Digital Evolution and Genocide (part 4)

Charles Darwin and Eugenics

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, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. 'Anthropological Review,' April 1867, p.236.), 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.
from The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin (1870).

Francis Galton's work would be no more than an intellectual curiosity of the nineteenth century like the study of phrenology had he not gained the support of Charles Darwin. He did gain that support and consequently those who, like me, wish to challenge eugenics must consider Darwin. It is because eugenicsts have, and know they have, Darwin's support and that of his theory, that they persist in their efforts. And it is because eugenicists have this support that fundamentalist Christians have opposed Darwinism throughout the Twentieth century. When they saw that "science" or eugenics was opposed to Christian morality, they took their stand with Christ. Without their efforts eugenics would have triumphed long ago. But perhaps a theory of digital evolution might heal this dispute between science and morality.

The essence of the union between the ideas of Darwin and Galton is in the quote above. It is a statement of what I call analog evolution, evolution without jumps. In analog evolution, man is not a separate species but a population strung out as it were between the apes from whom he emerged and super-duper man who will emerge from man as man emerged from the apes. Within the human population group, there are groups closer to the ape ancestors and these are "the Negro or Australian". There are also groups closer to super-duper man, one of which "the Caucasian". The "civilised races of man", the Caucasians and others, will "almost certainly exterminate" the savage, especially the Africana and the Australian Bushmen. Thus eugenicists have Darwin's authority for linking the genocide of races to natural selection, the prime mover of evolution.

And they have Darwin's authority for thinking that the birthrate of the inferior should be decreased by anyone interested in social evolution. In the Descent of Man, Darwin said:

A most important obstacle in civilised countries to an increase in
the number of men of a superior class has been strongly insisted on by
Mr. Greg and Mr. Galton,* namely, the fact that the very poor and
reckless, who are often degraded by vice, almost invariably marry
early, whilst the careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise
virtuous, marry late in life, so that they may be able to support
themselves and their children in comfort. Those who marry early
produce within a given period not only a greater number of
generations, but, as shewn by Dr. Duncan,*(2) they produce many more
children. The children, moreover, that are borne by mothers during the
prime of life are heavier and larger, and therefore probably more
vigorous, than those born at other periods. Thus the reckless,
degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at
a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. ...
[If the "inferior' have a higher birth rate then] In the eternal 'struggle
for existence,' it would be the inferior and less favoured race that ...
prevailed- and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults."
(Ch. 5, The Descent of Man)
... The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all
ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their
children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own
increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. On the other hand, as Mr.
Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless
marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society.
(Ch. 21 The Descent of Man)

I present these quotes to show that the eugenicists are entitled to claim that Darwin and his theory have supported their project from the beginning. - that he would have supported the Myrdal plan. The major evolutionary theorists of this century, Ronald Fisher, Julian Huxley, Sewall Wright, Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer and Ernst Mayr have all been eugenic society members so that current Darwinian theory supports eugenics. Or, to put it another way, they have all thought that evolution was analog, gradual, without jumps.

In considering the support for eugenics coming from Darwin and his theory as modernised, we can take several different approaches. We can say, for instance, that we do not know enough to take evolution into our own hands. We can ban eugenics as a social project - ban it from government support, at least, and give government support those targeted by eugenicists. There are good historical reasons for banning eugenics; it was the root of the Nazi race ideology. Or we can say that we cannot know the consequences of any attempt to favor one gene over another so there is really no such thing as scientific eugenics. We can also ask whether evolution is digital, happens in jumps, is not gradual. A digital evolution does not support eugenics.

(to be continued)

Digital Evolution and Genocide (part 1)

"If the Negro could be eliminated from America or greatly decreased in numbers, this would meet the white's approval ... all possible policies ... to decrease the Negro population are blocked ... except birth control ... birth control facilities could be extended relatively more to Negroes than to whites" An American Dilemma, Gunnar Myrdal and Arnold Rose (1944)

A plan was developed by Gunnar Myrdal and Arnold Rose in 1944 to commit a genocide against the African-Americans; the plan became a conspiracy, the secret agenda of those highest in the population control movement; carried out because they believed in eugenics. Eugenics has its roots in the slave trade where Francis Galton's family made their money; it is strong because Charles Darwin gave it his support. A theory of evolution could be gradual or abrupt, analog or digital but only a gradual or analog theory of evolution like that of Darwin or the new synthetic theory of evolution offers eugenics support; current discoveries in biology support a digital theory of evolution like that proposed by Professor Irene Manton; the involvement of the richest foundations in America in the genocide plan not only began and keeps the genocide going but their grantmaking power suppresses the truth that evolution is digital and eugenics as false as it is cruel.

