Monthly Archives: September 2015

Singularity University – Solving Humanity’s Grand …

Posted: September 4, 2015 at 12:44 pm

What is Singularity University?

Our mission is to educate, inspire and empower leaders to apply exponential technologies to address humanity's grand challenges.

Even more discussions, stories and topics.

Incubating companies, one experiment at a time

Eager to connect with SU enthusiasts near you? Learn more here

Thoughtful coverage on science, technology, and the singularity

Our custom program for Fortune 500 companies

David Roberts

Salim Ismail

Kathryn Myronuk

Catherine Mohr

Neil Jacobstein

Ralph Merkle

Raymond McCauley

Marc Goodman

Daniel Kraft, MD

Brad Templeton

Gregg Maryniak

Robert Freitas

Andrew Hessel

Paul Saffo

Jonathan Knowles

Jeremy Howard

Eric Ries

Avi Reichental

Peter Diamandis

Ray Kurzweil

Nicholas Haan

John Hagel

Robert Hariri, MD, PhD

Ramez Naam

June 3rd, 2015 /

Top 10 exponential companies Salim Ismail, Singularity University, discusses which organizations are best at keeping up with rapid technological

June 2nd, 2015 /

Exponential Finance conference lineup CNBCs Bob Pisani provides a preview for his presentation at the Singularity University/CNBC Exponential

June 2nd, 2015 /

a rapid period of evolution, says Peter Diamandis, Singularity University, explaining how technological change is disrupting the financial industry

NASA Research Park Building 20 S. Akron Rd. MS 20-1 Moffett Field CA 94035-0001 Phone: +1-650-200-3434

Singularity University, Singularity Hub, Singularity Summit, SU Labs, Singularity Labs, Exponential Medicine, Exponential Finance and all associated logos and design elements are trademarks and/or service marks of Singularity Education Group.

Singularity University is not a degree granting institution.

Follow this link:

Singularity University - Solving Humanity's Grand ...

Posted in The Singularity | Comments Off on Singularity University – Solving Humanity’s Grand …

Ex-Clinton aide to plead the Fifth on emails – CNNPolitics.com

Posted: at 12:43 pm

On Monday, Mark MacDougall, the attorney for former State Department employee Bryan Pagliano, sent a letter to House Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy indicating that Pagliano would assert his Fifth Amendment right not to appear before the Select Committee for a deposition on September 10, 2015. A copy of the letter was obtained by CNN.

MacDougall also says that Pagliano would likewise "decline to produce documents that may be responsive to the subpoena." In the letter, MacDougall defends the decision to invoke the Fifth Amendment by expressing concern about "the current political environment" surrounding Clinton's email use.

Pagliano is a former IT staffer who worked for Clinton and assisted with her email and server. On August 11, Gowdy issued a subpoena for his deposition. A Democratic committee source says there was "no debate or vote by the select committee" about the decision to issue Pagliano subpoena.

Responding to additional requests regarding Clinton's private server from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's staff, Pagliano's legal counsel also said yesterday that "he would plead the 5th to any and all questions if he were compelled to testify" before the Judiciary Committee, according to a spokesman for the senator.

Benghazi panel set to grill top Clinton aides

In a letter to Democratic members of the Select Committee on Benghazi defending Pagliano's decision, Democratic committee staff wrote "Despite the lack of any evidence of criminal activity, it is understandable that attorneys for Mr. Pagliano have advised him to assert his Congressional right not to testify given the onslaught of reckless accusations of criminal conduct the continue to be made by many Republicans."

The staff noted that "Although some commentators may use the invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege to assert that a criminal investigation may now be underway, the assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege does not imply the existence of a criminal investigation."

Additionally, the Democratic committee staff cited multiple statements from Republican presidential candidates and members of Congress implying the existence of criminal activity or a criminal investigation as proof of the "current political environment" referenced in Pagliano's letter. Thus far, no criminal investigations or criminal charges have been brought against Clinton over the private server.

Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, the Democratic ranking member on the Select Committee, also issued a statement defending of Pagliano's invocation of the Fifth Amendment, saying, "Although multiple legal experts agree there is no evidence of criminal activity, it is certainly understandable that this witness' attorneys advised him to assert his Fifth Amendment rights, especially given the onslaught of wild and unsubstantiated accusations by Republican presidential candidates, Members of Congress, and others based on false leaks about the investigation."

Cummings added, "Their insatiable desire to derail Secretary Clinton's presidential campaign at all costs has real consequences for any serious Congressional effort."

The Select Committee is also set to interrogate two of Clinton's top aides from her time as Secretary of State this week: former chief-of-staff Cheryl Mills on Thursday, and former top aide Jake Sullivan on Friday. Questions are expected about the server and internal communications between Clinton's staff.

Excerpt from:
Ex-Clinton aide to plead the Fifth on emails - CNNPolitics.com

Posted in Fifth Amendment | Comments Off on Ex-Clinton aide to plead the Fifth on emails – CNNPolitics.com

Transhumanism news, articles and information:

Posted: September 3, 2015 at 9:43 pm

TV.NaturalNews.com is a free video website featuring thousands of videos on holistic health, nutrition, fitness, recipes, natural remedies and much more.

CounterThink Cartoons are free to view and download. They cover topics like health, environment and freedom.

The Consumer Wellness Center is a non-profit organization offering nutrition education grants to programs that help children and expectant mothers around the world.

Food Investigations is a series of mini-documentaries exposing the truth about dangerous ingredients in the food supply.

Webseed.com offers alternative health programs, documentaries and more.

The Honest Food Guide is a free, downloadable public health and nutrition chart that dares to tell the truth about what foods we should really be eating.

HealingFoodReference.com offers a free online reference database of healing foods, phytonutrients and plant-based medicines that prevent or treat diseases and health conditions.

HerbReference.com is a free, online reference library that lists medicinal herbs and their health benefits.

NutrientReference.com is a free online reference database of phytonutrients (natural medicines found in foods) and their health benefits. Lists diseases, foods, herbs and more.

Read more from the original source:
Transhumanism news, articles and information:

Posted in Transhuman News | Comments Off on Transhumanism news, articles and information:

Ron Paul: Pictures, Videos, Breaking News – Huffington Post

Posted: at 9:41 pm

The Republican Party doesn't seem to understand the fact that threats to the United States originate from the actions of human beings. These human beings resort to violence when they are marginalized by society to the point where they believe that the only way to better their country is to work around the democratic system through violence.

Anhvinh Doanvo

Research assistant for the Global Initiative for Civil Society and Conflict. Writer for The Hill.

Bernie Sanders, to put this another way, doesn't need a focus group or a poll to tell him what he ought to stand for. He already knows what he stands for, and he'll freely tell you exactly what that is.

The idea of the "conservatarian" is all the rage these days in Republican circles. Conservatarian is a philosophy that is something of a hybrid between conservatives and libertarians. It doesn't have a firm ideological statement, but it does have some guiding principles.

Kevin Price

Publisher and Editor in Chief, US Daily Review

Of course if the "short-fingered vulgarian" -- to borrow a Spy Magazine term of endearment for Mr. Trump -- runs as a Independent, then, as in 1992 (when Ross Perot stole huge numbers of the GOP vote), the Republicans don't have a prayer, no matter whom they run.

James Marshall Crotty

Forbes Education Columnist; Author, 'How to Talk American'; Director, 'Crotty's Kids'; Co-founder, 'Monk Magazine'

Artful advocates advise this about addressing the court: if the facts are on your side, pound the facts; if the law is on your side, pound the law; if neither is on your side, pound the table. Adding to that adage, pusillanimous politicians propose undressing the court: if you fear its decision, strip it of jurisdiction.

At the root of the culture wars lies a fundamental dichotomy in worldviews. Which is more essential to humanity: the individual or the collective?

