Eugenics: A Historical Perspective – CSHL public lecture


Thank you thank you very much good
afternoon we’re gonna have a good time together no slides dialog with the
audience and I’m gonna begin by asking you to reflect on a question or two
should your you get bored with me and your minds wander a little so the
question is what role should society have in trying to improve the human
species we’ll leave that as a background question now before I launch into the
formal remarks I have and I encourage questions and discussion at the end I
just wanted to tell you how pleased I am to be here this institution has been
part of my life for 25 years or more there are some close friends in the
audience I’m honored to have Dr. Watson here and I’m most honored that all of
you have come here I’m assuming most of you are not scientists or physicians but
you care deeply about your society and you realize the power of science and
where it may take us so much of what I had to say will reflect on people and
how people have thought over the last century about human reproduction I’ve
divided the talk into sort of three parts one as Bruce suggested an
historical review of eugenics from about 1900 to just after World War two with a
little bit into the 40s and 50s then a topic you may not be thinking so much
about and that is the current role of involuntary coercion of reproductive
behavior in the world at large a topic that I published on recently so I’m
drawing that and finally and perhaps most interesting for you I see there’s a
lot of people in the- in the room are who probably have children or
starting families you’re about that age what about the future uses of technology
and human childbearing and I think that is where I had the most surprises for
you in the most cause of reflection so having laid that out
let me let me begin if one wants to just begin with the word eugenics one traces
it a word that means in the Greek more or less good birth to the work of a
polymath in England named Francis Galton published the term and word first
used in 1883 in a book called Hereditary Genius itself a term laden with value
one can have a very spirited and appropriate debate about what extent
genius is hereditary or to what extent it requires a deep nurturing environment
as well but these this this work was arose at a time that both in the United
States and in Western Europe particularly England there was what
historians today call The Progressive Movement and I’m mentioning
this particularly because often the word eugenics has cast in a very pejorative
light and I think it is fair to say that was in the vast majority of cases not
along and I’ll point out some of the some of the negatives in the history it
was a well-intentioned idea just think about the United States the Civil War is
over the nation is recovering both politically and economically and there’s
a movement afoot as the economy gets better how can we help our fellow man
that’s really what The Progressive Movement was about and over the course
of 30 years you saw a remarkable series of events in the United States that sort
of reflected this the first institutions to house and help the mentally retarded
the mentally ill for schools for the blind for schools for the deaf to try
and educate people who had been marginalized in society all that I’m
sure you would agree whether futile or not is another question but was
well-meaning now there was another theme and that was the theme that we couldn’t
help most of those people very well and because of the burdens they had and
wouldn’t it be better if we used our resources in a caring way to reduce
those numbers in society looking forward and we’ll come back
to that at the at the end of my talk now in England the currents the Eddies of
this thinking really did focus around what was what the historians have come
to call positive eugenics using information to help people have larger
and healthier families to nurture to nurture children things like that that
was true in the United States as well but for reasons that are maybe a little
difficult to follow in the United States and in some countries notably Germany in
the middle of the war the Second World War the focus became one of negative
eugenics that is if we can’t fix it let’s take the people that are most at
risk for bearing children with severe disorders let’s limit their childbearing
a pretty in our society day a pretty challenging thought but one that gained
that gained of traction in the United States let me just remind us give you a
couple of facts that I know from my own research in this area that’s kind of
astounding around nineteen hundred bills proposing to authorize state agencies to
limit reproduction through sterilization we’re extremely common in the state
legislatures one one year when I was doing research for one of my books I
counted that they one year six hundred bills were introduced in state
legislatures that proposed in some way to limit reproduction by folks now why
and now I’m connecting back to not directly to the work done at Cold
Spring Harbor but to the notion of a scientific world at that time 1900 1910
in the thrall of what we call Mendelism I’m assuming most of you aren’t
scientifically based or don’t have that background the notion of that even the
most complex human characteristics particularly if they were disease oriented
might be explicable by a single gene and therefore the classic inheritance
patterns of autosomal dominant like Huntington’s disease; autosomal recessive
like Cystic Fibrosis or Tay-Sachs disease and with our limited knowledge the extension
of this thinking far exceeded the knowledge that we had to justify it
now as Bruce suggested for a period of about 30 years Cold Spring Harbor was
an epicenter of efforts to understand the impact of heredity and human disease
Charles Davenport it’s its original founder a notable and noted science who
was not a particularly wild-eyed eugenicist published a textbook I think
in 1911 about heredity and human disease that became the leading-
textbook of its of its era I actually had read that textbook and there’s
actually much in it that is correct even from that century ago he had it
right and he had some things that were wrong today we don’t much think about
for example the genetics of criminality but as recently as the 1970s there was a
huge debate in our society among both people in criminal law and people in
genetics about the so-called X Y Y chromosome having an extra Y chromosome
