Apple-Pie Eugenics

Thu 2003 10 02

Dear Robert,   I hope that you don't mind that I sent copies of this message to my list, but I feel that it is of general interest.   A while back you inquired about eugenics.   I provided you with some information that shows that eugenics as practiced by the Nazis was nothing other than a sign of the times, that eugenics was promoted and exercised in many western countries, and that what the Nazis practiced on a large scale — sterilization of feeble-minded or otherwise handicapped people — was popular and practiced in the USA, in Canada, and most likely on a large scale in the U.K. as well. [Update 2006 09 14: for more comprehensive information on that go to Eugenics at Source Watch.]
   The forwarded article provides more food for thought along those lines and refers to a book that elaborates on what was then and still is a widespread acceptable practice (current methods vary, but they are just as and even more effective), but not only that.  The article shows the book claiming that,

...You see, while the Nazis' worst crimes may have ended at Auschwitz, they "began on Long Island."

That's the conclusion of a new book, War against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race written by Edwin Black, who contends that American "corporate philanthropies helped found and fund the Nazi eugenics of Hitler and Mengele."

The book reviews available through the link shown below identify that,

...eugenics, was the brainchild of such influential people as Rockefellers, Andrew Carnegie and Margaret Sanger. Black, author of the bestselling IBM and the Holocaust, set out to show "the sad truth of how the scientific rationales that drove killer doctors at Auschwitz were first concocted on Long Island" at the Carnegie Institution's Cold Spring Harbor complex.

Link: Ordering information and more relating to the book is accessible at Amazon.com.   Amazon.com Sales Rank: 1,842   Keep in mind that the people who promoted eugenics then are now even more powerful than they were then.  They steer and control world politics and demographics.  However, there is another aspect of eugenics that even writers like Edwin Black, actually almost all writers and journalists, firmly close their eyes to.   I don't remember whether I pointed it out, and it is no joke, that the feminist plans for population-control aim at reducing the male sector of the human population by 80 percent.  That would make the holocaust pale by comparison. 

Have a look at Why have any men at all?   Far out?  Well, consider that there is no valid evidence of any biological advantages that make women live longer, and that by the end of the last century, world-wide, there were close to 300 million men and boys missing in the world population that should have been alive but weren't.   The callousness of the feminists promoting the discriminatory policies that lead to that situation and will aggravate it as the years go by shows quite subtly but strongly at many different fronts, such as identified at the following links.

• Boys do better if they are hungry, girls better if their stomachs are full http://www.rense.com/general42/fils.htm  
• An adolescent's dash to freedom at Franklin Park dramatizes problems faced by US zoos
  By Rebecca Deusser and Katherine Lutz,
  Boston Globe Correspondents, 9/28/2003
  http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2003/09/28/restless_gorillas?mode=PF

• Study: Women take less risks, live longer

By DENNIS BUECKERT - Canadian Press
http://www.canoe.com/CNEWS/Canada/2003/09/30/213313-cp.html

OTTAWA (CP) -- If men dropped their risky ways and bad habits they would live just as long as women, suggests a major new report on women's health. ...

Can you imagine the uproar in the media if an advocacy-research study by male researchers (funded by taxpayers' dollars, to boot, just as the one was that the last article in the list discusses) were to blame women for serious and fatal problems encountered by women? At any rate, I guess if men were to engage in less risky behaviour, such as that they were not to kill themselves in epidemic proportions, or if they were to refuse to be conscripted and let women go to war, or if men were to let women do the dangerous, dirty and sweaty jobs (close to 19 out of every 20 job fatalities or serious job accidents involve men – see Table 1 & 2), or if research funding would be seven times higher for male-specific diseases (e.g. prostate cancer research funding) than for almost exclusively women's diseases such as breast cancer (still, men get breast cancer, too, but their "breasts" are never scanned), then men would live just as long as women do. You see, it is all men's fault that their sector of the world population is 300 million boys and men short of what it should be.  It must be, or else why don't men complain at all about what is being done to them?   —Walter

-----Original Message-----
From: BreakPoint with Charles Colson [mailto:breakpoint@breakpoint.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 12:26 AM
To:
Subject: BreakPoint: Apple-Pie Eugenics, 10/02/2003

[The text of the forwarded message is accessible through the link in the following] Apple-Pie Eugenics War Against the Weak October 02, 2003
  There's a dirty little secret about the Nazi atrocities: They got their start right here in America. (more)

___________________

Additional reading:

• Eugenics Watch

The name of the original Eugenics Society of the United States of America (1922) underwent a number of changes over the years. Those name changes and their historical context are interesting.

The British Eugenics Society 1907 to 1994.

EUGENIC SOCIETY MEMBERS BY SURNAME

Don't forget to check under the H, for Huxley.

• Eugenics, at Source Watch, a project of the Center for Media & Democracy

• Is the world overpopulated?
  
  If all of the world's people were located in the Province of Alberta (just a touch smaller in area than the State of Texas) and each were to have an equal share of all of the land in Alberta, then each of the world's people would have 98.6m² of land to live on.
  
  Assuming that the average household consists of three people, a family of three would have enough space (3,184 ft²) for a moderately-sized house and a garden large enough to grow some of the food consumed by the family.

  • Alberta land area: 661,565 km², 255,541 miles²
  • World population: 6,706,993,152 (Source: CIA World Factbook, July 2008 est.)

  It is obvious that the world's population density will be the controlling factor.  Is that a problem?  Will people any time soon be standing on each other's shoulders? 
  
  How can the world be overpopulated if it is possible to fit the world population, fairly comfortably, into a province the size of Alberta or a state the size of Texas,  even if we divide the whole population into families of three and give each a bungalow and a good-sized garden to boot?
  
