DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Colonial Era
*****************************************************
#Post#: 23437--------------------------------------------------
Re: Racial View of Western Philosopher from John Locke to Karl M
arx
By: antihellenistic Date: November 6, 2023, 7:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Henry Edward Garrett
[quote]Henry Edward Garrett (January 27, 1894 – June 26, 1973)
was an American psychologist and segregationist.
...
...was involved in the International Association for the
Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics (IAAEE), the journal
Mankind Quarterly, the neofascist Northern League, and the
ultra-right wing political group, the Liberty Lobby.
...
In the 1950s Garrett helped organize an international group of
scholars dedicated to preventing "race-mixing", preserving
segregation, and promoting the principles of early 20th century
eugenics and "race hygiene". Garrett was a strong opponent of
the 1954 United States Supreme Court's desegregation decision in
Brown v. Board of Education, which he predicted would lead to
"total demoralization and then disorganization in that order."
...
Garrett wrote the introduction to Carleton Putnam's Race and
Reason, published in 1961.[1] According to A.S. Winston, he
"praised Byram Campbell's analysis of the Nordic as the ideal
race."[1][/quote]
Source :
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Garrett_(psychologist)
#Post#: 23970--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Democracy
By: antihellenistic Date: November 22, 2023, 7:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Real Libertarianism
[quote]Hans-Hermann Hoppe, professor of economics at University
of Nevada Las Vegas, is a different kind of libertarian. He
shares — even surpasses — the usual libertarian contempt for
government intrusion and compulsion, but recognizes “free
immigration” for what it is: forcing strangers into communities
of natives who want to be left alone. Prof. Hoppe recognizes
that the right to discriminate, to keep out undesirables, is a
fundamental freedom that only the servile would ever give up.
...
As a libertarian, Prof. Hoppe is a strong advocate of free
trade, but scorns the idea that it must go hand in hand with
“free immigration,” which is conceptually entirely different.
Free trade occurs only when there are willing sellers and buyers
of goods; imports cross borders only when they are wanted.
Immigrants walk across the border whether they are wanted or
not. Even if there are employers who want immigrants, it does
not follow that other citizens want to share parks, schools,
shopping malls, streets, and movie theaters with them.
Therefore, if capitalists really want foreign workers, they
should keep them in self-sufficient company towns rather than
force them on the public.
Prof. Hoppe recognizes that antipathy towards those outside
one’s own group is perfectly natural, but it need not interfere
with trade:
From the fact that one does not want to associate with or live
in the neighborhood of Blacks, Turks, Catholics or Hindus, etc.,
it does not follow that one does not want to trade with them
from a distance. To the contrary, it is precisely the absolute
voluntariness of human association and separation — the absence
of any form of forced integration — that makes peaceful
relationships — free trade — between culturally, racially,
ethnically, or religiously distinct people possible.
As Prof. Hoppe explains, whether domestically or
internationally, “private property means discrimination.” When
people have lost the right to discriminate they have lost the
use of their property. Moreover, “a society in which the right
to exclusion is fully restored to owners of private property
would be profoundly inegalitarian, intolerant, and
discriminatory,” which is why democratic societies fear this
basic freedom.[/quote]
Source :
A Libertarian for Our Side Posted on March 25, 2018
HTML https://www.amren.com/news/2018/03/hoppe-democracy-god-that-failed-libertarians-race-immigration/
#Post#: 24042--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leftist vs rightist moral circles
By: antihellenistic Date: November 24, 2023, 8:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Enlightement Period. Period of Enlighting Barbarism
[quote]Given this, it makes sense that Enlightenment
philosophers should so often turn to slavery as a metaphor for
oppression. At times writers like Voltaire and especially
Condorcet did address and attack the evils of African slavery:
the famous passage in Candide where the eponymous hero comes
across a miserable slave who mournfully informs him that “it is
at this expense that you eat sugar in Europe” is one prominent
example.26 For the most part, however, when Enlightenment
writers talked about the evils of slavery they did so only in a
metaphorical rather than a literal sense. The symbolic
enslavement of Europeans by religious and royal oppression
rather than the actual enslavement of Africans in the Americas
was far and away their primary concern. For example, as
Sala-Molins has trenchantly observed, nowhere in The Social
Contract does Rousseau mention the French Code Noir of 1685, in
which the royal government formally codified slavery in its
Caribbean colonies.27 Voltaire was similarly much more
interested in slavery as metaphor than in the actual plight of
African slaves. In his 1736 play Alzire, or the Americans, set
in sixteenth-century Peru, Voltaire condemns royal oppression
and corruption but has little to say about Black slavery in that
colony.28 This tendency to privilege the metaphorical over the
actual experience of slavery spread far beyond the elite circles
of Enlightenment writers. As Susan Buck-Morss has noted, the
fact that the Dutch in the early modern era profited
tremendously from the slave trade did not stop them from
bitterly complaining about their enslavement by the Spanish
Monarchy and portraying their fight for independence as a
struggle against slavery.29 Simon Schama’s landmark study An
Embarrassment of Riches tends to replicate this dichotomy,
largely ignoring the “embarrassing” fact that much of Dutch
prosperity came from investments in African bondage.30
How can one explain this contrast between the Enlightenment’s
often militant opposition to slavery as a political metaphor and
the lack of concern with the actual slaves during the eighteenth
century? One reason could be that some of the movement’s leading
figures directly profited from the slave trade. John Locke,
whose Second Treatise on Government remains a classic statement
of political liberalism, was a major investor in the African
slave trade through the Royal African Company. 31 Others, such
as David Hume and Voltaire, held investments that benefited from
slavery even if they weren’t directly tied to the slave trade.
Such examples merely reaffirm the broad importance of = slavery
to European economies in the eighteenth
century.
More significant is the relationship between Enlightenment
attitudes to slavery and to race. As Emmanuel Chukwudi Eze has
demonstrated, Enlightenment writers devoted significant
attention to the study of race and racial difference, often in
the context of ethnographic research and
analysis. Immanuel Kant, for example, wrote extensively about
the different races of mankind as an ethnographer. As noted
earlier, this study of race arose out of the Enlightenment’s
heritage from the Scientific Revolution, in particular the
desire to apply the same level of systematic classification to
humanity that scientists had developed for the natural world.
Increased European exploration of the broader world had also
generated a variety of travel narratives and other first-person
accounts that fueled the interest in the comparative study of
different peoples. The Enlightenment thus occupied a seminal
position in the birth of scientific racism.32
The comparative study of races generally ranked people from high
to low in a hierarchical continuum. In 1684, French doctor
François Bernier published one of the first modern books on
racial theory, entitled A New Division of the Earth, According
to the Different Races of Men Who Inhabit It. He argued that the
world’s population was divided into four or five races, each
with its own physical and mental characteristics. 33 Several
Enlightenment scholars followed Bernier’s lead, considering how
different peoples (usually Europeans, Asians, Africans, and
“Americans,” or Native Americans) resembled and differed from
each other in physical appearance and levels of intellect.
Invariably, such rankings placed white Europeans at the top of
the hierarchy, emphasizing their intelligence and physical
beauty, while Africans were usually placed at the bottom of the
scale when evaluated with these characteristics. In comparing
different races, Immanuel Kant had this to say about Africans:
“The Negroes of Africa have by nature no feeling that rises
above the trifling. Mr [David] Hume challenges anyone to cite a
single example in which a Negro has shown talents, and asserts
that among the hundreds of thousands of Blacks who are
transported elsewhere from their countries, although many of
them have even been set free, still not a single one was ever
found who presented anything great in art or science or any
other praiseworthy quality.”34 While Enlightenment writers
strove to go beyond a simple binary analysis of racial
difference by their use of scientific observation and analysis,
in many cases they tended to replicate the traditional division
between civilized peoples and barbarians. Civilization and
reason were therefore largely a province of the white races of
Europe. As Eze has argued, “the Enlightenment’s declaration of
itself as ‘the Age of Reason’ was predicated upon precisely the
assumption that reason could historically only come to maturity
in modern Europe.” 35[/quote]
Source :
White Freedom The Racial History of an Idea Tyler Edward Stovall
2021 Princeton University Press page 107, 108, 109
#Post#: 24541--------------------------------------------------
Re: Racial View of Western Philosopher from John Locke to Karl M
arx
By: antihellenistic Date: December 20, 2023, 11:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Western Marxist-Socialism
[quote]Tom Watson (1856 — 1924), went even further, calling
blacks a “hideous, ominous, national menace.” In 1908 Watson ran
for public office “standing squarely for white supremacy.”
“Lynch law is a good sign,” he wrote. “It shows that a sense of
justice yet lives among the people.” When he died, the leader of
the American Socialist Party Eugene Debs (1855 — 1926) —
certainly no conservative — wrote, “he was a great man, a heroic
soul who fought for power over evil his whole life long in the
interest of the common people, and they loved and honored him.”
The common people, certainly as represented by the Socialist
Party, were not liberal on race. The socialists reached the
height of their power during the early part of this century and
at one time could claim 2,000 elected officials. They were split
on the Negro question, but the anti-black faction was probably
stronger. The party organ, Social Democratic Herald, argued on
Sept. 14, 1901 that blacks were inferior, depraved degenerates
who went “around raping women and children.” The socialist press
dismissed any white woman who consorted with blacks as
“depraved.”
In 1903, the Second International criticized American socialists
for not speaking out against lynching and other violence against
blacks. The Socialist National Quorum explained that Americans
were silent on the subject because only the abolition of
capitalism and the triumph of socialism could prevent the
further procreation of black “lynchable human degenerates.” At
the 1910 Socialist Party Congress, the Committee on Immigration
called for the “unconditional exclusion” of Chinese and Japanese
on the grounds that America already had problems enough dealing
with Negroes. There was a strong view within the party that it
was capitalism that forced the races to live and work together,
and that under Socialism the race problem would be solved for
good by complete segregation.
In their racial views, American socialists were in complete
agreement with Karl Marx. He and Friedrich Engels both despised
blacks and used the English word “nigger” in private
correspondence even though they wrote in German. Marx called his
rival for leadership of the German socialism movement, Ferdinand
Lassalle, “the Jewish nigger,” and described him thus, in a
letter to Engels:
It is now entirely clear to me, that, as his cranial structure
and hair type prove, Lassalle is descended from the Negroes, who
joined Moses’ flight from Egypt (that is, assuming his mother,
or his paternal grandmother, did not cross with a nigger) . . .
The officiousness of the fellow is also nigger-like.
...
The author Jack London (1876 — 1916) was, in his day, the best
known, most highly paid, and popular author in the world. He was
a committed socialist but also a white supremacist. He wrote
that socialism was “devised for the happiness of certain kindred
races. It is devised so as to give more strength to these
certain kindred favored races so that they may survive and
inherit the earth to the extinction of the lesser, weaker
races.” There were, however, some races that were not going to
go quietly extinct. In a little essay called “The Yellow Peril,”
London worried about what would happen if the 400 million
Chinese were ever taken in hand by the 45 million Japanese and
led on a crusade against the white man:
Four hundred million indefatigable workers (deft, intelligent,
and unafraid to die), aroused and rejuvenescent, managed and
guided by forty-five million additional human beings who are
splendid fighting animals, scientific and modern, constitute
that menace to the Western world which has been well named the
‘Yellow Peril.’
The English philosopher Bertrand Russell, (1872–1970) was
another well-known socialist free-thinker, and eternal gadfly to
all things conservatives hold dear — well, almost all things. On
the race question he was entirely on Jack London’s side. In a
1923 book called Prospects of Industrial Civilization he wrote:
[The] white population of the world will soon cease to increase.
The Asiatic races will be longer, and the Negroes still longer,
before their birth rate falls sufficiently to make their numbers
stable without help of war and pestilence . . . Until that
happens, the benefits aimed at by socialism can only be
partially realized, and the less prolific races will have to
defend themselves against the more prolific by methods which are
disgusting even if they are necessary.
These people were socialists, but that did not blind them to
race. They were for socialism and progress but whites came
first.[/quote]
Source :
Posted on September 18, 2016 Don’t Write Off the Liberals
Melinda Jelliby, American Renaissance, April 2000
HTML https://www.amren.com/news/2016/09/dont-write-off-the-liberals/
#Post#: 25558--------------------------------------------------
Re: Racial View of Western Philosopher from John Locke to Karl M
arx
By: antihellenistic Date: March 20, 2024, 5:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Reaffirmation on Degeneracy of John Locke's Classical-Liberal
Philosophy and it's Consequences
[quote]In 1663, a year after slavery officially became a
Virginia birthright and over a hundred years after Lucas Vásquez
de Ayllón made his bumbling attempt to gentrify South Carolina,
King Charles granted eight “Lord Proprietors” the rights to
establish the British colony of Carolina and essentially rule
the land as makeshift monarchs. One of the first acts of
business was to enlist British political philosopher John Locke
to coauthor the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina.
(Coincidentally, Locke—who is known as the “Father of
Liberalism,” and whose philosophy on the fundamental rights of
“life, liberty, and property” inspired a little document called
the Declaration of Independence—was a major investor in the
Royal African Company, the white-owned business that trafficked
more enslaved Africans to America than any other entity.)* Locke
enumerated the laws and rules for Carolina’s organizing
document, including a clause that would come to forever be known
as Article 110, which stated, “Every freeman of Carolina shall
have absolute power and authority over his negro slaves, of what
opinion or religion soever.”5 Carolina’s white supremacy was
baked into the social structure as one of the colony’s founding
principles, and slavery proliferated.
The proprietors of the Carolina territory faced a plight similar
to the situation recently overcome by Jamestown’s venture
capitalists. Not only did South Carolina’s new residents have to
deal with a hostile indigenous population, but the indentured
English farmers had never seen a climate and soil like this.
When South Carolina’s early white residents saw what Virginia’s
elite class did with a few pieces of human property and access
to headrights, they checked the stock price for slaves and said,
“Hold my ale.” The Carolina colony would build an empire of
slavery.[/quote]
Source :
Black AF History: The Un-Whitewashed Story of America by Michael
Harriot page 57
#Post#: 25560--------------------------------------------------
Re: Racial View of Western Philosopher from John Locke to Karl M
arx
By: 90sRetroFan Date: March 20, 2024, 6:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The correct to understand Lockeanism is as an ideology of:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/plebian-hubris/
Rulers (even if also "white") are not to have authority over
"white" plebs, but instead all "whites" are to have unlimited
authority over all "non-whites".
#Post#: 25955--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leftist vs rightist moral circles
By: antihellenistic Date: April 14, 2024, 10:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Rightist Moral Cycle, Whitewashing History
[quote]From the Enlightenment until about the 1970s the liberal
idea that human history could be comprehended in a progressive
way commanded wide credence in the West. While there were a
variety of interpretations about the moving forces of history
and the nature of the stages one would expect to find, not many
world historians doubted that it was possible to offer a grand
view of history typified by increasing knowledge and freedom. In
the 19th century this view sometimes came with assumptions of
racial hierarchy. “We are fully authorized to say,” wrote
William Swinton in his Outline of the World’s History, published
in 1874, “that the Aryans are peculiarly the race of progress.”
Similarly, in a popular high school textbook he authored in
1889, Philip Myers offered a narrative of progress with
references to “the White, or Caucasian race” as “by far the most
perfect type, physically, intellectually, and morally” (in
Allardyce 2000: 35). Myers removed these racial remarks from
later editions, but the liberal idea that history was moving in
a desirable direction continued to be infused with imperious
attitudes toward cultures and peoples believed to be outside the
mainstream of cultural progress.1
The idea of progress had indeed developed into much more than an
explanation of world history; it spawned a Western arrogance
that belittled the historical role of non-Western societies. As
Marshall Hodgson (2000: 113–14) lamented in the early 1950s,
world history was “essentially Western history amplified by a
few unrelated chapters on other parts of the world.”
“Prehistoric man” and several of the ancient civilizations –
Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Palestine – were sometimes treated
fairly well, but once the story moved on to Greece, Rome, and
medieval Europe, the Near East tended to disappear from the
texts, except for a brief section on the expansion of Islam
between the 8th and 12th centuries. The achievements of Indian
and Chinese were highlighted, but Mesoamerican and Sub-Saharan
cultures were usually given little attention until Europeans
came into contact with them in modern times. There was a
triumphalist assumption that Western peoples were always the
progressive ones, and that Asians contributed little to human
amelioration after the first millennium BCE. Western European
civilization, having inherited the Judeo-Christian vision of a
universal brotherhood of man, the Greek ideal of a free citizen,
and the Roman legal tradition, was considered the “mainstream”
of world history.[/quote]
Source :
The Uniqueness of Western Civilization by Ricardo Duchesne page
1-2
#Post#: 26599--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leftist vs rightist moral circles
By: antihellenistic Date: May 29, 2024, 8:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Westerners's Moral Judaism
Social-Darwinism
[quote]In the 1850s, agnostic English philosopher Herbert
Spencer published Social Statics, asserting that man and
society, in truth, followed the laws of cold science, not the
will of a caring, almighty God. Spencer popularized a powerful
new term: “survival of the fittest.” He declared that man and
society were evolving according to their inherited nature.
Through evolution, the “fittest” would naturally continue to
perfect society. And the “unfit” would naturally become more
impoverished, less educated and ultimately die off, as well they
should. Indeed, Spencer saw the misery and starvation of the
pauper classes as an inevitable decree of a “far-seeing
benevolence,” that is, the laws of nature. He unambiguously
insisted, “The whole effort of nature is to get rid of such, and
to make room for better…. If they are not sufficiently complete
to live, they die, and it is best they should die.” Spencer left
no room for doubt, declaring, “all imperfection must disappear.”
As such, he completely denounced charity and instead extolled
the purifying elimination of the “unfit.” The unfit, he argued,
were predestined by their nature to an existence of downwardly
spiraling degradation.16
As social and economic gulfs created greater
generation-to-generation disease and dreariness among the
increasing poor, and as new philosophies suggested society would
only improve when the unwashed classes faded away, a third voice
entered the debate. That new voice was the voice of hereditary
science.
In 1859, some years after Spencer began to use the term
“survival of the fittest,” the naturalist Charles Darwin summed
up years of observation in a lengthy abstract entitled The
Origin of Species. Darwin espoused “natural selection” as the
survival process governing most living things in a world of
limited resources and changing environments. He confirmed that
his theory “is the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold
force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms; for in this
case, there can be no artificial increase of food, and no
prudential restraint from marriage.”17
Darwin was writing about a “natural world” distinct from man.
But it wasn’t long before leading thinkers were distilling the
ideas of Malthus, Spencer and Darwin into a new concept, bearing
a name never used by Darwin himself: social Darwinism 18 Now
social planners were rallying around the notion that in the
struggle to survive in a harsh world, many humans were not only
less worthy, many were actually destined to wither away as a
rite of progress. To preserve the weak and the needy was, in
essence, an unnatural act.
Since ancient times, man has understood the principles of
breeding and the lasting quality of inherited traits. The Old
Testament describes Jacob’s clever breeding of his and Laban’s
flocks, as spotted and streaked goats were mated to create
spotted and streaked offspring. Centuries later, Jesus
sermonized, “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree
cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit
is cut down and thrown into the fire.”19[/quote]
Source :
War Against the Weak Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a
Master Race page 48 - 49
#Post#: 26600--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Leftist vs rightist moral circles
By: antihellenistic Date: May 29, 2024, 11:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Westerners's Moral Judaism Part 2
Ethno-Nationalism
[quote]In America, racial activists had already convinced
themselves that those of different races and ethnic backgrounds
considered inferior were no more than a hereditary blight in
need of eugenic cleansing. Many noted reformers even joined the
choir. For example, in a 1909 article called “Practical
Eugenics,” the early twentieth-century education pioneer John
Franklin Bobbitt insisted, “In primal days was the blood of the
race kept high and pure, like mountain streams.” He now
cautioned that the “highest, purest tributaries to the stream of
heredity” were being supplanted by “a rising flood in the muddy,
undesirable streams.”26
Bobbitt held out little value for the offspring of “worm-eaten
stock.” Although considered a social progressive, he argued that
the laws of nature mandating “survival of the fittest” were
constantly being countermanded by charitable endeavors. “Schools
and charities,” he harangued, “supply crutches to the weak in
mind and morals … [and] corrupt the streams of heredity.”
Society, he pleaded, must prevent “the weaklings at the bottom
from mingling their weakness in human currents.”27
Defective humans were not just those carrying obvious diseases
or handicaps, but those whose lineages strayed from the
Germanic, Nordic and/or white Anglo-Saxon Protestant ideal.
Bobbitt made clear that only those descended from Teutonic
forefathers were of pure blood. In one such remonstration, he
reminded, “One must admit the high purity of their blood, their
high average sanity, soundness and strength. They were a
well-born, well-weeded race.” Eugenic spokesman Madison Grant,
trustee of the American Museum of Natural History, stated the
belief simply in his popular book, The Passing of the Great
Race, writing that Nordics “were the white man par
excellence.”28
Indeed, the racism of America’s first eugenic intellectuals was
more than just a movement of whites against nonwhites. They
believed that Germans and Nordics comprised the supreme race,
and a typical lament among eugenic leaders such as Lothrop
Stoddard was that Nordic populations were decreasing. In The
Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy, Stoddard
wrote that the Industrial Revolution had attracted squalid
Mediterranean peoples who quickly outnumbered the more desirable
Nordics. “In the United States, it has been much the same story.
Our country, originally settled almost exclusively by Nordics,
was toward the close of the nineteenth century invaded by hordes
of immigrant Alpines and Mediterraneans, not to mention Asiatic
elements like Levantines and Jews. As a result, the Nordic
native American has been crowded out with amazing rapidity by
these swarming, prolific aliens, and after two short
generations, he has in many of our urban areas become almost
extinct.” Madison Grant agreed: “The term ‘Caucasian race’ has
ceased to have any meaning.”29
By no means did the eugenics movement limit its animus to non-
English speaking immigrants. It was a movement against
non-Nordics regardless of their skin color, language or national
origin. For example, Stoddard denigrated the “swart cockney” in
Britain “as a resurgence of the primitive Mediterranean stock,
and probably a faithful replica of his ancestors of Neolithic
times.” All mixed breeds were vile. “Where the parent stocks are
very diverse,” wrote Stoddard, “as [in] matings between whites,
Negroes and Amerindians, the offspring is a mongrel-a walking
chaos, so consumed by his jarring heredities that he is quite
worthless.”30
Grant’s tome lionized the long-headed skulls, blue eyes and
blond hair of true Nordic stock, and outlined the complex
history of Nordic migrations and invasions across Eurasia and
into Great Britain. Eventually, these Nordic settlements were
supplanted by lesser breeds, who adopted the Nordic and
Anglo-Saxon languages but were in fact the carriers of corrupt
human strains.31
Indeed, those Americans descended from lower-class Scottish and
Irish families were also viewed as a biological menace, being of
Mediterranean descent. Brunette hair constituted an ancestral
stigma that proved a non-Nordic bloodline. Any claims by such
people to Anglo- Saxon descent because of language or
nationality were considered fraudulent. Grant railed, “No one
can question … on the streets of London, the contrast between
the Piccadilly gentleman of Nordic race and the cockney
costermonger [street vendor] of the Neolithic type.”32 Hence,
from Ulster County to the Irish slums of Manhattan, to the
Kentucky and Virginia hills, poor whites were reviled by
eugenicists not for their ramshackle and destitute lifestyles,
but for a heredity that supposedly made pauperism and
criminality an inevitable genetic trait.
Even when an individual of the wrong derivation was healthy,
intelligent and successful, his existence was considered
dangerous. “There are many parents who, in many cases, may
themselves be normal, but who produce defective offspring. This
great mass of humanity is not only a social menace to the
present generation, but it harbors the potential parenthood of
the social misfits of our future generations.”33
Race mixing was considered race suicide. Grant warned: “The
cross between a white man and an Indian is an Indian; the cross
between a white man and a Negro is a Negro; the cross between a
white man and a Hindu is a Hindu; and the cross between any of
the three European races and a Jew is a Jew.”34[/quote]
Source :
War Against the Weak Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a
Master Race 68 - 69
#Post#: 26644--------------------------------------------------
Re: Racial View of Western Philosopher from John Locke to Karl M
arx
By: antihellenistic Date: June 3, 2024, 2:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Westerners's Moral Judaism Part 3
Human Progressivism through Eugenics
[quote]On May 2 and May 3, 1911, in Palmer, Massachusetts, the
research committees of the ABA’s eugenic section adopted a
resolution creating a special new committee. “Resolved: that the
chair appoint a committee commissioned to study and report on
the best practical means for cutting off the defective
germ-plasm of the American population.” Laughlin was the special
committee’s secretary. He and his colleagues would recruit an
advisory panel from among the country’s most esteemed
authorities in the social and political sciences, medicine and
jurisprudence. The advisory panel eventually included surgeon
Alexis Carrel, M.D., of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical
Research, who would months later win the Nobel Prize for
Medicine; O.P. Austin, chief of the Bureau of Statistics in
Washington, D.C.; physiologist W.B. Cannon and immigration
expert Robert DeCourcy Ward, both from Harvard; psychiatrist
Stewart Paton from Princeton; public affairs professor Irving
Fisher from Yale; political economist James Field from the
University of Chicago; renowned attorney Louis Marshall; and
numerous other eminent men of learning.57
Commencing July 15, 1911, Laughlin and the main ABA committee
members met at Manhattan’s prestigious City Club on West
Forty-fourth Street. During a number of subsequent conferences,
they carefully debated the “problem of cutting off the supply of
defectives,” and systematically plotted a bold campaign of
“purging the blood of the American people of the handicapping
and deteriorating influences of these anti-social classes.” Ten
groups were eventually identified as “socially unfit” and
targeted for “elimination.” First, the feebleminded; second, the
pauper class; third, the inebriate class or alcoholics; fourth,
criminals of all descriptions including petty criminals and
those jailed for nonpayment of fines; fifth, epileptics; sixth,
the insane; seventh, the constitutionally weak class; eighth,
those pre-disposed to specific diseases; ninth, the deformed;
tenth, those with defective sense organs, that is, the deaf,
blind and mute. In this last category, there was no indication
of how severe the defect need be to qualify; no distinction was
made between blurry vision or bad hearing and outright blindness
or deafness.58
Not content to eliminate those deemed unfit by virtue of some
malady, transgression, disadvantage or adverse circumstance, the
ABA committee targeted their extended families as well. Even if
those relatives seemed perfectly normal and were not
institutionalized, the breeders considered them equally unfit
because they supposedly carried the defective germ-plasm that
might crop up in a future generation. The committee carefully
weighed the relative value of “sterilizing all persons with
defective germ-plasm,” or just “sterilizing only degenerates.”
The group agreed that “defective and potential parents of
defectives not in institutions” were also unacceptable.59
Normal persons of the wrong ancestry were particularly unwanted.
“There are many others of equally unworthy personality and
hereditary qualities,” wrote Laughlin, “who have … never been
committed to institutions.” He added, “There are many parents
who, in many cases, may themselves be normal, but who produce
defective offspring. This great mass of humanity is not only a
social menace to the present generation, but it harbors the
potential parenthood of the social misfits of our future
generations.” Davenport had consistently emphasized that “a
person who by all physical and mental examinations is normal may
lack in half his germ cells the determiner for complete
development. In some respects, such a person is more undesirable
in the community than the idiot, (who will probably not
reproduce), or the low-grade imbecile who will be recognized as
such.”60
How many people did the eugenics movement target for
countermeasures? Prioritizing those in custodial care-from poor
houses to hospitals to prisons-the unfit totaled close to a
million. An additional three million people were “equally
defective, but not under the state’s care.” Finally, the group
focused on the so-called “borderline,” some seven million
people, who “are of such inferior blood, and are so interwoven
in kinship with those still more defective, that they are
totally unfitted to become parents of useful citizens.” Laughlin
insisted, “If they mate with a higher level, they contaminate
it; if they mate with the still lower levels, they bolster them
up a little only to aid them to continue their unworthy kind.”
The estimated first wave alone totaled nearly eleven million
Americans, or more than 10 percent of the existing population.61
Eleven million would be only the beginning. Laughlin readily
admitted that his first aim was at “ten percent of the total
population, but even this is arbitrary.” Eugenics would then
turn its attention to the extended families deemed perfectly
normal but still socially unfit.62 Those numbers would add many
million more.
Indeed, the eugenicists would push further, attempting a
constantly upward genetic spiral in their insatiable quest for
the super race. The movement intended to constantly identify the
lowest levels of even the acceptable population and then
terminate those families as well. “It will always be desirable,”
wrote Laughlin on behalf of the committee, “in the interests of
still further advancement to cut off the lowest levels, and
encourage high fecundity among the more gifted.”63
The committee was always keenly aware that their efforts could
be deemed unconstitutional. Legal fine points were argued to
ensure that any eugenical countermeasure not “be considered as a
second punishment … or as a cruel or unusual punishment.” The
eugenic committee hoped to circumvent the courts and due
process, arguing that “sterilization of degenerates, or
especially of criminals, [could] be legitimately effected
through the exercise of police functions.” In an ideal world, a
eugenics board or commission would unilaterally decide which
families would be the targets of eugenic procedures. The police
would simply enforce their decisions.64[/quote]
Source :
War Against the Weak Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a
Master Race page 103 - 105
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page