2 Eugenics vs. Democracy

The most important point at the present about the eugenics societies is that they are the only known example within the modern democracies of a significant group, secret yet untouchable, actively working for a radical social agenda. Their agenda includes the destruction of democracy by reinstitutionalizing racism in America and elsewhere.
The Untouchables

In England eugenic projects, such as the BPAS, the PAS and the International Planned Parenthood Federation, are protected by the Government, as can be seen in rescuer trials. For example, as mentioned before, the English Government sent a barrister to a rescuer trial with instructions to oppose our attempts to subpoena evidence. His first words were: "Greetings from Her Majesty's Government", thus making it plain that this was official interference with the trial. Or, to take another example, the International Planned Parenthood Federation is supported by tax dollars.(1)

Though protected by the government, the IPPF advocates law breaking to further its radical agenda:

"Family Planning Associations and other non governmental organisations should not use the absence of law or the existence of an unfavourable law as an excuse for inaction; action outside the law, and even in violation of it, is part of the process of stimulating change." (2)
This has been IPPF policy from the beginning. In 1965 Vera Houghton, first General Secretary of the IPPF, described how family planning groups subverted laws:
"So long as the voluntary organisation does not make its activities too obvious, no action is taken against it. This is, of course, tacit admission that the law is out-of-date and no longer enforceable. In such cases the voluntary organisation may avoid using the words family planning in its title and instead choose a more general term like happy families, family welfare or family education; its centres will very likely be called consultation offices, not clinics and patients will be referred to one of a group of doctors working with the organisation." (3)

Isn't this an interesting statement? It's an acknowledgement of conspiracy and a description of the mode of operation. In England justice is the same for high and low alike. So, at least, I was told when tried and convicted of conspiracy for attempting to rescue babies from abortion in England. But the IPPF and Planned Parenthood of America, which contributes money and expertise to the IPPF, have never been prosecuted for conspiracy nor for deliberate violations of English law which they flaunt in their publications.

The IPPF also advocates subverting the national policies of other countries and kingdoms in furtherance of its own agenda. In 1978 its annual report mentioned that:

"Special priority is being given within the... (European)... region to IPPF help for countries with religious and cultural barriers to family planning, to those countries with pro natalist policies."
(4) France has pro natalist policies and all of Ireland does not allow abortion. Yet IPPF is supported in this interference with French and Irish national policies by French and Irish taxes since France and Ireland contribute to the UN and the European Community both of whom funnel money to the IPPF. Notice that the French are taxed to support pro natalist policies and then taxed again to overthrow those same policies. But no one says a word.

In short, eugenic projects, though secret, are untouchable. But this is not, as the eugenicists claim, because the eugenic program is mainstream. Eugenics is entirely radical.

Radical Program 1: Save the British

Some eugenicists, believe that a large population is necessary for national power, and that a large population of English people is necessary for the preservation of the world. Eva Hubback, for example, is recorded as having said:

"Britain's standards of value ... are of such fundamental importance to the world that it is highly desirable that her present considerable share of influence should at least be maintained, if not increased ... To fall much below the present level of population in this country would inevitably relegate us to the category of small nations and seriously reduce our influence. Small countries can now exist only if permitted to do so by the larger ones A greatly reduced population is a fate that no people of spirit who love their country can contemplate with equanimity. ... [If Britain's birth rate falls and the colonies are supposed to make up the deficit then] ... it will be necessary for the Dominions especially Australia, to adopt policies similar to those I have outlined. India, on the other hand must aim at a decreasing birth rate."(5)
So population control is seen by some eugenicists as the servant of national ambition. England must have a large population in order to spread such civilising influences as equal justice for all and soccer hooliganism effectively. India "must aim at a decreasing birth rate". Its values and power are to be held in check. What could be more radical than proposing the endless supremacy of an island by decreasing the population of a whole sub continent?

Eva Hubback made her argument for the British birth rate as against the Indian in 1945. Shortly after this the IPPF was founded. To what extent was the IPPF a tool for the ideas put forth in The Population of Great Britain?

