January 3, 2009

The Legacy of Malthus : The Social Costs of the New Scientific Racism by Allan Chase

3 Comments

In the other book I read, In the Minds of Men by Ian T. Taylor, it talked about eugenics. I wanted to learn more about eugenics, so the librarian recommended me this book, The Legacy of Malthus : The Social Costs of the New Scientific Racism by Allan Chase.

[Francis] Galton’s next step to gaining acceptance by orthodox science was to coin the name “eugenics” from the Greek; the term means “well-born”. Here was the science to produce the utopian dream of a super-race to control tomorrow’s world. The dream began to be realized in 1901 with the founding of the Eugenics Education Society, based at the statistics department of University College, London. Galton lived to see the Eugenics Society eventually become a flourishing political movement, while the work on which it was all founded, the calipers and stopwatch (to measure reaction times) applied to the heads of idiots and criminals, was given scientific respectability in the professional journal Biometrika, founded and edited, of course, by Galton and [Karl] Pearson.
Before Galton died in 1911, some of the scientific community had evidently become convinced. He received many honors, including the Darwin and Wallace medal, the Copley medal, the Huxley medal, and a knighthood. However, divine retribution forbade that he should live to fulfill his own eugenic obligation. Scion of two prominent English families, married to the daughter of a third, Sir Francis Galton had died without issue. [1]

[Francis] Galton’s (1869) thesis is summed up in his statement, “to give the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable . . . the word eugenics would sufficiently express the idea” (p. 24). [2]

Malthus is that guy Thomas Malthus. He was talked about in the book In the Minds of Men by Ian T. Taylor. He’s the guy who was influenced by a made-up story about goats and dogs on an island. He also made-up data in his popular Essay on the Principle of Population. Malthus is best known for coming up with the myth that the planet can’t feed the population of people on it. So this book, The Legacy of Malthus, is about the legacy of the founding father of scientific racism, which is Thomas Malthus.

[Thomas Robert] Malthus would never have had a place in history had it not been for the publication, in 1798, of his Essay on the Principle of Population and the expanded version that appeared in five subsequent editions. Apart from the usual textbook explanations ([Diana] Simpkins 1974), the incident that inspired him to write the Essay in the first place is little known. According to [Karl] Polanyi (1957), Malthus received the following account, ascribed to Townsend by the French mathematician and revolutionary Condorcet. The scene is Robinson Crusoe’s island in the Pacific Ocean, off the coast of Chile. On this island Juan Fernandez landed a few goats to provide meat in case of future visits. The goats multiplied and became a convenient store of food for the privateers, mostly English, who were molesting Spanish trade. In order to destroy the food supply, the Spanish authorities landed a dog and a bitch which also, in the course of time, greatly multiplied and diminished the number of goats. “Then a new kind of balance was restored,” wrote Townsend. “The weakest of both species were among the first to pay the debt of nature; the most active and vigorous preserved their lives.” To which he added: “It is the quantity of food which regulated the number of human species.” Townsend then applied this principle to his suggested reform of the Poor Law. The Poor Law in England was instituted so that the poor should never go hungry, but also that they should be compelled to work. Townsend pointed out that the usual legal methods of compelling the poor to work were accompanied by much trouble, violence, and noise; “hunger will tame the fiercest animals” and, among the poor, “will teach them civility, obedience and subjection” while “goading them on to labour” (Polanyi 1957, 112). Fortunately for the British poor, Townsend’s reforms were never introduced, but Malthus became quite enthusiastic with this approach as we shall see.
The story of the goats and dogs certainly inspired thinkers like Malthus and later Charles Darwin, but as Polanyi points out, it was only a half-truth. Juan Fernandez duly landed the goats, but there is no record that the dogs were ever landed. Even if dogs had been landed, Polanyi argues, the goats inhabit inaccessible rocks while the beaches were teeming with fat seals—much more engaging prey for wild dogs. [3]

. . . it is seen that [Thomas Robert] Malthus contended that there is a discrepancy between the rate at which population multiplies and the rate at which sustenance for that population can increase. When he wrote his Essay in 1798 there was no real data to work from; the first national census in Britain was taken in 1801. But even the 1801 census data could not help, since this was a single event and could not be used to determine the rate of population growth. Malthus had actually based his vital formula on a selection of population figures taken at random from a variety of unreliable sources. He had made assumptions and approximations and juggled the figures until they came out neatly as the difference between a series of geometric and arithmetic progressions.
The increasing series of numerals, of course, appear very precise and scientific; after all, “figures cannot lie” or, to quote another source, “The mathematical basis for the Malthus argument is as certain as the multiplication table” ([Gertrude] Himmelfarb 1955, 55). It was quite impossible for Malthus to estimate how much land was totally or partially uncultivated, how much was fertile, and what it could produce in tons of food per acre, and so on. Even the time between generations was quite uncertain, so that the evidence to support his thesis was extremely speculative; all that can properly be said is that on paper, populations will tend to expand to fill the allotted space. That is not all, however. Not only was the evidence faulty and inconclusive but the very nature of the theory precludes the possibility of obtaining the evidence to prove it. If the population can never exceed the food supply, it can never be known that it is in fact the food supply that checks the population. For instance, other factors could check the population before the limit of the food supply is reached, and Malthus conceded “moral restraint” as one of these factors. [4]

. . . the Malthusian myth of a planet that lacked the natural resources required to feed its human inhabitants. [5]

The founding father of scientific racism, Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), the first professor of political economy in British university history, spelled out its purpose in the sixth edition (1826) of his famous Essay on the Principle of Population . . . [6]

The guy who came up with the name eugenics is Francis Galton, who’s a rich cousin of Charles Darwin. “[F]rom the Greek word for “wellborn,” Galton coined the word “eugenic,” meaning pertaining to racial improvement by boosting the birth rate of the wellborn to the levels where they speedily prevailed over the less suitable strains or socially less wellborn classes.”[7]

The heir, at twenty-two, to a comfortable fortune, Francis Galton (1822-1911) could hardly be blamed for confusing nepotism with biological heredity. Galton’s first and most famous book, Hereditary Genius (1869), was an actuarial study of prominent men in government, religion, commerce, and the arts which proved, with redundant statistics and dozens of quaint notions about human development, what every adult has always known. To wit, that the children of bankers and generals and cabinet ministers are statistically much more likely to find their way into the professions and the corridors of political and economic power than are the children of charwomen, peasants, and ditch diggers.
To Galton, whose ignorance of socioeconomics was matched only by his painful ignorance of human biology—an ignorance made all the more appalling because Galton was in his fourth year of medical school when he came into his inheritance and promptly quit school—the reasons for the well-known tendency of the children of the mighty to take over their ranks were purely “in the blood.”
At the time Galton wrote his book, the mounting sanitary and medical benefits of the Industrial Revolution had been enjoyed, for over a generation, by the more affluent elements of British society. These health benefits were, in turn, directly responsible for the steep and swift decline in the infant- and maternal-mortality rates of the affluent families. Then, as now, falling infant-mortality rates were followed by a sharp and proportionate decline in the live-birth rates of the fortunate families who were the first to benefit from the new theories and practical applications of environmental hygiene.
Galton mistook this decline in the birth rates of the affluent families in British society as evidence of the “sterility” that he claimed reduces the birth rates of people of superior blood who move from the country to the city. At the same time, Galton saw the lag in the decline of the birth rates of the lower classes—a lag related directly to the fact that the depressed classes had as yet received almost none of the sanitary and medical benefits of the Agricultural and Industrial revolutions—as a population explosion of inferior strains of white Englishmen that threatened to swamp what Galton saw as the most suitable of all strains of the Anglo-Saxon race: his own. The specter of the more suitable children Galton never got around to fathering being dominated by the corporeal but, in Galton’s opinion, hereditarily unsuitable children of the nation’s miners and mill hands, drovers and servants, gnawed at the eminent Victorian until he came up with his famous solution to this “problem.”
The present name for this solution did not come as easily to Galton as did its nature. As he ultimately defined the “eugenic questions” of the “race,” they were:

. . . questions bearing on what is termed, in Greek, eugenes, namely, good in stock, hereditarily endowed with noble qualities. This, and the allied words, eugeneia, etc., are equally applicable to men, brutes, and plants. We greatly want a brief word to express the science of improving the stock, which is by no means confined to questions of judicious mating, but which, especially in the case of man, takes cognisance of all the influences that tend in however remote a degree to give the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable [emphasis added] than they otherwise would have had. The word eugenics would sufficiently express the idea.

