Feminist Eugenics as the Prototype of the Nazi Euthanasia Program as well as the Shaping of the Modern Social Democratic Welfare Policy and Vision including the Creation of the Superior Working Class in Soviet Russia!
From Margaret Zanger and Emma Goldman through Hitler, Stalin, Herman Miller, and Karl Heinke, the father of socialist welfare policy in Scandinavia, and up to the Soviet ideology attending to replace the Nazi German supreme race with the superior working class.
This work of mine is a follow-up research on my first one that has dealt with the feminist roots of Nazi race ideology in which I established the link both between feminism and eugenics as well as the links of eugenics and feminism with the democratic party in the US while later exposing the link between them and especially the feminist movement to the Nazi race ideology and the euthanasia program of the Third Reich and I am bringing here a few highlights from this research. Historically, the eugenics research, focused on eugenics in the Anglo-Saxon world, not only leaving or ignoring the connections I mentioned above but especially overlooking or disregarding the wider realms of influence especially the adoption of feminist eugenics not only by right but also left-wing politics and partied including Socialist, Marxist and in the bottom line the Soviet Union itself. In this work, I expand on these topics and I will show that feminist racism especially as exposed through gender ideology stands at the basis of every welfare state with its policies whereas the sublimation of the supreme race to the upper working class has undergone transformation and redirection into the supreme Gender. Thus, feminism by exploiting its gynocentric nature or position stands at the root or basis of all modern evil. As such, my research here, both the first one as well as this second follow up, revise our understanding of eugenics as a whole, and by adding all other aspects like politics, ideology, and gender to the discussion, it raises a call for an international meta-study that will reveal the true nature of the feminist movement that was long hidden from the public awareness and discourse.
This research was a long time in the making and has begun with the original or the first one. I first became interested in the history and especially the ties of eugenics to feminism, the Ku Klux Clan, the democratic party in the US as well as the latter transition to European ideologies, first the Nazi and then the Socialist – Marxist ones, as a part of my critical and meta-research on feminism, gynocentrism, and misandry, while I was less interested in the biology itself but rather more in the political, social, cultural, ideological and gender-related context of Science." Fascinated by the new perspective and truths dispelling the long-held myths, I found it to be an extremely important link to expose the true nature and hateful face of the feminist movement. Looking back and actually at the current stage of this research, it still lies ahead of its time although I find it to be extremely important to start to enlighten the minds of people right now and right away. The first research stimulated me to widen the historical background and to see how based o gynocentric principles feminist hate ideology continued to reincarnate in different cultures, societies and how it sublimated through various political ideologies from left to right including National Socialism, Fascism, Marxism, Socialism and even Social Democracy and its Welfare State. Soon I became involved in wider research including the Soviet Union, European countries, and many more. I plan to continue the work with some additional follow-up studies and include even more countries and more continents.
While in my first research, I have extensively dealt with the transition and the spread of feminist eugenics from the milieux of the Ku Klux clan and the democratic party to Europe and the national socialist euthanasia program of the Third Reich, from researching Communist science in Soviet Russia, especially biology, including the debate whether the upper working class should be created through education, a position Stalin held, or biology, I had become convinced that a complex web of diverse dynamics has contributed to the spread and established eugenics in different countries, societies, cultures and even opposing political mindsets, worldviews and ideologies. As an embedded part of human reality and existence, the first and inevitable realm was gynocentrism itself. This was one of the most crucial parts or hallmarks of feminism and especially the exploitation of those gynocentric cornerstones of reality. It was the nature of eugenics itself especially in historical terms and lastly national differences that were glued and put together in a symbiotic way. Soviet Russia, for instance, has had a large history of biological research which was established despite the eugenics itself. However, it had had a eugenics movement already in the 1920s, and so too did dozens of other countries. So, it was already ripe to adopt the feminist, gender racist, version of its eugenics.
