Young Americans for Freedom and YAFWatch Blogspot

John Bevilaqua · November 4, 2007

http://yafwatch.blogspot.com/

Watch how many names assciated with The Pioneer Fund of Wickliffe Draper are mentioned in the article attached to this posting... Paul Fromm, J. Philippe Rushton and David Starr Jordan

This comment is to point out, in advance, that this posting has EVERYTHING TO DO with the JFK Assassination. YAF, John Birch Society, Institute for Historical Review, The Pioneer Fund, Wickliffe Draper, the whole enchilada. NOW will you wake up and read and understand the message in How Eisenhower, Fulbright and Richard Condon predicted the killers of JFK? The all predicted it and no one listened. Take heed of Condon's advice or the evil forces of YAF who sponsored this Michigan State meeting inviting Nick Griffin to the MSU campus with a Stormfront escort. The resurrection of YAF, The John Birch Society and the IHR and Stormfront Holocaust Deniers will come back to haunt you.

Drive a stake through the heart of this neo Nazi beast before it buries you again.

Paul Fromm, J. Philippe Rushton and David Starr Jordan. Then slowly but surely you will all come to the realization that it was none other than Wickliffe Draper who sowed the seeds of discontent and financed this Rise of the Fourth Reich... aided and abetted by none other than Anastase Vonsiatsky and Richard Condon's Dawn Phase of Fascism.

You will also see references to John de Nugent from Willis Carto's and Fletcher Prouty's Institute for Historical Review...who used Mark Lane as their attorney against The Mel Mermelstein anti Holocaust Denial lawsuit. Plus other known Prouty cronies like David Duke and Jared Taylor.

Don't all you Prouty supporters feel a little uninformed, right about now?

Watch the 3 UTube videos of this protest against the policies and statements of Nick Griffin, the Holocaust denier, from the UK as he made a presentation at the Michigan State campus last month when a Skinhead was allowed on campus to moderate this event. Reminds me of the 1960s and the anti War Protests. Watching everyone join together to shout Griffin down whenever he made either anti Semitic, homophobic, or racist remarks was a joy to behold. And the demonstration just before the speech was done with a symbolic pinata filled with candy that represented Griffin's 2 faces, the respectable speaker and the Nazi Storm Trooper. Crowd members took turns using an Umbrella, NOT a Baseball Bat as claimed by some YAFers after the fact to smash the Griffin pinata into submission. You can clearly see the Umbrella handle as people use it to smash the effigy of Nick Griffin to pieces.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4Y2v-NyBLw

You will witness a fervor and a level of vitriol unmatched in recent years in my memory.

The anti Griffin chants went something like this...

No Nazis! No K-K-K! No Fascists U-S-A.

Wonder if our resident CREEP and YAF expert would like to comment...

Wonder how long it will take him to come up with some bogus response or nay saying reply to all of this

activity and controversy... "Oh, the protestors were the bad guys... just some little old right winger trying to

exercise his freedom of speech and those big bad left wingers shouted him down, called him a clown, and tried

to knock his head off with a baseball bat swinging at a pinata effigy of him." "What a sad commentary", he said.

Edited November 4, 2007 by John Bevilaqua

John Bevilaqua · November 4, 2007

Michigan "Stormfront" Members Attended Nick Griffin Speech at MSU

November 3 2007 Comments Print Friendly Page

Watch how many names assciated with The Pioneer Fund of Wickliffe Draper are mentioned in this article below...

Paul Fromm, J. Philippe Rushton and David Starr Jordan. Then slowly but surely you will all come to the realization

that it was none other than Wickliffe Draper who sowed the seeds of discontent and financed this Rise of the Fourth Reich...

...aided and abetted by none other than Anastase Vonsiatsky and Richard Condon's Dawn Phase of Fascism.

You will also see references to John de Nugent from Willis Carto's and Fletcher Prouty's Institute for Historical Review...who used Mark Lane as their attorney against The Mel Mermelstein anti Holocaust Denial lawsuit. Plus other known Prouty cronies like David Duke and Jared Taylor

Wake up before it is too late.

http://www.mediamouse.org/features/110307michi.php

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.mediamouse.org/trackback/1112

In advance of a speech at Michigan State University (MSU) by British National Party (BNP) member Nick Griffin, there was some discussion about how Griffin's speech was being promoted on various websites associated with the racist right, including those of American Renaissance and the Council of Conservative Citizens. In addition, the event was promoted on Stormfront, a prominent racist message board used by the racist right and its sympathizers.

The discussion of Stormfront was largely used to bring further pressure on MSU's chapter of Young Americans for Freedom (YAF), with an example being postings on a blog tracking Young Americans for Freedom called YAF Watch. Following the speech, there was a little discussion on both YAF Watch and Media Mouse about Griffin's associate Preston Wiginton who is a contributor to Stormfront.

However, Media Mouse has learned that in addition to Wiginton, at least three Stormfront members from Michigan were in attendance at Griffin's speech. Three individuals came from the east side of the state and boasted of eating dinner with Griffin and other Stormfront members in the following post by an individual using the name "Tactical Mastery" (his profile image contains a swastika):

Looking through video footage from the event and postings by "Tactical Mastery", it is clear that the user was present:

The user known as "Tactical Mastery" has postings similar to what can typically be found on Stormfront, including complaints about African-Americans in the media:

Racist statements towards African-Americans living in his metro Detroit region:

Weighing in on important controversies like dating people that are not white:

and even expressing concerns over his own "whiteness:"

"Tactical Mastery" said that he attended with other Stormfront members, including those going by the names "David Starr Jordan" and "Ypsilanti NA". Looking through posts, we were able to find conformation that "David Starr Jordan" was there, as shown in the following screen grab from the event and post from Stormfront:

Earlier discussion of Stormfront members attending the Griffin lecture has previously been used primarily to discount MSU's Young Americans for Freedom chapter, rather than as a vehicle for discussing how YAF and Nick Griffin fit into a larger rightwing context. The presence of these individuals should not be used simply to discount YAF, but rather to show that Nick Griffin is firmly rooted in the racist right and that his speech would be of interest primarily to racists.

On Stormfront, a common topic of discussion is how many posters are not willing to be "active" in the racist movement, instead spending most of their time on the Internet rather than doing organizing or educational work. The Stormfront members who were present at the Griffin event are active participants in the racist right. In the picture above, "David Starr Jordan" and "Tactical Mastery" were shown preparing leaflets for distribution on Eastern Michigan University's campus. The leaflets came from a group called "The Nationalist Coalition" a so-called "white activist organization" that calls for a "White living space... completely free of non-Whites" as one of its "goals." The leaflets were distributed as part of an event organized by Stormfront members called "Night of the Flyer" in which members were encouraged to distribute "pro-White" material in their communities. In addition to Ypsilanti, flyers were also distributed in Muskegon by another Stormfront member.

Aside from the leafleting at Eastern Michigan University, it is worth noting that "David Starr Jordan"--who's name appears to be "Evan Thomas" based on several posts and articles attributed to him on Stormfront--is an active member of the organized racist movement at the national level. This year, Thomas spoke at a gathering of white supremacists in New York, where he was described as one of the "up-and-coming leaders of a new wave of white supremacy" by the Village Voice.

Indeed, Thomas has a long history of involved in the racist movement and has organized several events in Michigan. He was involved with the European American Association, a group that has brought Canadian racist Paul Fromm and John de Nugent (who has been affiliated with the Holocaust denial organization known as The Institute for Historical Review) to Michigan. Moreover, Thomas has been involved in a number of racist groups including the European American Unity and Rights Organization, the National Alliance, the League of the South, the National Vanguard news website, and his own Soldiers of the Confederacy discussion board:

In addition, through his organizing in Michigan and involvement in organized racism, Thomas has connections with prominent racists, including David Duke and his self-proclaimed "friend and mentor" John de Nugent:

On Stormfront, Thomas has written fairly extensively and while a considerably more detailed post would be needed to fully explore his ideology, the following posts show that he is a "white nationalist" and a possible Holocaust denier:

Finally, another member identified as attending the event with Thomas and "Tactical Mastery" was "Ypsilanti NA". That poster also has been involved with organized racism and has been active with the National Alliance and attended a recent meeting organized by the Council of Conservative Citizens that featured prominent racists Jared Taylor and J. Philippe Rushton:

By inviting Griffin to campus, these are exactly the type of people that Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) could have expected to attract. Griffin--more than any of YAF's other speakers--has direct ties to the organized racist movement. It seems impossible that YAF could have been unaware of Griffin's racism (even if they did perceive them to be "allegations" rather than specific examples) and now it is clear that their event brought not only a racist to speak, but members of the organized racist movement to Michigan State University's campus.

related entries

MSU Student Hate Group Bringing British National Party Leader Nick Griffin to Speak

Racist Speaker at MSU to be met by Protests

Racist Speaker Disrupted at Michigan State University

Minuteman Founder Speaks at MSU Despite Protests

Protestors Disrupt Minuteman Founder at MSU

MORE: Recent | By Category

Suggested Reading

Glossary

Works Cited

John Bevilaqua · November 4, 2007

Willis Carto The Liberty Lobby and the IHR

IHR Publications

The IHR publishes an unreviewed "journal," "The Journal of Historical Review," as well as "The IHR Newsletter," and an "IHR Update."

"The impressively titled Institute was once a reputable historical revisionist entity but was taken over by ideological radicals and now is housed in a rented garage in a run-down commercial area of Costa Mesa, California. They once produced a historical journal with a large circulation, but chronic mismanagement coupled with expensive legal problems has reduced their subscription list to less than two hundred individuals of the type who once worshipped [David] Irving and their slim 'Journal' appears about as often as Irving's books after the fall.

" One of its two 'directors' was once arrested in Germany for defacing a Catholic church with swastikas and now supplements his income by acting as a shift manager for a fast food restaurant in South Central Los Angeles and the other does duty as an automobile mechanic.

" A second 'director' abruptly resigned his position after posting on his Internet site the stunning revelations that he was a space alien whose parents had been giant turtles.

" A third 'director' found it necessary to leave the United States and he now lives in a small village in Central Mexico and runs a Flying Saucer Research Center. His own newsletters specialize in well-illustrated articles on anal probes allegedly conducted by small, pale men with large black eyes. The illustrations come from a book on proctology and are not recommended for viewing before eating. "

(Kolchek, Dr. Karl, "Suffering Fools Gladly? David Irving & Revisionism")

Dan Gannon, the owner-operator of the Portland, Oregon, bulletin board system known as "banished.uucp," published articles from Carto's organization on a regular basis, presumably as a public service to those wishing to obtain a more accurate understanding of the true nature of Carto and his associates. Many of these documents are archived by ftp.nizkor.org, and thus available for anonymous retrieval. (Mr. Gannon's computer system offered its users a steady diet of anti-Semitic and racist material; Gannon was an eager campaigner for Mr. Carto's anti-Semitic agenda.)

Why did Gannon do it, when he knew from past experience, both on UseNet and GEnie, that he would be laughed at and hated for doing so? Martinez provided the answer during a discussion of free speech issues in general, and the Alan Berg show in particular:

Alan Berg gave huge amounts of air time to racists so that he could satisfy his ego by responding to them and ridiculing them. The racists know they will be ridiculed when they go on such programs, and assume they will be despised by more than 99 percent of the people who hear them spout their venom. But none of that is of any matter to them. The fraction of 1 percent is. There they will find the malcontents, the embittered, the bigots, and the sincerely concerned but ignorant people like I was. The numbers are in their favor, and they know it. Snyder's program [Tom Snyder interviewed David Duke on television, and seeing that show led Martinez into the supremacist camp. knm] may have reached 2 million listeners; if only one-tenth of 1 percent of them respond favorably, they have recruited 2,000 people, no doubt swelling the ranks of their group ten- or twentyfold. One hundredth of 1 percent would make them happy. (Martinez, 242)

A parting comment or two regarding Mr. Gannon, from those he most admires:

Prince Otto von Bismark, a member of the great chancellor's family, characterized Ribbentrop as 'such an imbecile he is a freak of nature.' The French ambassador remarked: 'I could not talk to Ribbentrop; he listened only to himself.' Goering referred to him as 'Germany's number-one parrot,' because of his endless repetition of meaningless claptrap." (Conot, Robert E. Justice at Nuremberg. New York: Harper & Row, 1983, 52-53)

One can only wonder how these folks would have viewed Mr. Gannon...

