zaterdag 12 december 2020

The fight for free speech in Britain today

 Jewish Voice for Labour


The fight for free speech in Britain today

JVL Introduction

Here is the speech prepared by Graham Bash for the launch rally today, 12th December, of a Campaign for Free Speech today,  co-organised by Labour Left Alliance and Labour against the Witch-hunt.

Scheduled speakers (all in a personal capacity) are Graham Bash (Labour Briefing), Kerry-Anne Mendoza (editor, The Canary), Jonathan Coulter (Lib Dems for Free Speech), Chris Williamson (former Labour MP), Moshé Machover (Israeli socialist, co-founder of Matzpen) and Craig Murray (journalist reporting on the Julian Assange campaign).


Graham Bash says:

We are at a critical moment – having to fight for free speech simultaneously at a number of different levels.

Firstly, of course the fight in the Labour Party.

52 years ago almost to the day I joined the Labour Party. I have been a member ever since. This is the worst attack on free speech I have ever experienced. Even war criminal Blair never attempted to silence the opposition!

A number of us face the threat of expulsion if we insist on telling the truth – the truth about Jeremy Corbyn, on antisemitism in the party, on the report of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. Even speaking on the same platform – or defending – those like Jackie, Chris Williamson, Moshe Machover or Tony Greenstein can get us thrown out. So I will do exactly this. I send them my solidarity as I do to all those here today wrongly expelled or suspended. And above all to Ken Livingstone, one of the best anti-racists our movement has produced. I – and we – shall not be silenced.

There are now growing calls for the left to leave the Labour Party. I oppose this – BUT if we stay we have to fight as a visible focal point of resistance. That is the only chance we have of stopping a mass exodus. The days of keeping our head down are over.

What is remarkable is how party members and constituency Labour Parties, have resisted – without leadership from the top. In so many parties we have said no. We do not accept your diktat. We will tell the truth. On the latest count there are 80 CLPs who have defied the instruction to be silent, and 160 secretaries and chairs of 235 who have written a letter of protest to the General Secretary elect.

We have repeated – and I do so today – the words that got Jeremy suspended in the first place – yes, the scale of the problem of antisemitism in the Labour Party was “dramatically overstated for political reasons.”

I am furious that Jewish members are being used as a political football in what is a blatantly factional manoeuvre. And I can do without offensive references to the feelings of the ‘Jewish community’. Jewish people, like all peoples are diverse – Zionists, non-Zionists, anti-Zionists. There is not a single Jewish voice.

Secondly, this is a fight against racism.

What is so disturbing is that the real racism in British society today – against Black and Asian people – is in the Labour Party sidelined, relegated.  Never mind Windrush deportations, police violence, disproportionate imprisonment, economic injustice, Grenfell – the Chakrabarti report was a report into ‘antisemitism and other forms of racism’. The report denied it, but there is a hierarchy of anti-racism.

So how do we fight that?

I have been investigated – and exonerated – by the party for using the words ‘Jewish exceptionalism’. This was how I answered it.

“Through political experience, inner struggle and self-clarification I have become a socialist, internationalist, universalist Jew. This means that I understand that the oppression of peoples, religions and classes is interconnected. Universalism is opposed to ‘exceptionalism’ or ‘particularism’ which sees each oppression as separate from all others. I am opposed to all exceptionalism, whether black, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or any other form of exceptionalism which places the fight against one form of oppression above the fight against any other. I believe there is no hierarchy of anti-racism. To me all racisms are equally abhorrent.”

This divide between the anti-racist struggles is dangerous. What happened at Millwall football club last week sent a shiver down my spine – racist football fans attacking supporters of the Black Lives Matter bending of the knee as antisemites. I first saw that five years ago in Thanet when the far right attacked us on the left as antisemites for attending a meeting at which Jackie was speaking against racism.

In those last five years I have had the privilege – at times a doubtful privilege – of seeing these issues through the eyes of Jackie [Walker], my Jewish, black partner. I have seen and felt her pain and anger as she has been attacked and vilified, her heritages challenged, her ancestors’ histories made invisible with references in the papers before her disciplinary hearing to her “unhealthy obsession with the African Holocaust” – a reference which the party refused to delete. Just imagine if that had been said about the Jewish Holocaust.

I remember my own history too. As a child, I was told “Hitler should have finished the job and put you Jews in the gas ovens”, or “You Jews killed our Jesus”, and at football matches the singing: “I’ve never felt more gassing the Jews”. This was prejudice, not institutional racism, not an equivalent of anti-Black or anti-Asian racism depriving me of power – but it did have its impact.

And this is the conundrum. There is a substantial socialist internationalist Jewish left in Britain around the JVL and beyond. There is also a section of the right and among supporters of Israel – Jewish and non-Jewish – who have cynically manipulated the issue of antisemitism as a weapon to defeat the left. Those like Angela Rayner (what Jeremy said may have been correct but unacceptable to say it) and Margaret Hodge (trivialising the Holocaust when saying facing discipline in the PLP was like waiting for the knock on the door in Nazi Germany).