If eugenics differed in Britain, Germany, the United States—countries with a different language, social heritage, cultural traditions, and political environment, it was still adopted and implemented because of the feminist gynocentric basis which gave a solid ground and enables the cultural diversity and the different opposing political worldviews and systems to be globally and universally integrated. It was rooted and performed utilizing philosophical and metaphysical sublimation namely the transition of the superior race into the upper class and finally the superior gender. From this root level, it enabled the spread and the implementation in various and opposing settings, the same way the Cathar Troubadour movement enabled and set the feminist gynocentric spread all over the world through the different realms, namely the religious and secular ones. Hence, Eugenics seemed to be a particularly gifted area for research in yet another respect that was a long time suppressed. Namely, the gynocentric and gender-related aspects, especially in the context of critical research regarding feminism, gynocentrism, and misandry and how at the bottom line this underlies all human societies and reality
Though left-wing propaganda in media, in education and society, lets us believe that Eugenics is exclusively right-wing lunacy, the truth is as I've shown that it's from the feminist and left-wing origins of the US democratic party. It is there that the Nazis took their inspiration for the Euthanasia program and racial cleansing ideology. In the years between 1890 and 1930, eugenics movements developed in more than thirty countries, spreading across continents, cultures, and different political as well as economic ideologies, while adopting themselves to local scientific, cultural, institutional, and political settings. Everyone, participated in it, socialists and capitalists, right and left, Nazis, Feminists, Marxists, Fascists, and social democrats alongside biologists, in others by animal breeders, physicians, pediatricians, psychiatrists, anthropologists, demographers, and public health officials. Th International Commission of Eugenics published in 1924 in Eugenical News listed fifteen full members: Argentina, Belgium, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States. Also, seven other countries were eligible for cooperation: Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Mexico, Venezuela, Australia, and New Zealand. We, in this research, as I said will deal with the spread to the dominantly Marxist, socialist, and social-democratic countries.
Russian Eugenics from 1900 to 1940
Throughout history, the study of Eugenics has been always dismissive of the heavily feminist involvement in spreading these racist theories especially as applied to gender and misandry. It was an unspoken taboo. In my previous research on this topic, I have shown both the feminist involvement in propagation and spread of those teachings to Nazi Germany whereas here I want to show the feminist involvement and the spread of this pseudo-science into Marxist as well as from there to social democracy, especially in its daily practice. Thus, if applied correctly, the history of eugenics can be proved in the future a useful way to study not only the subtle relationships between science and society but especially the connection between them, gender, and here the emphasis on misandry. However, despite the explosion of works on eugenics in many countries around the globe, the Russian history of eugenics has remained virtually unknown. This thesis is a supplement to my first work on the feminist roots of the Nazi race ideology as well as the Euthanasia program, I will show how feminism incorporated the same dynamics to become the root of left-wing eugenics and racism. In a significant article published more than a decade ago comparing the German and Soviet movements in the 1920s, Loren Graham pinpointed a dozen pages that seem to raise thought-provoking comparative issues pointing to the resemblance and most probably the common denominator of the German and Russian case (Graham 1978). As I will show this is no coincidence as this common denominator is feminism. No detailed study had tried to establish that connection and prove it on a scientific basis through research. For this purpose, we will approach a vast array of the available literature on British, American, and other nationwide cases in systematic complexity or detail.
My main methodological approach in this study implies here a technique that is described as Meta-research. It is a scientific inquiry or research that first of all investigate previous existing research with the ultimate goal of finding factually based evidence from all available sources and disciplines regarding the scientific inquiry including the use of multilingual research as implied by the investigator. It can also be seen or referred to as research on research as it uses research methods that as aforesaid cover all fields of scientifically available research on the topic of our scientific inquiry and has been described as "taking a bird’s eye view" of the research while still traditionally integrating a thorough investigation into the details". Thus, taking a bird's eye view none dually means including both of the aspects. This process or technique can be described, therefore, as a systemic screening, finding, analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing research results by using various methods to retrieve, select, and combine results from previous separate but related studies. In such an approach conclusion may vary from the acceptance of the previous research conclusions to adopting a new form of interpretation gathered, in comparison and combination with other parts of the meta-study and its various corners stones of the accumulating specific and every individual research. It does the above by additionally combining various established methodologies like a comparative, interdisciplinary well as a primary and phenomenological approach within the wider frame of the meta-research – analysis as described above. It deals among others with fields such as comparative religions, mythology, spirituality, and esotericism as well as social studies, psychology, philosophy, philology including the behavioral one, geographical research, and many more methodologies in a 'global' context. For this purpose, I have created a big data base of relevant research and data which I then scientifically approached as described here.
But first, an important remark to remember. Due to the Marxist ideology of the Soviet Union and social democracy too (despite the abundance of excellent works on the history of Soviet biology that have appeared recently) eugenics remains a delicate subject on this topic and context. Because of this, still today in the post-communist era, the more common practice in Soviet research of Russian biology is actually to dismiss eugenics altogether. More than a decade ago, the catalog of Nauka (science in Russian) announced the upcoming publication of a two-volume history of human genetics in the USSR by I. I. Kanaev; however, unsurprisingly, it has never been published. For reasons that will later become clear, the history of Soviet eugenics remains a highly explosive subject. In my opinion also due to the connection to social democratic ideology. Thus, the scarcity of research on the Russian perspective in the history of eugenics especially regarding gender and society is inexcusable: the very reasons that make the history of eugenics in other countries interesting make the history of Soviet eugenics especially so. And even more so the overlap between KKK, Nazi, Soviet and feminist eugenics.