Part One
The story is of a conspiracy to commit genocide against the African-Americans. The plan was developed, written down and published by Gunnar Myrdal and Arnold Rose in the book, An American Dilemma (1944) in Chapter Seven. The book is widely distributed and anyone may find it and read Chapter Seven. Myrdal and Rose claimed in this chapter that American whites wanted a genocide against the African-Americans but were blocked by their value system - this was the dilemma. The two proposed a solution, saying:

"If the Negro could be eliminated from America or greatly decreased in numbers, this would meet the white's approval ... all possible policies ... to decrease the Negro population are blocked ... except birth control ... [In America there are] valuations centered on the health and happiness of the individual parents and children ... the full possibilities of these latter valuations [centered on individual health and happiness] in permitting a birth control policy in America have not yet been fully realised ... Under their sanction birth control facilities could be extended relatively more to Negroes than to whites since Negroes are more concentrated in the lower income and education classes... even an extreme birth control program is warranted [among African-Americans]... by reasons of individual and social welfare"

Arnold and Rose admit elsewhere in the book that they had no real evidence that American whites wanted a genocide - one assumes those they knew wanted one.

AS we see, the plan was to use the the increased African-American access to medicine which would be a consequence of civil rights by presenting access to birth control as health and a quality-of-life issue. This apparently harmless action would result in African-Americans using birth control disproportionately without coercion. And that would result - as planned - in a genocide.

This plan was carried into action in the Fifties and Sixties by the leaders in the field of constitutional interpretation and population control who had worked on An American Dilemma (Chapter Seven), and knew the plan. The most important of these were Arnold Rose for Constitutional interpretation) and Frederick Osborn, Frank Notestein and Dudley Kirk of the Population Council. Their chief agents were John D. Rockefeller III, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America plus eugenic society members.

Arnold Rose developed a theory of constitutional interpretation which holds that the law makes the people - and social scientists (the ss) make the law by telling judges what the people should be. Rose's theory was first applied in Brown v. Board of Education - the great desegregation decision. Naturally I support desegregation - it is the way the operative decision was reasoned out and the consequences of allowing that kind of reasoning that I am commenting on. For it has been well said: "this is the last and greatest treason - to do the right deed for the wrong reason". The result was to burnish the civil rights credentials of Arnold Rose and his type of reasoning. Then this reasoning was used to further the genocide. The real significance of the theory was that it allowed a tiny group to override the people, their laws, their legislatures and even the Constitution. Only nine men had to be persuaded that they were brilliant an progressive and any law imaginable could be "emananted."

Those who were interested in trying to persuade judges to overthrow the Constitution so there could be a genocide were eugenicists. We will discuss them in more detail later; the key here is that eugenicists do not believe all men are created equal.

In the concrete case of the arguments made in the birth control cases we see a supreme piece of audacity - the the use of anti-eugenic Court decisions to further eugenics. They hit upon the happy idea of using the decisions against their previous plans in the field of reproduction - segregation laws, anti-miscegenation laws, sterilization laws - to shield the Myrdal plan. This was possible because the anti-eugenic decisions related to government-sponsored eugenic programs like coercive sterilization while the eugenicists did not want to work through government coercion - they had the Myrdal plan. Thus we find both Skinner v. Oklahoma and Love v. Virginia cited in Roe v. Wade. as precedents showing that the government is not supposed to interfer in reproductive decisions. It would have been more correct to say that the government is not supposed to sponsor eugenic programs fostering human inequality. No past decisions spoke to the constitutionality of the Myrdal plan but obviously if the government is not supposed to sponsor eugenic programs this does not mean it is precluded from defending its poorer citizens against them. Had the debate proceeded on those lines, had the true issues been debated, the debate and its outcome would have been different. As it was the eugenicists proceeded by way of the Supreme Court to strike down every right or protection in the field of reproduction except the one right needed for the genocide - unlimited access to all forms of birth control, unlimited rights to use them. The rights of the unborn, father rights, parental rights, the rights of minors to protection, medical responsibilities, individual responsibilities, community rights and responsibilities - all disappeared over a space of thirty years.

