This site is the result of countless hours of research that went into the writing of a doctoral dissertation on eugenics and Darwinism.  Most of that research could not be used in the dissertation itself, but was nonetheless very useful in understanding eugenics in the past and present.  This research is slowly being added to the site, as the author has time.  Likewise, as time becomes available to produce essays and other pieces of analysis, it shall be posted here, as well.  The focus of the site, however, is to allow the eugenicists to speak for themselves, in their own words, and on their own terms.  Indeed, attempting to put their beliefs into your own words almost always has the effect of making them much more palatable; only by seeing them ‘in the wild’ does one really see how horrific their worldview really is.  Worse is the discovery that many of these comments can be found in the mouths of moderns, who have no idea that they are treading ground already tilled by people they think they find abhorrent.

Works presently being written by the author:

Darwin’s Flinch
Anatomy of A Eugenicist

Anthony Horvath, PhD

For Further Reading:

This site aims to produce mostly primary source material, but there are a number of books that may serve as good introductions to the topic and provide, for some, the necessary context in which to understand the primary sources provided on this site.

One of the most cited books on Eugenics is Daniel Kevles’ In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity.  The book has many strengths and draws good conclusions, but doesn’t make it clear enough that eugenics was a creature of the ‘left,’ at least as much, if not more, as of the ‘right.’

That particular point is made very clear in Thomas Leonard’s Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in the Progressive Era  Leonard’s book is particularly instructive when it comes to making it clear that eugenics goes far, far, beyond ‘breeding superior humans.’  Eugenicists considered everything, from economics to education, as potentially useful eugenics tools.  See also the Jaffe Memo for illustration of this.

A very good examination of eugenics and other ideologies associated with it at the time (anti-immigration, anti-miscegenation, etc), as seen through the prism of just one eugenicist, is Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant by Jonathan Peter Spiro.

Eugenics is nearly always associated with the ‘right wing’ in large part because the Nazis–otherwise known as the National Socialists–were the ones who gave it a bad name, and the Nazis are considered ‘right wing.’  The rise of eugenics in Germany is best detailed in From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany by Richard Weikart.  That Darwin(ism) had anything to do with eugenics will be a shock to many people, for whom this is the first they’ve heard of it.

But Eugenics was an American thing as much as it was a German thing.  Indeed, German eugenicists got many of their best ideas (eg, ‘segregation camps’) and their science from Americans.  Edwin Black’s War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race exposes America’s eugenics roots very well.


2 pings

Skip to comment form

    • Christian Reactionary on February 17, 2019 at 7:40 am
    • Reply

    Complete bullshit! Do you want to be ugly, dumb, fat, a hunchback, a loser through and through? Do you want to suffer from mental illnesses? If you answer yes, I might at least call you honest, although then you would be an imbecile. Eugenics works, which is what even Richard Dawkins and Matt Ridley acknowledge.

    Richard Dawkins (The Greatest Show on Earth)

    “Political opposition to eugenic breeding of humans sometimes spills over into the almost certainly false assertion that it is impossible. Not only is it immoral, you may hear it said, it wouldn’t work. Unfortunately, to say that something is morally wrong, or politically undesirable, is not to say that it wouldn’t work. I have no doubt that, if you set your mind to it and had enough time and enough political power, you could breed a race of superior body-builders, or high-jumpers, or shot-putters; pearl fishers, sumo wrestlers, or sprinters; or (I suspect, although now with less confidence because there are no animal precedents) superior musicians, poets, mathematicians or wine-tasters. The reason I am confident about selective breeding for athletic prowess is that the qualities needed are so similar to those that demonstrably work in the breeding of racehorses and carthorses, of greyhounds and sledge dogs. The reason I am still pretty confident about the practical feasibility (though not the moral or political desirability) of selective breeding for mental or otherwise uniquely human traits is that there are so few examples where an attempt at selective breeding in animals has ever failed, even for traits that might have been thought surprising. Who would have thought, for example, that dogs could be bred for sheep-herding skills, or ‘pointing’, or bull-baiting?”

    Matt Ridley: Genome. Page 297:

    “This brief history of eugenics leads me to one firm conclusion. What is wrong with eugenics is not the science, but the coercion. Eugenics is like any other programme that puts the social benefit before the individual’s rights. It is a humanitarian, not a scientific crime. There is little doubt that eugenic breeding would ‘work’ for human beings just as works for dogs and dairy cattle. It would be possible to reduce the incidence of many mental disorders and improve the health of the population by selective breeding. But there is also little doubt that it could only be done very slowly ata gigantic cost in cruelty, injustice and oppression. Karl Pearson once said, in an answer to Wedgewood: ‘What is social is right and there is no definition of right beyond that. That dreadful statement should be the epitaph of eugenics.”