But this is not just a binary divide – socialist internationalists against cynical manipulators. Life is rarely that easy.

I was part of that generation of Jews born in Britain soon after the war, soon after the Jewish Holocaust. We were safe. And yet the Holocaust was part of the collective memory – the collective trauma – of many Jews, and still is.

I know this because it was part of me, too. For years until I was in my ’20s I had a recurring nightmare – being chased and caught by Nazi concentration camp guards, they took my trousers down, saw I was circumcised and I knew I was doomed.

I remember a meeting of my previous CLP in Hackney some five years ago, early on in Corbyn’s leadership when the issue of antisemitism in the party first raised its head. I saw it among some right wing young Jewish Labour members – a terror, a terror without foundation. This wasn’t contrived for political reasons. For them it was real. I remember my gut response was to feel empathy – I didn’t find the courage, but my instinct was to put arms around one of the young men and to say to him, “It’s all right, you have nothing to fear”.

So there is this fear, at times terror, that has no basis in any current objective reality. It is this that makes the crime of those who exploit this fear for factional purposes all the greater – and all the more dangerous.

So how do we begin to connect? Certainly not by conceding to the agenda that feeds that terror, certainly not by apologising for something for which we are not responsible. Our answer is both to understand and empathise and to tell the truth about the realities of racism in modern day Britain and to repeat the message of universalism as their route out of the ghetto of exceptionalism. To connect, always connect, the struggles, not reinforce the separation!

Thirdly this is a fight against the silencing of Palestinian voices.

The voices which witness the occupation, the daily assaults, curfews, arbitrary arrests, detentions, house demolitions, travel restrictions, checkpoints, irrigation systems destroyed, exclusion and discrimination in the Israeli state and Occupied Territories.

We have been told in the Labour Party we cannot say this – so let me say it. Israel is a racist endeavour. It is an apartheid state. It is a state, as Ilan Pappe so graphically put it, born of the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people.

And in today’s Labour Party we are banned even from discussing a motion to support a charity bike ride for Palestinian children.

What connects all of this is the fight for freedom of speech and freedom of thought – in the Labour Party and beyond.

They are trying to prevent us from discussing:

the EHRC report – from raising the slightest criticism even though it is fundamentally flawed – not just politically, but legally shot through with errors;

to prevent us from discussing the witch-hunting of Jeremy;

to prevent us from discussing the racist nature of the Israeli state;

And now threats to free speech in our universities which face funding cuts if they do not implement the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

This clampdown is becoming sinister.

We have to fight – but how?

We cannot wait for our left leaders – and we haven’t waited. Those 80 CLPs and party secretaries and chairs are heroes who didn’t ask for – or wait for – permission. That is our inspiration – the basis and the beginnings of our resistance. These and our Labour left groups we have built in the last six years. We must connect and unite from the bottom, link up with the left of the NEC, the trade unions and beyond – build alliances and resist.

It won’t be easy but there is no alternative.

https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/the-fight-for-free-speech-in-britain-today/

Military-grade camera shows risks of airborne coronavirus spread

 




As winter approaches, the United States is grappling with a jaw-dropping surge in the number of novel coronavirus infections. More than 288,000 Americans have been killed by a virus that public health officials now say can be spread through airborne transmission.

The virus spreads most commonly through close contact, scientists say. But under certain conditions, people farther than six feet apart can become infected by exposure to tiny droplets and particles exhaled by an infected person, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in October. Those droplets and particles can linger in the air for minutes to hours.

To visually illustrate the risk of airborne transmission in real time, The Washington Post used an infrared camera made by the company FLIR Systems that is capable of detecting exhaled breath. Numerous experts — epidemiologists, virologists and engineers — supported the notion of using exhalation as a conservative proxy to show potential transmission risk in various settings.

“The images are very, very telling,” said Rajat Mittal, a professor of mechanical engineering in Johns Hopkins University’s medical and engineering schools and an expert on virus transmission. “Getting two people and actually visualizing what’s happening between them, that’s very invaluable.”


The highly sensitive camera system detects variations in infrared radiation that are not visible to the naked eye. The technology is more typically used in military and industrial settings, such as detecting methane gas leaks in pipelines. In 2013, it was deployed by law enforcement during the 20-hour manhunt for the Boston Marathon bombers.

But fitted with a filter that specifically targets the infrared signature of carbon dioxide, the camera can be used to map in real time the partial path of the nearly invisible particles we exhale.

According to experts, the footage underrepresents the potential risk of exposure from airborne particles. Those particles may spread farther or linger longer than the visible exhalation plume, which dissipates quickly to a level of concentration the camera can no longer detect.
Infrared video of a woman wearing an unfitted surgical mask.


