the dissemination of these ideas and a eugenics' program without my permission."
The following is from http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/dogs.htm
The Intelligence of Man versus Dog
I recently read two "popular" books about intelligence. The first one was "The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life" by Charles Murray and the late Richard Herrnstein. The second was "The Intelligence of Dogs: Canine Consciousness and Capabilities" by Stanley Coren. Both books were best sellers in 1994 and both books were heavily reviewed in magazines and newspapers.
When "The Bell Curve" first came out, I retrieved about 200 pages of commentary from newspapers and magazines via an online database to see how the media would review the book. The primary means used to rebut its research results was to dismiss heredity as the cause for the differences in the IQ scores of people. Over and over again it was pointed out, "if only the disadvantaged had the same upbringing as the privileged they would also score high on IQ tests." It was obvious to me that dogma could not allow honest research about the differences in IQ. The social agenda for promoting the equality of condition over the past 30 years would be in jeopardy. At any cost to open scholarly debate, the results of "The Bell Curve" must be refuted by any means available. To me, the acceptance that IQ was inherited was so commonly accepted by the public and academicians alike, how could this serious work be so robustly and virulently attacked and still become a best seller? I sought a way to test the validity that the media truly believed IQ was 100% environmentally determined.
With some similarities, "The Intelligence of Dogs" was reviewed with trepidation, not wanting to learn that "my dog" was not rated as intelligent. Like humans, dogs all belong to the same species. Different breeds were developed by selecting the desired attributes of a dog and breeding like dogs together, always keeping a perfect archetypical prototype in mind of the desired goal. Humans do not practice overt eugenics (breeding), but we know that the brains of canines and humans have the same structure and the rules of genetics are the same. Humans practice assortative mating, and studies going back to the 1940's show that IQs of spouses correlate powerfully. That is, like people marry. In general, the smart marry the smart, especially since the advent of the birth control pill, universal higher education, and increased mobility.
In stark contrast, "The Intelligence of Dogs" reviewers totally and completely bought into the concept that the difference between the intelligence of different breeds was heredity, not the environment that the dog was raised in. The book listed the Border collie as the most intelligent (a working dog) and the Afghan hound the least intelligent (the pampered pet of choice for the elite rich). Without a single dissention or even a glimmer of doubt the wide gaps in intelligence between breeds of dogs was readily accepted. Not one critic wrote that if only the Afghan had the right social economic opportunity as the typical Border collie, it too could be smart. Maybe those rich folks and all that pampering makes them stupid. Not once did I read that "a dog's home, neighborhood, training, duties-- the sum of the dog's life experiences -- are equally if not more important than heredity." Not once did I read "if environment plays a role of anywhere from 20 percent to 50 percent in determining a dog's brainpower, such factors as adequate nutrition, stable family life, a moral life and a safe community to grow up in might make the crucial difference that ensures a dog will have a productive adulthood." Not once did I read "No such group genetic comparisons can be fair until Afghans and Border collies grow up in comparable environments for several generations." Not once did I read "Coren makes no effort to measure or quantify or assess the powerful role of environment or to consider how it can mitigate their grim predictions of underclass disaster for the poor Afghans."
Only a highly distorted view of humans, a view that anthropocentrically separates us from all other creatures, could sustain the media's denial of basic scientific concepts. Book after book dealing with human nature, sociobiology, human ecology, ethology, or evolution condemns such views. The media on the other hand has always been a tool of culture rather than an unbiased observer of scientific facts. And the fact that the rules of genetics are the same for humans as they are for other animals, including the distribution of cognitive abilities within each species, is denied to protect the underclass from facts well known to scientists. Not everyone is smart enough to be adequately educated to be productive in a technological society. But the politicians and social scientists want the public to believe that it is just a matter of investment and everyone can be as smart as the next.
In summary, the media treated the same subject matter differently because the innate difference in the breeds of dogs is not taboo or threatening to the egalitarian status quo. There is an agenda to suppress all scientific investigation into inheritable intelligence so that all differences between people can be attributed to socioeconomic status. If scientific investigation means anything it must be based on "let the chips fall where they may." Humans have a long way to go to "get over themselves."
