Eugenics and the Elite: A History of Control

By James Corbett

Eugenics, the sinister fantasy of "improving" humanity through selective breeding, has been the elite’s pet project for centuries—a twisted justification for their chokehold on power. I came across this essay in James Corbett’s magnificent new book Reportage, which I highly recommend for its incisive exploration of hidden histories and modern manipulations. James has kindly given me permission to republish this piece.

From the incestuous pharaohs of Egypt to the forced sterilizations of 20th-century America, this obsession with sculpting the gene pool has always been about control. The essay below They Don’t Want Your Genes in the Pool lays bare how royalty once hid behind divine right to inbreed their way to “superiority,” producing sickly wrecks like Charles II of Spain and King Tut—proof their blue blood was more curse than blessing. Yet, this delusion didn’t die with the monarchs. It morphed into a pseudoscience championed by the likes of Francis Galton, who saw the rich as genetically destined to rule. Today, it slinks through the shadows under new guises—population control, sustainability, genetic engineering—still serving the same old tyrants. Rusere Shoniwa’s interview exposes how elites manipulate narratives to keep their boot on our necks, while F. William Engdahl’s Seeds of Destruction reveals their grip on our food and biology through GMOs.

The game changed when divine right lost its shine, and the new royalty—bankers, industrialists, and technocrats—needed a fresh excuse to lord over us. Enter eugenics, dressed up as science, peddled by inbred dynasties like the Darwins and Rockefellers. The essay shows how these modern monarchs swapped crowns for corporate logos, funding atrocities from Nazi sterilization labs to America’s own eugenics programs—over 60,000 forced sterilizations, rubber-stamped by the Supreme Court in Buck v. Bell. But they didn’t stop there. Jennifer Bilek’s interview unpacks how gender identity politics became a new playground for social engineering, while Jacob Nordangård’s work digs into how “sustainability” masks population control schemes pushed by globalist elites. Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk’s Dissolving Illusions blows the lid off medical dogmas that prop up these agendas, showing how the powerful still bankroll pseudoscience to keep us in line. The Rockefellers didn’t just fund eugenics—they built the systems that rebranded it, from biotech to global health, proving the apple doesn’t fall far from the rotten tree.

Eugenics has never been a static villain—it’s a chameleon, slipping into each age with a new mask, from divine bloodlines to genomic breakthroughs. What ties these guises together isn’t science, but the elite’s relentless need to dictate who belongs in tomorrow’s world. The essay lays bare this shape-shifting game, revealing a pattern of control dressed up as progress. Beneath the jargon of heredity or sustainability lies a colder truth: it’s a tool to naturalize privilege, to etch inequality into our DNA. The real kicker? Its power depends on our silence and our not noticing the sleight of hand of giving old prejudices a fresh coat of paint.

With thanks to James Corbett.

Reportage – Essays on the New World Order – The new book by James Corbett

They Don't Want Your Genes in the Pool

By James Corbett

The Ancient Egyptians believed their pharaohs were progeny of the sun god, Ra. The Japanese believed their Imperial Family descended from the sun goddess, Amaterasu, and the sea god, Ryuujin. The Chinese believed that their emperors ruled under the “Mandate of Heaven.” And Europeans believed in the “divine right of kings,” which held that each nation's sovereign was sanctioned by God Himself.

For as long as royalty has existed, there have been elaborate theological justifications for why monarchs should be worshipped as gods and for why they deserve to reign over their respective kingdoms.

Of course, it's easy to understand why the royals have tried, in culture after culture, to foster their subjects’ belief in their divinely ordained supremacy. After all, if kings and queens and emperors and pharaohs are not gods, or at least chosen by God, why would anyone obey them? The difference between a regal king and a tin-pot dictator disappears if the king's divinity is denied.

Even today, in this era where monarchs are viewed by the general public as relics of the past, age-old superstitions about royal families persist. They are still referred to as “blue bloods,” a vestige of the days when their pale, translucent skin was a visible marker of their sheltered, privileged existence, something that set them apart front the ruddy complexion of the peasantry who toiled all day in the sun. Also, there is still an elaborate (and strictly enforced) protocol for meeting the British monarch. Even heads of state had to take a lesson in royal etiquette before they were allowed to meet with Her Royal Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Hence the Obamas’ careful study of royal protocol before their first presidential visit to London and the media's pearl-clutching over President Trump's breach of that protocol on his royal visit in 2019.

But these rituals of class distinction are not merely for show. The royals have always considered themselves of superior stock - a breed apart front the poor downtrodden masses who toil in squalor beneath them. Hence the obsession with breeding, which nobility the world over has been at great pains to observe down through the centuries.

Or should that be the obsession with inbreeding? Certainly, the branches of many a royal family tree fold in as much as they branch out, which explains both the remarkable physical similarities among members of European royal families and the recessive disorders, like hemophilia, that have plagued Europe’s inbred royalty for centuries.