IHR publications posted to UseNet newsgroups are archived on ftp.nizkor.org, and are available to the public via anonymous ftp. In general, the filename reflects the source of the article:

IHR newsletters are prefaced with IHR, while JHR files are prefaced with JHR. The file extensions reflect either the month and year of publication, plus the volume number (if provided) i.e. IHR.0492n86 contains material from the April, 1993, newsletter, number 86, while JHR.v12n4 contains material from the Journal of Historical Review, volume 12, number 4. Spotlight articles use the form "spotlight.mmyy," i.e. "spotlight.0193" contains material from the January, 1993 editions.

Noontide Press

The publishing arm of the IHR and other related organisations, Noontide Press, which can boast of such titles as "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion," "The six millions reconsidered" and "Antizion," The treasurer of its holding company is Carto's wife and until 1981 its firm office manager was one Lewis Brandon.

Noontide Press is owned by the Legion for Survival of Freedom, which is the umbrella corporation under which the IHR itself operates.

Additional titles offered by Noontide press include these gems:

"Amendment to the Constitution" (Pace) - a proposal to restrict U.S. citizenship to white people.

"Our Nordic Race" (Hoskins) - an "outline (of) present threats to Nordic survival", complete with proposed measures to "protect and preserve the Nordic race."

"The Testing of Negro Intelligence" (Osborne & McGurk) - the authors' findings "give little comfort to egalitarians." Those findings are based, of course, on "performance on intelligence tests from 1966- 1980."

"For Those Who Cannot Speak" (McLaughlin) - you may have guessed that he's not talking about Holocaust victims. This book is a "vigorous 'case for the defense' for National Socialist Germany."

"Hitler : the Unknown Artist" (Price) - "What a magnificent production!", gushes the blurb. "The first comprehensive... catalog of Hitler's paintings, drawings, sketches, doodles and daydreams." Yes, folks, his daydreams.

And don't forget perennial favorites "Hitler at My Side" and "IQ and Racial Differences".

Martinez mentions one more book published by Noontide Press, 'The Road Back,' and notes that it has been used as a textbook for seminars at the Aryan Nations. "It includes an illustrated chapter on methods for mining roads and blowing up bridges."(Martinez, 241)

Mark Weber, writing in the East Bay Express (Get pub/orgs/american/ihr/express.011792 for the complete Weber letter, transcribed with permission for release on UseNet), claimed that Noontide Press and the Institute for Historical Review were "entirely independent" of the Liberty Lobby. This flew in the face of reality, however, since the business license for both was filed by Carto's wife Elisabeth, and Carto was listed on the letterhead of the IHR as "founder." Carto's weekly, 'The Spotlight,' regularly promoted Noontide Press as an integral part of the Liberty Lobby's "Liberty Library." [Note: Following the ouster of Willis Carto from the IHR in 1994, reportedly at gunpoint, Weber's assertion is finally correct. knm]

Carto has apparently lost control of his Noontide Press publishing arm, according to The Dignity Report, a publication of the (Portland, Oregon) Coalition for Human Dignity's Research Department. (Get pub/people/c/carto.willis/carto.005 for full details.) This during the same period when Carto was successfully removed from his controlling position at the Institute for Historical Review. Legal maneuvers, however, continue - in October of 1995, Willis Carto filed a document with the Office of the Secretary of State, Corporate Section, which outlined changes to the Legion's charter, and signed the document as the President of the Corporation. (URL ftp://ftp.nizkor.org/pub/ orgs/american/legion-for-survival-of-freedom/legal contains legal filings of interest with regard to the legal battle between Willis Carto and Greg Raven.)

The Journal of Historical Review

In a mid-1995 fund-raising letter from the IHR, the authors suggested that publication of the Journal might be discontinued, due to serious financial problems. How much of this is rhetoric, aimed at picking the pockets of supporters, and how much reflects the loss of the Edison millions through the forced ouster of Willis Carto is unknown.

In the meantime, Carto's Spotlight announced (August, 1994) the publication of "The Barnes Review," Carto's new Holocaust denial publication, which will compete with the JHR for readers and, of course, money. According to the ADL (ADL Special Report, "Embattled Bigots: A Split in the Ranks of the Holocaust Denial Movement", p. 5), the Spotlight staff will assist in the prouduction of the Barnes Review.

The Spotlight

The Spotlight evolved from the Liberty Lobby's newsletter, "Liberty Letter," which echoed Willis Carto's earlier anti-Semitic assaults during the period when he controlled "American Mercury." According to Deborah Lipstadt,

"In 1975 the lobby's Liberty Letter, whose circulation was more than one-hundred thousand, was subsumed by the Spotlight, a tabloid newspaper that regularly featured articles on Bible analysis and the putative efforts of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission to dominate the nation. It offered its readers tips on avoiding taxes and fighting the IRS. The paper attacked Martin Luther King, Jr., as a Communist and praised members of the Ku Klux Klan. It has memorialized Gordon Kahl, the leader of the right-wing-extremist group Posse Comitatus, who killed three [uS] federal marshals and wounded a number of others before he was killed in 1983 in a shoot-out with federal agents." (Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, 150)

Lipstadt offers information which suggests that Spotlight's standards for journalistic integrity leave something to be desired:

"...In 1979 Spotlight's lead article described how a global elite planned to topple world governments. The paper claimed that its reporter had attended an international conference in Austria at which such plans were discussed. In truth, no one from the Spotlight attended this legitimate conference, and the reporter who wrote the story admitted to falsifying it." ( Ibid, 150)

Lipstadt goes on to explain that the primary focus of Spotlight's attention lies in exposing what it calls the "Jew-Zionist" international bankers' conspiracy, aimed at Americans, and the "Holocaust Hoax," which it maintains is an integral part of this vast conspiracy. Holocaust denial "has also become a regular staple." (Ibid., 150)

"The nature of Spotlight's readership can be gauged to some degree by the contents of its classified advertising section. There are ads for poetry, laetrile prescriptions, dating services for patriotic Christians, and devices for dramatically increasing a car's gasoline mileage (these devices have supposedly been kept off the market in a conspiracy against the American consumer). In addition, its classified section regularly offers Nazi paraphernalia, gun silencer parts, bullet-proof vests, clandestine mail drops, and instructions for manufacturing false identification." (Lipstadt, 151)

The masthead of the May 3, 1993 edition of The Spotlight lists Robert Weems with the Southern Bureau. Weems is a former KKK leader and founding chairman of the PAC (see Section 4.2).

The Canadian representation on the international bureau is Ron Gostick. Gostick controls the "Freedom Council of Canada," along with Patrick Walsh, both of whom are described as officers of the anti-Semitic (and non-governmental) "Canadian Intelligence Service." Walsh is said to be the "Canadian correspondent of the Liberty Lobby," although I am uncertain as to what this refers to. (Anderson, 154)

IHR/JHR Editorial Advisory Staff & Writers

Andrew Arnold

No information available as of this date. "Andrew Arnold" was the author of a recent (April 1993) Spotlight article attacking the Museum of the Holocaust, in Washington, D.C. No biographical information was provided with the article. (get pub/orgs/american/ihr/spotlight.0493 to see the entire article, as posted to UseNet by Dan Gannon.)

Dr. Robert Faurisson

Faurisson, a former French academic, contends that the Holocaust was a hoax which benefits Israel in the form of reparation payments, (Barrett, 162) a view commonly aired by those espousing Holocaust denial. Seidel provides excellent background material:

In November 1978 Robert Faurisson wrote a letter on the 'problem' of the gas chambers. Its timing was important. Its publication in Le Monde followed close on the heels of a scandalous interview with Darquier de Pellepoix in the weekly magazine, L'Express. Darquier was the Vichy Commissioner General for Jewish Affairs. Darquier has been described as the 'French Eichmann'--though even Eichmann, the architect of the 'Final Solution', did not seek to deny its reality. ...

The Holocaust denial in France has become synonymous with the Faurisson affair. What is more, it has become embroiled with Noam Chomsky, the distinguished American linguist and staunch opponent of the Vietnam war. (get pub/orgs/american/ihr/seidel.001 for Seidel's discussion of Chomsky's role - it is beyond the scope of this FAQ. knm)

Faurisson's book is entitled Memoire en Defense--contre ceux qui m'accusent de falsifier l'histoire. La question des chambres a gaz (Testimony in Defence: Against those who Accuse me of Falsifying History. The Question of the Gas Chambers). It is Faurisson's answer to the accusation of falsifying history. Testimony in Defence was published in Paris by Pierre Guillaume for the left anarchist publishing house, La Vieille Taupe (The Old Mole), in 1980. ...

Faurisson's denial of the Holocaust first appeared in the satirical Canard Enchaine ["Le Canard Enchaine".knm] on 17 July 1974. It subsequently gained public attention in December 1978 when the influential Paris daily, Le Monde, published a letter from Faurisson headed 'The problem of the "gas chambers" or "The rumour of Auschwitz"'. He wrote with calculated cynicism: 'The non-existence of the "gas chambers" is good news for poor humanity. Good news like this should not be suppressed any longer.'

Robert Faurisson is not a historian. He belongs to a long line of antisemitic academics and literary critics. Until recently, he was a lecturer in twentieth-century French literature at the University of Lyons II. He specialises in revealing 'the real meaning' of texts. In Faurisson's view, texts have one particular meaning, or none at all, an approach to stylistics he calls 'the Ajax method'--because 'it scours as it cleans as it shines'. (Seidel, 98-111. Seidel provides extensive information regarding Faurisson's background, writing, and trial. Get pub/orgs/american/ihr/seidel.001 to review his material.)

Faurisson has also pronounced the Diary of Anne Frank and the Gerstein Report to be "fabrications and falsifications," and asserts that the Holocaust "lie" is essentially "Zionist" in origin, and that it has led to a "huge financial swindle of which the state of Israel is the principal beneficiary." It was the widespread publication of this sort of material that led the Dean of Lyons University to suspend Faurisson's lectures.

Faurisson was one of the four members of the IHR advisory board who testified at the trial of Ernst Zündel in Canada.

Ditlieb Felderer

Felderer, testifying at the trial of Ernst Zündel (Canada), explained his conviction on a charge of "threatening or expressing contempt for a group" for publishing a "Jewish Information" tract entitled "Please accept this hair of gas victim," which he described as satire, by stating that he was being "persecuted by Zionists." (Bilodeau)

According to the Toronto Star, "Felderer called his native Sweden a 'totalitarian state' and compared his trial to a 'Soviet show trial,' and "...said Nazi concentration camps were more humane than modern prisons." (Bilodeau)

William Lindsay

Lindsay was one of the four members of the IHR advisory board who testified at the trial of Ernst Zündel in Canada. (Barrett, 162) Any additional documented information which we can utilize to augment this section will be appreciated.

Theodore O'Keefe

In an article published to coincide with the official opening of the Washington, D.C. Holocaust Museum, one editor is briefly described as follows:

"Theodore J. O'Keefe is an editor with the Institute for Historical Review. Educated at Harvard University, he has studied history and literature on three continents, and has published numerous articles on historical and political subjects."

According to the 1990 Harvard Alumni Directory, Mr. O'Keefe failed to graduate, so the reader will have to make his own decision about whether or not he obtained his education there. Additional material would be appreciated.

The above "bio" of Mr. O'Keefe would seem to be simply one more example of how the IHR can be relied upon to mislead its readers. (We have written to the IHR [April, 1993] and asked for more informative information regarding Mr. O'Keefe's educational background and areas of expertise, but no additional information has been provided.)

As of mid-1995, Mr. O'Keefe may have left the IHR.

Greg Raven

Mr. Raven, now the President and CEO of the Legion for the Survival of Freedom, and therefor the IHR itself, offers insight into his personal political beliefs in this message which he posted during a GEnie debate into Holocaust denial:

Category 15, Topic 4

Message 33 Fri Mar 13, 1992

G.RAVEN at 03:02 EST

My only concern is in going after the facts. As such, I am

not interested in defending Adolf Hitler to my dying

breath. I will say, however, that he was a great man ...

certainly greater than Churchill and FDR put together, and

possibly the greatest leader of our century, if not longer.

This is not to say that he was perfect, but he about the

best thing that could have happened to Germany.

(Other examples of Mr. Raven's historical beliefs may be found within the IHR archives here - his writing may be found in the directory pub/people/r/raven.greg.)

Henri Roques

Roques...wrote a thesis titled 'Confessions of Kurt Gerstein: A Comparative Study of Different Versions - A Critique.'..[he] claims in his thesis to have 'scientifically' disproved that the gas chambers at Auschwitz were used for mass murder. After submitting his 'revisionist' thesis to the University of Paris, where it was rejected, he received his doctorate with distinction from the faculty of letters of the University of Nantes.

