We Aided Hitler's T-4! Yes...I Did Just Say Hitler Copied Us
FANTASTIC research and essay by Dee!
A MUST READ!
Made In the USA
History seems to be repeating itself with the advancements being made by the culture of death; a crusade that started before WWII and one that was idealized and copied by Hitler. Yes...I did just say Hitler copied us. In the book War Against the Weak, Edwin Black documents ties between American eugenicists and the birth of Hitler’s death movement, the Nazi T-4 program; removing the unfit from humanity. According to his book, American foundations gave financial support for research and travel, gave moral support to and collaborated with Nazi doctors. Some in America were disappointed that Hitler was advancing faster than we in that arena, “…beating us at our own game” (See Chapter One). With the world-wide condemnation of the Nazi atrocities, the eugenicists in America became low-key but held to their ideals and their crusade; changing the names of organizations, publications and programs and redefining the eugenics euphemisms so that the truth was not so easily recognized – changing eugenics to genetics. Things were going well for the eugenicists here until Hitler gave eugenics a bad name by being so good at it.
Eugenics is the attempt to “improve” the human race by selective breeding and sometimes, as in the case of infants with Down syndrome, killing them before they are born. “How? By identifying so-called “defective” family trees and subjecting them to legislative segregation and sterilization programs.” Indiana was the first to pass a mandatory sterilization law in 1907. “Mandatory sterilization laws were enacted in some twenty-seven states…” “Ultimately, 60,000 American were coercively sterilized…” (See home page and Introduction.) This was supported by Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger and Oliver Wendell Holmes.” In Buck vs. Bell – involuntary sterilization case – the Supreme Court found the law compatible with the constitution. “Oliver Wendell Holmes carried the majority with, “three generations of imbeciles are enough.” ” Many wanted to sterilize the poor (as they thought them to be unfit), so that there would, in time, be fewer poor unfit people and more like them.
In 1916, The Passing of the Great Race, Madison Grant wrote: "Mistaken regard for what are believed to be divine laws and a sentimental belief in the sanctity of human life tend to prevent both the elimination of defective infants and the sterilization of such adults as are themselves of no value to the community. The laws of nature require the obliteration of the unfit and human life is valuable only when it is of use to the community or race. It is highly unjust that a minute minority should be called upon to supply brains for the unthinking mass of the community, but it is even worse to burden the responsible and larger, but still overworked, elements in the community with an ever increasing number of moral perverts, mental defectives, and hereditary cripples.” This book brought Grant a fan letter in which the man called Grant's book "his Bible." The man who sent the letter was Adolf Hitler.
An advocate of the movement, Dr Henry Goddard coined the term “moron” and claimed he could recognize feeblemindedness by sight and being unfit, they should be removed from society. Sounds much like George Felos and his claims of “soul-speak” and being able to know that someone wants to die by looking into their eyes.
It’s pretty easy to see the parallels between the eugenicists of the 20th century and the progressives, sociologist and death advocates of today. Changing names of organizations and programs cannot hide things as effectively today as in the past. Not in this computer/internet world.
There is another way to hide reality from others, and that is to lie about it. The most effective lies do not deny the reality, because to deny it implies that it might exist. The most successful lies turn reality into something else. Cultural elites live by the euphemism that hides the nasty means to their right-thinking ends. And in our world today, killing the unborn because they will someday do poorly on their SATs is called “medical treatment” or “prevention” or “a choice issue.” Killing someone who is disabled is called their “right to die” or letting them “die with dignity” or “compassionate choice” or “letting them go home to Jesus”
Some bioethicists argue that we can rely to some extent on the moral repugnance that arises naturally in us—“the yuck factor”—when we think about things like human cloning, partial-birth abortion, choosing the traits of our children, physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia of Alzheimer’s patients and other disabled persons. This argument rests on the idea that certain practices strike all human beings as unnatural violations, regardless of the political or cultural context. But over time and with heavily financed efforts to change perceptions; not just in the first part of the 20th century but even today with early classroom instruction, public lectures, popular books and articles, educational movies and even feature films, communities stray from built-in notions of what is morally repugnant. See these about Black Stork, a 1916 feature film advocating death for unfit babies: The Black Stork Movie Stills and Healing By Killing. Could Dr Kevorkian be a reincarnation, not in spirit but in ideology, of this Dr Haiselden?
The modern eugenicists’ way of thinking has changed little over time. The less intelligent and physically handicapped are “defective,” they are “unfit” and are a costly burden to society. Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University's Center for Human Values, is in favor of euthanasia. Not just for the terminally ill, but also, in some cases, for the very young. In a book called Practical Ethics (Cambridge University Press, 1979), he wrote: "killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all." Singer has slowly but surely been trying to convince society that killing fetuses, newborns and those suffering from dementia is a moral duty. Practical Ethics is been used by him and others for advocating his utilitarian principles throughout the world.
Has George Felos and those before him opened the door to the slaughter house to include not only the killing of unborn infants but also persons with mental and physical limitations that are breathing life’s air? Did the recent actions of Felos herald a wake-up call and unintentionally cause mass awareness of the modern eugenicists and their agenda? Are we able to change the course we seem to be on?
Informative sites on this issue:
from USA Today about Black’s book, War Against the Weak
Great review about eugenics by Edward Larson and points out his thoughts on Black’s book being a one-sided indictment.
On 19th Century Eugenics
sites covering relative issues
about Peter Singer
more on Singer
A MUST READ!
Made In the USA
History seems to be repeating itself with the advancements being made by the culture of death; a crusade that started before WWII and one that was idealized and copied by Hitler. Yes...I did just say Hitler copied us. In the book War Against the Weak, Edwin Black documents ties between American eugenicists and the birth of Hitler’s death movement, the Nazi T-4 program; removing the unfit from humanity. According to his book, American foundations gave financial support for research and travel, gave moral support to and collaborated with Nazi doctors. Some in America were disappointed that Hitler was advancing faster than we in that arena, “…beating us at our own game” (See Chapter One). With the world-wide condemnation of the Nazi atrocities, the eugenicists in America became low-key but held to their ideals and their crusade; changing the names of organizations, publications and programs and redefining the eugenics euphemisms so that the truth was not so easily recognized – changing eugenics to genetics. Things were going well for the eugenicists here until Hitler gave eugenics a bad name by being so good at it.
Eugenics is the attempt to “improve” the human race by selective breeding and sometimes, as in the case of infants with Down syndrome, killing them before they are born. “How? By identifying so-called “defective” family trees and subjecting them to legislative segregation and sterilization programs.” Indiana was the first to pass a mandatory sterilization law in 1907. “Mandatory sterilization laws were enacted in some twenty-seven states…” “Ultimately, 60,000 American were coercively sterilized…” (See home page and Introduction.) This was supported by Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger and Oliver Wendell Holmes.” In Buck vs. Bell – involuntary sterilization case – the Supreme Court found the law compatible with the constitution. “Oliver Wendell Holmes carried the majority with, “three generations of imbeciles are enough.” ” Many wanted to sterilize the poor (as they thought them to be unfit), so that there would, in time, be fewer poor unfit people and more like them.
In 1916, The Passing of the Great Race, Madison Grant wrote: "Mistaken regard for what are believed to be divine laws and a sentimental belief in the sanctity of human life tend to prevent both the elimination of defective infants and the sterilization of such adults as are themselves of no value to the community. The laws of nature require the obliteration of the unfit and human life is valuable only when it is of use to the community or race. It is highly unjust that a minute minority should be called upon to supply brains for the unthinking mass of the community, but it is even worse to burden the responsible and larger, but still overworked, elements in the community with an ever increasing number of moral perverts, mental defectives, and hereditary cripples.” This book brought Grant a fan letter in which the man called Grant's book "his Bible." The man who sent the letter was Adolf Hitler.
An advocate of the movement, Dr Henry Goddard coined the term “moron” and claimed he could recognize feeblemindedness by sight and being unfit, they should be removed from society. Sounds much like George Felos and his claims of “soul-speak” and being able to know that someone wants to die by looking into their eyes.
It’s pretty easy to see the parallels between the eugenicists of the 20th century and the progressives, sociologist and death advocates of today. Changing names of organizations and programs cannot hide things as effectively today as in the past. Not in this computer/internet world.
There is another way to hide reality from others, and that is to lie about it. The most effective lies do not deny the reality, because to deny it implies that it might exist. The most successful lies turn reality into something else. Cultural elites live by the euphemism that hides the nasty means to their right-thinking ends. And in our world today, killing the unborn because they will someday do poorly on their SATs is called “medical treatment” or “prevention” or “a choice issue.” Killing someone who is disabled is called their “right to die” or letting them “die with dignity” or “compassionate choice” or “letting them go home to Jesus”
Some bioethicists argue that we can rely to some extent on the moral repugnance that arises naturally in us—“the yuck factor”—when we think about things like human cloning, partial-birth abortion, choosing the traits of our children, physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia of Alzheimer’s patients and other disabled persons. This argument rests on the idea that certain practices strike all human beings as unnatural violations, regardless of the political or cultural context. But over time and with heavily financed efforts to change perceptions; not just in the first part of the 20th century but even today with early classroom instruction, public lectures, popular books and articles, educational movies and even feature films, communities stray from built-in notions of what is morally repugnant. See these about Black Stork, a 1916 feature film advocating death for unfit babies: The Black Stork Movie Stills and Healing By Killing. Could Dr Kevorkian be a reincarnation, not in spirit but in ideology, of this Dr Haiselden?
The modern eugenicists’ way of thinking has changed little over time. The less intelligent and physically handicapped are “defective,” they are “unfit” and are a costly burden to society. Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University's Center for Human Values, is in favor of euthanasia. Not just for the terminally ill, but also, in some cases, for the very young. In a book called Practical Ethics (Cambridge University Press, 1979), he wrote: "killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all." Singer has slowly but surely been trying to convince society that killing fetuses, newborns and those suffering from dementia is a moral duty. Practical Ethics is been used by him and others for advocating his utilitarian principles throughout the world.
Has George Felos and those before him opened the door to the slaughter house to include not only the killing of unborn infants but also persons with mental and physical limitations that are breathing life’s air? Did the recent actions of Felos herald a wake-up call and unintentionally cause mass awareness of the modern eugenicists and their agenda? Are we able to change the course we seem to be on?
Informative sites on this issue:
from USA Today about Black’s book, War Against the Weak
Great review about eugenics by Edward Larson and points out his thoughts on Black’s book being a one-sided indictment.
On 19th Century Eugenics
sites covering relative issues
about Peter Singer
more on Singer
posted by Straight Up with Sherri at
10:32 AM
1 Comments:
HATS OFF TO DEE!
This is INCREDIBLE WORK AND GREAT RESEARCH!
I am honored that she let me post it here!
By
Straight Up with Sherri, at 10:42 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home