epigenetics

Heal Your Past (2)

“Not every story has a happy ending, … but the discoveries of science, the teachings of the heart, and the revelations of the soul all assure us that no human being is ever beyond redemption. The possibility of renewal exists so long as life exists. How to support that possibility in others and in ourselves is the ultimate question.”

Gabor Maté, In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction


Reading time: 15 mins

The Body as Barometer of Psychological states

If you are one of those who wish to reduce the amount of baggage your are carrying around then we have to address the feelings which have been locked away for so long. You had your reasons no doubt. We all have to function in life: get through college/university; work nights; support our partner, and/or children and innumerable pressures and responsibilities. Eventually suppressed memories, if allowed to languish in the unconscious, cause all kinds of havoc over time. The only route to expression these shadows are permitted is through a slow titration of toxic influence which affects the mind causing psychological problems such as anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder or dissociative disorders. However, it is the body which accumulates this psychic toxicity over many years and which manifests as specific auto-immune diseases. This is logical and common sense.

As physician and author Dr. Gabor Maté tells us: “If emotional patterns are a response to the psychological and social environment, disease in an individual always tells us about the multigenerational family of origin and the broader culture in which that person’s life unfolds.” Which is why it is so important to discover not only your possible genetic heritage but what bio-psychosocial predispositions have been passed down the line prior to your own childhood. How have the psychic echos from your ancestors and your own suppressed negative emotions melded to form who you are today?

“The effects of trauma become multigenerational through repeated psychological dysfunctions. The new science of epigenetics is identifying the mechanisms that even affect gene functioning. The children of Holocaust survivors, for example, have altered genetic mechanisms leading to abnormal stress hormone levels. Animal studies are showing that the physiological effects of trauma can be passed on even to the third generation.” [1]

Maté explains further:

“The pathway from stressful emotions, often unconscious, to physical disease was often driven home to me as a family physician and palliative care practitioner, although nothing in my medical education even remotely hinted at such links. People I saw with chronic disease of all kinds—from malignancies or autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis or ulcerative colitis to persistent skin conditions such as eczema and psoriasis, and neurological disorders like Lou Gehrig’s Disease (ALS), multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, and even dementia—were characterized by certain unmistakable emotional life patterns. Among these was the chronic repression of so-called negative emotions, especially of healthy anger, … an overriding sense of duty, role, and responsibility; an undue concern for the emotional needs of others while ignoring one’s own; and, finally, a core belief—again, often unconscious—that one is responsible for how other people feel and that one must never disappoint others. The expression “the good die young” has—sadly—more validity than we sometimes appreciate.” [2]

Since the brain is directly connected to the immune system it makes logical sense to posit that there is an intimate relationship to the correct functioning of both. And since negative thoughts and emotions represent a different energetic frequency than more positive ones, they can naturally begin to affect whatever area of the body – such toxic memories stored. Repressed emotions over the long-term have a deleterious effect on the body’s organs, hormonal apparatus and nervous and immune systems. Deep-seated anger, shame, fear and the constant flood of stress chemicals can literally cause chronic or acute illness as a result of the immune system breaking down. This is when emotional shadows break free and express their toxicity in the body, rather than being safely exorcised through therapy. This is particularly true for all manner of addictions, which helps to calm the horrible truth in the short-term but makes things much worse as denied emotions are replaced with self-medication through substance abuse or toxic relationships.

(more…)

Advertisements

Why Young Lives are Losing Meaning and Purpose II: The Big Three and 11 Factors

Photo by Dmitry Ratushny | unsplash.com


“Community connectedness is not just about warm fuzzy tales of civic triumph. In measurable and well-documented ways, social capital makes an enormous difference in our lives…Social capital makes us smarter, healthier, safer, richer, and better able to govern a just and stable democracy.”

~ Robert D. Putnam

Reading time: 20-25 mins

In the last post I looked at the decrease in meaning and purpose parallel to the increase in loneliness and isolation for today’s millennial and Z generations.  Sociologists, economists and psychologists generally all agree that the key to developing and holding on to meaning, purpose and well-being is sufficient social interaction with a core group of friends and family that define one’s support. This is not the same as an extended family that usually arises from enforced socio-economic factors, but one that naturally evolves based around shared vision of support and nourishment because it is both practical and sustainable, offering real world benefits.

John F. Helliwell, a prominent expert in the economics of happiness believes the quality of our relationships determines the quality of our lives at the deepest levels. And the quality of those relationships is reflected in how well we have activated our response-ability and activities that offer a form of service to the community – whatever form that might be. This is what creates and deepens ties with others: constructive actions alongside key initiatory ideas. Helliwell draws his work from very large data sets called the World Values Survey which has accrued answers from people in over 150 countries about life satisfaction along with other socio-economic information. When Helliwell crunched the data he and other researchers found that there were six reliable and consistent factors which accounted for well-being:

  1. Social support
  2. generosity
  3. trust
  4. freedom
  5. income per capita
  6. healthy life expectancy [1]

Four from the list are connected with social interaction within a community. The other factors are relational and occur as a response to, or as a natural property of social support.  So a stratum of support covering all aspects of human aspiration is a really big deal, the lack of which will play a large part in the development of our social ills.

The Big Three

It seems to me, the development of meaning and purpose is rooted in three foundational products of social interaction which, if healthy, underpin a successful society, the constituents of which all operate symbiotically and grow parallel to each other. Thus, the creation of an individual emerges and is informed by:

  1. Parents
  2. Family
  3. Community

Obvious perhaps, but in crisis nonetheless. These three make up the strata in the soil of society/culture which is dependent on the level of access to community (should it even exist) a solid connection to nature and the quality of the environment upon which all three rest. [2]  Similarly, the healthy functioning of the three will have within them poor psycho-spiritual “nutrients”, or a rich, fertile ground that is self-sustaining and therefore community-sustaining. The presence of Helliwell’s six factors will be informed by the quality of the Big Three.

(more…)

World State Policies VII: Planned Parenthood, UNESCO and “New-Genics”

“I’d say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps.”

Planned Parenthood Federation Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola


planned-parenthoodDuring the 1930s as Rockefeller funding was supporting research into molecular biology for new ways to implement social control, another pseudo-scientific outfit sprang up from the mind of one Margaret Sanger. Ms. Sanger favoured “The elimination of ‘human weeds,’ for the ‘cessation of charity’ because it prolonged the lives of the unfit, for the segregation of ‘morons, misfits, and the maladjusted,’ and for the sterilization of genetically inferior races.’” And this gentle parent’s views were to be the inspiration for “Planned Parenthood.” [1]

Sanger founded the American Birth Control League in 1921, which in 1942, became part of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America formerly created ten years later in 1952 at a conference in Bombay, India. She is widely regarded as the founder of the modern birth control movement and a tireless activist for women’s rights, helping to put a stop to the practice of back-alley abortions that claimed so many lives.