A government investigation into the granting of his degree revealed a number of irregularities:

First, Roques transferred from the University of Paris to Nantes...three months after the deadline for student enrollment had passed and without authorization from the University rector. Second, he did not have the necessary qualifications or title for presenting a thesis in literature or history. Third, the mandatory oral examination did not take place. Fourth, he wrote the thesis in two months rather than the two years required minimum registration period. Finally, the signature of one of the examiners said to have been present at the presentation of the thesis was forged.

In 1986, the French Minister of Higher Education... invalidated Roque's thesis citing the above irregularities....

...

Since 1986, Roques has established close ties to the IHR. He was a guest speaker at their Eighth Annual Conference in 1987, and joined their Editorial Advisory Committee in 1990. IHR now offers Roque's discredited thesis for sale on its mail-order booklists." (Caplan, 43-44)

Udo Walendy

Udo Walendy was described in the Simon Wiesenthal Center infiltration report as follows:

Udo Walendy is a notorious Holocaust denier who, for years, has served on the advisory board of the Journal of Historical Review, the official publication of the Institute for Historical Review of Costa Mesa, California. (see entries for Mark Weber and Willis Carto) ...Walendy expressed interest in ... offering his assistance in the creation of a Nazi center in Germany.

Mark Weber

In response to my query, the IHR provided the following background information concerning Mr. Weber:

Mark Weber was born in October 1951 in Portland, Oregon, where he was also raised. He graduated from Jesuit High School there in 1969.

He studied at the University of Illinois (Chicago), the University of Munich (Germany), and Portland State University, from where he received a Batchelor's degree in history (with high honors). He then did graduate work in history at Indiana University (Bloomington), where he served as a history instructor and received a Master of Arts degree in European history in 1977.

He has travelled widely in Europe and northwestern Africa. He lived and worked for two and a half years in Germany (Bonn and Munich), and for a time in Ghana (West Africa), where he taught English, history and geography at an all-Black secondary school.

During the five years he lived in Washington, D.C. (1978-1983) he carried out extensive research on the Holocaust issue at the National Archives and the Library of Congress. Weber is the author of numerous articles, reviews and essays dealing with the Holocaust story, and his writings on other historical, political and social issues have appeared in a variety of periodicals.

In March 1988 Weber testified for five days in Toronto District Court as a recognized expert witness on the "Final Solution" and the Holocaust issue.

He moved to Southern California at the beginning of 1991 to work for the Institute for Historical Review. He is now editor of the 'Journal of Historical Review,' published six times years by the IHR.

Mark Weber serves as Carto's pipeline to the German paleo-nazis, as was conclusively demonstrated by the Simon Wiesenthal Center's recent penetration of the German right. Here's what the infiltration report has to say about Mr. Weber's Nazi connections:

Mark Weber works for the Institute for Historical Review (Costa Mesa, California), one of several antisemitic organizations founded by Willis A. Carto. The I.H.R. devotes most of its time to spreading the bizarre notion that the Holocaust is wildly exaggerated and that the gas chambers of Hitler's death camps are a myth. In 1978, Weber was identified as the news editor of the National Vanguard, the publication of William Pierce's neo-Nazi group, the National Alliance.

Weber's name came up in several conversations with German neo-Nazis, including Wolfgang Kempkens and Roy Godenau. As part of Ron Furey's cover, a "cold" phone line at the Simon Wiesenthal Center was attached to an answering machine informing the caller that he/she had reached The Right Way. That phone number was known only to the Center's senior research staff, Ron Furey, and the neo-Nazis to whom it was given.

At 2:55pm on Friday, February 12, 1993, a man identifying himself as Mark Weber called the number, requested a copy of The Right Way, and left his P.O.B. address for mailing. The Center's graphics department sent him a colorful subscription application for the non-existent periodical, instead. This was apparently enough to satisfy Mr. Weber's curiosity because he soon acceded to Ron's request for a meeting.

That meeting took place on February 27, 1993 at the Cafe Westminster in Westminster, California. It was filmed by a CBS camera crew stationed in a van outside. Mr. Furey spoke to Mark Weber at length about the "state of the movement" in Germany. To help establish his credibility, he showed Weber several photos picturing him and several German neo-Nazis together. Weber correctly identified them all.

Weber soon felt comfortable enough to discuss the miserliness of his current employer and to ask about the possibility of finding work with The Right Way. He was also recommended by Reinhard Kopps (see entry) to Richard Eaton for a separate project.

Kineahora@cup.portal.com (Chana Braun) provided us with an interesting glance into Mark Weber's intregity when she wrote <59136@cup.portal.com> that "...I have excellent evidence that Mark Weber colors the truth (to put it mildly) in regards to debates," and then went on to detail a series of exchanges between a Holocaust denier and others on another computer network.

Her article outlined the exchange dealing with Mark Weber's being invited to join in the debate, and Mr. Weber's demand that she (Chana Braun) not "bring in any outside help" in her debate with him.

(Mr. Weber, quite clearly, was not the least bit interested in an open and comprehensive debate on a public computer network.) (get pub/people/w/weber.mark/webers.feet for the full text of Chana's article.)

As Chana explained:

There was absolutely no response to that reply and nothing more was heard concerning the possibility of an open discussion on that network until the February 1992 issue of the IHR Newsletter. Here, then is the way that it was reported (and keep in mind that Mark Weber is the editor of the Newsletter).

"In the January Newsletter I told about an IHR activist who had received a challenge to publicly debate the Holocaust on [the network] open forum bulletin board computer service - the largest interactive computer network.

...After we promptly offered Mark Weber to represent that Revisionist [sic] side, XXX suddenly flip-flopped. Deciding that she is not a 'scholar' after all, but merely an 'amateur,' she complained that it would be 'unfair' for her to have to face a professional historian."

-----------

The plot in this story thickens. The one opposing the Holocaust Deniers on that network wrote a letter to the editor of the Newsletter (i.e. Mark Weber). Since the IHR is such a staunch champion of Freedom of Speech, it seems strange that 3 months later, that letter has still not received a reply much less been printed in the IHR Newsletter.

Here, then, is the letter that the IHR Newsletter refuses to print or even acknowledge:

February 27, 1992

Mark Weber, Editor

IHR Newsletter

Institute of Historical Review

1822 1/2 Newport Blvd.

Suite 191

Costa Mesa, CA 92627

Dear Mr.Weber:

I read with interest the article in your IHR Newsletter #85 February 1992 concerning [the network] and me. This is truly a work of revisionism (e.g. distorting the facts to fit into your personal view of the world) and, since those connected with the IHR claim that they are eager to be taken seriously, it is surprising that I was not contacted for comment before you went to press.

Let's get the facts straight. Your "IHR activist" was posting messages denying the Holocaust. I responded. He claimed that no one was willing to debate the Holocaust. This, of course, is absurd. I told him that he could name his sources and begin. He posted a message about The Leuchter Report. I rebutted his erroneous statements. (By the way, I don't believe he has read the report. You might want to check on that before you encourage his "activism" too much.) He then suddenly claimed on the public board that he didn't have time to debate and he was trying to get someone online from the IHR. I responded by telling him that everyone was welcome. That is when he contacted you and you agreed to come online.

What your "IHR activist" presented to me were a set of ridiculous conditions. They included that the debate take place only between you and me and that it be advertized on [the network]. I was told to contact the "Arts Club Leader" to urge her to agree. First, [the Arts Club Leader] doesn't have the authority to grant such requests. Even if she did, as I told your "activist," there are no precedents to such a closed debate on Prodigy and that involving the Arts Club Leader might even be counter-productive. My reasoning was this: "In fact, involving the Arts Club leader might be counter-productive in that it calls attention to this single debate and, if it ever begins, our messages might undergo closer scrutiny by the censors. I don't think either of us wants that." In fact, since you are such a champion for "open debate," I was very surprised that you wished for this one to be closed to others.

One of the amusing requirements for your participation in the debate was an agreement by me that I would have no outside help (whatever that means). This amusement I expressed to your "activist" in the following quote: "I am an amateur (i.e. I don't get paid by anyone to research the Holocaust, I am not employed by anyone or any organization that has an interest in the Holocaust and/or Holocaust Denial, etc.). You have presented yourself in the same manner. Mr. Weber, I think you would agree, is a professional. There is no prohibition against him joining the discussion but I do think it odd that you ask that I not ask for any outside help when you are bringing in a professional."

If you notice, I claim amateur status because I don't get paid - not because I am not a "scholar" or because it would be "unfair" for me to have to debate a professional. Yet, you are apparently so frightened of debating in a situation where you cannot control all the factors that I heard nothing else from you or your "activist." Please notice, I did not say I wouldn't agree to your terms regarding outside help. I only said that I found it "odd" that a professional would insist on such a term before debating an amateur.

However, the greatest part of your article had to be the sub-headline of "Another Anti-Revisionist Gets Cold Feet." I assure you, Mr. Weber, that my feet are toasty warm. In fact, I closed my message to your "activist" with the following: "I guess the main question is: Do you and Mr. Weber desire to have an open discussion or not? If so, post a message (either on your own or one on behalf of Mr. Weber). That is the manner in which all other discussions are initiated on [the network] and I don't see any need to make an exception for this one."

I am still waiting for an answer to that question. What temperature are your feet, Mr. Weber?

Sincerely,

Mr. Weber, to our knowledge, has still not either printed the above letter in the "open" IHR Newsletter or responded privately to Ms. Braun. Given that more than a year has passed, it would seem that Mr. Weber's feet are rather chilly indeed.

In an article published in the Express, a San Francisco Bay Area weekly newspaper, Paul Rauber included the following comments about Mark Weber:

The question [of whether the IHR denies the Holocaust] appears to turn on IHR's Humpty-Dumpty word game with the word Holocaust. According to Mark Weber, associate editor of the IHR's Journal of Historical Review, "If by the `Holocaust' you mean the political persecution of Jews, some scattered killings, if you mean a cruel thing that happened, no one denies that. But if one says that the `Holocaust' means the systematic extermination of six to eight millions Jews in concentration camps, that's what we think there's not evidence for." That is, IHR doesn't deny that the Holocaust happened; they just deny that the word "Holocaust" means what people customarily use it for. (Rauber, 'Sticks')

Weber's claim for the "independence" of the IHR is marked by the same disingenuousness that characterizes that institutes scholarship. In 1980 the business license for "The Noontide Press/Institute for Historical Review" was filed by Elisabeth Carto, wife of Liberty Lobby founder and treasurer Willis Carto. Carto himself is listed on IHR's letterhead as "founder." IHR's activities are regularly promoted in the Spotlight, as are the racist and anti-Semitic books by Noontide Press, which are advertised as part of the Lobby's "Liberty Library." (Rauber, 'Response')

According to the July, 1995, "IHR Update," Mr. Weber is now the IHR Director. He is also listed in a July 1995 legal document as the Secretary of the Legion for the Survival of Freedom.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ Previous | Index | Next ]

John Bevilaqua · November 4, 2007

Fletcher Prouty, Robert Weems, John Rarick and David Duke

Birds of a Feather Flock Together...

Mullins' writings are a standby on the Klan/neo-Nazi circuit. A recent Sons of Liberty book list included Mullins titles such as "Jewish TV: Sick, Sick, Sick," "The Jewish War Against the Christian World," and "Easter," which the catalog tells us give a "look at the 5,000 years of history in the ongoing war between the Satanic-Jewish forces and their Babylonian religious system and the rest of humanity." (Sons of Liberty Fall 1992 catalog, New Christian Crusade Church)

Lawrence Patterson addressed the national committee of the Populist Party in 1988 when they gathered for the David Duke nomination. Patterson's "Criminal Politics" newsletter carries warnings of a "Zionist Trilateral Party" conspiracy to merge the United States, the USSR, and Europe. This conspiracy is "anti-American, anti-religious, atheistic, anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, and anti- Protestant." (Criminal, 07/91, 6) Patterson's newsletter, which went for $15 an issue in 1991, listed Eustace Mullins (see above) as contributing editor. Eric Butler and Ivor Benson were listed as correspondents. Butler has been a long time leader of the Australian League of Rights and is "considered a mentor by active racists and anti-semites throughout the English-speaking world." (Knight, 23) Similarly, Benson -- Information Advisor to the former Rhodesian government -- was a staunch supporter of apartheid in South Africa. (Ibid, 153)

Pauline Mackey is another veteran of the David Duke campaign.

