From http://web.archive.org/web/20060515090806/www.eugenics-watch.com/eugbook/euod_ch1.html

1. Eugenics: An Antidemocratic Policy

An elitist, mean spirited, racist policy called eugenics is being advanced in secret by organised societies (1) whose current membership consists mainly of intellectuals, scientists and doctors. The work of these societies is financed by great fortunes, such as that of the Rockefellers, working through front groups, such as the Population Council and the International Planned Parenthood Federation.
This is dangerous because eugenics is antidemocratic. Bertrand Russell, a supporter of eugenics, said of it:

"The ideas of eugenics are based on the assumption that men are unequal, while democracy is based on the assumption that they are equal"(2)

The framers of the American Constitution were aware of eugenics, which existed under other names throughout the Eighteenth century, and they rejected it for the honour of the human race. In the Federalist Papers we find Hamilton saying:
"Unhappily ... Europe, by her arms and by her negotiations, by force and by fraud, has in different degrees extended her dominion over ... all. Africa, Asia and America have successively felt her domination. The superiority she has long maintained has tempted her to plume herself as the mistress of the world, and to consider the rest of mankind as created for her benefit. Men admired as profound philosophers have in direct terms attributed to her inhabitants a physical superiority and have gravely asserted that all animals, and with them the human species, degenerate in America - that even dogs cease to bark after having breathed awhile in our atmosphere. Facts have too long supported these arrogant pretensions of the European. It belongs to us to vindicate the honour of the human race and to teach that assuming brother moderation."
This is how the United States of America began.
But, beginning in the twentieth century, certain wealthy citizens, such as John D. Rockefeller and John D. Rockefeller. Jr., rejecting democracy, began to support eugenics.(3) Throughout the Twentieth century, great fortunes have consistently helped fund eugenics, thus rendering it impervious to defeat or exposure. "Pecunia non olet" which means, approximately, "as long as Rockefeller types support eugenic projects, there will be eugenics". That is why, in the late Twentieth century, we see the return of eugenics, despite its dismal history, which includes support for Hitler and his policies.(4)
In addition to support for Hitler, eugenicists were involved in the framing of the Johnson Act 1924. One of the results of the Johnson Act was the exclusion from sanctuary in the USA of the Jews attempting to flee Hitler.(5)
Support from the Wealthy
In 1930 John D. Rockefeller and John D. Rockefeller Jr. were members of the American Eugenics Society. Furthermore, in the Twenties Raymond Fosdick, an important official of the Rockefeller Foundation, was a member of the American Eugenics Society Advisory council. In this period the Rockefeller Foundation gave money to build quarters for Ernst Rudin, the man who later wrote Hitler's 1933 Sterilisation Law.(6) As co-founder with Alfred Ploetz of the German Eugenics Society, Rudin claimed credit as the inspiration for all Hitler's racial laws, including the Nuremberg laws which made Jews second class citizens in Germany.(7)
In the early part of the century Mrs. E.H. Harriman, who inherited the fortune based on the Union Pacific railroad, created the Eugenics Record Office. Her endowment helped fund the work of Harry Laughlin, the director of the Eugenics Record Office. Laughlin wrote the Model Sterilisation Law which Nazi eugenicists used as a model for their 1933 Sterilisation Law. He accepted an award from Heidelberg University honouring him for his part in developing this law.(8) He was also an important witness at the Congressional hearings on the Johnson Act, the immigration Act which began the policy of national immigration quotas.
Such initiatives became a terrible trap for the Jews in the late Thirties. The Johnson< Act ultimately resulted in the exclusion from America of the Jews attempting to flee Nazi Germany and its racial laws - laws inspired by Laughlin, Rudin and other eugenicists. The exclusion of the Jews was no accident. The Johnson Act, the American law, was, like the Nazi laws, intended to keep a nation Nordic:

"The unique Immigration Quota Acts of 1921-24 .. By their enactment a first class power wrote into law the concept of the desirability of racial homogeneity ... The Nordic stream ... had become a trickle ... Followed these Quota Acts which said to the world: America, still overwhelmingly Nordic, proposes so to remain! These acts began a gigantic eugenic experiment in population control."(9)

After this came the genocide.
That which we now call genocide was then called eugenics.(10)
Auschwitz showed the world the true face of eugenics. Yet some among the wealthy continued to support it.(11)
For example, we find the names Rockefeller and Harriman, supporting the introduction of abortion and contraception, the means of eugenics. John D. Rockefeller III gave Margaret Sanger money with which to develop a contraceptive. Mrs. E.H Harriman's son was Averill Harriman, Governor of New York in the Fifties. Harriman allowed Robert Moses to follow a policy of letting Harlem deteriorate. (See Robert Moses and the Fall of New York., Robert Caro) It was then possible for the next governor, Nelson Rockefeller, to speak of the dreadful conditions in Harlem and the need for contraception and abortion as a solution for the problems of the people trapped there. Hence, in the Sixties, abortion, a eugenic goal, came to be seen as "progressive" in New York State. In the early Seventies, Nelson Rockefeller signed one of the first state law allowing widespread abortion, and the Rockefeller family gave money for the first legal abortion facility in New York State. In the Eighties, Pamela Harriman, Governor Harriman's English widow, used his money to fund the Democratic Leadership PAC, which helped make support for abortion a requirement for advancement in the Democratic Party.(12) (Ironically, the Harriman money, which was obtained as a consequence of the extinguishing of Indian land titles, was dissipated in Pamela Harman's project to extinguish American rights. This left the surviving Harriman blood relatives, in 1994, at the age of eighty, owners of a trust fund as empty as a treaty promise. Litigation is beginning on a legal situation more tangled than that in Bleak House.(13))
Summary
Eugenics is antidemocratic and funded by some of the richest families in America.
What is Eugenics?
In The Descent of Man, Darwin had predicted that "lesser" races would die out as a result of evolution through natural selection.
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now, between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla" (Descent of Man, Charles Darwin)
Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, thought that this evolutionary process among human beings would become more merciful and more rational if man took control of it and speeded it up by "artificial" selection of the next generation. In 1880 he coined the word eugenics to describe the process of replacing natural selection by artificial selection. According to Galton, the aim of eugenic policies was to give:

"the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable."

He also said that, as a subject of study, eugenics is:

"the study of those agencies under social control which may improve or impair the inborn qualities of future generations of man either physically or mentally"(14)

It is my contention that there has been no real change in eugenics or its goals since Galton wrote. Currently eugenicists define eugenics as:

"all efforts whose goal is the modification of natural selection (the guiding force of evolution) to bring about change in a particular direction within human populations or the human species as a whole."(15)

This means that they still believe that they can and should control "evolution" by altering the ratios of human population groups to each other, or in other words, by increasing the population of the good groups and decreasing the bad. This guided increase and decrease is what is meant by " a particular direction". Furthermore, ugenicists still believe that they know which groups should be increasing and which should be decreasing. That is why they study IQ and the relation of crime or violence to inherited characteristics. All these studies, curiously enough, still show that the world needs white supremacy, though new findings show that, within the context of white supremacy, genetic diversity must be maintained.
To summarize, there are social policies aimed at creating population decline among certain groups and these policies are eugenics. In addition, the study of what social policies are needed to reduce a given population group to impotent fragments without actually eliminating that group's (potentially) valuable genes is also eugenics.(15)
In the past, eugenics worked publically and created segregation, apartheid and Nazism out of the unholy mixture of racism amd Darwinism. In the present it works in various disguises. The most important of these disguises is the policy called cryptoeugenics, which consists of working through other groups. In the present, in its crypto-eugenic disguise, eugenics has sponsored abortion, euthanasia, sterilisation, contraception, and sex education of the raw kind which leads to teenage pregnancy, abortion and contraception.(16) These are the means of eugenics. In the not too distant future, I predict, we can expect the return of eugenics as a conservation-based racism. Then these means will fit into a program. As in the past, these means will be used to "purify" - probably within within "green protectorates".
The book, The Bell Curve. by Charles Murray, is an example of this racist return though without any mention of conservation. The Bell Curve is based on the work of eugenicists, many of them current eugenic society members.(17) Here is how William Safire describes the book and its policy implications:
"The Bell Curve dares to examine a thesis unhelpful to race relations: the likelihood that much of intelligence is inherited, and the possibility that the average black is not as smart as the average white ... What bothers Mr. Murray's critics is his scholarly contention that public policy should not encourage procreation among the least intelligent lest we perpetuate a permanent underclass".(18)
Nor am I reading into the book something a eugenicist would not see there. Sandra Scarr(19) has said:

"[Murray and Herrnstein's] eugenic concerns are reflected in the call to eliminate public policies that provide incentives for poor unwed mothers to reproduce."(20)

Murray's exact words were:
"The United States already has policies that inadvertently social engineer who has babies, and it is encouraging the wrong women ... it subsidises births among poor women, who are also disproportionately at the low end of the intelligence distribution ... We ... urge that these policies ... be ended [and we urge society to make] available birth control mechanisms."(21)
Compare this proposed policy with Hitler's remarks - as reported by Herman Rauschning, an intimate of Hitler during the first two years of the Nazi regime. According to Rauschning, Hitler said:
"We have far too much Slav blood in our veins already ... an asocial, inferior section of the nation is gradually moving up ... We shall have to develop a technique of depopulation. If you ask me what I mean by depopulation, I mean the removal of entire racial units ... And by 'remove' I don't necessarily mean destroy; I shall simply take systematic measures to dam their great natural fertility.... We favour the planned control of population movements ... In former days it was the victors prerogative to destroy entire tribes, entire peoples. By doing this gradually and without bloodshed, we demonstrate our humanity."(22)
The Africans Are the Target
Of course, the new eugenics will not be exactly the same as the old. I believe that, in a world accustomed to contraception, abortion and euthanasia, it will be worse than that of the Nazis. Another difference will be that, this time around, the first target will be African Americans, not European Jews. We can see this shift in Murray's book, The Bell Curve, where Jews are presented as a high IQ group and African Americans as the opposite.
It is true that Murray himself does not propose abortion as a means to carry out his policies. He limits himself to advocating birth control. But there are abortion clinics presently existing in the United States which would not hesitate to carry out a eugenic policy through abortion. Edward Allred owns approximately 50 abortion facilities on the West Coast and elsewhere. Here are his comments on race, abortion and welfare:
"population control is too important to be stopped by some right wing pro life types.. Take the new influx of Hispanic immigrants ...Their lack of respect for democracy and social order is frightening. I hope I can do something to stem the tide. I'd set up a clinic in Mexico for free if I could ... The Aid to Families with Dependent Children is the worst boondoggle ever created. When a sullen black woman of 17 or 18 can decide to have a baby and get welfare and food stamps and become a burden to all of us, it's time to stop. In parts of South Los Angeles having babies for welfare is the only industry people have"(23)
It's Deja Vue All Over Again
In the world of the new eugenics, the word "race" may never be uttered - "ethnic IQ" or some code word doing duty instead. But all the steps from meanspiritedness to genocide which we read about in histories of the rise of the Nazis will be the same.
The meanspiritedness is already evident. For example, this is the way in which an upper-class English eugenicist described a Nazi exhibit in 1934:

"... there is comparatively little about the Jews, and the point stressed is that alien races are all right in themselves and provided they keep to themselves, but that they must not be allowed to `poison good German blood' ... (the exhibit also covered)... `the problem of the 600 black bastards on the Rhine'"(24)

And here is how Charles Murray describes the American future when eugenics first prevails:
"the cognitive elite, with its commanding social position, will implement ... the custodial state ... a high tech and more lavish version of the Indian reservation for some substantial minority of the nation's citizens, while the rest of America tries to go about its business."(25)
The "return of eugenics" is not a speculation about a remote future. In May of 1996 at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, George Annas, a respected bioethicist, and Kenneth Shine, President of the Institute of Medicine, agreed that "we are entering a new era of eugenics". Possible policies of the era already exist as the subject of discussion and intense controversy. For example, here is how Charles Murray describes the attitude of the elite in the near future:

"Over the next decades, it will become broadly accepted by the cognitive elite that the people we now refer to as the underclass are in that condition through no fault of their own but because of inherent shortcomings about which little can be done."(26)

And here is how Frederick Lawrence, the President of Rutgers University, described the African American college student:
"The average SAT for African Americans is 750. Do we set standards in the future so we don't admit anybody with the national test? Or do we deal with a disadvantaged population that doesn't have that genetic hereditary background to have a higher advantage."
President Lawrence later apologised for his remark which, he admitted, was a result of reading The Bell Curve. Lawrence never wanted to be a racist and he had increased minority enrolment at Rutgers from 1% to 10%. But, because he believed the Bell Curve, he interpreted his own achievement in a racist way, i.e., that, for social reasons, universities should admit "a disadvantaged population that doesn't have that genetic hereditary background to have a higher advantage."(27)
Lawrence's experience shows that it is not enough to be opposed to racism; we must also understand its subtle ways, especially its influential eugenic disguises. If not, people opposed to the Holocaust will find themselves supporting genocide just as President Lawrence suddenly found himself supporting racism (which, I am convinced, he abhors) without quite knowing how it happened.
How did I come to know about eugenics?
The question may be asked: If eugenics is so subtle that it has escaped notice for the last fifty years, just how did you come to know about it? Of course, what is really being asked is: how can the average person achieve reliable knowledge about recent eugenics? Is this another conspiracy theory?
In England eugenic theory and policy are discussed far more openly in eugenic journals than they are in America because England's social system is based on a hereditary aristocracy. These journals (The Eugenics Review and Biology and Society) themselves go unnoticed because they are not out on the open shelves in libraries. But they are accessible and, through these journals, I came to know about English eugenics. American eugenics is closely connected with English eugenics and so what began as a study of English eugenics eventually came to include American eugenics.
I began to study English eugenics because I rescued unborn babies from abortion in England by non-violently blocking doors to abortion facilities, just as members of Greenpeace rescue whales by blocking whaling ships.(28) Investigation of the ownership of these abortion facilities turned up the interesting fact that many were founded, owned or directed by members of the Eugenics Society of England or their close allies.
The Calthorpe in Birmingham was founded by Martin Cole, Francois Lafitte, Philip Cauthery and two men named Heathcote and Reynolds. The BPAS, currently owner of five abortion facilities, grew out of the Calthorpe and was headed by Francois Lafitte for twenty years. Philip Cauthery founded the Leeds facility with Godfrey Lightning and also later bought into the South Manchester facility. Heathcote and Reynolds helped founded the Fairfield at Buckhurst Hill - the doctor there was Dorothy Kerslake. (who, withDonn Casey, introduced the technique of suction abortion into the West from the Communist countries where it was developed) DM Pottshelped found the PAS and the Marie Stopes groups both of which founded early abortion facilities. The Marie Stopes group actually bought the name, Marie Stopes, and several properties from the Eugenic Society itself.
Marie Stopes had left the properties accumulated by her group, the Society for Constructive Birth Control and Racial Progress, to the Eugenics Society which had been running a contraceptive service - the Marie Stopes Foundation. But in the early seventies the Foundation was disbanded and the properties sold to Population Services International. This group was headed by Timothy Rueben Ladbroke Black. In the Nineties, Population Services International renamed itself Marie Stopes International.
Private abortions account for slightly more than half of all abortions in England. There have been almost five million abortions in England so far. The Eugenics Society through their friends at the BPAS, the PAS, Marie Stopes International, the Calthorpe, and the Leigham are responsible for about half of these. So the result of this research was to show that the Eugenics Society and, therefore, eugenics itself was an active force in the present. It also showed that, as in its Nazi past, eugenics works by categorising a group as non persons and then killing, killing, killing.
I noticed also that in England the abortion facilities were hand in glove with the government and able to bring a heavy legal pressure to bear on pro lifers. I worked with Rescue Outreach, for the five years, saving babies by peacefully and non-violently blocking access to abortion facilities all over Europe. There were numerous rescues in many countries. It was noticeable that rescuers were treated different]y in England than anywhere else.
For example, I had not been in England for 12 hours before I was arrested, tried, sentenced to five days in jail for contempt of court, and put in solitary confinement in the psychiatric section for violent offenders at Risley Prison, Manchester. My offence? I went into the South Manchester Private Nursing Home which, despite its fine name, is an abortion facility, and handed out the anti abortion picture called 'Freedom of Choice?'. This depicts the severed head of an unborn child who was aborted and thrown in the trash in Houston, Texas. The picture is no worse than pictures from the Nazi Holocaust and was distributed for the purpose of waking people up to the horrors of abortion. When I was arrested for distributing the picture, I refused to give my name. Refusal to give my name led to all the consequences mentioned above. I think it is fair to say that this would not have happened to any other non violent protester for any other cause.
Here's another example. Speech in the English Parliament is protected, whether in the House of Lords or the House of Commons. Crouched in the safety of the House of Lords, Lord McGregor of Durris, Chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority, characterised rescuers as 'psychopathic' individuals from America. I found it flattering to be an object of fantasy to the House of Lords, but I asked myself why the Lord bothered. At the time of the comment there were only two American rescuers in England, and both were women. Had the Lords of a great nation nothing better to do than to speculate on the mental states of two women?
As it began, so it went on.
In Yugoslavia, then under Communism, a judge released rescuers because they 'seemed to be people of good will'. In Manchester, England, few months later, both rescuers and picketers were charged with conspiracy. Furthermore, in Manchester, Her Majesty's Government sent a barrister (i.e., a senior lawyer), a Mr. Ter Haar, who ordered the judge to exclude evidence the rescuers were seeking as part of their defence against the very serious charge of conspiracy. Speaking as a government representative, Mr. Ter Haar said that the importance of the confidentiality of abortion information was second in importance only to national security; and that we could not have the information we sought, even if it would prove our innocence. National security! I pictured the headline: "Population Bomb Spy Subpoena Refused".
Mr. Ter Haar also told the judge that there would be a judicial review of the judge's conduct if the judge allowed the subpoenas. The judge refused to allow the subpoenas. We were found guilty. Several people have served prison terms while others are appealing their convictions on the grounds that evidence was withheld.
Our subpoenas only sought to discover the amount of time each doctor spent on diagnosis before he signed his "good faith" opinion that an abortion was necessary. This would not have compromised the confidential records of any individual - except the doctors. On the basis of observation during pickets we felt certain that no real medical consultation was taking place in most cases. There simply wasn't time. At any rate the government determined that this information would be a threat in the hands of pro lifers and so we never got it.
Later on, in Gdansk and Warsaw, Poland, we were not even arrested for our rescues, while in Liverpool, England, we were fined twenty thousand pounds. We received this sentence, in part, because the abortion facility public relations woman testified that the singing of Christmas carols by rescuers harassed, alarmed and distressed her. Proof that the accused caused "harassment, alarm and distress" is required for conviction under the English Public Order Act. This Act, which was meant to protect tenants in Council flats from threats by thugs, was often invoked against us and usually succesfully It is a matter of record that the Act was not used to protect tenants in bad areas from actual threats and harassment. There was, for example, the case of a family harassed and threatened for years, during the same time period in which we were were convicted of singing "Silent Night". The police said there was no way to protect this family against harassment, alarm and distress. (The Daily Telegraph, Nov. 5, 1995, editorial page). Actual threats, it seems, are impossible to prove or prosecute whereas all agree that we sang "Silent Night" and an English judge was able to see this as threatening. (The abortion facility employee, who represented herself at our trial as a thin skinned, startled fawn trembling with alarm at the sound of "Silent Night", used to give sex education to male prisoners. But a judge accepted her testimony as fact.)
In Brazil an armed guard at an illegal abortion facility owned by the Mafia refused to shoot Monsignor Ney, the rescue leader, or even to push him from the abortion facility gate. In Leeds in England a magistrate allowed abortion facility owner, Godfrey Lightning, to ignore a properly served witness summons. This same magistrate accepted as fact the evidence of two abortion employees that the sight of the pro lifers moving to the abortion facility door on their hands and knees had been so bizarre as to cause harassment, alarm and distress. Guilty again - once before of rendering the nation that won the Battle of Britain nationally insecure by singing "Silent Night"- and now guilty of undermining that same national security by crawling on my hands and knees. (Possible newspaper headline: "Terror Crawls in Leeds")
In Arnhem in Holland, a women entering a clinic for an abortion interceded with the police on our behalf. "Don't be so rough", she said "They are only protesters". In Liverpool, England at the Merseyside abortion facility, Heather Baskett, who is connected in some way with a doctor at the facility, knocked Rita Rowan, a grandmother of six to the ground with her car . She did this in front of ten people. I myself saw it happen; in fact, if I had not moved quickly, I would have been hit next. Mrs Baskett coolly parked her car; walked over to where Rita, moaning in pain, was lying on the ground; said, "This is ridiculous. Nothing happened"; and walked away . The police said, and still say, nothing happened on that day.
I asked myself why things were so different in England.
The Eugenics Society and England
When I studied the ownership of the abortion facilities I came to understand that eugenics existed and worked in in England as an influential, organised force. Then I realized that the influence of the Eugenics Society caused the difference in the way in which rescuers were treated. Moreover I realized that eugenics, the philosophy behind segregation, apartheid and Nazism, is alive and well among a section of the English elite and that its influence reaches high in society and wide in universities.(29) Eugenics is not dead, but in hiding, in a variety of disguises. It is the force behind the abortion industry, contraception, genetic screening, in vitro fertilisation, sterilisation, and euthanasia.(30) A hidden elite of strategically placed professors of obstetrics, psychiatry, sociology and genetics and education(31), who are members of the Eugenics Society, are brainwashing English society into accepting eugenics.
For example, the author of Eden and Holland's Manual of Obstetrics, Dr. Eardley Holland, was a vice president of the Eugenics Society in 1944-45 when he became President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Dr. Holland believed that:

"Those who are directly interested in the maternity services of this country should be eugenically minded ... It will be necessary to eliminate the breeding of mental defectives, epileptics, deaf mutes and other undesirable citizens."(32)

Naturally, the Eugenics Society was delighted with this election. Their journal, the Eugenics Review, noted that obstetrics and gynaecology were:
"held by Mr. Holland to include all aspects, qualitative and quantitative, of the reproductive processes of the nation [obstetrics and gynaecology] have much ground in common with eugenics and demography. We may feel sure that Mr. Eardley Holland's appointment will open up new fields of activity for the Society."(33)
But no one has ever asked who Dr. Holland thought were "undesirable citizens" and what steps he took to "eliminate" their "breeding" by "opening up new field of activity for the Society". That's because eugenics now works in secret.

---

---

email to Eugenics Watch for further information
and to Webmaster for comments on this page.
Return to index
Return to Eugenics Watch Homepage

1. England: Eugenics Society (1907 to 1989), Eugenics Society Ltd. (1926 to 1989), Galton Institute (1989-);
   America: American Eugenics Society Inc. (1926 to 1973): Society for the Study of Social Biology Inc. (1973-).
   In the text these societies are generally referred to by their original names, that is the Eugenics Society (ES) or the American Eugenics Society (AES).
   Democracy or Eugenics is intended as an introduction to lists of American and English Eugenics society members on accompanying disks.
   In the body of the text and in the footnotes, names of members of the English Eugenics Society are bolded (e.g.. John Maynard Keynes) while the names of members of the American Eugenics Society are bolded and italicised (e.g.. John Rockefeller Jr.) This means that there is an entry under that name in the list on the appropriate disk.
   This somewhat unconventional approach is necessary to maintain the flow of the text which otherwise would constantly bog down in lists of names and misdeeds.
2. The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law, Glanville Williams, 1957, p. 73.
3. Alexander Graham Bell (AT&T, National Geographic), John D. Rockefeller, John D. Rockefeller Jr., Mrs. E.H. Harriman (Union Pacific Railroad), Cleveland Dodge (Phelps Dodge) and W.P. Draper (textiles). American eugenics was also supported by Andrew Carnegie, who was Scottish, and Axel Wenner Gren, the owner of Bofors, who was Swedish. In Germany, the Krupp family supported German eugenics, according to Men Behind Hitler .
4. Support for the Nazis: Harry Laughlin; C.M. Goethe; C.G. Campbell; Maria Kopp; Mrs Hodson; O.F. Von Vershuer; H. Nachstein; see also The Nazi Connection, Stefan Kuhl, Oxford 1994.
5. Johnson Immigration Act I924: Hon. Albert Johnson (author of the act); Harry Laughlin; C.M. Goethe; Madison Grant
6. Rockefeller Foundation Annual Reports 1927-36; The Nazi Connection, Stefan Kuhl, Oxford, 1994 pp. 20-21
7. "The importance of racial hygiene has only become known in Germany to all intelligent Germans through the political work of Adolph Hitler, and it was only through him that our more than thirty year old dream has become a reality and racial hygiene principles have been translated into action", E. Rudin quoted in The Men Behind Hitler- A German Warning to the World, B. Schreiber
8. The Nazi Connection, Stefan Kuhl, Oxford, 1994, p. 39, p. 87
9. from "Patriotism and Racial Standards", C.M. Goethe, (AES, E)Presidential address to Eugenics Research Association 1936, Eugenical News, v. 21, #4, p. 65, 1936
10. Some have claimed that the Nazi programme was not a eugenical program but a crude misunderstanding of eugenics implemented by non scientists. This claim is made in the Encyclopaedia Britannica section on eugenics - a section written by Frederick Osborn. This claim is refuted by the fact that both before and after the Nazi era, Nazi supporters were accepted members of eugenics societies. For example, Von Verschuer, who planned Josef Mengele's twin experiments at Auschwitz was a post war member of the American Eugenics Society. Furthermore, prominent American eugenicists praised the Nazi programme. For example in 1935, C.M. Goethe wrote the following to E.S. Gosney (AES, ES):

