IDEAL ARYAN INFANT: Hessy Levinsons Taft’s photograph was selected by the Nazi party for the front cover of their Sonne Ins Haus publication, but Joseph Goebbels’ propaganda machine never discovered she was Jewish, 1935. Image source.

Will the Modern Genetics Movement Preserve Life or Threaten Life?

by John P. Thomas
Health Impact News

This is part II of a series on the relationship between the eugenics movement and modern genetics. It examines whether true health and true happiness lie in the human genome. Are we really bound to the set of genes that we received from our parents? Or can we overcome what we were given? What are the factors that activate or deactivate certain genes? How can we control the expression of our genetic make-up to promote our health and the health of our children? Can we trust everything we hear about the benefits of genetic research?

Is there a dark side to genetics? Is there reason to suspect hidden motivations of certain groups who want us to be convinced that our genes, and only our genes, control every aspect of our health and well-being? Is it wise to believe that we have no other options than to suffer while scientists look for genetic cures for all that ails us?

The previous article reviewed the history of the eugenics movement and examined how it was given a facelift and transformed into what we now think of as the modern science of genetics. It discussed the eugenics program of Adolf Hitler that terminated the lives of eleven million men, women and children.

Hitler was strongly influenced by Darwin’s theory of evolution and by Americans who were promoting eugenics. He closely followed the teachings of university professors in the United States who were teaching eugenics and using the principles of Darwin’s theory of evolution to form a “superior” race of people in America. The previous article questioned whether there remains a link between the eugenics movement of the past and modern genetic science. Do they still share common goals?

Adolf Hitler Addressing the Reichstag - speech against American President Roosevelt

Adolf Hitler Addressing the Reichstag, Dec 11, 1941 – Speech against American President Roosevelt. Image source.

The superior race that American eugenicists and Adolf Hitler envisioned was intended to be free of disability, poverty, and chronic illness. It was to be a “beautiful” race of people (as they saw it) that consisted of men and women with blond hair and blue eyes. They would be a select class of people who were physically perfect, physically fit, intellectually superior, and financially prosperous.

Modern eugenics does not seek to create a superior race, but it does have the potential for creating a superior class of people who will be distinguished by the absence of certain diseases, which they will call “health.” They will possess a certain set of traits that someone among them has determined to be “best” for humanity.

Both movements sought, and are seeking, to achieve high and lofty goals supposedly for our benefit. They promise to provide rapid restoration for all that ails us. They seek to improve the defects that exist in humankind and create a future in which disease, illness, and poverty will only exist in the memories of older generations, because genetic defects will have been corrected or eliminated. [1]

The previous article noted that the theory of Darwinian evolution and its implementation through eugenics disregards individual and personal choices concerning human reproduction, and it devalues human life itself. Darwinism and eugenics replace the love-based commitment between family members with allegiance to the state. They replace the worship of God with the worship of eugenic principles and evolutionary theory. They turn the hearts of the people away from valuing and protecting human life, and desensitize society to death. They teach people to accept the fact that the lives of some people must be sacrificed for the greater good of the “superior” ones who remain.

At the heart of the eugenics movement was a deep seated belief in the superiority of the white race, and the need for eliminating other races that they determined to be inferior. It called for the cleansing of the white race as well to eliminate all people and families who showed evidence of having defective genetic material (germplasm).

Read Part 1:

Dr. Josef Mengele, Rudolf Höss, Josef Kramer

Left to right: Dr. Josef Mengele, Rudolf Höss, Josef Kramer, and an unidentified officer. Photo from United States Holocaust Memorial Museum #34755. See: Eugenics in the United States Today: Are We on the Same Path Nazi Germany Followed?

Additional Similarities between Eugenics and Modern Genetics

I am struck by certain similarities between the old eugenics movement and the “science” of modern genetics as it is now known. Let’s take a look at a few additional similarities that were not discussed in the previous article.

Both Eugenics and Genetics Claim to be “Scientific”

Eugenicists were convinced that their observations were based on rigorously applied scientific methods. They believe that the human traits they observed were all directly tied to the human germplasm.

They assumed that the environment where people lived, the food people ate, the lifestyle they chose, the educational opportunities that were provided, etc., had very little to do with the quality of the human life that would result. The balance between “nature versus nurture” was heavily weighted toward “nature.”

This means that they believed that a nurturing environment could not overcome the power of one’s germplasm (genetic material), and thus, people were destined to have the same negative traits as their parents. Nature would always rule over nurture. It didn’t matter how well people were treated by other people in society or whether they were given opportunities to change, they would always remain defective.

3D person among translucent human DNA helix shapes

If we look at the general marketing of modern genetics, we see the same claims. We are told that genetics is a science, just as the eugenicists once said. We are also told that our genes set the stage for everything in our lives, and we must live with the defects we received at conception, which control our illnesses.

It is true that genetics uses lots of scientific jargon, and uses advanced chemistry and highly sophisticated scientific equipment to study and manipulate genetic material. Geneticists, like most other professionals with PhD level training, could easily dominate and control most any conversation having to do with their field of expertise when speaking to non-scientists. However, just because they use scientific techniques and use a technical language filled with scientific jargon, does not mean that everything they say and all of the principles they use are accurate, logical, or true.

A hundred years ago, eugenicists were equally able to dominate conversations, and they were fundamentally wrong on many points regarding the inheritability of traits that did not involve the germplasm. For example, their claim that black persons in America lived as an underclass in poverty was caused by their deficient germplasm was nothing but racist ideology squeezed into the box of “scientific” jargon.