  The following table list a number of nations, ranked by their population densities. 

   

  Does anyone seeing those numbers still think that the world is overpopulated?

---

Table 1 – US job fatalities for all occupations

Annual Fatal Job Injuries by Sex (USA)
	Female			Male
Year	N		%	N		%
1992	443		7.1	5774		92.9
1993	489		7.7	5842		92.3
1994	528		8.0	6104		92.0
1995	539		8.6	5736		91.4
1996	514		8.3	5688		91.7
1997	477		7.6	5761		92.4
1998	486		8.0	5569		92.0
1999	442		7.3	5612		92.7
2000	449		7.6	5471		92.4
2001	471	(p,n)	8.0	5429	(p,n)	92.0
Totals	4,838		7.8	59,986		92.2
p : preliminary n : Excludes Sept. 11th terrorist attacks Source: U.S. Department of Labor             Bureau of Labor Statistics             Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

It seems that the data base contains no information that permits to determine what the numbers of fatalities are in the military (I suppose that the feminist statisticians involved in compiling the numbers figure that being a soldier isn't much of a job and dying as a soldier is therefore not worth mentioning, and how many women die as soldiers anyway?), but it is possible to determine what the numbers are for police and other protective services.

Table 2 – US Job fatalities for selected occupations:  Police, protective services, guards, firefighting

(Note: Figures for 2001 are preliminary and exclude Sept. 11th terrorist attacks)

Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries Source: US Bureau of Labor
Occupation:  Firefighting and fire prevention occupations, including supervisors
	Fatal Job Injuries
Year	Female		Male
1992	4	12%	30	88%
1993			39	100%
1994	5	9%	51	91%
1995	4		35	90%
1996			35	100%
1997			47	100%
1998			44	100%
1999			55	100%
2000			41	100%
2001	4		46	92%
Totals:	17	4%	423	96%
Occupation:  Police and detectives, including supervisors
	Fatal Job Injuries
Year	Female		Male
1992	4	3%	136	97%
1993	9	6%	142	94%
1994	6	4%	143	96%
1995	7	4%	168	96%
1996	6	5%	108	95%
1997	8	5%	148	95%
1998	11	9%	127	91%
1999	11	8%	121	92%
2000	5	4%	137	96%
2001	12	8%	147	92%
Totals:	79	6%	1377	94%
Occupation:  Guards, including supervisors
	Fatal Job Injuries
Year	Female		Male
1992	5	5%	100	95%
1993	8	8%	95	92%
1994	5	4%	122	96%
1995	8	8%	95	92%
1996	7	7%	91	93%
1997	9	12%	69	88%
1998	3	4%	73	96%
1999			71	100%
2000	5	7%	67	93%
2001	13	17%	65	83%
Totals:	63	7%	848	93%
Occupation: Police and detectives, public service
	Fatal Job Injuries
Year	Female		Male
1992			95	100%
1993	7	7%	95	93%
1994	4	4%	98	96%
1995	7	6%	113	94%
1996	3	4%	74	96%
1997	4	4%	93	96%
1998	7	8%	79	92%
1999	5	6%	74	94%
2000			86	100%
2001	9	9%	92	91%
Totals:	46	5%	899	95%
Occupation: Sheriffs, bailiffs, and other law enforcement officers
	Fatal Job Injuries
Year	Female		Male
1992			32	100%
1993			28	100%
1994			27	100%
1995			37	100%
1996			27	100%
1997			36	100%
1998	3	9%	31	91%
1999	3	8%	36	92%
2000			36	100%
2001			43	100%
Totals:	6	2%	333	98%
Occupation: Correctional institution officers
	Fatal Job Injuries
Year	Female		Male
1992			3	100%
1993			11	100%
1994			7	100%
1995			12	100%
1996			4	100%
1997	3	19%	13	81%
1998			8	100%
1999			7	100%
2000			8	100%
2001			5	100%
Totals:	3	4%	78	96%
Occupation: Crossing guards
	Fatal Job Injuries
Year	Female		Male
1992
1993	4	50%	4	50%
1994	3	43%	4	57%
1995	3	100%
1996	3	100%
1997	3	50%	3	50%
1998
1999
2000	3	100%
2001	5	50%	5	50%
Totals:	24	60%	16	40%
Occupation: Guards and police, exc. public service
	Fatal Job Injuries
Year	Female		Male
1992	3	3%	90	97%
1993	3	3%	86	97%
1994			111	100%
1995	5	5%	88	95%
1996	3	4%	79	96%
1997	4	6%	64	94%
1998			64	100%
1999			63	100%
2000			56	100%
2001	6	10%	56	90%
Totals:	24	4%	757	96%
Occupation:  Protective service occupations, n.e.c.
	Fatal Job Injuries
Year	Female		Male
1992			5	100%
1993			5	100%
1994			5	100%
1995
1996			7	100%
1997
1998			8	100%
1999			4	100%
2000			5	100%
2001			4	100%
Totals:	0		43	100%
Occupations:  Police, protective services, guards, firefighting (all of the above)
	Fatal Job Injuries
Year	Female		Male
1992	16	3%	491	97%
1993	31	6%	505	94%
1994	23	6%	568	94%
1995	34	6%	548	94%
1996	22	5%	425	95%
1997	31	6%	473	94%
1998	24	5%	434	95%
1999	19	4%	431	96%
2000	13	3%	436	97%
2001	49	10%	463	90%
Totals:	262	5%	4,774	95%
___________________________ Source: U.S. Department of Labor             Bureau of Labor Statistics             Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Back to index to History and Evolution of Eugenics

Index to health issues of concern to men and to people who care about men and families

The White Rose
Thoughts are Free

__________________
Posted 2003 04 25