    "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, and particularly by the work of the Human Betterment Foundation. 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 60,000,000 people." (from the Human Betterment Foundation Annual Report 1935)

11. Fredrick Osborn (Phelps Dodge), Fairfield Osborn (Phelps Dodge); C.E. Dodge (Phelps Dodge), and Wycliffe Draper (textiles) were members of the American Eugenics Society in 1956. Others, such as John D. Rockefeller III, did not join the Society, as had his father and grandfather, but instead supported eugenics through foundation grants to society members, society fronts such as the IPPF and the Population Council, or society projects such as population control.
12. For example, in 1984 Senator Al Gore voted for an amendment to the Civil Rights Act to define a 'person' to include `an unborn child from the moment of conception'. But in 1995 Vice President Gore called pro-lifers "extremists" (from "A New Offensive on Behalf of Foster" Philadelphia Inquirer, 2114/95). Richard Gephart and Jesse Jackson have made similar flip flops.
13. "Harriman Suit: Misconduct, or just bad luck investing ?" "It was when the trust fund checks stopped coming last fall to the elderly daughters of Gov. W. Averill Harriman, the railroad heir and financier that the family began to sweat ... The family discovered that funds that had once held $25 million had dwindled to scarcely $3 million ... the fortune had been overseen by Pamela Harriman ... and Clark Clifford... a law suit ... Landed in Federal Court in Manhattan this month ... months and probably years of Harriman family litigation [will result]", (from New York Times, 10/25/94)
14. Francis Galton quoted in "List of Members of the American Eugenics Society", published in 1930 by the American Eugenics Society. Deposited in Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress Container 62-63, Reel 41, "American Eugenics Society, Feb. 1928- May 1936"
15. Eugenics Then and Now, C. J. Bajema, Stroudsberg, 1976 p. 2, quoted in A History of the American Eugenics Society 1921-40, Barry Mehler, PhD Thesis, 1988 available from UMI Dissertation Services; see also "Evolution of Humans May at Last Be Faltering", (New York Times, 3114/95, Science section) for an interesting article on evolution and fertility control which discusses eugenics without ever using the word.
16. The leading figures in the fields of abortion, contraception, sterilisation and sex education were eugenics society members. Some important figures are:
    Abortion: Alan Guttmacher, Christopher Tietze; ALRA: F.W. Stella Browne, Clinton and Janet Chance, Martin Cole, Vera Houghton, Julian Huxley, Alice Jenkins, Dorothy Kerslake (who invented the technique of suction abortion), Francois Lafitte, Frida Laski, Glanville Williams; Abortionists: Dugald Baird, Peter Diggory, W.C. W. Nixon; Facility Owners or Directors: M. Cole, F. Lafitte, DM Potts, M. Simms
    Contraception: Margaret Sanger, Abraham Stone, Sheldon Segal, Lady Denman, Marie Stopes, David Malcolm Potts (Malcolm Potts), Margaret Pyke
    Sterilisation: Bishop E.W. Barnes, A.G. Church, Sir Lawrence Brock, Leonard Darwin, C.V. Drysdale, Havelock Ellis, Francois Lafitte, Marion Norton (New Jersey Sterilisation League), Margaret Sanger, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe
    Sex Education: Havelock Ellis, Margaret Sanger, Abraham Stone, Janet Chance, Eustace Chesser, Francois Lafitte, Marie Stopes, David Mace, Martin Cole.
17. The Bell Curve, Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein, Free Press, 1994. The two most frequently cited authors in The Bell Curve are Arthur Jensen< and Richard Lynn. In addition, 40 other past and present members of eugenic societies are cited.
    English: F. Galton, C. Spearman, Roger Pearson, C. Mascie-Taylor, Maxwell, H.J. Eysenck, D. Vining, R.B. Cattell, S. Itzkoff, C.D. Darlington.
    American: H. Laughlin, C Brigham, J. Hirsch (opposed), T.J. Bouchard, W.H. Sewell, R. Hauser, P. Hauser, L. Terman, O.D. Duncan, R. Plomin, Loehlin, D. C Rowe, J.N. Spuhler, DeFries, F. Ahern, Johnson, S.H. Preston, R. Retherford, Lykken , H. Goddard , R Gordon., Mc Gurk, G. Lindzey, R. Lewontin, S. Scarr, Linda Gottfredson, Mangold , F. Bean, R. Cook, C. Bajema, J.V. Higgins, S. Reed. The Bell Curve also cites Judith Blake, the wife of Kingsley Davis.
18. from "Of Genes and IQ", William Safire, New York Times I0/20/ 1994
19. A director of the American Eugenics Society from 1971-82 and in 1985-86. In 1973 the American Eugenics Society renamed itself "The Society for the Study of Social Biology".
20. "What is equality?", Sandra Scarr, Issues in Science and Technology, Winter, 1994-95, p 85 (a book review of The Bell Curve)
21. The Bell Curve, p. 550
22. The Voice of Destruction, Hermann Rauschning, G.P. Putnam, 1940, p. 136-38
23. Oct. 12, 1980, San Diego Union quoted in Life Advocate, Oct. 1994, p.21
24. Eugenics Review 1934, p. 164 by CBS Hodson
25. The Bell Curve, p. 523, 526
26. The Bell Curve, p. 523
27. The remark became the subject of an intense controversy and was widely quoted. See for example, New York Times 21/11/95 (Metro)
28. "Greenpeace succeeded three times in placing small inflatable between the whalers and the whales, each time protecting a whale from the harpoon and saving its life.", from Greenpeace Newsletter, vol. 3, #3, Nov./Dec. 1994
29. It even helped found the British pro life Group, SPUC. as the following letter from the time of the founding of Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) indicates: "it is proposed to form a Society provisionally entitled the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, with the following aims: 1) To uphold the principle that human life ought not to be taken except in cases of urgent necessity." (from a letter to the Daily Jan. 11, 1967 signed by CB Goodhart, Peter Huntingford, and Aleck Bourne among others.) What is meant by urgent necessity? ... "...we support clause (a), which seeks to clarify the case-law position regard (sic) to abortion in the case of serious risk to life or health of the mother" from letter to the Church Times 30/9/66) The case law apparently allowed abortion in the case of rape. So SPUC was supporting abortion in the case of rape. See C.B. Goodhart
30. Abortion Industry:
    England: see paragraphs above;
    America: Planned Parenthood owns 49 abortion clinics and launched many of the landmark cases which "legalised" abortion; other cases were launched by Population Services International; and others by physicians at Planned Parenthood clinics.
    Contraception: see note 16
    Genetic Screening: C.O. Carter
    In Vitro fertilisation: R.G. Edwards; A.S. Parkes
    Sterilisation: see note 16
    Euthanasia: Killick Millard and C. J. Bond (Founders of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society); Julian Huxley
31. Obstetrics: Eardley Holland (Pres., RCOG), Alan Brews, J.H. Peel (Pres., RCOG)
    Psychiatry: I.R.C. Batchelor, C.P. Blacker
    Sociology: Alan Carr-Saunders, Lord Beveridge, Richard Titmuss, David Glass, Francois Lafitte
    Genetics: Ronald Fisher, Thoday
    Education: Sutherland
32. Eardley Holland speaking at the National Conference on Maternity and Child Welfare reported in Eugenics Review, Oct. 1943, p. 85
33. Eugenics Review, Vol. 35-36, p. 59, 1943-45