Dave Pruett

Former NASA researcher; Emeritus Professor of Mathematics, James Madison University

A recent op-ed in the New York Times chastises Rand Paul for being insufficiently libertarian. His critics are particularly upset over his "hawkish" foreign policy, accusing him of abandoning the ideal of individual liberty. The reverse, however, is true

Peter Schwartz

Distinguished Fellow, Ayn Rand Institute; Author, "In Defense of Selfishness"

The younger Paul knows that in the political big leagues, candidates of conviction who refuse to moderate their message or refuse to adapt to the prevailing contemporaneous political sentiment, are often abandoned at the alter by the electoral consumer.

Rich Rubino

Author, 'The Political Bible of Humorous Quotations from American Politics,' 'Make Every Vote Equal What a Novel Idea,' and The Political Bible of Little Known Facts in American Politics

By and large, Americans have come to believe, although erroneously, that Patriotism is tantamount to support for the Constitutional system of government and the policies instituted by the government. In truth, an American Patriot can love his/her country while opposing the polices of the government.

Rich Rubino

Author, 'The Political Bible of Humorous Quotations from American Politics,' 'Make Every Vote Equal What a Novel Idea,' and The Political Bible of Little Known Facts in American Politics

Ex-New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said that Obama doesn't love America. But you know who actually doesn't love America? Secessionists don't. And it wasn't too hard to figure that one out.

John A. Tures

Political science professor, LaGrange College in Georgia

Jeff Danziger

Political cartoonist syndicated by the NYTimes worldwide

The Republican Party and the political media world are already off to the 2016 horse races. It is way too early for any real analysis of the public's mood, but that doesn't stop the oddsmaking within the Beltway. After all, the Democratic nomination race is setting up to be a snoozer, so why not get started obsessing over the Republican race?

With Mitt Romney dropping his presidential bid, Republican campaign financiers are searching for a candidate to lead the crusade against the 47 percent. Charles G. Koch is troubled.

When Mitt Romney made his announcement that he wouldn't make another presidential run (for now), it didn't take long for pundits to add their thoughts. Some pointed out that Reagan won on his third presidential campaign. But the other 12 who tried since 1952 didn't.

John A. Tures

Political science professor, LaGrange College in Georgia

More than a week after the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, American comedians have made it clear that they stand with their fellow satirists in France. There were others who joined the condemnation as well, and not just from comedy.

While American justice has long been extraordinarily repressive and discriminatory, the events of 2014 arguably led more people to realize the magnitude of the problem.

Original post:
Ron Paul: Pictures, Videos, Breaking News - Huffington Post

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Ron Paul: Pictures, Videos, Breaking News – Huffington Post

Ron Paul and Lost Lessons of War by Todd E. Pierce — Antiwar.com

Posted: at 9:41 pm

Former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul lays out a national security strategy for the United States in his book, Swords into Plowshares, which Carl von Clausewitz , the author of On War, would have approved. Clausewitz, a Prussian general in the early Nineteenth Century, is considered perhaps the Wests most insightful strategist, and On War is his classic work on the interrelationship between politics and war.

A close reading of On War reveals a book far more on the strategy of statecraft, that is Grand Strategy, than it is on the mere strategy of warfare. Unfortunately, very few readers have understood that. Indeed, Clausewitzs target audience may have been principally civilian policy makers with his view that the political perspective must remain dominant over the military point of view in the conduct of war.

Whether or not Ron Paul ever read Clausewitz, Swords into Plowshares restores a proper understanding of statecraft as Clausewitz understood it and todays American leaders fail to.

Helmuth von Moltke, who became Chief of the Prussian General Staff in 1857, almost immediately misappropriated and reinterpreted On War for his own militaristic purposes. (Clausewitz died in 1831.) Moltke was followed in this in 1883, when Prussian General Count Colmar von der Goltz, later known as the Butcher of Belgium in World War I, while paying homage to Clausewitz, wrote The Nation in Arms, a revision of Clausewitzs On War and its complete opposite.

Moltke and Goltz twisted Clausewitzs arguments in the interests of the Prussian military class that had come into full flower after Clausewitzs time. For one, they self-servingly distorted On War by reversing the principle of civilian control to argue civilians must not interfere with military decisions. Also, their reinterpretations of Clausewitz as an advocate for total war became the stereotype which most people then accepted as Clausewitzs thinking.

Most odiously, US Colonel Harry S. Summers, Jr. would later present to a post-Vietnam War audience Goltzs version of Clausewitz. In doing so, Summers reversed Clausewitzs position, which was that defense was stronger than attack, an argument against engaging in aggressive war. But Summers was collaborating with neoconservative Norman Podhoretz who shared Goltzs militarism.

These distortions of Clausewitzs principles and that of Americas Founders who even earlier had established the idea of civilian control over the military continue to the present day with US civilian policy makers now regularly deferring to the narrowly focused point of view of military leaders to the detriment of a sound national security strategy.

In Swords into Plowshares, Ron Paul offers a correction to this and a return to a civilian-directed national security strategy for the US to adopt which would restore a proper understanding of national interests and would be consistent with Clausewitzs own strategic theory.

Peace as a Goal

Clausewitz would have heartily agreed with Ron Paul that Having peace as a goal is both a key component of sensible foreign policy and crucial to economic prosperity and equal protection of all peoples liberty.

Clausewitz would also have agreed with Paul that it is not sound national strategy when the result of having the most powerful military in history means to have Americans continue to die in a series of wars, the treasury is bare, and the US is the most hated nation in the world.

Clausewitz made his bones, so to speak, in fighting Napoleonic France which had a similar foreign policy in the early 1800s as the US has in the Twenty-first Century using warfare and other means to achieve regime change with the same negative results. France finally met its Waterloo (the original Waterloo coming to mean a decisive defeat) in 1815.

The question for the US isnt if it will reach its own Waterloo, but when. Military solutions to geopolitical problems will inevitably exhaust even the most powerful nation, depleting its resources and manpower. Only by reversing imperial overreach and achieving peace can a sustainable prosperity become possible.

Clausewitz fully understood that reality, which is why he was an advocate of diplomacy and of restoring peace as soon as costs exceeded the benefit of whatever political object the war was being fought over. Clausewitz would be aghast at arguments that a war must be continued to show resolve or other such nonsensical purposes.

An expert on Clausewitz, Michael Howard, wrote that Clausewitz was a scholar as well as a Field General and knew and respected the works of political philosopher Immanuel Kant. Accordingly, Clausewitz would no doubt have been aware of and influenced by Kants 1795 tract entitled Perpetual Peace. Pauls Swords Into Plowshares is in that tradition and applies the lessons to today.

Defense, Not Offense

In Clausewitzs time and place, he had to fight a war of national survival against Napoleon, who could be viewed as the predecessor of todays American neoconservative idea of using war as the means of imposing political change on other countries.

Clausewitz first fought France for his native country, Prussia, and when Prussia was defeated, he volunteered his services to Russia, serving until Napoleons final defeat. Clausewitz then began compiling what he had learned of statecraft and warfare with the experience he had gained.

But this was not for the purpose of encouraging aggressive war but only as recognition that war was used as a political tool which had to be addressed in a book of statecraft. Subordinating the political point of view to the military would be absurd, for it is policy that has created war, he wrote.

Ron Paul demonstrates a full understanding of that principle as he challenges the neoconservative euphoria for what they claim is now a perpetual war. But Paul does not write as a pacifist and Swords into Plowshares is not a pacifist tract.

As Paul writes, When a people are determined to defend their homeland, regardless of the size of the threat, they are quite capable. Americans can do the same if the unlikely need arises. That is not the voice of a pacifist but rather of one who has drawn the same lesson as Clausewitz had.

