Jew World Order

“NAZI”/ Jewish eugenics is the real meaning of “multiculturalism” today

Was Hitler’s “rat fink” moustache more proof of his crypto-Jewishness, sexual dysfunction, and carpet-munching madness that genocided White Christian Europeans more so than even the Jew Yagoda?

About controlled opposition: The most horrible chapter of this satanic policy is when, according not only to Rakovszky but to other reliable German sources, this same world power gives still larger sums to Hitler and National Socialism, in order to help Hitler and his movement over initial difficulties. They knew that if Hitler succeeded in taking over power Germany could be forced into a new war.

The real aim was not only the destruction of German National Socialism, but something even greater: the realization of the final great and glorious aspiration, which is the biological destruction and enslavement of all non-Jewish nations—C/o “Hoff” on incogman.net

Legendary researcher Eustace Mullins has convincingly pointed out that the very word “Nazi” was originally a Kabbalistic acronym created out of the first two letters of the names of the National Socialist and Zionist parties in Germany in the 1920s; and used by the finance Jews in the synagogue of Satan in Jewry to cynically celebrate the power they had to orchestrate the rise and fall of Hitler’s regime, as one side of their macro-economic dialectic of the Allies/Axis atrocities of WW2.

So it’s not at all surprising to find that the finance Jews in the synagogue of Satan in Jewry had not only duped masses of relatively righteous White Christian Europeans to senselessly massacre each other in WW2, so that the best of the Gentiles could be culled out at that time; but had also applied Jewish eugenics in the Reich to find out who were the purest “Aryans”, so they could be more perfectly liquidated in Stalin’s Siberian gulag camps and Eisenhower’s “Rhine Meadows” death camps, should they happen to survive the horrors of the banksters’ war in any great numbers.

In fact sadistic Jews in the pay of the banksters’ acolytes actually controlled the Jew ghettoes in the Reich and some of the Nazi (aka “National Zionist”) concentration camps; and Jews covertly endorsed and fostered the sterilization and euthanasia that Hitler advocated for Germans who were a “burden on the Reich”, and also the horrible eugenics experiments on the banksters’ “lesser brethren”, Poles, and gypsies, during the war; just as Jews were largely responsible for the sadistic KGB and NKVD torture and slaughter of Gentiles under the Soviet regimes and prominent among the commissars behind Stalin’s Siberian gulag ‘re-education’ camps.

Check out the parallels between Jewish eugenics and NAZI (aka National Zionist) eugenics and the “liberal” Jews’ agenda of multiculturalism in White countries and the Jews’ apartheid and race specific policies in Israel in this review of John Glad’s work,Jewish Eugenics, …

The Unfabricated History of Eugenics

I became interested in eugenics after reading The Bell Curve in 1994, as the nature/nurture debate flamed up. The media trashed it, academics published books to try and rebut it, and some academics familiar with intelligence studies defended it—all to no avail. Propaganda in the West is firmly in the hands of a select few in the media, government, and the academy. Dr. Glad’s book is a unique expose of the distortion of the history of eugenics to serve the purposes of a few Jewish advocates. Among themselves most Jews openly embrace eugenics.

Dr. Glad shows that Hitler viewed the Jews as competitors, not as inferiors. In Hitler’s Germany, eugenics was advocated by both Jews and Germans, and it was never felt that the Jews should be annihilated for eugenic reasons, but for revenge. Hitler wanted the Germans to conquer Europe, but the Jews were seen as powerful foes that could out-compete the Germans. He saw a possible repeat of the First World War, and the Jews as the major cause of Germany’s defeat.

The key is the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. It was the third Israeli-Arab war, but this time Israel annexed large areas of Arab lands. As Dr. Glad explains: “The driving force behind the Holocaust Memorial Movement is not just grief over the tragedy of the past but also the desire to legitimize the Zionist state. In 1975, by a vote of 72 to 35, with 32 abstentions, the UN General Assembly declared that Zionism was ‘a form of racism and racial discrimination,’ essentially declaring the State of Israel to be illegitimate. As a counterbalance, Jewish groups massively funded the Holocaust Memorial Movement. In its turn, the Holocaust Memorial Movement attacked the eugenics movement with ever increasing fury.” The message: the establishment of Israel was a safe haven for Jews because at any time in the future a nation may again try to annihilate the Jews within that nation based on eugenics.