Col. L. Fletcher Prouty has maintained a strong relationship with the Liberty Lobby for years. During the lengthy legal battles surrounding the Mermelstein lawsuits against the Liberty Lobby and Willis A. Carto, Prouty and fellow PAC advisory board member Lt. Col. James "Bo" Gritz were "prepared to testify as character witnesses on behalf of Liberty Lobby founder Willis A. Carto." (Spotlight, 10-7-91, 12)

Prouty has been a guest on the Liberty Lobby sponsored Radio Free America program dozens of times. (I understand that the Pacifica Radio folks also broadcasts a syndicated "Radio Free America" program, which should not be confused with this one.) Prouty was a featured speaker at the 35th Liberty Lobby Board of Policy convention were he said "If anybody really wants to know what's going on in the world today, he should be reading 'Spotlight'" and explained that "one of the first enemies we have in this country is usury". (Spotlight, 10-8-90, 14)

John Rarick has been "a willing enough ally of the Liberty Lobby" for years. (Mintz, 155) Rarick was a prominent activist in the segregationist white Citizens Councils.

Robert Weems was the founding chairman of the Populist Party. Weems was a "voting member of party's national executive committee" in 1988, when the party nominated David Duke. (Spotlight, 3-28-88, 4) Also the founding national chairman of the PAC, Weems was a Mississippi KKK leader. (Ridgeway, 131)

Weems was scheduled to speak in July 1991 at the "First National Identity-Christian Conference in Reidsville, North Carolina. His topic was "Internationalism and How it Relates to Race, Nation, and Faith." Other speakers at the conference included Eustace Mullins and Lt. Col. James "Bo" Gritz. The promotional materials for this conference included advertisements for books such as "Our Nordic Race," "White Race--True People of Israel," and "God's Call to Race." (Conference mailing, June 1991)

John Bevilaqua · November 4, 2007

The Eugenical Solution to the Removal of JFK

"Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution": Logo from the Second International Eugenics Conference [6], 1921, depicting it as a tree which unites a variety of different fields.Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.[1] Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier and more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering. More controversially, some, such as the Nazi regime in Germany, used eugenics as a pretext for racial discrimination.

Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering. Opponents argue that eugenics is immoral and is based on, or is itself, pseudoscience. Historically, eugenics has been used as a justification for coercive state-sponsored discrimination and human rights violations, such as forced sterilization of persons who are claimed to have genetic defects, the killing of the institutionalized population and, in some cases, outright genocide of races perceived as inferior or undesirable.

The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1865, drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin. From its inception eugenics was supported by prominent people, including Alexander Graham Bell, George Bernard Shaw, and Margaret Sanger. G. K. Chesterton was against the philosophy of eugenics and he expresses this in his book, Eugenics and Other Evils. [citation needed] Eugenics became an academic discipline at many colleges and universities. Funding was provided by prestigious sources such as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, and the Harriman family.[2] Three International Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for eugenicists with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York. Eugenics' scientific reputation started to tumble in the 1930s, a time when Ernst Rüdin began incorporating eugenic rhetoric into the racial policies of Nazi Germany.

Since the postwar period, both the public and the scientific communities have associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, such as enforced racial hygiene, human experimentation, and the extermination of undesired population groups. However, developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies at the end of the 20th century have raised many new questions and concerns about what exactly constitutes the meaning of eugenics and what its ethical and moral status is in the modern era.

Contents [hide]

1 Meanings and types of eugenics

2 History

2.1 Pre-Galtonian eugenic philosophies

2.2 Galton's theory

2.3 Sparta

2.4 Nazi Germany

2.5 Eugenics and the United States, 1890s–1945

2.6 Canada

2.7 Australia

2.8 Sweden

2.9 Britain

2.10 Other countries

2.11 Marginalization after World War II

3 Modern eugenics, genetic engineering, and ethical re-evaluation

3.1 Suggestions and ideas

3.2 Cyprus

3.3 United States

3.4 Dor Yeshorim

3.5 Ethical re-assessment

4 Criticism

4.1 Diseases vs. traits

4.2 Slippery slope

4.3 Genetic diversity

4.4 Heterozygous recessive traits

5 Counterarguments

5.1 Dysgenics

5.2 Potential benefits

6 See also

7 Notes

8 References

9 Documentary film

10 External links

10.1 Pro-eugenics websites

10.2 Anti-eugenics and historical websites

10.3 Other

[edit] Meanings and types of eugenics

The word eugenics etymologically derives from the Greek word eu (good or well) and the suffix -genēs (born), and was coined by Sir Francis Galton in 1883.

Eugenics has, from the very beginning, meant many different things to many different people. Historically, the term has referred to everything from prenatal care for mothers to forced sterilization and euthanasia. Much debate took place in the past, and takes place today, as to what exactly counts as eugenics.[3] Some types of eugenics, such as race-based eugenics and class-based eugenics, are sometimes called 'pseudo-eugenics' by proponents of strict eugenics that deals only with perceived beneficial and detrimental genetic traits.

The term eugenics is often used to refer to movements and social policies that were influential during the early 20th century. In a historical and broader sense, eugenics can also be a study of "improving human genetic qualities". It is sometimes broadly applied to describe any human action whose goal is to improve the gene pool. Some forms of infanticide in ancient societies, present-day reprogenetics, preemptive abortions and designer babies have been (sometimes controversially) referred to as eugenic.

Because of its normative goals and historical association with scientific racism, as well as the development of the science of genetics, the western scientific community has mostly disassociated itself from the term "eugenics", although one can find advocates of what is now known as liberal eugenics.

Ideological social determinists, some of which have obtained college degrees in fields relevant to eugenics, often describe eugenics as a pseudoscience. Modern inquiries into the potential use of genetic engineering have led to an increased invocation of the history of eugenics in discussions of bioethics, most often as a cautionary tale. Some ethicists suggest that even non-coercive eugenics programs would be inherently unethical[citation needed], though this view has been challenged by such thinkers as Nicholas Agar.[4]

Eugenicists advocate specific policies that (if successful) would lead to a perceived improvement of the human gene pool. Since defining what improvements are desired or beneficial is perceived by many as a cultural choice rather than a matter that can be determined objectively (e.g., by empirical, scientific inquiry), eugenics has often been deemed a pseudoscience. The most disputed aspect of eugenics has been the definition of "improvement" of the human gene pool, such as what is a beneficial characteristic and what is a defect. This aspect of eugenics has historically been tainted with scientific racism.

Early eugenicists were mostly concerned with perceived intelligence factors that often correlated strongly with social class. Many eugenicists took inspiration from the selective breeding of animals (where purebreds are often strived for) as their analogy for improving human society. The mixing of races (or miscegenation) was usually considered as something to be avoided in the name of racial purity. At the time this concept appeared to have some scientific support, and it remained a contentious issue until the advanced development of genetics led to a scientific consensus that the division of the human species into unequal races is unjustifiable. Some see this as an ideological consensus, since equality, just like inequality, is a cultural choice rather than a matter that can be determined objectively.

Eugenics has also been concerned with the elimination of hereditary diseases such as hemophilia and Huntington's disease. However, there are several problems with labeling certain factors as "genetic defects":

In many cases there is no scientific consensus on what a "genetic defect" is. It is often argued that this is more a matter of social or individual choice.

What appears to be a "genetic defect" in one context or environment may not be so in another. This can be the case for genes with a heterozygote advantage, such as sickle cell anemia or Tay-Sachs disease, which in their heterozygote form may offer an advantage against, respectively, malaria and tuberculosis.

Although some birth defects are uniformly lethal, disabled persons can succeed in life.

Many of the conditions early eugenicists identified as inheritable (pellagra is one such example) are currently considered to be at least partially, if not wholly, attributed to environmental conditions.

Similar concerns have been raised when a prenatal diagnosis of a congenital disorder leads to abortion (see also preimplantation genetic diagnosis).

Eugenic policies have been conceptually divided into two categories:

Positive eugenics is aimed to encourage reproduction among the genetically advantaged. Possible approaches include financial and political stimuli, targeted demographic analyses, in vitro fertilization, egg transplants, and cloning.[5]

Negative eugenics is aimed at lowering fertility among the genetically disadvantaged. This includes abortions, sterilization, and other methods of family planning.[6]

Both positive and negative eugenics can be coercive. Abortion by "fit" women was illegal in Nazi Germany and in the Soviet Union between 1936 and 1968.

During the 20th century, many countries enacted various eugenics policies and programs, including:

Genetic screening

Birth control

Promoting differential birth rates

Marriage restrictions

Segregation (both racial segregation as well as segregation of the mentally ill from the normal)

Compulsory sterilization

Forced abortions, or, conversely, forced pregnancies

Genocide

Most of these policies were later regarded as coercive, restrictive, or genocidal, and now few jurisdictions implement policies that are explicitly labeled as eugenic or unequivocally eugenic in substance (however labeled). However, some private organizations assist people in genetic counseling, and reprogenetics may be considered as a form of non-state-enforced "liberal" eugenics.

There are 3 main ways by which the methods of eugenics can be applied. They are:

mandatory eugenics, in which the government mandates a eugenics program.

promotional voluntary eugenics, in which eugenics is voluntarily practiced and promoted to the general population, but not officially mandated.

private eugenics, which is practiced voluntarily by individuals and groups, but not promoted to the general population.

[edit] History

[edit] Pre-Galtonian eugenic philosophies

The basic ideals of eugenics can be found from the beginnings of Western civilization. The philosophy was most famously expounded by Plato, who believed human reproduction should be monitored and controlled by the state. The basic eugenic principle from Plato’s The Republic was, “The best men must have intercourse with the best women as frequently as possible, and the opposite is true of the very inferior."[citation needed] Plato understood that this form of government control would not be readily accepted, and proposed that the truth be concealed from the public via a fixed lottery. Mates, in Plato’s Republic, would be chosen by a “marriage number” in which the quality of the individual would be quantitatively analyzed, and persons of high numbers would be allowed to procreate with other persons of high numbers. In theory, this would lead to predictable results and the improvement of the human race. However, Plato acknowledged the failure of the “marriage number” since “gold soul” persons could still produce “bronze soul” children.[citation needed] This might have been one of the earliest attempts to mathematically analyze genetic inheritance, which was not perfected until the development of Mendelian genetics and the mapping of the human genome. Other ancient civilizations, such as Rome and Sparta, practiced infanticide as a form of phenotypic selection. In Sparta, newborns were inspected by the city's elders, who decided the fate of the infant. This would be done through abandonment of “weak” or undesirable babies on the slopes of Mount Taygetos, and trials for babies which included bathing them in wine and exposing them to the elements. To Sparta, this would ensure that only the strongest survived and procreated.[7]

The 12 Tables of Roman Law, established early in the formation of the Roman Republic, stated in the fourth table that deformed children would be put to death. In addition, patriarchs in Roman society were given the right to "discard" infants at their discretion. This was often done by drowning undesired newborns in the Tiber River. The practice of infanticide in the ancient world did not subside until the Christianization of the Roman empire.

[edit] Galton's theory

Sir Francis Galton initially developed the ideas of eugenics using social statistics.During the 1860s and 1870s, Sir Francis Galton systematized these ideas and practices according to new knowledge about the evolution of man and animals provided by the theory of his cousin Charles Darwin. After reading Darwin's Origin of Species, Galton built upon Darwin's ideas whereby the mechanisms of natural selection were potentially thwarted by human civilization. He reasoned that, since many human societies sought to protect the underprivileged and weak, those societies were at odds with the natural selection responsible for extinction of the weakest. Only by changing these social policies, Galton thought, could society be saved from a "reversion towards mediocrity", a phrase that he first coined in statistics and which later changed to the now common "regression towards the mean".[8]

Galton first sketched out his theory in the 1865 article "Hereditary Talent and Character", then elaborated it further in his 1869 book Hereditary Genius.[9] He began by studying the way in which human intellectual, moral, and personality traits tended to run in families. Galton's basic argument was that "genius" and "talent" were hereditary traits in humans (although neither he nor Darwin yet had a working model of this type of heredity). He concluded that, since one could use artificial selection to exaggerate traits in other animals, one could expect similar results when applying such models to humans. As he wrote in the introduction to Hereditary Genius:

I propose to show in this book that a man's natural abilities are derived by inheritance, under exactly the same limitations as are the form and physical features of the whole organic world. Consequently, as it is easy, notwithstanding those limitations, to obtain by careful selection a permanent breed of dogs or horses gifted with peculiar powers of running, or of doing anything else, so it would be quite practicable to produce a highly-gifted race of men by judicious marriages during several consecutive generations.[10]

According to Galton, society already encouraged dysgenic conditions, claiming that the less intelligent were out-reproducing the more intelligent. Galton did not propose any selection methods; rather, he hoped that a solution would be found if social mores changed in a way that encouraged people to see the importance of breeding.