Clausewitz was surely not a pacifist either. His profession was the military. But he wasnt a militarist, unlike what the Prussian officer class would later become. Clausewitz would not have called for civilian control over military decision-making if he had been a militarist. That was a key point that von Moltke would later repudiate (or ignore) as he ushered in German militarism.

But the purpose of Clausewitzs profession as a soldier in the early 1800s in central Europe was to defend his native land, Prussia, against a foreign attacker. When he later joined with Russia to fight Napoleon, it was to fight a common enemy, France, which was not a prospective enemy but an actual foreign invader on their respective territories.

Along those lines, Ron Paul suggests that the US model its foreign policy after Switzerland, which has a military to defend itself but not one to wage offensive war outside its borders.

Switzerland has done rather well with its streak of independence, Paul writes. Reasonable fiscal and monetary policy, along with the rejection of foreign intervention, have been beneficial to her.

Perpetual War and Militarism

The only flaw in Clausewitzs view that civilian policymakers must prevail over the military is that Clausewitz did not foresee the development of hyper-militarism, or what was called Fascism in the last century. Under Fascism, a sufficiently large number of militaristic civilians took over policy in Germany and Japan in the 1930s, paving the way to World War II.

An analysis of militarism prepared for the U.S. Office of Strategic Services in 1942 by Hans Ernest Fried, entitled The Guilt of the German Army, describes three types of militarism which had developed in Germany. They were characterized as glorification of the army, glorification of war, and the militarization of civilian life. Frieds book is disturbing because it could be describing the United States of today with the prevalence of the same three features.

Clausewitz did not anticipate the rise of a civilian political class in the 1930s which was as narrowly militaristic in its attitudes as was the military, another pattern that is repeating itself in the United States of the Twenty-first Century. We are seeing the political dominance of neoconservatives and like-minded progressive interventionists who are eager to advocate war, often more so than the US military.

One reason for this reality is that many of these ideological advocates for perpetual war are far removed from the actual killing and dying, i.e., they are chicken hawks generally from privileged classes and dont even know many real soldiers.

These chicken hawks follow in the footsteps of former Vice President Dick Cheney whose physical safety was sheltered by five deferments from the draft but who still celebrated when other men of his generation were marched off to the Vietnam War. Cheney was again eager to send a new generation of men and women off to the strategically catastrophic Iraq War on the basis of lies that he and President George W. Bush spread.

A Wider Audience

Gaining an understanding of US foreign policy and American militarism by reading Swords into Plowshares is important for the future of the United States and should not be confined to Ron Pauls usual libertarian audience. Instead, it should be studied by those seeking to understand why it is that the more wars we fight and the more Muslims we kill, the more attraction groups like ISIS have.

ISIS and similar militant groups maintain their ability to recruit because they are resisting what they call US imperialism, a war against Islam. This appeal is even reaching into the US and Western Europe as the continuing bloodshed in the Middle East increases the anger and enmity of its victims and their sympathizers. Killing more Muslims does not resolve these hatreds, it exacerbates them, strengthening the political will to resist, as Clausewitz would have understood.

Similarly, Paul understands that US policy is a combat multiplier for groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda.

And, as if ISIS and Al Qaeda arent trouble enough, the US has now identified a new enemy, nuclear-armed Russia. Neoconservative militarists led by Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and her war enthusiast Kagan family in-laws have revived the Cold War through their nefarious machinations in Ukraine and elsewhere.

Furthermore, foolish US Generals such as NATO Commander Philip Breedlove, with a name and military policy suggesting he is a real-life character straight out of Dr. Strangelove, seems to be doing all in his power to create a hot war with Russia, even at the risk of a nuclear exchange.

But Paul explains that this incitement to perpetual war has been achieved without an actual threat to our security. We have not engaged in hostilities with any nation since 1945 that was capable of doing harm to us . . . . Our obsession with expanding our sphere of influence around the world was designed to promote an empire. It was never for true national security purposes. To keep hatred and thus war alive, the propagandists must stay active.

Resisting Interventions

Clausewitz would have understood Ron Pauls reasoning as expressed here: The more US interventions caused deaths, incited and multiplied our enemies, imposed extreme costs, and jeopardized our security, the greater my conviction became that all foreign intervention not related to our direct security should cease as quickly as possible. The neoconservatives want an open license to go anywhere, anytime to force our goodness on others, even though such actions are resented and the beneficiaries want no part of it.

Clausewitz not only theorized against interventions of that type; he helped defeat Napoleon, who practiced the Nineteenth Century equivalent. Knowing how Napoleons wars ended, Ron Paul sees the US as on the wrong side of history.

Paul, consciously or not, has drawn on the strategic insight of Clausewitz, which should be no surprise as it was a frequently expressed truism in the military before 2001, echoing Clausewitz, that wars were so expensive and unpredictable that they were to be avoided if possible. And if unavoidable, they were best kept short.

Cheney and other neocon hawks of the Bush-43 administration threw that wisdom overboard even before 2001. But 9/11 created so much hysteria in todays military officers, who never had to experience how wars can go sour, that those bitter lessons are being relearned the hard way by a new generation of officers. They would serve the military well by reading Swords into Plowshares and reacquiring that wisdom.

What might turn out to be the tragedy of this book is that its readers will be limited to self-identified libertarians. But Paul has shown himself capable of joining liberals such as Democrat Dennis Kucinich in opposing the transformation of the US into an advanced form of militaristic state and resisting the wars which make that possible.

But every attempt at forming antiwar coalitions between libertarians and other political groupings or even co-sponsored forums, in the experience of this writer, go no further than about five minutes before one side or the other insists that before militarism is discussed, the other side has to concede to their respective economics ideology. More times than not, that comes from the libertarians who insist that any taxation is as repressive as military rule. Its reminiscent of the early 1930s when the Nazis political opponents were happiest squabbling amongst themselves, while the Nazis were preparing Dachau and other prisons for members of each of the non-Nazi political parties.

Consequently, American militarists probably need not fear that Swords into Plowshares will interfere with their militaristic plans and war profiteers need have no concerns for their future profits. But perhaps my prognostication is incorrect. Maybe Americans will realize that our militarists are leading us to the strategic abyss and that were already close to the edge.

Americans should find that Pauls national security strategy is sound regardless of whether they agree with other aspects of his libertarian ideology. There is surely common ground among Americans who recognize that perpetual wars will also mean the suppression of constitutional rights and other encroachments on liberty.

Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November 2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office of Military Commissions.

Reprinted with permission of the author from Consortium News.

Read more:
Ron Paul and Lost Lessons of War by Todd E. Pierce -- Antiwar.com

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Ron Paul and Lost Lessons of War by Todd E. Pierce — Antiwar.com

Ron Paul News – The New York Times

Posted: at 9:41 pm

Jesse Benton, supporter and onetime adviser to Sen Rand Paul, is charged with paying Iowa lawmaker Kent Sorenson $70,000 to secure endorsement of senator's father Rep Ron Paul during 2012 presidential bid; accusation comes as latest blow to Rand Paul's struggling 2016 campaign. MORE

Sen Rand Paul, preparing to announce candidacy for 2016 Republican nomination, will seek to distance himself from legacy of his father Ron Paul, who had several unsuccessful presidential bids in past; elder Paul will likely have only minor role in campaign. MORE

Sen Rand Paul is adopting different strategy than his father, former Rep Ron Paul, as he prepares for his likely 2016 bid to be Republican nominee for president; Paul is trying to bridge gap between fervent supporters of his father's previous campaigns and with more mainstream elements of the Republican Party. MORE

Op-Ed article by Brian Doherty, senior editor at Reason magazine, examines state of libertarian wing of Republican Party, in light of Rep Ron Paul's retirement; assesses future and observes that Sen Rand Paul may not only be a standard-bearer for libertarians, but also for the Republican Party. MORE