Next to Arnold Rose in importance in implementing the plan were Frederick Osborn, Frank Notesein and Dudley Kirk who founded and set the direction of the Population Council. The president of the Population Council in its early years was John D. Rockefeller III so it was untouchable and the Council became the most important organizing force in the early years of the field of population control. The direction it set was the direction others followed and the direction it set was to implement the Myrdal plan. The captain-general of iniquity was Frederick Osborn in his position as operational head of the Population Council at its founding (1952-59) while he was also President of the American Eugenics Society. He was followed as President of the Population Council (1959-68) by Frank Notestein, a director of the American Eugenics Society. Dudley Kirkwas head of the DEmographic Division of the Population Council from its inception in 1954 to 1967. These three had been associated with An American Dilemma, Chapter Seven and they worked to mould the approach taken by the Population Council so that it matched the prescriptions of the plan. Later entrants to the field, such as The Ford Foundation and the government took their cue from the Population Council thus ultimately fom Chapter Seven in An American Dilemma. All agreed that unrestricted unlimited access to various forms of birth control was a civil right necessary to improve quality of life - and this blinkered approach to human reproduction amounted to signing on to the plan. Planned Parenthood Federation of America was organized in 1942 by eugenicists like Margaret Sanger to improve the racial quality of the average American citizen. It or its physicians were involved in most of the Court cases on different birth control issues and it runs most of the "non-profit" birth control or abortion clinics in or near African-American areas.

There would have been changes in the birth control laws just as there would have been changes in the civil rights laws. It is due to the eugenicists, Osborn, Notestein, Kirk and the PPFA leaders like Margaret Sanger, that the changes were knotted together into a genocide.

And the plan is working. From the start African-Americans used birth control disproportionatley. When they were 11 percent of the population they were 24 percent of the abortions. This percentage has climbed; they are now 34 percent of all abortions and the figure is still rising. In the District of Columbia 65 percent of the children conceived to African-Americans are aborted. I have been told that African - Americans are only 5 percent of the US population under the age of five. If this is true, in a sense, the genocide has already happened.

The problem is that the African-American family structure has been shattered. Children aren't wanted. No nation, tribe, clan, race - no group can survive not wanting and not having children. Extinction is just a question of time. Only the churches could pull African-Americans back from the abyss but they have tied their fortunes to that section of the Democratic party which hates both religion and the family. It's a question of values. Only the churches in today's world have the values that build families but African-Americans are politically tied to a left ideology that loathes churches, values and families. Men and women are not "breeders" and will not have children unless they see a value in it. That won't come from left-oriented groups.
(to be continued)
This post was published first but fell off this blog somehow. So now it's out of order. Sorry, I'm new at this)

Digital Evolution and Genocide (part 2)

So far
A plan to commit a genocide against African-Americans was devised by Gunnar Myrdal and Arnold Rose and implemented by eugenicists (Osborn, Notestein, Kirk, Sanger, Guttmacher) supported by John D. Rockefeller III (JDR I and II were eugenic society members). They used the power of money and position aided by deception to push the plan through and hold it in place. We need to understand eugenics or else when we get rid of the Myrdal plan it will be replaced by another as the Nazi plan was replaced by the Myrdal plan.

Understanding Eugenics - Notes Toward a True History

Eugenics was founded by Francis Galton (1822-1911) an Englishman who inherited a great fortune from slave-trading, slum-building, Quaker, arms-manufacturing forbears. He had no need to work and it seems, passed his time revolving in his mind his family's greatness which he became convinced was an hereditary possession passed on like money. In 1870 he published Hereditary Genius in which he advanced the thesis that mental and moral qualities were material and hereditary therefore subject to those laws of evolution which his cousin Charles Darwin had revealed in 1859. Galton also alleged and tried to prove with charts and tables that human society was dominated and advanced by the hereditary genius pooled by natural selection in certain families. The Cecils, for example, has political talent, the Darwin/Galtons scientific talent, the Herschels a talent for astronomy and so on. A careful breeding program, said Galton, could in a very few generations lift an average family into the ranks of the bright galaxy of talent that ruled the world. His own had so risen. It followed that social improvement could be achieved by increasing the numbers of descendants of "good" families and decreasing the number of descendants of "bad" families. The descendants of slaves came from families with an inherited mental and moral tendency toward being slaves so the fewer there were of them the better of society would be. In the 1880's these ideas - encouraging the good to have children, discouraging the bad from reproducing their inferior kind - became a social program called eugenics. This program became organized in 1906 when the English Eugenics Society was formed. The history is complicated but the parallel group in America, the American Eugenics Society, was not formed until 1921. Other groups were, however, advancing the eugenic agenda much earlier than this, the most important being the Eugenic Records Office, sponsored by Harriman money and located at Cold Spring Harbor, New York. This was shut down in 1939 and its records and personnel dispersed. (to other locations run by eugenicists like the Dight Institute in Minneapolis) The ERO story is well known and information about it is readily available on the net - the present Cold Spring Harbor biological study laboratory taking the lead in explicating and repudiating the shameful past in which the Eugenics Records Office at Cold Spring Harbor worked for coercive government sponsored eugenics.