The Jews were the intellectual engine of the New Left’s radical agenda in the 1960s and 70s. Many Jews were Marxists, and they embraced Boasian cultural anthropology’s assertion that when it came to humans, diversity no longer factored into group differences. When E. O. Wilson published Sociobiology in 1975, he was bitterly attacked by the Jewish academic elite and their New Left followers. (‘Sociobiology’ became ‘evolutionary psychology’ which is now mainstream science.) Jews feared the use of genetic arguments by the White rightist establishment.

When Zionism was declared to be racist in 1975, there was turmoil in Jewish opinion and advocacy, with many Jews pushing the Holocaust Memorial Movement on the evils of eugenics, while the Left often condemned Zionism while also condemning anything that supported even a smattering of genetic determinism. That humans, unlike any other organisms, could be molded entirely by environmental means was the propaganda message, and the Jewish elite made sure that this message prevailed in the Western media. A Jewish faction had displaced the once White dominated indoctrination machine. Egalitarianism was firmly entrenched and maintained in the West, but not in Israel or among less doctrinaire Jews. But few Jews in Israel and in the West were motivated to question the twin pillars of ‘radical environmentalism’ and the ‘Holocaust Memorial Movement’—especially since most Whites in the media and academia eventually accepted the egalitarian dogma. White fundamentalist Christians rejected both eugenics and evolutionary theory.

So if there are few Jews who advocate for eugenics, what is Dr. Glad’s motivation? He is Jewish, and a committed universalist. He sees Jewish genes as a valuable resource which is threatened. Ashkenazi Jews are uniquely gifted intellectually because they practiced eugenics. Dr. Glad points out two disturbing trends: Jews are in demographic and dysgenic decline due to Jews marrying non-Jews; the best and the brightest Jews are having fewer children than the less intelligent Jews. This trend of course is virtually universal—the more educated and prosperous (due to high intelligence) are having fewer children than less intelligent people. He notes that “every generation the Jewish community effectively loses a third of its population.” (As a side note, Dr. Glad takes up what makes up a Jew: ‘members of a cultural and breeding alliance.’ I would expand that to a ‘eugenic breeding alliance’ because it is the most salient feature of the Jewish tribe.) Dr. Glad has taken on the Western Jewish establishment for hiding its embrace of eugenics because he thinks that science must always be open and honest and not manipulated for political gain.

One feature of Dr. Glad’s argument is particularly compelling. The first 107 pages of his book is background information: who is a Jew, what Jews really believe, demographics, etc. He then devotes four pages to a Macro-Chronology of Jewish Eugenics from the 18th century to 1910. The last section—271 pages—are devoted to A Micro-Chronology of Jewish Eugenics where he details year by year the Jews that were involved in eugenics, those for and against, etc. It is very compelling because it is very clear that Jews maintained their involvement in eugenics at a very high level from its very beginning to the present, and this was especially true for state sponsored eugenics in Israel. Put simply, while Jews tried to label Whites involved in eugenics as White supremacists in the Western media, Jews in Israel were openly advancing eugenic practices for the good of the tribe. (For a comprehensive explanation of Jewish eugenic practices in the Diaspora, see Dr. Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy on Jewish evolutionary strategies.)

In the past, Jewish eugenics relied primarily with arranging marriages between the daughters of wealthy men and the finest scholars. In addition, the dregs of the Jews were not encouraged to stay within the ghetto, so there was a gradual increase in those genes selected for intelligence. (Again, see MacDonald.) Today, along with the intellectual elites continuing to marry, Jews also embrace genetic screening and selective abortion to reduce genetic disease, as well as surrogacy for women who cannot have children—a practice that is highly eugenic. Dr. Glad points out that 69% of Israeli Jews are secular, versus 11% of the general population in the United States. But he notes that even the minority religious Jews support genetic screening to reduce the birth of handicapped children, whereas in the United States, this practice is frowned upon. My own reading of eugenics around the world shows that a few countries like India, China, and Singapore promote eugenics. But Israel is the only nation that actively promotes eugenics in all available areas—increasing birth rates of those with innate intelligence, genetic screening followed by abortion of genetically diseased fetuses, and continued concern with marriages that will enhance the innate intelligence of offspring.

Salaman Redcliffe

Dr. Glad exposes the disingenuousness of American Jews with regards to racial differences and eugenics: “In 1921 the eminent Jewish-British biologist and eugenicist Redcliffe Salaman (1874-1955) predicted before the Second International Conference of Eugenics that chances were 100 to 1 that the ‘little bright-eyed Jewish lad hawking newspapers in his ragged clothes’ in London’s East End would ‘better himself’ if only given the chance thanks to his natural ability.

