HARVARD & THE HOLOCAUST

LJAd.,

The logic is this:

Itzkoff and the people he was working for directly

A.) Spent about $300k (1930s money) on an organization that disseminated Nazi propaganda in the US and around the world at the behest of Dr. Ruttke and Dr. Frick, two men that were hung in Nuremberg.

B.) Used their scientific reputations to shield the Nazis from criticism by publishing in medical journals, which they printed and controlled, namely Mankind Quarterly and Eugenic News to both whitewash and give a veil of scientific legitimacy to brutal Nazi policies.

C.) Materially supported German eugenics between WWI and WWII, at a time when it was in disarray and would have vanished without outside help due to the conditions left after WWI.

D.) Used actual Nazi films to try to indoctrinate high-school and college students into Nazi eugenic policies.

E.) Provided Ernst Rudin, Erwin Fischer, Alfred Ploetz, Otto von Verschuer, and Karl Brandt copies of tested and matured pieces of US legislation that took decades to mature in the US courts as a model for the Nuremberg racial laws. These were the authors of the racial laws and the people that later administered the death camps. They gave Hitler's government a ready-made and cookie cutter eugenic template that had taken other countries decades so he could implement it immidiatly and without delay. Historians marvel at the speed at which the regime wrote and implemented laws. It pretty much makes sense how easy it was since it all the work was done for them.

F.) Had the US COngressman that headed the House Committee on Immigration on their payroll and as a member of the American Eugenics Society at the time when the 1924 Immigration Restriction Act was passed. This was the law that was used to keep Jewish victims from reaching US shores. Rep Albert Johnson made sure Draper's boy, Laughlin, stayed as THE "expert eugenicists" for the Congress for decades so US law would be based on his eugenic notions.

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY.....none of this can be said to have been a disparate movement. ALL OF THEM BELONGED TO the organization named the INTERNATIONAL FEDEDERATION OF EUGENIC ORGANIZATIONS...... all the Americans, all the British, all the Scandinavians, and all of the Germans that later were put in charge of racial laws and the administration of eugenic policy.

There is a copy of the letterhead of the organization in the document I posted. You will see Davenport, Darwin, Rudin, and I think Ploetz as the leadership for that particular year. Later letterheads will show Whitney, Verschuer, Darwin, and Osborn.

In other words, they acted in concert and aided and abetted eachother as ONE MOVEMENT with SHARED GOALS.

Again, NONE OF THIS IS MY OPINION. It is what THEY actually documented for decades and the very large trail of documentation is still in about 5 archives in the United States alone, not to mention the other ones around the world.

I have held in my hands the letters back and forth between the Americans, Germans, and Germans. These were true believers that.....like their Nazi counterparts.....documented their every move and aspiration.

 

I am sure that the Masons and the Illuminatti are not far behind in this conversation

 

I forgot to say thank you. Thank you for hanging your hat on Itzkoff, Draper, and the Pioneer Fund. You made my argument for me.

If this was a court of law, the HARD EVIDENCE is what proves one side or the other. The zealots you defend documented their every step and aspiration.

You can bitch and moan all you want. Your guys not only saved all of the hard copies, they made sure to copy each other so their colleagues throughout the United States, Britain, and Scandinavia would all be up to speed.

Itzkoff and the remaining leadership of the Pioneer Fund were hoping that the tens of thousands of documents they left behind would not surface. They did and all people like me have to do is organize them and put the picture back together like a puzzle. Its all there. No need for conspiracy theories when the subject of your research writes down everything they do and why they do it.

 

I see : you are accusing the American eugenists of having given material support to the German eugenists between 1919 and 1933.

Besides,your claim that the German eugenics were in disarray after WWI is not correct : they were very active during Weimar ..

And,again,Iztkoff is a Jew,thus you can't accuse him of collaboration with the Nazis.

 

No, they materially supported German eugenics between 1919 and 1939, up until the outbreak of war. After 1939 they continued their propaganda support without direct contact.

Yes, American science and medicine made a concerted effort to rescue German science and medicine between WWI and WWII. German eugenics was saved along with the greater effort for the rest of science. This is a documented series of events. This is also where institutions like Rockefeller and Carnegie came into play.

Iztkoff was Jewish. So were many other collaborators. A good example is George Soros, which actually saved his own skin by denying his Jewish heritage and working in the Nazi squad responsible for looting the homes and bank accounts of German Jews.

