Letters from Vienna #102
When tracing the origins of the eugenics movement, which currently dominates the world stage, one possible starting point is: “The blood of the nation, A study of the decay of races through the survival of the unfit,” by Jordan David Starr (1851 – 1931). Starr, who studied botany at university, was the founding president of Stanford University and before that (between 1884 and 1891) he served as president of Indiana University.
“The blood of a nation determines its history” Starr wrote in 1902, while “the history of a nation determines its blood.”
“Those who are alive to-day are the resultants of the stream of heredity as modified by the vicissitudes through which the nation has passed. The blood of the nation flows in the veins of those who survive.”
“It is the “man who is left” in the march of history who gives to history its future trend. By the “man who is left” we mean simply the man who remains at home to become the father of the family as distinguished from the man who in one way or another is sacrificed for the nation’s weal or woe.”
“A race of men or a herd of cattle are governed by the same laws of selection. Those who survive inherit the traits of their own actual ancestry. In the herd of cattle, to destroy the strongest bulls, the fairest cows, the most promising calves, is to allow those not strong nor fair nor promising to become the parents of the coming herd. Under this influence the herd will deteriorate, although the individuals of the inferior herd are no worse than their own actual parents. Such a process is called race-degeneration, and it is the only race- degeneration known in the history of cattle or men. The scrawny, lean, infertile herd is the natural offspring of the same type of parents. On the other hand, if we sell or destroy the rough, lean, or feeble calves, we shall have a herd descended from the best.”
What we are currently experiencing is the destruction of the “rough, lean, or feeble”.
“In selective breeding with any domesticated animal or plant, it is possible, with a little attention, to produce wonderful changes for the better. Almost anything may be accomplished with time and patience. To select for posterity those individuals which best meet our needs or please our fancy, and to destroy those with unfavorable qualities, is the function of artificial selection. Add to this the occasional crossing of unlike forms to promote new and desirable variations, and we have the whole secret of selective breeding. This process Youatt calls the “magician’s wand” by which man may summon up and bring into existence any form of animal or plant useful to him or pleasing to his fancy.”
“In the animal world, progress comes mainly through selection, natural or artificial, the survival of the fittest to become the parent of the new generation. In the world of man similar causes produce similar results. The word “progress” is, however, used with a double meaning, including the advance of civilization as well as race improvement. The first of these meanings is entirely distinct from the other. The results of training and education lie outside the scope of the present discussion. By training the force of the individual man is increased. Education gives him access to the accumulated stores of wisdom built up from the experience of ages. The trained man is placed in a class relatively higher than the one to which he would belong on the score of heredity alone. Heredity carries with it possibilities for effectiveness. Training makes these possibilities actual. Civilization has been defined as “the sum total of those agencies and conditions by which a race may advance independently of heredity.” But while education and civilization may greatly change the life of individuals, and through them that of the nation, these influences are spent on the individual and the social system of which he is a part. So far as science knows, education and training play no part in heredity. The change in the blood which is the essence of race-progress, as distinguished from progress in civilization, finds its cause in selection only.”[1]
Another proponent of the philosophy of eugenics was the president of the International Planned Parenthood Federation: Margaret Sanger (1879-1966), who opined: “Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives. So, in compliance with nature’s working plan, we must permit womanhood its full development before we can expect of it efficient motherhood. If we are to make racial progress, this development of womanhood must precede motherhood in every individual woman. Then and then only can the mother cease to be an incubator and be a mother indeed. Then only can she transmit to her sons and daughters the qualities which make strong individuals and, collectively, a strong race.”[2]
For her the task of government was “to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring….[and] to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.”[3]
“As an advocate of birth control,” she once wrote, “I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the “unfit” and the “fit,” admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the overfertility of the mentally and physically defective.”[4]
“Our immigration laws” she argued “forbid the entrance into this country of paupers, insane, feeble-minded and diseased people from other lands. Why not extend the idea and discourage the bringing to birth these same types within our borders. Let us stop reproducing and perpetuation disease, insanity and ignorance. Stop these and other evils at their source by a national policy and education of birth control.”[5]
“In April 1933, Sanger was the editor of the Birth Control Review and published an article on sterilization by Dr. Ernst Rudin, a psychiatrist deeply involved in, and an advocate for, the Nazi sterilization program. In 1939 Sanger was honorary chairman of the Birth Control Federation of America when it published an article entitled “Birth Rates in Fascist Countries” that praised the German population control program: “Again, however, we must stress the fact that in a national program for human conservation institutional and voluntary sterilization are not enough; they do not reach those elements at large in the population whose children are a menace to the national health and well-being.”
