In the meantime the Eugenics Society in England had gone underground. The 1945 Annual Report shows that the Society would no longer undertake direct propaganda to public or Parliament, but only to related organisations. From this moment on the Eugenics Society became a hidden element, delineating the propaganda lines of other organisations.

In 1957 Dr. C.P. Blacker, then Honorary Secretary of the Society, suggested a further retreat into the background, and adherence to the policy of crypto-Eugenics, that is, through finance and propaganda from behind the scenes.

This proposal was adopted in 1960 and the Society set out on a wide-spread programme of manipulation. Genetics and Eugenics as such - not behind the cloak of mental health - were still, in spite of their unsavoury associations in the public mind, able to make remarkable progress. And the various eugenics societies flourish today.

Some of the well-known arms of the octopus are: The Marie Stopes Memorial Foundation, a subsidiary subsidised bit the Eugenics Society; the Family Planning Association and the International Planned Parenthood Foundation, which are heavily financed by the Eugenics Society; the Voluntary Sterilisation Association was directed from the same address as the Eugenics Society; the Galton Foundation, run by the Eugenics Society; and others.

Dr. C.P. Blacker, now chairman of the Eugenics Society discovered, while a member of a committee of investigation on the atrocities committed by Nazi doctors, that although none of the experiments produced scientific conclusions and although the methods used by the Nazis were unfortunate, euthanasia of the insane was acceptable.

In an address to the Eugenics Society in 1951 he outlined the three following areas in relation to Germany:

  1. Sterilisation under the 1934 edict of law.
  2. Euthanasia of the chronically mentally ill and of those similarly handicapped.
  3. Experiments using live people for the purpose of developing an economical method of mass sterilisation.
He acknowledged that he was quite satisfied with the area of legal sterilisation, the law governing which he thought was correct, except for sterilisation based on racial grounds - for Blacker naturally makes no attempt to pass moral judgement.

On the subject of euthanasia of the mentally ill he explains:

"...these people were mercifully killed. The idea of merciful killing is not unknown in this country; in fact a society on a voluntary basis... exists to promote it."
Nevertheless, he condemns experiments on living people for three specific reasons:

"a) It was not necessary to use human beings. Animal experiments would have met the purpose Just as well.
b) No results of the slightest scientific interest are recorded; nor in my opinion were any likely to have resulted even if more time had been available.
c) The experiments failed in their primary purpose of providing a cheap method of mass sterilisation or castration..."
If we examine this condemnation more closely, it is easily recognised that had it been the case that an economical means of mass sterilisation had been discovered, the experiments could only have been condemned by reason of the first-named point. Apart from that, these three viewpoints implied that the development of a low-cost method of mass sterilisation would represent a worthwhile scientific product. Where and under what conditions could such a wonderful achievement be put to use? As if wishing to pursue his unspoken, logical train of thought, he recommends that the continuation of experimentation with one of the sterilisation-drugs which were being used by the Nazi doctors would be perfectly in order.

The profound and immeasurable silence of the medical profession in regard to the German doctors does not find its foundation on a lack of knowledge about what happened.

Today, sterilisations as well as euthanasia are encouraged for eugenic reasons by medical people, mainly psychiatrists, but of course now dressed in different garb. Just as the master builders of T4 went underground after the war and later emerged as members of the WFMH, so also did their ideals and their interests.

Eugenics has made a comeback as a so-called experimental field whose products are test-tube babies, artificial insemination, and the like. Articles in the popular press, about artificial insemination and genetic engineering in the future, are very common today. Sterilisation has been resuscitated as part of the Planned Parenthood Programme. Whereas formerly one heard the cry, "If we don't do something soon we'll be inundated by people", and Malthus proclaimed, "If we don t control birth we'll run out of supplies of food", nowadays the call goes out, "If we don't start using birth control, we won t have anywhere to stand". The melody is the same, only the words have changed.