The lynching of Laura Nelson in Okemah, Oklahoma, on May 25, 1911. District Judge Caruthers convened a grand jury in June 1911 to investigate the lynching of the Laura Nelson and her son. In his instructions to the jury, he said, “The people of the state have said by recently adopted constitutional provision that the race to which the unfortunate victims belonged should in large measure be divorced from participation in our political contests, because of their known racial inferiority and their dependent credulity, which very characteristic made them the mere tool of the designing and cunning. It is well known that I heartily concur in this constitutional provision of the people’s will. The more then does the duty devolve upon us of a superior race and of greater intelligence to protect this weaker race from unjustifiable and lawless attacks.” Image Source.

During the years when the eugenics movement was having a powerful political influence in America, 1900-1945, there were some scientists who were seriously looking to understand inheritance and the function of germplasm. However, the field of eugenic studies was dominated by those who were pushing a racist agenda dedicated to the creation of a superior race. I also imagine that today, there are genetic scientists who are working at the level of pure scientific research to understand the many mysteries of genetic activity in human DNA. However, others, perhaps the majority, have become captive to the special interests of corporations, and are following an agenda dedicated to controlling human genetic material for the sake of creating products, making extremely high cost drugs, and managing human behavior.

Pharmaceutical Companies and Genetic Research

Life scientist researching in laboratory. Life sciences study living organisms on the level of microorganisms, viruses, human, animal and plant cells, genes, DNA...

Most proponents of corporation-based modern genetics continue to cling to a belief that the environment plays a very small role in human development. In their minds, the “nature versus nurture” argument continues to be heavily weighted toward the unchangeable contribution of nature. Genetics seems to convey the idea that there is a gene for everything; the totality of who we are and who we will become is predetermined by our personal configuration of genes. They don’t always say this explicitly; but it is the thrust of their message. [2]

The pharmaceutical industry sees genetics as the cash cow that will deliver extraordinarily high profits that will provide for their future prosperity. They are speaking about gene-based therapies that will be individually made to match the genetic needs of each patient. They speak of correcting and replacing genetic abnormalities to restore health and to perhaps even strengthen the human genetic make-up. They are developing genetic science for the sake of making a profit. [3]

For those of us on the outside of the pharmaceutical industry and on the outside of genetic research, we must wonder if their intention is to somehow control the expression of life itself and to give the “highest quality” of human perfection to those who have the greatest ability to pay for it.

Eugenics and Genetics Sit Side by Side

If every illness is ultimately genetic as pharmaceutical companies and other corporations are telling us, then we have no hope for sustaining health unless we can afford to purchase it. We have no hope for solving social problems unless someone fixes the genes that cause our human dysfunction. On this common ground, modern genetic science and its predecessor eugenics sit comfortably side by side. The former proponents of eugenics and the modern proponents of genetics see a scientific world in which the control and manipulation of genes is the answer to every problem.

The natural progression of genetic science is intended to lead directly to the perfection of humanity. Eugenicists tried to perfect humanity through sterilization, intentional breeding, and execution of “deficient” human beings. Modern genetics will attempt to create the super human by direct manipulation of genetic material. [4]

One thing is for sure, genetic technology and genetic manipulation are expensive endeavors. Who will be the recipients of the fruit of modern genetic research? Will it be the average person, or will it be those who have the ability to pay for genetic improvements for themselves and their offspring?

Who Will Define the “Perfect Combination” of Genes?

Illustration about the use of technology to treat infertility

The plan to manipulate the human genome to “improve” human DNA and therefore human functioning raises many questions. In the effort to create a perfect person without defects, how do we know what is perfect? Who will decide? Who will produce the first generation of perfect humans? What will be their position in society? What will happen to the less genetically perfect people? How will we keep the imperfect people from weakening the more “perfect human bloodlines” that modern genetic science will try to develop?

Will modern genetics lead to programs of sterilization as in past generations where “inferior” people were prevented from mating with genetically “superior” people? Will we end up heading toward the creation of a new master race similar to the one that Adolf Hitler and the other eugenicists of his era envisioned? Is modern genetics going to become another form of human breeding for those who have the resources to “order” children who meet the designer specifications of parents and social planners?

The Genetic Myth: Not Everything is in the Genes

In 2003 scientists announced the completion of human genome mapping. They then went to work to find the specific genes that cause certain illnesses and traits, so that gene-based therapies could be created. They are heading down the same road that previous generations of eugenicists followed – human perfection through genetic modification.

The road they are traveling is actually a dead end. We now know that health is not just a matter of the presence or absence of certain genes, but whether the genes are able to express their normal function in the human body.

We now know that there are many factors that influence the functioning of our genes. Diet, exercise, exposure to toxic chemicals, age, lifestyle, and even exposure to sunshine have a direct influence on whether our genetic make-up will function properly. The effect of external factors on genetic functioning is called Epigenetics.

Epigenetics is a More Accurate Form of Scientific Research


Epigenetic mechanisms. Image source.

In the past, most genetic researchers and eugenicists focused on the quality of the germplasm or genes, and largely disregarded the influence of environmental factors. They saw the unfolding of human traits and destiny as a matter of nature and scoffed at the idea that defective people could be transformed through living in a nurturing environment.

They believed that people were hopelessly stuck with the genetic composition that nature provided, and would never be able to advance beyond their inherited genetic composition.