“Reports in medical journals state that the indications laid down in the German law are being carefully observed. These are congenital feeble-mindedness; schizophrenia, circular insanity; heredity [sic] epilepsy; hereditary chorea (Huntington’s)’ hereditary blindness or deafness; grave hereditary bodily deformity and chronic alcoholism.”
“Surely everyone will agree that the children of parents so afflicted are no contribution to the nation for even if they do not inherit these defects they are children of parents so handicapped that life will give them little, owing to their necessarily bad environment.”
“There are 1,700 special courts and 27 higher courts in Germany to review the cases certified for sterilization there. The rights of the individual could be equally well safeguarded here, but in no case should the rights of society, of which he or she is a member, be disregarded.”[6]
Given that eugenics was tainted by the Nazis it’s hardly surprising that a change of name was needed[7] and, as Corbett points out: it would be foolhardy to ignore its influence today.[8]
As I’ve written before (see letter #54) this ideology is a key to understanding the ongoing Genocide by Jab. To quote Jacques Attali: “The future will be about finding a way to reduce the population. We start with the old, because as soon as they exceed 60-65 years people live longer than they produce and that costs society dearly. Then the weak, then the useless that do not help society because there will always be more of them, and above all, ultimately, the stupid…Euthanasia will have to be an essential tool in our future societies… Of course, we will not be able to execute people or build camps. We’ll get rid of them by making them believe that it is for their own good. Overpopulation, and mostly useless, is something that is too costly economically. Socially, too, it is much better when the human machine comes to an abrupt standstill than when it gradually deteriorates. Neither will we be able to test millions upon millions of people for their intelligence…We’ll find or cause something, a pandemic targeting certain people, a real economic crisis or not, a virus affecting the old or the fat, it doesn’t matter, the weak will succumb to it, the fearful and stupid will believe in it and seek treatment. We will have made sure that treatment is in place, treatment that will be the solution. The selection of idiots then takes care of itself: You go to the slaughter by yourself.”[9]
Once we understand the root philosophical, intellectual and moral cause of the current evil it’ll be much easier to weed it out. It is not merely Bill Gates etc. who are at fault but the very ideologies they live by.
[1] pp.7-16 The blood of the nation A study of the decay of races through the survival of the unfit, Jordan David Starr
[2] https://www.bartleby.com/1013/18.html
[3] https://www.angelafranks.com/margaret-sanger-and-planned-parenthood/2016/11/14/sanger-on-coerced-sterilization
[4] https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/health-nutrition/eugenic-value-birth-control-propaganda/
[5] “Stop Perpetuating the Unfit by a National Policy of Limitations of Families.” Published in “The New York American” December 28, 1921.
[6] https://all.org/margaret-sanger
https://podbay.fm/p/the-corbett-report-podcast/e/1200189600
[8]https://odysee.com/@Truthspreader:3/James-Corbett---Eugenics-is-the-heart-of-the-globalist-religion:2
[9] The future of life – Jacques Attali, 1981, Interviews with Michel Salomon, Les Visages de l’avenir collection, éditions Seghers
We all know that eugenics is problematic for ideological & political reasons. This is why the Eugenics Institute changed it's name to the Galton Institute: because eugenics is bad PR. But it is important to note that eugenics is seriously problematic on scientific grounds: it is based on basic misapprehensions of evolutionary theory which remain widespread. For example, many textbooks to this day cite the example of peppered moths (Biston betularia), which adapted to the sooty environment produced by the coal smoke of the industrial revolution by becoming black, such that to this day there exist black varieties of the pepper moth in Northern England; this is presented as evidence of Darwinian evolutionary selection, despite the fact that it demonstrates adaptation, NOT evolution: these moths are still pepped moths, they have not evolved, they have simply adapted (& are arguably no longer adapted to their relatively soot free environment today). Citing the peppered moth in this way is a textbook conflation, which presumes that because a phenomena well known from selective breeding (i.e., the selection of particular traits through controlled breeding) can be found "in nature," this proves that it is an "evolutionary" phenomena, which it does not. Another key distortion built into eugenics is the conflation of "race" (or nation, or population) with species. Eugenics theory posits race as analogous to species in a deeply misleading way, by suggesting that evolution occurs at the level of races within the species. We're all familiar with the way this notion lead to ideologically motivated racial dehumanization of groups in various contexts (e.g., blacks in the US, Jews in Nazi Germany). But this notion is also scientifically invalid: evolution occurs among species, not races, or any other sub-species groupings. The idea that it could is still a category error, whether it's called eugenics or transhumanism.
Thank you for correctly attributing the Attali quote to the interview with Salomon rather than Attali’s book.