Euthanasia has surfaced again as a charitable organisation dispensing "Death with Dignity", a new euphemism, with the aim of giving a person who is in a state of health which precludes any chance of being cured the opportunity of letting himself be killed, but of course only when he is complete agreement with the measure. In the case of mental unbalance, a relative can give consent. Once again the first signs of forced euthanasia are becoming visible, aimed at the mentally ill.

Should anyone be interested in getting a picture of the current situation, he should have a look around his home country, and at neighbouring ones, for he will surely find something along the lines of:

  1. A (national) association for Mental Health
  2. A Eugenics society or group
  3. Some type of Abortion Reform League
  4. An association for Voluntary Sterilisation
  5. An association for Voluntary Euthanasia
If the members and committees of these associations are then cross-checked, he will see that:

  1. Many names cross-check
  2. A large percentage of the members of branches 3, 4, and 5 above stem from sections 1 and 2.
  3. They constantly carry on mutual complementary propaganda.
Take Great Britain as a concrete example. The directorate of the Abortion Law Reform Association is comprised of:

Prof. Glanville Williams NAMH supporter and member of the Eugenics Society.
Sir Julian Huxley NAMH supporter, an officer of the Eugenics Society and of the Euthanasia Society.
Baroness Stocks member of the NAMH Galton Lecturer.
Dr Eliot Slater member of the Eugenics Society - and many others.
The Executive Committee of the Euthanasia Society:

Lord Adrian member of the NAMH and of the Eugenics Society.
Prof. Glanville Williams member of the NAMH and of the Eugenics Society.
Sir Julian Huxley member of the NAMH and of the Eugenics Society.
On the executive committee of the Birth Control Campaign figure among others:

Prof. Eliot Slater member of the Eugenics Society.
Baroness Stocks member of the NAMH and of the Eugenics Society.
Prof. Glanville Williams member of the Eugenics Society and of the NAMH.
Why this should be, the author doesn't know, but it is the medical men of such groups who provide the "scientific" rationale and methodology to justify and achieve the desired ends. In the U.S.A. in 1968 a voluntary euthanasia bill was introduced in Florida and an eminent surgeon and member of the American Medical Association - AMA - argued the case for it:

A bill to be entitled
An act relating to the right to die with dignity; providing an effective date.
Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:

Section 1. All natural persons are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among them the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to be permitted to die with dignity, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire possess and protect property. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race religion or national origin.
Section 2. Any person with the same formalities as required by law for the execution of a last will and testament, may execute a document directing that he shall have the right to death with dignity, and that his life shall not be prolonged beyond the point of a meaningful existence.
Section 3. in the event any person is unable to make such a decision because of mental or physical incapacity, a spouse or person or persons of first degree kinship shall be allowed to make such a decision, provided written consent is obtained from:

  1. The spouse or person of first degree kinship or
  2. in the event of two (2) persons of first degree kinship both such persons or
  3. in the event of three (3) or more persons of first degree kinship the majority of those persons.
Section 4. If any person is disabled and there is no kinship as provided in section 3, death with dignity shall be granted any person if in the opinion of three (3) physicians the prolongation of life is meaningless.
Section 5. Any document executed hereunder must be recorded with the clerk of the circuit court in order to be effective.
Section 6. This act shall take effect upon becoming law.
Fortunately this bill was not passed, and so far the AMA has been silent on the whole issue, but judging by the silence with which the German atrocities were met I can safety predict that the AMA will soon be unofficially espousing the cause of voluntary euthanasia.

In 1935 the editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association observed that the average doctor frequently faced the problem (of euthanasia) when it was a matter between him and his patient and he could decide in his own way without any interference.

The principles and practices are exactly the same as those that the Nazi psychiatrists used. One British expert recently arguing the case for euthanasia even went so tar as to say that certain defectives are a burden to themselves and others (the State perhaps) and therefore should be put out of their misery.