Although Salaman’s prediction has proven remarkably accurate, his viewpoint is vehemently attacked nowadays by a veritable eugenics-bashing industry, most of it Jewish. Who are these opponents of eugenics and what motivates them? The very subtitle of Jewish-American historian Sander Gilman’s 1996 book Smart Jews: The Construction of the Image of Jewish Superior Intelligence rejects the concept of Jewish intelligence as a ‘construct,’ that is, something invented and not based on reality. And even though the majority of Jews agree with Salaman and disagree with Gilman, it is Gilman’s opinion that currently carries the day in the popular media.”

Several areas of concern drive some Jews to spin a tall tale of anti-hereditarian and anti-eugenics, while Jews themselves embrace both the genetic basis for Jewish intelligence and the value of eugenics. The fear is that once again, Jews could be targeted by competing races that they live amongst and that they would be in danger, as well as a fear that Israel will not survive as a safe haven for Jews. In the United States, this has led to some Jews pathologizing White culture while supporting multiculturalism and multiracialism.

The media linked together ‘racism’ and ‘anti-Semitism’ while the Jewish lobby pushed for open borders to dilute White hegemony (Again, see Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique).

Images of the Holocaust became so seared in the Jewish psyche that ten years after 9/11 they have been unable to fully reposition from opposing Nordic supremacy to opposing Jihadist Islam. Islam is a far greater threat to Judaism than any resuscitated White supremacy.

The irony in rejecting eugenics is that the same people who ridicule the fundamentalist Christians for denying Darwinism also deny the principles inherent in Darwinism—natural or artificial selection of the fit. As Dr. Glad explains: “You are reading a book on a topic that supposedly not only does not exist, but one that is even inconceivable, a contradiction in terms. This misapprehension stands in gross contradiction to the grand tradition of Jewish culture and is the product of diligent propaganda manufactured by a heavily Jewish group that itself represents a small minority within the Jewish community. Frankly, their task was made easier by the fact that most people have only the vaguest notion of what eugenics is, not to mention realizing its enormous importance. The best way to expose propaganda is total honesty with the reader, so read the facts laid out here and judge this political catwalk for yourself.”

The leftist radicals during the 1960s and 70s were primarily Jewish, and they were able to intimidate traditional Jewish eugenics into isolation, but not hibernation. Jews continued to embrace eugenic practices, though they kept those practices within the Jewish community—especially in Israel. The Jewish left had promoted the egalitarianism of Marxism, Freudianism and Boas—and eventually through overwhelming conviction and intellectual superiority they were able to expand these dogmas to encompass academia, politics, the media and often ignored very wealthy philanthropic foundations. Anyone who questioned their agenda was labeled as a racist and often linked to fascism.

Eugenics was promoted in Germany by German Jews under Hitler right up until the start of World War II. The Jews were murdered not because of eugenics but because they were seen as a major threat to German totalitarianism. In Germany, it was Germans who were sterilized to reduce the burden on the state just as it was practiced in the United States and many other countries. And the euthanasia program started in 1939 had little to do with eugenics, but very much to do with freeing up hospital beds for the anticipated wounded soldiers.

The purpose of this book is to convince the reader that eugenics is imperative if we are to save humanity. It does not try to prove that humanity is now in a dysgenic spiral into barbarism. Any number of current books are available that can do that. By showing how the Jews were able to excel through eugenics, Dr. Glad provides the reader with a template for all of humanity. The proof that Jewish intellectual prowess is genetic and not environmental comes from the Jewish community itself. Dr. Glad has compiled in his “chronology” the evidence that while Jews were trying to convince the general public that racial underclasses were due to bigotry and oppression, the Jewish community knew otherwise. They knew the history of eugenics and were continuing to practice eugenics because it is a necessary component of any Darwinian understanding of nature. The mechanisms of course were understood and practiced by humans for thousands of years to improve crops, herds and kin. It has only been in the modern age of the mass media that a soft totalitarianism has been able to spin the egalitarian fable of universal genetic equality.

I did not review what constitutes the primary evidence for the Jewish practice and embrace of eugenics in the latter ¾ of the book.

Following is just a very few quotes (in the year indicated) that Dr. Glad has compiled and I have selected them based on my own biased preference:

1910: The American Jewish Committee successfully lobbies against efforts to label Jews as a separate race in the U.S. census. Later it will pay anthropologist Franz Boas to promote this view.

1912: From a Jewish Chronicle editorial column entitled “In the Communal Armchair,” signed by “Mentor”: “For the Jewish race is, among the races of the world, as Dr. Lindsay in the course of his paper at the Eugenics Congress pointed out, a remarkable testimony to the value of Eugenics. Our survival to this day is living proof to the truths which eugenicists are enforcing.…That the Pentateuch raised Eugenics into a matter of religion goes to show only either that thousands of years ago the Jewish people regarded Eugenics as a supreme value to man, or that it was feared that only as a series of Divine commands would Eugenics be practiced. We note it in every direction; in the laws of segregation as in the connubial prohibitions the Jew was taught Eugenics as his religion.

The much despised Shadchan or marriage broker as an institution had many obvious faults. Yet, in a quiet, unscientific manner he has been the means of curing mere sentiment and passion in the mating of sons and daughters of Israel. The Shadchan, when he was conscientious – and who will say he never was? – made it his business to bring about marital unions that should be happy in the sense of being fit, proper and healthy. His reputation was at stake if his ‘introductions’ did not show a clean bill of family health. His art consisted in ‘matching’ those who were to be joined in matrimony, so that he became an agent in multiplying marriages of the fit. We have laughed consumedly at the Shadchan’s vagaries, and have been shocked at his turning what we instinctively feel out to be a matter of love and affection into one of barter and bargain. But the Shadchan is distinctly on the side of Eugenics, in ‘regulating’ the union of men and women, and he must have contributed a trifle to the preservation of the race. If Eugenics has its way, the Shadchan in every land which cares for the preservation of its race looks like being nationalized into a state department.”

1914: From the Jewish Chronicle: “We hear much nowadays of the new science of eugenics. But there is nothing new under the sun, and the principles of this science were formulated thousands of years ago in the inspired pages of the Pentateuch, anticipated in the words of Deuteronomy: ‘Hear, O Israel, and observe to do it, that it may be well with thee, and that ye may increase mightily.’”

1917: Fishberg on Jewish physical attractiveness: “Wealthy persons and scholars were little concerned with the physical appearance of their future sons-in-law. Intellectual abilities were the main thing. If the bridegroom was a significant, promising scholar, even a physical defect was ignored. By contrast, great importance was attached to the physical appearance of the bride. The Talmud praises a woman’s beauty, and every Jew is supposed to marry a beautiful woman. And it is indicated that a large man should give preference to a small woman, and vice versa, a person of dark complexion should seek out someone of light complexion. This may to a certain degree explain why one sees in the ghetto many beautiful women, while handsome men are encountered only seldomly. Selection may have exercised its effect.”

1917: Founder of the science of biometrics William Moses Feldman (1880-1939): “Recognizing the relative importance between heredity and environment, the Rabbis formulated certain rules and principles of selective breeding, or, as Galton has named it, ‘eugenics,’ for the deliberate purpose of permanently raising the standard of the Jewish race. ‘Eugenics,’ says Sir Francis Galton, ‘deals with what is more valuable than money or lands – namely the heritage of a high character, capable brains, fine physique, and vigour… and deserves to be strictly enforced as a religious duty.’ And such was also the opinion of the Jewish sages in the time of the Talmud.”

1922: Jewish-Polish eugenicist Zewy Parnass: “Our religious regulations indicate that hygiene, and particularly racial hygiene, is what we were aiming for in social life. Let us revive old rules in accordance with the spirit of the past; revive them and we will get the solution to all the problems, solutions which are an ideal for the European eugenicists. They dream of the time when the necessity of race hygiene will be so deeply rooted in social consciousness that it becomes a kind of social religion. We have had this religion for a long time; it arose in the Jewish tradition in Palestine. “The whole legislation of Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud, in the chapters relating to national and racial life, forms the greatest book of eugenic laws. “In the course of time each incurably ill patient will voluntarily undergo sterilization. And those that oppose it will be stigmatized by public opinion as social outcasts who dared to contradict nationally sacred values.”

1927: German racial theoretician Hans F. K. Günther posits a decisive struggle between Nordics and world Jewry for control of the world.

1929: German geneticist Fritz Lenz explains the Jewish inclination to Lamarckism as a denial of unalterable racial differences: “Jewish intellectual elites who feel that they are part of the German people and German culture have told me that it is tragic for them to be perceived as alien. If acquired characteristics could be inherited, the Jews by virtue of their life in a Germanic environment and their attachment to Germanic culture could become authentic Germans.”