and whether that predisposed to criminality and I think the final the
final rule on that is if you’re born with that syndrome you tend to sort of
physically develop a phenotype that is much like Hollywood’s image of a thug so
in fact what some researchers found that people with XYY syndrome weren’t
particularly awful criminals but they were much more likely to be caught so
you know this gets very complicated very quickly so Cold Spring Harbor was the
home of an institution called the Eugenics Record Office there was a staff
here there are many hard-working scientists
and and technicians sort of like how you might think of a genetic counselor today
for those of you who know these terms and they and others compiled these vast
pedigrees of families maybe hundreds or even thousands of members for several
generations trying to elucidate without the tools that the labs here have today
whether or not there was a genetic force at work and what it might be and so that
was a setting that were there seemed to be a scientific support for the notion
that there was a cause that the phenotype be it epilepsy, criminality
whatever bipolar disorder there might be an underlying gene and maybe we
can do something about it by limiting birth
so the the story now enters a legislative phase in in 1907 Indiana
became the first state in the Union to enact a compulsory sterilization law it
was aimed at prisoners males and it made the vasectomy a condition of parole the
notion is that their juror may be a good idea by the way but it made the notion
that it adopted the notion that germ plasm the sperm of the of the criminal
might transmit criminal tendencies in the space of about 20 years more than
half of our states enacted similar laws very few focused on prisoners most
focused on institutionally what we would have called them mentally retarded
individuals or mentally ill and by fits and starts during the period from 1910
to 1925 a various number of state agencies employed such programs pursuant
to date state law and in most cases when they were challenged these laws they
were upheld at the state level but it never really went to the Supreme Court
until 1927 many of you have heard or read in the newspapers about Buck v. Bell
which was the decision growing out of a Virginia statute that by vote of 72 the
Supreme Court said that it was permissible after appropriate review for
state authorities to without her consent sterilize a young retarded woman that
decision opened up the golden era if you will of
negative eugenic legislation and for a period of about 18 years till about the
end of World War II some 60,000 Americans were sterilized without their
consent now you could imagine what a report like this would how that would be
appear in the front page the New York Times today but it wasn’t as obvious as
one might have thought because these were almost all institutionalized
individuals who were sort of in the background of society but 60,000 is a
pretty a pretty large number and it was actually growing during the 30s but at
the same time and I’m trying to weave together scientific advance with social
attitudes here which is what you are all interested in at the same time during
the 30s the reason for sterilizing people changed and this is this calls on
the first of two themes they’re actually very relevant to the current election
processes going on immigration and the treatment of women let me illustrate
this and I did deep archival work on this for a book I wrote earlier in my
life and what the archival work shows that until about 1927, 1910 to 1927 by a
factor of about five or six to one the sterilizations were done on men now
there’s a couple of very simple reasons for that it’s a lot easier sterilize a
man than a woman and it was technologically challenging the cutting
of the fallopian tube is a form of sterilization was only actually well
developed about 1938 before that it was a total hysterectomy and there was a
significant death rate associated with it much easier to cut the spermatic cord
but in the 30s as the technologies improved and as the this is very
important that Cold Spring Harbor played a very positive role in this regard as the
understanding emerged that this notion of a single
gene cause of complex traits could not be supported there was a shift an
intellectual shift away from sterilizing women young women because they were at
risk for having children with severe- severe problems two
sterilizing women because of their underlying mental retardation or mental
illness they would be unfit to be parents they couldn’t take care of their
child not about directly about genetics here and/or the burden of having
children would actually be too much for them so the shift in intellectual
thinking which is really very apparent if you go into the archives and state
institutions was a shift saying we’re sterilizing these women for their own
good a dramatic shift and one that was politically at the time seemed very
acceptable again I’ve acknowledged that the numbers were small since 60,000 is a
very small number compared to the population it at all but I think that
the dramatic shift from six five six to one men to women to five six to one women to men was
a very dramatic piece of information suggesting a change in attitudes now one
of the interesting asides and this challenges both institutions like Cold
Spring Harbor and this audience is if by the 1930s we knew that a Mendelian
conception of complex traits like criminality seizure disorders whatever
it might be some cases poverty if we knew that couldn’t be true why did the
programs continue for another ten years and the most difficult problem I’ve had
in researching the history this has been why didn’t scientists in a more
organized way speak out to refute these ongoing practices there certainly must
must have been a large cohort that understood it would they were
scientifically flawed ideas and there were a few well-known scientists who did
speak out but when you think about the role that our leading scientists have
today in setting policy things like the Asilomar conference
it’s back in the 70s to worry about this escape of recombinant organisms other
other commonly held conferences to try and set policy you see no evidence of
that back in the 30s maybe the institution of science just had to
mature a little further now a couple of others the things I’d like to say to put
this in context for you has to do with placing the eugenics movement in an