Today we know that environmental factors have powerful effects on every aspect of human life. Health and illness are controlled by factors that activate or deactivate certain genes. New research is uncovering the role of epigenetics in a variety of human disorders and fatal diseases. [5]

Dr. Joseph Mercola has discussed epigenetics in several articles. Dr. Mercola stated:

The Human Genome Project, which was completed in 2003, discovered that we have nowhere near enough genes to account for all the biological functions in the human body, and the reason for this is because genes do not operate as previously predicted. In a nutshell, having a “cancer program” in your DNA does not automatically mean you’re destined to get cancer. … Simply having the genetic information does not mean it will be expressed.

As it turns out, [Dr. Mercola explained further], any given gene can create and encode tens of thousands of different proteins, and it is these proteins that dictate cell function. What’s most important here is that the types of proteins encoded is dependent on the environment in which the cell finds itself.

In fact, the epigenetic influences appear to be most powerful. These are the factors that cause your genes to actually be expressed and produce the proteins they encode for. A toxic environment will cause a gene to produce different proteins than a non-toxic environment for example.

That said, [Dr. Mercola added] according to more recent research, the picture is likely even more complex. Researchers have now discovered that while each person has one major genome, on the cellular level you can have multiple different genomes, depending on the tissue. [6]

We also have learned that epigenetic changes can be passed on to our children. This means that children are not born as a completely clean genetic slate. The environmental exposure and lifestyle of parents produce changes in gene expression and this can also be passed on to our children for one or more generations. So, it is not just genes that are passed on to children, but the fact that some genes will be active and others will be inactive.

This also means that all the unhealthy things that we have done to ourselves will be reflected in the next generation.

Our consumption of the Standard American Diet, our lack of exercise, our history of emotional traumas, our drug and alcohol use, our use of vaccines, our exposure to chemical toxins, our use of pharmaceutical drugs, our use of perfume and scented laundry products, our false beliefs, our negative thoughts, our impure intentions, the absence or presence of a relationship with God, etc. will all have an effect on the expression (functioning) of our genes. These effects can then be passed on to our descendants. Our genes will not have changed, however their activity will have been dramatically altered by our experiences and our lifestyle.

Genetic Expression is not Permanent: Possible to Reactivate Genes

The good news is that genetic expression is not permanent. It is possible to reactivate genes that have been suppressed by the poor choices and stressful lives we have lived. We are not hopelessly stuck in a prison of our own genetic material. We can have hope, and we can make changes that can dramatically improve our health, our happiness, and yes, even our prosperity. The choices that we make in how we nurture ourselves and our children can correct faulty genetic expression and enable our genes to function as they were intended.

Environmental factors have powerful effects over our genes, and we don’t have to wait until genetic science learns how to “fix” our genes. [7]

Identical Twins Reveal the Truth about Genetic Expression

Happy twin sisters with different hairstyle smiling on wood backyard fence

Our genetic expression changes during our lifetime based on the totality of our choices and all that happens to us. This is clearly shown in identical twins.

When two babies are born with the exact same DNA, the differences between them are usually not detectable at birth unless one of the babies has been harmed in some way during the time in the womb. However, during the course of their lives, the identical twins will have different life experiences and be exposed to different environmental influences and toxins.

As life progresses for them, they actually become two different people. Their genes still remain identical. However, the expression of their genes can be very different. This is why if one identical twin develops cancer, then it does not necessarily mean that the other twin will develop the same disease. This also explains why one identical twin might become obese while the other remains slender. [8, 9, 10]

In another article about epigenetics, Dr. Mercola described the future of health restoration. He stated:

So the good news is that you are in control of your genes … You can alter them on a regular basis, depending on the foods you eat, the air you breathe, and the thoughts you think. It’s your environment and lifestyle that dictates your tendency to express disease, and this new realization is set to make major waves in the future of disease prevention — including one day educating people on how to fight disease at the epigenetic level. When a disease occurs, the solution, according to epigenetic therapy, is simply to “remind” your affected cells (change its environmental instructions) of its healthy function, so they can go back to being normal cells instead of diseased cells. [11]

Epigenetics Ignored – Genetic Determinism Agenda Pursued Instead

Even though some genetic researchers are delving deeply into epigenetics, this is not the case for everyone in their field. Genetic research sponsored by corporations tends to continue to focus on adding or removing genetic material, creating synthetic genetic material, and creating various tests and therapies that can be sold in the medical marketplace. Federal funding follows the desires of corporations and their vision of the future. Together, corporations and federal agencies are working to prevent us from noticing the fact that the dominant view of genetic determinism is a myth. They are dedicated to pursuing their genetics agenda in the same way that eugenicists were dedicated to pursuing their agenda. They both claimed that science was fully behind their ideas and the world needed to wake up to the great social need to improve the genetic composition of all humankind.

What if the functioning of certain suppressed genes could be reactivated by daily sun exposure or the consumption of raw garlic? Would corporations want to do this type of epigenetic research? Of course not! They would rather pursue strategies of genetic alteration, which would costs millions of dollars and could be sold for billions of dollars, instead of investing in inexpensive and unpatentable solutions such as using sunshine or garlic to influence genetic expression. If they do work with epigenetics, then they will do it with the intention of developing high priced drugs, which people will need to take for the rest of their lives.