1930: Biologist and animal breeder Leon F. Whitney and author of Eugenics in the Talmud William Grossman: “Each of the authors, one an Anglo-Saxon and the other a Jew, likes his own race best. They are not going to argue race superiority but frankly admit that just as there were Anglo-Saxons who came here with the true pioneering spirit and who have contributed so greatly to American ideals and institutions, so there have come Jews who have also made valuable contributions…. The Old Testament is full of good eugenic lessons, the Talmud likewise. The chief lesson to be derived from the Old Testament is the effect of morality upon the preservation of the race…. Race purity was stressed. Among the admonitions which have helped in this regard one finds striking and emphatic commandments. For example, Ezra, a Jewish sage living in 400 B.C., forced the Jews who married Gentiles in Persia to divorce their Persian wives.”

1939: On September 16 the journal Nature publishes a joint statement issued by America’s and Britain’s most prominent biologists. Some of them are Nobel Prize laureates, and H. J. Muller and Arthur G. Steinberg (1912-2006) are Jewish. The document is widely referred to as the “Eugenics Manifesto.” The authors explicitly decry antagonism between races and theories according to which certain good or bad genes are the monopoly of certain peoples.

1939: In September Hitler issues a secret order initiating a national euthanasia program intended to free up as many as 800,000 hospital beds for expected war casualties. The action is frequently confused with eugenics, even though it was targeted at institutionalized persons, and German eugenicists vehemently attacked euthanasia proposals.

1941: The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia contains a strongly pro-eugenics article by Rabbi Max Reichler (1885-1957): “The rabbis of old, like the eugenists of today, measured the success of a marriage by the number and quality of its offspring. In their judgment the main objects of marriage were the reproduction of the human race, and the augmentation of the favored stock (Tur Eben Haezar 25)…. The attempt to limit the increase of undesirable progeny resulted in three kinds of prohibitions: 1) against the marriage of congenital defectives; 2) against the marriage of personal defectives; 3) against consanguineous marriages.”

1941: Nine months before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, New Jersey businessman Theodore Newton Kaufman (1910?-?) self-publishes Germany Must Perish!: “There remains then but one mode of ridding the world forces of Germanism – and that is to stem the source from which issue those war-lusted souls, by preventing the people of Germany from ever again reproducing their kind. This modern method, known to science as Eugenic Sterilization, is at once practical, humane and thorough. Sterilization has become a byword of science, as the best means of ridding the human race of its misfits: the degenerate, the insane, the hereditary criminal…. The population of Germany, excluding conquered and annexed territories, is about 70,000,000, almost equally divided between male and female. To achieve the purpose of German extinction it would be necessary to only sterilize some 48,000,000 – a figure which excludes, because of their limited power to procreate, males over 60 years of age, and females over 45. Concerning the males subject to sterilization the army groups, as organized units, would be the easiest and quickest to deal with. Taking 20,000 surgeons as an arbitrary number and on the assumption that each will perform a minimum of 25 operations daily, it would take no more than one month, at the maximum, to complete their sterilization.

Naturally the more doctors available, and many more than the 20,000 we mention would be available considering all the nations to be drawn upon, the less time would be required. The balance of the male civilian population of Germany could be treated within three months. Inasmuch as sterilization of women needs somewhat more time, it may be computed that the entire female population of Germany could be sterilized within a period of three years or less. Complete sterilization of both sexes, and not only one, is to be considered necessary in view of the present German doctrine that so much as one drop of true German blood constitutes a German.”

In 1941 the Jew Theodore Kaufmann wrote and published: Germany Must Perish! A work that called for the sterilization of the German people and the distribution of the German lands

1941: At Goebbels’ direction the German press plays up Kaufman’s call for genocide. A front page article about the book in the Berlin daily Der Angriff, July 23, 1941, appears under headlines calling it a “Diabolical Plan for the Extermination of the German People” and a work of “Old Testament Hatred.” Extracts also appeared, for example, in the nationally circulated weekly paper Das Reich, August 3, 1941.

1947: Austria is the first country to criminalize “Holocaust revisionism.”

Other countries to follow suit are Belgium (1947, 1992), Spain (1971, 1995), Germany (1985, 1992, 2002, 2005), Israel (1986), Switzerland (1995), Portugal (1997?), Poland (1998), France (1990), Liechtenstein (2000), the Czech Republic (2001), Romania (2002, 2005), and The European Union (2007).

Among those eventually imprisoned are the British historian David Irving (b. 1938, arrested while driving through Austria in 2006) and German-Canadian publisher Ernst Zündel (b. 1939, arrested in the United States in 2003, deported to Canada and imprisoned in that country, redeported to Germany, where he was sentenced to five years in 2007).

1960: Linguist Ron Kuzar: “The Canaanite movement proposed a radical alternative to Zionism…. Their views capitalized on a radicalization of intra-Zionist tendencies which were quite popular in the local Jewish community of the 1940s and 1950s, which idolized the healthy, tall, tanned, down to earth, native sabra ‘Jew born in Palestine/Israel’ as the inverse image of the diasporic Jew…. Having its early roots in European extreme right-wing movements, notably Italian fascism, it exhibited an interesting blend of militarism and power politics towards the Arabs as an organized community on the one hand and a welcoming acceptance of them as individuals to be redeemed from medieval darkness on the other.”

1962: The council of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel rules that marriage with members of the group Bene Israel (a Judaizing group which has immigrated from India) is permissible, but the rabbi registering the marriage is bound to investigate the maternal ancestry of every applicant so as to establish that there has been no intermixing with non-Jews – over at least three generations. The ruling, which is more rigorous even than Germany’s 1935 Nuremberg racial-purity laws that extended back only two generations, is vehemently protested by the Bene Israel.

1967: The film Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, written by William Rose and directed by Stanley Kramer, presents an appealing vision of black-white intermarriage even as Jews heatedly debate on how to staunch the increasing rate of Jew-gentile intermarriage. The U.S. Supreme Court rules that State bans on interracial marriage are unconstitutional. (Loving vs. Virginia).

1967: Such differing Jewish historians as Jacob Neusner, Deborah Lipstadt, and Norman Finkelstein all note the significance of the Jewish victory in the Arab-Israeli war in establishing the Holocaust Memorial Movement. Journalist Judith Miller argues: “… there was nothing inherently exploitative in the Jewish push for monuments, memorials, and public tributes to the period of their most intensive suffering. But the linkage of the Holocaust with campaigns to raise money and enhance support for the State of Israel marked the beginning of serious abuse and misuse of the Holocaust…. American Jews discovered that the Holocaust could be used as a weapon not only for garnering sympathy at home, but also for insisting on unquestioning support for Israel abroad.”

1968: Subsequent to the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, the Holocaust Memorial Movement is launched, with eugenics targeted as the ideology of genocide. So effective is the campaign that polls show that many more Americans can identify the Holocaust than Pearl Harbor or the atomic bombing of Japan. Those who are familiar with the term “eugenics” begin to associate it with “Holocaust” and “racism.”

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein

1969: Prominent Orthodox rabbi Moshe Feinstein (1895-1986) advocates tearing out pages of science textbooks that contain references to evolution or other “matters of heresy.”

1975: Presenting much the same views as those of Kamin, a CBS news special The IQ Myth declares that not only are IQ tests relatively useless as measures of intelligence, but that they are biased as well, for “it’s economic class that marks the main dividing line on IQ scores.”

1975: The American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, and the American Jewish Congress all file amicus briefs with the Supreme Court in opposition to Affirmative Action programs even as Jewish groups pursue an intense search for allies within the Afro-American community under the banner of civil rights. (Bakke vs. Regents of University of California)

1976: Random House and Knopf bring out Alan Chase’s The Legacy of Malthus: The Social Costs of the New Scientific Racism. Although pro-eugenics books still predominate, the stress by book publishers on an association of eugenics and racism can be said to have begun.

1988: For the first time a large number of books appear that stress the connection of eugenics with Hitler’s Germany, including Suhrkamp’s Rasse, Blut und Gene: Geschichte der Eugenik und Rassenhygiene in Deutschland (Race, Blood, and Genes: A History of Eugenics and Racial Hygiene) by Peter Weingart, Jürgen Kroll, and Kurt Bayertz.

1991: Zohar on surrogacy: “…if we allow artificial insemination from a donor in cases of male infertility, than (sic) we must put our minds to the parallel dilemma of a couple which is childless due to the woman’s infertility. If bearing children is not only a right but also a duty, the implication of prohibiting a surrogate arrangement is forcing men into the tragic choice of foregoing children and failing to perform the mitzvah, on the one hand, and divorce, on the other. Moreover, forbidding or voiding surrogacy contracts flouts not only the autonomy of the married man, but also the autonomy of the woman contracting to bear the child.”