    But *I* have to live this crappy life! Eugenics would have prevented it. I only continue to live because of my faith in Christ, otherwise I would simply off myself. The ugliness is horrid, but my mental illnesses are even worse.

    You guys are arrogant self-aggrandizers, selfish egotists who have it made. PhD? You can’t be serious. I’m living at the bottom of society, I will die a loser and all because of my average IQ and my mental illnesses. Fuck this shit, your minimization of other people’s suffering is disgusting.

    I will quote the great Colombian Catholic Nicolás Gómez Dávila:

    “Depopulate and reforest — first civilizing rule.”

    “Eugenics appals those who fear its judgment.”

    “No beneficiary of slaves is supporter of birth control.”

    “The two most pressing problems of the contemporary world: demographic expansion and genetic deterioration are unsolvable.
    Liberal principles prevent the solution of the first, egalitarian ones that of the second.”

    “Population growth disquiets the demographer only when he fears that it will impede economic progress or make it harder to feed the masses.
    But that man needs solitude, that human proliferation produces cruel societies, that distance is required between men so that the spirit might breathe, does not interest him.
    The quality of a man does not matter to him.”

    “A totalitarian state is the structure into which societies crystallize under demographic pressures.”

    “Demographic pressure makes people brutish.”

    And so on. Bye.

  1. Every now and then we get malevolent beasts like “Christian Reactionary” to drop in to remind us that far from being a discarded and fully repudiated outlook of the past, ‘eugenics’ still has a broad base of support.

    Does anyone else seriously believe lines like this:

    “But *I* have to live this crappy life! Eugenics would have prevented it. I only continue to live because of my faith in Christ, otherwise I would simply off myself. The ugliness is horrid, but my mental illnesses are even worse.”

    So, not only does he embrace eugenics, but he wishes it had been applied to himself, so that he wouldn’t exist at all? Such faith in Christ here displayed! He loves Christ so much, he resents the fact that he exists in order to love Christ so much.

    Looks like a troll job by a ‘new atheist’ to me.

    • David Ashton on October 4, 2020 at 2:18 am
    • Reply

    There is nothing evil about family planning that reduces severe heritable suffering and increases heritable competence in future generations. Eugenic contraception is not murder. Humanitarian eugenics can and should rule out the killing of any innocent human before and after birth. Eugenics was neither motive nor effect of the Nazi killing of Jews, but it is the motive and effect of the reduction of Tay Sachs disease among Jews.

  2. Assuming that ‘eugenic contraception’ can be prevented from becoming actual murder (eg, if our our concern about Tay Sachs leads people to use a condom rather than abortion), the question of just what counts as ‘severe heritable suffering’ has never once been settled without resorting to horror, in part because the raising of ‘avoiding suffering’ as a moral virtue is far too commanding to allow itself to limit itself to such limitations as ‘contraception.’ The epitome of this was the ‘scientific’ paper a few years back on “After-birth abortion” which made it abundantly clear that any argument for abortion logically applied to infants. They explicitly raise the example of the Down Syndrome child, who, despite having inherited a deformity tends to be very happy–that is, NOT one that suffers–who can nonetheless be aborted… and, by extension… killed after birth. Naturally, they don’t have the courage to run their logic all the way up the flag pole. If they would have, the Nazi comparisons would have been unmistakable, and they themselves would not have failed to make them. But that is where their logic would take them.

    You don’t think that this was the ‘motive nor effect of the Nazi killing of Jews’ but that can’t be because you’ve actually examined the question, for if you did, you would find that in point of fact the Nazis very much had ‘eugenics’ in mind. It was about purging from the ‘social body’ that which hinders and harms it. There is a reason why before the Nazis exterminated millions of Jews, they exterminated hundreds of thousands of disabled people, many of whom were actually blue-eyed Germans. Why would they kill fellow Germans if it was only ‘race’ that was spurring them on?

    It is the raw logic of eugenics which is the problem. It assesses that it is good and right for mere mortals to decide who should live and die, nay, who should even exist. Any kind of ‘barrier’ to try to hedge in this logic, such as invoking ‘eugenic contraception’ and asserting that innocents should not be killed before or after birth, has as much strength as a wet paper bag.

    God save us from ‘humanitarians.’

      • David ASHTON on August 25, 2022 at 10:22 pm
      • Reply

      As it happens I am against the killing of sentient and viable unborn humans whether “disabled” or not.
      Contraception is not murder. You confuse quite different, even contrary matters, and resort to prejudicial hyperbole,
      People are entitled to refrain from having children and from inflicting a hereditary disease on a child. They are also welcome to have children likely to be specially gifted.
      If it is compassionate to treat illness, why not also painlessly to prevent it? Why was Jesus commended for curing blindness instead of celebrating it as contribution to diversity, equality and inclusion? Why was the cripple restored to mobility instead of being provided with a better bed?
      There was and is a range of opinions about eugenics, especially among eugenicists. See e.g. the writings of John Glad and Richard Lynn. Frankly I don’t think you give even your selection of quotes, such as Galton (ignoring his reprimand of Shaw, for instance) a fair and balanced assessment.
      You muddle Nazi antisemitism with their eugenics policy, though there are links [cf. Lutz Kaelber.] I am familiar with Richard Weikart, and have a large library on “The Holocaust” including some revisionist studies.
      I also have favourable comments on positive eugenics from Christians, including RC theologians, from Bertrand Conway and Teilhard de Chardin to Dean Inge and Bishop Barnes.
      As for God, see e.g. Genesis 6.7, Leviticus 21.18, Deuteronomy 7.2, I Samuel 15.3, Matthew 13.41-42, Revelation 2.23.

      1. Replies spaced out over 2 years. I don’t know if I can keep up with that rapid fire. 😉

        I resorted to no hyperbole. I recounted the actual trajectory of history. This is not about your feelings. It’s about facts and reality. I presented facts.

        As for your rebuttal, “Contraception is not murder. You confuse quite different, …” I think what we have here again is you going beyond what was written and drawing upon your feelings. What I said was, and I quote, “Assuming that ‘eugenic contraception’ can be prevented from becoming actual murder” which, on its face, cannot be correlated with your apparent perception of my view (“Contraception is not murder” entails that you believed my statement was tantamount to saying “Contraception is murder.”) To repeat MY ACTUAL WORDS, I wondered aloud HOW ‘eugenic contraception’ CAN BE PREVENTED FROM BECOMING actual murder. Hence the distinction between using a condom vs abortion.

        I didn’t equate it with murder. I threw down the gauntlet, demanding to hear precisely how someone–in this case, you–were going to PREVENT ‘eugenic contraception’ from becoming murder. Because, yea, sorry, but the facts are the facts, but so-called ‘eugenic’ contraception (YOUR modifier, not mine) has not yet been observed to do anything but fly off the rails. I gave examples, and there are still more, such as the widespread use of compulsory sterilization… not just in Nazi Germany.

        You used a term, ‘eugenic contraception,’ without offering to explain just what on earth that was, and then when I demanded to hear how your scheme would be kept in check, when historically it never has been kept in check (at least, not when the word ‘eugenics’ has been explicitly invoked), you thought you were making a killer point that there is a range of opinions about eugenics… uh, yea, well, duh. All that means is that there is no particular reason to put the best possible interpretation on what on earth YOU could possibly mean by ‘eugenic’ contraception, when, as you point out, there are quite a few range of opinions.

        This, I think, raises a point that I don’t think you wanted to raise, because it really torpedoes your perspective. I could extract from you, after another two years, I guess, just what YOU mean by ‘eugenic sterilization,’ but I don’t know why any of us should really care what YOU mean by it, unless you can assure us that whenever this program you envision is put into action, it is administered ONLY by people who share YOUR (evidently thoroughly compassionate and humane) view about eugenics, and is never taken over by people who likewise invoke ‘eugenics’ but conceive of it differently. For, if the latter were to happen… and with a ‘range of opinions’ out there about eugenics ESPECIALLY AMONG EUGENICISTS… your best-laid plans could… or would… wait for it… wait for it… we’re about to come full circle…

        …Turn into the next great Horror of History.

        Which leaves us with the most pressing question, “HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PREVENT YOUR ‘EUGENIC’ CONTRACEPTION FROM DESCENDING INTO THAT?”

        In the real world, in light of real history, we must always ask questions like this: “WHO decides?” “Are our checks and balances robust enough?” “If David Ashton is put in charge of a ‘eugenic contraception’ program, and dies of old age, or simply decides to retire, how can we be sure that his successor doesn’t have an entirely different view, which nonetheless is covered by the term ‘eugenics’?” And so on and so forth.

        As soon as you bring ‘eugenics’ into the mix explicitly, you’re playing with fire. It is not out of line to demand that any proposal which does this explain precisely how you’re not going to burn down the neighborhood.

        Now, I’ve repeated myself several times in this reply and used ALL CAPS in places for a reason. You cannot possibly read this reply in good faith and be literate and still miss the point: HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PREVENT YOUR ‘EUGENIC’ CONTRACEPTION FROM TURNING INTO TERROR?”

        This seems like an impossible task to me, since, on your own reckoning, you’re going to have to cover your flanks from rival eugenicists who are willing to go where you (ostensibly) are not, but I’m interested to hear you give it a shot.