In a 2013 article, “Science and Social Control: Political Paralysis and the Genetics Agenda,” written by Jonathan Latham, PhD, he begins to unravel the genetics agenda. He stated:

Precise figures are not available, but over the last fifteen years close to half the budget of the NIH [U.S. National Institutes of Health] has gone to genetic analysis of human populations. That is likely in excess of $100 billion dollars in the US alone. [12]

Why is the US government funding so much genetic research and essentially ignoring the epigenetic factors that actually control genetic activity?

The answer lies in the special interest groups who all want us to believe the myth that our genes are the master cause of illness and suffering, and that only the great wisdom that comes from modern genetics can save us. They want us to believe that our only hope lies in genetics. We are told to ignore other causes of illness and to just do whatever physicians tell us to do until the day when genetic science can perfect our genes and cure us.


The Wizard of Oz publicity photo. Image source.

The situation with corporation based genetics is a lot like the 1939 film, The Wizard of Oz. The film is an adventure of a young homesick girl named Dorothy, her little dog, a scarecrow without a brain, a man made of tin without a heart, and a lion who lacks courage. They all have defects and needs that they can’t seem to solve by themselves. They are told that their hope is in the great Wizard of Oz who lives in the Emerald City.

They meet the wizard who first appears as a terrifying mass of fire, steam, and smoke who intimidates them by his obnoxious bellowing commands. He sends them on a life threatening journey to get the broomstick of the wicked witch before he would grant their wishes for restoration. This tests their character and worthiness.

When they return to the wizard with the broomstick, the terrible Wizard decides not to grant their wishes. While they all tremble before the great Oz wondering what to do next, Dorothy’s little dog jumps out of her arms and begins to tug at a nearby curtain. Suddenly the image of a man is revealed from behind the curtain. He is pulling various levers that make the fire and smoke belch forth in the grand meeting hall. He is speaking into a microphone and his words are being amplified throughout the meeting hall as if it was the voice of the great and terrible Oz speaking from the platform of fire and steam.

When the man is first exposed, he shouts into the microphone “Don’t look behind that curtain.” Later he commands Dorothy and her companions to “ignore that man behind the curtain.” He vainly tries to get Dorothy and her friends to turn away from the truth that lies behind the curtain and to keep watching the meaningless fire and smoke that is in front of them.

Finally Dorothy and her friends all wake up to what is really happening, and confront the man behind the curtain. The man is not a wizard at all, but just a man. He confesses the truth of his deception and does what he can to help each of them with simple human gestures of sympathy.

You can see images from the film in the video clip below. The clip ends with a brief image of the terrible Wizard of Oz.

Special Interest Groups Want Us to Tremble in Fear about Our Genetics

There are many special interest groups who want us to tremble in fear about our “helpless condition” regarding the genetic basis of illness. Which of us has the genes for cancer? Which of us has the genes for Alzheimer’s? Which of us has the genes for heart disease? Which of our children has the gene for autism or learning disabilities? The list goes on and on. They want us to turn to corporation controlled genetic researchers in the same way that Dorothy turned to the great wizard of Oz. They want us to turn to the pharmaceutical industry and say, “What should we do? What should we do! Please help us!”

If we tremble in fear over the potential illnesses that might attack us from within our own DNA, then we will be easily controlled by the propaganda of corporate interest groups. They want us to feel helpless and to have little hope for health unless scientists find a genetic cure for all that ails us.

Young doctor with syringe

The dominant public relations program that is being carried out in the conventional media is constantly turning our attention toward the genetic basis of illness, and dissuading us from considering epigenetics. They want us to believe two lies. First, “All our illnesses have their origin in our genes.” Second, they want us to believe, “It doesn’t matter what we eat, what we drink, where we live, what products we put on our bodies, the substances we breathe into our lungs, etc., because any problems we have are ultimately caused by our genes.”

What is the truth that lies behind these two lies? What is the truth that lies behind the curtain of genetic deception?

It is a simple fact – it is rarely our genes (by themselves) that are making us sick and killing us through chronic illness – it is primarily the effect of our environment. It is external factors that are making us sick, stealing our vitality, damaging the ability of our children to learn and thrive, weakening our fertility, and consuming our financial resources with overpriced and often ineffective medical treatments, many of which do more harm than good.

Chemical manufacturers want us to believe that their chemicals aren’t making us sick, because it is really our genes that are causing our illnesses.

Vaccine manufacturers want us to believe that their vaccines can’t be making us and our children sick, because vaccines are safe, so they say, and if someone claims harm, then it must be their bad genes.

Agribusiness wants us to believe that the glyphosate they use and the genetically modified crops they grow can’t harm us, because illness comes from our genes.

The manufacturers of processed foods want us to believe that the hundreds of chemical additives that they mix into their “food” concoctions can’t harm us, because the real cause of chronic illness is genetic.

Manufacturers of wireless communication devices want us to believe that their products can’t harm us, because no one gets cancer unless they already have a cancer gene.

Manufacturers of highly toxic conventional skincare products, perfume, household cleaning products, scented laundry products, etc. all want us to believe that the toxic chemicals these products contain can’t harm us unless we have a rare genetic susceptibility, which means these products play no part in our problems.

All these interest groups, and the U.S. regulatory system that supports their claims, have a vested interest in keeping the curtain of the Wizard of Oz closed tight. If we keep believing that it is our genes that make us sick, then these groups don’t have to worry that people might stop purchasing their products, or even worse, might sue them for health-related damages.