Are you really that simplistic to think that there were no Americans or Jews that took advantage of the situation? Do you really see life like such a fairy tale cleanly divided between good and evil, black and white?

 

Other points (source = Weimar eugenics:The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Antropology,human Heredity and Eugenics in Social Context )

1) This institute was created in 1927 : during Weimar

2) There was a rise of interests in eugenics and racial biology after WWI

3)The institute was deeply embedded in the Weimar social structure .

 

I see that Soros is arriving,soon will Webster Tarpley and Henry Makow .

 

Also, to clarify..... I am not "accusing" anybody of doing anything. I am not telling you that I believe something because I saw it in some obscure book. I am telling you what the documents of 8 to 12 of the leading figures of the eugenics movement state in no uncertain terms, as well as what the ledgers of their institution's accounting prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. The evidence is there for anyone to see in archives open to the public.

If you want to believe that the world ends at the tip of your nose, that's your problem. I will base myself on the existing evidence.

 

I *think* everybody understands your point, but the mistake is in taking something rather obscure and inflating it into a direct connection to the holocaust. I tossed out a reference to Margaret Sanger because that is a name that many people know - she is a heroine of the women's movement and the founder of what is known today as planned parenthood. Yet, when you read her writings of the period it's rather obvious that her goal was to limit the birth of "inferior races" in favor of those of European extraction. Those who admire her are somehow blind to all that.
Yet, even people like Sanger or your Harvard eugenics group did not favor genocide. They were just garden variety American racists of the period, not much different than many Germans in the 1930's. The German racial laws of the 30's were awful enough in themselves, but not much different than Jim Crow laws in the south or the colonial laws of other European nations. They were a far cry from loading people into cattle cars and shipping them to a death camp.

The vast majority of people today eschew racism in all its forms, but even when we see it we can make the distinction between that guy who dislikes (insert ethnic group here) from somebody who is psychotic enough to advocate murdering an entire people.

 

I think the biggest issue is that the Nazis used the Eugenics model to create a pure race, whereas others, used it as a means to protect the population; not improve it.

 

And, the 1924 Immigration Act was NOT used to prevent the future victims of the Holocaust to enter the US/had not as result that they could not enter the US .It was the opposite .

 

A.E.Samaan: you need to chill a bit. It's important that all your facts are correct when making statements; i.e. The wansee conference as mentioned by others. That does nothing to reduce the fact of the morally corrupt intelligentsia of the 20s & 30s with their sick ideas of racial eugenics.

But basically, when you are making these strong points, you need to be careful with facts perifial to your point of "research", or you open yourself to various accusations.

The ideas of eugenics were widely accepted in the entire Western hemisphere, during the interbellum. It is known.

 

Actually, Margaret Sanger (who I've at least read something about) was a virulent racist of the worst sort. She was advocating compulsory sterilization of poor blacks for instance. She wanted government to issue permits for children based on race, education, salary and so on. Anyone pregnant without a permit would be forcibly aborted. Anyone not meeting her criteria for having children (and one of those factors was race) would be forcibly sterilized.

The American eugenics crowd were a pretty nasty bunch of people. I only differ with the OP in his supposition that it all flows from here. Obviously, it didn't. The same arguments were going on in all western nations.

 

Indeed KB. These ideas were extremely prolific and widely accepted. There were many voices in many countries advocating these sinister efforts.

 

Be careful when you pick and choose context KB.
Further down in that same article you will see the picture of W.E.B. DuBuois....definitely non aryan

 

No, Sanger wasn't advocating euthanasia or death camps and I didn't suggest she was. I'm only pointing out that her brand of racial cleansing was part and parcel with Nazi theory. After all, they didn't start out with death camps either. They first went with "segregation" (labor camps) and sterilization. It was only after Wannsee that they decided to go to the final solution.

And she didn't (as far as I can tell) have a problem with Jews. In fact, she was married to a Jewish Communist early in life. Her hatred was directed at non-whites and the poor of all races, which she considered unfit to bear children.

 

But her ideals weren't focused towards one ethnic group. She was quite the anti-racist.....read the article I linked in my above post. Her big goal was to prevent unwanted and unhealthy pregnancy; giving women a choice and options for contraception and sexual independence.

All women....not just whites