international context I’ve already told you what eugenics is but let me say word
about movement how dare and on what basis would I claim that this is a
movement well I alluded to one thing already and
that is the vast number of bills proposed in state legislatures that
doesn’t happen you don’t have hundreds of bills proposed if there isn’t much at
work in the land of thinking about this for some of the research I did I forget
whether there’s 1905 or 1906 but there abouts I did a research on the index to
public periodicals all the topics and you know the Atlantic Monthly, McMillen’s
and eugenics came up as one on the top three, three years in row there are
literally hundreds of popular press articles published by so it was very
much it was in textbooks I have old biology textbooks from high school there’s
chapters on eugenics so the thinking was broad and it wasn’t just the United
States and it wasn’t just Germany at least 25 other countries besides those
two adopted this kind of legislation to a greater or lesser extent now with the
horrors of the Holocaust and Nazi Germany very rapidly the number of
institutionally based sterilizations the United States dropped by about 1939
they’re about four to five thousand state-based sterilizations a year mostly
on women the United States by 1950 there were probably 500 and then the number
petered off to almost nothing very rapidly one there were no surgeons around
to sterilize they were all in the war, two we learned about Nazi Germany and its
successes and by the way its successes were profound we all think horribly
about the death camps and things like that but after the enactment of the law
in Germany that created the so called hereditary health courts a whole court
system developed in Germany to deal with who should be sterilized 400,000 or more
court orders were issued in less than 10 years to sterilize people in Germany so
way way and for far more reasons for example deafness was a reason to
sterilize so that was the ugly excess of it and just one of many ugly accesses of
that era so that is a little bit in the limited time I have to share with you
that’s a little bit of about the background over-optimistic science being
developed a hundred years ago in a Progressive Era with the intention to do
good not to do harm and the movement of that idea into I suppose I assume
well-meaning state legislators who said this will be good for the people were
sterilizing one among other things if one were
sterilized in some of these institutions for the mentally retarded one could
leave the institution and I’ve read the letter saying well Molly can’t get
pregnant now she’s wonderful she’d make a very nice household mate and you could
say this was freeing these individuals I once was in charge of the care of a
thousand patients in one of these hospitals for many years and to take
them from the limitations of an institution allow them in a kind home
where they would do work it may sound may sound not quite right to you now but
it was a big improvement in their lives and I think we all know we have to be
careful about judging history judging the past with today’s values
but the world began to change and went in another direction so this is
part two of the talk and what I want you to think about now is to me an even more
troubling story that is not connected with Cold Spring Harbor in
anyway and that is the use of sterilization to restrict family size in
the world at large and a sub part of that is to look at and only do it for a
few minutes look at the role of sterilization as a coercive weapon
against indigenous peoples so for example you know that in 1973 China
adopted a one-child policy I think that the Chinese one-child policy which is
just loosening now after 40 years may be the largest single social experiment in
the history of humankind in that literally untold millions of
babies that were expected were not born there was emerged a very disturbing
and fairly well document trend to terminate female fetuses because the
culture was going to have one child they wanted a male fetus to the point where
now the largest single discrepancy between a gender descriptions see
between women and men is in China and it is so large that one wonders where one’s
going to find a wife and whether this will contribute to social unrest it’s
numbers depending on who you read 20 or 30 million missing girls in India it’s
the same story but it is it is not as dramatic cuz although there was a short
time when Indira Gandhi embraced a one-child family and sterilization it
still happens a lot in I can’t give you the details because of time but in the
in the literature in groups like Amnesty International investigate this in the
literature one can find clear evidence of what I would call involuntary but you
might only call in coercive efforts to sterilize large numbers of Indian women
that are going on today they have what are called sterilization camps these are
women who are living in poverty who often have a number of children and for
roughly the equivalent of 10 dollars which of course is a lot more valuable
there than it is today different regions will pay women by the thousands to
undergo sterilizations it doesn’t reach a number that will really have a
dramatic effect on anything and what’s curious about it is it’s not really
supported by any facts one can go to regions of India that are quite wealthy
and find a fertility rate of between two and two and a half just about like the
United States because the families have money they can take care of their kids
etc, etc, or you can go to the state of Bihar in the south where the
fertility rate is about five or six children and the women you could say
gladly but they are being paid and I might add the number of
vasectomies is about two percent of the number of tubal ligations which raises
some again the theme about the treatment of women probably the single most
important issue in bringing the world to a better place in my opinion there is
also in in isolated areas Brazil Peru good evidence of selective pregnancy
termination or sterilization of Native Americans as part of an overall drive to
move people off of land and it’s it’s not I wouldn’t say it’s large numbers
but that it exists today is I think troubling to all of us now before I turn
to the future because I want to have lots of time to talk with you I want to
say a word about the other theme I mentioned that was relevant to to the
presidential race and that’s immigration I think it’s fair to say that at least