They want us to believe that our genes are the reason for our illnesses, and to doubt that external factors could be making us sick. They want us to conclude that we have no right to sue because they are not responsible for the fact that it was our parents who gave us a bad set of genes. They want us to doubt our own perceptions about the cause of autism, and to just believe that autistic children are simply the unfortunate recipients of defective genes.

These corporate entities don’t have to conclusively prove that their products are harmless – all they need to do is raise doubt in the mind of the public and in courtroom juries. A little doubt will go a long way to prevent most people from seeing the truth and acting on it.

Modern Genetics Used to Manipulate Behavior

Sometimes people think they see the phony wizard behind the curtain, but then they begin to doubt themselves — maybe it’s just their imagination. They wonder about the relationship between the man who is shouting in the microphone, “Don’t look behind the curtain!” and the amplified voice that is shouting out from the end of the great hall where the fire and smoke of the embodied image of the Great Wizard of Oz is located. They see the man pulling the levers out of the corner of their eyes and see the bursting forth of fire and smoke, but can’t quite believe that he is connected to the fire and smoke they are observing.


Former Mainstream Media News Anchor Brian Williams. Image source.

The same thing happens with conventional mainstream media sources. We see bits and pieces of truth about the dark side of modern genetics, but have trouble believing that the media is deceiving us with genetic propaganda. Powerful corporate interests, just like the Wizard of Oz, are commanding the public to “not look at the man behind the curtain.” They are trying to use the media to make us all believe that genetics is the ultimate solution to all of our health problems.

In 2004, the science writer, John Horgan published an article entitled, ““Do Our Genes Influence Behavior? Why We Want to Think They Do.” I will share one of his insightful comments. John Horgan was a senior writer at Scientific American and wrote for numerous other well-known scientific publications. He currently is the Director of the Center for Science Writings at Stevens Institute of Technology. He described the pattern in which grand announcements are made about the discovery of certain genes, but how proof of those discoveries often doesn’t materialize after the announcements. This pattern is called propaganda, which is put forth to build a false set of beliefs in the mind of the public. He noted:

Researchers have announced the discovery of “genes for” attention-deficit disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, manic depression, schizophrenia, autism, dyslexia, alcoholism, heroin addiction, high IQ, male homosexuality, sadness, extroversion, introversion, novelty seeking, impulsivity, violent aggression, anxiety, anorexia, seasonal affective disorder, and pathological gambling. So far, not one of those claims has been confirmed. That should not be surprising, given that complex traits and disorders are almost certainly caused by many different genes interacting with many different environmental factors. [13]

In 2013, Jonathan Latham, PhD, reported a request for proposals from the U.S. government regarding the search for a gene that is apparently of great interest to our government. He reported:

The US National Human Genome Research Institute last year put out a call for evidence asking geneticists to support a search for predispositions to “behavioral adherence” to expert advice (i.e. compliance). [14]

In other words, the funders of genetic research are asking genetic scientists to find a gene that they could potentially manipulate, which would cause people to become more compliant to advice offered by experts. They are looking for a gene that would prevent us from looking at the Wizard behind the curtain and disregarding what our senses and our mind are telling us. They are looking for a gene that could be activated in such a way that we would blindly follow the instructions that government gives to us.

Hitler (standing in the Mercedes) drives through the crowd in Cheb

October 1938: Hitler (standing in the Mercedes) drives through the crowd in Cheb (German: Eger), part of the German-populated Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia, which was annexed to Nazi Germany because of the Munich Agreement. Image source.

They want us to fall into line just the way the German population during the era of the German Third Reich blindly obeyed Adolf Hitler without looking behind the curtain. If corporations and the government say, “Don’t look behind the curtain,” then this gene will prevent most of us from tugging on the fabric of deception, that is, unless our little dog happens to jump out of our arms and show us the truth.

Is Modern Day American Genetics Leading us Down the Same Path as Nazi Germany’s Eugenics?

I don’t believe in using crystal balls or any form of divination. I do, however, plan to continue to use my rational mind and God-given intuition for looking behind the curtain for the purpose of communicating to others what I perceive.

When I combine the historical evidence of the eugenics movement presented in the previous article with current genetic research activities, and then add in my observations of our natural longing to be free of illness and to produce children who are happy and healthy, I see some disturbing sights.


Hungarian Jews on the Judenrampe (Jewish ramp) after disembarking from the transport trains. To be sent to the right—meant the person had been chosen as a laborer; —to the left—meant death in the gas chambers. Photo from the Auschwitz Album (May 1944). Source.

When I look at how the eugenics program of Adolf Hitler was implemented, I can’t help but see similar conditions developing in the United States today. When I take into account the increasing willingness of society to disregard the value of human life itself in favor of personal rights and desires, I see the emergence of a cold and dispassionate world where modern genetics will control many decisions regarding life and death for Americans. I see a new way of thinking about child development, which will grant great freedom to parents and society regarding the killing of children for the sake of parental happiness and the “greater social good.”

When I wrote the previous article in this series, I began with a consideration of proposals from a minority camp of modern eugenicists who were suggesting that post-birth abortion could be performed anytime up to age five. They might not call themselves eugenicists, but their words betray their allegiance to Darwinian theory and eugenic practices. The proponents of post-birth abortion are telling us that we should have the right to terminate the lives of young children (up to age 5) who have not yet discovered their personhood, and who have failed to meet our expectations.

I also noted that there is a movement to glorify those who are willing to take matters in their own hands and agree to end their lives through medically assisted suicide. It is only a short step from post-birth abortion and medically assisted suicide to the involuntary termination of life as was practiced by the greatest eugenicist of all, Adolf Hitler.