Environmental factors such as airflow in a space, wind and sunlight can reduce the chances of spread, as can such behavioral factors as mask-wearing and social distancing. The risk of exposure increases when people are not wearing masks and are close together in an enclosed space or in an area with poor ventilation.

Many of those circumstances will become more common as Americans increasingly spend time indoors in the coming months. Watch the video at the top of the page to see footage from various settings.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2020/12/11/coronavirus-airborne-video-infrared-spread/?arc404=true#ent-pb-top


vrijdag 11 december 2020

Waarom grepen Baudets mentoren niet in? 'Een hoog IQ alleen is niet genoeg'

 

Waarom grepen Baudets mentoren niet in? 'Een hoog IQ alleen is niet genoeg'

Boudewijn Geels                                                                                    11-12-2020

Twee hooggeleerde zestigers begeleidden de ambitieuze dertiger Thierry Baudet op zijn weg naar de electorale top. Nu ligt hun Forum voor Democratie in scherven en zijn drie reputaties fors beschadigd. Hoe hebben Paul Frentrop en Paul Cliteur dat kunnen laten gebeuren?

Op 25 november zou het FD een interview hebben met Thierry Baudet en Paul Frentrop, respectievelijk leider en senator voor Forum voor Democratie. Aanleiding: hun nieuwe boek De puinhopen van Rutte . Maar toen was er een artikel in Het Parool over nieuwe antisemitische uitingen van jonge FvD’ers, gevolgd door een kolossale rel over de rol en opvattingen van Baudet en kandidaat-Tweede Kamerlid Freek Jansen, uitmondend in de implosie van Forum.

Ga dan nog maar eens een interview geven over de ‘puinhopen’ van een premier die op veertig zetels staat in de peilingen. Dus annuleerden de twee het vraaggesprek.

De golf van kritiek bereikte al snel ook de enkels van een andere Paul. Rechtsfilosoof Paul Cliteur was eveneens FvD-senator, en in 2012 was hij ook de promotor van Baudet in Leiden. Hij profileerde zich als Baudets intellectuele mentor. Inmiddels heeft Cliteur zelf een onderzoek naar mogelijk antisemitisme aan zijn broek, in opdracht van de Universiteit Leiden, waar hij werkzaam is als hoogleraar.

Frentrop, die sinds de tumultueuze breuk met Henk Otten in 2019 gold als 'de sterke man achter Baudet', blijft een dergelijk lot hoe dan ook bespaard. Hij is namelijk éx-hoogleraar. Frentrop doceerde tot 2014 corporate governance aan Nyenrode Business Universiteit.

Toen beide zestigers zich committeerden aan de dertiger Baudet hoopten ze op een glanzende toekomst voor diens Forum voor Democratie. Maar na drie weken strijd is er weinig meer over van de partij die vorig voorjaar nog de grootste werd van Nederland. Waarom hebben zijn hooggeleerde mentoren niet ingegrepen?

Onderschatting

Die vraag is nog niet zo makkelijk te beantwoorden. De Universiteit Leiden heeft Cliteur (65) en zijn collega's een spreekverbod opgelegd, Frentrop (66) wilde ook afgelopen mei in het FD wel over Europa maar niet over opmerkelijke uitlatingen van Baudet praten. Het duo werkte evenmin mee aan de recent verschenen FvD-boeken Mijn meningen zijn feiten en De partij dat ben ik . Ook mensen als Patrick van Schie, die met Cliteur samenwerkte bij het wetenschappelijk bureau van de VVD, Frits Bolkestein en inmiddels ex-FvD-Europarlementariër Derk Jan Eppink doen er het zwijgen toe.

Paul Frentrop, nu nog steeds senator voor FvD: 'Ik ben geen fan van het modieuze “afstand nemen”.'
Paul Frentrop, nu nog steeds senator voor FvD: 'Ik ben geen fan van het modieuze “afstand nemen”.' Foto: Roger Cremers voor het FD

Erik van de Loo is partner bij het in leiderschap en gedrag gespecialiseerde bureau Phyleon. Hij herkent — van afstand — patronen bij FvD die hij ook in boardrooms van bedrijven heeft gezien. 'Cliteur en Frentrop kunnen hebben gedacht: met Baudet haal ik doelen waar ik anders alleen van kon dromen, en als ik bij hem in de buurt blijf kan ik hem tenminste nog een beetje containen ( indammen, red.). Dat laatste is een onderschatting van de grilligheid en radicalisering van narcistische leiders als Baudet. Donald Trump is daar ook een voorbeeld van.'

Mischa Cohen, co-auteur van Mijn meningen zijn feiten , onderschrijft dat. 'Veel mensen uit de conservatieve hoek hebben de voorbije tien jaar gedacht dat ze Baudet voor hun eigen doeleinden konden gebruiken, en dat ze hem konden vormen. Nee dus.'

Een hoog IQ alleen is voor duurzaam succes niet genoeg, weet Van de Loo. ‘Je hebt er wel íets van nodig, maar hoogbegaafdheid — als daar bij betrokkenen sprake van is — is in zekere zin een handicap. Want je kunt je begeven in situaties waarin andere kwaliteiten vereist zijn.’

Omgevallen boekenkast

Historicus Geerten Waling kent Cliteur en zijn afdeling goed. Hij weet zeker dat de rechtsfilosoof zich nooit antisemitisch heeft uitgelaten, en is verontwaardigd dat de Universiteit Leiden Cliteurs hele vakgroep onder de loep neemt. 'Dat doe je toch ook niet bij een klacht wegens seksuele intimidatie?' Volgens hem zien medewerkers die zich al jaren ergeren aan het conservatieve bolwerkje dat Cliteur en zijn collega's Afshin Ellian en Andreas Kinneging vormen nu hun kans schoon.

Cliteur wordt verweten dat hij niet handelde toen hem bezorgde geluiden bereikten over het gedrag van bepaalde FvD-jongeren, hun voorman Freek Jansen en partijleider Baudet. Baudet deed ook publiekelijk dingen die de wenkbrauwen deden fronsen. Waling: 'Misschien was Cliteur iets te blij een partij te hebben gevonden die eindelijk echt de politieke correctheid doorbrak. En ik ken hem ook als iemand die soms wat wereldvreemd is.'

Die indruk kreeg ook Rob de Lange toen hij in de 'jaren nul' bij het tv-programma Buitenhof de chef was van columnist Cliteur. ‘De aimabele denker kon heel slecht tegen de boze reacties die hij bij sommigen opriep, dus stopte hij van de ene op de andere dag', blikt De Lange, nu redacteur van het FD, terug. 'Met zijn betrokkenheid bij FvD lijkt Cliteur zich opnieuw te hebben verkeken op de harde werkelijkheid.'

Ook Frentrop heeft nog wel iets te leren, zei een oud-collega van hem in augustus 2019 in het FD. 'Wat Paul niet heeft, en wat je wel nodig hebt om te kunnen leiden, is oog voor menselijke verhoudingen. Dat ontbreekt bij hem volledig.' Oud-werkgeversvoorzitter Jacques Schraven noemde Frentrop in datzelfde artikel ‘een omgevallen boekenkast’.

Openheid van zaken

Cliteur is inmiddels teruggetreden als FvD-senator, Frentrop deed dat niet. Beide Paulen hebben veel uit te leggen, stelt Van de Loo vast. 'Geef blijk van zelfreflectie, wees open over je afwegingen en zeg desnoods sorry. Als je jezelf in splendid isolation blijft opsluiten in het kasteel van je eigen gedachtegoed, kom je hier niet meer uit.'

Vrijdag stuurde Frentrop het FD toch een kort mailtje. 'Het is een interessante stelling dat geleerdheid en leeftijd van personen van beslissende invloed zouden zijn op groepsprocessen, maar die dateert toch uit Bijbelse dan wel prehistorische tijden toen stammen zich nog lieten leiden door het advies van hun oudsten. In de moderne tijd is iemands positie binnen de organisatie van bepalende invloed. Overigens denk ik dat alle feiten bekend zijn. Die hebben uitgebreid de media gehaald.'

Waarom is hij niet uitgestapt? Frentrop: 'Ik ben geen fan van het modieuze “afstand nemen”. Zeker niet publiekelijk. Ik ben voorstander van de ouderwetse benadering: problemen aanpakken en oplossen.'

Maar juist dat hebben Paul & Paul volgens velen nagelaten.

https://fd.nl/weekend/1366999/waarom-grepen-baudets-mentoren-niet-in-een-hoog-iq-alleen-is-niet-genoeg

woensdag 9 december 2020

Under Boris Johnson, corruption is taking hold in Britain

 


Under Boris Johnson, corruption is taking hold in Britain



Wed 9 Dec 2020 14.37 GMT

M

any people view the government’s handling of Covid-19 and the Brexit negotiations as incompetent and lacking common sense. But beneath all the controversies about test and trace, PPE and deal or no deal, what if there is an ideological agenda being cunningly and cynically executed during this time of crisis?

Boris Johnson once described Covid-19 as an “invisible mugger”. I’m starting to wonder if that is how we will come to see his government’s impact on our country. That’s because Johnson has used his parliamentary majority, and the Conservatives’ innumerable business and media friends, to systematically relieve us of our democratic checks and balances, and even our freedoms.

Consider Johnson’s actions: he’s been willing to resort to emergency legislation to avoid awkward questions or debate in the House of Commons; clauses in the internal market bill would have allowed him to break international law; his covert intelligence bill (known as the “licence to kill” bill) implicitly permits undercover agents to break the law if they perceive a threat to national security.

Further to this, he has used hundreds of statutory instruments (which allow him to evade parliamentary scrutiny), and introduced a judicial review, aimed at denying access to the courts for those who wish to challenge the government, and giving the prime minister the power to appoint judges. And now he has set up a review of the Human Rights Act. In addition to all these, Johnson has taken powers on himself under the Coronavirus Emergency Act – a power grab on a scale unseen in this country for 400 years.

Britain has not only operated for centuries on the basis of checks and balances, but earned a global reputation based on them. It is significant that the supreme court, now in Johnson’s line of fire, found for me and my legal teams in our actions to uphold parliamentary sovereignty, first against the government of Theresa May and then his.

We have already witnessed how Johnson’s ministers refuse to publish reports, Covid procurement contracts, Brexit impact studies. They even scorn scrutiny by parliamentary committees: the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, refused to appear before the Treasury select committee, and the business secretary, Alok Sharma, shunned the Business select committee.

Johnson’s is emphatically not a “one nation” Conservative government, but is being guided by principles of isolationism, authoritarianism and economic elitism. His ideas can be found in a booklet published in 2012 called Britannia Unchained that was once seen on the floor of his car. Its authors – Kwasi Kwarteng, Priti Patel, Dominic Raab, Chris Skidmore and Liz Truss – spoke scornfully of Britain being a bloated state, with too many taxes and regulations for businesses and employers, and of our workers being “among the worst idlers in the world”. All of its authors have served in Johnson’s government.

In 2016 Sunak, then a backbench MP, wrote a report for the rightwing Centre for Policy Studies stating that “free ports” – areas with little or no tax – were the way to drive economic growth and “re-connect Britain with its proud maritime history”. He overlooked how their lack of regulations encourages tax abuses, organised crime and money laundering.

Where there is no transparency, corruption and cronyism soon fester. The prime minister’s fiancee can nowadays appoint friends to well-paid government roles without even having to advertise them.

Under Johnson we will see a new kind of Britain – perhaps quite soon merely the rump nation of England – with reduced corporation tax, income tax and social security, fewer worker protections, and the turbo-charged privatisation of our public services, ending the state as we once knew it.

It is not the British way to make a fuss, and no doubt there are those who think even now that the government taking it upon itself to break the law in “very specific and limited ways” isn’t something to be too concerned about. But soon the pages and pages of legislation that have escaped parliamentary scrutiny and merely been rubber-stamped will start to impact on ordinary people’s lives.

We may soon want to protest but find even our rights to do that have been curtailed. Beyond that, there will come the numbing and bleak realisation that Johnsonism is ultimately Darwinism: ours will be a country where only the strongest and richest prosper, and where those outside their circle eventually realise the depth of the corruption of our country, and how much has been stolen by this invisible mugger.

• Gina Miller is a businesswoman and transparency activist who led the legal action that prevented Boris Johnson proroguing parliament

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/09/boris-johnson-britain-corruption-cronyism-checks-balances

The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics

 Logo

September 2003

The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics

Edwin Black is the author of "IBM and the Holocaust" and "War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race,"  from which the following article is drawn.


Hitler and his henchmen victimized an entire continent and exterminated millions in his quest for a co-called "Master Race."

But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn't originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little known, role in the American eugenics movement's campaign for ethnic cleansing.

Eugenics was the racist pseudoscience determined to wipe away all human beings deemed "unfit," preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype. Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in twenty-seven states. In 1909, California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in "colonies," and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning. Before World War II, nearly half of coercive sterilizations were done in California, and even after the war, the state accounted for a third of all such surgeries.

California was considered an epicenter of the American eugenics movement. During the Twentieth Century's first decades, California's eugenicists included potent but little known race scientists, such as Army venereal disease specialist Dr. Paul Popenoe, citrus magnate and Polytechnic benefactor Paul Gosney, Sacramento banker Charles M. Goethe, as well as members of the California State Board of Charities and Corrections and the University of California Board of Regents.

Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America's most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Stamford, Yale, Harvard, and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics' racist aims.

Stanford president David Starr Jordan originated the notion of "race and blood" in his 1902 racial epistle "Blood of a Nation," in which the university scholar declared that human qualities and conditions such as talent and poverty were passed through the blood.

In 1904, the Carnegie Institution established a laboratory complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island that stockpiled millions of index cards on ordinary Americans, as researchers carefully plotted the removal of families, bloodlines and whole peoples. From Cold Spring Harbor, eugenics advocates agitated in the legislatures of America, as well as the nation's social service agencies and associations.

The Harriman railroad fortune paid local charities, such as the New York Bureau of Industries and Immigration, to seek out Jewish, Italian and other immigrants in New York and other crowded cities and subject them to deportation, trumped up confinement or forced sterilization.

The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.

Much of the spiritual guidance and political agitation for the American eugenics movement came from California's quasi-autonomous eugenic societies, such as the Pasadena-based Human Betterment Foundation and the California branch of the American Eugenics Society, which coordinated much of their activity with the Eugenics Research Society in Long Island. These organizations--which functioned as part of a closely-knit network--published racist eugenic newsletters and pseudoscientific journals, such as Eugenical News and Eugenics, and propagandized for the Nazis.

Eugenics was born as a scientific curiosity in the Victorian age. In 1863, Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, theorized that if talented people only married other talented people, the result would be measurably better offspring. 

At the turn of the last century, Galton's ideas were imported into the United States just as Gregor Mendel's principles of heredity were rediscovered. American eugenic advocates believed with religious fervor that the same Mendelian concepts determining the color and size of peas, corn and cattle also governed the social and intellectual character of man.

In an America demographically reeling from immigration upheaval and torn by post-Reconstruction chaos, race conflict was everywhere in the early twentieth century. Elitists, utopians and so-called "progressives" fused their smoldering race fears and class bias with their desire to make a better world. They reinvented Galton's eugenics into a repressive and racist ideology. The intent: populate the earth with vastly more of their own socio-economic and biological kind--and less or none of everyone else.

The superior species the eugenics movement sought was populated not merely by tall, strong, talented people. Eugenicists craved blond, blue-eyed Nordic types. This group alone, they believed, was fit to inherit the earth. 

In the process, the movement intended to subtract emancipated Negroes, immigrant Asian laborers, Indians, Hispanics, East Europeans, Jews, dark-haired hill folk, poor people, the infirm and really anyone classified outside the gentrified genetic lines drawn up by American raceologists.

How? By identifying so-called "defective" family trees and subjecting them to lifelong segregation and sterilization programs to kill their bloodlines. The grand plan was to literally wipe away the reproductive capability of those deemed weak and inferior--the so-called "unfit." The eugenicists hoped to neutralize the viability of 10 percent of the population at a sweep, until none were left except themselves.

Eighteen solutions were explored in a Carnegie-supported 1911 "Preliminary Report of the Committee of the Eugenic Section of the American Breeder's Association to Study and to Report on the Best Practical Means for Cutting Off the Defective Germ-Plasm in the Human Population." Point eight was euthanasia.

The most commonly suggested method of eugenicide in America was a "lethal chamber" or public locally operated gas chambers. In 1918, Popenoe, the Army venereal disease specialist during World War I, co-wrote the widely used textbook, Applied Eugenics, which argued, "From an historical point of view, the first method which presents itself is execution… Its value in keeping up the standard of the race should not be underestimated." Applied Eugenics also devoted a chapter to "Lethal Selection," which operated "through the destruction of the individual by some adverse feature of the environment, such as excessive cold, or bacteria, or by bodily deficiency."

Eugenic breeders believed American society was not ready to implement an organized lethal solution. But many mental institutions and doctors practiced improvised medical lethality and passive euthanasia on their own. 

One institution in Lincoln, Illinois fed its incoming patients milk from tubercular cows believing a eugenically strong individual would be immune. Thirty to forty percent annual death rates resulted at Lincoln. Some doctors practiced passive eugenicide on newborn infant at a time. Others doctors at mental institutions engaged in lethal neglect.

Nonetheless, with eugenicide marginalized, the main solution for eugenicists was the rapid expansion of forced segregation and sterilization, as well as more marriage restrictions. California led the nation, performing nearly all sterilization procedures with little or no due process. In its first twenty-five years of eugenic legislation, California sterilized 9,782 individuals, mostly women. Many were classified as "bad girls," diagnosed as "passionate," "oversexed" or "sexually wayward." At Sonoma, some women were sterilized because of what was deemed an abnormally large clitoris or labia.

In 1933 alone, at least 1,278 coercive sterilizations were performed, 700 of which were on women. The state's two leading sterilization mills in 1933 were Sonoma State Home with 388 operations and Patton State Hospital with 363 operations. Other sterilization centers included Agnews, Mendocino, Napa, Norwalk, Stockton and Pacific Colony state hospitals.

Even the United States Supreme Court endorsed aspects of eugenics. In its infamous 1927 decision, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…. Three generations of imbeciles are enough." 

This decision opened the floodgates for thousands to be coercively sterilized or otherwise persecuted as subhuman. Years later, the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials quoted Holmes's words in their own defense.

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."

Hitler's struggle for a superior race would be a mad crusade for a Master Race. Now, the American term "Nordic" was freely exchanged with "Germanic" or "Aryan." Race science, racial purity and racial dominance became the driving force behind Hitler's Nazism. Nazi eugenics would ultimately dictate who would be persecuted in a Reich-dominated Europe, how people would live, and how they would die. Nazi doctors would become the unseen generals in Hitler's war against the Jews and other Europeans deemed inferior. Doctors would create the science, devise the eugenic formulas, and even hand-select the victims for sterilization, euthanasia and mass extermination.

During the Reich's early years, eugenicists across America welcomed Hitler's plans as the logical fulfilment of their own decades of research and effort. California eugenicists republished Nazi propaganda for American consumption. They also arranged for Nazi scientific exhibits, such as an August 1934 display at the L.A. County Museum, for the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association.

In 1934, as Germany's sterilizations were accelerating beyond 5,000 per month, the California eugenics leader C. M. Goethe upon returning from Germany ebulliently bragged to a key colleague, "You will be interested to know, that your work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making program. Everywhere I sensed that their opinions have been tremendously stimulated by American thought.…I want you, my dear friend, to carry this thought with you for the rest of your life, that you have really jolted into action a great government of 60 million people."

That same year, ten years after Virginia passed its sterilization act, Joseph DeJarnette, superintendent of Virginia's Western State Hospital, observed in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, "The Germans are beating us at our own game."

More than just providing the scientific roadmap, America funded Germany's eugenic institutions. By 1926, Rockefeller had donated some $410,000 -- almost $4 million in 21st-Century money -- to hundreds of German researchers. In May 1926, Rockefeller awarded $250,000 to the German Psychiatric Institute of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, later to become the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry. Among the leading psychiatrists at the German Psychiatric Institute was Ernst Rüdin, who became director and eventually an architect of Hitler's systematic medical repression.

Another in the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute's eugenic complex of institutions was the Institute for Brain Research. Since 1915, it had operated out of a single room. Everything changed when Rockefeller money arrived in 1929. A grant of $317,000 allowed the Institute to construct a major building and take center stage in German race biology. The Institute received additional grants from the Rockefeller Foundation during the next several years. Leading the Institute, once again, was Hitler's medical henchman Ernst Rüdin. Rüdin's organization became a prime director and recipient of the murderous experimentation and research conducted on Jews, Gypsies and others.

Beginning in 1940, thousands of Germans taken from old age homes, mental institutions and other custodial facilities were systematically gassed. Between 50,000 and 100,000 were eventually killed.

Leon Whitney, executive secretary of the American Eugenics Society declared of Nazism, "While we were pussy-footing around…the Germans were calling a spade a spade."

A special recipient of Rockefeller funding was the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics in Berlin. For decades, American eugenicists had craved twins to advance their research into heredity. The Institute was now prepared to undertake such research on an unprecedented level. On May 13, 1932, the Rockefeller Foundation in New York dispatched a radiogram to its Paris office : 

JUNE MEETING EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS OVER THREE YEAR PERIOD TO KWG INSTITUTE ANTHROPOLOGY FOR RESEARCH ON TWINS AND EFFECTS ON LATER GENERATIONS OF SUBSTANCES TOXIC FOR GERM PLASM.

At the time of Rockefeller's endowment, Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer, a hero in American eugenics circles, functioned as a head of the Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics. Rockefeller funding of that Institute continued both directly and through other research conduits during Verschuer's early tenure. In 1935, Verschuer left the Institute to form a rival eugenics facility in Frankfurt that was much heralded in the American eugenic press. Research on twins in the Third Reich exploded, backed up by government decrees. Verschuer wrote in Der Erbarzt, a eugenic doctor's journal he edited, that Germany's war would yield a "total solution to the Jewish problem."

Verschuer had a long-time assistant. His name was Josef Mengele. On May 30, 1943, Mengele arrived at Auschwitz. Verschuer notified the German Research Society, "My assistant, Dr. Josef Mengele (M.D., Ph.D.) joined me in this branch of research. He is presently employed as Hauptsturmführer [captain] and camp physician in the Auschwitz concentration camp. Anthropological testing of the most diverse racial groups in this concentration camp is being carried out with permission of the SS Reichsführer [Himmler]."

Mengele began searching the boxcar arrivals for twins. When he found them, he performed beastly experiments, scrupulously wrote up the reports and sent the paperwork back to Verschuer's institute for evaluation. Often, cadavers, eyes and other body parts were also dispatched to Berlin's eugenic institutes.

Rockefeller executives never knew of Mengele. With few exceptions, the foundation had ceased all eugenic studies in Nazi-occupied Europe before the war erupted in 1939. 

But by that time the die had been cast. The talented men Rockefeller and Carnegie financed, the institutions they helped found, and the science it helped create took on a scientific momentum of their own.

After the war, eugenics was declared a crime against humanity--an act of genocide. Germans were tried and they cited the California statutes in their defense. To no avail. They were found guilty.

However, Mengele's boss Verschuer escaped prosecution. Verschuer re-established his connections with California eugenicists who had gone underground and renamed their crusade "human genetics." 

Typical was an exchange July 25, 1946 when Popenoe wrote Verschuer, "It was indeed a pleasure to hear from you again. I have been very anxious about my colleagues in Germany…. I suppose sterilization has been discontinued in Germany?" Popenoe offered tidbits about various American eugenic luminaries and then sent various eugenic publications. In a separate package, Popenoe sent some cocoa, coffee and other goodies.

Verschuer wrote back, "Your very friendly letter of 7/25 gave me a great deal of pleasure and you have my heartfelt thanks for it. The letter builds another bridge between your and my scientific work; I hope that this bridge will never again collapse but rather make possible valuable mutual enrichment and stimulation."

Soon, Verschuer once again became a respected scientist in Germany and around the world. In 1949, he became a corresponding member of the newly formed American Society of Human Genetics, organized by American eugenicists and geneticists.

In the fall of 1950, the University of Münster offered Verschuer a position at its new Institute of Human Genetics, where he later became a dean. In the early and mid-1950s, Verschuer became an honorary member of numerous prestigious societies, including the Italian Society of Genetics, the Anthropological Society of Vienna, and the Japanese Society for Human Genetics.

Human genetics' genocidal roots in eugenics were ignored by a victorious generation that refused to link itself to the crimes of Nazism and by succeeding generations that never knew the truth of the years leading up to war. 

Now governors of five states, including California have issued public apologies to their citizens, past and present, for sterilization and other abuses spawned by the eugenics movement.

Human genetics became an enlightened endeavor in the late twentieth century. Hard-working, devoted scientists finally cracked the human code through the Human Genome Project. Now, every individual can be biologically identified and classified by trait and ancestry. Yet even now, some leading voices in the genetic world are calling for a cleansing of the unwanted among us, and even a master human species.

There is understandable wariness about more ordinary forms of abuse, for example, in denying insurance or employment based on genetic tests. On October 14, America's first genetic anti-discrimination legislation passed the Senate by unanimous vote. Yet because genetics research is global, no single nation's law can stop the threats.


This article was first published in the San Francisco Chronicle and is reprinted with permission of the author.


https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


     My Comments :


1. Since nazi-ideology - as one of the major (but most certainly by far not the only) modern representatives of racism, has never been away since WOII, but has been latently surviving within racist circles all over the world - has come to the surface and has even been popularized (recommended) by extreme-right ideologues again in the last decades, has become the subject of a fierce debate within those circles, both within Europe (not the least of all in Germany) as in the USA.  


2. Not only does a ever-increasing re-appreciation of the life and efforts of the nazi's occur in our times, but also the traditional terminology - such as Umvolkung, Untermensch and Uebermensch - has been re-introduced, in order to try to justify the old racist ideologies.


3. White-supremacist Trump - assisted by his racist policy advisers (such as Stephen Miller and Stephen Bannon) and facilitated by his Super-PAC financiers (such as Sheldon Adelson, Robert Mercer and Paul Singer) - has been openly stimulating ethno-centric racist organisations, to assist in establishing his racist agenda.


4. Remarkably too - although there has been a strong Protestant racist endeavour for centuries, culminating in organisations like the KKK, that did discriminate against and did often violently persecute Roman Catholics, Afro-Americans, Jews, Native People and other ethnicities - there is a strong link between fundamentalist Christians and the white-supremacist Trump (including members of his administration).


5. Al this, since part of the racist agenda does consist of propagating the Judeo-Christian denomination as the preferred religion for the "threatened with extinction" Blond, Blue Eyed Nordic race and subsequently the demonisation of entire religions like the Islam (and countries with dominantly Islamic populations, which have been subject to wholesale cruel invasions from western nations). 


6. The more widespread these abject extreme-right racist ideologies do become, the more accepted (and integrated) they seem to be by the so-called more centrist political parties.


7. Which in its turn might (astonishingly easily) lead to new forms of discrimination (also on the base of the gender and religion of people)  and all form of persecution.


8. Nationalism in general and ethno-nationalism in particular are on the rise again these days, and white-supremacists as a consequence (of their racist ideology), are openly and actively agitating against universal rights for all humans and against all internationalist institutions that do uphold those Universal Rights.


9. White-supremacists do also abhor the democratic experiment as we have known it during the last century, because not only does democracy imply equal rights of participation (passively and actively) for every citizen in the legislative and the executive of our societies, but white-supremacists do also tend to prefer for the fascist concept of charismatic leaders, that do not necessarily have to come to (and stay at) power by democratic processes.


10. The accent on the supposed autonomous nation-states and their sacred borders, do also bear the danger of reigniting the cancer of border disputes and the subsequent danger of escalation of these disputes into all-out wars between neighbouring nations and/or between coalitions of neighbouring nations.maybe even paving the path to WWIII.  


11. Especially the combination of the increasing trans-migrational challenges / problems (as a social and geo-political phenomena having been meticulously examined and published by organisations like the CIA already for years now) resulting from AGW and the neo- and ultra-nationalist movements might prove the be a further development of White-supremacism and anti-democratic behaviour throughout the western world.


12.  So it seems to be the steeply increasing task of all the people that do favour to defend the Universal Human Rights and all the institutions that do represent the upholding of these rights - including enjoying democracy for all people on equal terms - to be severely vigilant and to speak out loudly (and agitate even) against the ever-growing racist and fascist tendencies within our modern societies.