South Africa

With the full support of the South African Council for Mental Health and the Association of Neurologists and Psychiatrists, South Africa, which is heavily inclined in this direction anyway, will have sterilisation laws introduced before long. At this time heavy propaganda for sterilisation is being promoted there as a continuation of S. Africa's early history. In 1930 H.B. Fantham, Professor of Zoology at Witwatersrand, wrote in Child Welfare Magazine:

"...there must be limitations of multiplication of those definitely inferior or below average in inborn good qualities. In South Africa there must be limitations of the `poor white' element."
In 1934 Dr. P.W. Laidler, Medical Officer for Health of East London, wrote an article for the "S.A. Tydskrif vir Geneeskundiges" called for a South African sterilisation law "on the lines of Germany". Some interesting quotes from his article:

"It is the white man's deficients who drag him down."
"The prevention of family is essential where stock is poor."
"A lessening of the increase of the unfit would lighten the tax payer's burden."
"We are overburdened with poor of normal minds and defectives. Possibly we are overburdened with better class minds."
"Man continues to load himself with a burden of deficients."
In October 1971 as this book was being written, Dr. Troskie an Executive member of the South African Medical and Dental Council called for the merciless elimination of weak genetic elements. He proposed the formation of a Genetic Committee composed of a judge and medical, sociological and religious experts to:

"prevent those parents from leaving a burden on society. The committee will make the decision for them."
This is apparently not a new idea in South Africa, as several groups are involved in a debate over whether there should be compulsory or voluntary sterilisation, and now a group of sociologists intend to approach the Prime Minister about the problem.

The parallel between Nazi Germany and modern South Africa is very close.


The Rockefeller institute that backs the AMA has produced devastating results at home and overseas. It was Rockefeller who financed the foundation of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, and gave Professor Rüdin one whole floor of the building for his genetic research in the 20's. The German Mental Hygiene Movement was heavily subsidised by Rockefeller and thereby put into a healthy position to continue its aims and objectives to the bitter end. Further it was Dr. Alexis Carrel of the Rockefeller institute and a Nobel Prize Winner who so loudly applauded the actions of the Germans and blatantly advocated the mass murder of mental patients and prisoners.

Currently in the U.S. the psychiatric profession is making extensive use of prisoners as experimental material for medical experiments with AMA approval. The Rockefeller family continues to subsidise the Medical-Psychiatric professors and one of the Rockefellers is on the Board of the American National Association for Mental Health. In 1970 in Hawaii, a bill was introduced the exact wording of which was:

A Bill for an Act Relating to Population Control.

Section 1:
The legislation finds

  1. that population growth is the most serious and most challenging problem for mankind today;
  2. that the time necessary for the population of the world to double is now about thirty-five years;
  3. that the "death rate solution" by war famine or pestilence is an unacceptable destructive solution to the problem of birth control;
  4. that population control is an acceptable humanitarian solution to the problem of population growth. The purpose of this Act is to control the population size of this State by a program of birth regulation.
Section 2:
Every physician attending a woman resident of this State at the time she is giving birth in the State shall, it the woman has two or more living children, perform such medical technique or operation as will render the woman sterile.

Section 3:
This Act shall take effect on July 1, 1971.

Even amongst our neighbours trends in this direction can be recognised. In Switzerland it was Dr. André Repond who had applauded Germany's efforts, and had been so proud of his own work in ensuring that only eugenically sound marriages took place in one of the Swiss cantons.

The question of euthanasia and sterilisation are not problems of yesterday to be discussed at club-meetings or amongst intellectuals as philosophic or historic subjects. The psychiatrists as strong as ever, have begun to agitate more and more loudly for the right to sterilise and kill.

In July 1972 Dr. T.L. Pilkington in "The Practitioner" called for yet further murders to be committed.

"...there seem to be clear indications that technologically developed nations will be rapidly obliged to review the complexity of the life that they create, embark on a modern eugenic programme designed to steepen the tail of the graph of the normal I.Q. distribution below 100 or consider some form of legalised euthanasia. It is possible, of course, that the final `solution' will combine all these with increasing methods of specific prevention.

The Death March has again begun.

Return to Introduction
Return to Table of Contents