A day may be coming soon when decisions of reproduction, life, and death may be in the hands of committees composed of genetic scientists. They will “jury” us to determine who is worthy of life and who is not.

Human “Jurying” by Government to Identify Defective Human Beings?

In some high end art shows, the term “juried” is used to mean that a group of judges will evaluate each piece of art to see if it meets certain standards for inclusion in the show.

Human beings may soon be juried to see if they are qualified to be included in society as human beings. If a piece of art failed to be passed by the jury, then it is rejected from appearing in the show. If a young child fails to be approved by the jury, then he or she might just be denied the right to be declared human, and be denied the right to live. In this system, failure to pass the jury would lead to immediate post-birth abortion.

How Jurying Might be Practiced by Medical Authorities

Infant child having his head measured after delivery at hospital

Let’s say your baby is born in the hospital on Monday morning. Before the baby is given to you to begin the bonding process, the baby would be swept away to be examined. A team of healthcare professionals would then jury your child.

The genetic jury will seek to find genetic defects. They will examine the family tree of the child and the genetic code of both parents, looking for evidence of defective genes. They will examine your medical history to determine whether you have experienced serious illnesses, mental illness, learning difficulties, addictions, or other defects. They will assess whether you are gainfully employed, well educated, and have above average intelligence. They will examine your financial resources, the size of your family, and your degree of debt to be sure you can afford to care for this new baby. They will casually observe your race and ethnic background to determine if you are in the “preferred group” of parents. They will check for signs of being a religious zealot. They will ask you to get on the scale to determine whether you are overweight and will evaluate your physical fitness.

After they examine your baby’s physical health status and his or her genetics, examine you and your spouse, review your medical history, and your personal financial resources, then the genetic jury would render their decision.

If the genetic jury gives a passing grade, then your child will be given back to you. If not, then the baby will be aborted through a quick and painless death.

If you receive your newborn baby, then you will have five years to decide whether you want to keep the child. You have five years to jury the child. If at any point, you decide to abort the child, then that is your right as long as he or she is under age five.

During those first four years of life, you might decide to pursue post-birth abortion if your child develops autism, food allergies, eczema, learning disabilities, developmental delays, epilepsy, uncontrollable aggression, rebellion against parental authority, cancer, or any other signs of “imperfect genes.” You could even pursue post-birth abortion if your child’s appearance doesn’t meet your expectations, you become tired of all the work it take to raise a child, you can no longer afford to care for your child, or if you discover that the little girl or boy that you have isn’t as “sweet” as you had hoped and you would rather try again for a better version.

Of course, officials from the state could also decide to pursue post-birth abortion on your behalf if your child demonstrates serious defects and you don’t request post-birth abortion. If your pediatrician discovers that you are abusing your child by not feeding the child sugar and other types of highly processed junk food, or are refusing to give the child vaccines, then the physician might be obligated to turn you over to CPS (Child Protective Services) for investigation. This also might happen if you refuse to agree to post-birth abortion when the physician sees a developmental disability or other illness. CPS could then approve the abortion of your child.


Dr. Richard Pan is a doctor and also a California State Senator in District 6. He authored the nation’s first law to remove both philosophical and religious exemptions to vaccines. Photo courtesy

Under this futuristic scenario, CPS would not take a defective child into their system, rather they would just seek to terminate the child’s life and reduce potential unnecessary expenditures before the child becomes too old to abort. Of course, since children who are less than five years old would still be considered to be like animals, they might be turned over to genetic research laboratories for experimentation prior to being aborted. Your child would not be safe from the threat of post-birth abortion until his or her fifth birthday.

The state would claim the right to authorize post-birth abortion, because the cost of caring for a deficient member of society is high, and the possibility of that child contributing defective genes to the next generation also remains very high.

What I have just described is another form of eugenics. It is a process of controlling population growth and preventing certain children from reaching adulthood when they could pass-on their defective genes to a new generation.

Would “Post-Birth Abortions” Reduce the Population of Autistic Children?


Let’s consider a single simple example. Autism Spectrum Disorders can be observed in infants and in toddlers as young as age 2. [15] The appearance of autism would be considered a genetic defect. Even though current evidence shows an undeniable link between vaccination and autism, the pharmaceutical industry and the U.S. government denies the link. As a result, young autistic children would be considered ideal candidates for post-birth abortion even if their autism was a direct result of vaccination.

Let’s do a few calculations to determine how many children might be involved. The number of births in the United States in recent years has been just under 4 million children per year. [16] The rate of autism is now estimated to be 1 out of 50 children. [17] Children are being diagnosed with autism at an increasingly earlier age. [18] It is now common for diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder to be made before children start attending public school at age 5. I wasn’t able to find an exact statistic that would tell us the percentage of children diagnosed before age 5 and after age 5, but for sake of this discussion I will say that about half are identified in those early years.

If we apply this information to determine the number of children with Autism that are less than five years old, then the current rate of 1 out of 50 children would be 1 out of 100. If we calculate the number of children between age 0 through age 4 born in the last four years (4 million times 4 years), then this would equal 16 million children. The estimated number of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder would then be approximately 1% or 16,000 children.

So, if post-birth abortion became legal today, for children up to age five, then 16,000 young autistic children who are alive today could be legally aborted (killed), because they are considered defective.

The state would encourage parents to abort these children because of the high costs for caring for them, especially when they become adults. 2014 data shows that autism services cost U.S. citizens 236 billion dollars to 262 billion dollars per year. A majority of costs in the U.S. are in adult services – 175 billion dollars to 196 billion dollars as compared to autism services for children, which range from 61 billion dollars to 66 billion dollars. The U.S. cost of autism over the lifespan is about $2.4 million for a person with an intellectual disability, or $1.4 million for a person without intellectual disability. [19]

Of course, children with autism would not be the only children who would face the possibility of post-birth abortion. We are already doing genetic testing of babies in the womb, and aborting them if they have certain genes or just happen to be the wrong sex. It is a short step to terminate the lives of newly born babies for the same reasons.

This is not just population control. It is not just social engineering. It is eugenics and it is murder! This is a system in which only young children with certain sets of traits would be permitted to live. Those who don’t match the profile of a superior human being would be destroyed before too many resources could be “wasted” on raising them. This system is an example of how Darwin’s theory of evolution could be put into practice. It would seek to advance the rate of evolution by eliminating the unfit, who are considered to be retarding the perfection of the human race. It is also utilitarian in nature. We could just get rid of children who are going to cost society too much money and never become productive citizens.

The Genetic Myth and its Relationship to Darwinian Evolution


Image courtesy of Evolution News and Views.

Eugenicists embraced Darwin’s theory of evolution. Geneticists embrace Darwin’s theory of evolution. U.S. government regulators embrace Darwin’s theory of evolution. Public schools and colleges embrace Darwin’s theory of evolution. Major corporations embrace Darwin’s theory of evolution. Some of these groups might not say they support Darwin’s theory, but their behavior betrays their beliefs. Does the nearly unanimous agreement by these groups mean that they are all correct, and are able to think beyond their own special interests?

There are still people who believe that we must protect those who are not capable of protecting themselves. I am part of this small minority. We now know, for example, that it is possible for children with autism spectrum disorders to be healed with homeopathy, probiotics and dietary changes.

We now know that people with Alzheimer’s can reverse the progression of their conditions by eating coconut oil, discontinuing the use of vaccines, and by adopting a diet that will heal their digestive system and immune system.

Given these facts, which prove that epigenetics is a functional reality, then why would we not protect such people from being euthanized, when they can be healed? It is a lie that children with autism and adults with Alzheimer’s are doomed to living dysfunctional lives. It’s not their genes that are the problem, but their exposure to a toxic environment, which is creating their problems. Autism and Alzheimer’s can be healed. These conditions are signs of environmental damage and not signs of genetic abnormalities. Why would we consider harming the victims of our toxic world?

Do we really want to have the legal right to kill children after they are born? Do we really want the legal right to kill elderly people who are no longer aware of their health condition? Do we really want to have the legal right to kill one another to prevent financial expenditures? Do we really want to set the stage for a new Hitler to come into power and begin terminating the lives of people who do not match some arbitrary model of human perfection? Do we want to return to the open loathing that was once directed toward “defectives,” which was expressed by some of America’s most famous leaders in the past?

America’s History of Racism and Hatred of “Defective” People


Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. 1930. Image source..

I believe the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes will provide a practical example of the extent to which highly educated and powerful people had a loathing for those they judged as being deficient or defective. Oliver Wendell Holmes was one of the U.S. Supreme Court’s most eloquent and outspoken justices during the first part of the 20th century. He served in the court between 1902 and 1932. Many of his words capture the views of the eugenics movement.

Eugenic historian, Edwin Black, gathered the following quotations from the written legacy left by Oliver Wendell Holmes, and included them in his book, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race. Edwin Black stated:

In the years just prior to receiving Buck v. Bell, Holmes expressed his most candid opinions of mankind. In 1920, writing to English jurist Sir Frederick Pollack, Holmes confessed, “Man at present is a predatory animal. I think that the sacredness of human life is a purely municipal idea of no validity outside the jurisdiction. I believe that force, mitigated so far as it may be by good manners, is the ultima ratio [final argument], and between two groups that want to make inconsistent kinds of world I see no remedy except force.”

He was fond of a certain slogan, and in June of 1922 he repeated it to British scholar and future Labor Party Chairman Harold J. Laski. ”As I have said, no doubt, often, it seems to me that all society rests on the death of men. If you don’t kill ’em one way you kill ’em another—or prevent their being born.”

In 1926, Holmes again confided to Laski, ”In cases of difference between oneself and another there is nothing to do except in unimportant matters to think ill of him and in important ones to kill him.” Shortly thereafter, Holmes wrote Laski, “We look at our fellow men with sympathy but nature looks at them as she looks at flies” [20]

Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the majority opinion for the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1927 in the case involving a plan for the involuntary sterilization of Carrie Buck, who was described as being a feebleminded white woman living in a Virginia state institution.

Edwin Black provides this last quote from Justice Holmes. Holmes stated:

It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.

Three generations of imbeciles are enough. [21]

Did you notice how the mind of the eugenicist and legal scholar Oliver Wendell Holmes connected the dots? He saw very little legal difference between mandatory vaccination and mandatory sterilization.


Eugenics Protest circa 1971 originally published by Southern Conference Educational Fund (SCEF). Image source.

We are now living through a time in which powerful corporations are driving the political process and seeking to require mandatory vaccinations for all children in public schools and for adults in the workplace. Will the mandatory sterilization of “defectives” be just around the corner?

We currently permit babies to be aborted while in the womb when genetic screening identifies the presence of various unwanted genes. Will we soon be permitting the killing of babies after they are born if the same unwanted genes are present?

We permit (in some states) extremely ill people to have physicians kill them at their request (physician- assisted suicide or euthanasia). There are subtle signs appearing in the media that are delivering the message to us that thoughtful people who are concerned about such things as end of life healthcare expenditures would actually choose to do the right thing and ask that their lives be terminated before their quality of life becomes so bad that they have nothing to live for.

How long will it be before the desire to live as long as a person’s body has the ability to live on its own will be considered a sign of feeble- mindedness? How long will it be before dying with dignity at the time we choose will be considered as a sign of health and maturity, and not to make such a choice will be seen as a sign of selfishness or perhaps even feeblemindedness? How long will it be before physicians declare that patients are feebleminded if they can’t make a rational decision to request euthanasia, and the physicians will make the choice for them? How long will it be before genetic information will be gathered from us against our will, and then used to qualify us for sterilization or termination? [22, 23]

These questions and many others lie before us waiting for answers while the genetic revolution is unfolding itself before our eyes.

Is modern genetics a great gift to humankind, or will it become a curse that separates humanity into favored and less favored groups? Will some of us be destined for perfection while others of us will be marked for isolation, sterilization, and extermination as in the past? Will modern genetics lead us down the same road as eugenics did during the first half of the 20th century?

Comment on this article at


[1] “ Genetic Engineering,” Retrieved 6/21/2015.

[2] “A Country Unveils Its Gene Pool and Debate Flares,” Sarah Lyall, The Learning Network Blog – The New York Times, 2/15/1999, Retrieved 6/23/2015.

[3] “Obama announces ‘precision medicine’ initiative – Modern Healthcare,” Darius Tahir, 1/21/2015, Retrieved 6/23/2015.

[4] Francis S. Collins, Eric D. Green, Alan E. Guttmacher & Mark S. Guyer (On behalf of the US National Human Genome Research Institute); “NHGRI’s Vision for the Future of Genomic Research,” Nature, Vol. 422, No. 6934, April 24, 2003, p. 835-847, Retrieved 6/22/2015.

[5] “Epigenetics: Fundamentals,” What is Epigenetics?, Retrieved 6/20/2015.

[6] “Are ‘Design-A-Baby’ Centers Next?” Dr. Joseph Mercola, 10/15/2013, Retrieved 6/15/2015.

[7] “Why Your DNA Isn’t Your Destiny,” Dr. Joseph Mercola January 23, 2010, Retrieved 6/15/2015.

[8] IBID.

[9] “How Exercise Affects Your Genes, and More,” Dr. Joseph Mercola, February 13, 2015, Retrieved 6/15/2015.

[10] “Your Diet Could be More Important Than Your Genes,” Dr. Joseph Mercola, 7/08/2010, Retrieved 6/15/2015.

[11] “Epigenetics: How Your Mind Can Reprogram Your Genes,” Dr. Joseph Mercola, 4/11/2012, Retrieved 6/15/2015.

[12] “Science and Social Control: Political Paralysis and the Genetics Agenda,” Jonathan Latham, PhD, Independent Science News, 8/3/2013, Retrieved 6/19/2015.

[13] “Do Our Genes Influence Behavior? Why We Want to Think They Do” John Horgan, Chronicle of Higher Education, November 26, 2004, available for viewing on American Buddha Online Library, Retrieved 6/20/2015.

[14] “Science and Social Control: Political Paralysis and the Genetics Agenda,” Jonathan Latham, PhD, Independent Science News, 8/3/2013, Retrieved 6/19/2015.

[15] Lord C1, Risi S, DiLavore PS, Shulman C, Thurm A, Pickles A.; “Autism from 2 to 9 years of age,” Arch Gen Psychiatry, Jun 2006, PMID 16754843.

[16] “FastStats – Births and Natality,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Data for 2013, Retrieved 6/21/2015.

[17] “National Survey Pegs Autism Prevalence at 1 in 50 School-age Children,” Science News, Posted on Autism Speaks, 3/20/2013, Retrieved, 6/21/2015.

[18] Irva Hertz-Picciottoa, and Lora Delwichea; “The Rise in Autism and the Role of Age at Diagnosis,” Epidemiology, January 2009, 84–90, PMCID PMC4113600, Retrieved 6/21/2015.

[19] “Facts and Statistics,” Autism Society, Retrieved 6/21/2015.

[20] War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race, Edwin Black, Second paperback edition 2012, page 121, ISBN 978-0-914153-29-0.

[21] IBID.

[22] “The DNA Revolution – A Vision Of The Future,” Steven I. Friedland, The Case For Innocence, FRONTLINE, PBS, Retrieved 6/22/2015.

[23] “Wiring the Brain: GATTACA and the coming future of genetic screening,” Kevin Mitchell, 5/14/2012, Retrieved 6/23/2015.


More than a half century ago, famed writer C.S. Lewis warned about how science (a good thing) could be twisted in order to attack religion, undermine ethics, and limit human freedom. Lewis lived during the era of scientific eugenics, and saw first hand its horrors.

In this documentary “The Magician’s Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case Against Scientism,” leading scholars explore Lewis’s prophetic warnings about the abuse of science and how Lewis’s concerns are increasingly relevant for us today.

Quote from C.S. Lewis:

“I dread government in the name of science. That is how tyrannies come in.”

by Attorney Jonathan Emord
Free Shipping Available!