1992: Book publishers finally begin promoting the association of eugenics with Hitler’s Germany and racism in a major fashion.

1994: Evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald: “At a fundamental level, a closed group evolutionary strategy for behavior within a larger human society, as proposed here for Judaism, may be viewed as pseudospeciation: Creation of a closed group evolutionary strategy results in a gene pool that becomes significantly segregated from the gene pool of the surrounding society. Within the strategizing group, there is increasing specialization so that the group is able to become extremely adept at occupying a specific type of niche that is commonly available in human societies. If the strategizing group then undergoes a diaspora and therefore lives among a wide range of human societies, members of the strategizing group, like conspecifics in the natural world, will have greater genetic ties with the dispersed members of their ingroup than with the other members of the society in which they live. Moreover, the within-group genetic commonality predisposes strategizing group members to relatively high levels of within-group altruism and cooperation, while the genetic barrier between the strategizing group and the surrounding society facilitates instrumental behavior directed toward the surrounding society. Moreover, the strategizing group is able to protect itself against freeloading individuals by instituting powerful social controls and belief systems so that a significant level of altruism is maintained within the strategizing group and cheaters who compromise group interests are punished.”

1994: A prenatal diagnosis program using amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling is offered free of charge to all pregnant Israeli women 37 and older; Jewish women are much more accepting of the procedure than are non-Jewish women.

1996: Surrogacy is legalized in Israel and paid for by the State. As pointed out by David A. Frenkel of Ben-Gurion University, the law encourages contractual surrogacy with “gestational carriers.” Jewish religious law does not delegitimize the children of unmarried women, thus making it possible to combine Jewish legal principles with modern legal practices. In vitro fertilization and embryo transfer are preferred by some rabbis as a form of fertility treatment that does not violate the literal Halachic precepts against adultery.

1996: The Knesset enacts the Agreements to Carry Embryos Law 5756-1996. Professor of Business Administration David A. Frenkel of the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, comments: “There is a danger of ‘commodification’ of children. Abusing women of low-socio-economic status as breeding machines may be another outcome. No clear responsibility is imposed on the ‘intended parents’ before the child’s birth. Splitting motherhood is another social problem that has to be dealt with. So far the sperm of the husband from the ‘intended parents’ has to be used, but further steps may follow. It is not certain that a policy of ‘positive eugenics’ will not develop.”

1997: Israel Penal Law on “Interruption of Pregnancy (312-321) acknowledges an embryopathic indication as a just cause for abortion throughout pregnancy and states that termination is allowed in case “the newborn is likely to have a mental or physical defect.”

1997: Medical ethicist and Rabbi Louis Waldman at Knesseth Israel in Far Rockaway, New York: “We believe that you can conquer nature, master nature, even manipulate nature for the ultimate welfare and benefit of mankind.”

1998: Dean and Founder of the Jewish Institute of Bioethics Rabbi David M Feldman: “The laws against incest and consanguinity in the Old Testament would seem to have a rationale in eugenics….”

1998: Evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald: “The entire enterprise [i.e., Boasian anthropology] may thus be characterized as a highly authoritarian political movement centered around a charismatic leader. The results were extraordinarily successful. [As noted by anthropologist George W. Stocking,] ‘The profession as a whole was united within a single national organization of academically oriented anthropologists. By and large, they shared a common understanding of the fundamental significance of the historically conditioned variety of human cultures in the determination of human behavior.’ Research on racial differences ceased, and the profession completely excluded eugenicists and racial theorists like Madison Grant (1865-1937) and Charles Davenport (1866-1944). By the mid-1930s the Boasian view of the cultural determination of human behavior had a strong influence on social scientists generally. The followers of Boas also eventually became some of the most influential academic supporters of psychoanalysis. Marvin Harris notes that psychoanalysis was adopted by the Boasian school because of its utility as a critique of Euro-American culture, and, indeed, as we shall see in later chapters, psychoanalysis is an ideal vehicle of cultural critique. In the hands of the Boasian school, psychoanalysis was completely stripped of its evolutionary associations and there was a much greater accommodation to the importance of cultural variables.”

1998: MacDonald again: “There is an eery sense in which National Socialist ideology was a mirror image of traditional Jewish ideology. As in the case of Judaism, there was a strong emphasis on racial purity and on the primacy of group ethnic interests rather than individual interests. Like the Jews, the National Socialists were greatly concerned with eugenics. Like the Jews, there was a powerful concern with socializing group members into accepting group goals and with the importance of within-group altruism and cooperation in attaining these goals. Both groups had very powerful internal social controls that punished individuals who violated group goals or attempted to exploit the group by freeloading.

The National Socialists enacted a broad range of measures against Jews as a group, including laws against intermarriage and sexual contact, as well as laws preventing socialization between groups and restricting the economic and political opportunities of Jews. These laws were analogous to the elaborate social controls within the Jewish community to prevent social contact with gentiles and to produce high levels of economic and political cooperation. Corresponding to the religious obligation to reproduce and multiply enshrined in the Tanakh, the National Socialists placed a strong emphasis on fertility and enacted laws that restricted abortion and discouraged birth control. In a manner analogous to the traditional Jewish religious obligation to provide dowries for poor girls, the National Socialists enacted laws that enabled needy young couples to marry by providing them loans repayable by having children.”

2001: Psychologist and historian Richard Lynn (b. 1930) of the University of Ulster: “Hitler believed that the Jews and the Aryans were the two most talented races and that they were in competition to secure world supremacy. Thus, he wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews are ‘the mightiest counterpart to the Aryan.’ He feared that the outcome of the struggle between these two people might easily be ‘the final victory of this little nation.’ This was the reason that Hitler was determined to destroy the Jews. He believed that if he could achieve this, the Aryans would remain as the unchallenged master race.”

2001: In an article unusual for its frankness, Former Director of National Affairs at the American Jewish Committee Stephen Steinlight argues that the traditional Jewish support of unrestricted immigration may have “dire implications for Jews and America,” and that many Jews are secretly “terrified” at the ongoing transformation into a non-white society: “Is the emerging new multicultural American nation good for the Jews? Will a country in which enormous demographic and cultural change, fueled by unceasing large-scale non-European immigration, remain one in which Jewish life will continue to flourish as nowhere else in the history of the Diaspora? In an America in which people of color form the plurality, as has already happened in California, most with little or no historical experience with or knowledge of Jews, will Jewish sensitivities continue to enjoy extraordinarily high levels of deference and will Jewish interests continue to receive special protection? Does it matter that the majority [of] non-European immigrants have no historical experience of the Holocaust or knowledge of the persecution of Jews over the ages and see Jews only as the most privileged and powerful of white Americans?…

Does it matter that most Latino immigrants have encountered Jews in their formative years principally or only as Christ killers in the context of a religious education in which the changed teachings of Vatican II penetrated barely or not at all? Does it matter that the politics of ethnic succession – colorblind, I recognize – has already resulted in the loss of key Jewish legislators…and that once Jewish ‘safe seats’ in Congress now are held by Latino representatives?” Steinlight predicts that “disproportionate [Jewish] political power” will erode in a few decades, that nearly “80 percent of the entire foreign aid budget will [no longer] go to Israel,” that the United States may cease to tolerate “dual loyalty” or even accept Jews seeking refuge in the future. Steinlight is particularly concerned with the immigration of Muslim immigrants who regard the founding of Israel as a “catastrophe.”

2002: According to researchers at the University of Haifa and the Sheba Medical Center, donor insemination is “highly curtained” in Israel and “camouflaged” as a treatment for male infertility, but is in reality a “popular mode of conception” even among singles. Israel has 16 sperm banks, and the greatest number of in vitro fertilizations per capita of any country in the world. Israeli Jewish women tend to choose sperm from tall Ashkenazi men with light brown hair and light colored eyes. In the words of the researchers, “these ideals are couched in the hegemonic discourse of Israeli Ashkenazi groups.”

2002: Israeli rabbi Michael Graetz in Conservative Judaism: “perhaps it is our moral duty to use the scientific knowledge that we have gained in order to ‘perfect’ the human species. This approach resonates in Jewish tradition. God, or Nature, endowed humans with wisdom. All that we find in the created world is ‘raw material,’ and human wisdom is bestowed upon us precisely in order for human beings to ‘perfect’ the raw material into something better.”

2010: In a report to the Haifa-based feminist organization Woman to Woman on the use of the contraceptive Depo Provera (administered by injection every three months), ‘eco-feminist’ Hedva Eyal reports that 57 per cent of Depo Provera users in Israel are Ethiopian, even though the community accounts for less than two per cent of the total population: “The unspoken policy is that only children who are white and Ashkenazi are wanted in Israel.”
Matt Nuenke, January 2011

Action T4