for one half of the parties running for president immigration is a major issue
there was a time and we of course our nation of immigrants as you all know but
there was a time coincidental with the eugenics era in the United States
actually 1907 the very year that Indiana passed that sterilization law that I
mentioned was the apogee of immigrants into the United States and in terms of
the percentage of immigrants coming into the country
compared to the population as a whole the amount of immigration coming into
the country today is trivial yet it elicited a huge response and here Cold
Spring Harbor’s genetic record office did have a big influence not through the
institution itself but through a man named Harry Hamilton Laughlin who
actually was the director of the eugenics Record Office he in this
curious era of the tens and twenties of the 19th century he emerged as the most
vocal support and most actually active in the lobbyist Congress to change
immigration laws this led in 1922 I believe it was it might have been 21 to
a major amendment of immigration policy in the United States that basically
reset the quotas for who could enter the country and this will be no surprise to you
sharply protecting immigration from North Western Europe England, Scotland,
Spain and sharply restricting it from Russia, Poland, southern Italy and Greece
this was on top of the very first immigration laws great anybody here from
grew up in San Francisco, no? the first immigration laws of the
United States were in 1877 they were the Chinese Exclusion Acts here we’re using
the Chinese to build our railroads and wash our laundry but the first act
refused the Chinese man the right to bring wives across which was and really
was designed to send them you know circle men circling back to China and
from there we went forward but the law astoundingly when you think about it law
that was enacted federal legislation in 1922 stayed on the books for 46 years
until 1968 that was when Congress finally revised the immigration law to
have a more parity if you will man who could enter the country I guess the
reason I’m sharing that with you is one to reflect on the debate
today even if you accept the concerns of one of the candidates has suggested it’s
a trivial issue in terms of numbers compare what it was in 1907 and we got
through that so hopefully we’ll get through this right so the thinking then
to summarize the thinking is no longer about whether or not a woman is should
have a child because there’s something wrong with her genetic heritage the
thinking now is we just don’t want to have too many people that’s a very
bigger that’s a much bigger thought and once again it’s women internationally
who are bearing bearing the burden of that I I hope that China that policy
where this changes is signaling a big big message to the rest of the world but
India remains very engaged in this arguing that it is that it is not course
if it’s you know people are being recompense for undergoing this so in the
last part of the talk and this is the one where I really particularly would
like to engage you I want you to turn back to the question that I posed at the
start which was a question about what role society or an individual should
have in judging or influence the reproductive freedom or activities of
other human beings and I want to and it’s probably the most important thing I
can tell you about today because the past is the past and when I’m about to
raise our issues that are very relevant to the future of your children and
grandchildren we have a new technology emerging I think it is a certainty that
it will come to play I can’t tell you exactly when but bear with me because
this is the one technical part of my talk so I have to explain it to you
prenatal diagnosis has been available in the United States States since about 1973
as you know it began with a search in older women of whether or not woman was
carrying a child with Down syndrome so that was some 43 years ago
interestingly we have not budged an inch the number of children born each each
year with Down syndrome and it’s because of demographic shifts
in the age at which people are having children as more older women have
children they’re producing a larger cohort of
Down syndrome fetuses that offset some of the technology that may change very
soon but the background has been a growing use of prenatal diagnosis slowly
and steadily but but it’s about I think to change and even if I’m wrong on the
timing it makes for great discussion with your friends and family a Holy
Grail in prenatal diagnosis has been the ability to capture a fetal cell in the
woman’s bloodstream that that means non-invasively so we don’t have to put a
needle into the womb so it’s much safer for the fetus it turns out that on the
order of one on a million cells circulating in a woman’s blood when
she’s pregnant is a fetal cell it’s not free fetal DNA I’m talking about I’m
talking about an actual fetal cell that contains the entire genome of the fetus
so the technology I mention they’re two technologies are really three that I’m
mentioning right now one is the ability to identify and
capture that cell and take it out of the mother’s circulation that’s not
perfected yet but I know any number of labs and companies looking at this and
we can do it with a certain success rate for variety of technical reasons we
would like to have about five fetal cells to be analyzed so we don’t make
one cell alone could be mistakes right so we want to have about five I say
we’re about a year away from confidently doing that then you take the fetal cell
which contains the entire genome your 22,000 genes and you amplify it and there
are ways to do that that folks at Cold Spring Harbor probably been involved
with and know much better than I do the story of that but if you amplify it then
you can interrogate it and you can instead of saying does my baby my fetus
have Down syndrome what among a thousand different
disorders might my fetus have and you can do it in an actionable manner in the
sense that this is doable in about ten weeks of pregnancy so it’s not late
that’s the way it looks right now now we could have spent the whole hour on this
but let me as you’re thinking about what this means let me make a few points
there are some unknown thousand of antigenic disorders let’s
call people say seven thousand let’s just say five thousand the vast majority
of those are so rare that they will never attract a commercial effort if
only four to ten children a year are being born with the disorder or twenty
or thirty no drug companies gonna I know I’m in this business they’re not going
to develop the drug it just won’t compute fiscally so that leaves open
about some thousand-plus disorders which really the only technology is a
technology of avoidance with whole genome amplification you can ask about
any rare monogenic disorders you want and get an answer but that it’s not that
simple because we don’t have for a lot of these disorders enough clinical data to
be able to predict the real outcome of the fetus or the child I remember living
through this in the 80s or 90s when I was counseling women who learned that
their fetus had spina bifida term I think most of you know and I can still
remember both my own personal anguish and the anguish or agony of the women
because let’s just say I took ten women and I said to each one of them your
fetus whatever age before week 20 certainly your fetus has spina bifida
low lesion in the spine now the woman says back to me well what’s going to
happen to my fetus and my honest answer would have to be I don’t know if you
just could have minor problems walk with braces and go to Harvard your fetus
could have significant physical problems and low normal intelligence or you could
have devastating event with an infection and
wind up having a child died of meningitis so the question I’m- or the reason is I’m telling
you that story is because I had the information I even had the diagnosis I
even had the pictures but I couldn’t predict what was going to happen because
these things unfold amidst thousands of other genes in the genome and it’s the
background of the pregnancy what what environment you grew up in so the
challenge for these amazing new technologies will be able would be to
wait and measure the knowledge we’re sharing with the woman and her husband
that’s a problem in what we call computational biology you just have to
amass very large datasets and then be able to give yourself some predictive
power of course it’s still a woman’s decision a recent example of this that I
was involved with just to go on a tangent for a second was that in the 90s
I was involved in developing and preparing the so-called BRACA1 test
for breast cancer risk and the problem we had I chaired the clinical advisory
board for the company in that time the problem we had is we’d get samples from
women with a clear family history of breast cancer or ovarian cancer they
were certainly based on history they were real candidates whether or not they
had a risk and then we would study the gene some 16,000 base pairs and we would
find mutations but we didn’t have a database to say how serious that
mutation was so 15% of those cases that were sent to us we found a mutation of
unknown significance we couldn’t call it a disease mutation or not and it took
about three or four years of just looking at this database over and over
again and amassing it just beyond say oh that does predispose to ovarian cancer
or whatever might be so there’s always going to be this period where you have
you have a lot of information but you don’t have a lot of knowledge and that’s
really when I share with you on the other hand you haven’t forgotten what
I’ve said the vast majority of severe monogenic disorders in my opinion will
not this century be dealt with by curative
therapy they will be dealt with by avoidance I mean with all the talk about
the human genome project is doing great good all these other things the FDA is
approving about three to four new drugs for monogenic disorders a year I’ve just
said there are thousands of them it’s not going to change that much we may get
up to ten but and they’re so rare we’re gonna figure another way about it so you
can ask what you would advise your daughter’s say they’re in their first
pregnancy and they say mom dad my obstetrician told me about this new test
it’s just a blood test and they’ll give me this information then we’ll sit
down and work with me to help understand this what do you think I should do what
do you tell him what would you maybe somebody has an idea here who can share
with us what you would tell them I mean unfortunately we know that there will be
a lot of uncertainty for sure but is that information first of all should
we even be allowed to offer the test there’s a question or should
there be some agust body that decides when it’s ready and it has to meet
certain if you will certain criteria for informativeness thats one way to think about it
should we leave it in the free market, is that good or a bad idea I don’t know what is the overall impact on society of
embracing a test and I know not everyone will take it but embracing the test that
presupposes that you are looking to avoid the births of certain individuals
that ties it back to eugenics doesn’t it see so I’m in the closing minutes here
I’m arguing to you that the era of supposedly evil governments in it’s
certainly a case of Germany a definitely evil government using technology against
people is almost certainly over but the notion that the society in enlightened
society young couples will want to engage information to plan their own
pregnancy saying look I’m gonna have two children I want them to be healthy I
don’t want to and I know I this is what I do for a living I know so many
families I hear from a family every week for sure some new event in their life
is a life-changing so where does this kind of technology belong in our society
so that’s the question I’m worried about right now I just in closing here just a
few words about Cold Spring Harbor and the eugenics Record Office the eugenics
record office which existed here until 1939 and the archives of which are
now at the University of Minnesota I’ve been there many times to look at them
was a period in which the activities in the search for explanations for disease
was doing it the best it could in very limited context we’re in a similar now
where the information is much more sophisticated but we have the same set
of problems what do we do with this information and I’m so pleased to have
had the honor of talking with you because it’s not a decision to be made
by us the scientists or the physician it’s really a decision to be made by
enlightened individuals who are thinking about the project after all that’s the
definition of a good society so thank you for listening and I hope I’ve
titillated you a bit and I hope we have time for some questions Bruce.

13 Replies to “Eugenics: A Historical Perspective – CSHL public lecture”

  1. St John 3:16! 💗
    Teach people the King James Version of the Bible! New Testament FIRST! Teach them to fall in love with JESUS. Time is winding up!

    JESUS has said, These are My people. I love My people. Tell My people, I'm soon to come!

    All we have is time to live for JESUS!

  2. A concerned mother should say, "What's gonna happen to my child!" NOT fetus. It is very OBVIOUS that robots can become professors and teach myriads of materials! I suppose the ones who program them would receive the pay…

  3. Your talk is better than many others I have seen lately, I want to see videos about the brand new science of 2019 , let each race and each family decide what they want, and keep the race mixing doctors and scientists out of it.

  4. God brings everyone into this world. What right of is it yours or anyone else's to take a life that was god-given?

  5. The truth is that the evils of the past are coming back worse than ever ,the fact that our education system has failed to properly educate our children about them has guaranteed that the future of our nation is heading for a disaster!

  6. Is the the type of creature that directs Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory nowadays? A medical doctor who got his medical degree from a Jewish medical school (like all physicians today)? Even the President of Cold Spring is a Jew named Bruce Stillman
    . Well, I suppose this all comes as no surprise to one who has studied the Jewish invasion of the eugenics movement and the subsequent corruption of eugenics "research". What contempt these Jews deserve when we compare the institute to when it was under the operation of actual well-meaning biologists like Charles Davenport. See ContraJewishCorrespondent[.blogspot][.com] to learn about why the Jews had to erase all true eugenic and racially-aware state movements following the faked Nazi movement in Germany under Hitler's rule.

  7. We are not a nation of immigrants. Over twelve percent of the population consists of “native Americans” and the enslaved Africans. Neither of these groups immigrated.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *