The Democrat Progressives' Grand Eugenics Plans exposed
Lady Liberty
they're prepared to indulge in
eugenics schemes,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2698847
( notice the link source of this info - the National Institutes of
Health! See http://nih.gov/ )
"Eugenics and American social history, 1880-1950.
Allen GE.
Department of Biology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130.
"Eugenics, the attempt to improve the human species socially through
better breeding was a widespread and popular movement in the United
States and Europe between 1910 and 1940. Eugenics was an attempt to use
science (the newly discovered Mendelian laws of heredity) to solve
social problems (crime, alcoholism, prostitution, rebelliousness),
using trained experts. Eugenics gained much support from
progressive reform thinkers, who sought to plan social development
using expert knowledge in both the social and natural sciences. In
eugenics, progressive reformers saw the opportunity to attack social
problems efficiently by treating the cause (bad heredity) rather than
the effect. Much of the impetus for social and economic reform came
from class conflict in the period 1880-1930, resulting from
industrialization, unemployment, working conditions, periodic
depressions, and unionization. In response, the industrialist class
adopted firmer measures of economic control (abandonment of laissez-
faire principles), the principles of government regulation (interstate
commerce, labor), and the cult of industrial efficiency. Eugenics was
only one aspect of progressive reform, but as a scientific claim to
explain the cause of social problems, it was a particularly powerful
weapon in the arsenal of class conflict at the time."
_________
The Democrat "progressives" have taylored their recent health care bill
to redistribute wealth, from seniors to those who they think deserve it
more. But who exactly deserves it
more?
Seniors were sold a bill of goods in the largest and most fraudulent
ponzi scheme in human history.
It makes Bernie Madoff's thefts look like a Sunday school picnic.
Since birth, they were fed the FDR era indoctrination that the
government would essentially take about 15%
of their incomes for all their working years, and then when they
retired, the government would care for them,
with retirement income and medical care.
The grand social plan of the "socialist workers paradise".
If they had been given the choice of investing their own 15% of income
over the same time periods, at mere
market rates, with compound interest, most of them would have been rich
by retirement.
Many of them have since found that the promised incomes have been good
for eating dog food in their
latter years.
The CONgress has long ago squandered their alleged savings over the
years, using the money for
whatever the CONgress pleased, and leaving these people now with an
estimated $106 TRILLION in
unfunded liabilities by the government that promised to take care of
them. ( source
http://www.usdebtclock.org/ )
And oh how the government plans to take care of them now. "Progressive"
eugenics plans.
$500 billion will be removed from current medicare benefits and
redistributed to whomever the CONgress
pleases to redistribute it to. ( as yet unclear )
Most seniors will wind up, not only barely being able to afford dog
food to eat, but if they're lucky, being
slipped a little permanent sleeping pill, like is currently being used
in the EU "socialist workers paradise".
The Democrat Progressives have always claimed to be the "compassionate"
ones.
This is "compassion"?
--
THE way to peace, freedom and prosperity:
Please read about the true principles of liberty at:
http://www.planetarybillofrights.org/
And read this:
This should be called "Textbook of Liberty"
http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/textbook.htm
--
THE way to peace, freedom and prosperity:
Please read about the true principles of liberty at:
http://www.planetarybillofrights.org/
And read this:
This should be called "Textbook of Liberty"
http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/textbook.htm
Johnny Asia
<LadyL...@NOSPAMPlanetaryBillOfRights.org> wrote:
>The Democrat "progressives" ( marxist globalists ) have now proven that
>they're prepared to indulge in
>eugenics schemes,
>
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2698847
>( notice the link source of this info - the National Institutes of
>Health! See http://nih.gov/ )
>
>"Eugenics and American social history, 1880-1950.
>
>
Far-right Republican "progressives" started and funded eugenics:
Eugenics Record Office of biologist Charles B. Davenport and his
assistant Harry H. Laughlin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Spring_Harbor_Laboratory
Harry Hamilton Laughlin (March 11, 1880 � January 26, 1943) was a
leading American eugenicist in the first half of the 20th century. He
was the director of the Eugenics Record Office from its inception in
1910 to its closing in 1939, and was among the most active individuals
in influencing American eugenics policy, especially compulsory
sterilization legislation.
Laughlin was a founding member of the Pioneer Fund, and was its first
president, serving from 1937 to 1941. The Pioneer Fund was created by
Wickliffe Draper in order to promote the betterment of the race
through eugenics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_H._Laughlin
The Pioneer Fund was described by the London Sunday Telegraph
(3/12/89) as a "neo-Nazi organization closely integrated with the far
right in American politics."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Fund
The Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in Cold
Spring Harbor, New York was a center for eugenics and human heredity
research in the first half of the twentieth century. Both its founder,
Charles Benedict Davenport, and its director, Harry H. Laughlin were
major contributors to the field of eugenics in the United States.
Founded in 1910, the ERO was financed primarily by Mary Harriman, wife
of E.H. Harriman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_Record_Office
The Life and Legend of E. H. Harriman
by Maury Klein
Odell in turn relied heavily on men like Harriman to keep the
Republican organization well financed.
Skull & Bones
Under auspices of the Eugenics Records Office the Bonesmen Harriman,
Bundy and Dulles had "scientific" spies.
http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showPerson.php?id=3023&name=Eugenics-Records-Office
+
Pucker your lips for the Apocalypse!
Johnny Asia, Guitarist from the Future
Jamir Quay
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 00:52:05 -0600, Lady Liberty
> <LadyL...@NOSPAMPlanetaryBillOfRights.org> wrote:
>
>> The Democrat "progressives" ( marxist globalists ) have now proven that
>> they're prepared to indulge in
>> eugenics schemes,
>>
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2698847
>> ( notice the link source of this info - the National Institutes of
>> Health! See http://nih.gov/ )
>>
>> "Eugenics and American social history, 1880-1950.
>>
>>
>
> Far-right Republican "progressives" started and funded eugenics:
>
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=16217
Eugenics and the Left
By: John Ray
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, September 26, 2003
Everybody now knows how evil Nazi eugenics were: How all sorts of people
were exterminated not because of anything they had done but simply
because of the way they had been born. And we have all heard how
disastrous were the Nazi efforts to build up the "master race" through
selective breeding of SS men with the best of German women -- the
"Lebensborn" project. Good leftists today recoil in horror from all that
of course and use their "Hitler was a conservative" mantra to load those
evils onto conservatives. But Hitler was a socialist. As he himself said:
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic
system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair
salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to
wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we
are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." (Speech
of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)
So it should come as no surprise that Hitler's eugenics were an
intergral part of his socialism and that the great supporters of
compulsory eugenics worldwide in Hitler's day were overwhelmingly of the
Left. Left-influenced historians commonly blur the distinction between a
belief in eugenic or dysgenic processes and actually advocating a
state-enforced eugenics program but we can find the facts if we look
carefully. And it was American Leftists upon whom Hitler principally
drew for his "inspiration" in the eugenics field.
In the USA, the great eugenicists of the first half of the 20th century
were the "Progressives". As it says here:
A significant number of Progressives -- including David Starr Jordan,
Robert Latham Owen, William Allen Wilson, Harry Emerson Fosdick, Robert
Latou Dickinson, Katherine Bement Davis, and Virginia Gildersleeve--were
deeply involved with the eugenics movement.
And as we read further here:
The second stage in the development of the eugenics movement extended
from 1905 to 1930, when eugenics entered its period of greatest
influence. More and more progressive reformers became convinced that a
good proportion of the social ills in the United States lay in
hereditary factors....
An educator, biologist, and leader of the American peace movement,
Jordan's main contribution as a major architect of American eugenics was
to bridge the gap between eugenics and other reform groups. Like other
progressives, Jordan subscribed to the Populist-Progressive criticism of
laissez-faire capitalism. Jordan had faith in progress and in a new
generation. Yet, this optimistic environmentalism of Jordan's
contradicted his Darwinian-hereditarian outlook of the world.
Ironically, a similar ambivalence - - a "love-hate" attitude toward
environmentalism - - ran through most progressive ideology.
For Jordan, the first president of Leland Stanford University, education
permitted society's better members to outlive inferior peoples. Jordan
believed the twentieth century had no place for the weak, the
incompetent, and the uneducated. In addition, Jordan urged an end to
indiscriminate and sentimental charity, a major factor he believed in
the survival of the unfit. Jordan, like most progressives, viewed the
urban setting as detrimental and destructive to human life. He held the
general progressive belief in the social goodness of the small town or
farm. The progressive's romantic attraction to the countryside can be
partly explained by the alien character of the urban population. An
increasing number of city dwellers belonged to the "undesirable foreign
element."
And who were the Progressives? Here is the same writer's summary of them:
"Originally, progressive reformers sought to regulate irresponsible
corporate monopoly, safeguarding consumers and labor from the excesses
of the profit motive. Furthermore, they desired to correct the evils and
inequities created by rapid and uncontrolled urbanization. Progressivism
..... asserted that the social order could and must be improved.....
Some historians, like Richard Hofstadter and George Mowry, have argued
that the progressive movement attempted to return America to an older,
more simple, agrarian lifestyle. For a few progressives, this certainly
was true. But for most, a humanitarian doctrine of social progress
motivated the reforming spirit"
Sound familiar? The Red/Green alliance of today is obviously not new.
Hitler got his eugenic theories from the leftists of his day; Hitler's
eugenics were yet another part of his leftism!
Both quotes above are from De Corte's "Menace of the Undesirable"
(1978). Against all his own evidence, De Corte also claims that the
Progressives were "conservative." But the book by Pickens (1968) sets
out the connection between the Progressives and eugenics far more
throughly than the few quotes here can indicate.
Eugenics, however, was popular science generally in the first half of
the 20th century. As a scientific idea it was not confined to Leftists.
But note the difference in the implementation of eugenic ideas (again
from De Corte):
Even early social crusaders held similar illiberal views. Josephine Shaw
Lowell, a leader in asylum reform, stated in 1884 that "every person
born into a civilized community has a right to live, yet the community
has the right to say that incompetent and dangerous persons shall not,
so far as can be helped, be born to acquire this right to live upon
others. Thus, strands of eugenic-style racism not only found their way
into conservative philosophy represented by Sumner and other Social
Darwinists but so did progressive reform ideals. Consequently, reformers
began viewing the criminal, insane, epileptic, retarded and impoverished
as more products of their heredity than of their social surroundings.
Whereas Social Darwinists desired to let nature take its course in
eliminating the "unfit," eugenicists, on the other hand, felt Social
Darwinism had not accomplished the task of guaranteeing the "survival of
the fittest" quickly enough. For eugenicists, the "vigorous classes"
should be encouraged to have more children, while the "incompetent
classes" should be compelled to have fewer. Consequently, eugenicists in
their distrust of laissez-faire concluded that "natural selection" must
be helped along.
To state his message another way: conservatives wanted to leave well
enough alone; left-wingers, in their usual way, wanted to introduce
compulsion into the matter.
And in Great Britain, too, the leftists of the first half of the 20th
century were outspokenly in favor of eugenics. As just one instance,
that famous philosopher, peacenik and anti-nuclear camapaigner, Bertrand
Russell spoke in favor of it. Writing in "Icarus Or the Future of
Science" in 1924 he clearly approved of it, though he did voice doubts
about its being employed for the wrong purposes. In a letter to his
first wife, feminist Alys Pearsall Smith, about socialism and "the woman
question," he wrote of eugenics in words that could well have been
Hitler's -- even echoing Hitler's bad grammar:
"Thee might observe incidentally that if the state paid for
child-bearing it might and ought to require a medical certificate that
the parents were such as to give a reasonable result of a healthy child
-- this would afford a very good inducement to some sort of care for the
race, and gradually as public opinion became educated by the law, it
might react on the law and make that more stringent, until one got to
some state of things in which there would be a little genuine care for
the race, instead of the present haphazard higgledy-piggledy ways."
(Quoted here.)
Even when Russell came to realize that state-sponsored eugenics could
very easily fall into the wrong hands -- a realization he expresses in
Icarus -- he still clearly saw it as desirable at least in theory. Nor
was Russell alone in Britain. As this author notes:
The fact is that eugenics was popular across the political spectrum for
many years, both in England and in North America (e.g., Paul, 1984;
Soloway, 1990). In England, many socialists supported eugenics. Even
those viewed as critics, such as J. B .S. Haldane, Lancelot Hogben and
Julian Huxley were not against eugenics per se, but came to believe that
eugenics in capitalist societies was infected with class bias. Even so,
some (see Paul, 1984), accepted the idea of upper class genetic
superiority.
Not only were R. B. Cattell's eugenic beliefs commonplace in that
milieu, but he was influenced by prominent socialists who supported
eugenics, men such as Shaw, Wells, Huxley and Haldane, some of whom he
knew (Hurt, 1998). Jonathan Harwood (1980) actually cited the example of
Cattell to demonstrate that British eugenics was not a right-wing
preserve in the inter-war years (although Keith Hurt, 1998, has noted
that Harwood later characterised Cattell's 1972 book on Beyondism as a
"right-wing eugenic fantasy").
Oppenheim (1982) claimed that American eugenicists were opposed by those
in the Progressive Movement, juxtaposing the hereditarian reformism of
the former with the environmental reformism of the latter. Actually many
progressives were also eugenicists and incorporated the idea of eugenic
reforms into their larger agenda (e.g., Burnham, 1977); there was a
great deal of cross-over between the two movements (e.g., Pickens, 1968).
The few real critics of eugenics in the early 20th century were mainly
conservatives and Christians like G.K. Chesterton who saw eugenic
planning as just another arm of the wider campaign to impose a
"scientific" socialist planning. In fact Chesterton subtitled his
anti-eugenics tract "Eugenics and Other Evils" as: "An Argument Against
the Scientifically Organized State."
As we see from all the quotes above, the racialist thinking of the
eugenic socialists was quite "scientific" and progressive in it's day,
much as "global warming" is seen as scientific and progressive today.
And many of the eugenics true believers continued on postwar moving into
campaigns for legalised abortion, planned parenthood and population
control. In fact some conservative critics have highlighted the racist
roots of much of the liberal pro-abortion movement.
And eugenics of a sort is back on the Left: The Zero Population Growth
brigade are back with their "people are pollution" attitudes! Only this
time they want to halve our population. And it does seem to be the old
gang from the 1960's again -- including Paul Ehrlich. The abject failure
of their earlier prophecies, e.g., that we would all be doomed by the
1970s, has not given them occasion for pause.
The Feminist connection
And are feminists conservative? Hardly. And feminists are hardly a new
phenomenon either. In the person of Margaret Sanger and others, they
played an active and prominent role in the USA in the first half of the
20th century, advocating (for instance) abortion. For her energetic
championing of eugenics, Margaret Sanger won a public admirer in no less
a figure than Hitler himself. Naturally, the American eugenicists were
virulently racist, desiring to reduce the black population. They shared
Hitler's view that Jews were genetically inferior, opposing moves to
allow Jews fleeing from Hitler into the United States. If Hitler's
eugenics and racial theories were loathsome, it should be acknowledged
that his vigorous supporters in the matter at that time were leftists
and feminists, and their opponents were conservatives.
The Green connection
As in America, Hitler's eugenics were merely one aspect of a larger
"Green" theme -- a theme that continues, of course, as the Red/Green
alliance of today. The Nazis were probably the first major political
party in the Western world to have a thoroughgoing "Green" agenda. A
good short summary of that has been written by Andrew Bolt. He writes:
Here's a quote which may sound very familiar -- at least in part. "We
recognise that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life,
leads to humankind's own destruction and to the death of nations.
"Only through a re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can
our people be made stronger . . .
"This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with
nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest
meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought."
That was Ernst Lehmann, a leading biologist under the Nazi regime, in
1934, and he wasn't alone. Hitler, for one, was an avid vegetarian and
Green, addicted to homeopathic cures. His regime sponsored the creation
of organic farming, and SS leader Heinrich Himmler even grew herbs on
his own organic farm with which to treat his beloved troops.
Hitler also banned medical experiments on animals, but not, as we know
to our grief, on Jewish children. And he created many national parks,
particularly for Germany's "sacred" forests.
This isn't a coincidence. The Nazis drew heavily on a romantic,
anti-science, nature worshipping, communal and anti-capitalist movement
that tied German identity to German forests. In fact, Professor Raymond
Dominick notes in his book, The Environmental Movement in Germany,
two-thirds of the members of Germany's main nature clubs had joined the
Nazi Party by 1939, compared with just 10 per cent of all men.
The Nazis also absorbed the German Youth Movement, the Wandervogel,
which talked of our mystical relationship with the earth. Peter
Staudenmaier, co-author of Ecofascism: Lessons from the German
Experience, says it was for the Wandervogel that the philosopher Ludwig
Klages wrote his influential essay Man and Earth in 1913. In it, Klages
warned of the growing extinction of species, the destruction of forests,
the genocide of aboriginal peoples, the disruption of the ecosystem and
the killing of whales. People were losing their relationship with
nature, he warned.
Heard all that recently? I'm not surprised. This essay by this notorious
anti-Semite was republished in 1980 to mark the birth of the German
Greens -- the party that inspired the creation of our own Green Party.
Its message is much as Hitler's own in Mein Kampf: "When people attempt
to rebel against the iron logic of nature, they come into conflict with
the very same principles to which they owe their existence as human
beings. Their actions against nature must lead to their own downfall."
Why does this matter now? Because we must learn that people who want
animals to be treated like humans really want humans to be treated like
animals. We must realise a movement that stresses "natural order" and
the low place of man in a fragile world, is more likely to think man is
too insignificant to stand in the way of Mother Earth, or the
Fatherland, or some other man-hating god. We see it already. A
Greenpeace co-founder, Paul Watson, called humans the "AIDS of the
earth," and one of the three key founders of the German Greens, Herbert
Gruhl, said the environmental crisis was so acute the state needed
perhaps "dictatorial powers."
The "big government" connection
As they do today, the leftists of the 1920s and 1930s captured most of
the intellectuals and much of the educated class of the day and this
gave them access to the levers of government power, which is of course
what leftists want above all. Once in power, a culture of death
prevailed, to wit:
"President Woodrow Wilson signed New Jersey's sterilization law, and one
of his deputies descended to greater fame as a Nazi collaborator at
Buchenwald. Pennsylvania's legislature passed an 'Act for the Prevention
of Idiocy,' but the governor vetoed it .... Other states, however,
joined the crusade. ... Eventually, the eugenicist virus found a
hospitable host in Germany. There... it led to the death chambers of
Buchenwald and Auschwitz. Thanks to the Nazis, highly praised by
eugenicists here, the movement eventually collapsed. But not before
nearly 50,000 Americans were sterilized."
And someone from the past who is still something of a hero to the Left
is the American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who famously said:
"When you pay taxes you buy civilisation." This was quoted approvingly
recently by Simon Crean, Federal Parliamentary leader of the Australian
Labor Party. Crean somehow failed to note that Holmes was also known for
ordering compulsory sterilizations of the supposedly mentally ill: Yet
another forgotten American inspiration for Adolf.
California was also one of the earliest supporters of eugenics laws and
in fact provided the model for Hitler's laws:
Under the banner of "national regeneration," tens of thousands, mostly
poor women, were subjected to involuntary sterilization in the United
States between 1907 and 1940. And untold thousands of women were
sterilized without their informed consent after World War II. Under
California's 1909 sterilization law, at least 20,000 Californians in
state hospitals and prisons had been involuntarily sterilized by 1964.
California, according to a recent study, "consistently outdistanced
every other state" in terms of the number of eugenic sterilizations....
California not only led the nation in forced sterilizations, but also in
providing scientific and educational support for Hitler's regime. In
1935, Sacramento's Charles M. Goethe praised the Human Betterment
Foundation for effectively "shaping the opinions of the group of
intellectuals who are behind Hitler�." In 1936, Goethe acknowledged the
United States and Germany as leaders in eugenics ("two stupendous
forward movements"), but complained that "even California's quarter
century record has, in two years, been outdistanced by Germany." In
1936, California eugenicist Paul Popenoe was asking one of his Nazi
counterparts for information about sterilization policies in Germany in
order to make sure that "conditions in Germany are not misunderstood or
misrepresented." .....
California's eugenicists could not claim ignorance that Germany's
sterilization program was motivated primarily by racial politics. For
example, in 1935, the Los Angeles Times published a long defense of
Germany's sterilization policies, in which the author noted that the
Nazis "had to resort to the teachings of eugenic science" because
Germany had been "deprived of her colonies, blessed with many hundreds
of defective racial hybrids as a lasting memory of the colored army of
occupation, and dismembered all around." Not only did California
eugenicists know about Nazi efforts to use sterilization as a method of
"race hygiene" -- targeted primarily at Jews -- but they also approved
efforts to stop "race-mixing" and increase the birth rate of the
"Northern European type of family." The chilling words of Progressive
reformer John Randolph Haynes anticipated the Nazi regime's murder of
100,000 mentally ill patients: "There are thousands of hopelessly insane
in California, the condition of those minds is such that death would be
a merciful release. How long will it be before society will see the
criminality of using its efforts to keep alive these idiots, hopelessly
insane, and murderous degenerates. � Of course the passing of these
people should be painless and without warning. They should go to sleep
at night without any intimation of what was coming and never awake."
Another country that is to this day a model and inspiration to leftists
everywhere is Sweden -- with its all-embracing welfare State. So what
happened in Sweden? As we read here:
During the Nazi era in Germany, eugenics prompted the sterilization of
several hundred thousand people then helped lead to anti-Semitic
programs of euthanasia and ultimately, of course, to the death camps.
The association of eugenics with the Nazis is so strong that many people
were surprised at the news several years ago that Sweden had sterilized
around 60 000 people (mostly women) between the 1930s and 1970s. The
intention was to reduce the number of children born with genetic
diseases and disorders. After the turn of the century, eugenics
movements -- including demands for sterilization of people considered
unfit -- had, in fact, blossomed in the United States, Canada, Britain,
and Scandinavia, not to mention elsewhere in Europe and in parts of
Latin America and Asia. Eugenics was not therefore unique to the Nazis.
So what exactly did happen in the USA? I am indebted to one of my fellow
bloggers for a useful summary of one of the cases. Some extracts:
In the 1920's, the eugenics movement was ... popular. So popular in
fact, that mandatory sterilization laws were passed in 34 states from
the mid-1920's to mid-30's. Basically, these laws stated that
sterilization was mandatory for socially undesirable persons. "The
socially inadequate classes, regardless of etiology or prognosis, are
the following: (1) Feeble-minded; (2) Insane, (including psychopathic);
(3) Criminalistic (including the delinquent and wayward); (4) Epileptic;
(5) Inebriate (including drug habitues)..." [etc]. So basically, if you
were hyperactive, promiscuous, an alcoholic or drug addict, had cerebral
palsy or Down's syndrome, were epileptic, (etc., ad nauseum), or
exhibited ANY socially undesirable behavior at all, you were eligible
for mandatory sterilization. And not you, nor your parents (if you were
a minor) had any right to say "No."
In the mid 1920's, Carrie Buck, at the ripe old age of 17, fought the
state of Virginia's mandatory sterilization statute. She was classified
as a socially inferior woman, having born a child out of wedlock and her
foster parents stated that she was "a handful". Carrie's mother had also
been incarcerated in a state institution as a 'promiscuous woman'. And
at the age of 7 months, Carrie's child, Vivian, was 'certified' as being
'deficient,' based on the 'history' of Carrie and her mother.
Carrie lost her case at the state court level, and it wound up in front
of the Supreme Court in 1927. The prominent Supreme Court jurist, Oliver
Wendel Holmes, wrote the opinion in Buck v. Bell. The decision was 8-1,
Justice Butler dissenting. Here's what the majority opinion boiled down to:
"In order to prevent our being swamped with incompetents... society can
prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The
principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover
cutting the Fallopian tubes." ...
"It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute
degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their
imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from
continuing their kind�Three generations of imbeciles are enough." �
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (Buck v. Bell, 1927)
Five months after this decision, Carrie was forcibly sterilized. It
later came out that her promiscuity was nothing of the sort. She'd been
raped by the nephew of her foster parents, himself a violent
(unsterilized) little scumbag. And her daughter's school records show
that Vivian was a B student, receiving an A in deportment (behavior),
and she was on the honor roll. Genetic tests later showed that neither
Carrie nor her daughter had any genetic defects.