Indeed, modern-day DNA analysis has shown that the Spanish branch of the Hapsburg family, the dynasty that ruled over vast swaths of Europe for over 500 years, was inbred out of existence. After generations of cousins marrying cousins and uncles marrying nieces, the genetic variation between Hapsburg husbands and wives was no greater than that between Hapsburg brothers and sisters. The last member of the Spanish Hapsburgs, Charles II, died a congenitally sick, deformed man, physically unable to produce a child. Nor was this a strictly European problem: recent analysis of the DNA of iconic King Tut—Pharaoh Tutankhamen, who reigned over Egypt more than 3,00 years ago—shows that he, too, was the sickly, misshapen product of an incestuous brother-and-sister pairing.

The royal fixation with family lines and in breeding arose from the practice of animal breeding, which has been used for thousands of years to select for certain traits among livestock and pets. In fact, the ability to breed certain traits into or out of pets and livestock has been an art form, if not a science, ever since humans began domesticating animals. It wasn't much of a stretch for sovereigns to toy with these same types of breeding techniques to purify their own royal “stock” and domesticate their own “chattel,” the commoners.

The animal breeding/human breeding analogy appears in some ancient texts. In the sixth century BC, the Greek poet Theognis of Megara lamented his countrymen’s unwillingness to show the same attention to the breeding of men and women that they showed to the breeding of rams and horses:

With kine and horses, Kurnos! We proceed

By reasonable rules, and choose a breed

For profit and increase, at any price:

Of a sound stock, without defect or vice:

But, in the daily matches that we make,

The price is everything; for money’s sake,

Men marry women of a meaner strain:

The churl or ruffian, that in wealth has his way,

May match his offspring with the proudest race:

That everything’s mix’d, noble and base!

If thus in outward manner, form, and mind,

You find us a degraded, motley kind,

Wonder no more, my friend! the cause is plain,

And to lament the consequence is vain.

As Theognis observes, the cloistered gentry of the so-called “nobility” have always regarded the product of unions between the “nobles” and the “commoners” as “degraded” and “motley.” The implication is clear: there are inheritable genetic traits that differentiate the social castes. And, by this logic, marrying “below one's position” in society results in a mixture of the nobility's “good” genes with the commoners' “bad” genes.

But, it will be pointed out, that was over two thousand years ago, when the chasm between landed lords and property-less peasants was unbreachable. Today, by contrast, there is unprecedented economic and class mobility. With the notable exception of the world's extant royal families, humanity no longer divides itself into "noble" and "base' castes. We no longer talk in vague generalities about the "mixing" of traits between parents. Instead, we speak in precise, scientific terms of the functioning of genes and chromosomes and the structure of DNA and the importance of upbringing and environment in shaping who we are. We no longer believe (assuming we ever really did) that a Queen Elizabeth or a King Salman or an Emperor Naruhito has been chosen by God to rule over us.

Yes, ours is an "enlightened" era, in which leaders are democratically elected politicians, not hereditary monarchs. Upward mobility today is a function of ambition and talent, not peerage and lineage. Celebrities are our royalty. Some of the richest men and women in the world were average Janes and Joes who pulled themselves v by their bootstraps and are now ranked annually by net worth in glossy magazines.

Or so the story goes. The truth, though, is not quite in line with popular perception. As it turns out, there is a modern-day royalty whose members are not descendants of actual royal houses. Contemporary royals can be defined as an upper-crust breed of rulers who inherit positions of enormous power and privilege and who possess nearly unimaginable wealth. These "kings" and "queens," however, do not live in castles. They do not demand deference or fealty from their subjects. Their faces are not printed on our bills or stamped into our coins.

Compared with their royal counterparts of old, our modern monarchs are relatively inconspicuous. They are notable mostly for the buildings and banks and corporations and tax-free foundations that bear their family names. These lords of business and finance blend into crowds on Wall Street and Main Street. We can trace their rise to the fall of the monarchies of yesteryear.

By the late seventeenth century, as the world was transitioning away from medieval feudalism and toward current-day capitalism, the absolute power of the European monarchs was being whittled away. In England, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the Bill of Rights of 1689 brought an end to the doctrine of the total authority of the king—an authority that had already been formally limited by the Magna Carta in 1216. In 1694, the establishment of the Bank of England set a precedent for the private control of a nation's money supply, a template that was copied in country after country (including, of course, the United States) in the coming centuries. Before long, only a handful of banking families controlled the exchequers of the governments they "served," and the overt royalty of old was replaced with a new, covert royalty.

In the nineteenth century, the ranks of non-royal royals swelled with another type of nouveau riche: the cutthroat monopolists who built empires out of steel, oil, coal, rail-roads, and shipping.

And now here we are in the twenty-first century, with the would-be rulers of the world having traded royal robes for bespoke suits from Savile Row tailors, coats of arms for corporate logos, crowns for computers, scepters for cell phones. The throne rooms of yore have given way to board rooms, federal courtrooms, social club dining rooms, and corporate back rooms from which the rest of humanity is directed and controlled.

This new royalty, like the royalty of old, is obsessed with breeding. Rockefellers and Aldriches and Averills and Harrimans and Walkers make sure to marry Bushes and Foresters and Rothschilds (and then honeymoon at America's Buckingham Palace, the White House). The members of these dynasties-our modern-day royalty— are every bit as interbred, elitist, and despotic as the lords and ladies of bygone days.

Unlike royalty of times past, however, this new breed of tyrant cannot rely on the canard of "divine right" to justify its positions of power. With the disappearance of medieval kingdoms, a new era began-one in which empiricism and scientific study took the place of religious lore. The sovereigns of our scientific age needed a scientific-sounding gloss to update the "divine right" doctrine while preserving the presumed authority of the few to rule the many. Luckily for this new breed of monarch, a pseudoscientific gloss was not long in coming.

In 1859, Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Within ten years, Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, came out with Hereditary Genius, an inquiry into why it is that rich and successful people are more likely to give birth to rich and successful offspring. Galton did not have to look very far for evidence of this phenomenon: both the Galton and Darwin families-which, unsurprisingly, were intermarried —boasted several famous thinkers and writers, including Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of both Charles and Francis.

Equally unsurprisingly, Galton fancied that heredity alone accounted for one's fortune, good or ill. In other words, the offspring of the rich and well-educated tended to also be rich and well-educated, not because they attended exclusive schools and were afforded every advantage in life, but merely because of their genes. With this predetermined conclusion in mind, Galton set about expending considerable energy trying to prove his theory correct.

He founded societies, organized conferences, launched journals, and set up laboratories devoted to the study of how the Galtons and their fellow travellers in the upper echelons of society managed to become so wealthy (and why they deserved to be).

Essentially, Galton was positing that humans can be bred for intelligence or industriousness, just as a dog can be bred for aggression or a horse can be bred for racing. In 1883, he coined the term "eugenics" —from the Greek EÚ (well) and -yevns (race, stock, kin)—to describe the study of how human evolution could be directed to improve "the racial quality of future generations."

The very name "eugenics" itself betrays the underlying assumption of this self-serving ideology: namely, that there are "good" genes that must be promoted and "bad" genes that must be eliminated from the gene pool in order to "improve" the race. And, as with all such definitions, it is the definers who get to decide what constitutes " and "bad" genes and who naturally deem only themselves fit to propagate their genes into the future "for the good of the race."

Although eugenics' starting assumption seems fairly innocuous at first glance, the erstwhile eugenicist comes rather quickly to a number of extreme conclusions. One of these is the belief that the poor, disabled, or otherwise impaired are in fact products of bad breeding. If you're poor, that's because you come from poor stock. If you're a common thief, it's because you come from a family line of criminals. And if you're a rich businessman or a successful politician or a talented scientist, it's because of your good genes. The rich and powerful deserve to rule over the rest, this circular reasoning holds, because their hereditary lines have made them rich and powerful.

Another corollary of the "good" gene/"bad" gene hypothesis is that those groups of individuals able to dominate others-militarily, economically, or otherwise—not only have the right to exercise that power but in fact are obliged to do so in the interest of improving the species. In short: might makes right. If you're not inbred with us, you're ill-bred against us.

But to phrase this quackery in the language of modern science is to give it—and its adherents-too much credit altogether. After all, in Galton's time, nothing was known about heredity or genetics. The work of Gregor Mendel-an obscure Augustinian friar who, in the mid-nineteenth century, pioneered the scientific study of heredity with his experiments breeding pea plants-would not be recognized and publicized until the turn of the twentieth century, almost two decades after Galton came up with the term "eugenics."

As for genetics, the word "gene" wasn't even coined until 1909, and the mechanism by which deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) encodes genetic information was not understood until the mid-twentieth century. Until then, there had been only speculation about the existence of some sort of "protoplasm" that carried heritable traits from one generation to the next in a way that was not understood. Neither the properties nor the characteristics of this "protoplasm" were known. Nonetheless, that did not stop mainstream eugenicists like Arnold Gesell—a revered early-twentieth-century child psychologist who is the namesake of the Gesell Institute of Child Development at Yale-from pontificating on how "supervision and segregation" of those deemed "feebleminded" is necessary to "prevent the horrible renewal of this defective protoplasm chat is contaminating the stream of village life.

Indeed, for the cadre of "elite" Englishmen who first developed and propounded the ideology, and for the American ideologues who followed in their wake, eugenics was not so much a scientific theory as an article of faith. To their credit, the progenitors of this scientific dogma were devoted enough to the faith to practice what they preached. A quick look at the family trees of the early eugenicists reveals that they adhered to the same endogamous habits as the royalty of old. The inbred upper class believed they had a scientific underpinning to their penchant for marrying cousins and nieces: by breeding only among themselves, they reasoned, they could ensure their "pure" genes would not become debased by the "degenerate" genes of the commoners.

