12 April, 2009

Defaming America’s Past: Henry Ford and the Eugenics Movement

Posted by Socrates in Kevin MacDonald, Socrates at 10:57 pm | Permanent Link

by Dr. Kevin MacDonald: [Here].


  1. Similar posts:

  2. 08/06/07 ADL Criticized by Armenians 100% similar
  3. 11/11/08 Book Review 100% similar
  4. 10/16/07 “The Israel Lobby and the Psychology of Influence” 100% similar
  5. 11/03/07 “The SY’s and the Ostjuden: Comparing Two Very Different Jewish Groups” 100% similar
  6. 12/18/07 “Outside the Jewish Mainstream: Robert Weissberg and Philip Weiss” 100% similar
  7. 25 Responses to “Defaming America’s Past: Henry Ford and the Eugenics Movement”

    1. Old_Dutch Says:

      Too bad VNN’s newspaper efforts don’t have an angel like Henry Ford. VNN has lots of blue blooded blowhards—but no real cash backers. LOL.

      Just remember, money talks, and bullshit walks.

    2. Justin Huber Says:

      Another good article by MacDonald. I read all of his linked articles on this site.

    3. Parsifal Says:

      Well said, OD. In pre-Christian times, any baby that had serious deformities or diseases was mercifully put in a basket and left on the side of a mountain. Now we spend billions every year keeping such defectives alive for no reason. Eugenics is natural, normal and absolutely necessary.

    4. Lucinda Godspeed Says:

      From what I hear, Ford is the only one that hasn’t taken the Obama bail-out money, thus they aren’t beholden/
      http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ford-autos14-2009apr14,0,6721474.story

    5. shabbos s shabazz Says:

      Hay-soose loves the little children.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJU-Ql1M5ew

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBlHsw7Uwqs

      We are blind, according to this song. Blind, I presume, for preferring facts to fantasy.

      My garbage truck driver is Jesus. I’m sure he loves all the local spray painters, including the ones who broke into my property and stole 12 cans of spray paint.

    6. Ein Says:

      Parsifal Says:
      “Well said, OD. In pre-Christian times, any baby that had serious deformities or diseases was mercifully put in a basket and left on the side of a mountain. “

      That’s what happened to Romulus and Remus. The practice doubtless gave rise to lots of legands about wolf children all over Europe.

      The name Esposito, quite common in Italian, originally designated a baby who had been “exposed” (put out, exposed to nature’s elements). Esposito: an abandoned orphan, bastard, or an “exposed little one”.

      It seems very harsh to us. But life was very harsh then and families could not afford to feed and clothe for a lifetime someone who was a burden and could not feed or care for himself.

    7. Old_Dutch Says:

      I’ve always thought eugenics was kind of creepy. LOL. So is the jewish custom of inbreeding, the marriage taboo, that leads to hereditary deformities.

    8. tacitless Says:

      Exposure was not practiced by the ancient Celts or Germans. And there’s really no need to kill or maim the deformed; they’re a rarity in any nation and their breeding never reaches a level threatening to the majority, nor do members of the majority breed with them. There is some truth to the old stereotype about Appalachian inbreeding — I’ve seen a few cases. The only time negative eugenics is justified is in such isolated communities where bad genes circulate freely. But you don’t see any of that in modern white nations, the horrors of ghetto-miscegenation excepted.

    9. Ein Says:

      In early Rome — long before Rome became rich and powerful, and when life was very hard — the father held power of life and death over his children. The legal principle was that the one who gave life had the right to take life.

      After an infant was born, the father looked it over carefully to be sure it was perfect, before acknowledging it as his own. If he did not acknowledge it, it was not considered his. If it was deformed, he did not accept it. Even so, it was not harmed. They would not kill a child. It was simply put out of the house (“exposed”) and left for nature to take its course. Or for anyone who wanted it.

      The early Romans [I stress early] had a very harsh view of life, butit was a very earthy and realistic one, free of any maudlin (or Christian) sentimentality. They would have been contemptuous of today’s liberal goody-goodies.

    10. Z.O.G. Says:

      According to modern Western(read Jewish) culture, dogs are important enough for the practice of eugenics, but human beings are not.

      Huh?

    11. Z.O.G. Says:

      By the way, the reason that Jews basically control the world is because of eugenics, which they have been practicing for a couple thousand years, O_D.

      ;-)

    12. shabbos s. shabazz Says:

      “They would have been contemptuous of today’s liberal goody-goodies.”

      See how hard ass they would be with to-day’s affluence. They were tough as nails because no other choice was possible.

      “According to modern Western(read Jewish) culture, dogs are important enough for the practice of eugenics, but human beings are not.

      Huh?”

      They want to create the perfect bitch. . .

    13. CW-2 Says:

      Limited inbreeding is permissable provided the two genetic lines are strong and free of serious defects, indeed, some sort of inbreeding is the best way to stabilise desirable characteristics.

      Out-breeding is ultimately much worse than inbreeding! That’s something we should agree on.

      There is no good reason to praise the practices of ancient Sparta. The morally healthy Germanic and Celtic societies valued their children and those adults who weren’t physically able to fight as warriors contributed in other ways as bards, armourers, or smiths.

    14. CW-2 Says:

      PS Henry Ford if only for his publication of the Dearborn Independent deserves to be honored in our Hall of Fame.

    15. Futurist Joe Says:

      Don’t kid yourself. The Jews know and don’t forget Henry Ford. I wondered if the Ford family who still have controlling shares aren’t well aware that they better not accept anything from the federal government that could be used to force a bankruptcy and cut their Class B share legacy as Fords. I bet Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Boxer would love to F the ford family if they could.

    16. Arminius Says:

      Re: Eugenics
      I have seen a cow rejecting its newborn deformed calf.
      I have seen a chick flock fleeing from pursuer and abandoning its slowest runner.
      I have seen a bitch abandoning one of its puppies, which seemed to be weaker than the rest.
      I have seen young birds not strong enough to fly eaten by a cat.
      I knew of a mother killing her thalidomide deformed baby. And was prosecuted for murder. So is the modern human society.
      We know it is sick, but protecting the uncurable retarded and cripples is moral depravity. For these laws Jewish-Christian religion is responsible.

    17. Parsifal Says:

      Ein, you are absolutely correct about how Roman fathers inspected their newborns carefully for defects or other problems. If the child passed inspection, the father ceremoniously raised it up in the air and proclaimed it worthy, hence the term “raising” children.

      If families want to spend their energy and resources “raising” a mentally or physically defective child, that is their business. But in most cases, those wretches eventually become wards of the State and the taxpayer has to pay all the bills. Eugenics and castration are the only solutions to this problem, IMHO.

    18. Ein Says:

      “If families want to spend their energy and resources “raising” a mentally or physically defective child, that is their business. But in most cases, those [sad] wretches eventually become wards of the State and [we] have to pay all the bills.”

      Tragic though it is, that is nature. Life is cruel.

      In any case, we all should not have to subsidize someone else’s maudlin sentimentality or desire for sainthood. If they want to be “saints”, let them do so at their own expense. That’s fine.

      Lately it has become considered saintly and admirable to raise a Down’s syndrome child. Look at the recent publicity given to Sarah Palin. How good, how selfless and virtuous of her! What an admirable person. But who is going to end up paying most of those enormous expenses over a lifetime? Not she. Don’t tell me she’s not going to be getting state help every whichway she can.

      Raising a retarded or Down’s child has been elevated to such a status that it is now almost as saintly and trendy as adopting an Ethiopian orphan. This is misplaced Christian charity gone berserk. It’s even a way of showing off — but at others’ expense.

    19. Ein Says:

      CW-2 Says: “Limited inbreeding is permissable provided the two genetic lines are strong and free of serious defects, indeed, some sort of inbreeding is the best way to stabilise desirable characteristics. Out-breeding is ultimately much worse than inbreeding! “

      That is true, and a great many people simply don’t grasp that. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with inbreeding. If the lines are “strong and free of defects”, that is the way breeders produce improved species of animals and plants. Humans are no different.

      Out-breeding, on the other hand, CONCEALS defects and passes them down, recessively, to future generations. It may seem to avoid problems NOW, thus appearing to be beneficial, but it merely postpones them until some future time. It delays the inevitable reckoning.

    20. shabbos s shabazz Says:

      Non-White children should be razed.

    21. tacitless Says:

      We know it is sick, but protecting the uncurable retarded and cripples is moral depravity. For these laws Jewish-Christian religion is responsible.

      Don’t be so sure. There is nothing, again, in the Celtic, Germanic, Vedic or Slavic sources to suggest, much less prove, that any of these early Aryans practiced eugenics in any but the most sporadic fashion, and in many Aryan myths the heroes are slightly deformed or maimed, yet carry on their heroic destiny. In the Mahabharata, the father of the Kauravas, Dritharashtra, was blind, and the father of the Pandavas, Pandu, was covered with rashes; yet these were kings who self-identified as “Aryans”. It is even wrong to simply say “the Romans practiced exposure” and leave it at that, for it was the pre-Republican Romans who probably did so with any regularity, it becoming enshrined in law with the Twelve Tables of the founding of the Republic. Remember that Rome was originally a modest collection of shepherd communities located on the seven hills — precisely the small, isolated community that would need to practice eugenics to preserve its racial integrity. This principle applied to modern society, you’d have something like Ahnenerbe, only bigger and not as idealistic. “The Romans” weren’t dropping off their uglier spawn to die in the days of Caesar. The Roman tenements grew not by a folksy, informal, urban Ahnenerbe, but by exactly the opposite of selective child-rearing and exposure.

      I realize the idea of killing deformed or weak children has about it the lure of hardness, but again, it isn’t “Aryan”, you can’t find much of it in the annals, and though practiced by the lower animals, it is hoped we recognized that we’ve come far enough from that lot to not imitated their unfriendlier instincts.

      Ein’s post up there was good enough.

      The early Romans [I stress early] had a very harsh view of life, butit was a very earthy and realistic one, free of any maudlin (or Christian) sentimentality. They would have been contemptuous of today’s liberal goody-goodies.

      But their circumstances — both physical and historical — were radically different from ours: so their way shouldn’t be our way. Not that we’re empowered to have a choice in the matter at all.

    22. Howdy Doody Says:

      thalidomide deformed baby

      Not to mention little first graders having to sit next to a Congoid on one side and then little girl with two flippers for arms.

      What is crule ?

      jooo rule.

    23. Ein Says:

      Tacitless said: “It is even wrong to simply say “the Romans practiced exposure” and leave it at that, for it was the pre-Republican Romans who probably did so with any regularity”

      Isn’t that essentially what I had said? I didn’t think I left it at that.

      I realize the idea of killing deformed or weak children has about it the lure of hardness, but again, it isn’t “Aryan”

      NOWHERE did I advocate the “killing of weak or deformed children”! Nowhere did I say it was Aryan (or anything about Aryans). I simply described the custom of another place, another time, another much harsher way of life. It probably went back to very ancient practices. I even took pains to state that the (early) Romans would not kill or harm a child, they simply placed it outside, taking no further responsibility for it, but leaving it where anyone who wanted it could find it.

      “The Romans” weren’t dropping off their uglier spawn to die in the days of Caesar. The Roman tenements grew not by a folksy, informal, urban Ahnenerbe, but by exactly the opposite of selective child-rearing and exposure.

      Don’t know what “Ahnenerbe” is, but the Roman tenements existed in another very different time than early Rome — a time of great wealth and luxury (for some) and decadence and poverty for many. The horrible tenements were probably filled mostly with slaves , ex-slaves, and foreigners… not original Romans. (Are the slums of New York or Boston filled with descendents of the Mayflower or the writers of the Constitution?)

      As for “dropping off their uglier spawn” (what a crass way to put it! – your name should be “tactless”) , the much earlier custom of exposure was modified in Christian times (and down to the present) of depositing an unwanted baby on the doorstep of a convent, where the nuns would raise it. This was an “esposito”. I don’t know about in Caesar’s time, but since the nuns were simply a Christian extension of the Vestal Virgins, their continuation, I would speculate that the vestals might probably have performed a similar social service in the time of the Caesars.

    24. Parsifal Says:

      What Tacitless/Tacitus wrote about deformed gods is true. Remember Hephaestus, the lame blacksmithing god who caught his wife Aphrodite in the sack with Mars? But the Gods could afford some disabilities, we mortals cannot.

      I’ve worked in facilities where the deformed and feeble-minded reside. They are mostly forgotten by their families and are generally taken care of by minimum-wage earning strangers who had just gotten fired from Burger King or Foot Locker the week before. They act out, soil themselves, refuse to learn anything and make the lives of those around them very difficult and unpleasant. Warehousing such unfortunates in dirty, urine-smelling group homes or institutions is not the act of a compassionate or civilized society, it is the act of a weak, cowardly one.

      But there is some good news. I recently read that about 90% of all human fetuses diagnosed with Down’s Syndrome are aborted. I think such abortions should be mandatory. Our limited resources should be devoted to raising healthy, normal White children, not doting on the sick, useless ones.

    25. Ein Says:

      Parsifal says: “I recently read that about 90% of all human fetuses diagnosed with Down’s Syndrome are aborted. I think such abortions should be mandatory. Our limited resources should be devoted to raising healthy, normal White children, not doting on the sick, useless ones.”

      I strongly agree with your basic position, but I would stop at making it (or anything such) mandatory. [Making abortions mandatory makes me very nervous, as there’s no telling how far that could eventually go, once the predecent it set. It’s opening up a nasty can of worms. Especially with a view to the future and depending on who might get into power someday.]

      If the families are financially able, it should be left up to them if they want to bear the cost. That would be their own business. However, I would require that they sign a legal statement that they will be solely responsible for the lifetime expense and will renounce any access to public funds. (I imagine, though, that this would be extremely hard to enforce, especially after a number of years have passed and new administrations are in power.)