American Progressives helped create Adolf Hitler

[WonbyOneanddone]

The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics | History News Network

Only after eugenics became entrenched in the United States was the campaign transplanted into Germany, in no small measure through the efforts of California eugenicists, who published booklets idealizing sterilization and circulated them to German officials and scientists.

Hitler studied American eugenics laws. He tried to legitimize his anti-Semitism by medicalizing it, and wrapping it in the more palatable pseudoscientific facade of eugenics. Hitler was able to recruit more followers among reasonable Germans by claiming that science was on his side. While Hitler's race hatred sprung from his own mind, the intellectual outlines of the eugenics Hitler adopted in 1924 were made in America.

During the '20s, Carnegie Institution eugenic scientists cultivated deep personal and professional relationships with Germany's fascist eugenicists. In Mein Kampf, published in 1924, Hitler quoted American eugenic ideology and openly displayed a thorough knowledge of American eugenics. "There is today one state," wrote Hitler, "in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception [of immigration] are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States."

Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the progress of the American eugenics movement. "I have studied with great interest," he told a fellow Nazi, "the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."

Hitler even wrote a fan letter to American eugenic leader Madison Grant calling his race-based eugenics book, The Passing of the Great Race his "bible."

 

[Aldebaran]

The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics | History News Network

Only after eugenics became entrenched in the United States was the campaign transplanted into Germany, in no small measure through the efforts of California eugenicists, who published booklets idealizing sterilization and circulated them to German officials and scientists.

Hitler studied American eugenics laws. He tried to legitimize his anti-Semitism by medicalizing it, and wrapping it in the more palatable pseudoscientific facade of eugenics. Hitler was able to recruit more followers among reasonable Germans by claiming that science was on his side. While Hitler's race hatred sprung from his own mind, the intellectual outlines of the eugenics Hitler adopted in 1924 were made in America.

During the '20s, Carnegie Institution eugenic scientists cultivated deep personal and professional relationships with Germany's fascist eugenicists. In Mein Kampf, published in 1924, Hitler quoted American eugenic ideology and openly displayed a thorough knowledge of American eugenics. "There is today one state," wrote Hitler, "in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception [of immigration] are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States."

Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the progress of the American eugenics movement. "I have studied with great interest," he told a fellow Nazi, "the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."

Hitler even wrote a fan letter to American eugenic leader Madison Grant calling his race-based eugenics book, The Passing of the Great Race his "bible."

It should make us nervous when politicians of ANY country medicalize issues.

 

[Fantine]

Nowhere does it say the Carnegie eugenicists were progressives or conservatives.

Nor does it say how their studies were financed.

But I get it. Just jump to the conclusion that they are liberals and spin some lies from there.

 

[Eftsoon]

I think the OP might

Nowhere does it say the Carnegie eugenicists were progressives or conservatives.

Nor does it say how their studies were financed.

But I get it. Just jump to the conclusion that they are liberals and spin some lies from there.

Perhaps the OP actually means progressive in terms of 'societal progress'. Eugenicists want to 'improve' humanity.

 

[The Barbarian]

Nowhere does it say the Carnegie eugenicists were progressives or conservatives.

In fact, progressives like Reginald Punnett and Thomas Morgan showed how genetics and evolutionary theory debunked eugenics. Hitler and American racists refused to accept the science, and the results were unfortunate:

Evangelicals even more firmly embraced eugenics after World War II, as sterilization advocates shifted focus to the other side of the eugenics coin: “positive eugenics.” Positive eugenics aimed to increase the breeding of the “fit” (able-bodied, middle-class whites), providing a far more respectable face for the movement, which had become imperiled by scientific criticism and the rise of the unpopular Nazi party. This modernized form of eugenics gelled with racist notions of Christian dominion, which avowed segregationist and eugenicist R.J. Rushdoony would popularize in the 1960s and 70s.

One positive eugenicist who particularly shaped religious conservatives was Californian Paul Popenoe, a central figure in my recent book, The Unfit Heiress: The Tragic Life and Scandalous Sterilization of Ann Cooper Hewitt. Popenoe had been one of the most prolific advocates for the segregation and forced sterilization of people whom he deemed to be “waste humanity,” even inspiring leaders of the Third Reich before the time came for him to rebrand as a defender of patriarchal, procreative marriage.
The Eugenics Roots of Evangelical Family Values

 

[The Barbarian]

Perhaps the OP actually means progressive in terms of 'societal progress'. Eugenicists want to 'improve' humanity.

Maybe so. Could just be a matter of obfuscation.

 

[hedrick]

The Wikipedia article is interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics/ Eugenics was used by all kind of people for all kinds of purposes, including opposition to immigration and racism. Some causes might be identified as progressive, others as the reverse.

 

[Fantine]

Wow, good research, Barbarian. I remember reading an article years and years ago with the thesis that people weren't grieving too few children, but instead grieving that "the right people" weren't having children. And that's where we are today.

Single people shouldn't have children.
LGBT people should not have children, either biological, adopted, or foster.
People shouldn't have children they can't support.
Teenagers shouldn't have children.

They are "the wrong people" who are having children.

Do traditionalists think that black or immigrant people are "the wrong people" having children? I'll leave you to answer that question for yourselves.

How can the wrong people stop having children without birth control or abortion? Well, there's the rub...

 

[The Barbarian]

Wow, good research, Barbarian.

It's old stuff for those who are interested in evolutionary science. Creationists have often attempted to project eugenics on science. In fact, Darwin referred to eugenic practice in The Descent of Man as "an overwhelming evil" and Reginald Punnett demonstrated that even extreme eugenic laws would not remove harmful recessives from the population in less than hundreds of years.

 

[WonbyOneanddone]

It's old stuff for those who are interested in evolutionary science. Creationists have often attempted to project eugenics on science. In fact, Darwin referred to eugenic practice in The Descent of Man as "an overwhelming evil" and Reginald Punnett demonstrated that even extreme eugenic laws would not remove harmful recessives from the population in less than hundreds of years.

This is what Darwin said in the Decent of Man

No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil.

So Darwin is essentially saying that if humans could breed humans like they do livestock, which is to breed out weakness and bread in strength, it would strengthen the human genetic gene pool. However, he pauses and says that instead we help those who have "bad" genes because it is our "noble" nature to do so. And to not do it would be "evil"

So tell us, what is scientific about being noble or evil? Those that don't believe in good or evil, but only science, are more inclined to simply shove aside such superstitious terms.

BTW, Darwin believed that the black race was inferior, as did the brightest minds of those in science during that era. This is what led people like Margaret Sanger to create Planned Parenthood to help breed out undesirables like poor black folk.

This is what Margaret Sanger said about black folk

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. And the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

– Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976 (emphasis mine).

And make no mistake, abortion is eugenics and is predominantly supported by the Progressive movement.

In fact, 86% of abortion clinics are strategically located in black neighborhoods

Planned Parenthood Puts 86% of Its Abortion Facilities in Minority Neighborhoods | LifeNews.com

And there have been more black abortions in New York City than births

More African-American Babies are Aborted Than Born Alive in New York City | LifeNews.com

 

[WonbyOneanddone]

Nowhere does it say the Carnegie eugenicists were progressives or conservatives.

Nor does it say how their studies were financed.

But I get it. Just jump to the conclusion that they are liberals and spin some lies from there.

When I use the word Progressive, I refer to people who claim they rely on science, people who constantly refer to race as if race meant anything, and people who think they are using science and political activism to engineer humanity towards progress.

Add to the fact that abortion is eugenics in action, and predominantly supported by Progressives, I was then inclined to use the term Progressives.

Darwin and Sanger are all Patriarchs of sorts to those in the Progressive movement who worship at the feet of science and secularism

 

[WonbyOneanddone]

In fact, progressives like Reginald Punnett and Thomas Morgan showed how genetics and evolutionary theory debunked eugenics. Hitler and American racists refused to accept the science, and the results were unfortunate:

Evangelicals even more firmly embraced eugenics after World War II, as sterilization advocates shifted focus to the other side of the eugenics coin: “positive eugenics.” Positive eugenics aimed to increase the breeding of the “fit” (able-bodied, middle-class whites), providing a far more respectable face for the movement, which had become imperiled by scientific criticism and the rise of the unpopular Nazi party. This modernized form of eugenics gelled with racist notions of Christian dominion, which avowed segregationist and eugenicist R.J. Rushdoony would popularize in the 1960s and 70s.

One positive eugenicist who particularly shaped religious conservatives was Californian Paul Popenoe, a central figure in my recent book, The Unfit Heiress: The Tragic Life and Scandalous Sterilization of Ann Cooper Hewitt. Popenoe had been one of the most prolific advocates for the segregation and forced sterilization of people whom he deemed to be “waste humanity,” even inspiring leaders of the Third Reich before the time came for him to rebrand as a defender of patriarchal, procreative marriage.
The Eugenics Roots of Evangelical Family Values

The sterilization of Ann Cooper Hewitt was the beginning of the end for the Eugenic movement, at least, Eugenics out in the open.

For you see, Ann Cooper Hewitt was sterilized with the charge that she was feeble minded, a term used for the scientific and political elites to describe people who are undesirable in society. Essentially those who were poor were all assumed to be feeble minded. But Ann Hewitt was wealthy and of "good stock". She was sterilized by a family member to try and cut her out of her fathers will because in the will it said that she would get a large portion of his wealth if she had children.

But today we encourage the poor, or feeble minded, or undesirables, however you want to call them, to abort their offspring instead of forcing them to sterilize themselves.

For you see, most who have abortions do so because of concerns over money.

It is no different today than in the days of the OT when people would sacrifice their babies to the gods for fiscal gain, such as a good crop, victory at war, or other things for material gain. They both sacrifice their own flesh and blood to the gods of materialism.

 

[The Barbarian]

BTW, Darwin believed that the black race was inferior,

He believed non-British whites were inferior. Racism was a common European attitude at the time. Darwin differed from creationists of the time by opposing slavery and believing that all humans were entitled to freedom and dignity. And as you see, he considered even passive eugenics to be evil.

On the other hand, creationists of the time, like Agassiz, didn't even think blacks were the same species as whites.

as did the brightest minds of those in science during that era.

Darwin's associate, Huxley, did not.

While Darwinists like Morgan and Punnett used genetics to show that eugenic ideas were foolish and unscientific, creationists like ICR co-founder William Tinkle was an enthusiastic eugenicist. And his co-founder Henry Morris, was in the 1990s, writing about the supposed spiritual and intellectual inferiority of blacks.

 

[The Barbarian]

But today we encourage the poor, or feeble minded, or undesirables, however you want to call them, to abort their offspring instead of forcing them to sterilize themselves.

Apparently, not very often or effectively; abortions have now declined to lower rates than we had before Roe vs. Wade.