Charles Darwin, for one, was obsessed with inbreeding. And no wonder, considering that for generations the Darwins had intermarried with the Wedgwoods. Of course, Charles perpetuated that pattern, marrying his first cousin, Emma Wedgwood. Both were descended from the founder of the famed pottery dynasty, Josiah Wedgwood, who had himself married his third cousin.

Darwin later began to suspect there were possible drawbacks to inbreeding; three of his ten children, frail and sickly, died in childhood, and another three were childless despite long-lasting marriages. This misfortune was not unique to Charles and Emma. Of sixty-two descendants of Josiah Wedgwood, only twenty-four were able to have children who survived to adulthood. So concerned was Charles by this phenomenon-especially when his own botanical research demonstrated the detrimental effects of inbreeding in the plant kingdom —that he petitioned parliament to include a question about marriages to cousins on the 1871 British census (a request parliament turned down). 10 Charles' misgivings did not stop the Darwins and Wedgwoods from continuing to marry each other or members of a select few families in British aristocratic, scientific circles—families including the Galtons and the Huxleys. Nor did the failure of this applied study in eugenics dissuade the Darwin-Wedgwood family from pursuing further research into the subject with maniacal fervor. If anything, the less-than-satisfactory results drove them to redouble their efforts, motivated as they were by the sliver of hope that their combined resources and intelligence could "crack the code" of inbreeding and offer up a race of superhumans.

Which brings us back to Francis Galton. Such was his frenzy in pursuing his investigations that, in addition to coining the term "eugenics," Galton established the first eugenics research laboratory at University College London, started a monthly journal called The Eugenics Review, and founded the British Eugenics Society. The member rolls of the British Eugenics Society (BES) read not only like a Who's Who of early-twentieth-century British scientists, but also like an extended Darwin-Wedgwood-Galton family tree. Its leaves included:

• LEONARD DARWIN - Despite having no scientific degree or training, Charles Darwin's son, Leonard, succeeded Francis Galton (his half-cousin once removed) as BES chairman from 1911 to 1928, then was its honorary president until his death in 1943. Having married twice (once to the granddaughter of his aunt), he failed to produce any offspring, but devoted himself to worrying about the breeding habits of the commoners.

• JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES - President of the BES from 1937 to 1944, Keynes is the celebrated economist who argued for a world central bank and global currency. His younger brother married a granddaughter of Charles Darwin.

• CHARLES GALTON DARWIN - A prominent member of the BES, Charles Galton Darwin believed that the inclination of the lower class to produce large families threatened the future of the human race. He was a grandson of Charles Darwin.

• JULIAN HUXLEY - President of the BES from 1959 to 1962, Huxley was a biologist who was well-known for arguing that human "stocks" needed to be controlled and managed like agricultural stocks. He gave the Galton Memorial Lecture twice, received the Darwin Medal from the Royal Society and the Darwin-Wallace Medal from the Linnean Society, and co-founded the World Wildlife Fund with fellow eugenicists Prince Philip of Britain and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. Huxley's half-niece married a great grandson of Charles Darwin.

Beyond this tight-knit network of interbreeders were other eugenics supporters who rose to positions of power and influence within the movement. It was these self-described "progressives," believers in the perfection of society through social engineering, who were in large part responsible for shaping the world as we know it.

Among the eugenics zealots was famed author and political thinker H. G. Wells. Best known for his science fiction tales like War of the Worlds and The Time Machine, Wells is less remembered as a political writer who contributed to the draft of the United Nations' 1948 Declaration of Human Rights." Even less well-known are his works of nonfiction, such as Anticipations of the Reaction of Mechanical and Scientific Progress Upon Human Life and Thought, which predicted the rise of a technocratic world government he dubbed the "New Republic." In Well's vision, this government would weed out the "inferior" races, identified as "those swarms of black, and brown, and dirty-white, and yellow people, who do not come into the needs of the new efficiency." Like any good eugenicist, he shows no compunction at all about condemning vast swathes of humanity to death for the "crime" of not blending into the "efficient" world order that he believed this "New Republic" would bring:

Well, the world is a world, not a charitable institution, and I take it they will have to go. The whole tenor and meaning of the world, as I see it, is that they have to go. So far as they fail to develop sane, vigorous, and distinctive personalities for the great world of the future, it is their portion to die out and disappear.

Another famous eugenics enthusiast was Marie Stopes. In 1921, she founded an organization linked to Britain's first family planning clinic-called the Society for Constructive Birth Control and Racial Progress. One of its founding tenets affirmed that the clinic worked to furnish "security from conception to those who are racially diseased, already overburdened with children, or in any specific way unfitted for parenthood." " This "security" included compulsory sterilization of those deemed "unfit for parenthood." Unsurprisingly, Stopes—who sent Hitler a copy of her book Love Songs for Young Lovers in 1939 and who composed a poem in 1942 with the lines "Catholics, Prussians, the Jews and the Russians, all are a curse, or something worse" was a lifelong fellow of the British Eugenics Society, 6 She bequeathed a large portion of her fortune to that organization when she died in 1958." How fitting that this member of the modern-day eugenics-promoting "nobility" was honored in 2008 by the Royal Mail with a commemorative stamp bearing her image.!

Championed with evangelistic fervor by its disciples, the religion of racial purity and genetic royalty had soon transplanted itself across the Atlantic. One of its early proponents in Canada was Tommy Douglas, a politician so celebrated for his role as the "father of [Canadian] Medicare" that he was voted the greatest Canadian of all time in a national poll in 2004. Back in 1933, at the age of 29, Douglas submitted a master's thesis to McMaster University on the subject of eugenics as a way to solve the country's economic problems. In it, he argued that "subnormals," "defectives, and "morons"— people with a low IQ or physical abnormalities, for example- were placing an undue burden on the rest of society. He advocated putting them "on a state farm, or in a colony where decisions could be made for them by a competent supervisor," called for the state to certify "mental and physical fitness" to prevent the "unfit" from marrying and breeding.

But as effective as these British and Canadian apostles were in spreading the doctrine of eugenics, their "achievements" pale in comparison to the schemes hatched by their American allies. In America, eugenics was not confined to the halls of academia or the journals of learned societies. On the contrary, so wide was eugenics' influence that it became the motivating force of the robber barons, the pet project of would-be social engineers, and the cause célèbre of a host of politicians and public intellectuals.

One of the prime movers in America's eugenicist circles was Charles Davenport, a Harvard-trained zoologist who had grown up in a strict, puritanical family of New England Congregationalists. Davenport's authoritarian father, obsessed with genealogy, traced the family tree all the way back to his Anglo-Saxon forebears in 1086.

When the younger Davenport discovered Francis Galton's writing while working at a biological laboratory on Long Island, he found his purpose in life. As he later told the American Breeders Association, which became an important ally in his eugenicist cause: "Society must protect it-self; as it claims the right to deprive the murderer of his life, so also it may annihilate the hideous serpent of hopelessly vicious protoplasm."

Devoting himself to this pursuit, Davenport spent years trying to organize an American eugenics laboratory and society to rival that of his English hero Galton. Eventually he found the perfect spot for that laboratory: Cold Spring Harbor, a hamlet on the north shore of Long Island. There he set up a "Station for Experimental Evolution" and a "Eugenics Record Office" (ERO).

The ERO was to be the linchpin of Davenport's eugenics research. He envisioned it storing a comprehensive registry documenting the "pedigree" of every American—an ambitious goal, to be sure. But where would the ERO obtain the records for such a monumental repository? Davenport himself supplied the answer in his 1910 screed on Eugenics: the Science of Human Improvement by Better Breeding:

They lie hidden in records of our numerous charity organizations, our 42 institutions for the feebleminded, our 11s schools and homes for the deaf and blind, our 35o hospitals for the insane, our 1,200 refuge homes, our 1,300 prisons, our 1,500 hospitals and our 2,500 almshouses. Our great insurance companies and our college gymnasiums have tens of thousands of records of the characters of human bloodlines. These records should be studied, their hereditary data sifted out and properly recorded on cards and the cards sent to a central bureau for study in order that data should be placed in their proper relations in the great strains of human protoplasm that are coursing through the country.

Armed with that immense amount of data, Davenport and a corps of researchers, politicians, lawyers, doctors, Supreme Court justices, and other influential figures rallied around the eugenics flag and began a mass movement dedicated to "protecting the public" from the scourge of bad breeding. These early-twentieth-century eugenicists whipped the American public into both a panic and a fury over the notion that the world was being overwhelmed by the "defective" offspring of criminals, gamblers, alcoholics, wanton women, and, not incidentally, racial minorities and the disabled. Legislators in state after state began passing laws that allowed the government to involuntarily sterilize the women and men presumed to be most at risk of passing their "defects" on to their children. In this way, the country could rest easy in the knowledge that the gene pool would not be further "polluted" with this genetic "detritus."

In 1907, the first forced sterilization statute was passed in Indiana. By 1914, twelve states had passed similar legislation. In all, over thirty states would go on to pass laws permitting the government to sterilize citizens against their will, and more than 60,000 individuals deemed mentally disabled, ill, or socially disadvantaged would undergo the procedure.

The Buck v. Bell case of 1927 brought the question of the constitutionality of these forced sterilizations before the US Supreme Court. The court decided that the defendant—a woman named Carrie Buck who had been forcibly committed, along with her mother, to a mental institution for having a child out of wedlock- was "feeble-minded" and "promiscuous." As a result of this designation, the court ruled that the state was justified in having her sterilized. Writing the Buck v. Bell opinion was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., a rabid eugenicist who advocated executing "unfit" babies.26 He concluded his opinion with the infamous declaration, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

Of course, "feeble-mindedness" and "imbecility" not clinical descriptions of any sort. What's more, Carrie Buck had conceived her illegitimate child not out of lasciviousness, but because she had been raped by her foster parents' nephew. Even the Virginia government now con-cedes, "Later evidence eventually showed that Buck and many others had no 'hereditary defects.’” Nonetheless, the case still stood, and the Supreme Court upheld its opinion that governments have the right to stop their citizens from reproducing.

So, who were the financial backers of this dark, largely forgotten chapter of history? Why, the very self-appointed "royalty" who benefit from the pre-ordained conclusions of this pseudoscientific creed, of course. It turns out that Davenport's Eugenics Record Office, which was founded in 1910 by Mary Harriman (of the Bush-Harriman Union Banking Corporation crime family), was funded by the Rockefellers and Carnegies. Not content to promulgate their newfound eugenics religion only at home, the robber barons were driven to export it abroad. The Rockefellers, for example, helped to foster and fund a budding eugenical movement in Germany.

It is unremarkable that eugenics would find a ready reception in post-W WI Germany. After the arch-polemicist of American eugenical ideas, Madison Grant, argued for Nordic supremacy in The Passing of the Great Race— his 1916 opus on the dangers of racial mixing and the need for strict eugenics laws—a young corporal in the German army, Adolf Hitler, wrote a personal letter to Grant, referring to the book as his "bible.”

The German who accepted the eugenics baton from the Rockefellers and carried it back to his country was Gustav Boeters, a physician traveling throughout America as a ship's doctor when he learned of compulsory sterilizations and restrictions on mixed-race marriages. Upon his return to Germany, Boeters began proselytizing for eugenics. He became known as a "sterilization apostle"' for his campaign to legalize (and eventually mandate) sterilization of the blind, deaf, "idiotic," and other "feebleminded" individuals.

It wasn't until the 1920s, however, with the formation of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes (KWI), that Germany attained a position of preeminence in international eugenics research. KWI-a constellation of associated research institutions born from the prestigious Kaiser Wilhelm Society-hosted research into physics, chemistry, biology, pathology, and other standard fields of scientific inquiry. The network of institutes also included an Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics; an Institute for Psychology; and an Institute for Brain Research—all three of which would play an integral role in Germany's eugenics program. And, predictably, all three of these institutions were heavily financed by the Rockefeller Foundation.

Advised by long-time Rockefeller/Carnegie researcher Abraham Flexner, the Rockefeller Foundation began pumping money into the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes in 1922. From 1922 to 1926, the Rockefeller Foundation provided $290,000 in fellowship grants and $120,000 in international fellowships to German researchers in "human psychobiology" and other eugenics-related disciplines. 34 As Edwin Black documents in War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, Rockefeller Foundation funding began to ramp up in the late 1920s, almost single-handedly keeping German psychiatric research afloat during the period:

Rockefeller officials were fascinated with the promise of psychiatry, and they began aligning themselves with German psychiatrists of all stripes. The German Psychiatry Institute was the first to receive big money. In May of 1926, Rockefeller awarded the institute $250,000 shortly after it amalgamated with the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute to become the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry. The following November, Rockefeller trustees allocated the new institute an additional $75,000.

One of the head researchers at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry, a man who would go on to become director of that institute, was Ernst Rüdin. A key architect of Germany's eugenics program in the Third Reich, Rüdin co-edited the official rules and commentary on the Law for the Prevention of Defective Progeny, which was passed on July 14, 1933, less than six months after Hitler was appointed interim chancellor of Germany by President Paul von Hindenburg.

The law—which, as American eugenicists gloated, "reads almost like the 'American model sterilization law'"36_ mandated the compulsory sterilization of "defectives" in eight different categories: the feeble-minded, schizophrenics, manic depressives, sufferers of Huntington's chorea, epileptics, those with hereditary deformities, the blind, and the deaf. Alcoholics, a ninth category, were to be optionally added to the list, with a caution against inclusion of ordinary drunkards. Under the law, some 200 "Genetic Health Courts" were established to conduct secret proceedings in order to choose suitable sterilization candidates. By the end of 1933, these special courts had already tried 84,600 cases, finding 62,400 of the defendants unfit to breed and ordering their forced sterilization. Between 1933 and 1939, Nazi doctors had sterilized some 400,000 people, the majority of them German citizens living in asylums."

Although the Rockefeller Foundation's director of natural science, Warren Weaver, noted in his 1933 report to the trustees that eugenics "would not be given support" under his proposed program, just one year later he was openly pondering whether we can "develop so sound and extensive a genetics that we can hope to breed, in the future, superior men?"38 For its part, the Rockefeller Foundation was careful to funnel most of the funds it gave to the K WI through its Paris offices to avoid public scrutiny in the US. That funding continued throughout the 193os until the outbreak of World War II.

After World War II, the extent of the Third Reich's eugenics atrocities became widely known in the US and elsewhere around the world. For the first time, "eugenics" became a dirty word. The role of organizations like the Rockefeller Foundation in funding the institutions and individuals who formulated the Third Reich's policies, however, went unreported.

Having been saved from the ire of public opinion, these wealthy, eugenics-obsessed "royalty" then sought for a way to continue the pursuit of their eugenics vision out of the glare of the public spotlight. They hit upon the perfect plan: they would not change the ideas or ideals of eugenics, but merely the name itself. This plan was formalized in 1957 by C. P. Blacker, the Honorary Secretary of the Eugenics Society, who distributed a memo on "The Eugenics Society's Future," in which he argued "that the Society should pursue ends by less obvious means, that is by a policy of crypto-eugenics.” Or, as American Eugenics Society co-founder Frederick Osborn wrote even more succinctly in 1968: "Eugenic goals are most likely to be attained under a name other than eugenics.

Accordingly, Eugenics Quarterly, a journal co-found-ed by Osborn for the purpose of publishing eugenics research, changed its name in 1970 to Social Biology and then, in 2008, to Biodemography and Social Biography." The American Eugenics Society likewise rebranded itself in 1972 as The Society for the Study of Social Biology, and then, more recently, as The Society for Biodemography and Social Biology.* The British Eugenics Society followed suit, changing its name to The Galton Institute in 1989,43 and then changing it again to The Adelphi Genetics Forum in 2021.4 Throwing the public even further off the trail, the American Eugenics Society moved headquarters in the early 1950s from New Haven, Connecticut, directly into the New York City offices of John D. Rockefeller III's Population Council, from which it began to receive its funding.*s From the mid-twentieth century to today, the distasteful ideas of eugenics have been obscured by euphemisms like "population control," "molecular biology," "social demography," and a host of other cryptic terms. But whatever name they're hiding behind at the present moment, eugenicists continue to promulgate the same pseudoscientific dogma to the same ends that Galton and his cohorts promoted it over a century ago: to justify the existence of our modern-day "royalty," the special class who "deserve" to rule over us because of their "superior" genes.

The history of eugenics is as barely known as it is barbaric. It connects some of the wealthiest and most prominent figures of/modern times to an atrocious ideology that promotes policies and practices both contemptible and condemnable. Those who remain unaware of the annals of eugenics cannot possibly understand how it has shaped the post-regnal era of wannabe royals, who have retained their superpower status long after the lies of "divine right" and "royal blood" perished.

Indeed, it isn't hard to understand why eugenics captivates the rich and privileged members of the modern ruling class. The canon of eugenics provides exactly what they require: a mythological foundation upon which to build their own wealth and power. Boiled down to its essentials, this myth states precisely the same thing as the old myth of the "divine right" of kings: that the rich and powerful are rich and powerful because they are inherently better than the poor and weak. But by cloaking itself in scientific-sounding arguments instead of appeals to divine authority, eugenics better suits modern, enlightenment-era sensibilities.

Granted, most of today's neo-royalty are not literally "kings" or "queens." Nor are they worshipped as gods on earth. But, just as frighteningly, many have unwittingly bought into the neo-nobility's political worldview. Rallying under the banner of "population control" and "environmentalism" and "sustainability," millions of deluded adults and school children are actually rallying for deindustrialization and depopulation-advocating for the very world that the eugenicists desire. A world where a privileged few rule the impoverished masses. A world where neo-lords subjugate neo-peasants in a neo-feudal society.

These neo-rulers may not wear jewel-encrusted crowns or wield golden scepters, but as long as we keep playing the part of useful idiots in their crypto-eugenic schemes, we may as well bow and curtsy and address them as "Your Majesty."

Here's the good news: no bloody revolution is required to overthrow the gene pool tyrants. Once we expose eugenics for the pseudoscientific claptrap that it is, we will be able to consign it (and its euphemistically named crypto-descendants) to the dustbin of history once and for all.

Notes

1. "Why were people of noble birth said to be "blue blooded"?" History Extra. December 1, 2014. archive.is/FUEgC

2. Sherwell, Philip. "Barack Obama's team prepare etiquette and gifts for President's meeting wich Queen." The Telegraph. March 28, 2009. archive.fo/Y Yd77

3. Preston, Hannah. "Donald Trump Touches Queen Elizabeth, Breaks Royal Protocol During Visit to Buckingham Palace." Newsweek. June 3, 2019. archive.fo/VFZPj

4. Khan, Razib. "Inbreeding & the downfall of the Spanish Hapsburgs." Discover Magazine. April 14, 2009. archive.fo/cOOUF

5. Keating, Fiona. "King Tutankhamun: Latest Tests Prove the Boy Pharaoh was Product of Incest." International Business Times. October 19, 2014. archive.fo/AllLO

6. Quoted in Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man. 2nd edition. (London: John Murray, 1901.) Page 43.

7. Allon, Janet. "American Royalty: Lynn FORESTER De Rothschild Has A New Mission In Life." Avenue Magazine. April 1, 2016. archive.fo/1YSG9

8. "1900: Rediscovery of Mendel's Work." National Human Genome Research Institute. April 22, 2013. archive.fo/M9zh

9. "Wisconsin river town was focus for eugenics campaign." Daily Herald. September 4, 2011. archive.fo/LkROi

10. Moore, James. "Good Breeding: Darwin doubted his own familys "fitness." Natural History. November, 2005. Pages 45-46.

11. Smith, Ali. "Celebrating HG Wells's [sic) role in the creation of the UN Declaration of Human Rights." The Guardian. November 20, 2015. archive.fo/TI909

12. Well, H. G. Anticipations of the Reaction of Mechanical and Scientific Progress upon Human Life and Thought. (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1902.) Page 342.

13. Aylmer, Maude. The Authorized Life of Marie C. Stopes. (London: Williams & Norgate, Ltd., 1924.) Page 226.

14. Stopes, Marie Carmichael. Radiant Motherhood: A Book for Those Who are Creating the Future. (London: G. P. Putnam's Sons, Led., 1920.) Page 231.

15. Ghosh, Palash. "Marie Stopes: Women's Rights Activist Or Nazi Eugenicist?" International Business Times. October 18, 2012. archive.fo/ELhG2

16. "Marie Stopes." University of London. archive.fo/3WS2D

17. "Marie Stopes." NNDB. 2014. archive.fo/vw3cK

18. Bingham, John. "Royal Mail criticised for stamp honouring racist' Marie Stopes." The Telegraph. October 14, 2008. archive.fo/SBSfD

19. Babaluk, Neil. "History Idol: Tommy Douglas." Canada's History.

March 10, 2010. archive.fo/TkfIS

20. Douglas, Rev. T. C. "The Problems of the Subnormal Family." McMaster University. March 17, 1933. bit.ly/2JB3mYf

21. Davenport, C. B. "Report of Committee on Eugenics." American Breeders Magazine. Vol. 1. 1910. Page 129.

22. Davenport, Charles B. Eugenics: The Science of Human Improvement by Better Breeding. DNA Learning Center. archive.fo/ngC81

23. "1907 Indiana Eugenics Law." Indiana Historical Bureau. archive.fo/UXjP

24. "Eugenics and Sterilization." University of Missouri Libraries. archive.fo/mhBd4

25. Kaelber, Lutz. "Eugenics: Compulsory Sterilization in 50 American States." University of Vermont. archive.fo/Eu9y

26. Schuler, Peter. "Law professor reveals another side to Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in new book on former Supreme Court Justice." The University of Chicago Chronicle, Vol. 20, No. 12 (March 15, 2001). archive.fo/xMb7o

27. "Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200." Court Listener. May 2, 1927. archive.fo/pOAHs

28. "Buck v. Bell." The Historical Marker Database. August 11, 2008. archive.fo/8HXXP

29. "Eugenics Record Office." Archives at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. archive.fo/4MHcb

30. Aris, Ben and Duncan Campbell. "How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power." The Guardian. September 25, 2004. archive.fo/Ff Yrk

31. Krisch, Joshua A. "When Racism Was a Science." The New York Times. October 13, 2014. archive.fo/uPthx

32. Ryback, Timothy V.A Disquieting, Book From Hiter's Library. The New York Times. December 7, 2011. archive.fo/HURVH

33. Weindling, Paul. Health, Race and German Politics Between National Unification and Nazism, 1870-1945. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.) Page 389.

34. Weindling, Paul. "The Rockefeller Foundation and German Biomedical Sciences, 1920-1940: from Educational Philanthropy to International Science Policy" in Nicolaas A. Rupke, editor. Science, Politics and the Public Good. (London: Macmillan Press, 1988.) Page 127.

35. Black, Edwin. War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race. (Washington, D.C.: Dialog Press, 2012). Page 285.

36. "Eugenical Sterilization in Germany." Eugenical News, Vol. XVIII, No. 5. September-October 1933. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory's Image Archives on the American Eugenics Movement. archive.fo/h2jbO

37. "Chapter 5 The Nazi Eugenics Program." High School Bioethics Curriculum Project. Georgetown University Kennedy Institute of Ethics. archive.fo/cjLIf

38. Weaver, Warren. "Progress report: the natural sciences." February 14, 1934. Page 43. bit.ly/45r7sut

39. Horvath, Anthony. "Crypto-Eugenics: Quotes of Eugenicists Discussing the Need for a Covert Eugenics Program." Eugenics.us. archive.fo/VT6Ng

40. Osborn, Frederick. The Future of Human Heredity: An Introduction to Eugenics in Modern Society. Vermont Eugenics: A Documentary History. archive.is/tsEYm

41. "Biodemography and Social Biology." Taylor & Francis Online. archive.fo/h3b99

42. "Society for Biodemography and Social Biology." Wikipedia. archive.fo/dCI8] 43. "About." The Galton Institute. archive.fo/f8uol 44. "About us." Adelphi Genetics Forum. archive.is/wz7GK 45. "Background note." American Eugenics Society Records Mss.576.06Am3. American Philosophical Society Library. archive.is/21Nlu

I appreciate you being here.

If you've found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.

Please make full use of the Free Libraries.

Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.

Stories

I'm always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com

For COVID vaccine injury

Consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.

Baseline Human Health

Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.