Galton first used the word eugenic in his 1883 Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development,[11] a book in which he meant "to touch on various topics more or less connected with that of the cultivation of race, or, as we might call it, with 'eugenic' questions." He included a footnote to the word "eugenic" which read:

That is, with questions bearing on what is termed in Greek, eugenes namely, good in stock, hereditarily endowed with noble qualities. This, and the allied words, eugeneia, etc., are equally applicable to men, brutes, and plants. We greatly want a brief word to express the science of improving stock, which is by no means confined to questions of judicious mating, but which, especially in the case of man, takes cognisance of all influences that tend in however remote a degree to give to the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable than they otherwise would have had. The word eugenics would sufficiently express the idea; it is at least a neater word and a more generalised one than viriculture which I once ventured to use.[12]

In 1904 he clarified his definition of eugenics as "the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with those that develop them to the utmost advantage."[13]

Galton's formulation of eugenics was based on a strong statistical approach, influenced heavily by Adolphe Quetelet's "social physics". Unlike Quetelet, however, Galton did not exalt the "average man" but decried him as mediocre. Galton and his statistical heir Karl Pearson developed what was called the biometrical approach to eugenics, which developed new and complex statistical models (later exported to wholly different fields) to describe the heredity of traits. However, with the rediscovery of Gregor Mendel's hereditary laws, two separate camps of eugenics advocates emerged. One was made up of statisticians, the other of biologists. Statisticians thought the biologists had exceptionally crude mathematical models, while biologists thought the statisticians knew little about biology.[14]

Eugenics eventually referred to human selective reproduction with an intent to create children with desirable traits, generally through the approach of influencing differential birth rates. These policies were mostly divided into two categories: positive eugenics, the increased reproduction of those seen to have advantageous hereditary traits; and negative eugenics, the discouragement of reproduction by those with hereditary traits perceived as poor. Negative eugenic policies in the past have ranged from attempts at segregation to sterilization and even genocide. Positive eugenic policies have typically taken the form of awards or bonuses for "fit" parents who have another child. Relatively innocuous practices like marriage counseling had early links with eugenic ideology.

Eugenics differed from what would later be known as Social Darwinism. While both claimed intelligence was hereditary, eugenics asserted that new policies were needed to actively change the status quo towards a more "eugenic" state, while the Social Darwinists argued society itself would naturally "check" the problem of "dysgenics" if no welfare policies were in place (for example, the poor might reproduce more but would have higher mortality rates).

[edit] Sparta

Please help improve this article by expanding this section.

See talk page for details. Please remove this message once the section has been expanded.

In Sparta, eugenics was practised,[15] not scientifically but selectively and judged by the infant's ability to live.[16][17] If the child was deemed incapable of living, it was usually thrown from the Taygetus mountain.[15] It was more common for girls than boys to be killed this way.[18][19]

Adolf Hitler considered Sparta to be the first "Völkisch State," and much like Ernst Haeckel before him, praised Sparta due to its primitive form of eugenics practice of selective infanticide policy which was applied on deformed children.[20][21][22]

[edit] Nazi Germany

Main article: Nazi eugenics

Nazi propaganda for their compulsory "euthanasia" program: "This person suffering from hereditary defects costs the community 60,000 Reichsmark during his lifetime. Fellow Germans, that is your money, too."

"We do not stand alone": Nazi poster from 1936 with flags of other countries with compulsory sterilization legislation.Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler was infamous for eugenics programs which attempted to maintain a "pure" German race through a series of programs that ran under the banner of "racial hygiene". Among other activities, the Nazis performed extensive experimentation on live human beings to test their genetic theories, ranging from simple measurement of physical characteristics to the horrific experiments carried out by Josef Mengele for Otmar von Verschuer on twins in the concentration camps. During the 1930s and 1940s, the Nazi regime forcibly sterilized hundreds of thousands of people whom they viewed as mentally and physically "unfit", an estimated 400,000 between 1934 and 1937. The scale of the Nazi program prompted American eugenics advocates to seek an expansion of their program, with one complaining that "the Germans are beating us at our own game".[23] The Nazis went further, however, killing tens of thousands of the institutionalized disabled through compulsory "euthanasia" programs.[24]

They also implemented a number of "positive" eugenics policies, giving awards to "Aryan" women who had large numbers of children and encouraged a service in which "racially pure" single women could deliver illegitimate children. Allegations that such women were also impregnated by SS officers in the Lebensborn are common, but unproven. Also, "racially valuable" children from occupied countries were forcibly removed from their parents and adopted by German people. Many of their concerns for eugenics and racial hygiene were also explicitly present in their systematic killing of millions of "undesirable" people including Jews, Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses and homosexuals during the Holocaust (much of the killing equipment and methods employed in the death camps were first developed in the euthanasia program). The scope and coercion involved in the German eugenics programs along with a strong use of the rhetoric of eugenics and so-called "racial science" throughout the regime created an indelible cultural association between eugenics and the Third Reich in the postwar years.[25]

The alleged relation between eugenics and the Jewish Holocaust is also questioned. Contrary to popular beliefs Hitler did not regard the Jews as intellectually inferior and did not send them to the concentration camps on these grounds. In fact, in the 1930s Germans regarded the Jews as a highly talented people.[citation needed] Hitler had different reasons for his genocidal policies toward the Jews.[26] Seymour W. Itzkoff writes that the Holocaust was "a vast dysgenic program to rid Europe of highly intelligent challengers to the existing Christian domination by a numerically and politically minuscule minority". Therefore, according to Itzkoff, "the Holocaust was the very antithesis of eugenic practice."[27]

[edit] Eugenics and the United States, 1890s–1945

One of the earliest modern advocates of eugenics (before it was labeled as such) was Alexander Graham Bell. In 1881, Bell investigated the rate of deafness on Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts. From this he concluded that deafness was hereditary in nature and recommended a marriage prohibition against the deaf ("Memoir upon the formation of a deaf variety of the human Race") despite his own marriage to a deaf woman. Like many other early eugenicists, Bell proposed controlling immigration for the purpose of eugenics, and warned that boarding schools for the deaf could possibly be considered as breeding places of a deaf human race.

In 1907, Indiana became the first of more than thirty states to adopt legislation aimed at compulsory sterilization of certain individuals.[28] Although the law was overturned by the Indiana Supreme Court in 1921,[29] the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Virginia law allowing for the compulsory sterilization of patients of state mental institutions in 1927.[30]

Beginning with Connecticut in 1896, many states enacted marriage laws with eugenic criteria, prohibiting anyone who was "epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded" from marrying. In 1898 Charles B. Davenport, a prominent American biologist, began as director of a biological research station based in Cold Spring Harbor where he experimented with evolution in plants and animals. In 1904 Davenport received funds from the Carnegie Institution to found the Station for Experimental Evolution. The Eugenics Record Office opened in 1910 while Davenport and Harry H. Laughlin began to promote eugenics.[31]

During the 20th century, researchers became interested in the idea that mental illness could run in families and conducted a number of studies to document the heritability of such illnesses as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression. Their findings were used by the eugenics movement as proof for its cause. State laws were written in the late 1800s and early 1900s to prohibit marriage and force sterilization of the mentally ill in order to prevent the "passing on" of mental illness to the next generation. These laws were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1927 and were not abolished until the mid-20th century. By 1945 over 45,000 mentally ill individuals in the United States had been forcibly sterilized.[citation needed] All in all, 60,000 Americans suffered from sterilization.[32]

In years to come, the ERO collected a mass of family pedigrees and concluded that those who were unfit came from economically and socially poor backgrounds. Eugenicists such as Davenport, the psychologist Henry H. Goddard and the conservationist Madison Grant (all well respected in their time) began to lobby for various solutions to the problem of the "unfit". (Davenport favored immigration restriction and sterilization as primary methods; Goddard favored segregation in his The Kallikak Family; Grant favored all of the above and more, even entertaining the idea of extermination.)[33] Though their methodology and research methods are now understood as highly flawed, at the time this was seen as legitimate scientific research.[34] It did, however, have scientific detractors (notably, Thomas Hunt Morgan, one of the few Mendelians to explicitly criticize eugenics), though most of these focused more on what they considered the crude methodology of eugenicists, and the characterization of almost every human characteristic as being hereditary, rather than the idea of eugenics itself.[35]

Some states sterilized "imbeciles" for much of the 20th century. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1927 Buck v. Bell case that the state of Virginia could sterilize those it thought unfit. The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States.[36] A favorable report on the results of sterilization in California, the state with the most sterilizations by far, was published in book form by the biologist Paul Popenoe and was widely cited by the Nazi government as evidence that wide-reaching sterilization programs were feasible and humane. When Nazi administrators went on trial for war crimes in Nuremberg after World War II, they justified the mass sterilizations (over 450,000 in less than a decade) by citing the United States as their inspiration.[32]

A pedigree chart from The Kallikak Family meant to show how one illicit tryst could lead to an entire generation of imbeciles.The idea of "genius" and "talent" is also considered by William Graham Sumner, a founder of the American Sociological Society (now called the American Sociological Association). He maintained that if the government did not meddle with the social policy of laissez-faire, a class of genius would rise to the top of the system of social stratification, followed by a class of talent. Most of the rest of society would fit into the class of mediocrity. Those who were considered to be defective (mentally retarded, handicapped, etc.) had a negative effect on social progress by draining off necessary resources. They should be left on their own to sink or swim. But those in the class of delinquent (criminals, deviants, etc.) should be eliminated from society ("Folkways", 1907).

Anthropometry demonstrated in an exhibit from a 1921 eugenics conference.Eugenics is today often associated with racism. It was not always so; both W.E.B. DuBois and Marcus Garvey supported eugenics or ideas resembling eugenics as a way to reduce African American suffering and improve their stature.[citation needed]. However, methods of eugenics were applied to reformulate more restrictive definitions of white racial purity in existing state laws banning interracial marriage: the so-called anti-miscegenation laws. The most famous example of the influence of eugenics and its emphasis on strict racial segregation on such "anti-miscegenation" legislation was Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned this law in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia, and declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional.

With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, eugenicists for the first time played a central role in the Congressional debate as expert advisers on the threat of "inferior stock" from eastern and southern Europe. This reduced the number of immigrants from abroad to 15 percent from previous years, to control the number of "unfit" individuals entering the country. The new act, inspired by the eugenic belief in the racial superiority of "old stock" white Americans as members of the "Nordic race" (a form of white supremacy), strengthened the position of existing laws prohibiting race- mixing.[37] Eugenic considerations also lay behind the adoption of incest laws in much of the U.S. and were used to justify many anti-miscegenation laws.[38]

Various authors, notably Stephen Jay Gould, have repeatedly asserted that restrictions on immigration passed in the United States during the 1920s (and overhauled in 1965 with the Immigration and Nationality Act) were motivated by the goals of eugenics, in particular, a desire to exclude races considered to be inferior from the national gene pool. During the early 20th century, the United States and Canada began to receive far higher numbers of Southern and Eastern European immigrants. Influential eugenicists like Lothrop Stoddard and Harry Laughlin (who was appointed as an expert witness for the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization in 1920) presented arguments that these were inferior races that would pollute the national gene pool if their numbers went unrestricted. It has been argued that this stirred both Canada and the United States into passing laws creating a hierarchy of nationalities, rating them from the most desirable Anglo-Saxon and Nordic peoples to the Chinese and Japanese immigrants, who were almost completely banned from entering the country.[39] However, several people, in particular Franz Samelson, Mark Snyderman and Richard Herrnstein, have argued that, based on their examination of the records of the congressional debates over immigration policy, Congress gave virtually no consideration to these factors. According to these authors, the restrictions were motivated primarily by a desire to maintain the country's cultural integrity against a heavy influx of foreigners.[40] This interpretation is not, however, accepted by most historians of eugenics.

Some who disagree with the idea of eugenics in general contend that eugenics legislation still had benefits. Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood of America) found it a useful tool to urge the legalization of contraception. In its time eugenics was seen by many as scientific and progressive, the natural application of knowledge about breeding to the arena of human life. Before the death camps of World War II, the idea that eugenics could lead to genocide was not taken seriously.

[edit] Canada

In Canada, the eugenics movement took place early in the 20th Century, particularly in Alberta, and was quite popular. The Sexual Sterilization Act of Alberta was enacted in 1928, focusing the movement on the sterilization of mentally deficient individuals, as determined by the Alberta Eugenics Board. The campaign to enforce this action was backed by groups such as the United Farm Women's Group, including key member Emily Murphy.