Her drive to promote birth control was perhaps due in part, to her mother who suffered greatly in her 18 pregnancies and later died of tuberculosis. However, despite Sanger’s obvious positive intentions she was for all intents and purposes a full-blown authoritarian who was a big fan of the Nazis. She also had a strange blend of occult/theosophical and collectivist beliefs which led her to harbour increasingly extremist views, where the extermination of those she deemed less pure than her Caucasian, white, spiritually advanced self was eminently acceptable. Her engineering of the human race to a spiritual and genetic perfection was merely another form of Social Darwinism with a feminist bent. She felt the reason for the spiritual and biological demise of her brethren was due to contamination by “unfit” genes and as such, her mission was to rid the world of such undesirables.

In the 1930’s, while Sanger praised Adolf Hitler’s Racial purity program and the Aryan dream of a snow-white New World Order, she commissioned the aforementioned Nazi eugenicist Ernst Rudin to be an advisory member of her organization. Nine years later Sanger began work on saving the world from the copulating practices of the black man whom she believed to be an “inferior race.” The “Negro project,” was a program designed to vastly reduce or indoctrinate under the pretext of religious instruction.

She declared:

“The masses of Negroes … particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit …” […]

“The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the Minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” ” [2]

And from her biography:

“The eugenists wanted to shift the birth control emphasis from less children for the poor to more children for the rich. We went back of that and sought first to stop the multiplication of the unfit. This appeared the most important and greatest step towards race betterment.” Quite simply, in Sanger’s view quoted in Birth Control Review, December 1920: “Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.” And in summarising an address to New History Society, in April 1932, the object for the Population Congress would be: “… to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.” ” [3]

Some choice.

In a 1985, Planned Parenthood annual report board members claimed that they were: “Proud of our past, and planning for our future.” [4]

msanger1

        Margaret Sanger

The eugenic imperative lent further energy to the World State in waiting and the intelligentsia ran around doing what they could to create networks of grand visionaries that would carry the flame into the future. Collectivism and the New Social Order lay on the foundations of gradualism, after all. They knew that persons would have to be carefully selected through the generations so that organisations would adhere to the original plan. Margaret Sanger had joined the Socialist Party and was eventually well connected with the Fabian Elite including: H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Arnold Bennett, Arbuthnot Lane, and Norman Haire. It was through these “relationships” that she was able to finally meet Havelock Ellis, author of the Psychology of Sex and with whom she had an affair.

In 1922 she wrote the book The Pivot of Civilization in which she laid bare her love of Malthusian and eugenic principles. In 1925, she was in full spate and penned a rant that would have given Pol Pot a run for his money, stating: “We can all vote, even the mentally arrested. And so it is no surprise to find that the moron’s vote is as good as the vote of the genius. The outlook is not a cheerful one.” She continued her rant claiming: “The dullard, the gawk, the numbskull, the simpleton, the weakling, and the scatterbrain are amongst us in overshadowing numbers–intermarrying, breeding, inordinately prolific, literally threatening to overwhelm the world with their useless and terrifying get.” [5] Let’s keep in mind that Frederick Jaffe the head of Planned Parenthood research in 1969 floated several proposals in a memo which seemed to continue the above sentiments which included “compulsory sterilization for those who have already had two children” as well as “compulsory abortion for out-of-wedlock pregnancies,” federal entitlement “payments to encourage abortion,” and “tax penalties” for existing large families. [6]

With friends like Fred who needs families?

According to the Planned Parenthood Federation website at http://www.plannedparenthood.org today, Margaret Sanger’s reasons for building her birth control empire have been airbrushed away. She was: “… one of the movement’s great heroes,” where her: “… early efforts remain the hallmark of Planned Parenthood’s mission: providing contraception and other health services to women and men; funding research on birth control and educating specialists and the public about the results; advancing access to family planning in the United States and around the world.”

But is this advice based on good science or ideology?

Planned Parenthood (PP) as the largest provider and promoter of abortion and “… the largest provider of sex education in America,” has expanded from its humble beginnings into a multi-billion-dollar international conglomerate with centres in 50 states; national headquarters in New York, a legislative centre in Washington and programs and activities in 134 nations on every continent. [7]They have over 922 clinics in almost every major metropolitan area in the United States while their international centres can be found in London, Nairobi, Bangkok, and New Dehli. [8] 

PP lobbies for abortions within the second trimester and associate resistance to this policy from pro-life extremists who wish to be rid of all abortions: “… abortion after the first trimester remains a necessary option for some women. Unfortunately, anti-choice zealots seek to limit access to abortion through, among other means, laws imposing a fixed date for fetal viability and bans that would outlaw safe, medically appropriate abortions in the second trimester. The hidden agenda of these zealots is to make all abortions illegal.” [9]

Just as the answer does not lie with anti-abortionists, it does beg the question whether PP are also there for humanitarian reasons given its history. In her book Woman and the New Race, Sanger observed: “The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it,” and we can see by the slick marketing and multi-million dollar yearly profits nothing much has changed except the lure of the dollar sign. [10]From 2000 – 2010 there was a steady rise in the number of abortions PP undertook increasing from 197,070 to 329,445 by the end of the decade with the dispensing of 131,638 to 1,461,816 Morning After pills. [11]Planned Parenthood Federation of America classified as a non-profit organisation revealed in its 2008 report that income generated from their yearly abortion drives netted a total income of $1.02 billion—with reported profits of nearly $115 million. Taxpayers pay for around $336 million worth of government grants and contracts at both the state and federal levels. That is a sizable chunk of Planned Parenthood’s projected profits. [12]

Upon visiting their websites today, it’s almost as if the subject of abortion is celebrated. Email alerts! Get Involved! Job opportunities! Providing access to reproductive health care so that women they can “control their bodies and their futures.”

Or rather than appealing to a feminist perception of emancipation, is it that those behind Planned Parenthood can control their bodies and their futures?

Rather than eugenics, depopulation and enforced abortion being a thing of the past perhaps it has been pushed under the carpet of highly paid advertising campaigns, pretty colours and a whole lot of profit.  Women must have the freedom to do as they will with their own bodies, yet when this support becomes a corporation with cash as the bottom line and eugenics at its historical roots, more questions need to be asked.

As to whether Planned Parenthood are fulfilling a useful role in today’s world based on a natural evolution of society then we would have to say “no” because society has been wholly manipulated by the very same people who have set up these institutions. Is it habituation to abortion and so-called sexual liberation or merely the right to choose? The question is not that it does not offer women more “reproductive choice” but for what is the core reason such education is being promoted? What does such an international ideal serve? If you want to make a population less loving, more sexualised and narcissistic and thus more malleable, the gross result may be more babies in the short term but with large-scale abortion clinics on standby as branches of a larger corporatist ethos who will they look to for further inspiration?

All roads lead to the Rockefeller ideal of China as the Pathocratic template of the future.

Alan Guttmacher, who took on a ten year presidency of PP provides an example of this ubiquitous China-think. He stated: “Each country will have to decide its own form of coercion, determining when and how it should be employed,” reminding us that: “… the means presently available are compulsory sterilization and abortion.” He then enlightened an already open-mouthed journalist that this Planned Parenthood’s values of compassion, love, health and women’s rights may have to be jettisoned for coercion and force that might be especially needed “… in areas where the pressure is the greatest, possibly in India and China.” [13]

In 1984, PP had written in support of China’s brutal one-child per couple policy, where sterilisation and forced abortions are mandatory [14] and were quite excited about such a possibility arriving in the United States (keer-ching! $$$$) which is why they battled to restore U.S. funding to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) which had already committed $100 million to this Chinese program. [15] Twenty-six years later we hear from another ex-Planned Parenthood director Norman Fleishman writing to President Obama about the recent decision to force insurance companies to cover birth control and drugs that can cause abortion: “Unless we act (this legislation, along with China’s “one child” policy, is a start), the world is doomed to strangle among coils of pitiless exponential growth.” [16]

Now it seems, Planned Parenthood has come out fighting and is actively against this line – at least on their website. We can now read: “Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) opposes coercive and inhumane reproductive policies and practices, including China’s one-child policy and the illegal practices of forced abortion and coerce birth control reported in some localities. We believe in reproductive self-determination and we advocate for public policies that guarantee these rights and ensure access to safe and legal services.” [17]

Whether this is just good PR and represents more than just indignant-soon-to-be-leaving directors of PP remains to be seen. But large-scale profits from equally large-scale abortion will doubtless continue. However, if you want to see the truly abhorrent face of Planned Parenthood then we need look no further than the recent secret recording of Planned Parenthood Federation Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, discussing the side business in fetal parts. Let’s include a few choice quotes from the video:

“I’d say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps.

“The kind of rate-limiting step of the procedure is calvarium. Calvarium—the head—is basically the biggest part. …

“We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact. And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it’s not vertex. …

“So if you do it starting from the breech presentation, there’s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last step, you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end.” [18]

Mirroring illegal partial-birth abortions and taking full advantage of their equally partial government funding there speaks the voice of greed and science conjoined. You don’t need any more obvious evidence to abort babies for profit. As the Free thought project reports:

According to 42 U.S. Code § 289g–2:

It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.

The legal issues were seemingly addressed during the conversation when Nucatola says, “At the national office, we have a Litigation and Law Department which just really doesn’t want us to be the middle people for this issue right now.”

Lila Rose, Live Action President responded to the disturbing video:

This investigation by the Center for Medical Progress reveals the unimaginable horror that is Planned Parenthood. The exploitation of human life, the cover-up, and the black market profiteering by America’s largest abortion chain is not only egregious and heartbreaking, but exposes how the abortion giant is corrupt to the core

— from the CEO, Cecile Richards, down to the local clinic. [19] 

Watch the video HERE.

***

What is certain, China’s one-child policy has been a disaster for women with the equivalent of the entire female population of the United States missing. According to Mara Hvistendahl’s book Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men she places the source of the problem squarely on the one-child policy which has its roots in the population control advocacy in the West. It has exponentially increased the number of men and turned the remaining women into commodities, adding to the already significant increase in global sex-trafficking. Not only that but: “Between 1992 and 2004 China’s crime rate nearly doubled. In India from 2003 to 2007 rape cases surged over 30 percent and abductions by over 50 percent prompting the government to unveil female-only trains.” [20]The conclusion is that while China’s population police themselves in this regard, as Hvistendahl reminds us: “In a world in which women are unnaturally scarce, the right to abort will be the least of our worries.” [21]  Thankfully, this led China to rethink its policy in 2009 with Shanghai as the template for a two child policy. The Telegraph reported: “Experts predicted earlier this week that there will be zero growth in China’s population of 1.3 billion people by 2030.” [22]

The one child policy was so appealing to Western elites due to the similar short-sighted and misplaced view of how nature operates which is non-linear, self-organising and adaptive. Which is why a recent study commissioned by the BBC in September 2012 discovered that: “… China’s fertility would have declined at a similar rate without the one-child policy and would continue to decline even if the policy was discarded.” [23]

fertility_rate976x314

How did the one-child policy affect population levels? | Ageing China: Changes and challenges”

One of the key proposals in this post for the reader to consider is that the institutions and well-known organisations of today – though inhabited by honest, sincere and selfless individuals – are nonetheless steered by ideologies and strategies (and market-led greed) from the top which have not changed for many decades. While social engineering carries on at one level, another tier maybe involved in the imposition of a world philosophy and culture that ostensibly seems a wonderful thing. An example of this can be found from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).

Evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley, elder brother of author Aldous Huxley was a giant in the humanist and eugenics movements. He held several important posts including the Secretary of the Zoological Society of London (1935-42), first president of the British Humanist Association (1963), Vice-President (1937-44) and President of the British Eugenics Society (1959-62). He was also co-founder of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Huxley was also the recipient of several awards aligned to his areas of interest including UNESCO’s Kalinga Prize (1953) (as did Bertrand Russell); the Darwin Medal of the Royal Society (1956), and the Special Award of the Lasker Foundation in the category Planned Parenthood – World Population (1959).

As the first director of the organisation Sir Julian Sorell Huxley wrote a paper entitled “UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy” published in 1946. In the paper he shared his vision for the future of the international organisation and what he hoped it would achieve. Huxley believed its philosophy should be “… based on a scientific world humanism, global in extent and evolutionary in background” or a grand design of World Evolutionary Humanism.

From ‘UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy’ he states:

It is essential for Unesco to adopt an evolutionary approach. If it does not do so, its philosophy will be a false one, its humanism at best partial, at worst misleading…. in the last few decades it has been possible to develop an extended or general theory of evolution which can provide the necessary intellectual scaffolding for modern humanism. It not only shows us man’s place in nature and his relations to the rest of the phenomenal universe, not only gives us a description of the various types of evolution and the various trends and directions within them, but allows us to distinguish desirable and undesirable trends […]

Objectively speaking, the new method consists of cumulative tradition, which forms the basis of that social heredity by means of which human societies change and develop. But the new method also has a subjective aspect of great importance. Cumulative tradition, like all other distinctively human activities, is largely based on conscious processes – on knowledge, on purpose, on conscious feeling, and on conscious choice. Thus the struggle for existence that underlies natural selection is increasingly replaced by conscious selection, a struggle between ideas and values in consciousness.

Evolution in the human sector consists mainly of changes in the form of society; in tools and machines, in new ways of utilising the old innate potentialities, instead of in the nature of these potentialities, as in the biological sector. […] Nor does it mean that man’s innate mental powers could not be improved. They certainly were improved (presumably be [sic] natural selection) in the earliest stages of his career, […] and they could certainly be improved further by deliberate eugenic measures, if we consciously set ourselves to improve them. Meanwhile, however, it is in social organisation, in machines, and in ideas that human evolution is mostly made manifest.” [24] [Emphasis mine]

So, an almost word for word reiteration of Bertrand Russell’s “scientific dictatorship” was also being developed by Huxley where it is assumed that natural selection, a social struggle and the eugenic improvement of humans are part of UNESCO’s mission. They also happen to be key words in both collectivist, humanist and atheist thinking where human beings are not only devoid of the consciousness as he mentions but must be developed along the lines of a faulty machine.

jhuxley

Sir Julian Sorrell Huxley

It is the arrogant imposition of dogma within a soon to be highly influential institution that belies a certain confidence that he is surrounded by those who think the same. And for an educational, scientific and cultural organisation to be founded on eugenics to then speak of equality and emancipation … This goes only so far before doubts set in as to the authenticity of its participants but not the artfulness of its propaganda. Yet he qualifies his exuberant idealism: “… with equality of opportunity [which] must be amended to read ‘equality of opportunity within the limits of aptitude.’ Which means opportunity – but only for those who come up to scratch.

He further informs us:

“… it seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability, and disease-proneness, which already exist in the human species, will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved. Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for Unesco to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” [25]

As with most of these people, they know that most normal individuals see the manipulation of the human psychology and physiology based on class and race superiority as naturally abhorrent, so Huxley is really saying that acceptance of radical eugenics policies is not yet possible so let’s introduce it along the lines of gradualism so that “greatest care” may furnish the “unthinkable.”

What is radical eugenics if it is not coercive altering of the human mind and body under certain Elitist beliefs?
To promote what Huxley calls an “adjustment” to these eugenic ideals, he calls for “a great deal of education of the general public” resting upon the fallacy that evolutionary biology is the only means by which we can measure the progress of humanity, or as he states: “…judging the rightness or wrongness of our aims and activities.” For this peculiar brand of reductive determinism to play out, according to Huxley there should be an extension of: “… personal ethical judgements and responsibilities to many collective and apparently impersonal actions” and further “… to undertake a considerable socialisation of ethics.”

What the director is advocating is an ethics of the “scientific technique” whereby rights of the individual are submerged into a World Evolutionary State of Government. Progress for Huxley is a narrow pathway indeed:

… the more united man’s tradition becomes, the more rapid will be the possibility of progress: several separate or competing or even mutually hostile pools of tradition cannot possibly be so efficient as a single pool common to all mankind. And secondly, that the best and only certain way of securing this will be through political unification. As history shows, unifying ideas can exert an effect across national boundaries. But, as history makes equally evident, that effect is a partial one and never wholly offsets the opportunities for conflict provided by the existence of separate sovereign political units.

The moral for UNESCO is clear. The task laid upon it of promoting peace and security can never be wholly realised through the means assigned to it – education, science and culture. It must envisage some form of world political unity, whether through a single world government or otherwise, as the only certain means for avoiding war. However, world political unity is, unfortunately, a remote ideal, and in any case does not fall within the field of UNESCO’s competence. This does not mean that UNESCO cannot do a great deal towards promoting peace and security. Specifically, in its educational programme it can stress the ultimate need for world political unity and familiarise all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organization. But, more generally, it can do a great deal to lay the foundations on which world political unity can later be built. [26]

By using the biological metaphor of a the struggling human gene “pool,” Huxley introduces the real “moral” task of UNESCO which is not the promotion of education, culture and science but the engineering of collectivist dogma which requires the dissolution of sovereign states for a (humanist) world government. The avoidance of war is the caveat that is wheeled in for justification for such a program, but it remains disingenuous as it is ignorant.

Obviously wishing to get all the juicy morsels of propaganda into the paper for posterity, Huxley believes that such “unification in the things of the mind is not only also necessary but can pave the way for other types of unification.” A global religion, global army, global economy and global government will finally lead to “full world unity” but not until that pesky global mind has been unified no doubt under the arch-deacons of the “scientific technique” and their instruments of coercion. For Huxley, the administering of education is merely another tool to facilitate that end by “improving the technique of education…” and to “…help in the speedy and satisfactory realisation of this process,” with “… special attention to international education – to education as a function of a world society.” [27] In order to make sure that the uneducated and developing nations are fully indoctrinated into an homogenised slush upon wish the World State will float; a fundamental education must evolve that has been paired down enough for the inclusion of a “common scale of values.” And on what basis might those be formed? Huxley has the answer: “One other item which Unesco should put on its programme as soon as possible is the study of the application of psycho-analysis and other schools of “deep” psychology to education. […] This would mean an extension of education backwards from the nursery school to the nursery itself.”

It was only a matter of time before the fusion of the scientific technique, Freud and the discredited psychoanalysis popped up as it usually usually does at some point in Elite initiatives, so why not as the education fundamentals of UNESCO?

Julian Huxley’s position as chairman of the Eugenics society (1959-62) comes through vividly in his recommendations for the use of media and public relations as tools of propaganda and a “mass creed” for the greater good. He even manages a little doffing of the hat to Lenin:

“Taking the techniques of persuasion and information and true propaganda that we have learnt to apply nationally in war, and deliberately bending them to the international tasks of peace, if necessary utilising them, as Lenin envisaged, to ‘overcome the resistance of millions’ to desirable change. Using drama to reveal reality and art as the method by which, in Sir Stephen Tallent’s words, ‘truth becomes impressive and living principle of action,’ and aiming to produce that concerted effort which … needs a background of faith and a sense of destiny. This must be a mass philosophy, a mass creed, and it can never be achieved without the use of the media of mass communication. Unesco, in the press of its detailed work, must never forget this enormous fact. [Emphasis mine]

And what is this “mass creed”? World evolutionary Darwinism twined with a World State. The actual inspiration for Huxley’s turn of phrase was probably inspired by the work of Charles Galton Darwin ex-eugenics society president who wrote about the importance of “creeds” in shaping human perceptions in his book The Next Million Years (1952):

The detailed march of history will depend a great deal on the creeds held by the various branches of the human race. It cannot be presumed with any confidence that purely superstitious creeds will always be rejected by civilized communities, in view of the extraordinary credulity shown even now by many reputedly educated people. It is true that there may not be many at the present time, whose actions are guided by an inspection of the entrails of a sacrificial bull, but the progress has not been very great, for there are still many believers in palmistry and astrology. It is to be expected then that in the future, as in the past, there will be superstitions which will notably affect the course of history, and some of them, such as ancestor-worship, will have direct effects on the development of the human species. But superstitious creeds will hardly be held by the highly intelligent, and it is precisely the creed of these that matters. Is it possible that there should arise a eugenic creed, which – perhaps working through what I have called the method of unconscious selection – should concern itself with the improvement of the inherent nature of man, instead of resting content with merely giving him good but impermanent acquired characters?  [28] [Emphasis mine]

The UNESCO humanism and eugenics perception of the mind and body has now morphed into futurism, care of the transhumanists a large proportion of whom carry the same ideological torch.

Ethical constraints are vital as advances in human genetics advance towards an obvious array of medical benefits and when the direction and ideology is still firmly in the grip of Wall St. and the same “philanthropic” families. Edwin Black makes the important point that a “‘newgenics’ has risen again to persecute and discriminate on the basis of blood ancestry. Insurance companies, employers and others want to exclude those deemed to be insurance risks and even socially unacceptable and legislators complain that this will create a new ‘genetic ghetto.’” [29]

dnaspiralThere are plenty of individuals that believe they are Gods in the making and have the right to tinker with the human genome in order to enhance humanity’s genetic profile and eradicate “imperfections.” The film Welcome to Gatacca was a thought-provoking study of the long-term future of eugenics that slipped towards a definitely dystopic scenario. There is no doubt that we are already easing down a slippery slope of eugenics care of technocratic science. Designer babies are not a pipe-dream. Some clinics are already offering the chance to alter the genes of your future child.

Professor Julian Savulescu of Oxford University and editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, sees the genetic engineering of “ethical” babies as a moral obligation and genetically screening our offspring to make them better people is just “responsible parenting.” Screening in and screening out certain genes begins the process of designing our babies and our future societies. If we are considering the psychopath as the primary cause of the ills of our societies is it not logical that we should eradicate the possibility of psychopaths even entering the world? Savulescu, like so many other academics considers such a move in strictly altruistic terms in that “rational design” will deliver more intelligent and less violent people for the future. He believes it is just a natural extension of the process which presently screens for conditions such as cystic fibrosis, Down’s syndrome and various forms of cancer.

He explains his view with persuasive logic:

“Surely trying to ensure that your children have the best, or a good enough, opportunity for a great life is responsible parenting? … So where genetic selection aims to bring out a trait that clearly benefits an individual and society, we should allow parents the choice. To do otherwise is to consign those who come after us to the ball and chain of our squeamishness and irrationality.

Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children.” [30]

Unlike the forced system of eugenics, the professor believes the system he envisages would be voluntary and allow parents to choose the characteristics of their children. “Whether we like it or not, the future of humanity is in our hands now. Rather than fearing genetics, we should embrace it. We can do better than chance.”

Is it not correct that the influences of the psychopath and the almost unimaginable havoc they create on this earth, means that we should make sure that if there is a screening process then it must be implemented for the psychopath genes alone? After all, these people are like cancer cells within the host of an organism and death is the only result. Is it not our duty to turn the corner and release us all from the burden of history?

There are many problems with this line of reasoning. Firstly, even though idea of exclusively criminal genes has rightly been consigned to the bin, the notion that there may be heritable genes determining psychopathy has proved more convincing, not least least through the advances in epigenetics. [31] We are still at an early stage in finding cast iron proof however, due to a number of complex factors. The implications of the genetic component to psychopathy are vital to work through but there is still considerable disagreement between psychologists as to how to approach this problem. It is also true that genes alone do not determine behaviour in normal individuals, yet in the psychopath the genetic component may be the defining factor. However, surrounding the notion of genetic tinkering of the human genome, where do we draw the line? Discrimination on the basis of physical traits will also follow the already well-defined divide between wealthy families and their offspring who receive genetic enhancement, inevitably leading to a new breed of genetically enhanced humans or “Post Humans” as the transhumanists prefer; a form of genetic aristocracy that will have implications in terms of unfair advantage and gender bias that would descend upon almost every field of human endeavour. This unfair advantage already exists but it would be taken to a whole new level that would likely form a breakaway civilisation – if it hasn’t happened already.

The point to remember here is that while we are still inside the world of the psychopath, the chances of achieving an equitable and ethical balance of voluntary and informed choices remains slim. Knowledge of the science of psychopathy needs to become water-tight so that there can be no question of just how powerfully invasive their presence is in the world today. Once we have this widespread understanding decisions as to how we screen and insulate society against the psychopath will take on new and more creative solutions. Meantime, eugenics in the hands of conscience-less individuals represents a very real threat for any hope of equality in the life of the human race. Indeed, it is probable that we have been living under such a nightmare scenario for sometime, where the screening out of normal people in favour of psychopathic dominance has advanced to a considerable degree.

See also: The Feds Are Investigating Allegations That Planned Parenthood Has Been Selling Baby Body Parts For Profit

 


Notes

[1] Killer Angel: A Short Biography of Planned Parenthood’s Founder, Margaret Sanger By George Grant, Cumberland House Publishing; Revised edition, 2001 | ISBN-10: 1581821506
[2] Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon.
[3] pp. 374-375; Chapter 30, Now Is the Time for Converse
[4] Planned Parenthood of Houston, Annual Report, 1985.
[5] Margaret Sanger, International Aspects of Birth Control: The International Neo-Malthusian and Birth Control Conference (New York: American Birth Control League, 1925).
[6] Examples of proposed Measures to Reduce U.S. Fertility, a Planned Parenthood memo written by Frederick Jaffe (Planned Parenthood head of research), 1969.
[7] http://www.plannedparenthood.org
[8] http://www.plannedparenthood.org annual report 2010.
[9] Planned Parenthood Federation of American, Abortions Facts, Abortion After the First Trimester in the United States | http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/fact_abortion_1st_tri_2010-09.pdf.
[10] Women and the New Race by Margaret Sanger
[11] Planned Parenthood annual report 2008 http://www.lifeissues.org
[12] Ibid.
[13] 6. Richard D. Glasow, Ph.D., Ideology Compels Fervid PPFA Abortion Advocacy, National Right to Life News (March 28, 1985), p. 5.
[14] The Wall Street Journal, December 19, 1984 cited in Chapter 64: of Planned Parenthood: The World ‘s Premier Anti-Life Organization, Pro-Life Activist’s Encyclopedia published by American Life League | http://www.ewtn.com/
[15] ‘New Battle Looms Over U.S. Aid for U.N. Agency Supporting Coerced Abortion’, By Douglas Johnson, National Right to Life News (May 1, 1986), p. 1.
[16] ‘The Laborer in the Vineyard’By George Neumayr, The American Spectator, August 25 2011.
[17] ‘Planned Parenthood Statement in Support of Chen Guangcheng Denounces Coercive Reproductive Health Policies in China’May5 2012.
[18]BREAKING: ‘Planned Parenthood Busted on Hidden Camera Trying to Sell Aborted Baby Parts’ By Matt Agorist on July 14, 2015.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men by Mara Hvistendahl’s PublicAffairs; 1 edition (7 Jun 2011).
[21] Ibid.
[22] ‘China begins lifting strict one-child policy’ By Malcolm Moore 24 Jul 2009,The Telegraph.
[23] ‘UNESCO: Its Purpose and its Philosophy By Julian Huxley Preparatory Commission of The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation’ 1946. / (p.21)
[24] ‘Ageing China: Changes and challenges’ BBC News, 20 September 2012.
[25] Ibid.
[26] op. cit. UNESCO (p.13)
[27] Ibid. (p.60)
[28] The Next Million Years By Charles Galton Darwin. Interestingly, the googledocs.online PDF version has decided to expunge this passage from the book. How many times has this kind of censorship of history happened I wonder?
[29] op. cit. Black
[30] ‘The Maverick: ‘It’s Our Duty to Have Designer Babies’’ September Issue, Reader’s Digest, August 21 2012.31
[31]‘The Psycho Gene’ By Philip Hunter, Nature, EMBO reports, January 22, 2010. | http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v11/n9/full/embor2010122.html

World State Policies VI: Eugenics Reborn

“In America, this battle to wipe out whole ethnic groups was fought not by armies with guns nor by hate sects at the margins. Rather, this pernicious white-gloved war was prosecuted by esteemed professors, elite universities, wealthy industrialists and government officials colluding in a racist, pseudoscientific movement called eugenics. The purpose: create a superior Nordic race.”

– Edwin Black, “War against the Weak”


Eugenics_congress_logo

“Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution”: Logo from the Second International Eugenics Conference, 1921.


In June 2012 the world’s first (officially) genetically modified humans were created. The disclosure came after a series of experiments that resulted in 30 healthy babies being born, two of which were tested and found to contain genes from three “parents.” The Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St Barnabas in New Jersey carried out an experimental program over a three year period. Fifteen of the children were born to women who had problems conceiving. It was reported that: “Extra genes from a female donor were inserted into their eggs before they were fertilised in an attempt to enable them to conceive. Genetic fingerprint tests on two one-year- old children confirm that they have inherited DNA from three adults –two women and one man.” [1]

Eugenics, from the Greek eugenēs meaning “well-born” and from eu- + -genēs meaning “born,” is the applied science and/or the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population. [2]This includes the discouragement of reproduction by those considered to have genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by those who are believed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

Later known as Social Darwinism, the origins of this pseudo-science began through interpretations of Mendelian inheritance, and the theories of Frederick August Weismann, a 19th century German evolutionary biologist. It was viewed as a science in the late 19th and early 20th century and extremely popular with the scientific and cultural Elite, including the aristocracy. Two of Charles Darwin’s friends who enthusiastically embraced eugenics, were Thomas Huxley, president of the Royal Society, and Darwin’s cousin, the polymath Francis Galton who was the first to coin the phrase “eugenics” in 1883. He went on to found the Eugenics Movement, which was fervently embraced in the United States and later Germany.

Despite the revulsion that eugenics conjures in our minds today it had widespread acceptance across America and was legally practiced in many states. It was only when the seal of approval was given by the Nazi Third Reich and the subsequent revelations of the holocaust that academia began to distance themselves from the field – at least, officially. The social applications of Nazi eugenics were no different to the American model which had been set in place by decades of population control advocacy. Nonetheless, science would prove it to be strong on belief but very weak on fact which also allowed it to seemingly fade into obscurity.

hux-galtThomas Henry Huxley (left) and Francis Galton (right)

The early 20th century was rife with social problems all of which played on the fears of the Establishment and their latent designs to isolate and enhance their inherited status. Galton’s eugenics became a disturbing expression of racist ideology that comprehensively infected the intelligentsia. The intent, according to author Edwin Black, was to: “… populate the Earth with vastly more of their own socio-economic and biological kind — and less or none of everyone else.” Spearheaded by a cross-section of industrialists and academics a mass purging of what were deemed: “so-called defective family trees” were targeted and subjected 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.” [3] [4]

The notions of race and observable physical features as criteria for degenerate or superior traits and therefore definitive indicators of mental and emotional capacity, are inherently flawed. Knowledge gleaned from human genome sequence variation research shows that differences between human groups are more to do with the fluctuation, adaptation and merging of genetic variation and genetic drift than with anything remotely as simplistic as the science of race and “racial hygiene.” Heritable changes in gene activity which are not caused by the DNA sequence is the relatively new field of epigenetics, a science which has shown just how complex the journey of inherited truly is, where changes can occur in an isolated individual or over a several generations with our environment playing a key role. As Professor Betsy Hartmann of Hampshire College, Massachusetts observes: “One of the great ironies of the present moment in the U.S. is the resurgence of race-based biological and genetic determinism at a time when scientific research is exploding myths about the biological basis of race. For example, research has shown that genetic variation within a group is much greater than variation among ‘races’ and that geographic proximity is a much better marker for genetic similarity than skin color.” [5]

“New-Genics”

That is not to say that certain predispositions, strengths or weaknesses cannot occur in different families or races just as certain talents and skills seem to arise. The complexity of influence as to why Ethiopia and Somalia produce world-class long distance runners and Russia the greatest chess players cannot be reduced down to simplistic notions such as purifying the genetic bloodline. Nevertheless, eugenics naturally appeals to authoritarian personalities that operate through a binary interpretation of reality, often encompassing a romantic idealism of society and nature. A strong tradition exists between the two, whether it is the German Volk taken on and subverted by the Nazis or some within the Deep Ecology movement that see biodiversity, population reduction and immigration as inseparable to the survival of the human species. The wish to keep Nature and race pure combined with the merging of external threats seems to become more attractive when economic stability is threatened. The fear of difference is heightened, where scapegoats can offer a vessel to which the shallow and stupid can pour in their innumerable insecurities.

Immigration has sub-connection to the ideas of eugenics and imperialism in that its creation is directly linked to the mind-set that sees certain races and peoples as inferior. Indeed, in the case of certain Jewish sects like Chabad Lubavitch or the white nationalism of the WASP Establishment, supremacy is a natural disposition. Though regulated immigration may be a logical and necessary step, since much of the present mess has been produced by Western neo-imperialsm, there is also a camouflaged bigotry hitching a ride on a resurgence of nationalism. Some of these protests against immigrants are drawn from xenophobic fear, often drawn from an uneasy fusion of nationalism which harbours confused assumptions about the despoliation of the gene pool as well as a chosen ignorance of what leads to mass immigration. Cultural and ecological purity can reinforce each other increasing underlying prejudice based on spurious science.

Similarly, even though the causes of homosexuality have generally been accepted to stem from environmental and hormonal changes in the foetus and infant life, this hasn’t stopped some gay scientists from trying to locate a “gay gene” in an attempt to afford a stronger legal foundation for gay rights based on the illogicality of a sexual orientation that is biologically predetermined. Eugenics author Nancy Ordover believes that not only is such gay gene-searching scientifically flawed it creates a backlash that reinforces the legitimacy of eugenics within more conservative anti-immigration practices and theories of collective intelligence. She quotes George Mosse describing racism as a “scavenger ideology” “… that posits the differences between race and peoples as immutable.” Ordover sees eugenics in the same light: “… exploiting and reinforcing anxieties over race, gender, sexuality and class and bringing them into service of nationalism, white supremacy and heterosexism – not for the first time, but under a new phraseology.” [6]

Though not all calls for curbs on immigration can be linked to such thinking by any means. For instance, there are compelling studies to suggest that multiculturalism and diversity is not always what its cracked up to be due, in part, to the unnatural socio-economic policies enforced upon foreign populations. (See: The Diversity Illusion from a UK perspective). Conversely, there are many groups who use it as a means to inject their ill-informed beliefs regarding race and culture. What results is a Gordian knot of confused thinking which is gaining ground. If immigration is questioned the reflex from the more conservative or republican voters is to cheer accordingly, while those on the left will leap to the defence of those pushing for an open gates policy on immigration as a matter of principle, which is neither practical or sensible. A medium must be found between the two poles which is the last thing the eugenicist mind would like, since the vast majority of humanity is surplus to requirements and any culling of the excess population is desirable whether for ecological and/ or genetic reasons. It is the Elite psychopaths vs. ordinary people that define the real issues at stake and being a genetic minority, a more fertile ground for the propagation of their genetic dominance is an underlying objective.

United_States_eugenics_advocacy_poster

U.S. eugenics poster advocating for the removal of genetic “defectives” such as the insane, “feeble-minded” and criminals, and supporting the selective breeding of “high-grade” individuals, c. 1926

450px-Wir_stehen_nicht_allein

Wir stehen nicht allein: “We do not stand alone”. Nazi propaganda poster from 1936, supporting Nazi Germany’s 1933 Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring (their compulsory sterilization law). The couple is in front of a map of Germany, surrounded by the flags of nations, including the United States, which had enacted (to the left) or were considering (bottom and to the right) similar legislation. (wikipedia)

Eugenics and anti-immigration started off as strong partners and still are in the minds of the Establishment, though perhaps for different reasons for the average man in the street who has good reason to view present immigration quotas as wildly unrealistic. The Immigration Restriction League was an American organisation that was the first to officially align itself to eugenics in 1894. A product of an initiative by Founded in Harvard University graduates, their principles included the prohibition of “inferior” races from entering America and interfering with what they saw as a racial purity of an American Anglo-Saxon racial stock. This meant that sexual relationships with those whom they considered less evolved (using strictly Dawinist purview) and those whom were therefore “uncivilised” was deemed a great threat to the white American race. By the turn of the 19th Century America was set to embrace eugenics with a passion.

Many socialists and members of the American Progressive Movement jumped aboard the eugenics train relieved to find a seemingly scientific basis for their romantic (though fascistic) ideo logy. For some, there was a slight hitch with this initial enthusiasm when they realised the Nazi Third Reich was riding along with them in the same carriage. It was 1930’s America and its sterilization program that would inspire Hitler to take this experimentation further, with the help of US industrialists. Later as we have seen, US intelligence would mop up the mess and incorporate the Nazi intelligentsia into what would become the National Security State. American eugenicist Madison Grant coined the term “Nordic race” as a generic racial stock descriptor for the pinnacle of eugenic advancement and later appropriated as yet another Teutonic ideal by the Reich. During the 1920s–30s, this blonde, blue-eyed, Nordic ideal gained ground and the German Society for Racial Hygiene was founded in 1905. Public health became integrated with eugenic principles leading to the implementation of selective breeding and compulsory sterilization.

Edwin Black, author of War and Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race (2003) provides clear evidence that American corporate philanthropy elevated this pseudo-science to a degree that allowed the institutionalisation of race politics to become national policy. The Harriman railroad fortune, our friends at the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institution – in combination with systematic academic fraud – were all enthusiastically involved. This led to the imposition of eugenics legislation in 27 states, mandated as lawful and constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The notion of “race and blood” became popularised by Stanford University President David Starr Jordan in his 1902 treatise Blood of a Nation in which he claimed that human qualities and conditions such as talent and poverty were passed through the blood. Inspired by Starr Jordan and many others rising up to push forward the eugenics agenda two years later a laboratory was created at Cold Spring Harbour on Long Island. The Carnegie Institution was busy creating a vast stockpile of index cards on ordinary Americans while floating ideas as to how they could instigate methods by which they could remove “… families bloodlines and whole peoples.” Legislatures, social services and associations became hot-beds of pressure from eugenics advocates. Meanwhile, over in New York many charities and organisations such as the New York Bureau of Industries and Immigration was busy rooting out Italian, Jewish and other immigrants across many states in various cities with a view to deportation, confinement or forced sterilisation. All of this was paid for by the Harriman Railroad fortune company.

1280px-SOU_1929_14_Betänkande_med_förslag_till_steriliseringslag_s_57_Laughlin

A map from a Swedish royal commission report displays the U.S. states that had implemented sterilization legislation by 1929. (wikipedia)

Black discovered that the families identified: “so-called defective family trees and subject[ed] them to legislated segregation and sterilization programs,” along with the sporadic practice of “doctor-organized euthanasia”. [7] This was inflicted on predominantly “… poor people, brown-haired white people, African-Americans, immigrants, Indians, Eastern Europeans, the infirm and really anyone classified outside the superior genetic lines drawn up by American raceologists.” Black alerts us to the little known fact that “60,000 Americans were coercively sterilized – legally and extra-legally” with the tacit support of America’s most progressive figures.[8]

By the end of the 1920s eugenics was entrenched in the Establishment and seen as the answer to the perceived immigration and social deterioration of Anglo-Saxon “pure stock”. Even the US Supreme Court took on the eugenics cause. 1927 was the year when 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.” [9]Black’s research confirmed that: “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’ words in their own defense.” Such statements were to play a crucial part in the thought processes of Adolf Hitler for whom the world of eugenics had been thoroughly digested prior to the completion of Mein Kampf in 1924.

He wrote:

“There is today one state in which at least a weak beginning toward a better conception is noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the American Union, in which an effort is made to consult reason at least partially. By refusing immigration on principle to elements in poor health, by simply excluding certain races from naturalization, it professes in slow beginnings a view which is peculiar to the folkish state concept. The folkish state divides its inhabitants into three classes: citizens, subjects, and foreigners.” [10]

This brings us back to a form of National Socialism which, as mentioned previously seems to dominate the fabric of politics in the United States and Europe – minus the regalia. Rather than Germany being the cause of such ponerology it was in fact, within the United States that eugenics was allowed to run free to later emerge as Nazi fuelled mind control experiments under Dr. Ewan McGregor and the CIA. Germany was not only supported by US corporations but by a distinctly American class of eugenicists later supporting the Third Reich and their allopathic medical paradigm involving drugs, surgery and radiation.

The Warburg family’s German chemical company I.G. Farben had extremely close ties to Rockefeller’s Standard Oil. So much so that one could almost see them as one financial entity operating wholly in the Nazi interest. It was for this reason that the business continued throughout the war despite Roosevelt’s legal attempts to try and stop the stop the Standard-I.G. Farben cartel from supplying, assisting and profiting from the enemy war machine. I.G. Farben would expand its operations during the war using slave labour from concentration camps to extract gasoline from coal. No prosecutions were ever brought to bear against any of the participants.

While John D. Rockefeller’s vast wealth was used to promote psychiatric genetics in the US, medical teaching was comprehensively reorganized in Germany via the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry and the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Eugenics and Human Heredity, based in Munich. Chosen by the family to act as Chief Executive for these institutions Swiss psychiatrist Ernst Rudin took on the role with assistants Dr. Franz J. Kallmann, Otmar Verschuer and the soon to be notorious Dr. Josef Mengele.

201px-IG_Farben_Logo_001.svg

I.G. Farbenindustrie AG | Created December 25, 1925-1952 (liquidation started) 31 October 2012 (liquidation accomplished) (wikipedia)

Rudin had long been interested in racial hygiene and Social Darwinism from his brother-in-law Alfred Ploetz. By 1932 Rudin had secured his position as head of the International Eugenics Movement with the seal of approval from British Eugenicists. A year later, Rudin’s career had taken a stratospheric leap forward upon his appointment by Hitler and the Task Force of Heredity Experts formed by SS Chief Heinrich Himmler. It was in July of that year that the sterilization law came into being thanks to Rockefeller funding and the existing American model of race laws.

In 1936, the half-Jewish Dr. Franz Kallmann immigrated to the United States increasingly worried for his safety. Once there, he established the Medical Genetics Department of the New York State Psychiatric Institute. Like so many often German-Jewish, Nazi psychiatrists, psychologists and scientists, the seeds of German and American Nazism became mixed and implanted in the pre-war political framework, which would only increase by the end of the 1940s.

Meanwhile, during 1943 Dr. Joseph Mengele’s responsibility had increased having been made medical officer of Auschwitz-Birkenau’s “Gypsy (Romani) camp,” where I.G. Farben had recently built its huge coal to gasoline factory with easy access to camp inmates. Otmar Verschuer, now director of Rockefeller’s Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin, managed to secure funds from the German Research Council for Mengele to conduct experiments on prison camp inmates. Research on twins was and always is a key component of genetic research. Mengele’s victims had a high quota of twins amongst them who were subjected to some of the most systematic horror ever devised in the name of science. The doctor would scan the new prisoner arrivals with other SS physicians where it was determined who would be retained for work, possible experimentation or who would be killed. “He would wade through the incoming prisoners shouting Zwillinge heraus! (Twins out!),Zwillinge heraustreten! (Twins step forward!) with – according to an assistant he recruited – “such a face that I would think he’s mad”.[11]

Mengele’s experiments are renowned for their sadistic brutality. Survivors tell of his apparent kindness towards children offering them chocolate and befriending them with soothing words and fatherly smiles, yet: “He would also kill them without hesitation, sometimes administering injections to the children or shooting them himself, and would dissect them immediately afterwards. On one evening alone he killed 14 twins.” [12] “Once Mengele’s assistant rounded up 14 pairs of Roma twins during the night. Mengele placed them on his polished marble dissection table and put them to sleep. He then injected chloroform into their hearts, killing them instantly. Mengele then began dissecting and meticulously noting each piece of the twins’ bodies.” [13]

Freie_Universitaet_Berlin_-_Otto-Suhr-Institut_-_Gebaeude_Ihnestrasse_22_-_einst_KWI-Institut

Former Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Racial Hygiene, at the Free University of Berlin, as it is today.

There were experimental blood transfusions, removal of organs and limbs, sometimes without anaesthetic; women were sterilized; injections into eyes were carried out to see if eye colour could be manipulated; men were castrated; shock treatment was carried out and vivisection on pregnant women. Thousands were murdered and “scientific data” sent to Verschuer and the Rockefeller group at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute. In truth, science played no part in Mengele’s butchery only the opportunity of a sadistic psychopath to indulge his bloodlust, a microcosm of so many within the Reich itself. And what is more, Rockefeller funding helped to make it all possible.

Dr. Franz Kallmann became director of the Rockefeller’s American Eugenics Society (AES) in 1952 and from 1954 to 1965, and assisted in the creation the American Society of Human Genetics which would later lead to the “Human Genome Project.” Dr. Otmar Verschuer was also a member of the AES until his death in 1969 having successfully made the transition from Nazi eugenicist to genetic researcher after the war, as did so many of his colleagues.

The drive for eugenics research, while perhaps not harbouring the extremes of psychopathic savagery witnessed during the War is nonetheless alive and well under the auspices of many foundations and organisations like the Rockefeller’s American Eugenics Society (closely affiliated to the Population Council) which changed its name in 1972 to: “Society for the Study of Social Biology” and then again in 2012 to: “Society of Biodemography and Social Biology (SBSB) in a bid to distance itself from its Social Darwinist past.

In 1968 the leader of the AES Frederick Osborn wrote: “Eugenic goals are most likely to be attained under another name than eugenics.” Thus, the movement as a whole has been trying to disassociate themselves from the events of history ever since but their perception regarding “racial hygiene” remains exactly the same. [14]

 

See also: James Corbett’s video series on Big Oil. Part 2 has extensive research on eugenics:

 


Notes

[1] ‘World’s first GM babies born’ The Daily Mail, June 27, 2012.
[2] Eugenics: Unified Medical Language System (Psychological Index Terms) National Library of Medicine, 26 Sep. 2010.
[3] ‘Eugenics and the Nazis: The California Connection’ by Edwin Black, The San Francisco Chronicle, 2003.
[4] Ibid.
[5] ‘Everyday Eugenics’ By Betsy Hartmann, ZSpace September 22, 2006.
[6] p.207; American Eugenics Race, Queer Anatomy, and the Science of Nationalism By Nancy Ordover, Published by Univ Of Minnesota Press; 1 edition, 2003.
[7] ‘We Must Keep Eugenics Away From Genetics’ By Edwin Black, newsday.com, October 15, 2003.
[8] op. cit. Black.
[9] 274 U.S. 200, at 207, Justia.com U.S. Supreme Court Center.
[10] p.361; Mein Kampf By Adolph Hitler 1925 / Elite Minds, Incorporated; original official NSDAP english translation edition 1940 edition (14 April 2009).
[11] ‘What Made This Man? Mengele’ The New York Times. July 21, 1985.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Bülow, Louis. ‘Josef Mengele, Angel of Death’ | http://www.auschwitz.dk/Mengele.htm
[14] http://www.usc.edu/dept/gero/sssb/|‘Everyday Eugenics’ By Betsy Hartmann Zmag, 2006.

 


For a more esoteric overview of depopulation and eugenics see: Mark Passio – The Unholy Feminine – Neo-Feminism & The Satanic Epi-Eugenics Agenda

Save