    • Allie on February 15, 2021 at 6:28 pm
    • Reply

    Hello! I’m just popping in to say thank you for collecting these awful texts in one place; your site has been very helpful for an article I’m editing on the eugenics conversations spurred by COVID-19. This work is not glamorous, but it’s very necessary, and I sincerely thank you, Dr. Horvath, for sharing your efforts in such an accessible form.

    1. Thank you for the good word. I appreciate the appreciation.

  3. My ‘about’ page was becoming cluttered with assertions related to James Dobson and eugenics so I created a new page devoted to that topic and moved the comments to that page. You can find it all here:


    • JSmith on July 6, 2021 at 7:57 pm
    • Reply

    Thank you Anthony for your work on this site, I found you through searches on Chesterton’s Eugenics and Other Evils, and you’ve led me to a treasure trove of further information! God Bless

  4. Thank you, JSmith. Glad I could be of service!

    • Camille Blinstrub on September 11, 2021 at 7:30 pm
    • Reply

    Absolutely wonderful web site. Thank you, Anthony Horvath. I found no place to email you so forgive me if I ask a question here. What is your explanation for how we went from being largely eugenicist among the elites to the elites pushing a welfare state in the 60s and 70s that have produced multitudes of children without fathers and opportunities? What a huge pendulum swing. How did we go from being so wickedly uncaring to basically fostering people to breed in such a way that the children would be uncared for? BTW I am a Christian and reasonably well-read and it’s amazing how Eugenics was toned down and hidden from my baby boomer generation. How people like GBS were portrayed as great lights. Shocking to read how he encouraged “free love” not understanding that children brought up without a foundation of a committed love between parents will be at great risk. Thank you so much for assembling all this for us.

  5. I guess I need a contact form option.

    I never like to think of humans ‘breeding’ with the intonation inherent that we are like cattle (which is precisely the way the elite see humanity).

    Your question is a very good question and the answer I will give has evidence that is posted on this site. In sum: the elites realized that you could successfully implement a eugenics program by going the OTHER direction, and just be sure not to to give it the label of ‘eugenics.’ In other words, the welfare state IS/WAS a eugenics program, just as all the other ones were.

    I could write a book on it, and maybe should, but in the interests of brevity, consider this remark by former president of the American Eugenics Society, Frederick Osborn:

    … it became evident that changes of a eugenic nature would be made for reasons other than eugenics, and that tying a eugenic label on them would more often hinder than help their adoption. Birth control and abortion are turning out to be great eugenic advances of our time. If they had been advanced for eugenic reasons it would have retarded or stopped their acceptance.”


    When one reads the primary sources of the 1970s, it is clear that in some circles–and especially the eugenics/population control people (which was quite a lot of them)–the welfare programs were going to be a great way to reduce the population… especially those groups of people we don’t want more of… or, as Justice Ginsburg let slip in 2009:

    the ruling [Harris v. McRae] about that surprised me. Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.

    Here the link between abortion and Medicaid, and the reduction of “populations we don’t want to have too many of” is literally explicit.

    It appears to me that sometime in the late 1960s and early 1970s, a decision was made to continue the program of depopulation (of certain groups) using the welfare state rather than through overt, ‘coercive’ means. Read the book “Intended Consequences.” Also, check out my other site, https://jaffememo.com/, where the elites gave us a very helpful document in which they list and organize the different ideas they were considering.

    This document proves unequivocally that the elites saw a direct connection between various governmental social policies and a reduction in the size of the population. Some questions linger, unanswered by the memo itself: WHICH policies did they select? WHAT groups did they decide to target?

    Since we have the advantage of looking back over 50 years, we can answer those questions pretty well. The last question, pertinent to our day: If it was known in the 1970s that these policies would have these effects, what does it mean that these policies are still in effect?

    To show that this was the outgrowth of a eugenics program, one would need to trace back the development and implementation of the Great Society to the era immediately after WW2 when the fallout from the Nazi application of eugenics worked its way through American society. This is not too terribly difficult. Although they couched their arguments in less explicitly ‘eugenics’ terms, it is often the case that we can identify their penchant for eugenics pre-Nazis and notice their relatively abrupt new penchant for population control, and witness them then hard at work building their section of the Great Society. Osborn, quoted above, is a great example of what I mean. There are plenty others.

  1. […] I would also recommend this book in conjunction with some others.   This one is a (much) more in depth treatment of Wesley Smith’s Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America.  If you’re just starting, I would go with Smith’s book, first.  But I wouldn’t by any means stop there.  I would definitely follow up with Weikart’s book, and then from there move on to the books I have listed for ‘further reading’ on my eugenics website. […]

  2. […] eugenics movement of the early 20th century because it was clear from reading some of the important secondary research that many extremely important facets of the eugenic mindset were overlooked, understated, ignored, […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.