First, although in studies of Western eugenics movements, the relation of eugenics to politics, class structure, and social change has often been highlighted, due to the taboo of critically examining and researching feminism, the picture given through such research was partial at least. Second, due to the same taboo, it lacked research of the gender aspect, mainly because of the feminist and female involvement in the movement. To counteract this, I decided to conduct the two first types of research on the feminist roots of the Nazi race ideology and the Euthanasia program of the third Reach where in both cases, the Ku Klux Clan and Nazi Germany women were the invisible empires. Another research of mine will highlight female violence and contribution to the Nazi war machine. On the other Russia can provide an ideal supplementary, in fact, complementary, test case our hypotheses already laid in the first research as well as, of course, proving our case in this one. In the period between 1900-1917, tsarist Russia represented one of the most conservative political elites in Europe; further, from 1900 through 1940, the country faced social turmoil and instability on a previously unprecedented scale— from the 1905 revolution, through the First World War, two 1917 revolutions, a bloody civil war, the New Economic Policy (NEP) of the early and mid-1920s, the "Great Break" of 1929-1932, and the imposition of Stalinism and the purges in the 1930s. Against this background and especially in the connection to German Nazi philosophy on the same subject, the case of Russian eugenics affords us an excellent opportunity to study not only the relation of eugenics to politics and social order but especially exploring all of those elements as in the light of fender politics with an emphasis on feminist misandry including the influence of the social setting on scientific development in this regard.
Second, as we said and although only partially in nature, the conservative ideological and political dimensions of eugenics have been emphasized by many historians, and some have paid special attention to the so-called "reform" or "Bolshevik" eugenics that was developed by leftist biologists in the 1930s as an alternative to the conservative politics of the British and American (feminist) movements and later the German one. But a decade earlier, a eugenics movement was being created in the first Marxist-Leninist state, and there were concerted attempts to create Bolshevik eugenics by real Bolsheviks. For purposes of understanding the complex relation between eugenics and Soviet political ideology, then, the Russian case assumes special importance. And for our case, it is more important as to the political environment of the feminist social democracy and welfare state. Finally, the relation of eugenics to developments in genetics in America, Britain, and elsewhere has been given much attention. From this perspective, the Russian case is especially interesting on three counts besides the question of gender politics. First, in the 1920s and 1930s, the Soviet Union developed a thriving genetics community and became a world leader in population genetics, agricultural genetics, and mutation research, and so the relationship between genetics and eugenics there is of some interest. Second, the Soviet Union was the first country in the world to "ban" eugenics (1931) and was also the first in the world to institutionalize the discipline of "medical genetics" (1934-1935); in the USSR, then, the historical relationship between eugenics and medical genetics can be studied in sharp relief. Finally, the rise of Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union in the 1930s—with its assertion of Lamarckian inheritance, its denial of the validity of genetics, and its involvement in the repression of Soviet geneticists—is one of the most troubling phenomena in the history of twentieth-century science. Because Russian eugenics also lay at the boundary of genetics and society, its history may throw new light on the Lysenko phenomenon.
Accounts of Russian science face a dual challenge posed by Western stereotypes of the Soviet Union. Frequently, Western readers either admire the Soviet Union or strongly dislike it, and they tend to assume that Russian science is either essentially the same as Western science or different. In any case, Soviet developments may seem to be irrelevant to the history of science proper because they are the same as Western developments, in which case we already know about them, or because they are utterly peculiar and anomalous, and hence can contribute little to our understanding of the science we know. Social histories of science in single countries—the United States, Britain, France, Germany—sometimes assume great amounts of knowledge about the country in question not often shared by the general reader; in the Soviet case, the problem is especially acute. The challenge, then, is to see whether Soviet science, with all its peculiarities and special features, can be understood using the same terms and analytic frameworks that have proved useful in studying Western science. The history of eugenics lends itself to this task. As a field imported into Russia from abroad, eugenics illustrates the diffusion and adaptation of foreign ideas and models to different national conditions. As a new field in the Russian context, eugenics allows us to study the process of self-definition and discipline building, the role of scientific entrepreneurs and professional networks, and the relationship between science and its social patrons. This, however, leads us indirectly or even circuitously back to the subject of gender politics, feminism, and misandry as it applies and mirrors the same met-dynamics. Finally, as a field surviving in a social context wracked by political, ideological, and administrative turmoil, it can illustrate the ways science is institutionalized, and how it manages to maintain its integrity in the face of social change.
The Origins of Russian Eugenics, 1900-1920
When talking not only specifically about Russian but especially in the context of gender politics and ideology it is first of all interesting to examine the global social, ideological as well as economic environment of the century this occurred but especially in cross-political ideology. In that sense, the twentieth century was the century of planning. Mussolini, the Socialists, and the Communists were all about planning the economy as according to this varying and opposite ideologies it has to be run by the state; While the Nazis tried to execute the planning all over Europe, including borders, economy, culture, and race. There were also non-socialist or fascist adherents of the idea that planning of society and the economy is a crucial component, such as Roosevelt and his New Deal policies, or Professor Minard Keynes, who heralded the end of the free economy. Central planning, of course, has no meaning if it does not have an "execution unit" with all the tools, powers, and resources to force the planning of society and human beings. The only candidate for this position is the state or state alike central entity. As such it should be covered and consumed the economy, education, and citizens' lives with huge budgets and endless laws, regulations, and a huge and branched mechanism. No wonder the arrogance of the planning and management of everything included both the planning and execution of the composition of humanity and even the planning of human beings. In that sense also eugenics fits into this "Zeitgeist" of this time whether it originated from the feminist circle of the KKK, the racist liberal circles as well as the American democratic party, and from there the Nazis, social democrats, and the welfare state. In itself, as I have already explained in my previous research, eugenics fits into various hallmarks of the time and this is just another area where it happened.
Furthermore, in the first half of the twentieth-century eugenics was successful and spread throughout the Western hemisphere in many countries. Based on the feminist heritage of the Ku Klux Klan, as propagated by Margaret Zanger and other feminists, in 1927, the United States Supreme Court upheld sterilization. The ruling said, among other things: "It would be better for the whole world if instead of waiting for the execution of retarded descendants due to crimes they will commit in the future or letting them starve to death, society will be allowed to prevent those incompetent from continuing their sex…"; "Three generations of imbeciles are more than enough." In 1938, sterilization was introduced in 30 states in America, where about 65,000 people were displaced - retarded, drunk, homeless, and criminals. In the 1930s, practical eugenics spread to Canada, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Throughout the Western world eugenic organizations have sprung up and eugenics classes have been held at most universities. Beginning in 1933, the Nazis adopted the feminist heritage which served as the root of the Nazi race Ideology and the third Reich's Euthanasia program. In Germany, more than 300,000 Germans were displaced and 93,000 "euthanasia" executions were performed. The deaths were carried out in secret and were given the code name "T-4" after the inscription "Tiergarten 4", in which the gas chambers through which patients, mentally ill, and malformed were killed, were located.
Anyway, when in 1941 the news of the "euthanasia" spread in Germany and resentment arose from relatives as well as the church, the euthanasia was stopped and the staff of doctors and technicians was transferred to the East and devoted themselves to killing Jews with gas. The SS Founded the "Lebensborn" farm ("Spring of Life") in which pure-bred children were "created" by SS men (and suitable women). Hundreds of thousands of Aryan-looking children were abducted in Eastern Europe and transferred to German families. Until World War II, opposition to eugenics was limited and included mainly the Catholic Church which opposed the intervention of natural reproduction, and the Communists who gave priority to society and the environment in shaping man in the belief that human beings were born equal. The shock of the Nazi implementation of racial theory and "negative eugenics" by the murder of millions of "inappropriate" people in Europe, led to the complete disappearance of eugenics at the end of World War II, its "introduction into the closet" and its oblivion.
Eugenics and socialism
It is not surprising that the socialists and adherents of planning by the state were among the main activists in the eugenics movement. At the head of the Eugenics movement in Denmark was Karl Steinke, "the father of socialist welfare policy." Steinke, born on 25 August 1880 and died 8 August 1963, was a Danish politician from the Social Democratic Party. He was justice minister from 1924 to 1926 in the Stauning I Cabinet, a social minister from 1929 to 1935 in the Stauning II Cabinet, and justice minister again from 1935 to 1939 in the Stauning III Cabinet and in 1950 in the Hedtoft I and II Cabinets. He has been cited as the chief architect of the Danish welfare state with the Social Reform Acts of the early 1930s, including the Kanslergade Agreement. Thus, here we have maybe the first evidence of the transition of eugenic principle into social democracy and the welfare state and that is implemented today through family planning which was the work of the first wave feminist Margaret Sanger and the KKK. In Norway all eugenics leaders were socialists. The eugenics in Sweden, which resulted in the sterilization of 60,000 people and the prohibition of marriage on the sick and uneducated, was carried out by a socialist government. Tommy Douglas, the founder of Canadian Social Democracy, was active in the Eugenics movement. Edward Bellamy who is considered by many to be the founder of American socialism admired the design and supported eugenics. He was in the good companionship of the Ku Klux. The Fabian Association in England was an association of socialist intellectuals who believed in planning, influenced the Labor Party, and even wrote its platform. The heads of the association initiated and established the 'London School of Economics' and the left-wing bulletin: 'New Statesman'. Almost all the leaders of the Fabian Association were active in and supported the Eugenics movement. Prominent among them were the philosopher Bertrand Russell, the writer H.G. Wells, playwright Bernard Shaw, social activists Sydney and Beatrice Webb, statesman Harold Lasky, British welfare state architect William Bowridge and many others. The New Statesman, of course, also supported eugenics. From 1937 to 1944 Professor Sir Minard Keynes headed the Eugenics Society in Britain. Seemingly puzzling, how the Communists, the Soviet Union, and Stalin who were outspoken atheists and extremist believers in comprehensive state planning did not support and even opposed eugenics. This requires. Criminal minds and 'ordinary' minds. Eugenie poster from the 1920s in the USA
The Communists and the Eugenics: the ideological meta-frame and "The New Man"
What was the goal of Soviet, Marxist, and Communist Eugenics? The Soviet Union vigorously approached the production of the "new Soviet man" through propaganda and indoctrination, state control of education from kindergarten to university, and the management of culture, literature, and art by the party. In a meeting with writers, Stalin said: "Writers are the engineers of the human psyche." Millions of people with "bourgeois consciousness" have been "re-educated" in the labor camps in the north. Attempts to create a "new man" have also been made in China and Cambodia and other communist countries. Che Guevara said the creation of the new man was "the mainstay of socialism." The Israeli attempts, especially in the joint education in the kibbutzim, "to create a new Hebrew person" are also well known. It is not difficult to distinguish jointly between the creation of the new person by the state through scientific selection and the creation of the new person by the state by methods of indoctrination and education. The real controversy is between seeing human beings as means to an ideal society and seeing man as a goal.
Here we should take into consideration that it was in the early 1920s that a Communist Eugenics organization was established in the Soviet Union, headed by the great Russian geneticists N.W. Vavilov and the Jewish physician Solomon Levitt. When the first five-year plan was announced, the organization's magazine wrote that with the help of eugenics, it would be possible to produce people who would carry out the plan in half the time. In 1934, Solomon Levitt invited the Soviet Union the American geneticist Herman Miller (Nobel laureate in 1946) who was an extremist communist and an ardent supporter of eugenics. Herman Miller was involved in biological and genetic research in the Soviet Union until 1937. At the request of his geneticists, Miller wrote a detailed memorandum to Stalin, proposing to introduce eugenics in the Soviet Union to "replace natural selection with scientific evolution", to improve the human race and to create the "new Soviet man" with which capitalist states could be conquered and defeated. The method Miller proposed to Stalin was to give seed to excellent people, "such as Lenin and Darwin", first to widows and unmarried women and later also to married women "when the family is freed from the bourgeois attitude that our children must be our offspring", so that "contribution to society increases love for a child".
Stalin, who had seriously studied the translation of Miller's long memo, decided to reject the eugenic approach. He believed in the need and possibility of planning society and human beings by the state. The Marxist method, in which he believed, was to change human beings by changing the conditions of production and society and to create the new man who would inherit his new character for future generations as well. All traits are the fruit of the environment and just as class society has created negative traits, such as egoism and individualism, so the dictatorship of the proletariat will shape the new man for generations to come. For this purpose, it was necessary to deny the "bourgeois science" of genetics and determine that all-powerful Soviet science is capable of imparting to humans (and also to animals and plants) traits that will be passed on to future generations. Stalin rejected modern genetics and believed in the teachings of the Frenchman Jean Lamarck, according to which acquired traits can be inherited, even though in those years the science of genetics had completely disproved all of Lamarck's teachings and experiments. The party's central committee ruled that genetics was a "pseudo-bourgeois science." All the geneticists were expelled from the academies, institutes, and laboratories, and most of them were arrested and also murdered. The greatest Soviet geneticist, Vavilov died of starvation in prison. The Russian genetics science that was one of the most important in the world was destroyed for many years. Professor Herman Miller hurriedly returned to the United States, saving his life. At the head of biological science in the Soviet Union, Stalin placed two charlatans: Tropen Lisenko who "proved" his ability to give plants wonderful traits inherited, and the "biological" Olga Lipschinskaya who claimed her success in the artificial production of living cells in the laboratory.