Thus, from the Greek word for “wellborn,” Galton coined the word “eugenic,” meaning pertaining to racial improvement by boosting the birth rate of the wellborn to the levels where they speedily prevailed over the less suitable strains or socially less wellborn classes.
While he was at this lexicographic crossroads, Galton also created the word for the opposite of “eugenic.” The word was “kakogenic,” derived from the Greek word kakos, meaning “bad.” “Kakogenic” (or “cacogenic” or its much more commonly used synonym, “dysgenic”) means “of low birth and tending towards, or productive of, racial degeneration.”
With these two words, Galton now brought into being the cult of eugenics, which today is recognized as having approximately the same relationship to the legitimate biological science of genetics that astrology bears to astronomy, or numerology to mathematics. “He had in view,” wrote Karl Pearson, Galton’s foremost interpreter, “eugenics not only as a science, not only as an art, but also as a national creed, amounting, indeed, to a religious faith.”
As a science, eugenics would deal with the factors, as yet admittedly unknown to Galton, that in his view tended to improve or impair superior racial breeding stock in our species.
As a religion, eugenics was to provide the moral and spiritual motivation to encourage increased fecundity in families of Anglo-Saxon, noble, wellborn, affluent (Galton always equated fat bank balances with the noblest of all human qualities), and thus superior human breeding stock.
To the palpably class-conscious Francis Galton, only the breeding successes of the eugenics movement could prevent the superior hereditary qualities of the “race” from being overwhelmed by the rising tides of equally white, equally Anglo-Saxon, equally Protestant Englishmen of inferior hereditary and bank balances. As the high priest and theologian of this Victorian racist cult, Galton even established its very “scientific” scale of racial values. [8]

Another cousin of Darwin, Francis Galton, wrote extensively on this principle and openly advocated selective breeding programs for the creation of tomorrow’s elite ruling class (Galton 1869, 24). [9]

Galton wanted eugenics to become a religion and it did. Eugenics is a religion with dogmas that claims to be a science. You can use eugenics to convince people in the world that they’re born “inferior” and there isn’t anything they can do about their “inferiority.”

Since breeding up was so vital, [Francis] Galton concluded that “enthusiasm to improve the race is so noble in its aim that it might well give rise to a sense of religious obligation.” Eugenics was and is, after all, a religion. [10]

The sad truth was that, as far as epilepsy and other human disorders, traits, and talents were concerned, [Edward Lee] Thorndike turned not to science but to the religion of eugenics. It was the Third Law of [Francis] Galton and [Karl] Pearson in flower: “Why bother with the facts of biology when you already have the dogmas of eugenics?” [11]

[Charles B.] Davenport was not only the scientific spokesman of the American eugenics movement but, also, its spiritual head. It was in 1916, five years after the publication of his Heredity in Relation to Eugenics, that Davenport composed his credo of eugenics. It was unveiled in an address—“Eugenics as a Religion”—Davenport delivered at the ceremonies marking the fiftieth anniversary of the Battle Creek (Michigan) Sanitarium. As Davenport told the gathered celebrants, he had written this creed in response to the fact that “Francis Galton, founder of the eugenics movement, once expressed the anticipation that some day, when eugenics had come into its own, it would be accepted as a religion.” What Galton anticipated, Davenport delivered. [12]

As a religion, eugenics was to provide the moral and spiritual motivation to encourage increased fecundity in families of Anglo-Saxon, noble, wellborn, affluent (Galton always equated fat bank balances with the noblest of all human qualities), and thus superior human breeding stock. [13]

There’s four “scientific pillars” of eugenics and related pseudoscientific cults:

(1) that, anatomically, the brains of white people were larger, heavier, and structurally different from and mentally superior to the brains of Orientals, American Indians, Negroes, and other nonwhite people; (2) that the head forms of individual people, as measured by their cephalic indexes, were not only determined by their racial origins but also fixed forever by heredity; (3) that each of the physiological, mental, and behavioral traits of every individual were preformed by “independent unit characters” or genes transmitted in the blood of all parents to their children; (4) that, of all the degenerate subspecies of native American Nordic subpopulations, the least salvable were the hereditary hewers of wood and drawers of water, the ubiquitous white poor of the South.” [14]

The religion of eugenics was believed by many people all over the world like people in law, government, industry, managers of mass media, foundation presidents, teachers of children, etc. Some people, specifically, who were into eugenics included Sir Winston Churchill, who was an English vice-president of the Congress of Eugenics in 1912 [15]; Herbert Hoover, who was among the members of the 1921 Congress of Eugenics General Committee [16]; President Teddy Roosevelt, who issued “ukases against the fecundity of unworthy breeding stocks” [17]; President Coolidge, who proclaimed, “America must be kept American,” as he signed the bill to make America Judenrein [18]; and, of course, Adolf Hitler [19].

Unfortunately, because the tenets of the new scientific racism are accepted as genuine science by far too many of the leaders in law, government, and industry who make our laws, manage our mass media, and teach the teachers of our children and grandchildren, the findings of our life and behavioral scientists—from [Abraham] Jacobi and [Franz] Boas to [Harold M.] Skeels and [Otto] Klineberg, [Benjamin] Pasamanick and [Hilda] Knobloch, Naeye and [Dale B.] Harris, [Leon] Eisenberg and [Rick] Heber—are now as wasted by the greater society as, a half century and more ago, were the findings of the microbiologists and the parasitologists and the epidemiologists that such common scourges of mankind as tuberculosis, “white southern shiftlessness,” and pellagra were not the hereditary fate of people of inferior breeding stock but preventable diseases of the filth, overcrowding, shoelessness, and undernutrition of poverty. Paupers are made—not born. [20]

The passing of the flame from the Old World to the New was effected as early as 1912, at the First International Congress of Eugenics, held at the University of London a year after [Francis] Galton’s death.
The president of the Congress was Major Leonard Darwin, son of Charles Darwin . . . The English vice-presidents of the Congress of Eugenics included a future Prime Minister, First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill; the Bishop of Oxford; the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Alverstone; and the president of the College of Physicians, Sir Thomas Barlow. The German vice-presidents included M. von Gruber, professor of hygiene at Munich, and Dr. Alfred Ploetz, president of the International Society for Race Hygiene. The American vice-presidents included Gifford Pinchot, a future governor of Pennsylvania; Charles W. Eliot, president emeritus of Harvard University; Alexander Graham Bell; David Starr-Jordan, president of Stanford University; and Charles B. Davenport, listed on the program as secretary of the American Breeders’ Association. [21]

By 1921, when the Second International Congress of Eugenics was convened at New York’s American Museum of Natural History under President Henry Fairfield Osborn, time had provided no new scientific or moral justifications for such a congress. Nevertheless, the concepts aired at this world congress of scientific racism were to become the conventional opinions of a majority of America’s academic, editorial, and political leaders for generations. Since we are still paying vast human and fiscal costs—in such preventable conditions as having one of the industrialized world’s highest infant death rates—for the wholesale application of these eugenics ideas to public policies, the modern reader has much to gain by a quick review of what was said, and by whom, at this congress.
Major Leonard Darwin, son of the great Charles Darwin, president of the First Congress of Eugenics in 1912 . . . was a vice-president and honored guest of the second world convocation. If the future Prime Minister of England, Winston Churchill—a vice-president of the 1912 Congress—was not among the members of the 1921 Congress’s General Committee, the soon-to-be President of the United Sates, Herbert Hoover, was. As were, among many other notables, college and foundation presidents and intellectuals: the future governor of Pennsylvania, Gifford Pinchot; the chief psychologist of the U.S. Army, Robert M. Yerkes; and the chairman of the Psychology Department of Columbia University’s Teachers College, Edward L. Thorndike. The principal benefactress of the American eugenics movement, Mrs. E. H. Harriman, contributed generously to help met the dollar costs of the Congress. She delivered her checks to the chairman of its Finance Committee, Madison Grant. [22]

. . . I had the distinct feeling that little had changed relative to man and his cultural environment since the days when President Teddy Roosevelt was issuing ukases against the fecundity of unworthy breeding stocks. And when President Coolidge, after Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1924, proclaimed, “American must be kept American,” as he signed the bill to make us Judenrein. And when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt accepted the judgments of John B. Trevor and Charles B. Davenport and Harry H. Laughlin in the matter of relaxing or not relaxing the barriers the very same 1924 Immigration Act had raised against sanctuary in America for Jews, Italians, Poles, Hungarians, Greeks, Slavs and other holocaust-threatened species.
The power of truly bad ideas survives their originators for lifetimes without end. [23]

When Hitler’s Thousand-Year Reich fell in 1945, it was revealed by the German Central Association of Sterilized Persons that at least two million human beings had had been ruled in the Eugenics Courts to be eugenically unfit (dysgenic) and sterilized against their will during the twelve years of the Nazi version of [Harry H.] Laughlin’s Eugenical Sterilization Law. Under the voluntary sterilization law of the Weimar Republic overthrown by Hitler, between 1927 and 1933 a total of less than 500 Germans—about 85 people a year, most of them women whose health would have been jeopardized by pregnancy—had been voluntarily sterilized. Under the Nazis, an average of 165,000 Germans of both sexes were sterilized annually against their will—at the rate of 450 forced sterilizations per day. [24]

Adolf Hitler was influenced by American people like Madison Grant, active treasurer of the Second (1921) and Third (1932) International Congress of Eugenics, and Grant’s protégé Lothrop Stoddard, the Harvard law school graduate with a Harvard Ph.D. in history.

There was, however, one of [Madison] Grant’s Nordic claims that cannot be ignored so readily, since it was taken up by no less a maker of history than Grant’s fellow Teutonist and Defender of the Great Race—Adolf Hitler.
In the revised edition of The Passing of the Great Race (1918, pp. 184-86), Grant claimed that because of the staggering losses of the Thirty Years’ War,

which bore, of course, most heavily on the big, blond fighting man, at the end of the war most German states contained a greatly lessened proportion of Nordic blood. In fact, from that time on the purely Teutonic race in Germany has been largely replaced by the Alpine type in the south and by the Wendish and Polish types in the east. This change of race in Germany has gone so far that it has been computed [Grant neglected to say by whom] that out of the 70,000,000 inhabitants of the German Empire, only 9,000,000 are purely Teutonic in coloration, stature, and skull characteristics. . . .
When the Thirty Years’ War was over there remained in Germany nothing except the brutalized peasantry, largely of Alpine derivation in the south and east. . . .
Today the ghastly rarity in the German armies of chivalry and generosity toward women and of knightly protection and courtesy toward the prisoners or wounded can be largely attributed to the annihilation of the gentle classes.

In 1925, Hitler, whose closest advisers were avid readers of Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard (and whose Nazi-era scientific advisers and leaders were long-time personal and professional friends who had arranged for the German editions of their books years before the Third Reich), wrote in Mein Kampf, in his discussions of Race and State:

Unfortunately, our German nationality is no longer based on a racially uniform nucleus. Also, the process of the blending of the various primal constituents has not yet progressed so far as to permit speaking of a newly formed race. On the contrary: the blood-poisoning which affected our national body, especially since the Thirty Years’ War, led not only to a decomposition of our blood but also of our soul. The open frontiers of our fatherland, the dependence upon un-Germanic alien bodies along those frontier districts, but above all strong current influence of foreign blood into the interior of the Reich proper, in consequence of its continued renewal does not leave time for an absolute melding. . . . At the side of the Nordic people there stand the Easterners, at the side of the Easterners the Dinarics, at the side of both stand Westerners, and in between stand mixtures.
With the complete blending of our original racial elements a closed national body would certainly have ensued, but as every racial crossbreeding proves, it would be endowed with an ability to create a culture inferior to that which the highest of the primal components possesses originally. This is the blessing of the failure of complete mixture: that even today we still have in our Germanic national body great stocks of Nordic-Germanic people who remain inblended, in whom we see the most valuable treasures for the future.

Thanks to Madison Grant and his protégé Lothrop Stoddard, the Harvard law school graduate with a Harvard Ph.D. in history, Hitler was thus presented with a “scientific” and myth-enhancing alibi for the historical fact that the German armies had been crushed by their “racial inferiors” in World War I. The Kaiser’s armies had not been as purely Nordic as Corporal Hitler, Captain Göring, and other of their cadres, and therefore the Imperial German Armies could not have been considered to be racially Teutonic. But “great stocks” of that all-redeeming and wonder-working pure Nordic blood still remained in the gene pool of the true German at the end of World War I, and it was around the nucleus of these “racial treasures” that Adolf Hitler now proposed to forge the future Nordic Reich. [25]

For most of the years after he was admitted to the bar, [Madison] Grant maintained a Manhattan law office. However, what with running the Bronx Zoo, the Save the Redwoods League, and various legislative and lobbying crusades for the termination of Jewish and other non-Nordic immigration, and striving for many years to have Franz Boas fired from his job as chairman of the Columbia University Department of Anthropology—let alone serving as the very active treasurer of the Second (1921) and Third (1932) International Congress of Eugenics, co-founder and most active member of the Galton Society, president of the Eugenics Research Association, co-founder and active officer of the American Eugenics Society, and president of the Bronx Parkway Commission—most of the time Madison Grant actually spent in his law office seems to have been devoted to dictating and signing thousands of letters dealing with the causes dearest to his heart. And, as Grant made plain in hundreds of these letters and in his published writings, no cause was dearer to the heart of Madison Grant than the total annihilation of the Jews. [26]

People who believed in eugenics believed in what Hitler was doing. What Hitler was doing, according to eugenicists, was “fearless” and “heroic” applications of biology and eugenics.

The fact that 1934 was also the year of the great blood purge of June, in which the nakedly brutal treatment of Christian and Jewish adults and children demonstrated to the world the true nature of [Adolf] Hitler’s branch of the Nordic movement, in no way diminished the enthusiasm or the collaboration of American eugenicists such as [Henry F.] Osborn and [Lothrop] Stoddard. The treatment of Germany’s Jews and other non-Aryan citizens, while horrifying to most decent Americans, only served to prove to the hard-core eugenicists that the Nazis were the fearless and heroic race biologists they had long awaited. This was made plain in 1940, when Stoddard paid a long visit to his admired Nordic state on the eve of its plunging into war against his native America. The climax of this pilgrimage, described in Chapter 17 of the book Stoddard wrote about it, Into the Darkness, was his visit with Adolf Hitler himself. [27]

The “passion and propaganda” were, of course, those of the enemies of the Third and Thousand-Year Reich. Not until Dr. Lothrop Stoddard arrived on the scene could an intelligent evaluation of the whole problem be made. For as he wrote (p. 187): “I have long been interested in the practical applications of biology and eugenics—the science of race-betterment—and have studied much along these lines.” During his visit to Nazi Germany he had met with many Nazi raceologists, such as his old admirer Hans Günther, Eugen Fischer, Fritz Lenz, and Paul Schultz-Maumburg, as well as with official spokesmen such as Reichsministers Wilhelm Frick and Walter Darré. Through the kind assistance of these ranking Nazis, Stoddard was invited to join the judges on the bench of the Eugenics High Court of Appeals.
Before sharing with his readers his experiences on the bench of the Eugenics High Court of Appeals, Dr. Stoddard discussed race problems and eugenics in Nazi Germany and its Axis partner, Fascist Italy, in terms that are of considerably more than passing interest in modern times that are experiencing, as they are, the revival of various IQ testing and other ploys of the eugenics movement. Stoddard said, for example (p. 189), that “the purity of the racial strains must be preserved.” And, Stoddard explained, “this is the Nazi doctrine best described as racialism” (Stoddard’s italics). So that, once the Jews and other inferior stocks were annihilated, the Nazi state would be able to concern itself with “improvements within the racial stock, that are recognized everywhere as constituting the modern science of eugenics, or race-betterment” (Stoddard’s italics). [28]

Benito Mussolini was another person liked by eugenicists.

The historic function of fascism and that of scientific racism were one and the same: to keep what [Thomas] Malthus had contemptuously termed the “lower and middling classes of people” from ever aspiring to rise above their stations at birth.
Since [Benito] Mussolini understood this quite as well as did the British, American, German, Norwegian, French, and other eugenics movement leaders, it became a matter of love at first sight between them. No sooner did Mussolini’s Black Shirts start rounding up, torturing, and killing his non-fascist domestic opponents than he became the darling of the [Henry F.] Osborns, the [Charles B.] Davenports, and the [Madison] Grants. No visit to Europe was complete without a visit to Il Duce, who went out of his way to discuss eugenics and other race problems with Osborn, [Jon A.] Mjöen, [Charles B.] Davenport, and all other eugenics leaders whom his scientific adviser, Corrado Gini, could steer his way. In return, these foreign eugenicists made speeches and wrote articles in praise of the new Caesar. [29]

So how do you convince the people that they’re “inferior”? Well there have been many ways over the years and many “bourgeois cattle” have believed those ways. One’s craniology, which is “finding structural and functional anatomical differences between the brains of the superior races (to which, of course, all of these pseudo-anatomists belonged) and the brains of the inferior races (which invariably proved to be of Oriental, African, and, if white, non-Nordic origins).” [30] There’s phrenology, which is “the mapping of the head for the bumps of wisdom, stupidity, wealth, poverty, and other hereditary traits revealed—by these external cranial features—to skilled professional phrenologists.” [31] And you have Binet tests, which “showed us all to be idiots, regardless of how well we did in our trades and professions and high school and graduate school work.” [32]

Craniology was preceded by a variety of pseudo-anatomical “scientific” studies of brains of superior and inferior races. In these studies, biased American and European physicians and equally racist amateurs solemnly reported finding structural and functional anatomical differences between the brains of the superior races (to which, of course, all of these pseudo-anatomists belonged) and the brains of the inferior races (which invariably proved to be of Oriental, African, and, if white, non-Nordic origins).
Before these brain studies there was phrenology, or the mapping of the head for the bumps of wisdom, stupidity, wealth, poverty, and other hereditary traits revealed—by these external cranial features—to skilled professional phrenologists. The roster of European and American notables who took this precursor of craniometry seriously, and had their own heads examined, included U.S. President James A. Garfield, the abolitionist John Brown, Dr. G. Stanley Hall (the psychologist under whom [Henry H.] Goddard and [Lewis M.] Terman, the fathers of American-style IQ testing, took their doctorates), the philosopher Auguste Comte, and the poet Walt Whitman.
John D. Davies notes that Queen Victoria and Prince Albert called in the famous phrenologist George Combe to “examine the heads of their large brood, and Senator Charles Sumner had him inspect his own battered cranium after the famous beating by Preston Brooks. Benjamin Moran, Henry Adams’ adversary in the London Embassy, wrote out phrenological analyses of his colleagues, as did Otto von Bismarck; Karl Marx always judged the mental qualities of a stranger from the shape of his head, as did Baudelaire, Balzac, and George Eliot. Henry George was accomplished enough to make an examination of himself. A random catalogue of 19th century figures who accepted the rule-of-thumb aspect of phrenology could be expanded almost indefinitely.”
Before phrenology there was physiognomy, in which the inborn character traits of a person were revealed by his or her facial angles and related “scientific measurements.” And, of course, before physiognomy there was the precursor of them all, preformation . . .
Most of these scientific precursors of IQ test scores as scientific measurements of inherited individual and racial traits and characteristics have long since been forgotten. But some of them, notably craniometry, persisted well into the IQ testing phase of scientific racism. [33]

. . . the Binet tests showed us all to be idiots, regardless of how well we did in our trades and professions and high school and graduate school work. [34]

What you basically are trying to do with this “pseudoscientific” stuff is convince people that they are born “inferior” and there isn’t anything they can do about their “inferiority.”

To me genes seem to be what’s popular today for convincing people that they’re “inferior.”

The whole “it’s in your genes” goes back to the “bad blood” belief that, “according to the eugenicists, consisted of a hereditary endowment made up primarily of the unit character of pauperism—in the eugenic literature the major genetic defect of the poor—as well as the unit characters for insanity, epilepsy, criminalism, immorality, low Binet-Simon IQ test scores, graft (at least, wrote [Charles B.] Davenport, in the Irish), nomadism, shiftlessness, pellagra, laziness, feeblemindedness, asthenia (general physical weakness), lack of ambition, and general paralysis of the insane.” [35]

Bad blood, according to the eugenicists, consisted of a hereditary endowment made up primarily of the unit character of pauperism—in the eugenic literature the major genetic defect of the poor—as well as the unit characters for insanity, epilepsy, criminalism, immorality, low Binet-Simon IQ test scores, graft (at least, wrote [Charles B.] Davenport, in the Irish), nomadism, shiftlessness, pellagra, laziness, feeblemindedness, asthenia (general physical weakness), lack of ambition, and general paralysis of the insane. It was also a major postulate of eugenics that inferior heredity was, as well, a human genetic endowment in which the blood of an individual was lacking in any of the unit characters (genes) that were supposed to provide the body with inborn immunity or resistance to tuberculosis, pellagra, infant diarrhea, dysentery, measles, malaria, cholera, pneumonia, influenza, and all of the other deficiency and infectious or parasitic diseases associated with poverty.
The basic concept of genetically determined unit characters was as easy to understand as was the Flat Earth Theory—and as logically foolproof as was the ancient Preformationism from which it had evolved. [36]

People like psychologist John Ertl, director of the Center of Cybernetic Studies at the University of Ottawa and developer of a neural-efficiency analyzer that combines electroencephalographs and computers to measure brain functions, are afraid that their tests initially designed to help children will be used to hurt children by misbranding them as “inferiors”. By “misbranding” I mean like the time when University of California sociologist Jane E. Mercer “. . . revealed that 75 percent of the Mexican-American and black-American children classified as being mentally retarded solely on the basis of their IQ test scores—and who were subsequently placed in psychologically deforming school classes for the mentally retarded as a result—were of perfectly normal mentality.” [37]

Most of our better psychiatrists and nonmedical behavioral scientists have long since rejected the notion that there even exists any single discrete biological or mental trait than can properly be labeled as “intelligence.” For example, the psychologist John Ertl, director of the Center of Cybernetic Studies at the University of Ottawa and developer of a neural-efficiency analyzer that combines electroencephalographs and computers to measure brain functions, was quoted as declaring: “Intelligence is a concept equivalent to truth and beauty. I don’t really know what it is, but I do know what it is not. It’s not the score of an I.Q. test, and it is not what our equipment measures.” Dr. Ertl said this after his brain-wave measurements had proven that large numbers of children who had been labeled as retarded on the basis of their IQ test scores were, actually, quite bright. . . .
The anthropologist Paul Bohannan, of Northwestern University, probably spoke for most of our better behavioral, medical, biological, and anthropological scientists in a letter sent to the magazine Science concerning the long obsolete concepts of Harvard Psychology Department chairman Richard Herrnstein, when he wrote:

The question that should be asked is, Why do serious students of human behavior fool around with a dated idea like “intelligence”? It is possible, of course, to measure performance; it is possible to deal with perception (either physiologically or insofar as it is turned into behavior); it is even possible to deal with hidden values and assumptions. But is “intelligence” an adequate concept for summarizing all that?
The fact that the results of IQ tests can be statisticized makes matters worse—it gives the figures something of the quality of scientific “data” and thereby implies a “reality” that the [IQ test score] figures do not have.
Obviously, behavioral scientists badly need summarizing concepts or just shorthand terms with which to bring together some of the things they measure. But just as obviously, “intelligence” is a culture-bound western European idea that has been given far more scientific weight than it can bear. [Italics added.]

[38]

[John] Ertl is also fearful that, like Binet’s well-intentioned IQ tests, his own neural efficiency tests will be used not to help children who can be helped, but to hurt children who do not deserve to be misbranded by the willful abuse of his work. “There is no question,” he said, “but that poor nutrition affects the neural efficiency score just as it affects the IQ test score, just as does prenatal and postnatal brain and other organ damage caused by infectious diseases. But mass screening with brain wave techniques will probably not be preceded by mass medical and neurological examinations—any more than mass IQ testing has, up until now, been preceded or accompanies by mass clinical screening for anemia, eye and ear acuities, and neurological damage in the same children.” [39]

In our own times, a famous study begun in Riverside, California, over a decade ago by the University of California sociologist Jane E. Mercer has revealed that 75 percent of the Mexican-American and black-American children classified as being mentally retarded solely on the basis of their IQ test scores—and who were subsequently placed in psychologically deforming school classes for the mentally retarded as a result—were of perfectly normal mentality. According to Dr. Mercer, these pseudo-retardates would never have been mislabeled as “mentally retarded” if their adaptive behavior and other equally significant behavioral and sociocultural variables had been taken into account in their diagnoses. [40]

Alfred Binet, the guy that Binet tests are named after, didn’t even come up with “IQ.” “IQ” came from William Stern. Binet was against people who said “that the intelligence of an individual is a fixed quantity.” [41] Binet felt that “a child’s mind is like a field for which an expert farmer has advised a change in the method of cultivating, with the result that in place of desert land, we now have a harvest.” [42]

It was not [Alfred] Binet who called the Binet tests “intelligence quotient (IQ) tests.” In the Binet scales, the questions were graded in terms of the age level at which the person tested passed all of the tests. The norms for the age levels were based on the average scores made by the selected groups of children of various ages on whom the tests were first tried. In 1912, William Stern, a German psychologist, later driven from Germany because he was a Jew, suggested that when the mental age (MA) was divided by the chronological age (CA) of the person tested, and multiplied by 100, the end result could be considered the “intelligence quotient,” or IQ. . . .

This was also most unfortunate, because in practical terms it came to mean—before anyone ever knew what intelligence was, or even if it was a single measurable trait, or a combination of factors—that our entire culture was burdened with a very scientific-looking formula purporting to represent what the innate intellectual capacity of a human being actually is. [43]

[Alfred] Binet himself railed against those who had, as had [Lewis M.] Terman and [Henry H.] Goddard after Binet’s death in 1911, “given their moral support to the deplorable verdict that the intelligence of an individual is a fixed quantity.”
Such statements caused Binet to “protest” against “this brutal pessimism” about the inborn mental potential of most human beings, since he felt that “a child’s mind is like a field for which an expert farmer has advised a change in the method of cultivating, with the result that in place of desert land, we now have a harvest.” [44]

You don’t have to bother with all this pseudoscientific stuff to find out if you’re “superior.” You can just do two things:

  1. Check to see if you come from a “superior blood-line.” A “superior blood-line” is selective breeding of “superior” people. One example would be the Darwins breeding with another “superior” family called the Wedgwoods. Another example would be the Rothschilds breeding with other “superior” people like their first cousins or even nieces. So if you got selective breeding going on then you just might just be a “superior” person.
  2. Check your bank balance. If you have a lot of money in the bank then you just might be a “superior” person.

. . . the Darwins and the Wedgwoods who recognized in each other all the qualities of “superior” people. [45]

. . . Darwin married Emma Wedgwood, his maternal grandfather’s youngest daughter. The Darwin family was intimately associated with the Wedgwood family, the same family of Wedgwood pottery fame today. Old Josiah Wedgwood was a Unitarian and friend of Darwin’s grandfather Erasmus, while the chemist Dr. Joseph Priestly (a Unitarian of missionary zeal) was included in this circle of friends. Josiah’s oldest daughter, Susannah, had married Robert, the son of Erasmus, and was thus Charles Darwin’s mother. Thus, Charles married his mother’s sister. [46]

Darwin’s idea of inbreeding to produce superior stock can be seen to be a complete disaster in the case of his own ten children. Of the ten, one girl died shortly after birth; another died in childhood; his youngest son, Charles, was mentally retarded and lived only two years; Henrietta had a serious and prolonged breakdown at fifteen; and three sons suffered such frequent illness that Darwin regarded them as semiinvalids. Darwin’s last son, Charles Jr., was born mentally retarded and died nineteen months after birth. [47]

The greatest of these dynasties, of course, were the descendants of Meyer Amschel Rothschild (1743-1812) of Frankfort, whose male descendants, for at least two generations, generally married first cousins or even nieces. Rothschild’s five sons, established at branches in Vienna, London, Naples, and Paris, as well as Frankfort, cooperated together in ways which other international banking dynasties copied but rarely excelled. [48]

The economic power represented by these figures is almost beyond imagination to grasp, and was increased by the active role which these financial titans took in politics. Morgan and Rockefeller together frequently dominated the national Republican Party, while Morgan occasionally had extensive influence in the national Democratic party (three of the Morgan partners were usually Democrats). These two were also powerful on the state level, especially Morgan in New York and Rockefeller in Ohio. Mellon was a power in Pennsylvania and du Pont was obviously a political power in Delaware. [49]

Money is a very important part of all this. The goal of the “superiors” is to profit 100% off the “inferiors.” If scientific racism tells the “inferiors” that they’re born “inferior” and there is nothing that can be done about their “inferiority” then why bother spending money on the “inferiors”? So if an “inferior” is injured on the job, born with a disability, or starving, then all you have to say is that it’s nature’s way of showing how “inferior” they are. “To [Herbert] Spencer, the Malthusian par excellence, the sufferings of the poor were nature’s mechanism for assuring the survival of the fittest—just as the wealth of the rich was nature’s means of assuring the propagation of superior types.” [50] So then the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.

. . . scientific racism was not based on emotion and hate, but on love. What the creators of scientific racism loved, however, was money. [51]

Now, as in 1798, scientific racism remains color-blind and free of all racial, religious, and cultural biases. It is not concerned with people but, simply, with what is known as the maximization of profits and the minimization of taxes on these profits—particularly when these taxes are earmarked for promoting the health, education, and general welfare of the men and women whose labors make such profits possible in the first place.
Scientific racism did not, obviously, invent the reluctance to pay living wages and taxes for the promotion of the general welfare of an entire nation’s people. It did, however, appear at a critical turn in history when the classic Scriptural excuses for greed, selfishness, and poverty were fast losing their traditional credibility. Scientific racism supplanted Scripture as the fount of “scientific” rationales for do-nothingism in terms of the promotion of the general welfare of the greatest numbers of the people of the rapidly industrializing nations of Europe and, shortly, North America. [52]

Historically, such vetoes of new programs, and cutbacks in our ongoing governmental programs to improve the basic qualities of human life and to widen the opportunities to develop our human genetic endowments, always add up to a continuation of the misguided compulsions to preserve the social biology of what the father of scientific racism, Thomas Malthus, had called the “necessary stimulus to industry”—poverty. [53]

Every child, every mother, every adult who dies for lack of a sufficient supply of doctors in this nation, is and will continue for decades to be a victim of the new scientific racism. [54]

PRESIDENT SIGNS BIRTH CURB BILL
Programs are Expanded—Nixon Kills Measure on More Family Doctors

President Nixon has signed into law a $382-million, three-year expansion of the family planning service and creation of a Federal office to coordinate ways to control population growth. The White House also announced that Mr. Nixon had vetoed a bill that would have set up a three-year $225-million program to train family doctors.
The New York Times, December 27, 1970 [55]

[Herbert] Spencer’s creation of the philosophical system called Social Darwinism—which was (a) antisocial and (b) anti-Darwinian—introduced to the world the phrase “survival of the fittest.” This, despite popular belief, was neither created nor believed by Darwin himself.
To Spencer, the Malthusian par excellence, the sufferings of the poor were nature’s mechanism for assuring the survival of the fittest—just as the wealth of the rich was nature’s means of assuring the propagation of superior types. Thus, whereas [Jeremy] Bentham and his followers called for living wages and free education and factory safety, and public sewage, clean-water, and other environmental hygienic improvements for the growing populations of urban poor, to Spencer “the whole effort of nature is to get rid of such, to clear the world of them, and make room for better.” It was not overcrowded slum living that produced tuberculosis and other infectious diseases; it was the innate lack of the human will to survive. Therefore Spencer could write, of the victims of slum living and mine and mill accidents: “If they are sufficiently complete to live, they do live, and it is well they should live. If they are not sufficiently complete to live, they die, and it is best they should die.” [56]

“Two nations: between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets; who are formed by a different breeding, are fed by a different food, are ordered by different manners, and are not governed by the same laws.”
“You speak of . . .” said Egremont, hesitatingly.
“THE RICH AND THE POOR.”
—BENJAMIN DISRAELI, in Sybil (1845) [57]

The even bigger picture of all this “superior” and “inferior” stuff deals with holding onto power. Carroll Quigley, in his book Tragedy & Hope, wrote about “. . . a period, about 900, when there was no empire, no state, and no public authority in the West. The state disappeared, yet society continued. So also, religious and economic life continued. This clearly showed that the state and society were not the same thing, that society was the basic entity, and that the state was a crowning, but not essential, cap to the social structure. This experience had revolutionary effects. It was discovered that man can live without a state; this became the basis of Western liberalism. It was discovered that the state, if it exists, must serve men and that it is incorrect to believe that the purpose of men is to serve the state.” [58]

In the West, the Roman Empire (which continued in the East as the Byzantine Empire) disappeared in 476; and, although many efforts were made to revive it, there was clearly a period, about 900, when there was no empire, no state, and no public authority in the West. The state disappeared, yet society continued. So also, religious and economic life continued. This clearly showed that the state and society were not the same thing, that society was the basic entity, and that the state was a crowning, but not essential, cap to the social structure. This experience had revolutionary effects. It was discovered that man can live without a state; this became the basis of Western liberalism. It was discovered that the state, if it exists, must serve men and that it is incorrect to believe that the purpose of men is to serve the state. It was discovered that economic life, religious life, law, and private property can all exist and function effectively without a state. From this emerged laissez-faire, separation of Church and State, rule of law, and the sanctity of private property. In Rome, in Byzantium, and in Russia, law was regarded as an enactment of a supreme power. In the West, when no supreme power existed, it was discovered that law still existed as the body of rules which govern social life. Thus law was found by observation in the West, not enacted by autocracy in the East. This meant that authority was established by law and under the law in the West, while authority was established by power and above the law in the East. The West felt that the rules of economic life were found and not enacted; that individuals had rights independent of, and even opposed to, public authority; that groups could exist, as the Church existed, by right and not by privilege, and without the need to have any charter of incorporation entitling them to exist as a group or act as a group; that groups or individuals could own property as a right and not as a privilege and that such property could not be taken by force but must be taken by established process of law. It was emphasized in the West that the way a thing was done was more important than what was done, while in the East what was done was far more significant than the way in which it was done. [59]

You do not want the “inferior” people to realize that they can live life with you, the “superior” one, otherwise there is no way to become Earth Emperor. So you have to do everything in your power to convince people that they are “inferior” and that without a “superior” person running their lives then there would be nothing but chaos.

The historic function of fascism and that of scientific racism were one and the same: to keep what [Thomas] Malthus had contemptuously termed the “lower and middling classes of people” from ever aspiring to rise above their stations at birth. [60]

[Michael] Lewis observed that, in 1973, [Cyril] Burt’s 1934 “view cannot be supported by the data.” In the interim, of course, scores of major studies, such as those of [Otto] Klineberg, [Harold M.] Skeels, Skodak, [Benjamin] Pasamanick, [Cecil Mary] Drillien, Butler, [Dale B.] Harris, [Rick] Heber, and many other scientists, had shown that there is far more to a child’s IQ test scores than the genes that he inherits. “Why then,” Lewis asked in 1973, “should this view of intelligence hold such a dominant position in the thinking of contemporary scientists and public alike?” It is a question whose answer demands wide public attention:

The answer to such a question may be found by considering the function or use of the IQ score in a technological society. The function of the IQ score is and has always been to help stratify society into a hierarchy. The purpose of this hierarchy is to create a division of labor within the culture. That is, to determine who will go to school in the first place, who will get into academic programs that lead to college, etc. These divisions in turn determine the nature of labor the child will perform as an adult. This division of labor, a necessity in a complex society, is then justified by scores on a test designed to produce just such a division. If we cannot make the claim that IQ differences at least in infancy are genetically determined, then we must base them on differences in cultural learning. But these differences, for the sake of the division of labor, are exactly what the IQ tests are intended to produce. The hierarchy of labor is maintained by the genetic myth. The hierarchy produces the test differences and the test differences are used to maintain the hierarchy. Thus, IQ scores have come to replace the caste system or feudal systems which previously had the function of stratifying society. Wherein these latter systems were supported by evoking the Almighty, the present system evokes Mother Nature.

[61]

Another thing that is talked about in the book is population.

As Science reported from a scientific meeting in Colorado in 1970, Dr. Roger Revelle, head of the Harvard Center for Population Studies, had to warn scientists newly bitten by the population explosion bug “that the only examples of sustained population decline up to now have followed, not preceded, sustained economic growth.” [62]

A lot of “bourgeois cattle” believe that the world is overpopulated, which is cause the media tells them the world is overpopulated.

Writing almost a century ago, [Karl] Marx observed that . . .”. . . The daily press and the telegraph, which in a moment spread inventions over the whole earth, fabricate more myths (and the bourgeois cattle believe and enlarge upon them) in one day than could have formerly been done in a century.” When to the press and telegraph is added the contemporary global role of radio and television, and to religion are added contemporary ideologies, Marx’s observations become even more pertinent. [63]

“Bourgeois cattle” might say to look to India to see the effects of overpopulation. Well India has the population that it does because of the infant and adult death rates there. “. . . [A] couple must bear 6.3 children to be 95 percent certain that one son will be alive at the father’s 65th birthday. The average number of births in India per couple is 6.5 which tends to support the increasing body of opinion that parents will continue to bear children until reasonably sure of the survival of at least one son.” [64]

Not every American scholar who studied the population the population dynamics of India was as cocksurely genocidal as Professor [Paul] Ehrlich. In the August 1970 issue of Nutrition Reviews, Alan Berg, senior fellow of the Brookings Institution of Washington, published an article based on a paper he had previously presented at an international nutrition conference at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In this article, Dr. Berg made a number of interesting observations.

With current estimated infant and adult death rates in India, a couple must bear 6.3 children to be 95 percent certain that one son will be alive at the father’s 65th birthday. The average number of births in India per couple is 6.5 which tends to support the increasing body of opinion that parents will continue to bear children until reasonably sure of the survival of at least one son.
It is the combined reality of desire for adult sons and high child mortality that poses the crux of the population dilemma. Paradoxically, the best way to lower the population growth rate may be to keep children alive [italics added].
. . . In some countries an effective family planning program may be difficult if not impossible without better nutrition. A policy of pursuing either alone may eventually prove untenable.

[65]

So for population levels of places like India to go down the children and adults would have to be kept alive. That means you have to get rid of poverty. But that is a problem for the “superiors” because, like Thomas Malthus said, the “necessary stimulus to industry” is poverty. [67]

The demographic transition, writes Princeton demographer Ansley J. Coale, is “the central event in the recent history of the human population. It begins with a decline in the death rate, precipitated by advances in medicine (particularly in public health), nutrition or both. Some years later the birth rate also declines, primarily because of changes in the perceived value of having children.” Before the demographic transition, “the birth rate is constant but the death rate varies; afterward, the death rate is constant but the birth rate fluctuates.”
Historically, the demographic transition, as in Western Europe and the United States, has always followed such life-enhancing developments as the Agricultural Revolution; the Industrial Revolution; the contiguous births of germ theory and immunology; the nineteenth- and twentieth-century enactments of social laws providing free education, vaccinations, and medical care; and enforced statutes mandating minimum wages, maximum working hours, and healthier standards of human housing.
Nearly half a century before Professor Coale wrote the above definition of the demographic transition (in the September 1974 Scientific American), the anthropologist Franz Boas, writing in the February 1927 Current History, observed that “. . . the well-to-do have, ordinarily, a low birth rate and a low mortality. Among the poor, the reverse is true.” As of now, it is the poorest states of this republic and the most impoverished nations of this planet that have the highest death rates and the highest birth rates. Among the more affluent states and nations, “the reverse is true.” See also Sir Dugald Baird’s 1946 table, “Mortality and Live Birth Rates in England and Wales, 1841-1939,” on page 429. [66]

Historically, such vetoes of new programs, and cutbacks in our ongoing governmental programs to improve the basic qualities of human life and to widen the opportunities to develop our human genetic endowments, always add up to a continuation of the misguided compulsions to preserve the social biology of what the father of scientific racism, Thomas Malthus, had called the “necessary stimulus to industry”—poverty. [68]

“Bourgeois cattle” might also say that people pollute. No, the things pushed on people pollute. So electric vehicles are less polluting than gas or diesel vehicles, but an example in the book is:

The sudden abandonment of cheap, electrified, and infinitely safer trolleys, trolley-buses, and commuter trains between 1932—when General Motors Corporation, during the Great Depression, “became involved in the operation of bus and rail passenger services”—and 1950 forced millions of Americans previously served by mass transit systems to buy their own cars in order to get to and from work daily.

. . .

By 1949, a Chicago Federal Jury convicted General Motors of having criminally conspired with Standard Oil of California, Firestone Tire and others to replace electric transportation with gas- or diesel-powered buses and to monopolize the sale of buses and related products to local transportation companies throughout the country. The courts imposed a sanction of $5,000 on General Motors. In addition, the jury convicted H. C. Grossman, the man who was then treasurer of General Motors. Grossman had played a key role in the motorization campaigns and had served as a director of Pacific Electric Railway when that company undertook the dismantlement of the $100 million Pacific Electric system. The court fined Grossman the magnanimous sum of $1. [69]

So why all this worry about “overpopulation”? It’s because the “superiors” are worried that the population of “inferiors” will get some point where they, the “superiors”, can no longer control the “inferiors.” The “superiors” would then lose their hold of power on the Earth.

The thesis of [Dwight J.] Ingle’s book is fully in the orthodox eugenics tradition: Ingle proposes that with or without the consent of the nation’s achievers of low IQ test scores, the time has come for this nation to protect itself against the menace of “genetic enslavement” by sterilizing them. [70]

To insure the non-survival of the unfittest, therefore, [William G.] Sumner violently opposed any laws and actions designed to protect the poor from slum living conditions, from dangerous working conditions, and from the perils of not having enough money to pay for medical and hospital care when ill or injured. To insure the survival of the rich, whom Sumner designed as the fittest by the sole virtue of their wealth, Sumner was equally opposed to the Interstate Commerce Act and all other legislation that proposed to regulate the railroads the nineteenth-century Robber Barons built with federal money and operated under the Vanderbilt slogan: “The public be damned.” [71]

What’s an answer for solving this “inferior” population problem?

Well one answer is sterilization.

The thesis of [Dwight J.] Ingle’s book is fully in the orthodox eugenics tradition: Ingle proposes that with or without the consent of the nation’s achievers of low IQ test scores, the time has come for this nation to protect itself against the menace of “genetic enslavement” by sterilizing them. [72]

Dr. [Paul] Ehrlich said, “. . . We might, for instance, institute a system which would make positive action necessary before reproduction is possible. This might be the addition of a temporary sterilant to staple food, or to the water supply. An antidote would have to be taken to permit reproduction.” And of course, if need be, the antidote would be doled out by Big Brother in ratios small enough to “produce the desired constance of population size.” [73]

An answer, which is an obvious one, would be genocide.

. . . genocide as the ultimate instrument for protecting the genes of the supermen from the “dysgenic” threats posed by the “inferior” races. [74]

Another answer is from Thomas Malthus.

Thomas Malthus said, “Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. . . . we should . . . crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague.” [75] That would be possible because the Deadly Allies book said that “. . . the genetic research now being undertaken even in private labs poses dangers far greater than all the deadly organisms developed in the Second World War combined. Mutants similar to the AIDS virus can now be deliberately, or accidentally, created.” [76]

Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. . . . we should . . . crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. . . . But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and those benevolent, but mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders. If by these and similar means the annual mortality were increased from 1 in 36 or 40, to 1 in 18 or 20, we might possibly every one of us marry at the age of puberty, and yet few be absolutely starved.

—PROFESSOR THOMAS MALTHUS, in An Essay on the Principle of Population, Book IV, Chapter 5 (second edition, 1803) [77]

Something else that was interesting in The Legacy of Malthus book was with this guy Dr. William Vogt. “[Vogt] wrote (p. 47), “for all practical purposes, large areas of the earth now occupied by backward populations will have to be written off the credit side of the ledger.” Vogt explained, in vivid prose, just how this could be done. The remedy was simple. It was called death.
Of Chile, for example, Vogt wrote (p. 186) that “one of the greatest national assets of Chile, perhaps the greatest asset, is its high death rate.” Of China, an ocean away from Chile, Vogt said (pp. 214-15) that “the greatest tragedy that China could suffer, at the present time, would be a reduction in her death rate.” Therefore the United Nations “should not ship food to keep alive ten million Indians and Chinese this year, so that fifty million may die five years hence” (pp. 281-82).” [78]

[William] Vogt’s Road to Survival, published almost immediately after Our Plundered Planet, was an instant best seller, the selection of major book clubs, and was hailed as a masterpiece by literary critics from coast to coast. Like the [Fairchild] Osborn book, Vogt’s book offered as scientific fact the Malthusian myth of a planet that lacked the natural resources required to feed its human inhabitants. Like the Osborn book, the Vogt book also paid tribute to Guy Irving Burch, who had been so “extraordinarily helpful with advice, bibliographic suggestions, and critical discussion.”
The author’s love of nature was particularly evident in those passages that dealt with the birds, wildflowers, and skunk cabbages. When it came to people, Vogt sang a different tune. “It is certain that,” he wrote (p. 47), “for all practical purposes, large areas of the earth now occupied by backward populations will have to be written off the credit side of the ledger.” Vogt explained, in vivid prose, just how this could be done. The remedy was simple. It was called death.
Of Chile, for example, Vogt wrote (p. 186) that “one of the greatest national assets of Chile, perhaps the greatest asset, is its high death rate.” Of China, an ocean away from Chile, Vogt said (pp. 214-15) that “the greatest tragedy that China could suffer, at the present time, would be a reduction in her death rate.” Therefore the United Nations “should not ship food to keep alive ten million Indians and Chinese this year, so that fifty million may die five years hence” (pp. 281-82). [79]

Dr. William Vogt is the former national director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Lawrence Lader, in his highly authorized biography of [Hugh] Moore, Breeding Ourselves to Death, echoed this appraisal: “‘Moore was the first businessman willing to stand up and be counted on this issue, the first to stick his head out,’ commented Dr. William Vogt, former national director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and author of the influential book The Road to Survival, which first stirred Moore’s interest in population.” [80]

That’s it.

Daniel Kemp

Footnotes:

1. Ian T. Taylor, In the Minds of Men : Darwin and the New World Order (Toronto : TFE Publishing, c1984), 405

2. Ibid., 450

3. Ibid., 59-60

4. Ibid., 64

5. Allan Chase, The Legacy of Malthus : The Social Costs of the New Scientific Racism (New York : Knopf : distributed by Random House, 1977, c1976), 378

6. Ibid., 6

7. Ibid., 13

8. Ibid., 12-14

9. Ian T. Taylor, In the Minds of Men : Darwin and the New World Order (Toronto : TFE Publishing, c1984), 127

10. Allan Chase, The Legacy of Malthus : The Social Costs of the New Scientific Racism (New York : Knopf : distributed by Random House, 1977, c1976), 103

11. Ibid., 355

12. Ibid., 161

13. Ibid., 14

14. Ibid., 176

15. Ibid., 136

16. Ibid., 277

17. Ibid., 525

18. Ibid., 525

19. Ibid., 135

20. Ibid., 603

21. Ibid., 136

22. Ibid., 277

23. Ibid., 525

24. Ibid., 135

25. Ibid., 169-170

26. Ibid., 164

27. Ibid., 347

28. Ibid., 347-348

29. Ibid., 342-343

30. Ibid., 49

31. Ibid., 49

32. Ibid., 315

33. Ibid., 49

34. Ibid., 315

35. Ibid., 116

36. Ibid., 116

37. Ibid., 34-35

38. Ibid., 53-54

39. Ibid., 611

40. Ibid., 34-35

41. Ibid., 236

42. Ibid., 236

43. Ibid., 232

44. Ibid., 236

45. Ian T. Taylor, In the Minds of Men : Darwin and the New World Order (Toronto : TFE Publishing, c1984), 127

46. Ibid., 126

47. Ibid., 127

48. Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope : A History of the World in Our Time (New York : Macmillan ; Collier-Macmillan, 1966), 51

49. Ibid., 532

50. Allan Chase, The Legacy of Malthus : The Social Costs of the New Scientific Racism (New York : Knopf : distributed by Random House, 1977, c1976), 517

51. Ibid., 3

52. Ibid., 4

53. Ibid., 602

54. Ibid., 12

55. Ibid., 406

56. Ibid., 517

57. Ibid., 561

58. Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope : A History of the World in Our Time (New York : Macmillan ; Collier-Macmillan, 1966), 83

59. Ibid., 83

60. Allan Chase, The Legacy of Malthus : The Social Costs of the New Scientific Racism (New York : Knopf : distributed by Random House, 1977, c1976), 342-343

61. Ibid., 509

62. Ibid., 425

63. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages : America’s Role in the Technetronic Era (New York : Viking Press, c1970), 76

64. Allan Chase, The Legacy of Malthus : The Social Costs of the New Scientific Racism (New York : Knopf : distributed by Random House, 1977, c1976), 422

65. Ibid., 422

66. Ibid., 404

67. Ibid., 602

68. Ibid., 602

69. Ibid., 390-391

70. Ibid., 51

71. Ibid., 518

72. Ibid., 51

73. Ibid., 398-399

74. Ibid., 70

75. Ibid., 68

76. John Bryden, Deadly Allies : Canada’s Secret War, 1937-1947 (Toronto : McClelland and Stewart, c1989), 265

77. Allan Chase, The Legacy of Malthus : The Social Costs of the New Scientific Racism (New York : Knopf : distributed by Random House, 1977, c1976), 68

78. Ibid., 378

79. Ibid., 378

80. Ibid., 382


Put in Books
  • V@V

    Industry doesn’t need the poor to survive. Actually the less people in poverty the more money in an economy and the better it should be for industry.

    Which isn’t to say that you as earth emperor should do anything about poverty. Government always f***s that up.

  • http://www.seounderworld.com underworld

    Of course Industry needs the poor to survive, well actually barely survive – who made your shoes? It would have been someone in “poverty”

    Thats not to say the gouverment doesnt fuck everything up, in the end a f***ed up thing is easier to control.

  • http://www.cygnet-infotech.com/microsoft-dot-net-application-development.htm Microsoft.NET development

    I absolutely agree to V@V. Industry in no way needs poverty. If there will be no poverty than just imagine the place will be so good.