John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet Book he authored in 1977 advocates for extreme totalitarian measures to control the population Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens.

The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?

These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology -- informally known as the United States' Science Czar. In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:

Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not; The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food; Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise; People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized. A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.

Impossible, you say? That must be an exaggeration or a hoax. No one in their right mind would say such things.

Well, I hate to break the news to you, but it is no hoax, no exaggeration. John Holdren really did say those things, and this report contains the proof. Below you will find photographs, scans, and transcriptions of pages in the book Ecoscience, co-authored in 1977 by John Holdren and his close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich. The scans and photos are provided to supply conclusive evidence that the words attributed to Holdren are unaltered and accurately transcribed.

[UPDATE: Make sure to read the new statements issued by the White House and by John Holdren's office in response to the controversy raised by this essay -- you can see them below following the Ecoscience excerpts, or you can jump directly to the statements by clicking here.]

This report was originally inspired by this article in FrontPage magazine, which covers some of the same information given here. But that article, although it contained many shocking quotes from John Holdren, failed to make much of an impact on public opinion. Why not? Because, as I discovered when discussing the article with various friends, there was no proof that the quotes were accurate -- so most folks (even those opposed to Obama's policies) doubted their veracity, because the statements seemed too inflammatory to be true. In the modern era, it seems, journalists have lost all credibility, and so are presumed to be lying or exaggerating unless solid evidence is offered to back up the claims. Well, this report contains that evidence.

Of course, Holdren wrote these things in the framework of a book he co-authored about what he imagined at the time (late 1970s) was an apocalyptic crisis facing mankind: overpopulation. He felt extreme measures would be required to combat an extreme problem. Whether or not you think this provides him a valid "excuse" for having descended into a totalitarian fantasy is up to you: personally, I don't think it's a valid excuse at all, since the crisis he was in a panic over was mostly in his imagination. Totalitarian regimes and unhinged people almost always have what seems internally like a reasonable justification for actions which to the outside world seem incomprehensible.

Direct quotes from John Holdren's Ecoscience

Go here to read the rest:

John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions ...

The Negro Project Margaret Sanger's Eugenic Plan for Black Americans By Tanya L. Green posted at Concerned Women of America

May 10, 2001

'Civil rights' doesn't mean anything without a right to life! declared Hunter. He and the other marchers were protesting the disproportionately high number of abortions in the black community. The high number is no accident. Many Americansblack and whiteare unaware of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger's Negro Project. Sanger created this program in 1939, after the organization changed its name from the American Birth Control League (ABCL) to the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA).1

The aim of the program was to restrictmany believe exterminatethe black population. Under the pretense of better health and family planning, Sanger cleverly implemented her plan. What's more shocking is Sanger's beguilement of black America's crme de la crmethose prominent, well educated and well-to-dointo executing her scheme. Some within the black elite saw birth control as a means to attain economic empowerment, elevate the race and garner the respect of whites.

The Negro Project has had lasting repercussions in the black community: We have become victims of genocide by our own hands, cried Hunter at the Say So march.

Margaret Sanger aligned herself with the eugenicists whose ideology prevailed in the early 20th century. Eugenicists strongly espoused racial supremacy and purity, particularly of the Aryan race. Eugenicists hoped to purify the bloodlines and improve the race by encouraging the fit to reproduce and the unfit to restrict their reproduction. They sought to contain the inferior races through segregation, sterilization, birth control and abortion.

Sanger embraced Malthusian eugenics. Thomas Robert Malthus, a 19th-century cleric and professor of political economy, believed a population time bomb threatened the existence of the human race.2 He viewed social problems such as poverty, deprivation and hunger as evidence of this population crisis. According to writer George Grant, Malthus condemned charities and other forms of benevolence, because he believed they only exacerbated the problems. His answer was to restrict population growth of certain groups of people.3 His theories of population growth and economic stability became the basis for national and international social policy. Grant quotes from Malthus' magnum opus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, published in six editions from 1798 to 1826:

Malthus' disciples believed if Western civilization were to survive, the physically unfit, the materially poor, the spiritually diseased, the racially inferior, and the mentally incompetent had to be suppressed and isolatedor even, perhaps, eliminated. His disciples felt the subtler and more scientific approaches of education, contraception, sterilization and abortion were more practical and acceptable ways to ease the pressures of the alleged overpopulation.5

Read the original here:

The Negro Project and Margaret Sanger

Scheduled to read a paper at a meeting of the British Association in 1866, Galton felt ill, excused himself, arranged to have the paper read for him by another, and hurried away. It would be not until 1869 that he was once more entirely right in the head.

We know how it ended. But what was Sir Francis Galton thinking of when eugenics began? What led from the quiet book-lined study of a Victorian scientific worthy, loved by his family and admired by his peers, to the charnel houses of the Nazi era? Did he in fact have a crack-up, and did this lead inexorably step by step to the mother of all cultural crack-ups in Germany?

He had that rarest of all things human, an original mindand it developed early. By age six he had learned the Iliad and the Odyssey well enough to correct his elders. When his fathers friend Leonard Horner visited one day and tiresomely quizzed the child on their fine points, Galton replied: Pray, Mr. Horner, look at the last line in the Twelfth Book of the Odyssey, and scampered off. This translates as But why rehearse all this again? For even yesterday I told it to them and thy noble wife in thy house: and it liketh me not twice to tell a plain-told tale.

But there were early signs of mental fragility too. An erratic school career led eventually to Trinity College, Cambridge, but the strain of the Mathematics Tripos proved too much. Affected by dizziness and other symptoms of mental stress when trying to concentrate, he settled for a pass degree, and for six years dropped out of academic and intellectual life almost entirely. The time from 1844 to 1850 was spent adventuring in Africa and the Middle East and socialising with the hunting set back home.

When The Origin of Species appeared in 1859 it was a turning point. Charles Darwin was a cousin. Coming at a critical stage of both his scientific career and his domestic life, Darwins book shattered Galtons religious beliefs and turned him towards biological research. He always had what he called a hereditary bent of mind, and from 1859 he proceeded to investigate, he said later, matters clustered round the central topics of Heredity and the possible improvement of the Human Race.

But the two topicsheredity and racial improvementare not inseparable. Why was it that the human race needed to be improved? How was it that for Galton the central topic of heredity became indissolubly associated with the biological improvement of human kind, a worthy enough project in the abstract, but ethically hazardous in the extreme?

Doubtless there was more than one cause, but my argument here is that it mainly originated in the private grief of childlessness. Although his cousin Charles Darwin fathered several children, Galtons marriage was infertile, and as each year passed without issue he developed a growing obsession with heredity, fertility, procreation, and the need for a controlled and managed caste system that would ensure the reproduction of people like himself.

Between the idle years after university from 1844 to 1850, and the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, Galton built a considerable reputation as an explorer, geographer, and travel writer. David Livingstone had reached Lake Ngami from the south and east, and in 1850 Galton proposed to approach it from the west through todays Namibia, a route of some 550 miles from Walvis Bay. With African experience in the Sudan behind him, he had the support of the Royal Geographical Society, and took the precaution of visiting Drury Lane for theatrical supplies before he left. There he bought beads and belts for trade-goods, along with a nice little crown.

This came in handy in Ovamboland. There, King Nangoro expected Galton to stand still while he (the king) spat well-gargled water all over his guests face. This was to discourage any lurking evil spiritsand no doubt it did. When Galton declined to submit to this ritual, however, the king retaliated by refusing to let the expedition continue. There matters stood for some time until Nangoro hospitably offered his daughter Princess Chipanga as a temporary wife. Galton found her installed in his tent largely naked except for a covering of

red ochre and butter, and as capable of leaving a mark on anything she touched as a well-inked printers roller. I was dressed in my one well-preserved suit of white linen, so I had her ejected with scant ceremony.

View post:

How Eugenics Began | Roger Sandall

"It's really simple. You bring two sides together. They fight. A lot of them die. But those who survive are stronger, faster and better." The Social Darwinist is someone who believes that the Darwinist theory of evolution i.e. "survival of the fittest" to oversimplify it should be applied to people, and sometimes entire societies or nations. To the Social Darwinist, all life is a struggle for survival in which the strongest naturally prosper at the expense of the weak and it is right, and natural that they should do so, because that's just the way things are, and/or natural law is Above Good and Evil. Such characters rarely concede that their chances for survival may have started higher than others due to reasons such as inherited wealth or social prestige. They typically state that We Have Become Complacent and stupid, and want to remove weakness and stupidity from society. It may seem to some that because humans aren't currently having wars/disaster and humans aren't endangered as a species that evolution in humans has ceased altogether. If they do talk about evolution, they are very likely to talk about Evolutionary Levels and Goal-Oriented Evolution rather than Darwin's actual theory (which was more of a pass-fail concept.) Fictional Social Darwinists generally come in five major flavors: The Straw Meritocrat: Basically, a Nietzsche Wannabe without the overt craziness. This first type believes in Social Darwinism, which misinterprets the idea of evolution and natural selection and holds that people who rise to the top in society, by whatever means, are automatically "superior" - even going so far as to praise the evils of over-ambitiousness and condemn kind behavior. Frequently this will be held even in settings where the people in charge are clearly getting there through Nepotism, or otherwise as a result of luck and privilege. Despite it being nothing more than a Theme Park Version, this philosophy is still frequently held by both fictional characters and a few Real Life 'successful' people. The Nazi By Any Other Name: The second type is a racist or speciesist who believes that their race is a Master Race, and by extension, the only one fit to live and reproduce in this world, and uses this belief as a justification for subjugating, enslaving or just plain getting rid of those that they consider "inferior" (as the Real Life Nazis did). Scary Dogmatic Aliens are very likely to have this mindset, as is any society modeled upon the Nazis. Occasionally also held by superheroes. The Evilutionary Biologist: The third type is the Evilutionary Biologist or anyone who has mistaken ideas about how evolution works "for the good of the species," and in order to help it out or not "get in its way," anyone with a birth defect or who is in any other way "weak" in this villain's eyes deserves to die to keep the gene pool strong. Many such characters hope to create the Transhuman Ultimate Life Form. This type is also what Those Wacky Nazis had in mind with Aktion T-4. The Jerk Justifier: The fourth type is simply selfish and uses Social Darwinism as just a justification for sociopathic behavior. This character may not actually believe it and may not even care, but finds Social Darwinism to be a convenient justification or excuse for the way they were going to behave anyway. Often overlaps with Straw Hypocrite - especially if he's a coward who'll immediately resort to "un-Darwinist" cheating if he's ever exposed as inferior himself. The Struggler: The fifth type believe that competition, suffering and struggle makes the individual, and possibly a society (as a whole), superior. They tend to believe in Evil Virtues like cunning, ruthlessness, opportunism and the ability to endure and survive by any means necessary, and tend to have a cynical view of the world as a hard, harsh place and that Hobbes Was Right; they may also / instead suffer from Evil Cannot Comprehend Good and thus undervalue non-Social Darwinist virtues like kindness or pacifism. A Real Man Is a Killer logic often falls into this category as does War Is Glorious. Those Wacky Nazis held to this view as well. Differ from the first in that they don't necessarily believe that those at the top always deserve it; they tend to take a Might Makes Right view of things, and the most sincere of this kind do not believe the struggle ever ends. If the Social Darwinist doesn't suffer a Karmic Death, the heroes "disprove" his might-makes-right philosophy by demonstrating the The Power of FriendshipnoteIn fact, actual evolutionary scientists posit The Power of Friendship and general co-operation as the best survival strategy for most people most of the time, not to mention an evolutionary strategy that the human species specifically evolved to exploit: either by ganging up and beating the crap out of him and his cronies, or by the leader of the group (often the All-Loving Hero) doing it himself while repeatedly driving home that he's fighting for his friends. A particularly profound way this to happen is to have the character beaten by a character who is either a visible minority the Social Darwinist considers inferior or has a glaring physical or mental handicaps. More sympathetic Social Darwinists (i.e. if they aren't hypocrites) will often begin to respect the heroes after their defeat; they may turn into a Worthy Opponent or even become a Noble Bigot as they struggle with their beliefs and begrudgingly admit that a group they had considered inferior does in fact have worthy people among them. Their beliefs might be a Tragic Flaw if they were drilled into them from a young age or they actually had to live in such a place were their views are justified. Compare Evilutionary Biologist, Evil Evolves, and Kill the Poor and Slobs Versus Snobs. Sometimes overlaps with Objectivism and the "bermensch" concept. There's a bit of this trope in the Satisfied Street Rat. Likewise, characters with a Darwinist Desire are usually only interested in applying social Darwinism on themselves and their offspring rather than imposing it on society, though both tropes can overlap in the same character. Compare and contrast Living Is More Than Surviving - Social Darwinist will variably put either survival or quality of life on top of others. Note that Charles Darwin himself would not be amused by all these people and the way they interpreted his works; he proposed nothing of the sort. (And while Darwin did believe that the Caucasian race had evolved further than other races, his racism was based not on arrogance or sociopathy; it was simply where the conclusions of his research led him.) You never see a social Darwinist treating societies in the same way a real Darwinist treats species: Darwinists are interested in maintaining biodiversity, and Darwinism is a description of the way species work, not a prescription for which species should live or die. See Appeal to Nature for the fallacy of using "nature" to prescribe any behaviour (moral, immoral or not), and also see the Analysis page for this trope for more information on that. This did not stop Social Darwinism from becoming a fairly mainstream philosophy from the Victorian era to WWII, when it became associated with the Nazis; this association contributed greatly to its loss of popularity. However, the emergence of culture war politics in the late 20th century appears to have won new adherents to the philosophy. Contrast Underdogs Always Win, which takes this concept and flips it completely on its head. A final note: despite the similarity in spelling, this trope has nothing to do with Socialism. Part of the problem comes from conflating socialism with atheism (the two do not always go together), and then reasoning that someone who does not believe in God (and, therefore, disavows the possibility of the existence of the soul) takes a crudely biological view of humanity, seeing them as animals with an instinct to dominate one another. But the fact is that the socialist's concern for and solidarity with all of humankind rules out - at least in theory - the prospect of him or her becoming so cynical, selfish and cruel.

open/close all folders

Anime and Manga

"Don't you get it? My men aren't going to come and rescue me. Because if I die here, I'm not worthy to lead them anyway."

Satsuki: All students have the right to attack all other students! Secret meetings, scheming, backstabbing, anything goes! Seven days from now, reach the schoolyard alive, and then use your strength to lay claim on your social standing once again!

Comic Books

Fan Fiction

Films Animated

Rourke: Get off your soap box, Thatch. You've read Darwin. It's called 'natural selection'. We're just helping it along.

Aladar: (Concerning the elders in the back) But the others in the back! They'll never make it!

More here:

The Social Darwinist - TV Tropes

Margaret Higgins Sanger (September 14, 1879 September 6, 1966) was an American birth control activist, sex educator, and nurse. Sanger popularized the term birth control, opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, and established organizations that evolved into the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Sanger was also a writer. She used this method to help promote her way of thinking. She was prosecuted for her book Family Limitation under the Comstock Act in 1914. She was afraid of what would happen, so she fled to Britain until she knew it was safe to return to the US. Sanger's efforts contributed to several judicial cases that helped legalize contraception in the United States. Sanger is a frequent target of criticism by opponents of abortion and has also been criticized for supporting eugenics, but remains an iconic figure in the American reproductive rights movement.[2]

In 1916, Sanger opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, which led to her arrest for distributing information on contraception. Her subsequent trial and appeal generated controversy. Sanger felt that in order for women to have a more equal footing in society and to lead healthier lives, they needed to be able to determine when to bear children. She also wanted to prevent unsafe abortions, so-called back-alley abortions, which were common at the time because abortions were usually illegal. She believed that while abortion was sometimes justified it should generally be avoided, and she considered contraception the only practical way to avoid the use of abortions.

In 1921, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, which later became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. In New York City, she organized the first birth control clinic staffed by all-female doctors, as well as a clinic in Harlem with an entirely African-American staff. In 1929, she formed the National Committee on Federal Legislation for Birth Control, which served as the focal point of her lobbying efforts to legalize contraception in the United States. From 1952 to 1959, Sanger served as president of the International Planned Parenthood Federation. She died in 1966, and is widely regarded as a founder of the modern birth control movement.

Sanger was born Margaret Louise Higgins in 1879 in Corning, New York,[3] to Michael Hennessey Higgins, an Irish-born stonemason and free-thinker, and Anne Purcell Higgins, a Catholic Irish-American. Michael Hennessey Higgins had emigrated to the USA at age 14 and joined the U.S. Army as a drummer at age 15, during the Civil War. After leaving the army, Michael studied medicine and phrenology, but ultimately became a stonecutter, making stone angels, saints, and tombstones.[4] Michael H. Higgins was a Catholic who became an atheist and an activist for women's suffrage and free public education.[5] Anne Higgins went through 18 pregnancies (with 11 live births) in 22 years before dying at the age of 49. Sanger was the sixth of eleven surviving children,[6] and spent much of her youth assisting with household chores and caring for her younger siblings. Anne's parents took their children and emigrated to Canada when she was a child, due to the Potato Famine.

Supported by her two older sisters, Margaret Higgins attended Claverack College and Hudson River Institute, before enrolling in 1900 at White Plains Hospital as a nurse probationer. In 1902, she married the dashing architect William Sanger and gave up her education.[7] Though she was plagued by a recurring active tubercular condition, Margaret Sanger bore three children, and the couple settled down to a quiet life in Westchester, New York.

In 1911, after a fire destroyed their home in Hastings-on-Hudson, the Sangers abandoned the suburbs for a new life in New York City. Margaret Sanger worked as a visiting nurse in the slums of the East Side, while her husband worked as an architect and a house painter. Already imbued with her husband's leftist politics, Margaret Sanger also threw herself into the radical politics and modernist values of pre-World War I Greenwich Village bohemia. She joined the Women's Committee of the New York Socialist party, took part in the labor actions of the Industrial Workers of the World (including the notable 1912 Lawrence Textile Strike and the 1913 Paterson Silk Strike) and became involved with local intellectuals, left-wing artists, socialists and social activists, including John Reed, Upton Sinclair, Mabel Dodge and Emma Goldman.[8]

Sanger's political interests, emerging feminism and nursing experience led her to write two series of columns on sex education entitled "What Every Mother Should Know" (191112) and "What Every Girl Should Know" (1912-13) for the socialist magazine New York Call. By the standards of the day, Sanger's articles were extremely frank in their discussion of sexuality, and many New York Call readers were outraged by them. Other readers, however, praised the series for its candor, one stated that the series contained "a purer morality than whole libraries full of hypocritical cant about modesty.[9] Both were later published in book form in 1916.[10]

During her work among working class immigrant women, Sanger was exposed to graphic examples of women going through frequent childbirth, miscarriage and self-induced abortion for lack of information on how to avoid unwanted pregnancy. Access to contraceptive information was prohibited on grounds of obscenity by the 1873 federal Comstock law and a host of state laws. Searching for something that would help these women, Sanger visited public libraries, but was unable to find information on contraception.[11] These problems were epitomized in a (possibly fictional) story that Sanger would later recount in her speeches: while Sanger was working as a nurse, she was called to the apartment of a woman, "Sadie Sachs," who had become extremely ill due to a self-induced abortion. Afterward, "Sadie" (whose marital status Sanger never mentioned) begged the attending doctor to tell her how she could prevent this from happening again, to which the doctor simply advised her to remain abstinent. A few months later, Sanger was called back to "Sadie's" apartment only this time, "Sadie" died shortly after Sanger arrived. She had attempted yet another self-induced abortion.[12][13] Sanger would sometimes end the story by saying, "I threw my nursing bag in the corner and announced... that I would never take another case until I had made it possible for working women in America to have the knowledge to control birth." Although "Sadie Sachs" was possibly a fictional composite of several women Sanger had known, this story marks the time when Sanger began to devote her life to help desperate women before they were driven to pursue dangerous and illegal abortions.[13][14]

Accepting the connection proposed between contraception and working-class empowerment by radicals such as Emma Goldman, Sanger came to believe that only by liberating women from the risk of unwanted pregnancy would fundamental social change take place. She proceeded to launch a campaign to challenge governmental censorship of contraceptive information. She would set up a series of confrontational actions designed to challenge the law and force birth control to become a topic of public debate. Sanger's trip to France in 1913 exposed her to what Goldman had been saying. Sanger's experience during her trip to France directly influence The Women Rebel newsletter. The trip to France was also the beginning of the end of her marriage with William Sanger.[15]

In 1914, Sanger launched The Woman Rebel, an eight-page monthly newsletter which promoted contraception using the slogan "No Gods, No Masters".[16][note 2][17] Sanger, collaborating with anarchist friends, popularized the term "birth control" as a more candid alternative to euphemisms such as "family limitation"[18] and proclaimed that each woman should be "the absolute mistress of her own body."[19] In these early years of Sanger's activism, she viewed birth control as a free-speech issue, and when she started publishing The Woman Rebel, one of her goals was to provoke a legal challenge to the federal anti-obscenity laws which banned dissemination of information about contraception.[20][21] Though postal authorities suppressed five of its seven issues, Sanger continuing publication, all the while preparing, Family Limitation, an even more blatant challenge to anti-birth control laws. This 16-page pamphlet contained detailed and precise information and graphic descriptions of various contraceptive methods. In August 1914 Margaret Sanger was indicted for violating postal obscenity laws by sending the The Woman Rebel through the postal system. Instead of standing trial, she jumped bail and fled to Canada. Then, under the alias "Bertha Watson", sailed for England. En route she ordered her labor associates to release copies of the Family Limitation.[22]

Read more:

Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

eugenics,the selection of desired heritable characteristics in order to improve future generations, typically in reference to humans. The term eugenics was coined in 1883 by the British explorer and natural scientist Francis Galton, who, influenced by Charles Darwins theory of natural selection, advocated a system that would allow the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable. Social Darwinism, the popular theory in the late 19th century that life for humans in society was ruled by survival of the fittest, helped advance eugenics into serious scientific study in the early 1900s. By World War I, many scientific authorities and political leaders supported eugenics. However, it ultimately failed as a science in the 1930s and 40s, when the assumptions of eugenicists became heavily criticized and the Nazis used eugenics to support the extermination of entire races.

Although eugenics as understood today dates from the late 19th century, efforts to select matings in order to secure offspring with desirable traits date from ancient times. Platos Republic (c. 378 bce) depicts a society where efforts are undertaken to improve human beings through selective breeding. Later, Italian philosopher and poet Tommaso Campanella, in City of the Sun (1623), described a utopian community in which only the socially elite are allowed to procreate. Galton, in Hereditary Genius (1869), proposed that a system of arranged marriages between men of distinction and women of wealth would eventually produce a gifted race. In 1865, the basic laws of heredity were discovered by the father of modern genetics, Gregor Mendel. His experiments with peas demonstrated that each physical trait was the result of a combination of two units (now known as genes) and could be passed from one generation to another. However, his work was largely ignored until its rediscovery in 1900. This fundamental knowledge of heredity provided eugenicistsincluding Galton, who influenced his cousin Charles Darwinwith scientific evidence to support the improvement of humans through selective breeding.

The advancement of eugenics was concurrent with an increasing appreciation of Charles Darwins account for change or evolution within societywhat contemporaries referred to as Social Darwinism. Darwin had concluded his explanations of evolution by arguing that the greatest step humans could make in their own history would occur when they realized that they were not completely guided by instinct. Rather, humans, through selective reproduction, had the ability to control their own future evolution. A language pertaining to reproduction and eugenics developed, leading to terms such as positive eugenics, defined as promoting the proliferation of good stock, and negative eugenics, defined as prohibiting marriage and breeding between defective stock. For eugenicists, nature was far more contributory than nurture in shaping humanity.

During the early 1900s, eugenics became a serious scientific study pursued by both biologists and social scientists. They sought to determine the extent to which human characteristics of social importance were inherited. Among their greatest concerns were the predictability of intelligence and certain deviant behaviours. Eugenics, however, was not confined to scientific laboratories and academic institutions. It began to pervade cultural thought around the globe, including the Scandinavian countries, most other European countries, North America, Latin America, Japan, China, and Russia. In the United States, the eugenics movement began during the Progressive Era and remained active through 1940. It gained considerable support from leading scientific authorities such as zoologist Charles B. Davenport, plant geneticist Edward M. East, and geneticist and Nobel Prize laureate Hermann J. Muller. Political leaders in favour of eugenics included U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, Secretary of State Elihu Root, and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall Harlan. Internationally, there were many individuals whose work supported eugenic aims, including British scientists J.B.S. Haldane and Julian Huxley and Russian scientists Nikolay K. Koltsov and Yury A. Filipchenko.

More here:

eugenics | genetics | Britannica.com

Although philosophers have contemplated the meaning and value of eugenics at least since Plato recommended a state-run program of mating intended to strengthen the guardian class in his Republic, the modern version of eugenics had its start with the 19th century cousin of Charles Darwin, British scientist Francis Galton (1883). Galton was interested in improving human stock through scientific management of mating; his explicit goal was to create better humans. His ideas were taken up widely in the early part of the 20th century by seemingly well-intended scientists and policy makers, particularly in the United States, Britain, and the Scandinavian countries. Notable eugenicists included Alexander Graham Bell and Margaret Sanger. (For an excellent history of eugenics, see Kevles 1985.)

Eugenicists had two-fold aims: to encourage people of good health to reproduce together to create good births (what is known as positive eugenics), and to end certain diseases and disabilities by discouraging or preventing others from reproducing (what is known as negative eugenics). In the United States, programs to encourage positive eugenics involved the creation of Fitter Family Fairs in which families competed for prizes at local county fairs, much in the way that livestock is judged for conformation and physical dexterity (Stern 2002). Negative eugenics took the form of encouraged or forced sterilizations of men and women deemed unfit to reproduce (in the language of the day, this included individuals who were poor, mentally insane, feeble-minded, idiots, drunken and more). At the time, many eugenicists seemed to assume that social and behavioral conditions, such as poverty, vagrancy or prostitution, would be passed from parent to child, inherited as traits rather than shared as common social situations. (For an interesting discussion of the relevant social moral epistemology, see Buchanan 2007.)