Backers of Rep Ron Paul protest at the Republican National Convention what they say are moves by Republican leadership to squelch their movements rise; part of Maine's delegation walks out; protests signal deeper party divisions bubbling under the telegenic surface of Mitt Romney's nomination at the convention. MORE

Ron Paul exerts a strong presence on the eve of the Republican convention in Tampa, Fla, delivering a speech to nearly 10,000 eager supporters at a rally inside the University of South Florida's Sun Dome. MORE

Supporters of Rep Ron Paul, after a valedictory rally in Tampa, Fla, are eager to build on his electoral advances and youth support; Paul will not speak at the Republican National Convention, but his libertarian views found new attention in the Tea Party era and served as the focus of a determined grass-roots effort to shake up the Republican establishment. MORE

Mitt Romney's campaign extends an olive branch to the small army of Ron Paul delegates who will attend the Republican National Convention by scheduling a tribute video to Paul, even as it tries to make sure that such an insurgency does not arise in future campaigns. MORE

Rep Ron Paul's dedicated supporters are setting their sights down-ballot in an attempt to infiltrate the top echelons of the Republican Party, now that Paul has lost the 2012 presidential nomination; Republican Party officials say they are in daily contact with Paul, in a delicate effort to harness the energy around him without inciting his supporters. MORE

Strategists for Republican presidential candidate Rep Ron Paul are searching for answers as to why his strengths did not coalesce into a candidacy with a real shot at the GOP presidential nomination; not even Paul can entirely explain why the passion he generated in the primary season did not translate into more votes. MORE

Presidential candidates disclose their monthly campaign fund-raising for February 2012; Pres Obama raised $45 million, a big increase for the month; Mitt Romney raised $11.5 million, Rick Santorum raised more than $9 million and Ron Paul reports $3.3. million in contributions; Newt Gingrich has not yet released his report. MORE

Relationship between Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Ron Paul stands out for its behind-the-scenes civility, in a contest rife with angry rivalries. MORE

Interviews with Rep Ron Paul and scores of his relatives, friends and colleagues reveal that Paul's unusual political views were largely shaped by his early family life; Paul has held on to those views with unwavering fidelity, and they have directed not only his political career but also the way he lives his life (Series: The Long Run). MORE

Residents of a Nevada town in Nye County have little use for government regulations, be it permits, stop signs, gun regulations or anything that would threaten its brothels; it is the heart of Ron Paul country, the one county in Nevada that the 76-year-old congressman from Texas carried in the 2008 Republican caucuses, and a place that wears its libertarianism proudly. MORE

Surge of support for Ron Paul in Nevada since the 2008 election has revolutionized the state Republican Party; 25 percent of party members in Clark County, which includes Las Vegas, back Paul; trend showcases the candidate's long-term goal of changing the national party from within. MORE

Advisers to Ron Paul say they are in the 2012 presidential campaign to win, but they are also trying to leverage what they have to try to force the Republican Party to take his and his supporters views into account. MORE

Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul finishes a strong second in New Hampshire primary, which in many ways is the more telling outcome in a race where Mitt Romney's dominance was never in doubt; outcome seems to give Paul, often dismissed as a protest candidate, reason to extend his campaign. MORE

Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul makes his first campaign appearance in New Hampshire three days after the Iowa caucuses, prompting grumbling from some of his supporters and raising questions about whether he is serious about winning the primaries in the state. MORE

Charles M Blow Op-Ed column excoriates Republican presidential candidates Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul for once again using race to pander to the right; offers chart to debunk claims that blacks and other minorities participate in food stamps programs more than white Americans. MORE

Newt Gingrich, following fourth-place bruising in the Iowa caucuses, immediately begins fulfilling vow to take on Gov Mitt Romney and Rep Ron Paul more aggressively; anti-Gingrich ads aired by the Romney and Paul campaigns helped derail Gingrich's surge in the lead-up to the caucuses. MORE

Analysis; Mitt Romney's narrow win over Rick Santorum in the Iowa caucuses, with Rep Ron Paul placing a close third, ensures that Republican primary contests will be fought aggressively for additional weeks or months; caucuses illustrate how deep ideological divisions among Republicans continue to complicate their ability to focus wholly on defeating Pres Obama. MORE

Few Republican strategists expect Ron Paul to be elected president, but his third-place finish in the Iowa Republican caucuses shows that at the least he will be a force to be reckoned with in the primaries, and in GOP politics. MORE

Outcome of the Iowa caucuses, curious political ritual that is about to open yet another race for the White House, will set a tone for the race after a yearlong prelude that has been off the charts in its unpredictability; Republican candidates enter a final day of frenzied campaigning, with top runners Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Rep Ron Paul rushing to claim victory as the contest then moves to New Hampshire. MORE

Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, on last day of campaigning before the caucuses, implore Iowans to turn out for them. MORE

Republican presidential candidates are making final appeals to Iowa voters as caucus draws near; volatility of race is underscored by latest Des Moines Register poll showing Mitt Romney and Ron Paul essentially tied for the lead with Rick Santorum gaining momentum close behind. MORE

Ross Douthat Op-Ed column examines Rep Ron Paul's presidential campaign and the basis of his appeal; asserts that in this unprecedented era of American failure, it sometimes takes a fearless crank to expose realities that neither Republicans nor Democrats are particularly eager to acknowledge. MORE

Representative Ron Paul of Texas, during campaign events in Iowa, assails critics of his opposition to United States military involvement abroad, saying he fears an overreaction to worries about Irans nuclear program could lead to war. MORE

Many of the Republican presidential candidates indicate that they hold expansive views about the scope of executive powers they would wield if elected, even as they advocate for limited government; only Ron Paul argues for more limited presidential power, while Rick Perry, Jon M Huntsman Jr, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney see the commander in chief as having the authority to lawfully take extraordinary actions if he decides doing so is necessary to protect national security. MORE

Mitt Romney's presidential campaign signals that it will campaign aggressively in Iowa, a state that spurned him in 2008, just as polls are suggesting a surge by Rep Ron Paul. MORE

Rep Ron Paul's relatively dovish stance on foreign policy raises the question of whether his views are so far out of the Republican orthodoxy that they will limit his support in many places. MORE

Rep Ron Paul's presidential campaign has issued strict orders to its young volunteer supporters in Iowa to look and behave in a way that will not jeopardize Paul's chances; the orders seem to be a recognition of the fact that while the hundreds of volunteers from out-of-state may be Paul's most potent weapon, there is the possibility that they may rub Iowa voters the wrong way. MORE

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticizes Ron Paul's approach to foreign policy as polls show both men are in the lead in Iowa; as caucus grows near, all six contenders search for ways to win voters' support across the state. MORE

Republican presidential candidates are in a final push to win over undecided voters in Iowa as the caucuses prepare to open; most are sharpening their criticism of Ron Paul, hoping to keep his support from growing among voters who might consider a vote for a Paul as a message of frustration to Washington. MORE

Editorial urges Ron Paul to release a full and detailed account of his role in the offensive and discriminatory newsletters published in the 1980s and 1990s under his name and to completely disavow his racist supporters in order to clear his discredited presidential campaign. MORE

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul's popularity among far-right fringe groups, many of them discriminatory, has begun to attract scrutiny as he surges in election polls; although Paul has stated that he does not agree with the racist and bigoted opinions held by some groups of supporters, he has not disavowed their support. MORE

Newt Gingrich sharply criticizes Republican opponent Ron Paul for the discriminatory statements made about blacks and gays in newsletters attributed to the Texas congressman, as controversy over the inflammatory remarks continue to dog Paul's presidential campaign. MORE

Conservative publication The Weekly Standard reprises reports of incendiary and discriminatory language used in Republican presidential candidate Rep Ron Paul's newsletters; focus on his newsletters comes as Paul's standing quickly improves in primary polling. MORE

Ron Paul's built-in networks of loyal backers established during his 2008 presidential bid have given the Republican candidate a decisive organizational advantage in 2012 election; analysts say years of groundwork are an important reason that some polls show Paul within striking distance of victory in the Iowa caucuses; Paul's backers are diverse, ranging from college students enthusiastic about his antiwar stance to conservative populists who are suspicious of Wall Street. MORE

Paul Krugman Op-Ed column asserts that Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul's hard-money doctrine and paranoia about inflation have come to dominate the Republican Party's views on the economy; argues that this economic doctrine, like Paul, has been remarkably consistent, clear and wrong. MORE

Gail Collins Op-Ed column on the writings and musings of Ron Paul, libertarian congressman from Texas who now seems to have an outside chance of winning the Iowa caucus vote. MORE

Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul's campaign is picking up momentum in Iowa, as two polls show he is in a statistical tie for first place; many credit his growing popularity to his ability to organize and mobilize niche voters, along with help from grass roots organizations and heavy advertising. MORE

Ron Paul's right eyebrow visibly droops during televised Republican presidential candidate debate, causing many to speculate that he is wearing false eyebrows, a claim that his campaign spokesman vehemently denies. MORE

There are no additional abstracts to display.

Read more:
Ron Paul News - The New York Times

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Ron Paul News – The New York Times

What Is NATO? Purpose, History, Members and Alliances

Posted: at 7:45 am

U.S. Infantry Troops Arrive In Poland For NATO Exercises. Photo: Sean Gallup/Getty Images

NATO stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It's an alliance of 28 member countries roughly bordering the North Atlantic Ocean: Canada, U.S., Turkey and most members of the European Union. NATO's purpose is to protect the freedom of its members. As famously defined in Article 5, "...an armed attack upon one...shall be considered an attack upon them all."

In recent years, NATO's purpose has expanded to include defense against weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and cyber attacks.

Since its inception following World War II, NATO has had to continually redefine its focus as a military and political alliance to keep up with the changing face of war.

What Is the Purpose of NATO Today?:

NATO protects the security of its members. However, it must also take into consideration aggression against non-members that threaten the stability of the region. That's why its September 2014 summit focused onPresident Putin's goal to create a "Little Russia" out of Ukraine's eastern region. Although Ukraine is not a NATO member, other former USSR countries are, and they're worried. President Obama vowed to defend countries such as Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The U.S. contributes three-quarters of NATO's budget. (Source: WSJ, U.S. Vows NATO Defense of Baltics, Sep. 4, 2014)

On August 28,2014, NATO announcedit had photos proving that Russia was invading Ukraine. Although Ukraine is not a NATO member, it has been working closely with NATO over the years. Russia's invasion of Ukraine threatens NATO members who are afraid they will be next because they were also former U.S.S.R.

satellite countries.

NATO expanded its role after the 9/11 attacks to include the war on terrorism. NATO is winding down its mission in Afghanistan, which deployed 84,000 troops at its peak from both NATO-member countries and at least a dozen non-members. By 2014, NATO expects to transition all security to the Afghan military.

NATO itself admits that "Peacekeeping has become at least as difficult as peacemaking." As a result, NATO is strengthening alliances throughout the world. In the age of globalization, transatlantic peace has become a worldwide effort that extends beyond military might alone. (Source: NATO History)

What Is the History of NATO?:

NATO was established after World War II as part of the United Nations. Its primary purpose was to defend member nations against the large number of troops in pro-communist countries. The U.S. also wanted to maintain a presence in Europe, to prevent a resurgence of military nationalism and foster political union. In this way, NATO made the European Union possible.

NATO and the Cold War:

During the Cold War, NATO's mission expanded to prevent nuclear war. After West Germany joined NATO, the communist countries formed the Warsaw Pact alliance, including the USSR, Bulgaria, Hungary, Rumania, Poland, Czechoslovakia and East Germany. In response, NATO adopted the "Massive Retaliation" policy, which promised to use nuclear weapons if the Pact attacked. This deterrence policy allowed Europe to focus on economic development instead of building large conventional armies.

The Soviet Union, on the other hand, continued to build its military presence. By the end of the Cold War, it was spending three times what the U.S. was with only one-third the economic power. When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, it was due to economic as well as ideological reasons.After the USSR dissolved in the late 1980s, NATO's relationship with Russia thawed. In 1997, the NATO-Russia Founding Act was signed to build bilateral cooperation. In 2002, the NATO-Russia Council was formed to allow NATO members and Russia to partner on common security issues.

The collapse of the USSR led to unrest in its former satellite states. NATO expanded its focus to address this instability when a civil war in the former Yugoslavia turned into ethnic cleansing and genocide. NATO's initial support of a United Nations naval embargo led to the enforcement of a no-fly zone. Violations then led to a few airstrikes until September 1999, when NATO conducted a heavy nine-day air campaign that ended the war. By December of that year, NATO deployed a peace-keeping force of 60,000 soldiers that ended in 2004, when NATO transferred this function to the European Union.

NATO Member Countries:

NATO's 28 members include: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States. Each member is represented by an ambassador, who is supported by officials that serve on the different NATO committees. From time to time, the President/Prime Minister, Foreign Affairs Minister or head of Defense will meet to discuss NATO business.

NATO Alliances:

NATO is involved with three alliances that expand its influence beyond its 28 member countries.

In addition, NATO cooperates with eight other countries in joint security issues. These countries include five in Asia (Australia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mongolia and New Zealand) and two in the Middle East (Afghanistan and Pakistan). (Source: NATO, Partnerships)Article updated August 28, 2014

Continued here:
What Is NATO? Purpose, History, Members and Alliances

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on What Is NATO? Purpose, History, Members and Alliances

Eugenics – Conservapedia

Posted: September 2, 2015 at 1:45 pm

Eugenics was a movement which tried to eliminate "dangerous human pests" and "the rising tide of imbeciles" through what has been euphemistically called "selective breeding". What this meant, in actual practice, was forced sterilization of American immigrants and minorities (particularly in California).[1]

The theory of evolution suggests that humans are merely evolving animals. The claimed biological struggle for survival that brought humans here is continuing. Man's long-term survival is, according to evolution, a biological survival of the fittest. Evolution theory teaches that there must be a biological struggle for survival among various human races and groups.

Charles Darwin declared in The Descent of Man:[2]

Darwin was not the first to claim racial superiority. But he was the first to teach that some races of man "will almost certainly exterminate, and replace" other races of man. His followers developed a new intellectual field called "eugenics" for this mythical biological struggle.

In fact, the term "eugenics" was coined by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton.[3]

Defenders of Darwin, and Darwinism, often try to argue that Darwin, and Darwinism, have no logical connection to eugenics at all. However, in a 1914 speech, Charles Darwin's son, Francis Darwin, wrote: "In the first edition of The Descent of Man, 1874, [my father] distinctly gives his adherence to the eugenic idea by his assertion that many might by selection do something for the moral and physical qualities of the race."[4] He based his ideas on his cousin's work.

Francis Darwin's clear statement that his father endorsed Galton's conception of eugenics is important, because many people try to distance Darwin from the taint of eugenics by pointing out that Darwin himself never advocated for it by name. But Galton coined the word after Darwin's death, so naturally he wouldn't have used the word 'eugenics.' Darwin's son can be expected to have understood his father's theory well enough to know whether or not his father's book, "The Descent of Man", 'gave adherence to the eugenic idea.'

The word "eugenics" is based on Greek roots meaning "well born." The Merriam-Webster dictionary provides 1883 as the date of origin for the term. Later, Darwin's son, Leonard, served as the president of the First Congress of Eugenics in 1912 in London.

The encyclopedia describes eugenics as now being "in disrepute,"[5] although Professor Peter Singer of Princeton University has sought to remove the stigma from it. Evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins has stated in one letter his wish that it no longer be banned from polite discussion.[6]

The Spartans in ancient Greece practiced a primitive form of eugenics, wherein babies which were judged to be too "weak" or "sickly" would be left to die.

In the early 1900s, many influential officials advocated Darwinism and eugenics. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes became a strong proponent. So did many others in prominent government and academic positions. Members of the British Eugenics Society, including the International Planned Parenthood Federation, are listed.[7]

Between 1907 and 1937, 32 American states passed eugenics laws requiring sterilization of citizens deemed to be misfits, such as the mentally infirm. Oliver Wendell Holmes and all but one conservative Democratic Justice upheld such laws in a Supreme Court decision that included Holmes' offensive statement that "three generations of imbeciles are enough." Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 207 (1927).[8] In fact, the third generation "imbecile" was very bright, but was declared by a eugenics "expert" as "supposed to be a mental defective," apparently without an examination.

Eugenics was taught as part of the evolution curriculum of many science classes in America in the early 1900s. For example, it was featured in the textbook used in the famous Scopes trial in 1925.

"By 1928, the American Genetics Association boasted that there were 376 college courses devoted exclusively to eugenics. High-school biology textbooks followed suit by the mid-1930s, with most containing material favorable to the idea of eugenical control of reproduction. It would thus have been difficult to be an even moderately educated reader in the 1920s or 1930s and not have known, at least in general terms, about the claims of eugenics."[9]

Important remnants of the evolution-eugenics approach exist today, in part because many of Justice Holmes' opinions are still controlling law. The very first quote in the infamous Roe v. Wade abortion decision is an unprincipled statement of Justice Holmes in a 1905 opinion. Indeed, Holmes once wrote favorably in a letter to a future Supreme Court Justice about "restricting propagation by the undesirables and putting to death infants that didn't pass the examination.[10]

Existing laws requiring students to receive controversial vaccines are based on a eugenics-era decision granting the State the power to forcibly vaccinate residents. [11] That decision, in fact, was the cited precedent for Justice Holmes' offensive "imbeciles" holding quoted above.

For the same reason that evolution teaching led to eugenics, evolution teaching today encourages acceptance of abortion and euthanasia. Under evolution theory, after all, we are merely animals fighting for biological survival.

German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel promoted evolution by drawing fraudulent pictures of humans embryos, to pretend that their developmental stages imitate an historical evolution of humans from other species.[12]

In 1904, Haeckel reiterated the view of Darwin quoted above: "These lower races are psychologically nearer to the mammals (apes or dogs) than to civilized Europeans; we must, therefore, assign a totally different value to their lives." [13]

It wasn't long before intellectuals viewed war as an essential evolutionary process. Vom Heutigen Kriege, a popular book by Geberal Bernhardi, "expounded the thesis that war was a biological necessity and a convenient means of ridding the world of the unfit. These views were not confined to a lunatic fringe, but won wide acceptance especially among journalists, academics and politicians."[14] In America, Justice Holmes similarly wrote that "I always say that society is founded on the death of men - if you don't kill the weakest one way you kill them another."[15]

World War I entailed a brutality unknown in the history of mankind. Gregg Easterbrook, a senior editor of the liberal New Republic magazine, observed that "prior to the Scopes trial [in 1925, William Jennings] Bryan had been on a revival tour of Germany and had been horrified by the signs of incipient Nazism. Before this point, Bryan had been a moderate in the evolution debate; for instance, he had lobbied the Florida legislature not to ban the teaching of Darwin, only to specify that evolution must be taught as a theory rather than a fact. But after hearing the National Socialists talk about the elimination of genetic inferiority, [historian Gary] Wills wrote, Bryan came to feel that evolutionary ideas had become dangerous; he began both to oppose and to lampoon them."

The march of evolution/eugenics continued unabated in Germany. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolution concepts of heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927.

In 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. Next was the Nazi sterilization law entitled "Eugenics in the service of public welfare." It required compulsory sterilization for the prevention of progeny with hereditary defects in cases including congenital mental defects, schizophrenia, manic-depressive psychosis and hereditary epilepsy.

The German schools indoctrinated their students. In 1935, a German high-school math textbook included the following problem:[9] " how much does it cost the state if:

One German student was Josef Mengele, who studied anthropology and paleontology and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort. He became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the Holocaust and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of eugenics.

The liberal American Medical Society provided this summary:[16]

Many genocides have been commited in the name of Eugenics, most notably the Holocaust. Adolf Hitler was a strong believer in eugenics and evolution and believed that Jewish people were closest to apes, followed by Africans, Asians, non-Aryan Europeans, and finally Aryans, who he believed were most evolved.

Pat Milmoe McCarrick and Mary Carrington Coutts, reference librarians for the National Reference Center for Bioethics Literature at Georgetown University, were more succinct: "The Nazi racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with genocide." [17]

From The Nazi Connection[18]:

In The Nazi Connection, Stefan Kuhl uncovers the ties between the American eugenics movement and the Nazi program of racial hygiene, showing that many American scientists actively supported Hitler's policies. After introducing us to the recently resurgent problem of scientific racism, Kuhl carefully recounts the history of the eugenics movement, both in the United States and internationally, demonstrating how widely the idea of sterilization as a genetic control had become accepted by the early twentieth century. From the first, the American eugenicists led the way with radical ideas. Their influence led to sterilization laws in dozens of stateslaws which were studied, and praised, by the German racial hygienists. With the rise of Hitler, the Germans enacted compulsory sterilization laws partly based on the U.S. experience, and American eugenists took pride in their influence on Nazi policies. Kuhl recreates astonishing scenes of American eugenicists travelling to Germany to study the new laws, publishing scholarly articles lionizing the Nazi eugenics program, and proudly comparing personal notes from Hitler thanking them for their books. Even after the outbreak of war, he writes, the American eugenicists frowned upon Hitler's totalitarian government, but not his sterilization laws. So deep was the failure to recognize the connection between eugenics and Hitler's genocidal policies, that a prominent liberal Jewish eugenicist who had been forced to flee Germany found it fit to grumble that the Nazis "took over our entire plan of eugenic measures."

By 1945, when the murderous nature of the Nazi government was made perfectly clear, the American eugenicists sought to downplay the close connections between themselves and the German program. Some of them, in fact, had sought to distance themselves from Hitler even before the war. But Stefan Kuhl's deeply documented book provides a devastating indictment of the influenceand aidprovided by American scientists for the most comprehensive attempt to enforce racial purity in world history.

Some argue that parents who abort infants with genetic mutation or other disabilities are practicing a form of eugenics.[19] Some doctors and scientists have defended this practice and named it "liberal eugenics" in order to differentiate it from traditional forms of eugenics such as Nazi eugenics.[20] Eugenicists in the United States and elsewhere have been known to employ or advocate abortion as a method of eugenics.

In the 2006 satirical comedy Idiocracy, the entire movie is premised on the idea that the out-breeding of the stupid over the intelligent will lead to a uniformly stupid world run by advertisers, marketers, and anti-intellectualism.

See more here:

Eugenics - Conservapedia

Posted in Eugenics | Comments Off on Eugenics – Conservapedia

EugenicsArchive.Org: Image Archive on American Eugenics Movement

Posted: at 1:45 pm

he philosopher George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." This adage is appropriate to our current rush into the "gene age," which has striking parallels to the eugenics movement of the early decades of the 20th century. Eugenics was, quite literally, an effort to breed better human beings by encouraging the reproduction of people with "good" genes and discouraging those with "bad" genes. Eugenicists effectively lobbied for social legislation to keep racial and ethnic groups separate, to restrict immigration from southern and eastern Europe, and to sterilize people considered "genetically unfit." Elements of the American eugenics movement were models for the Nazis, whose radical adaptation of eugenics culminated in the Holocaust.

We now invite you to experience the unfiltered story of American eugenics primarily through materials from the Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor, which was the center of American eugenics research from 1910-1940. In the Archive you will see numerous reports, articles, charts, and pedigrees that were considered scientific "facts" in their day. It is important to remind yourself that the vast majority of eugenics work has been completely discredited. In the final analysis, the eugenic description of human life reflected political and social prejudices, rather than scientific facts.

You may find some of the language and images in this Archive offensive. Even supposedly "scientific" terms used by eugenicists were often pervaded with prejudice against racial, ethnic, and disabled groups. Some terms have no scientific meaning today. For example, "feeblemindedness" was used as a catch-all for a number of real and supposed mental disabilities, and was a common "diagnosis" used to make members of ethnic and racial minority groups appear inferior. However, we have made no attempt to censor this documentary record to do so would distort the past and diminish the significance of the lessons to be learned from this material.

During a two-year review process, involving a 14-member Advisory Panel, this site has developed an editorial policy to protect personal privacy and confidentiality. For this reason, names and places have been deleted from pedigrees, medical documents, and personal photographs.

See the original post:

EugenicsArchive.Org: Image Archive on American Eugenics Movement

Posted in Eugenics | Comments Off on EugenicsArchive.Org: Image Archive on American Eugenics Movement

The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics

Posted: at 1:45 pm

Hitler and his henchmen victimized an entire continent and exterminated millions in his quest for a co-called "Master Race."

But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn't originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little known, role in the American eugenics movement's campaign for ethnic cleansing.

Eugenics was the racist pseudoscience determined to wipe away all human beings deemed "unfit," preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype. Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in twenty-seven states. In 1909, California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in "colonies," and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning. Before World War II, nearly half of coercive sterilizations were done in California, and even after the war, the state accounted for a third of all such surgeries.

California was considered an epicenter of the American eugenics movement. During the Twentieth Century's first decades, California's eugenicists included potent but little known race scientists, such as Army venereal disease specialist Dr. Paul Popenoe, citrus magnate and Polytechnic benefactor Paul Gosney, Sacramento banker Charles M. Goethe, as well as members of the California State Board of Charities and Corrections and the University of California Board of Regents.

Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America's most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Stamford, Yale, Harvard, and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics' racist aims.

Stanford president David Starr Jordan originated the notion of "race and blood" in his 1902 racial epistle "Blood of a Nation," in which the university scholar declared that human qualities and conditions such as talent and poverty were passed through the blood.

In 1904, the Carnegie Institution established a laboratory complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island that stockpiled millions of index cards on ordinary Americans, as researchers carefully plotted the removal of families, bloodlines and whole peoples. From Cold Spring Harbor, eugenics advocates agitated in the legislatures of America, as well as the nation's social service agencies and associations.

The Harriman railroad fortune paid local charities, such as the New York Bureau of Industries and Immigration, to seek out Jewish, Italian and other immigrants in New York and other crowded cities and subject them to deportation, trumped up confinement or forced sterilization.

The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.

Much of the spiritual guidance and political agitation for the American eugenics movement came from California's quasi-autonomous eugenic societies, such as the Pasadena-based Human Betterment Foundation and the California branch of the American Eugenics Society, which coordinated much of their activity with the Eugenics Research Society in Long Island. These organizations--which functioned as part of a closely-knit network--published racist eugenic newsletters and pseudoscientific journals, such as Eugenical News and Eugenics, and propagandized for the Nazis.

Eugenics was born as a scientific curiosity in the Victorian age. In 1863, Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, theorized that if talented people only married other talented people, the result would be measurably better offspring. At the turn of the last century, Galton's ideas were imported into the United States just as Gregor Mendel's principles of heredity were rediscovered. American eugenic advocates believed with religious fervor that the same Mendelian concepts determining the color and size of peas, corn and cattle also governed the social and intellectual character of man.

In an America demographically reeling from immigration upheaval and torn by post-Reconstruction chaos, race conflict was everywhere in the early twentieth century. Elitists, utopians and so-called "progressives" fused their smoldering race fears and class bias with their desire to make a better world. They reinvented Galton's eugenics into a repressive and racist ideology. The intent: populate the earth with vastly more of their own socio-economic and biological kind--and less or none of everyone else.

The superior species the eugenics movement sought was populated not merely by tall, strong, talented people. Eugenicists craved blond, blue-eyed Nordic types. This group alone, they believed, was fit to inherit the earth. In the process, the movement intended to subtract emancipated Negroes, immigrant Asian laborers, Indians, Hispanics, East Europeans, Jews, dark-haired hill folk, poor people, the infirm and really anyone classified outside the gentrified genetic lines drawn up by American raceologists.

How? By identifying so-called "defective" family trees and subjecting them to lifelong segregation and sterilization programs to kill their bloodlines. The grand plan was to literally wipe away the reproductive capability of those deemed weak and inferior--the so-called "unfit." The eugenicists hoped to neutralize the viability of 10 percent of the population at a sweep, until none were left except themselves.

Eighteen solutions were explored in a Carnegie-supported 1911 "Preliminary Report of the Committee of the Eugenic Section of the American Breeder's Association to Study and to Report on the Best Practical Means for Cutting Off the Defective Germ-Plasm in the Human Population." Point eight was euthanasia.

The most commonly suggested method of eugenicide in America was a "lethal chamber" or public locally operated gas chambers. In 1918, Popenoe, the Army venereal disease specialist during World War I, co-wrote the widely used textbook, Applied Eugenics, which argued, "From an historical point of view, the first method which presents itself is execution Its value in keeping up the standard of the race should not be underestimated." Applied Eugenics also devoted a chapter to "Lethal Selection," which operated "through the destruction of the individual by some adverse feature of the environment, such as excessive cold, or bacteria, or by bodily deficiency."

Eugenic breeders believed American society was not ready to implement an organized lethal solution. But many mental institutions and doctors practiced improvised medical lethality and passive euthanasia on their own. One institution in Lincoln, Illinois fed its incoming patients milk from tubercular cows believing a eugenically strong individual would be immune. Thirty to forty percent annual death rates resulted at Lincoln. Some doctors practiced passive eugenicide one newborn infant at a time. Others doctors at mental institutions engaged in lethal neglect.

Nonetheless, with eugenicide marginalized, the main solution for eugenicists was the rapid expansion of forced segregation and sterilization, as well as more marriage restrictions. California led the nation, performing nearly all sterilization procedures with little or no due process. In its first twenty-five years of eugenic legislation, California sterilized 9,782 individuals, mostly women. Many were classified as "bad girls," diagnosed as "passionate," "oversexed" or "sexually wayward." At Sonoma, some women were sterilized because of what was deemed an abnormally large clitoris or labia.

In 1933 alone, at least 1,278 coercive sterilizations were performed, 700 of which were on women. The state's two leading sterilization mills in 1933 were Sonoma State Home with 388 operations and Patton State Hospital with 363 operations. Other sterilization centers included Agnews, Mendocino, Napa, Norwalk, Stockton and Pacific Colony state hospitals.

Even the United States Supreme Court endorsed aspects of eugenics. In its infamous 1927 decision, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. Three generations of imbeciles are enough." This decision opened the floodgates for thousands to be coercively sterilized or otherwise persecuted as subhuman. Years later, the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials quoted Holmes's words in their own defense.

Only after eugenics became entrenched in the United States was the campaign transplanted into Germany, in no small measure through the efforts of California eugenicists, who published booklets idealizing sterilization and circulated them to German officials and scientists.

Hitler studied American eugenics laws. He tried to legitimize his anti-Semitism by medicalizing it, and wrapping it in the more palatable pseudoscientific facade of eugenics. Hitler was able to recruit more followers among reasonable Germans by claiming that science was on his side. While Hitler's race hatred sprung from his own mind, the intellectual outlines of the eugenics Hitler adopted in 1924 were made in America.

During the '20s, Carnegie Institution eugenic scientists cultivated deep personal and professional relationships with Germany's fascist eugenicists. In Mein Kampf, published in 1924, Hitler quoted American eugenic ideology and openly displayed a thorough knowledge of American eugenics. "There is today one state," wrote Hitler, "in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception [of immigration] are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States."

Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the progress of the American eugenics movement. "I have studied with great interest," he told a fellow Nazi, "the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."

Hitler even wrote a fan letter to American eugenic leader Madison Grant calling his race-based eugenics book, The Passing of the Great Race his "bible."

Hitler's struggle for a superior race would be a mad crusade for a Master Race. Now, the American term "Nordic" was freely exchanged with "Germanic" or "Aryan." Race science, racial purity and racial dominance became the driving force behind Hitler's Nazism. Nazi eugenics would ultimately dictate who would be persecuted in a Reich-dominated Europe, how people would live, and how they would die. Nazi doctors would become the unseen generals in Hitler's war against the Jews and other Europeans deemed inferior. Doctors would create the science, devise the eugenic formulas, and even hand-select the victims for sterilization, euthanasia and mass extermination.

During the Reich's early years, eugenicists across America welcomed Hitler's plans as the logical fulfillment of their own decades of research and effort. California eugenicists republished Nazi propaganda for American consumption. They also arranged for Nazi scientific exhibits, such as an August 1934 display at the L.A. County Museum, for the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association.

In 1934, as Germany's sterilizations were accelerating beyond 5,000 per month, the California eugenics leader C. M. Goethe upon returning from Germany ebulliently bragged to a key colleague, "You will be interested to know, that your work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making program. Everywhere I sensed that their opinions have been tremendously stimulated by American thought.I want you, my dear friend, to carry this thought with you for the rest of your life, that you have really jolted into action a great government of 60 million people."

That same year, ten years after Virginia passed its sterilization act, Joseph DeJarnette, superintendent of Virginia's Western State Hospital, observed in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, "The Germans are beating us at our own game."

More than just providing the scientific roadmap, America funded Germany's eugenic institutions. By 1926, Rockefeller had donated some $410,000 -- almost $4 million in 21st-Century money -- to hundreds of German researchers. In May 1926, Rockefeller awarded $250,000 to the German Psychiatric Institute of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, later to become the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry. Among the leading psychiatrists at the German Psychiatric Institute was Ernst Rdin, who became director and eventually an architect of Hitler's systematic medical repression.

Another in the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute's eugenic complex of institutions was the Institute for Brain Research. Since 1915, it had operated out of a single room. Everything changed when Rockefeller money arrived in 1929. A grant of $317,000 allowed the Institute to construct a major building and take center stage in German race biology. The Institute received additional grants from the Rockefeller Foundation during the next several years. Leading the Institute, once again, was Hitler's medical henchman Ernst Rdin. Rdin's organization became a prime director and recipient of the murderous experimentation and research conducted on Jews, Gypsies and others.

Beginning in 1940, thousands of Germans taken from old age homes, mental institutions and other custodial facilities were systematically gassed. Between 50,000 and 100,000 were eventually killed.

Leon Whitney, executive secretary of the American Eugenics Society declared of Nazism, "While we were pussy-footing aroundthe Germans were calling a spade a spade."

A special recipient of Rockefeller funding was the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics in Berlin. For decades, American eugenicists had craved twins to advance their research into heredity. The Institute was now prepared to undertake such research on an unprecedented level. On May 13, 1932, the Rockefeller Foundation in New York dispatched a radiogram to its Paris office: JUNE MEETING EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS OVER THREE YEAR PERIOD TO KWG INSTITUTE ANTHROPOLOGY FOR RESEARCH ON TWINS AND EFFECTS ON LATER GENERATIONS OF SUBSTANCES TOXIC FOR GERM PLASM.

At the time of Rockefeller's endowment, Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer, a hero in American eugenics circles, functioned as a head of the Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics. Rockefeller funding of that Institute continued both directly and through other research conduits during Verschuer's early tenure. In 1935, Verschuer left the Institute to form a rival eugenics facility in Frankfurt that was much heralded in the American eugenic press. Research on twins in the Third Reich exploded, backed up by government decrees. Verschuer wrote in Der Erbarzt, a eugenic doctor's journal he edited, that Germany's war would yield a "total solution to the Jewish problem."

Verschuer had a long-time assistant. His name was Josef Mengele. On May 30, 1943, Mengele arrived at Auschwitz. Verschuer notified the German Research Society, "My assistant, Dr. Josef Mengele (M.D., Ph.D.) joined me in this branch of research. He is presently employed as Hauptsturmfhrer [captain] and camp physician in the Auschwitz concentration camp. Anthropological testing of the most diverse racial groups in this concentration camp is being carried out with permission of the SS Reichsfhrer [Himmler]."

Mengele began searching the boxcar arrivals for twins. When he found them, he performed beastly experiments, scrupulously wrote up the reports and sent the paperwork back to Verschuer's institute for evaluation. Often, cadavers, eyes and other body parts were also dispatched to Berlin's eugenic institutes.

Rockefeller executives never knew of Mengele. With few exceptions, the foundation had ceased all eugenic studies in Nazi-occupied Europe before the war erupted in 1939. But by that time the die had been cast. The talented men Rockefeller and Carnegie financed, the institutions they helped found, and the science it helped create took on a scientific momentum of their own.

After the war, eugenics was declared a crime against humanity--an act of genocide. Germans were tried and they cited the California statutes in their defense. To no avail. They were found guilty.

However, Mengele's boss Verschuer escaped prosecution. Verschuer re-established his connections with California eugenicists who had gone underground and renamed their crusade "human genetics." Typical was an exchange July 25, 1946 when Popenoe wrote Verschuer, "It was indeed a pleasure to hear from you again. I have been very anxious about my colleagues in Germany. I suppose sterilization has been discontinued in Germany?" Popenoe offered tidbits about various American eugenic luminaries and then sent various eugenic publications. In a separate package, Popenoe sent some cocoa, coffee and other goodies.

Verschuer wrote back, "Your very friendly letter of 7/25 gave me a great deal of pleasure and you have my heartfelt thanks for it. The letter builds another bridge between your and my scientific work; I hope that this bridge will never again collapse but rather make possible valuable mutual enrichment and stimulation."

Soon, Verschuer once again became a respected scientist in Germany and around the world. In 1949, he became a corresponding member of the newly formed American Society of Human Genetics, organized by American eugenicists and geneticists.

In the fall of 1950, the University of Mnster offered Verschuer a position at its new Institute of Human Genetics, where he later became a dean. In the early and mid-1950s, Verschuer became an honorary member of numerous prestigious societies, including the Italian Society of Genetics, the Anthropological Society of Vienna, and the Japanese Society for Human Genetics.

Human genetics' genocidal roots in eugenics were ignored by a victorious generation that refused to link itself to the crimes of Nazism and by succeeding generations that never knew the truth of the years leading up to war. Now governors of five states, including California have issued public apologies to their citizens, past and present, for sterilization and other abuses spawned by the eugenics movement.

Human genetics became an enlightened endeavor in the late twentieth century. Hard-working, devoted scientists finally cracked the human code through the Human Genome Project. Now, every individual can be biologically identified and classified by trait and ancestry. Yet even now, some leading voices in the genetic world are calling for a cleansing of the unwanted among us, and even a master human species.

There is understandable wariness about more ordinary forms of abuse, for example, in denying insurance or employment based on genetic tests. On October 14, America's first genetic anti-discrimination legislation passed the Senate by unanimous vote. Yet because genetics research is global, no single nation's law can stop the threats.

This article was first published in the San Francisco Chronicle and is reprinted with permission of the author.

Originally posted here:

The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics

Posted in Eugenics | Comments Off on The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics