There are two ways to create a super race. The first is to eliminate those who are genetically inferior. The second is to create more of those who are genetically superior. The first was originally called negative Eugenics, the second labeled positive Eugenics.
Today the word “genetics” has replaced the word “Eugenics.” The goals are the same.
The United States was the birthplace of the modern Eugenics movement. The American Eugenics Society was founded in 1922, the Genetics Society of America (GSA) was founded in 1931. Modern genetics evolved from and was created by the American Eugenicists. The purpose of GSA and its members is to, “[W]ork to advance knowledge in the basic mechanisms of inheritance, from the molecular to the population level.”
Genetics has two branches – negative genetics and positive genetics. It is important to understand how both are creating a “racially hygienic” society in America today.
Edwin Black in his book War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race writes, “On January 19, 1904, the Carnegie Institution formally inaugurated what it called the Station for Experimental Evolution of the Carnegie Institution at bucolic Cold Springs Harbor, [New Jersey].” “The undertaking was not merely funded by Carnegie, it was an integral part of the Carnegie Institution itself,” notes Black, “[Carnegie Institute Chairman John] Billings and the Carnegie Institution would now mobilize their prestige and the fortune they controlled to help [Professor Charles] Davenport usher America into an age of a new form of hygiene: racial hygiene. The goal was clear: to eliminate the inadequate and unfit.”
No war, pestilence, genocide or government policy has done more to limit the numbers of defectives, feebleminded, poor and unwanted than the Eugenics (genetics) movement.
Edwin Black, author of War Against The Weak, writes, “The global effort to help women make independent choices about their own pregnancies was dominated by one woman: Margaret Sanger… Motherhood was to most civilizations a sacred role. Sanger, however, wanted women to have a choice in that sacred role, specifically if, when and how often to become pregnant.”
Black notes, “… Sanger vigorously opposed charitable efforts to uplift the downtrodden and deprived, and argued extensively that it was better that the cold and hungry be left without help, so that the eugenically superior strains could multiply without competition from ‘the unfit.’ She repeatedly referred to the lower classes and the unfit as ‘human waste’ not worthy of assistance, and proudly quoted the extreme eugenic view that human ‘weeds’ should be ‘exterminated.’ Moreover, for both political and genuine ideological reasons, Sanger associated closely with some of some of America’s most fanatical eugenic racists.” Sanger stated, “My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the ‘failure’ of philanthropy, but rather at its success.”
“The feminist movement, of which Sanger was a major exponent, always identified with eugenics,” wrote Black.
Today we see that negative genetics has led to more black abortions than births in New York City and a 73% black abortion rate in Mississippi. Some have labeled this national birth control effort “Black Genocide. “Several years ago, when 17,000 aborted babies were found in a dumpster outside a pathology laboratory in Los, Angeles, California, some 12-15,000 were observed to be black,” noted Erma Clardy Craven (deceased) Social Worker and Civil Rights Leader.
Positive genetics focuses on creating a racially pure and superior race to “improve the human stock”. It is not unlike creating a superior ear of corn or breed of cattle. The genetics movement finds its roots in the American Breeders Association. It is not enough to stop the breeding of inferiors, it is just as important to breed the right human. German biologist Johann Gregor Mendel (1882-1884) was the father of genetics.
Recent news has focused on the ultimate achievement of the geneticists – the racially hygienic baby, a.k.a. “designer baby.” The Washington Post reports:
The provocative notion of genetically modified babies met the very real world of federal regulation Tuesday, as a government advisory committee began debating a new technique that combines DNA from three people to create embryos free of certain inherited diseases.
The two-day meeting of the Food and Drug Administration panel is focused on a procedure that scientists think could help women who carry DNA mutations for conditions such as blindness and epilepsy. The process would let them have children without passing on those defects.
“The technology involves taking defective mitochondria, the cell’s powerhouses, from a mother’s egg and replacing them with healthy mitochondria from another woman. After being fertilized by the father’s sperm in a lab, the egg would be implanted in the mother, and the pregnancy could progress normally,” notes WaPo.
As CH Waddington, a British developmental biologist and geneticist, wrote in 1957, “It is of course a truism which has long been recognised that the development of any individual is affected both by the hereditary determinants which come into the fertilised egg from the two parents and also by the nature of the environment in which the development takes place.”
It now appears that American geneticists, under the guidance and with the approval of the FDA, may create a new “racially hygienic” baby.
All that is left to do if controlling the environment via government policy. How do you do this? You make full implementation of the Affordable Care Act the “work of God“. But whose God?
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image “Example of local structural homology” is courtesy of Fdardel. The use of this image does not in any way suggest that Fdardel endorses the author or the work in this column. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported.
ABOUT JOHANN GREGOR MENDEL – THE FATHER OF GENETICS
Gregor Mendel, through his work on pea plants, discovered the fundamental laws of inheritance. He deduced that genes come in pairs and are inherited as distinct units, one from each parent. Mendel tracked the segregation of parental genes and their appearance in the offspring as dominant or recessive traits. He recognized the mathematical patterns of inheritance from one generation to the next. Mendel’s Laws of Heredity are usually stated as:
1) The Law of Segregation: Each inherited trait is defined by a gene pair. Parental genes are randomly separated to the sex cells so that sex cells contain only one gene of the pair. Offspring therefore inherit one genetic allele from each parent when sex cells unite in fertilization.
2) The Law of Independent Assortment: Genes for different traits are sorted separately from one another so that the inheritance of one trait is not dependent on the inheritance of another.
3) The Law of Dominance: An organism with alternate forms of a gene will express the form that is dominant.
The genetic experiments Mendel did with pea plants took him eight years (1856-1863) and he published his results in 1865. During this time, Mendel grew over 10,000 pea plants, keeping track of progeny number and type. Mendel’s work and his Laws of Inheritance were not appreciated in his time. It wasn’t until 1900, after the rediscovery of his Laws, that his experimental results were understood.
NOTE: The American Eugenics movement was inspired by Mendel’s work on pea pods.
Facial recognition technology used to spot genetic disorders – Science – News – The Independent
Dr. Alveda King Tells Students of Modern Day Black Genocide
Hillary Clinton: Abortion Needed for Equality —and Human Development…
‘Death test’ predicts chance of healthy person dying within five years – Telegraph
Rev. Bill Owens: Administration ‘Is Promoting Murder’ by Promoting Abortion (+video)
Planned Parenthood President: When Life Begins Not ‘Really Relevant’ in Abortion Debate | National Review Online
In Georgia, 53.6% of the Babies Aborted Are Black | CNS News
Scientists create first ‘designer chromosome’
Genetics accounts for more than half of variation in exam results
Craig Venter’s DNA Company Is Planning to Make 100-Years-Old ‘The New 60′ – Bloomberg