The activities of eugenicists had led by 1939 to segregation, anti-miscegenation, and sterilization laws which in turn were provoking constitutional challenges. The activities of the Nazi party which included implementating eugenic ideas directly copied from the United States were also causing resistance in the United States, even among eugenicists.

By 1937 leading eugenicists, including Frederick Osborn, had concluded that nothing short of Nazi methods could carry out a government-sponsored coercive eugenic policy and the Nazi policies, they thought, were incompatible with the continued existence of American democracy. How then to get rid of the inferior? This was the "American dilemma" which Gunnar Myrdal and his henchman, Rose, sought to solve. Their solution was, as we have seen, to use "social marketing" or propaganda in place of government coercion. This strategy was followed by post-war eugenicists led by Frederick Osborn.

The overall policy was called crypto-eugenics because it worked for hidden goals through front groups which were dominated by eugenicists, groups like the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. And because the American Eugenics Society aka the Society for the Study of Social Biology has not published a list of members since 1954 the dominance of eugenicists in fields such as population control and scientific racism is not known. If you knew who was a member, you would know that the assertion that African-Americans have a genetic IQ deficit as alleged in books like The Bell Curve, comes from eugenic society members - Cyril Burt, Arthur Jensen, Hans Eysenck, Chris Brand and others. One of the reasons for rejecting scientific racism is that it is not scientific - its supporters are a small group with an hidden agenda supporting each others research - with reviews, with letters to the newspapers, with promotions of each other and of each others favored students to positions in universities and on research facilities - but without acknowledging their common membership in the eugenics societies. Science is not forwarded by the secret agenda of a secret group whose members' careers are closely related to the careers of other members. And the careers of non-members could be affected, often very adversely, by the secrecy of this group since one of the true criteria for promotion and for obtaining research grants for those who work under a secret eugenics society member - and members have been department heads at Harvard, Berkeley, Cambridge and the Rockefeller University - would not be understood by non-eugenicists.

Society, too, is damaged by the policy of crypto-eugenics. The eugenics societies are constantly sponsoring social initiatives to forward their ideology. They do this in an organized way so that if you know the eugenic society officers and directors are at a given time, you know what campaign is being sponsored. So, for instance, in the Fifties and Sixties while Osborn, Notestein, Kirk and Alan Guttmacher were eugenics society leaders we see the push to legalize all forms of birth control in a certain way. In the Nineties a group of directors were concerned with obesity and their work led to a redefinition of obesity which led to an "epidemic of obesity". Another group, in power in the year 2000, was concerned with old age, holding that the ability to be a citizen, including the ability to vote without confusion, declined with age. (Euthanasia will never be introduced as long as the old can vote.) A group presently in power is concerned with "relationships", asking such questions as: what is marriage? what is the difference between marriage and living together? what is the difference between a man and a woman living together and a man and a man living together? and so on.

These campaigns are organized so as to appear to be the work of diverse groups with diverse goals. Since real goals, real issues and real consequences are often not debated, the policies adopted reflect eugenic goals more than the goals of other parties with more legitimate aims behind whom the eugenicists are hiding, as in the case of the debates on birth control. In my opinion democracy is damaged by this kind of secrecy.

These are principles and facts without which any discussion of the history of eugenics will be fatally crippled. I think this way because I developed a very extensive list of eugenic society members using lists in their archives and the published names of their officers and directors. This list which includes member activities is on the web in various versions, some earlier and less complete, under the name "Eugenics Watch".

What is the philosophy behind the history of eugenics?

The eugenicists supported segregation, the Tuskegee syphilis study, scientific racism and the Myrdal plan for a genocide against African-Americans. They also at various times have gone for the Jewish- and Irish-Americans but of all the policies aimed at by eugenicists it is the policies aimed at those of African descent which are the most persistent and the most deadly. This is not accidental. Francis Galton's family was immersed in the slave trade whose basic justification at all times and places is: the slaves are different in nature.

(to be continued)

Digital Evolution and Genocide (part 3)

What is the philosophy behind the history of eugenics?

The basic philosophy of eugenics is: all men are not created equal. This philosophy was basic to the slave trade in which the many-branched Galton family was immersed.

Galton's family sold guns to the slave trade; these guns were exchanged for slaves. Calculations are complex but it quite conservative to say that the family was in the trade from 1725 to 1804 selling 600 guns a month at the rate of three per slave thus participating in 189,000 separate acts of enslavement.

The family also had shares in slave ships - The Unity in 1731 and 1732; the Seaflower in 1733 and 1734, the Palmtree in 1743, the King of Sardinia in 1746 and 1748, the Anson in 1748, the Priscilla in 1748 and 1750, the Emperor in 1752, the Cape Coast in 1757, the Kingston in 1759, the Africa in 1774, disembarking a total of 4504 slaves. I say disembarking, because 825 people died on the way.

The family owned slaves. Joseph Farmer owned slaves as a shareholder in the Principio Company from 1720 to 1725. This Maryland iron making company owned slaves. The Dickinson family owned hundreds of slaves on three Jamaica plantations from 1700 to 1810. William Archibald Douglas owned two slaves when he died in 1799.

The family made up cargoes for slave ships. In 1746 they brought a case in Chancery to recover L54,000 advanced in cargoes for slave ships for which they had not been paid. This is no less than the value of 732 slaves.

This information is based on David Eltis, The Transatlantic Slave Trade, the archives of the Galton family at A2A and the pedigree of the Galton family.

Francis Galton was born in 1822 while the slave trade ended in England in 1805. He is not responsible for what his ancestors did but the evidence is that he accepted their attitude as well as their money.

In 1857 he wrote to the Times:
"Sir, I do not join in the belief that the African is our equal in brain or in herat; I do not think the average negro cares for his liberty as much as an Englishman ... and I believe that if we can in any fair way possess ourselves of his services we have an equal right to utilize them to our best advantage [as the state has to conscript soldiers or parents to apprentice children] ... if we can by any legitimite or even quasi-legitimite means possess ourselves of a right to their services ... and if we can insure that our mastership will elevate them and not degrade them, by all means work them well ...[a section of the letter describes how the slave trade disrupts society]... as to how they are to be got ... by watching the turn of events and taking advantage of great national suffering such as the Caffirs are now laboring under, we may succeeed in deporting vast numbers of Africans to colonies where they will do us good service...

In 1879 he wrote another letter to the Times which the Times headed as "Africa for the Chinese.

"Sir .. My proposal is to make the encouragement of the Chinese settlements at one or more suitable places on the East Coast of Africa a part of our national policy, ... they would multiply and their descendants supplant the inferior Negro race. I should expect the large part of the African seaboard, now sparsely occupied by lazy, palavering savages living under the nominal sovereignty of the Zanzibar, or Portugal, might in a few years be tenanted by industrious, order loving Chinese, ... there are notorious instances of negroes possessing high intelligence and culture, some of whom acquire large fortunes in commerce, and others become considerable men in other walks of life. The truth appears to be that individuals of the mental caliber I have just described are much more exceptional in the negro than in the Anglo-Saxon race, and that average negroes possess too little intellect, self-reliance, and self-control to make it possible for them to sustain the burden of any respectable form of civilization without a large measure of external guidance and support.... The history of the world tells a tale of the continual displacement of populations, each by a worthier successor, and humanity gains thereby. ... The gain would be immense to the whole civilized world if [in Africa, the Chinese] were to out-breed and finally displace the negro, as completely as the latter has displaced the aborigines of the West Indies.
These letters are on the web in facsimile at Galton. org.

Francis Galton absorbed his family's justification for the slave trade and it was as important to him as it was to them. They used it to defend their commercial practices; he used it as basis for a proposed philsophy of social life. But Galton was not a man who would have left a mark on the world. He was a bit of a blockhead as I think comes through even in the abbreviated letters above. Unfortunately for the world, Galton's cousin, Charles Darwin, was "converted" to his philosophy by reading Hereditary Genius in 1870. Darwin used Galton's ideas in the The Descent of Man, his book on the relationship between man and evolution. He used those ideas, crucially, to describe the effects of natural selection in advanced societies.
(to be continued)