Racist, sexist, and classist assumptions pervaded the discourse. Alarm calls were raised about the lower birth rates among white Protestant Americans compared to the large immigrant Catholic populations of Italian and Irish descent. German scientists and policymakers visited the United States to learn from their methods, and when the Nazis came to power in Germany, they began eugenic policies of their own. Early German policies called for involuntary euthanasia of people in institutions whose physical or mental illnesses were considered incurable. Such individuals were considered to have lives unworthy of life (lebensunwertes Leben). The Nazis also encouraged selective breeding for Aryan traits (e.g., athletic, blond and blue-eyed). This policy quickly expanded to include bans on marriage between particular groups, forced sterilization, and then internment in concentration camps for individuals belonging to groups deemed inferior (i.e., people who were disabled, homosexual, diagnosed with psychiatric conditions, communists, considered to be Roma/gypsies, and/or Jewish). The purported aim was to promote the health of the German population by controlling those who were unhealthy. Prisoners faced extremely hard labor, medical experimentation that was torturous and designed to test the limits of the human body (Lifton 1986) and daily degradation and abuse. Eventually, Nazis escalated their eugenic program to the final solution of death camps, ultimately killing more than six million Jewish people in the name of promoting Germany's health.

Following the end of WWII, the term eugenic was so closely associated with the horrific programs of Nazi Germany that eugenics societies across the world changed their names (e.g., the American Eugenics Society became the Society for the Study of Social Biology) and tempered their aims. Yet many of the same practices and beliefs continued under a different guise. Involuntary eugenic sterilizations of feeble-minded women in a variety of states didn't officially end until the 1970s, and may continue covertly in some state institutions. California had the highest rate of involuntary sterilizations, which were widely performed on prison inmates, people in mental institutions, and women considered to be bad mothers. Such sterilizations were motivated by both perceived individual and social goods, but had deep-seated prejudice as well as scientific inaccuracies built into their assumptions (Stern 2005). Concepts of feeble-mindedness were historically entangled in deeply problematic ways with ideas of race, class and gender (Stubblefield 2007).

Later, attempts to promote positive eugenics were renewed with the creation of the Repository for Germinal Choice, a sperm bank created in 1978 with the idea of collecting sperm from Nobel laureates, others deemed geniuses and Olympic level athletes. Given the availability of in vitro fertilization, women could now choose to reproduce with men presumed to have high-quality genes, without needing to form relationships with them. Although most Nobel prizewinners proved reluctant to donate to the sperm bank, the general idea took off. Even today, print and online ads in college newspapers regularly request sperm or eggs from donors who meet certain qualifications for health, intelligence, athleticism and/or attractiveness. Individuals or couples who require gamete donation to reproduce can shop around for a donor who meets their criteria.

The widespread practice of prenatal genetic testing (traditionally through chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis in the second trimester of pregnancy, but now more routinely done through non-invasive blood tests in the first trimester, at least as a first screen), similarly presents the opportunity for individuals or couples to identify genes or genetic markers for traits they prefer for their fetuses not to have. If prenatal testing identifies an undesired gene, prospective parents may choose to continue the pregnancy, or to abort the fetus, often with the plan to later attempt a new pregnancy. Studies suggest that in the United States, 90% of positive diagnoses from prenatal testing result in abortion (Rothschild 2005). With the advent of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, prospective parents can choose to use in vitro fertilization, and then test early cells of the created embryos to identify embryos with genes they prefer, or prefer to avoid. In this way, they avoid the potential need for abortion by choosing to implant only embryos that contain the desired genes. The aim of this practice certainly appears eugenic, though without an obviously coercive structure, and for the benefit of the individual family. The profession of genetic counseling, started in the 1990s, provides prospective parents with detailed information about the meaning of the tests, and the opportunity for discussion of test results. In part due to concerns about eugenic overtones, genetic counseling is built on a policy of non-directiveness to ensure that the reproductive autonomy of prospective parents is respected. That tenet of genetic counseling has been challenged by scholars who argue that we ought to balance parental autonomy with the child's future autonomy (see, e.g., Davis 2010).

Finally, advances in genetic technology suggest the possibility that our ability to test for (if not manipulate directly) a much larger array of genes and genetic markers related to a wide variety of diseases and traits may be on the near horizon. Prenatal testing panels currently include attention to conditions such as Trisomy 13, Trisomy 18, Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome), Tay-Sachs, and more. Yet we allow adults to be tested for genetic markers linked to late onset disorders such as breast cancer, Huntington's disease, and Alzheimer's disease. Should such genetic tests be available on prenatal testing panels if parents request them? Or for all prospective parents who request prenatal testing? What about other additions that might be of interest to particular parents, even if the genetic linkages to the particular traits are less direct or even only mildly predictive: diabetes, obesity, homosexuality, or psychiatric conditions such as bipolar disorder or schizophrenia? (Informative discussions of the expansion of genetic testing can be found in Davis 2010 and Botkin 2003.) Deciding how to deal with the vast array of potentially genetically-linked markersas a society, and potentially as individual prospective parentsis a monumental task that requires clarity about the benefits and drawbacks of testing, and requires us to revisit the meaning of eugenics, and the problems associated with it.

A much simpler and more clearly linked trait of interest is chromosomal sex. In the United States, parents can choose to find out their fetus's chromosomal sex via amniocentesis, or through an increasing number of early first trimester blood tests. In the U.K., by contrast, parents typically do not learn the sex of their fetus until birth, a policy put in place by the Human Fertility and Embryology Authority (HFEA) with the aim of avoiding sex discrimination and shoring up the line between genetic intervention for disease and non-disease traits. One of the concerns raised by critics of sex selection is what Mary Ann Warren deemed gendercide, in her book of the same name (Warren 1985). Indeed, evidence from around the world suggests a relatively strong bias in favor of male children (South Korea is now an exception), or at least male children first (Davis 2010). China and India, countries where cultural norms and practices still decidedly favor men, are facing significant sex ratio imbalances as a result of the use of technologies (and non-technical practices such as infanticide) to select against girls (for a discussion, see Davis 2010: Chapter 5). In response to concerns about sex ratios and underlying sexism, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has recommended a policy of only allowing sex selective interventions to be used to avoid sex-linked diseases, or for family balancing purposes (e.g., only for the second child in a family)(ACOG 2007). Concerns about the uses of sex selective technologies against a background of unjust sexism (see Bayles 1984; Rogers et al. 2007) illustrate the difficulties of arguing straightforwardly for unfettered reproductive choice about the traits of children.

As this short history should make clear, past, state-run, involuntary eugenic endeavors have been unjust and socially disastrous. Yet certain practices that have eugenic features continue today, albeit framed differently. Prenatal testing and preimplantation genetic diagnosis, for instance, are understood to enhance patient choice and expand prenatal knowledge, even as they are clearly used by prospective parents to determine which individuals should come into existence. Should they be considered eugenic practices? Is that necessarily morally troubling? As technological advances push us to figure out how many more, if any, kinds of genes and genetic markers we ought to be able to test for or choose prenatally, we may need to reassess our current practices to explore their justifications, and sort through the ways in which they are eugenic and potentially morally troubling.

Advocates of liberal eugenics intend to distinguish it from troubling historical predecessors by highlighting four main differences. First, it is individual in nature rather than state-sponsored. The intended benefit of any eugenic intervention is individual/private welfare (that of the child-to-be, or of the family), rather than the welfare of the state as a whole. Second, it is premised on individual liberty, the freedom of parents to choose according to their own values and conceptions of the good life. The state does not mandate contraception, sterilization, prenatal testing, abortion, or any other form of eugenic intervention (note: there are potential exceptions in which judges or states have offered long-term contraception such as Norplant as a condition of probation related to a criminal offense or for the continued provision of welfare, see e.g., Dresser 1996). Rather, it allows individuals to choose among a range of alternatives. Third, it presumes value pluralism, recognizing that individual parents will often desire different things for their offspring. This means allowing others to choose in ways that we ourselves would not, in the interest of preserving a liberal society that is neutral about particular conceptions of the good. The aim of a liberal eugenic program is to expand reproductive choices for individuals, in contrast to the historical eugenic programs that clearly cut off reproductive options for many. (That said, even liberal eugenics advocates typically presume that some limits would need to be in place, to ensure that prospective parents could not act in ways clearly contrary to the interests of their future children, or in ways that seem clearly vicious; how and where those limits would be set are intensely controversial, as will be discussed below.) Finally, advocates of liberal eugenics highlight the difference between the kind and quality of the science underlying the reproductive policies. Past eugenic programs relied on views of race, intelligence, and genetics that were, from our current perspective, hopelessly wrong (Agar 2004: 7). A cursory summary of these kinds of distinctions between old and new eugenics can be found in Caplan 2004, and the same collection of distinctions underlies most liberal or new eugenic arguments.

Continue reading here:

Eugenics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

April 13, 2015|6:53 am

Part 1 of this series can be read here.

Philosophical materialism, a key factor in advancing a utilitarian ethic and its turn to euthanasia, is also the driving force behind the return of eugenics, the attempt to improve the human species by encouraging persons with traits thought desirable to reproduce, while attempting to prevent persons with traits held undesirable from reproducing.

The twentieth century history of the eugenics movement was discussed by Dr. Christopher Hook of the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity and Associate Professor of Medicine at the Mayo Clinic, referred to in the present writer's earlier articles on his lectures concerning bioethics and the related denial of medical liberty of conscience. While eugenics is associated with Nazi Germany, it was in large measure an early twentieth century Anglo-American project, Hook said. Its roots are in Plato's Republic, which proposed breeding people for different classes. It has roots as well in the Enlightenment, with the Marquis de Condorcet speaking of the "unlimited perfectibility" of man by man.

Lamettrie's Man a Machine claimed that since men are machines, they can be re-engineered. Francis Galton coined the term "eugenics." Galton believed we should judge the "worth" of other human beings. He also believed that modern conditions "remove the action of natural selection," causing "disgenesis" (deterioration) of the human species. The "chief culprits" of disgenesis were Christianity, with its "sense of compassion for all individuals," and modern medicine, which allowed the unfit to survive and have children. Another nineteenth century Englishman, Herbert Spencer, coined the term "survival of the fittest." Hook noted that there are "two prongs of the Galtonian program 'positive eugenics,' and 'negative eugenics.'" Positive eugenics endeavored to get persons deemed desirable to reproduce, while negative eugenics focused on preventing people deemed undesirable from reproducing.

Both of these prongs were strongly promoted in early twentieth century America. Significant portions of forced sterilization legislation in America were adopted by Germany in its forced sterilization act of 1933. Notably, the University of Heidelberg later awarded Henry H. Laughlin, a major promoter American sterilization law, with an honorary doctorate. Families with strong musical talent or with high intellectual function or performance were noted. IQ testing was developed during this time. Origins of the IQ test were "purely eugenic" in nature, Hook said.

Margaret Sanger was a strong advocate of eugenics, holding that weak persons unable to support themselves should be left to die. She surrounded herself with "some of the most outspoken white supremacists of the time." In line with this, the first clinics of Planned Parenthood were placed in areas that were heavily populated with African Americans. Theodore Roosevelt also strongly supported eugenics, as did progressives in both political parties. Other eugenics supporters John D. Rockefeller, Jr., the Carnegie Foundation, and Rockefeller Foundation. The Kellogg Foundation sponsored three "race betterment conferences" early in the twentieth century.

Eugenics influenced American law. "Ugly laws" in various cities said ugly persons "should not expose themselves to public view Aesthetics was a huge part of the eugenics movement" Hook said, with photography developing in conjunction with this in the early twentieth century. The Immigration Act of 1924 limited immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe, deemed to have biologically inferior people. Forced sterilization was also enacted into the law Hook noted that legislation was even proposed that would prevent persons with glasses from having children. Hollywood also supported eugenics. Eugenics book clubs discussed the latest eugenics books.

Leaders of the Mayo Clinic supported eugenics. These "compassionate men" were "led astray" by "bad science, which was thought to be good science," Hook said. We must be "very humble" about what science claims, particularly in support of efforts "to re-engineer the human species." He observed that one prominent eugenics supporter who helped inspire the eugenics law in Minnesota reported his success to Hitler in a letter. Hitler responded in a note congratulating him.

The Carrie Buck case in Virginia involved the first woman in Virginia selected for involuntary sterilization from a state institution. She challenged the law, supported by conservative Christians. The Supreme Court upheld the Virginia law in an 8-1 decision. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the majority decision, which said that "three generations of imbeciles are enough."

Visit link:

Materialism and the Devaluing of Life Part 2

Eugenics, Fluoride, Aspartame Vaccines 2 of 4
This is a part 2 of 4 videos as compiled by Prison Planet.com. Dr. Russell L. Blaylock, a retired United States Neurosurgeon exposes the enormous risks to humans via the #39;Eugenics #39; program....

By: Happy Tuber

Go here to read the rest:

Eugenics, Fluoride, Aspartame & Vaccines 2 of 4 - Video

TomorrowsChildren1934 PublicDomain Eugenics
Movie about sterilization. Really creepy. #39;Eugenics #39; (said in a sing-song voice)

By: Boo Radley

Originally posted here:

TomorrowsChildren1934 PublicDomain Eugenics - Video

April 10, 2015|10:03 am

Materialism focuses attention on material security and quality of life in this world, yet the continued consistent application of the ideal of a high quality of life finally results in a devaluing and loss of life. That was the message of speakers at the L'Abri Fellowship conference on Life and Liberty, held Feb. 13-14 in Rochester, Minnesota, in two presentations that focused particularly on euthanasia and the history of the American eugenics movement.

Henk Reitsma of the L'Abri Fellowship's Dutch facility discussed the deterioration of respect for life in the Netherlands under the impact of the legalization and acceptance of euthanasia. Reitsma said we should not think that "we're on the safe side of the ocean, [that] this is not really a topic which is so relevant to us today." This is because the Dutch "serve as a window for the rest of the world." The beliefs now common in the Netherlands transcend borders in the Western world, and they are "painfully relevant." Indeed, these ideas of quality of life affect faithful Christians who may not at all agree with the radical departure from Christian morality now so common, because we are "children of our culture." He noted that for Francis Schaeffer, concern with the right to life was "a logical extension of his apologetic," not simply an "add-on." Reitsma said that a loss of belief in God affects how we deal with other people, and to "a loss of life and meaning."

Reitsma's own grandfather was killed involuntarily at a home for the elderly in the Netherlands. While a traditional Christian belief in the sanctity of life precludes euthanasia, people today want to know why we don't put people out of their suffering just as we do with animals. The contemporary world is "profoundly out of touch with what it is that makes it so special to be human." But we are different. "We think about how people will perceive and remember what we are doing." Each human life is endowed with "a weight of glory," Reitsma said.

A problem for this traditional understanding of the worth of humans is the utilitarian ethic. Pleasure is identified with good, pain with evil. But Reitsma said, "for outcomes in a human life meaning is more important than the presence or absence of pain." He pointed out that the Bible says that "if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong" (I Pet. 3:17). He also noted that the word "compassion," in its historic formulation, includes the meaning of "to hold on," or "to endure." True compassion, Reitsma said, is "to come alongside your fellow [suffering] human being[s], and hold on to them." For human life, "the presence or absence of pain is not all-defining." He spoke of an elderly frequent visitor to the Dutch L'Abri facility, noteworthy for her acute thinking, who declined to take sedatives to relieve the pain of her illness because they would cloud her mind. But Reitsma pointed out that ironically, in general, the more we have sedatives available in the Western world, the less remaining pain we are willing to accept.

In the utilitarian ethical context of the contemporary West, the meaning of compassion has been altered by the reigning doctrine of moral autonomy. Now it means, "providing someone with the space in which they can be fully autonomous, and do their own thing." Pro-euthanasia movies carry the message that "because your life is not perfect, it's not worth living when the immaterial fades, and the material becomes all-defining, the definition of what it is to be compassionate shifts. Then physical pain avoidance, and freedom in terms of immediate physical longings and lusts, becomes dominant."

The "quality of life" commitment of the Western elite has had perverse results in Asia, Reitsma said, where pre-natal sex identification technology and abortion have resulted in the loss of 160 million girls, with a resulting sex ratio of 122 boys to 100 girls in China and 112 boys to 100 girls in India. This catastrophic ratio is different from that of the past, when wars at times resulted in an imbalance of females over males. The latter imbalance was accommodated at times with polygamy. But a male over female ratio results in a more violent society, with rape common.

With philosophical materialism and utilitarian ethics coming to the fore as Western society becomes more secular, euthanasia is a "concept on the move," according to Reitsma. Whereas in the Netherlands, statistics once distinguished between active and passive euthanasia, now only cases of lethal injection are considered euthanasia, passive measures to effect death, and even physician assisted suicide, are no longer counted. Thus, Rick Santorum's claim that 10% of Dutch deaths are the result of euthanasia may be correct, or approximately correct, although by the current Dutch definition it was inaccurate.

Yet the rapidly rising rate of actively killing patients by lethal injection was made possible by the acceptance of passive measures, such as "continuous deep sedation," which keeps patients presumed to be near the end of life unconscious to avoid pain. In a world such as are emerging, people not only choose death for themselves (which remains wrong), but also for the weak and vulnerable that may not have chosen it for themselves. Such people may be eliminated for the good of society, which is caring for them, as well as their own suffering, according to the emerging utilitarian ethic. Reitsma mentioned the case of his own grandmother, who had a home for the elderly within 5 kilometers of where she lived, but moved instead to a conservative Christian home many hundreds of kilometers away, in a community where she knew no one, for fear that at the local home, she would be put to death. Against such an emerging secularist society, Reitsma said "to be human is to care for the vulnerable and the weak." It means that compassion involves much continuous care for those who may be suffering greatly, with little hope of a return to normal life. But it is what the Biblical doctrine of man in the image of God requires, and is a sure guard against the cancerous growth of a culture which chooses death over life.

The same choice of death over life, the essential part euthanasia, is also involved in eugenics, which has as its objective a more perfect life and the elimination of imperfections. This was discussed in a presentation by Dr. Christopher Hook, reviewed in a subsequent article.

Read more from the original source:

Materialism and the Devaluing of Life Part 1

Yaphank in Long Island was founded in part by the German American Bund, a pro Nazi group that flourished in the 1930s They established Camp Siegfried in 1935 as a place for like-minded Aryans to drink beer, hold military demonstrations and learn about eugenics Yaphank remains a town in Long Island, but gone are the roads once called Adolf Hitler Street, Goebbels and Goering

By Dailymail.com Reporter

Published: 00:28 EST, 10 April 2015 | Updated: 06:34 EST, 10 April 2015

665 shares

7

View comments

Nestled in eastern Long Island is a sleepy little town called Yaphank where the streets have cozy names like Oak and Park, names that hide a dark past: they once bore signs like Hitler andGoebbels Streets.

Yaphank, in the 1930s, appeared as a haven for Americans--most of them of German heritage--who sympathized with the causes of the Third Reich.

In fact, it was largely founded as a Nazi camp, one of several scattered across the U.S., where the children in the German American Bund (AKA American Nazis) could fish, swim, hunt and learn about things like eugenics.

Scroll down for video

Excerpt from:

Inside the New York hamlet that once was home to a pro-Nazi camp

Wheres the author? Stamps from the Royal Mails Alice in Wonderland series. Photograph: Royal Mail

Maya Angelou led the way in knowing why the caged bird sang, but she apparently wasnt the first to assert enigmatically that a bird doesnt sing because it has an answer, it sings because it has a song. Nevertheless, the US Postal Service went ahead this week with issuing a stamp bearing these words alongside a sizeable, smiling image of the author. An unruffled spokesman did have an answer when the problem was drawn to his attention, saying the quote may have come originally from Joan Walsh Anglund, a childrens writer, but it was often attributed to Angelou, notably by Barack Obama.

For connoisseurs of such cock-ups, the misattribution will perhaps be most reminiscent of East Germanys 1956 blunder in issuing a Robert Schumann stamp with a score in the background that happened to be by Schubert. Normally, though, literary stamp controversies tend to involve objections to whos chosen as worthy of the honour, and sometimes whos implicitly deemed unworthy.

So when an anorak-clad, wand-firing Harry Potter began gracing US letters two years ago, there were all kinds of protests: patriots disliked having to lick a foreigners backside, progressives accused the Postal Service of cashing in on a film franchises success (as opposed to rewarding merit, in the yearly literary arts series the Angelou stamp belongs to), and hardcore Christians denounced the fting of fantasy and witchcraft. Other rows have involved the private lives of authors selected, or their views (Marie Stopess support for eugenics).

Related: Maya Angelous misquoted stamp - and other famous lines we all get wrong

Sets of stamps have also come in for criticism, as when Australia Post rather guilelessly chose as its Australian legends of the written word in 2010 Peter Carey, Bryce Courtenay, Thomas Keneally, David Malouf, Colleen McCullough and Tim Winton all white, and all bar one male, it was immediately pointed out.

The UKs Royal Mail has largely managed to avoid such philatelic fiascos, but not necessarily because its more rigorous its way of staying row-free seems to be to issue as few such stamps as possible, aided by two factors: the ban on depicting living figures other than the sovereign up to 2005 (when Ashes cricketers appeared, followed in 2012 by Olympians but not so far living writers), and artists discernible reluctance to put a second head on a stamp that automatically has one already.

The latter factor means that, whether the authors are living or not, their characters will usually be shown rather than their faces, as seen (following recent issues similarly honouring, among others, Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, Ian Fleming, Roald Dahl and JK Rowling) in this years Alice anniversary set, offering a choice of 10 scenes from the book but no image of Lewis Carroll.

Look at a list of British writers who have appeared on stamps and the gaps are consequently glaring and the number remarkably small roughly the same as the 27 in the USs literary arts series, produced by a nation with only a 240-year history. The great British literary stamp scandal? Its that they so rarely celebrate authors themselves in the way that the Maya Angelou stamp splendidly does.

Link:

Stamp duty: why does the UK commemorate so few writers?

New World Order: Eugenics.
For the New World Order, a world government is just the beginning. Once in place they can engage their plan to exterminate 80% of the world #39;s population, while enabling the "elites" to live...

By: The River Mersey

View post:

New World Order: Eugenics. - Video

Negative Eugenics Movement: Guyana, Haiti, Bermuda more
This is a clip from the research documentary Maafa 21 highlighting the international impact of negative eugenics on Blacks and people of the Afrikan Diaspora all over the world. It greatly...

By: gowally69

See the article here:

Negative Eugenics Movement: Guyana, Haiti, Bermuda & more - Video

By Andrea Estrada for the UCSB Office of Public Affairs and Communications | Published on 04.06.2015 1:39 p.m.

Beginning in 1909 and continuing for 70 years, California led the country in the number of sterilization procedures performed on men and women, often without their full knowledge and consent. Approximately 20,000 sterilizations took place in state institutions, comprising one-third of the total number performed in the 32 states where such action was legal.

Terence Keel (Sonia Fernandez / UCSB photo)

Known as eugenics, the practice was a commonly accepted means of protecting society from the offspring (and therefore equally suspect) of those individuals deemed inferior or dangerous the poor, the disabled, the mentally ill, criminals and people of color.

Although the law was repealed by the state legislature in 1979, the legacy of the eugenics movement continues today. It is one of the main topics in a public lecture series at UC Santa Barbara. Titled The Biopolitics of Reproduction, the series will approach issues of reproduction from a historical and ethnographic perspective, exploring the eugenics movement, progressive era public health reform, the cultural politics of abortion and the science of womens reproductive systems.

The lectures, which begin at 5 p.m., will take place in 2135 Social Sciences and Media Studies Building at UCSB. They are free and open to the public.

The aim of the series is to place the current crisis facing womens right to comprehensive reproductive health, especially for women of color, within a historical context, said Terence Keel, assistant professor at UCSB, jointly appointed in the Department of Black Studies and the Department of History. The goal is to create awareness and a conversation on campus about how present-day controversies over abortion, sterilization and access to contraception and reproductive care have deep ties to the eugenics movement and long-standing racial and gender biases within Western science.

These connections have left an indelible mark on public health policies, practicesand technological innovation, Keel continued.

The series begins Tuesday, April 14, with a talk by Alexandra Minna Stern, professor of obstetrics and gynecology, American culture and history at the University of Michigan. She will discuss Racial and Reproductive Injustice: The Long History of Eugenic Sterilization in California.

Sterns work focuses on the history of medicine, including eugenics, medical genetics, epidemics, childrens health and tropical medicine. Her book Eugenic Nation: Faults and Frontiers of Better Breeding in Modern America is widely considered to be the definitive study of eugenics in California, said Keel.

More here:

Lecture Series at UCSB Explores Politics of Female Biology and Reproduction

Eugenics and Other Evils by G
LibriVox recording of Eugenics and Other Evils by G. K. Chesterton, read by Ray Clare. Most Eugenists are Euphemists. I mean merely that short words startle them, while long words soothe them....

By: LibriVox

See the rest here:

Eugenics and Other Evils by G - Video

Watch Dogs: Bad Blood - "Negative Eugenics" achievement/trophy guide
in this very long delayed video i show you how to get this slightly difficult 40G achievement in the Watch Dogs DLC Bad Blood. if this video helped you hit like, if you want to see more from...

By: PhillyCh3zSt3ak

Original post:

Watch Dogs: Bad Blood - "Negative Eugenics" achievement/trophy guide - Video

(Photo: Wikimedia)

A Nashville prosecutor was let go this week amid reports that he requested some women undergo tubal ligation or maintain a birth control regimen as part of sentencing discussions.

Former Assistant District Attorney Brian Holmgren was fired from the Davidson County District Attorney's office after an investigative report found at least four cases in which the possibility of sterilisation was introduced in plea bargain talks.

The Associated Pressreported that Holmgren routinely asked mothers in abuse and neglect cases to take birth control, although the court cannot require a person to use contraceptives.

The Tennessean highlighted the case of Jasmine Randers - a 36-year-old who stabbed herself in the stomach while pregnant in 2004, and brought a deceased, five-day-old baby to a hospital in 2012. Randers was found not guilty of aggravated child neglect by reason of insanity and is currently in a metal institution.

Lawyers for Randers told District Attorney General Glenn Funk that Holmgren would not consent to a plea deal unless the defendant underwent tubal ligation. Funk removed Holmgren from the case and cut the deal.

The former ADA defended his methods in a recent interview.

"The likelihood that she would get pregnant again is high," he saidof the Randers case. "The likelihood that she would follow through on her court orders for medication is very, very low.

"And we already had two situations that suggest this was a significant risk. I wasn't willing to create a scenario that offered a third."

He also denied that he was fired over the controversial case.

More:

Prosecutor fired after eugenics accusations

April Fools Day Geoengineering Eugenics Slow Kill of Humanity
http://www.frederickwust.com/ http://frederickwust.wordpress.com/ https://www.youtube.com/user/frederickwust https://www.facebook.com/groups/chemtrailsla/ The Seven Plagues are raining down...

By: Frederick Wst Jr.

See the rest here:

April Fools Day Geoengineering Eugenics Slow Kill of Humanity - Video