It is clear that the IPPF is, to some extent, such a tool. Eva Hubback was not just an obscure writer with "a bee in her bonnet", as the English say. She was well connected. She was a Eugenics Society Council member during and after World War II. Her son, David Hubback, was Under-secretary of the Treasury when the 1967 Abortion Act was passed. In writing The Population of Great Britain, she was assisted by many members of the Eugenics Society:

"I would like to acknowledge my indebtedness to W.A.B. Hopkins, F. Lafitte, Dr. McCleary, R. Titmuss, the Reports of ... P.E.P. (Political and Economic Planning) ... Much help was also given in criticising typescripts or proofs by Dr. Douglas, Dr. Isaacs, Dr. McCleary, Miss Neville, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe ..." (6)
The IPPF itself had its first office in the headquarters of the Eugenics Society at 69 Eccelstone Square where it remained for the first seventeen years of its existence. Its early founders and many later officers were members of eugenic societies.(7) It admitted the Australian Racial Hygiene Society as an associate member at a time when Australia had a `whites only' immigration policy. The IPPF itself was listed as a Eugenics Society member in an official list of members which the Society drew up in 1977 and deposited in the Contemporary Medical Archives of the Wellcome Library. Francois Lafitte, who is mentioned as giving assistance in the writing of Hubback's book, became chairman of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, an abortion group which exported abortion to Europe, thus reducing populations in other countries. R.M. Titmuss helped introduce birth control to Mauritius. W.A.B. Hopkins was the first director of the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

So the question of the extent to which the ideas in The Population of Great Britain were (and are) being advanced by an inner ring of Eugenics Society members inside the IPPF and in the abortion movement is one that should be investigated. But the fact is that the IPPF is, as intended, advancing to some extent, a policy of British or white Anglo-Saxon supremacy. And this is a very radical policy in the sense that this policy is being paid for by taxes from other countries such as France and Germany, which are being depopulated, and the United States. In fact at the Cairo Population Conference in 1995, the IPPF was put in charge of 17 billion dollars and thus is in charge of the world's population control programs.

Radical Program 2: No Heaven and a New Earth

Other eugenicists, such as Kingsley Davis, who was the second American representative to the UN Population Commission, are somewhat dubious about the need for a large (British) population in order to project (American) national power. But they still have a radical social agenda. Kingsley Davis, for example, supports decreasing population - everywhere. Davis makes a distinction between "family planning" which is non coercive and "population control" which involves government coercion. He believes that "family planning" will not achieve the goals of the eugenicists and so "population control" is required. He has asserted that true population control requires that the culture of every nation on the face of the earth be changed.

He first advanced these ideas in 1967 in an article published in Science.(8) There he said:

"The conditions that cause births to be wanted or unwanted are beyond the control of family planning ... the social structure and economy must be changed before a deliberate reduction in the birth rate can be achieved"
By changes in the social structure he meant:
"changes in the structure of the family, in the position of women and in the social mores"
Changes which would achieve the goal of population control, according to Davis, included changes in tax laws in order to penalise marriage and having children and, most interestingly, changes in the position of women:
"Women could be required to work outside the home, or compelled by circumstances to do so. If, at the same time, women were paid as well as men and given equal educational and occupational opportunities ... many women would develop interests that would compete with family interests."
The Davis article presents itself as an educational effort - what would be needed for a population policy - not a series of proposals. Yet in the last thirty years many of its proposals have been adopted in the USA and Europe. And the result has been a population declining below "replacement levels", a population headed for extinction were it not for immigration. So, if the Davis proposals were ever implemented world wide, the population of every society on earth would head for extinction - but smaller and poorer societies or tribes whose declining birth rate was not compensated for by immigration wouldbe extinguished first. Their resources would then pass into the hands of larger groups. This exactly what happened in the Nineteenth Century under the policy called colonialism in such places as Tasmania and this is what Hitler was trying to achieve with his policies in Poland and Russia.

The ideas of Davis became proposals in the hands of Frederick Jaffe(9) and of Bernard Berelson, the President of the Population Council. Berelson made a speech at the Dacca International Family Planning Conference in Jan./Feb. 1969. It was entitled "Beyond Family Planning". The speech took up Davis's comments and made them policy proposals.

At the Bucharest Population Conference in 1974, John D Rockefeller III said that he believed that the time had come to go "beyond family planning". By this he meant that it was time to implement Davis's theories. JDR III was Chairman of the Population Council from the time he founded it in 1953 until his death in 1977. The Population Council, as we shall see, is very influential in World Bank and American family planning policy.

"Beyond family planning", a radical social plan supported for years by one of the wealthiest men in the world, a plan whose consequences would be genocidal in many parts of the world, has never been investigated, let alone condemned.

Even pro lifers, aware of the plan, have never discussed its political implications. But, obviously, if abortion was made necessary to the social fabric by a series of engineered social changes, then it is just as important to undo those social changes as a part of the creation of a culture of life as it is to undo the abortion laws. The social changes brought about by eugenics are so extensive that a party which ran on the platform of undoing them would have an entire domestic and foreign agenda. Prof. Grebenik has listed some of the government policies necessary for lowering the birth rate. They are:

"squeeze consumers through taxation and inflation; make housing very scarce by limiting construction; force wives and mothers to work outside the home to offset the inadequacy of male wages, yet provide few child care facilities; encourage immigration to the cities by providing low wages in the country and providing few rural jobs; increase congestion in the cities by starving the transit system; increase personal insecurity by encouraging conditions that produce unemployment and by haphazard political arrests"(10)
In 1970 Grebenik commented that these policies were too radical for a democracy, though he noted that "poor housing and widespread gainful employment of women in towns seems to have led to a reduction in the birth rate of some Eastern European countries". In the last 25 years, however, many of these policies have been introduced and they should be reversed by pro life parties. Such a reversal would lead toward a culture of life. If women felt that the building of a home was a worthwhile and a full time enterprise, then society would simultaneously have full employment and all the social repair which would naturally follow from full time families. Such a policy reversal would, of course, include a foreign agenda. Aid could be made contingent on a pro family policy, just as it is now contingent on an anti family policy embodied in a "population plan". Or aid could be separated from the whole issue of the family. And, of course, Eastern European countries, whose wonderful life under Communism the eugenicists have worked to introduce into the West, should be urged to engage in reverse social engineering also.(11)

For Whom the Bell Tolls

Eugenics society members may be working to lower population among the "inferior", or they may be working to change all cultures so as to lower population everywhere. Either position is radical. Both require twisting every culture on the face of the earth.

Furthermore, eugenics requires the destruction of democracy. Democracy "stands in the way of eugenics". But its destruction need not be overt. A shell may be left in its place, as was done in Vichy France under Petain, a member of the French eugenics society. Such a hidden destruction of democracy can best be accomplished by teaching people within democracies to look down on some group which will then be made the first target of all the eugenic proposals. This was Hitler's method. His target group was the Jews who were to be followed by the Slavs. In America the target group will be the African Americans.

So we have the destruction of most cultures, the destruction of democracy, and the re-institutionalisation of racism on the agenda of the eugenic societies.

This ghastly agenda is being introduced without debate or discussion of eugenics or of the part played by the eugenics societies. The Bell Curve is recent example of the attempt to do these three things - destroy American culture, destroy democracy and reinstitutionalize racism - all on behalf of eugenics and all without discussing eugenics. The Bell Curve never acknowledged the existence of eugenic societies and never discussed their influence, though, as we have seen, it used the research of eugenic society members.(12)

And what about the part played by the Pioneer Fund in the "research" behind The Bell Curve?

The authors most important to the argument of The Bell Curve, those cited most often were Arthur Jensen and Richard Lynn. Both these men were funded by the Pioneer Fund. This fund was established in 1937 for the purpose of increasing the percentage of white people of the right type in the United States. In the late sixties O.F. Von Verschuer, the German professor who planned Josef Mengele's twin experiments in Auschwitz, was on the Editorial Board of the Pioneer Fund's Mankind Quarterly. This journal was founded to oppose school desegregation.

The Pioneer Fund is closely linked with the American Eugenics Society. The Fund was founded by Harry Laughlin and Frederick Osborn and funded by W.P. Draper. In the late Forties and early Fifties, Frederick Osborn was its president and also president of the American Eugenics Society. Within the same time frame, he began helping John D. Rockefeller III found the Population Council. Recent society directors and members have had their work funded by the Pioneer Fund.(13)

But Murray doesn't discuss the Pioneer Fund. Is this what we can expect from the cognitive elite? Is this the new Harvard way? Or is it the way of cognitive lackeys? - silent about and subservient to the Foundation that funds one's work.

We Have To Understand Eugenics

Eugenic ideas are becoming influential again. As mentioned before, hardly was The Bell Curve published, when the President of Rutgers was saying that African Americans had a genetic hereditary defect. The 1994 immigration initiative in California was supported by F.A.I.R., a Pioneer Fund beneficiary. Michael Teitelbaum, a past president of the American eugenics society, was on the Jordan Commission which recommended a computerised registry of everyone eligible to work This is simply an identity card under another name. Registering everyone has always been a eugenic goal. It is a first step in showing that everyone is too expensive. Abortion and contraception are now part of public policy and euthanasia is now being proposed as a new weapon in the arsenal of anti democracy.

This can't go on.

We have to understand the goals and methodology of eugenic groups in order to preserve democracy in the Information Age.

We have to make eugenicists discuss their true agenda and we have to understand the tactics and strategy of these societies.

If, despite the implication of eugenicists in the Jewish Holocaust, we allow them to exist in secret and work in the penumbra for their undemocratic and racist goals, then they will destroy democracy.

It seems to me that, in many ways, the eugenic societies are exploiting science and new types of organisation and technology to achieve the ancient goals of greed and pride. Just as Bonnie and Clyde used cars to move quickly, so the eugenic societies use modern ease of travel(14) and modern communications to form small, quickly organised groups which press for a change and then dissolve back into society. Little committees come and go, like monsters in an arcade game, before anyone can determine their nature or origin. But, despite the speed of their organisation and dissolution, these "panzer committees" are fully supported by media people, scientists, foundation grants and demonstrators, the "plane/tank/infantry" combination necessary for success in modern persuasion. And that's because these people exist within the eugenic societies, ready for use when needed.(15)

Because the committees come and go, they are never forced to debate and defend their eugenic agenda; nor are their strategies understood. Ambiguous language is inserted into public discourse and into law for veiled reasons by "reformers" from "councils" and committees. These persons then vanish from the public arena - reappearing later, perhaps, "out of nowhere", as users of the ambiguity and the "reform" (which turns out to be unlimited in its scope). For example, as a member of the ALRA, Martin Cole pressed for a slight reform in the English abortion law. As soon as the law passed he opened an abortion facility, The Calthorpe, which allowed abortion on demand. But, just as, in an arcade game, it becomes possible to win once the machine strategy is understood, so it is possible to defeat eugenics by understanding its agenda, its membership and its strategy.

For Whom The Bell Curve Tolls

But does organised eugenics still exist?

The first thing to understand is that the eugenics societies are unknown because they are secretive, not because they lack influence. Little has been heard about eugenics in recent years because the eugenics societies exempt themselves from the test of debate by working in secretive, manipulatory ways. Among all the discussions of The Bell Curve, how many focused on the fact that the book was dominated by the work of eugenicists? Despite much talk about faith in the human mind, eugenicists do not work openly where their ideas would be evaluated and debated as a whole.

This has always been a tendency within eugenics(16) but it is currently official Eugenics Society (England) policy. In 1960 at its annual meeting the Eugenics Society officially adopted a policy called `crypto-eugenics' which means a policy of working through other organisations for eugenic goals. The Society passed a resolution which said:

"The Society's activities in crypto eugenics should be pursued vigorously, and, specifically, that the Society should increase its monetary support of the FPA and the IPPF and should make contact with the Society for the Study of Human Biology, which already has a strong and active membership, to find out if any relevant projects are contemplated with which the Eugenics Society could assist."(17)
Note that the Family Planning Association of Great Britain (FPA) and The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) are two organisations specifically mentioned in this resolution as agents-in-place of crypto-eugenics. These groups were founded and are dominated by Eugenic Society members and their policies.(18) Their influence is a eugenic influence.

There is some evidence that crypto eugenics is also the policy of the American Eugenics Society (which is now called the Society for the Study of Social Biology). In 1957 CP. Blacker, Secretary of the English Eugenics Society, circulated a memo to that Society which mentioned a policy of crypto eugenics "which was apparently proving successful for the United States Eugenic Society".(19) Blacker was the most important figure in the Eugenics Society, a man in a position to know what the Americans were doing. In 1968 Frederick Osborn, for thirty years the most important officer in the American Society, said:

"Eugenic goals are most likely to be attained under a name other than eugenics"(20)
Eugenic groups were not always secretive. They worked openly in the Thirties. But after Hitler, they went underground because they realised that people would never accept eugenics as such. So they decided to manipulate. Frederick Osborn explained the necessity for a new policy in 1956 in the Galton Lecture.(21) Four score and six years ago, according to Osborn, Galton
"published his Hereditary Genius; he envisaged the eugenic movement as something that would sweep the world and make man at last the master of his own destiny on earth. It has not happened. The eugenic movement is nothing but a few small handfuls of men in various countries ... They are not influencing public opinion. The very word eugenics is in disrepute in some quarters ... We must ask ourselves, what have we done wrong?"(22)
Here we have an important post World War II eugenicist responding to the Nazi eugenic catastrophe. "We must ask ourselves," he says, "what have we done wrong? Why are we only a few handfuls of men? Why is eugenics in disrepute?" What an interesting moment in the history of eugenics. What is his answer?
" ... what have we done wrong? I think we have failed to take into account a trait which is almost universal and is very deep in human nature. People simply are not willing to accept the idea that the genetic base on which their character is formed is inferior and should not be repeated in the next generation. We have asked whole groups of people to accept this idea and we have asked individuals to accept it. They have constantly refused, and we have all but killed the eugenic movement."(23)
What an incredible statement. The eugenic movement had all but killed the Jewish race. It had intended to kill off the Gypsies, then the Poles and then all the Slavs. Eugenicists who participated in the effort were hung at Nuremberg. But what does Osborn notice and of what does he repent? He notices that the eugenic movement has been reduced to "small handfuls of men." This was supposed to happen to the "inferior" under the guidance of eugenicists, not to eugenicists at the hands of the inferior. And why has the plan gone thus awry? The mistake was asking people to acknowledge that they are inferior. And the remedy Osborn proposes is still more surprising. We must have a better PR campaign, he says.
"They won't accept the idea that they are in general second rate. We must rely on other motivations." (24)
What is this "other motivation" to be? It is to be people's feeling for their children. Eugenicists are to say "your children should not have an inferior parent." A parent's protective instinct for the child is to be used against the child.
"It is possible to build a system of voluntary unconscious selection. But the reasons advanced must be generally acceptable reasons. Let's stop telling anyone that they have a generally inferior genetic quality for they will never agree. Let's base our proposals on the desirability of having children born in homes where they will get affectionate and responsible care, and perhaps our proposals will be accepted".(25)
In other words, Osborn still believes that whole groups are inferior and that evolution must still seek speedily to abolish these groups. They shouldn't have children. But "they won't accept the idea that they are in general second rate" and eugenicists are not to ask them to do so. Instead the "inferior" are to be manipulated into "voluntarily" accepting policies which over a period of time will exterminate them as a group - "voluntary unconscious selection". Slogans such as "Every child a wanted child" are to be put about, a slogan which comes from eugenics and really means "better dead than badly bred".

Voluntary unconscious selection makes a mockery of the ideas of informed consent or choice within the field of reproductive health. Most eugenic ideas are advanced as if they were a part of medicine yet Osborn is here openly proposing that the true eugenic goal of these "medical" procedures be concealed from the "patients". His ideas were carried out.

The proof is contained in the book, The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law by the eugenicist, Glanville Williams. In the Fifties, according to Williams, Dr. Alan Guttmacher quoted another physician, Studdiford:

"as saying that most physicians justify their eugenic abortions by stating that they are preventing the mother from developing a psychosis. [Guttmacher] adds: `This is certainly an acceptable scientific rationalisation for a socially necessary procedure"(26)
According to Williams:
"the emotional stress is the legal reason for terminating, while eugenic considerations may be uppermost in the mind of the physician ... The legal course is apparently for the doctor to tell the mother of the risk in order to bring on the worry and then abort because of the worry."
Glanville Williams was head of the English Abortion Law Reform Association (ALRA), the group which successfully introduced abortion into England in the Sixties. One of the campaigners most important to David Steele, the MP who introduced the Abortion bill, was Vera Houghton, the former General Secretary of the IPPF. One of the people who influenced the wording of the law was Professor Dugald Baird
. As we have seen, Eugenics Society members, such as Martin Cole and Malcolm Potts, immediately opened abortion facilities when the ALRA changed the law. But, of course, these people never mentioned their eugenic goals. Instead they put about the slogan "Choice", and the idea that the unborn child is a small, inferior slave of some sort, who, like all slaves, can be disposed of as one chooses.

As another part of his program, Osborn also wanted the majority of people to have a specific picture of the targets of eugenic programs when these programs were first introduced; and he did not want a majority picturing themselves as targets. Therefore he depicted shiftless, child abusing welfare recipients as the target of family planners.

"... at a level somewhat above that of the mentally deficient, there are a substantial number of families among whom employment is irregular, who are constantly on and off relief... their birth rate is high ... probably as many as half their children result from pregnancies that are not wanted at the time, or ever, by one or both parents ... A reduction in the number of their unwanted children would further both the social and biological improvement of the population"(27)
No social majority will see their own features in the picture thus drawn. But they are there - "in the penumbra" as Justice Blackmun would say.

For, regardless of the picture which clever social marketing imposes on our imagination, the fact is that a change in principles affects all of us. And there is a principle involved here. Democracy is opposed to eugenics but certain kinds of reform are a back door to eugenics and from thence to destruction of democracy. The purpose of the Osborn proposals is to "further both the social and biological improvement of the population" by "family planning", or, in other words, to further evolution by the extermination of an inferior group. When our social policies come to include extermination of an underclass then they will shortly include kissing the feet of an upper class.

If the United States loses its democratic principles and replaces them with eugenics as a guide to social policy, then what will prevent any of us from later sliding down the backside of some other bell curve into oblivion while Lord Bureaucrat and his foundation lackeys spend the money saved by our extinction?


  1. IPPF has been supported by British taxpayers' money since 1967, the same year abortion was introduced in England. In 1980 the British government gave IPPF 2,000,000 British pounds; by 1987, 6,000,000 British pounds. (Association of Lawyers for the Defence of the Unborn newsletter); The Cairo Conference allocated 17 billion tax dollars, mainly from the US, for population control. The IPPF is to be the real administrator of these funds.
  2. The Human Right of Family Planning. IPPF, London 1984; A Strategy for Legal Change, IPPF, London 1981
  3. "Responsibilities of Voluntary Organisations", Vera Houghton, Eugenics Review, vol. 57, 1st March 1965, p. 17
  4. from IPPF section in Family Planning Association Ltd Annual Report 1978. Family Planning Association Ltd. Annual Reports include a section by the IPPF where policies and plans are described. These reports are available from Companies House, Cardiff, England for a moderate fee
  5. The Population of Britain, Eva Hubback, Pelican Books, 1945, p. 217-276
  6. The Population of Britain, Preface, p. 7
  7. American Eugenics Society: D. Brush; R Ferguson;. A Guttmacher; R.A. Kaur; L. Levine; R.G. Potter; M. Sanger; S. Segal; C. Senior.; A. Stone; W. Vogt; W. Weir
    English Eugenics Society: E. C. Amoroso; C P. Blacker; G. Cadbury; A. Durand-Wever; R G Edwards; E.C. Fernando; D.V. Glass; V Houghton; J. Huxley; Goh Kok Kee; Dr. Margaret C N. Jackson; Dr. Joan Malleson; James E Meade; E Mears; W.C.W. Nixon; Alan S. Parkes; M. Peberdy; R. Peers; M. Pyke; Jeremy Raisman; M.C. Shelesnyak: Lord Simon of Wythenshawe; Lecraz Teeluck; Lady Tewson; Christopher Tietze; Prof. Richard Titmuss; C. Von Emde Boas; H. Wright
  8. "Population Policy: Will Current Programs Succeed?", Science, vol. 158, Nov. 10, 1967
  9. "Activities Relevant to the Study of Population Policy for the US", Memorandum from Frederick Jaffe to Bernard Berelson, March 11, 1969, published in Family Planning Perspectives, Oct. 1970
  10. "On Controlling Population Growth", E. Grebenik, in Biology and the Human Sciences. (ed.) J.W.S. Pringle, Herbert Spencer Lectures, 1970, Oxford 1970
  11. Books such as The Proximate Determinants of Fertility study why different groups have children. Then the eugenicists initiate measures aimed at attacking these attitudes or beliefs. For example, they claim that the government will look after the elderly or they make schools expensive or useless. Reverse social engineering would consist in reading these books, determining which measures have been implemented in one's own area and reversing those measures. This is not all that needs to be done but this is what must be done by governments.
  12. The "tradition", beginning with Galton, which Murray uses, is the tradition of the eugenics societies. Why not say so? Isn't acknowledging sources part of intellectual honesty? Or is the cognitive elite now "beyond intellectual honesty"?
  13. L. Gottfredson, TJ. Bouchard. Eugenics Society members have also had their work funded by the Pioneer Fund - including Chris Brand. His book, The "g" Factor was removed from bookstore shelves during a controversy in which Brand agreed that he was a "scientific racist".
  14. In fact, the headquarters of both groups were, for a considerable period of time, both very close to a major subway/rail terminus. The American Eugenics Society was in the Helmsley Hotel, directly above Penn Station. The English Eugenics Society was in Eccelstone Square, one block from the Victoria Station underground/railway/bus hub.
  15. Aborting America by Bernard Nathanson and Abortion Law Reformed by Hindell and Simms describe the process without analysing it.
  16. "...the strength of the Eugenics Society lies not in its numbers but in the influence it can exert, through farsightedness, in high places.", from Eugenics Review 1954-55, p. 71, Notes of the Quarter
  17. "Aims and Activities of the Eugenics Society," A.S. Parkes, Eugenics Review 1968. A.S. Parkes was a former president of the Eugenics Society. The author of the resolution was C.P. Blacker, the long time General Secretary of the Society.
  18. Family Planning Association members who were in the Eugenics Society include Lady Denman (Founder/Chmn.), Margaret Pyke (Chmn.), Lord Horder (Pres.), Vera Houghton (V.P.), Cyril Clark (Pres.), W.R. Brain (Pres.), J.H. Peel (Pres.), and Michael Smith, Chief Medical Officer.
    Important IPPF members of eugenics societies are listed in note 7
  19. "Aims and Activities of the Eugenics Society", A.S. Parkes, Eugenics Review 1968.
  20. The Future of Human Heredity, Frederick Osborn, 1968, p. 104
  21. This Lecture should be obtained and read by anyone wishing to study or stop eugenics. It lays out the program now being followed.
  22. Galton lecture by Frederick Osborn, Eugenics Review 1957
  23. ibid.
  24. ibid.
  25. ibid.
  26. Williams op cit. p. 173-74
  27. The Future of Human Heredity; Frederick Osborn, 1968, p. 93-94

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