Individuals were assessed using IQ tests like the Stanford-Binet. This posed a problem to new immigrants arriving in Canada, as many had not mastered the English language, and often their scores denoted them as having impaired intellectual functioning. As a result, many of those sterilized under the Sexual Sterilization Act were immigrants who were unfairly categorized.

The popularity of the eugenics movement peaked during the depression. Individuals sought an explanation for the financial problems of the nation, and the notion of defective breeding became a scapegoat; citizens blamed individuals considered to be subhuman. The end of the Canadian eugenics movement was brought about when the Sexual Sterilization Act was repealed in 1972.

[edit] Australia

The policy of removing Aboriginal children from their parents emerged from an opinion based on Eugenics theory in late nineteenth and early twentieth-century Australia that the 'full-blood' tribal Aborigine would be unable to sustain itself, and was doomed to inevitable extinction.[41] An ideology at the time held that mankind could be divided into a civilisational hierarchy. This white supremacist notion supposed that Northern Europeans were superior in civilisation and that Aborigines were inferior. According to this view, the increasing numbers of mixed-descent children in Australia, labelled as 'half-castes' (or alternatively 'crossbreeds', 'quadroons' and 'octoroons'), were widely seen to be a threat to racial purity. In the first half of the twentieth century, this led to policies and legislation that resulted in the removal of children from their parents.[42] The stated aim was to culturally assimilate mixed-descent people into contemporary Australian society. In all states and territories legislation was passed in the early years of the twentieth century which gave Aboriginal protectors guardianship rights over Aborigines up to the age of sixteen or twenty-one. Policemen or other agents of the state (such as Aboriginal Protection Officers), were given the power to locate and transfer babies and children of mixed descent, from their mothers or families or communities into institutions. In these Australian states and territories, half-caste institutions (both government or missionary) were established in the early decades of the twentieth-century for the reception of these separated children.[43][44] The 2002 movie Rabbit-Proof Fence portrays this system and the harrowing consequences of attempting to overcome it.

In 1915 A.O. Neville was appointed the second Western Australia State Chief Protector of Aborigines. During the next quarter-century, he presided over the now notorious 'Assimilation' policy of removing mixed-race Aboriginal children from their parents. This policy in turn created the Stolen Generations and set in motion a grieving process that through the now widely accepted concept of trans-generational grief, would affect many generations to come. In 1936 Neville became the Commissioner for Native Affairs, a post he held until his retirement in 1940.

Neville believed that biological absorption was the key to 'uplifting the Native race.' Speaking before the Moseley Royal Commission, which investigated the administration of Aboriginals in 1934, he defended the policies of forced settlement, removing children from parents, surveillance, discipline and punishment, arguing that "they have to be protected against themselves whether they like it or not. They cannot remain as they are. The sore spot requires the application of the surgeon's knife for the good of the patient, and probably against the patients will."

In his twilight years Neville continued to actively promote his policy. Towards the end of his career, Neville published Australia's Coloured Minority, a text outlining his plan for the biological absorption of aboriginal people into white Australia. It is a classic example of the eugenics policies popular at the time in the Western world.[45] [46]

[edit] Sweden

See also: Homo Sapiens 1900 and Herman Lundborg

From just prior to World War II until 1975, Sweden forcibly sterilized more than 62,000 people with Herman Lundborg in the lead of the project.[47] Sweden's large-scale eugenics program targeted ethnic or racial minorities, and the mentally ill. As was the case in other programs, ethnicity and race were believed to be connected to mental and physical health. While many Swedes disliked the program, politicians generally supported it; the ruling left supported it more as a means of promoting social health, while amongst the right it was more about racial protectionism. (Not until 1999 did the Swedish government begin paying compensation to the victims and their families.)

[edit] Britain

Galton's view of the British class structure was the basis and emphasis of the eugenics movement in Britain.In Britain, eugenics never received significant state funding. Furthermore, its emphasis was more upon class, rather than race.[48] Indeed, Galton expressed these views during a lecture in 1901 in which he placed the British society into groups. These groupings are shown in the figure and indicate the proportion of society falling into each group and their perceived genetic worth. Galton suggested that negative eugenics (i.e. an attempt to prevent them from bearing offspring) should be applied only to those in the lowest social group (the "Undesirables"), while positive eugenics applied to the higher classes. However, he appreciated the worth of the higher working classes to society and industry.

Sterilisation programmes were never legalised, although some were carried out in private upon the mentally ill by clinicians who were in favour of a more widespread eugenics plan.[49] (Sterilisation had, in fact, been carried out to prevent masturbation in mentally ill patients since the 1820s, long before the eugenics movement.) Indeed, those in support of eugenics shifted their lobbying of Parliament from enforced to voluntary sterilization, in the hope of achieving more legal recognition.[50]

The popularity of eugenics in Britain was reflected by the fact that only two universities established courses in this field (University College London and Liverpool University), but the position of a professorship in eugenics was never created at either. The Galton Institute, affiliated to UCL, was headed by Galton's protégé, Karl Pearson.

[edit] Other countries

Almost all non-Catholic Western nations adopted some eugenic legislations. In July 1933 Germany passed a law allowing for the involuntary sterilization of "hereditary and incurable drunkards, sexual criminals, lunatics, and those suffering from an incurable disease which would be passed on to their offspring."[51] Two provinces in Canada carried out thousands of compulsory sterilizations, and these lasted into the 1970s. Many First Nations (native Canadians) were targeted, as well as immigrants from Eastern Europe, as the program identified racial and ethnic minorities to be genetically inferior[citation needed]. Besides the large-scale program in the United States, other nations included Australia, Norway, France, Finland, Denmark, Estonia, Iceland, and Switzerland with programs to sterilize people the government declared to be mentally deficient. Singapore practiced a limited form of eugenics that involved discouraging marriage between university graduates and the rest through segregation in matchmaking agencies, in the hope that the former would produce better children.[52]

[edit] Marginalization after World War II

In the decades after World War II, eugenics became increasingly unpopular within academic science. Many organizations and journals that had their origins in the eugenics movement began to distance themselves from the philosophy, such as when Eugenics Quarterly became Social Biology in 1969.After the experience of Nazi Germany, many ideas about "racial hygiene" and "unfit" members of society were publicly renounced by politicians and members of the scientific community. The Nuremberg Trials against former Nazi leaders revealed to the world many of the regime's genocidal practices and resulted in formalized policies of medical ethics and the 1950 UNESCO statement on race. Many scientific societies released their own similar "race statements" over the years, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, developed in response to abuses during the Second World War, was adopted by the United Nations in 1948 and affirmed, "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family."[53] In continuation, the 1978 UNESCO declaration on race and racial prejudice states that the fundamental equality of all human beings is the ideal toward which ethics and science should converge.[54]

In reaction to Nazi abuses, eugenics became almost universally reviled in many of the nations where it had once been popular (however, some eugenics programs, including sterilization, continued quietly for decades). Many pre-war eugenicists engaged in what they later labeled "crypto-eugenics", purposefully taking their eugenic beliefs "underground" and becoming respected anthropologists, biologists and geneticists in the postwar world (including Robert Yerkes in the U.S. and Otmar von Verschuer in Germany). Californian eugenicist Paul Popenoe founded marriage counseling during the 1950s, a career change which grew from his eugenic interests in promoting "healthy marriages" between "fit" couples.[55]

The American Life League, an opponent of abortion, charges that eugenics was merely "re-packaged" after the war, and promoted anew in the guise of the population-control and environmentalism movements. They claim, for example, that Planned Parenthood was funded and cultivated by the Eugenics Society for these reasons. Julian Huxley, the first Director-General of UNESCO and a founder of the World Wildlife Fund was also a Eugenics Society president and a strong supporter of eugenics[56]

[E]ven though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable. --Julian Huxley[57]

High school and college textbooks from the 1920s through the '40s often had chapters touting the scientific progress to be had from applying eugenic principles to the population. Many early scientific journals devoted to heredity in general were run by eugenicists and featured eugenics articles alongside studies of heredity in nonhuman organisms. After eugenics fell out of scientific favor, most references to eugenics were removed from textbooks and subsequent editions of relevant journals. Even the names of some journals changed to reflect new attitudes. For example, Eugenics Quarterly became Social Biology in 1969 (the journal still exists today, though it looks little like its predecessor). Notable members of the American Eugenics Society (1922–94) during the second half of the 20th century included Joseph Fletcher, originator of Situational ethics; Dr. Clarence Gamble of the Procter & Gamble fortune; and Garrett Hardin, a population control advocate and author of The Tragedy of the Commons.

In the United States, the eugenics movement had largely lost most popular and political support by the end of the 1930s while forced sterilizations mostly ended in the 1960s with the last performed in 1981.[58] Many US states continued to prohibit biracial marriages with "anti-miscegenation laws" such as Virginia's The Racial Integrity Act of 1924, until they were over-ruled by the Supreme Court in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia.[59] The Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, which was designed to limit the immigration of "dysgenic" Italians, and eastern European Jews, was repealed and replaced by the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1965.[60]

However, some prominent academics continued to support eugenics after the war. In 1963 the Ciba Foundation convened a conference in London under the title “Man and His Future,” at which three distinguished biologists and Nobel laureates (Hermann Muller, Joshua Lederberg, and Francis Crick) all spoke strongly in favor of eugenics.[61]

A few nations, notably, Canada and Sweden, maintained large-scale eugenics programs, including forced sterilization of mentally handicapped individuals, as well as other practices, until the 1970s.

[edit] Modern eugenics, genetic engineering, and ethical re-evaluation

Beginning in the 1980s, the history and concept of eugenics were widely discussed as knowledge about genetics advanced significantly. Endeavors such as the Human Genome Project made the effective modification of the human species seem possible again (as did Darwin's initial theory of evolution in the 1860s, along with the rediscovery of Mendel's laws in the early 20th century). The difference at the beginning of the 21st century was the guarded attitude towards eugenics, which had become a watchword to be feared rather than embraced.

[edit] Suggestions and ideas

A few scientific researchers such as psychologist Richard Lynn, psychologist Raymond Cattell, and doctor Gregory Stock have openly called for eugenic policies using modern technology, but they represent a minority opinion in current scientific and cultural circles.[62] One attempted implementation of a form of eugenics was a "genius sperm bank" (1980–99) created by Robert Klark Graham, from which nearly 230 children were conceived (the best known donor were Nobel Prize winners William Shockley and J.D.Watson): other Laureates including Maurice Wilkins destroyed their invitation letters. ). In the U.S. and Europe, though, these attempts have frequently been criticized as in the same spirit of classist and racist forms of eugenics of the 1930s. Because of its association with compulsory sterilization and the racial ideals of the Nazi Party, the word eugenics is rarely used by the advocates of such programs.

Eugenicists have argued that immigration from countries with low national IQ is undesirable. According to Raymond Cattell "when a country is opening its doors to immigration from diverse countries, it is like a farmer who buys his seeds from different sources by the sack, with sacks of different average quality of contents."[63]

[edit] Cyprus

A similar screening policy (including prenatal screening and abortion) intended to reduce the incidence of thalassemia exists on both sides of the island of Cyprus. Since the program's implementation in the 1970s, it has reduced the ratio of children born with the hereditary blood disease from 1 out of every 158 births to almost zero.

In the government controlled areas, tests for the gene are compulsory for both partners, prior to marriage.

[edit] United States

There are some states that require a blood test prior to marriage.[64] While these tests are typically restricted to the detection of the sexually transmitted disease Syphilis (which was the most common STD at the time these laws were enacted), some partners will voluntarily test for other diseases and genetic incompatibilities.

Harris polls in 1986 and 1992 recorded majority public support for limited forms of germ-line intervention, especially to prevent "children inheriting usually fatal genetic disease".[65]

In 1971, lobbying by the US organisation The International Association for Voluntary Sterilization (AVS), led politicians and officials at the Office for Equal Opportunity to pay for voluntary sterilization of low income Americans for birth-control purposes. AVS also focused on the International community, and its lobbying led to a US foreign policy and funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development to encourage Third World/Developing World countries to utilise abortion and sterilization in order to control their population growth. For further information see EngenderHealth.

