Glad quotes a Jewish eugenicist in a 1930s journal: “The eugenicist…does not aim to establish a race of supermen, but rather, a race of sturdy, intelligent and healthy individuals similar to the large proportion of the human family now in existence.”

Later, he cites another Jewish eugenicist’s 3-point plan:

Social Eugenics will accomplish the following: It will reduce future welfare rolls. It will reduce our prison population. It will reduce future crimes. It will consist of a simple three-point plan: First, the Aid to Dependent Children will be phased out….Second…persons on Welfare who consent to sterilization will receive a one thousand dollar cash bonus…. Third, all prison inmates will be [given] a three-year reduction in their prison sentences if they consent to sterilization.

In much of the Western world during the 1920s and 1930s, eugenics was a popular cause. Some of its more notable proponents include H. G. Wells, Charles Darwin, Margaret Sanger, Winston Churchill, Francis Galton, George Bernard Shaw, Charles Lindbergh, Alexander Graham Bell, Theodore Roosevelt, Oliver Wendell Holmes and Julian Huxley. Huxley described eugenics as “of all outlets for altruism, that which is most comprehensive and of longest range.” Wells said, “It seemed to me that to discourage the multiplicati
on of people below a certain standard, and to encourage the multiplication of exceptionally superior people, was the only real and permanent way of mending the ills of the world.” It was neither a liberal nor a conservative cause, with supporters along all points of the political spectrum.

Then in the late 1960s, the majority of Jewish social scientists and journalists in Europe and North America did an about-face, reversing their position to one of harsh denunciation of eugenics, and since there was no organized opposition, their beliefs became both the academic orthodoxy and the “conventional wisdom.” This has lasted about 50 years to the present day. Although Glad never even speculates about why this remarkable event occurred, he provides the first clue – that it coincided with the birth of the Holocaust Memorial Movement, which can hardly be an insignificant coincidence.

Perhaps the second clue towards explaining anti-eugenics lies in the content and tone of their works – they became more dogmatic, and less rigorously scientific. Their readers were taught that certain opinions are acceptable, even praiseworthy, whereas others are forbidden, held only by screwballs and evil-doers. For example, according to them, all good and decent people believe the following: that heredity counts for nothing; that race doesn’t exist; that IQ is a fraud invented by White men who wanted to feel superior; that everyone is born exactly the same on everything that matters. Obviously, if only the environment determines human behavior, then there’s no point in eugenics.

The Nature-Nurture debate took center stage in public awareness in the latter part of the 20th century because of a media blitz engineered by the political left. It wasn’t much of a “debate,” however, because, for the most part, only their side was presented to the public. Eugenics was given a leading role – along with heredity, environment, race, and IQ tests – in their little “morality play.” Hereditarians believe both Nature and Nurture are important – they were cast as the heartless, bigoted villains. “Environmentalists” (a.k.a. “egalitarians”) should not be confused with those who want to protect the natural environment – in this context, environmentalists are those who believe that all human beings are born exactly equal on everything that matters, and that differences in behavior are determined by the environment. The environmentalists portrayed themselves as the “good guys” who bravely defend the public from the hateful influence of wicked hereditarians and eugenicists.

In 1971, Steven Jay Gould published The Mismeasure of Man. It received lavish praise all ‘round, and won numerous awards. It was translated into 10 languages, and it became required reading for undergraduate and graduate courses in psychology, anthropology, and sociology. Gould was a staunch environmentalist. He published a new “revised” edition in 1996, but it was the exact same book with extra chapters added to the end. J. Philippe Rushton writes in his review of the new edition:

After carefully reading the book, I charge Gould with several counts of scholarly malfeasance. First, he omits mention of remarkable new discoveries made from Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) which show that brain size and IQ correlate about 0.40. These results are as replicable as one will find in the social and behavioral sciences and utterly destroy many of Gould’s arguments. Second, despite published refutations, Gould repeats verbatim his defamations of character against long deceased individuals.

Gould was the most popular and prolific of the bunch, but there were a number of other academics who wrote books in the same vein, such as Lewontin, Rose, and Kamin who jointly published Not in Our Genes in 1984. Dawkins aptly described the book as “silly, pretentious, obscurantist and mendacious.” They agreed with Gould that IQ means nothing, plus it’s not inherited, and furthermore, it doesn’t even exist! These authors, too, believed that science can never be truly objective, never free of bias or political and cultural influence. This is a form of nihilism, and common sense would suggest that nihilists should not be trusted, and that their own motives should come under the deepest scrutiny.

The environmentalists had no remotely compelling evidence that heredity is unimportant in human behavior for the pure and simple reason that this is nonsense. There’s a mountain of scientific evidence on twins and adopted children which proves the importance of heredity. So they merely sniped at the research of their opponents, especially their older, out-dated research, while generating none of their own – and herein lies the third clue about the Jews’ about-face on eugenics: most of them have produced precious little (if anything at all) in the way of original research. If they had truth on their side, they should be able to prove their assertions with research, but they didn’t even try, suggesting that they knew all along it would be futile. Their new secular religion was made up of “politically correct” tenets that have become articles of faith. Not only is their set of beliefs true, they insist, it is the only moral stance. Doesn’t this sound suspicious? How can a question of fact become a moral duty to believe?

In 1985, Daniel Kevles published a book entitled In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity. It first appeared in serial form in The New Yorker, and it was also extremely well-received, very influential, and widely cited. In the first chapter, Kevles states that Francis Galton, Charles Darwin’s cousin and the “father of eugenics,” believed in eugenics because (1) he was born into the aristocracy, and (as Marx would claim) he was an elitist participant in the “class struggle” of capitalism, and because (2) he and his wife were childless, a psychological need arose which led him to promote eugenics. Kevles writes that “[H]ad [Galton] been more self-aware he might have understood that his proto-eugenic pronouncements celebrated the social milieu – and met the psychic needs – of Francis Galton.” With this one statement, he simultaneously patronizes Galton and insults him. He offers no proof, nor evidence of any kind. He goes on to assert that “Galton may well have diverted frustration over his own lack of children into an obsession with the propagation of Galton-like offspring.” But how can Kevles presume to know what “really” motivated Francis Galton?

The following quote by Lucy Davidowicz provides another example of the uncritical thinking so typical of the anti-eugenics literature:

Negative eugenics was [the Nazis’] program designed first to halt the procreation of persons…through sterilization, and then eventually to kill them [sic].

The point is that, aside from being untrue, if the goal of the Nazis had been to prevent procreation, it would be absurd to first sterilize people, and then to kill them! This quote also brings up the important subject of euthanasia. In the years before World War II, Germany had an unusually large institutionalized population, mostly psychotic or severely debilitated by illness. Hitler instituted a program of euthanasia to give them a “merciful death.” The historical record shows that he did this in order to free up medical supplies and personnel which he knew he would need for future military campaigns. Whether this program was wise or unwise is irrelevant to the issue at hand, because euthanasia has nothing whatsoever to do with eugenics. People who are institutionalized do not procreate, so euthanasia would serve no eugenic purpose. Yet somehow, euthanasia has become entangled conceptually with eugenics. It’s difficult to know to what extent this was an accident, and to what extent eugenics may have been deliberately confounded with euthanasia, as the Davidowicz quote might suggest. The unfortunate result of this confusion is that many educated people today actually believe eugenics is a program of forcible m
ass murder of the weak and infirm.

The big gun in the arsenal of the anti-eugenicists is their claim that eugenics caused the Holocaust, and more generally, that eugenics invariably leads to genocide, and for that reason it’s extremely dangerous and should be banned everywhere. Unfortunately, this belief is often treated as self-evident, as if it needs no proof, but it is hardly self-evident!

Despite the fact that this is accepted as true in much of the Western world, in reality it can easily be proven to be false: (1) It’s well-known that in the 1920s and 1930s, there were numerous eugenics programs in countries around the world, including America and a number of European nations, and that in one of these countries, Nazi Germany, genocide was committed. If eugenics causes genocide – as its opponents claim – then why was there no genocide in all those other countries? Why were there literally dozens of exceptions to this rule? (2) Both before and after the Nazis, mass murder and genocide have been committed many times throughout history. The Communists murdered far more people that the Nazis did, and they vehemently opposed eugenics. History records numerous instances of genocide in the absence of eugenics, and numerous instances of eugenics in the absence of genocide, and only one instance in which they even existed in the same time and place. These are hardly obscure facts of history, nor are they in dispute. The plain fact is that eugenics has nothing whatsoever to do with genocide.

On the face of it, the very notion that a program designed to help future generations is directly responsible for mass murder is preposterous. Assertions of causality – for example, “The influenza virus causes the flu” – need to be backed up with facts if they are to be taken seriously. But in this case, where are the facts? To assert that “Germany had a eugenics program and the Holocaust took place there” is wholly inadequate. Furthermore, even a cursory examination of the historical record is sufficient to rule out a causal link. What's remarkable is that this blatant falsehood has been vigorously promoted to the public for decades – to the point where most people actually believe it – which elevates it from a mere falsehood to the status of a “hoax.” This raises the intriguing question of who is behind this hoax, and what exactly have they been trying to accomplish by it?

The vast majority of Western anti-eugenicists have been Jews. (Of course, only a small minority of Jews were anti-eugenicists.) They denounced eugenics with such remarkable and relentless ferocity that it has become profoundly stigmatized. As a result of their tidal wave of distortions, the image of eugenics was completely transformed in the mind of the public. It seems almost miraculous how they managed to replace the normal, honest, correct, sane image the public has held of eugenics since its inception – that of a transparently altruistic effort to help future generations – into the most vicious form of pure evil ever to scourge our planet.

By the late 20th century, the few beleaguered eugenicists still left, mostly academics with tenure, struggled to carry on their work:

Dissidents are subjected to academic shunning. Their books and articles are not recommended for publication or are ignored if published, and are certainly not assigned to students. Many librarians not only will not order them, but will refuse to accept them as gifts. Such authors are not invited to participate in conferences or deliver guest lectures, are not awarded grants or academic appointments, and even their correspondence goes unanswered….This de facto blacklisting easily carries the day in newspapers and on television-radio talk shows, scooping out an ever widening chasm between popular opinion and science. It is a scenario that has been repeatedly played out in academia in the past. Galileo ultimately wins out over the Inquisition, but that can be a very lengthy process [emphasis in original].

North American and European eugenicists were up against an anti-eugenics juggernaut of books, lectures, articles, TV mini-series, museums, interviews, radio talk shows, newspaper stories, and movies. Plagued by hostility and ridicule from colleagues, even ostracized socially for holding “unsavory” opinions, we developed an uneasy sense that the entire world had gone insane. This surreal suppression of truth in supposedly “free” countries created an extremely uncomfortable atmosphere that lasted for decades. Consider the following analogy: imagine you dropped a tennis ball and it flew upwards into the clouds! Naturally, you’d be dumbfounded. Experience and judgment told us that what we were witnessing – right there before our very eyes – should not be happening. Something was profoundly wrong in the world – but what?

Furthermore, it was hard to fathom how the public could be so easily brainwashed about eugenics when science, logic, and morality were all firmly on its side. We wondered: Have they considered even once the alternative to eugenics, which is dysgenics (genetic deterioration)? Do they really want to see each generation become more sickly, more stupid, poorer, and more criminal than the last one?

Among the handful of eugenicists remaining, opinion was divided on the subject of why eugenics was in a shambles. Everyone agreed that it had been unfairly tarnished because of guilt-by-association with Hitler – an extremely unfortunate but nevertheless “natural” result of a confluence of world events – whereas a few suspected more was involved. The anti-eugenicists were not merely mistaken or misguided – by this time, we knew that they knew they were lying. Bear in mind that during the 1970s and 1980s, hardly anyone had even heard about the thriving eugenics program in Israel.

Since virtually all our opponents were Jews, and it was obvious that they had some kind of political agenda they barely tried to conceal, most people thought it was Marxism. The problem was that, at least among a few of us, we also assumed that world events took place as a result of an interaction of factors which unfolded “naturally.” We were idealistic scientists, admittedly naive and trusting, and we hadn’t the faintest clue that the entire Western world was being manipulated for the political benefit of a tiny ethnic minority. Then along came Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy to open our eyes. Suddenly we realized that the world is a far more sinister place than we could ever have imagined, but we understood – finally – what had happened to eugenics.

A number of modern Jewish intellectual movements have used wholesale deception to mold public opinion to create a climate favorable to their own interests to the detriment of society at large (see MacDonald, 1998b). A broader perspective can be achieved with regard to the anti-eugenics hoax after stepping back and viewing it in this context. When it is seen alongside these other movements, the anti-eugenics hoax begins to make more sense. Examples: Marxism, Freudian psychoanalysis, “open immigration,” and most recently, neo-conservatism. The neoconservatives lied America into war with Iraq (Israel’s enemy), and their campaign for war, significantly, has also been characterized as a “hoax.”

.Not just “many” or “most” anti-eugenicists have been Jews, but the “overwhelming majority,” and this distinction is crucial because it defines anti-eugenics as a Jewish movement, and makes it reasonable to assume that it was intended to benefit Jews in some way. Also, they engaged in massive fraud for a period of 50 years to accomplish their goal, so the anti-eugenics hoax clearly “fits” alongside the other Jewish intellectual movements which MacDonald has written about. Now at least we have the beginnings of an answer starting to take shape, a preliminary step closer to solving the puzzle. We're still left with the questi
on of how destroying eugenics could possibly help Jews, but this will be answered below.

As touched on earlier, eugenics is part of a cluster of issues along with IQ, race, and the Nature-Nurture question. These, in turn, are part of a larger matrix known as “political correctness,” or “leftist fascism,” and this includes immigration, intermarriage, diversity, and multi-culturalism. Much has been written about political correctness – nobody knows quite where it came from, and why it has taken over the Western world with a vengeance. Political correctness didn't just occur arbitrarily like a change in the weather; it happened because people made it happen, people who derived (and continue to derive) benefit from it. MacDonald believes that the current Zeitgeist, with its various manifestations, is the product of Jews and Jewish organizations working for decades to re-create the social and political landscape, bit by bit, into one which benefits their own narrow ethnic interests.

Case in point: immigration. Jews have been persecuted throughout their long history, and quite understandably, their paramount concern is making sure that it doesn’t happen again. In a confident, united, ethnically homogeneous society – like Nazi Germany – Jews are much more vulnerable as conspicuous outsiders, and they know this both consciously and unconsciously. They are safer and more powerful in a society which is divided and disorganized, where they are more free to advance their own agenda, unnoticed and without interference. In Israel, immigration is closed to everyone except Jews, regardless of their need for refuge. But in America, where Balkanization is to their advantage, Jews spearheaded the fight for “open immigration,” ostensibly on “humanitarian” grounds, and this allowed many different nationalities and races into the country. They promoted the belief that the environment is all-powerful and heredity counts for nothing, and this led directly to political policies which benefited themselves. According to their reasoning, if millions of Pygmies immigrate to America, they are bound to become good citizens sooner or later, since race doesn't exist and all behavior is determined by the environment. But lofty-sounding universalist ideals espoused when in the minority are forgotten in Israel, where it’s no longer to