[edit] Dor Yeshorim

Main article: Dor Yeshorim

Dor Yeshorim, a program which seeks to reduce the incidence of Tay-Sachs disease, Cystic Fibrosis, Canavan disease, Fanconi anemia, Familial Dysautonomia, Glycogen storage disease, Bloom's Syndrome, Gaucher Disease, Niemann-Pick Disease, and Mucolipidosis IV among certain Jewish communities, is another screening program which has drawn comparisons with liberal eugenics. [7] In Israel, at the expense of the state, the general public is advised to carry out genetic tests to diagnose these diseases before the birth of a baby. If an unborn baby is diagnosed with one of these diseases among which Tay-Sachs is the most commonly known, the pregnancy may be terminated, subject to consent. Most other Ashkenazi Jewish communities also run screening programs because of the higher incidence of genetic diseases. In some Jewish communities, the ancient custom of matchmaking (shidduch) is still practiced, and in order to attempt to prevent the tragedy of infant death which always results from being homozygous for Tay-Sachs, associations such as the strongly observant Dor Yeshorim (which was founded by a rabbi who lost four children to Tay-Sachs with the purpose of preventing others from suffering the same tragedy) test young couples to check whether they carry a risk of passing on fatal conditions. If both the young man and woman are Tay-Sachs carriers, it is common for the match to be broken off. Judaism, like numerous other religions, discourages abortion unless there is a risk to the mother, in which case her needs take precedence. The effort is not aimed at eradicating the hereditary traits, but rather at the occurrence of homozygosity. The actual impact of this program on allele frequencies is unknown, but little impact would be expected because the program does not impose genetic selection. Instead, it encourages disassortative mating.

[edit] Ethical re-assessment

In modern bioethics literature, the history of eugenics presents many moral and ethical questions. Commentators have suggested the new "eugenics" will come from reproductive technologies that will allow parents to create so-called "designer babies" (what the biologist Lee M. Silver prominently called "reprogenetics"). It has been argued that this "non-coercive" form of biological "improvement" will be predominantly motivated by individual competitiveness and the desire to create "the best opportunities" for children, rather than an urge to improve the species as a whole, which characterized the early 20th-century forms of eugenics. Because of this non-coercive nature, lack of involvement by the state and a difference in goals, some commentators have questioned whether such activities are eugenics or something else altogether. But critics note [citation needed] that Francis Galton, did not advocate for coercion when he defined the principles of eugenics. In other words, eugenics does not mean coercion. It is, according to Galton who originated the term, the proper label for bioengineering of "better" human beings.

Daniel Kevles argues that eugenics and the conservation of natural resources are similar propositions. Both can be practiced foolishly so as to abuse individual rights, but both can be practiced wisely.

Some disability activists argue that, although their impairments may cause them pain or discomfort, what really disables them as members of society is a sociocultural system that does not recognize their right to genuinely equal treatment. They express skepticism that any form of eugenics could be to the benefit of the disabled considering their treatment by historical eugenic campaigns.

James D. Watson, the first director of the Human Genome Project, initiated the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications Program (ELSI) which has funded a number of studies into the implications of human genetic engineering (along with a prominent website on the history of eugenics), because:

In putting ethics so soon into the genome agenda, I was responding to my own personal fear that all too soon critics of the Genome Project would point out that I was a representative of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory that once housed the controversial Eugenics Record Office. My not forming a genome ethics program quickly might be falsely used as evidence that I was a closet eugenicist, having as my real long-term purpose the unambiguous identification of genes that lead to social and occupational stratification as well as genes justifying racial discrimination.[66]

Distinguished geneticists including Nobel Prize-winners John Sulston ("I don't think one ought to bring a clearly disabled child into the world")[67] and Watson ("Once you have a way in which you can improve our children, no one can stop it")[68] support genetic screening. Which ideas should be described as "eugenic" are still controversial in both public and scholarly spheres. Some observers such as Philip Kitcher have described the use of genetic screening by parents as making possible a form of "voluntary" eugenics.[69]

Some modern subcultures advocate different forms of eugenics assisted by human cloning and human genetic engineering, sometimes even as part of a new religious movement (see Raëlism, Cosmotheism, or Prometheism). These groups also talk of "neo-eugenics". "conscious evolution", or "genetic freedom".

Behavioral traits often identified as potential targets for modification through human genetic engineering include intelligence, depression, schizophrenia, alcoholism, sexual behavior (and orientation) and criminality.

[edit] Criticism

This article or section is currently being developed or reviewed.

Some statements may be disputed, incorrect, unverified, biased or otherwise objectionable. Please read the discussion on the talk page before making substantial changes.

[edit] Diseases vs. traits

While the science of genetics has increasingly provided means by which certain characteristics and conditions can be identified and understood, given the complexity of human genetics, culture, and psychology there is at this point no agreed objective means of determining which traits might be ultimately desirable or undesirable. Eugenic manipulations that reduce the propensity for criminality and violence, for example, might result in the population being enslaved by an outside aggressor it can no longer defend itself against. On the other hand, genetic diseases like hemochromatosis can increase susceptibility to illness, cause physical deformities, and other dysfunctions. Eugenic measures against many of these diseases are already being undertaken in societies around the world, while measures against traits that affect more subtle, poorly understood traits, such as criminality, are relegated to the realm of speculation and science fiction. The effects of diseases are essentially wholly negative, and societies everywhere seek to reduce their impact by various means, some of which are eugenic in all but name. The other traits that are discussed have positive as well as negative effects and are not generally targeted at present anywhere.[citation needed]

[edit] Slippery slope

A common criticism of eugenics is that it inevitably leads to measures that are unethical (Lynn 2001). A hypothetical scenario posits that if one racial minority group is on average less intelligent than the racial majority group, then it is more likely that the racial minority group will be submitted to a eugenics program rather than the least intelligent members of the whole population.

H. L. Kaye wrote of "the obvious truth that eugenics has been discredited by Hitler's crimes," (Kaye 1989). R. L. Hayman argued "the eugenics movement is an anachronism, its political implications exposed by the Holocaust," (Hayman 1990).

Steven Pinker has stated that it is "a conventional wisdom among left-leaning academics that genes imply genocide." He has responded to this "conventional wisdom" by comparing the history of Marxism, which had the opposite position on genes to that of Nazism:

But the 20th century suffered "two" ideologies that led to genocides. The other one, Marxism, had no use for race, didn't believe in genes and denied that human nature was a meaningful concept. Clearly, it's not an emphasis on genes or evolution that is dangerous. It's the desire to remake humanity by coercive means (eugenics or social engineering) and the belief that humanity advances through a struggle in which superior groups (race or classes) triumph over inferior ones.[70]

Richard Lynn broadens his criticism of eugenics, by arguing that any social philosophy is capable of ethical misuse. Though Christian principles have aided in the abolition of slavery and the establishment of welfare programs, he notes that the Christian church has also burned many dissidents at the stake and allowed for the killing of large numbers of innocent people by Crusaders. Lynn argues the appropriate response is to condemn these killings, but believes Christianity does not "inevitably [lead] to the extermination of those who do not accept its doctrines," (Lynn 2001).

[edit] Genetic diversity

Eugenic policies could also lead to loss of genetic diversity, in which case a culturally accepted improvement of the gene pool would very likely, as evidenced in numerous instances in isolated island populations (e.g. the Dodo, Raphus cucullatus, of Mauritius) result in extinction due to increased vulnerability to disease, reduced ability to adapt to environmental change and other factors both known and unknown. A long-term eugenics plan might lead to a scenario similar to this because the elimination of traits deemed undesirable would reduce genetic diversity by definition. (Galton 2001, 48).

Proponents of eugenics argue that in any one generation any realistic program would make only minor changes in the gene pool, giving plenty of time to reverse direction if unintended consequences emerge, reducing the likelihood of the elimination of desirable genes. Proponents of eugenics argue that any appreciable reduction in diversity is so far in the future that little concern is needed for now.[71]

The possible elimination of the autism genotype is a significant political issue in the autism rights movement, which claims autism is a form of neurodiversity. Many advocates of Down Syndrome rights also consider Down Syndrome (Trisomy-21) a form of neurodiversity.[citation needed]

[edit] Heterozygous recessive traits

In some instances efforts to eradicate certain single-gene mutations would be nearly impossible. In the event the condition in question was a heterozygous recessive trait, the problem is that by eliminating the visible unwanted trait, there are still as many genes for the condition left in the gene pool as were eliminated according to the Hardy-Weinberg principle, which states that a population's genetics are defined as pp+2pq+qq at equilibrium. With genetic testing it may be possible to detect all of the heterozygous recessive traits, but only at great cost with the current technology. Under normal circumstances it is only possible to eliminate a dominant allele from the gene pool. Recessive traits can be severely reduced, but never eliminated unless the complete genetic makeup of all members of the pool was known, as aforementioned. As only very few undesirable traits, such as Huntington's disease, are dominant, the practical value for "eliminating" traits is quite low.

However, there are examples of eugenic acts that managed to lower the prevalence of recessive diseases, although not influencing the prevalence of heterozygote carriers of those diseases. The elevated prevalence of certain genetically transmitted diseases among the Ashkenazi Jewish population (Tay-Sachs, Cystic Fibrosis, Canavan's disease and Goucher's disease), has been decreased in current populations by the application of genetic screening.[72]

[edit] Counterarguments

[edit] Dysgenics

Main article: Dysgenics

Some supporters of eugenics allege that a dysgenic decline in intelligence is occurring, which may lead to the collapse of civilization, and justify eugenic programs on that basis.

[edit] Potential benefits

Small differences in average IQ at the group level might theoretically have large effects on social outcomes. Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray altered the mean IQ (100) of the U.S. National Longitudinal Survey of Youth's population sample by randomly deleting individuals below an IQ of 103 until the population mean reached 103. This calculation was conducted twice and averaged together to avoid error from the random selection. This test showed that the new group with an average IQ of 103 had a poverty rate 25% lower than a group with an average IQ of 100. Similar substantial correlations in high school drop-out rates, crime rates, and other outcomes were measured.[citation needed]

Indeed, many studies suggest that IQ correlates with various socioeconomic factors. However, to what extent IQ is a cause of these socioeconomic factors, as opposed to a consequence of them, is disputed. Studies have suggested, for example, that education increases an individual's IQ -- although other studies have shown that education has little to no effect.[citation needed]

[edit] See also

Liberal eugenics

Alberta Eugenics Board

A.O. Neville

Biological determinism

Gattaca

Genetic determinism

Genetics and violence

Inheritance of intelligence

Leilani Muir

John M. MacEachran

Nature versus nurture

Nazi eugenics

One-child policy

Race and intelligence

Repository for Germinal Choice

Social Darwinism

Social Justice

Stolen Generation

State racism, a concept coined by Michel Foucault

Transhumanism

[edit] Notes

^ The exact definition of eugenics has been a matter of debate since the term was coined. The definition of it as a "social philosophy" (that is, a philosophy with implications for social order) is not meant to be definitive, and is taken from "Development of a Eugenic Philosophy" by Frederick Osborn in American Sociological Review, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Jun., 1937) , pp. 389-397.

^ Allen, Garland E., Was Nazi eugenics created in the US?, Embo Reports, 2004

^ A discussion of the shifting meanings of the term can be found in Diane Paul, Controlling human heredity: 1865 to the present (New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1995). ISBN 1-57392-343-5.

^ For example, Nicholas Agar, Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement (Blackwell, 2004).

^ Glad, 2008

^ Allen G. Roper, Ancient Eugenics (Oxford: Cliveden Press, 1913), text at [1]

^ See Chapter 3 in Donald A. MacKenzie, Statistics in Britain, 1865-1930: The social construction of scientific knowledge (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1981).

^ Francis Galton, "Hereditary talent and character", Macmillan's Magazine 12 (1865): 157-166 and 318-327; Francis Galton, Hereditary genius: an inquiry into its laws and consequences (London: Macmillan, 1869).

^ Galton, Hereditary Genius: 1.

^ Larson 2004, p. 179 "Galton coinced the word "eugenics" in his 1883 book, Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development.

^ Francis Galton, Inquiries into human faculty and its development (London, Macmillan, 1883): 17, fn1.

^ Francis Galton, "Eugenics: Its definition, scope, and aims," The American Journal of Sociology 10:1 (July 1904).

^ See Chapters 2 and 6 in MacKenzie, Statistics in Britain.

^ a b Freedom in Sparta and Athens: the stark contrast between ancient Sparta and Athens makes abundantly clear that cultural achievement occurs only where men are free (English). The Free Library. “Sparta pursued a rigorous eugenics program, encouraging husbands to give their wives to men considered to be exceptional in order to produce exceptional children in turn. At childbirth the father had the right of infanticide, but even if the child survived this first parental judgment, life was by no means assured. Children were next brought before a council of inspectors to be appraised. Any child found unfit by this council was thrown from a cliff of Mt. Taygetus.”

^ http://www.sikyon.com/Sparta/agogi_eg.html

^ http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/im...&detailed=0

^ http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites.../spartans1.html

^ http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1...nd_spartas.html

^ Haeckel, Ernst (1876). The History of Creation, vol. I (English) pp. 170. New York: D. Appleton. “Among the Spartans all newly born children were subject to a careful examination or selection. All those that were weak, sickly, or affected with any bodily infirmity, were killed. Only the perfectly healthy and strong children were allowed to live, and they alone afterwards propagated the race.”

^ Hitler, Adolf (1961). Hitler's Secret Book (in English). New York: Grove Press, pp. 8-9, 17-18. ISBN 0394620038. OCLC 9830111. “At one time the Spartans were capable of such a wise measure, but not our present, mendaciously sentimental, bourgeois patriotic nonsense. The rule of six thousand Spartans over three hundred and fifty thousand Helots was only thinkable in consequence of the high racial value of the Spartans. But this was the result of a systematic race preservation; thus Sparta must be regarded as the first Völkisch State. The exposure of the sick, weak, deformed children, in short, their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more humane than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject, and indeed at any price, and yet takes the life of a hundred thousand healthy children in consequence of birth control or through abortions, in order subsequently to breed a race of degenerates burdened with illnesses.”

^ Hawkins, Mike (1997). Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860-1945: nature as model and nature as threat (in English). Cambridge University Press, pp. 276. ISBN 052157434X. OCLC 34705047.

^ Quoted in Selgelid, Michael J. 2000. Neugenics? Monash Bioethics Review 19 (4):9-33

^ The Nazi eugenics policies are discussed in a number of sources. A few of the more definitive ones are Robert Proctor, Racial hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988) and Dieter Kuntz, ed., Deadly medicine: creating the master race (Washington, DC: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2004) (online exhibit). On the development of the racial hygiene movement before National Socialism, see Paul Weindling, Health, race and German politics between national unification and Nazism, 1870-1945 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989).

^ See Proctor, Racial hygiene, and Kuntz, ed., Deadly medicine.

^ http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives...1/rl-black.html

^ Glad, John (2006). Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century (in English). Hermitage Publishers. ISBN 1557791546. “I would like to add a comment to Dr. Glad’s clear and decisive puncturing of the balloon of myths surrounding the Nazi perversion of eugenics. (For that matter, they also claimed to be a party of socialism!) If we define eugenics as encompassing programs of human betterment, physical as well as mental, practices that benefit community in the local sense as well as the species in general, we can say that the Holocaust was the antithesis of eugenic practice.”

^ Indiana Supreme Court Legal History Lecture Series, "Three Generations of Imbeciles are Enough:" Reflections on 100 Years of Eugenics in Indiana, at [2]

^ Williams v. Smith, 131 NE 2 (Ind.), 1921, text at [3]

^ Larson 2004, p. 194-195 Citing Buck v. Bell 274 U.S. 200, 205 (1927)

^ The history of eugenics in the United States is discussed at length in Mark Haller, Eugenics: Hereditarian attitudes in American thought (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1963) and Daniel Kevles, In the name of eugenics: Genetics and the uses of human heredity (New York: Knopf, 1985), the latter being the standard survey work on the subject.

^ a b The connections between U.S. and Nazi eugenicists is discussed in Edwin Black, "Eugenics and the Nazis -- the California connection", San Francisco Chronicle (9 November 2003), as well as Black's War Against the Weak (New York: Four Wars Eight Windows, 2003). Stefan Kühl's work, The Nazi connection: Eugenics, American racism, and German National Socialism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), is considered the standard scholarly work on the subject.

^ See Kevles, In the name of eugenics.

^ See Pg. 23 " 'Human Progress’ through Eugenics" from Psychology of Mental Fossils, toward an Archeo-psychology by Douglas Keith Candland at [4]

^ Hamilton Cravens, The triumph of evolution: American scientists and the heredity-environment controversy, 1900-1941 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1978): 179.

^ Paul Lombardo, "Eugenic Sterilization Laws," essay in the Eugenics Archive, available online at http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay8text.html.

^ Paul Lombardo, "Eugenics Laws Restricting Immigration," essay in the Eugenics Archive, available online at http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay9text.html.

^ Paul Lombardo, "Eugenic Laws Against Race-Mixing," essay in the Eugenics Archive, available online at http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay7text.html.

^ See Lombardo, "Eugenics Laws Restricting Immigration"; and Stephen Jay Gould, The mismeasure of man (New York: Norton, 1981).

^ Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, The Bell Curve (Free Press, 1994): 5; and Mark Syderman Richard Herrnstein, "Intelligence tests and the Immigration Act of 1924," American Psychologist 38 (1983): 986-995.

^ Russell McGregor, Imagined Destinies. Aboriginal Australians and the Doomed Race Theory, 1880-1939, Melbourne: MUP, 1997

^ Aborigines Act of 1905

^ Stolen Generation by Tim Richardson

^ Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission - Bringing them Home - The Report

^ Jacobs, Pat (1990). Mister Neville, A Biography. Fremantle Arts Centre Press. ISBN 0-949206-72-5.

^ Kinnane, Stephen (2003). Shadow Lines. Fremantle Arts Centre Press. ISBN 1-86368-237-6.

^ http://www.student.nada.kth.se/~d95-nwa/rasII.html

^ http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/rout...02?crawler=true

^ "Sterilisation of the unfit - Nazi legislation," The Guardian (26 July 1933). Available online at [5].

^ There are a number of works discussing eugenics in various countries around the world. For the history of eugenics in Scandinavia, see Gunnar Broberg and Nils Roll-Hansen, eds., Eugenics And the Welfare State: Sterilization Policy in Demark, Sweden, Norway, and Findland (Michigan State University Press, 2005). Another international approach is Mark B. Adams, ed., The Wellborn Science: Eugenics in Germany, France, Brazil, and Russia (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990).

^ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved on 2006-08-26.

^ Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice. Retrieved on 2006-08-26.

^ A discussion of the general changes in views towards genetics and race after World War II is: Elazar Barkan, The retreat of scientific racism: changing concepts of race in Britain and the United States between the world wars (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992).

^ American Bioethics Advisory Commission, "Eugenics," ABAC website

^ UNESCO: Its Purpose and its Philosophy (Washington D.C. 1947), cited in Liagin, Excessive Force: Power Politics and Population Control, at 85 (Washington, D.C.: Information Project for Africa 1996)

^ See Broberg and Nil-Hansen, ed., Eugenics And the Welfare State and Alexandra Stern, Eugenic nation: faults and frontiers of better breeding in modern America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005)

^ http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay_7_fs.html

^ http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay_9_fs.html

^ John Glad: "Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century", Hermitage Publishers

^ See, i.e., Richard Lynn, Eugenics: A Reassessment (Human Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence) (Praeger Publishers, 2001).

^ Cattell, R. B. (1987). Beyondism: Religion from science. New York: Praeger, p. 187

^ http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws2.htm

^ http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/0300126.html

^ James D. Watson, A passion for DNA: Genes, genomes, and society (Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2000): 202.

^ Quoted in Brendan Bourne, "Scientist warns disabled over having children" The Sunday Times (Britain) (13 October 2004). Available online at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1337781,00.html.

^ Quoted in Mark Henderson, "Let's cure stupidity, says DNA pioneer", The Times (28 February 2003). Available online at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly...-593687,00.html.

^ Philip Kitcher, The Lives to Come (Penguin, 1997). Review available online at http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/genome/geneti...y/hg16f009.html.

^ United Press International: Q&A: Steven Pinker of 'Blank Slate. Retrieved on 2006-08-26.

^ Edward M. Miller: "Eugenics: Economics for the Long Run", 1997

^ http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/18624/The_Book_Shelf.html

[edit] References

Larson, Edward J. (2004), Evolution, Modern Library, ISBN 0-679-64288-9

Histories of eugenics (academic accounts)

Elof Axel Carlson, The Unfit: A History of a Bad Idea (Cold Spring Harbor, New York: Cold Spring Harbor Press, 2001). ISBN 0-87969-587-0

Daniel Kevles, In the name of eugenics: Genetics and the uses of human heredity (New York: Knopf, 1985).

Dieter Kuntz, ed., Deadly medicine: creating the master race (Washington, DC: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2004). online exhibit

Ruth C. Engs, The Eugenics Movement: An Encyclopedia. (Westport CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2005). ISBN 0-313-32791-2.

John Glad, Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century. (Hermitage Publishers, 2008). ISBN 1-55779-154-6. [8]

Histories of hereditarian thought

Elazar Barkan, The retreat of scientific racism: changing concepts of race in Britain and the United States between the world wars (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992).

Stephen Jay Gould, The mismeasure of man (New York: Norton, 1981).

Ewen & Ewen, Typecasting: On the Arts and Sciences of Human Inequality (New York, Seven Stories Press, 2006).

Criticisms of eugenics, historical and modern

Edwin Black, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race (Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003). [9] ISBN 1-56858-258-7

Dinesh D'Souza, The End of Racism (Free Press, 1995) ISBN 0-02-908102-5

Galton, David, Eugenics: The Future of Human Life in the 21st Century (Abacus, 2002) ISBN 0-349-11377-7

Robert L. Hayman, Presumptions of justice: Law, politics, and the mentally retarded parent. Harvard Law Review 1990, 103, 1202-71. (p. 1209)

Joseph, J. (2004). The Gene Illusion: Genetic Research in Psychiatry and Psychology Under the Microscope.New York: Algora. (2003 United Kingdom Edition by PCCS Books)

Joseph, J. (2005). The 1942 “Euthanasia” Debate in the American Journal of Psychiatry. History of Psychiatry, 16, 171-179.

Joseph, J. (2006). The Missing Gene: Psychiatry, Heredity, and the Fruitless Search for Genes.New York: Algora.

H. L. Kaye, The social meaning of modern biology 1987, New Haven, CT Yale University Press. (p. 46)

Tom Shakespeare, "Back to the Future? New Genetics and Disabled People", Critical Social Policy 46:22-35 (1995)

Wahlsten, D. (1997). Leilani Muir versus the Philosopher King: eugenics on trial in Alberta. Genetica 99: 185-198.

Tom Shakespeare, Genetic Politics: from Eugenics to Genome, with Anne Kerr (New Clarion Press, 2002).

Nancy Ordover, American Eugenics: Race, Queer Anatomy, and the Science of Nationalism (Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press, 2003). ISBN 0-8166-3559-5

Gina Maranto, "Quest for Perfection: The Drive to Breed Better Human Beings" Diane Publishing Co. (June 1996) ISBN 0-7881-9431-3

[edit] Documentary film

Homo Sapiens 1900, Director: Peter Cohen, 2000

[edit] External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to:

Eugenics

[edit] Pro-eugenics websites

Eugenics - a planned evolution for life

Future Generations Eugenics Portal

Mankind Quarterly

Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century by John Glad

[edit] Anti-eugenics and historical websites

Eugenics Archive - Historical Material on the Eugenics Movement (funded by the Human Genome Project)

Shoaheducation.com:Eugenics

University of Virginia Historical Collections: Eugenics

"Deadly Medicine: Creating the Master Race" (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum exhibit)

Vermont Eugenics: A documentary history

DNA: Pandora's Box - PBS documentary about DNA, the Human Genome Project, and questions about a "new" eugenics

Fighting Fire with Fire: African Americans and Hereditarian Thinking, 1900-1942 - article on the support of eugenics by African American thinkers

"Eugenics -- Breeding a Better Citizenry Through Science", a historical critique from physical anthropologist Jonathan Marks

"The Quest for a Perfect Society", from Awake! magazine (September 22, 2000)

"Eugenics and other Evils",G K Chesterton's "Eugenics and other Evils." (1922)

"Eugenics" - National Reference Center for Bioethics Literature Scope Note 28, features overview of eugenics history and annotated bibliography of historical literature

[edit] Other

"Do not have children if they won't be healthy!" Tamara Traubmann, Haaretz June 16, 2004.

"As Gene Test Menu Grows, Who Gets to Choose?" Amy Harmon, New York Times (21 July 2004).

"The Crimson Rivers" -- a fiction movie in 2000.

Yale Study: U.S. Eugenics Paralleled Nazi Germany by David Morgan Published on Tuesday, February 15, 2000 in the Chicago Tribune

Eugenics: past, present, and the future

ō

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics"

ViewsArticle Discussion Edit this page History Personal toolsSign in / create account Navigation

Main page

Contents

Young Americans for Freedom and YAFWatch Blogspot

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment