Eugenics Died A Century Ago. Is It Back?

April 1, 2026

I: Introduction:

In the late 19^th century and the first third of the 20^th century, a field called eugenics was dominant in America.  It was bolstered by assertions that ‘race science’ had demonstrated the truth of its claims.  Eugenics was the ‘science’ of improving human ‘fitness’ by selective breeding, in analogy to the way that animals are bred in order to emphasize certain characteristics.  Figure I.1 shows the “tree of eugenics.”  It claims that all scientific and quantitative measures are combined to form the “race science” of eugenics.  This was the logo of the Second International Eugenics Conference in 1921. 

Figure I.1: The “tree of eugenics,” portraying eugenics as the culmination of all scientific and quantitative descriptions of human development.  This was also described as ‘scientific racism.’  The print shown here was the logo of the Second International Eugenics Congress in 1921.

The field of eugenics used material from various fields, in order to ‘prove’ various of its claims.  We will review these in Section II of this post.  Quantitative methods of data collection were employed for the first time.  Family histories were used to “prove” that American intelligence and fitness were declining at an alarming rate.  “Race science” also included important contributions from genetics and the new field of intelligence testing.  Unfortunately, assumptions about genetics were quite naïve, and the IQ tests used at that time were definitely not a measure of innate intelligence.  Nevertheless, simplistic genetics plus IQ test results “proved” that the intelligence of Americans was declining, and that the IQ of immigrants arriving from southern and eastern European countries was far lower than that of current Americans. These ”proofs” were used to curb immigration from “less fit” countries.  Also, it was argued that a “humane and effective” way to prevent defectives from reproducing was to sterilize them.  This led to laws that sterilized tens of thousands of Americans without their consent. 

By the 1930s, eugenics was falling out of fashion, as it was realized that its arguments were largely false.  Involuntary sterilization laws were repealed, and immigration restrictions were lifted.  However, a century after the heyday of eugenics, we are seeing a recurrence of many features of the eugenics era.  The MAGA coalition of Donald Trump is once again claiming that immigration is causing grave problems for our country.  In addition, Muslims and non-white  citizens and immigrants are demonized.  The second Trump administration has embarked on a program that would potentially round up and deport millions of undocumented immigrants from the U.S. 

In Section II of this post we will review the eugenics era in the U.S.  We will point out how the pseudo-scientific results from eugenics arguments drove an anti-immigrant agenda, and one that demonized the poor and the weak. In the following Sections we will review the current situation in the U.S.  We will show that MAGA advocates once again claim that immigrants are harming our society. 

But while people in the past century were convinced by eugenics claims, what if anything has replaced “race science” as a philosophical justification for rounding up and deporting immigrants?  We will show that a conspiracy theory called “great replacement theory” does provide some justification for today’s racists.  However, in the U.S. a great deal of racist rhetoric has come from claims by Donald Trump.  Although those claims have essentially no factual basis, they are believed by Trump’s supporters and are also repeated by Republicans in Congress.  In later sections we will discuss modern American racists.  We will also point out concerns over low fertility rates in the U.S.  We will review personal actions by wealthy “tech bros” to increase the population with their own genetic influence, and we will describe “pronatalist” groups who wish to encourage the “right” Americans to have significantly larger families.  

II: American Eugenics in the 20^th Century:

In a blog post, we have summarized the history of the eugenics movement and its effect on American society and government.  Here we will briefly summarize the results of that post.  The eugenics movement was initially begun by British social scientist Francis Galton.  He attempted a scientific study of influential and successful British citizens, and he found that a large number of them were members of extended families.  This suggested to Galton that his society was being run by groups of the most “fit” individuals.  The implications for society in the U.K. seemed to be obvious: the country should encourage these successful families to have more children, while discouraging “unfit” families to reproduce. 

This led to a program to use scientific methods to “analyze and improve the human gene stock” of a society in ways that were analogous to improving the qualities of animals by selectively breeding them.  In the U.S., this program was taken up enthusiastically by the Progressives.  These were people who had previously been successful in a number of areas. 

• Progressives had impressive achievements in technology, such as constructing an international railroad, providing electricity to the nation, building the Panama Canal and developing more efficient methods for mineral extraction. 
• Scientists obtained an understanding of genetics, and a wellness movement improved understanding of nutrition and developed best practices for public health. 
• They had made progress in determining the causes and relieving harm from diseases such as yellow fever, malaria and tuberculosis. 
• The conservation movement spurred efforts to conserve resources and protect wildlife.  It also created national parks. 

President Theodore Roosevelt was an advocate of eugenics.  He stated “Any group of farmers who permitted their best stock not to breed, and let all the increase come from their worst stock, would be treated as inmates for an asylum.”  The eugenics movement advocated for both “positive” efforts to inform citizens of best health practices, and “negative” efforts that tried to prevent “unfit” individuals from reproducing.  An example of positive eugenics was the wellness movement.  This emphasized healthy living through good nutrition and exercise.  One of the most successful ventures in healthy living was the Battle Creek Sanitarium run by the Kellogg brothers in Michigan.  In a number of states, women’s groups sponsored exhibits at state fairs.  These dispensed information on healthy nutrition and childbirth and child-raising information.  They also held competitions to determine the “most eugenic babies.”  The criteria were based on submission of family histories, and inspection of the contestants in methods similar to “hog judging” events.  Figure II.1 shows the winner of a “perfect baby girl” competition at the Oregon State Fair.   As far as we can tell, it never occurred to the organizers of these events that there was any discrimination involved when all winners turned out to be blond-haired, blue-eyed youngsters.  But certainly information on the latest developments in nutrition and wellness were helpful to citizens of these states. 

Figure II.1: The winner of a “perfect baby girl” contest at the Oregon State Fair.  Contestants would submit forms that showed a family history of healthy and successful women.  The finalists were judged on their fitness by a panel of doctors, in events similar to “hog judging” contests at state fairs.

But the state fair booths also included information claiming that the “fitness” of Americans was declining at an alarming rate.  Figure II.2 shows a poster that was displayed at eugenics workshops and also at some state fairs.  The poster first warns that American society is decaying, because we leave reproduction up to “chance,” while we take care to selectively breed animals to insure that the “best” qualities are passed on.  The poster also claims that the only reproduction that produces good results is between “pure” men and “pure” women.  All other couplings are said to produce “abnormal” or “tainted” offspring. 

Figure II.2: A poster circulated at eugenics conferences and at state fairs.  It first asserts that American “fitness” is declining because humans are allowed to reproduce “by chance,” rather than assuring that only couples with two “fit” parents be allowed to produce children.

What was the “evidence” showing that American “fitness” was declining at such a rapid rate?  This was justified through arguments that “scientific racism” had proved that American society was deteriorating.  Here are some of the pseudoscientific methods that were used to claim the decay of American society. 

Collection of data:

One of the important developments in the late 19^th century was the use of quantitative data collection.  Karl Pearson, a leader in the British eugenics movement, founded the field of statistics.  Statistical methods and correlations were used to demonstrate that “healthy” families produced “fit” offspring, while poor families or those in ghettos tended to produce poor offspring.  In the U.S., the Cold Spring Harbor laboratory assembled a massive collection of family histories in order to “prove” that healthy families had fit parents. 

One of the leaders in collecting data was Henry Goddard, director of the Vineland Training School for Feeble-Minded Girls.  Goddard interviewed one of the girls in his school and claimed to have produced a family history that he named “The Kallikak Family: a Study in the Heredity of Feeble-Mindedness.”  According to Goddard, the patriarch of the family  Martin Kallikak (a pseudonym), was married to “a worthy Quakeress,” as shown in Figure II.3.  All family members arising from this union were “among the highest types” of humans.  But Martin also had a “dalliance” with a “feeble-minded servant girl.”  Goddard claimed that all descendants resulting from this “dalliance” were “among the lowest types of human beings.”   Goddard’s book was a best-seller.  It “proved” that “feeble-mindedness” was inherited, and that any match between a couple with one being feeble-minded would produce “unfit” offspring.  They could be mentally retarded, alcoholic, thieves, prostitutes, or poor. 

Figure II.3: The “Kallikak family tree,” produced by Henry Goddard.  Goddard claimed that family patriarch Martin Kallikak (a pseudonym) fathered two families.  The first with his wife “a worthy Quakeress,” was claimed to produce nothing but “the highest types” of descendants.  But Kallikak also had a “dalliance” with a “feeble-minded servant girl.”  Those offspring were claimed to be among the “lowest types” of humans.

Researchers have since revisited Goddard’s study.  They determined that Goddard’s “family history” was mostly false – some of the “servant girl” offspring were successful while some from the “worthy Quakeress” side had negative outcomes.  But the picture in Figure II.3 was included in psychology textbooks until about 1960. 

Genetics:

In 1900 the experiments of Gregor Mendel were re-discovered by biologists.  Mendel’s work showed that various properties of peas (including color and wrinkled or smooth appearance) were passed down from one generation to another according to a set of rules.  Biologists realized that Mendel’s experiments showed the existence of “genes” that played an essential role in inherited characteristics.  For humans, children would inherit genes from both father and mother.  They also understood that some genes were dominant and some were recessive: if an individual received a dominant gene from one parent and a recessive gene from the other, the result would be expressed by the dominant gene. 

When information from genetics was utilized by scientists in the early 20^th century, many simplistic assumptions were made about genetics.  First, the understanding of race was quite inaccurate.  Several eugenics advocates assumed that the inhabitants of each country represented separate races.  In this summary, we will focus on the ‘scientific racism’ of Madison Grant.  Grant, shown in Figure II.4, was an American lawyer, zoologist, conservationist and anthropologist.  He was also a proponent of ‘scientific racism.’  His book The Passing of the Great Race was first published in 1916 and was influential in the adoption of eugenics policies in both the U.S. and Nazi Germany. 

Figure II.4: Madison Grant, American lawyer, conservationist, zoologist and anthropologist.  Grant’s book The Passing of the Great Race was one of the most influential books on ‘scientific racism.’  It had a great effect on eugenics policies both in the United States and in Nazi Germany.

Gran tmaintained that the Europeans were composed of three races,the Nordic, Mediterranean and Alpine (Jews were somehow a separate and lesser race).  In fact, he believed that these were actually three different species. These ‘races’ were determined by a number of physical characteristics, which included height, shape of the skull and the nose, and the color of skin, eye and hair.  He also included attributes such as leadership ability, morality, artistic ability, aptitude for physical labor, and genius.  Grant claimed that every one of these was a “unit characteristic,” a quality that resided on a single gene.      

Thus, according to Grant “Nordics are a race of soldiers, sailors, adventurers, and explorers, but above all, of rulers, organizers and aristocrats … The Nordic race is domineering, individualistic, self-reliant and jealous of their personal freedom both in political and religious systems … In the Europe of today the amount of Nordic blood in each nation is a very fair measure of its strength in war and standing in civilization.”  Grant described the Mediterranean qualities: “The stature is distinctly less than that of the Nordic race and the musculature and bony framework weak.” The Mediterranean race, “while inferior in bodily stamina to both the Nordic and the Alpine, is probably the superior of both … in the field of art, … although in literature and scientific research and discovery the Nordics far excel it.”  While the Alpines were “always and everywhere a race of peasants, an agricultural and never a maritime race ,,, Like all purely agricultural communities throughout Europe, tend toward democracy, although they are submissive to authority both political and religious … and mediocre.” 

It should be easy to see that Grant’s “scientific” description of these races is nothing more than a collection of prejudices.  However, in those days the claim that his arguments were bolstered by the laws of genetics carried a lot of weight.  In addition, Grant maintained that in “race mixing,” the admirable genetic qualities were recessive.  So, for Grant, “The result of the mixture of two races … gives us a race reverting to the lower type.  The cross between a white man and a Negro is a Negro, the cross between a white man and a Hindu is a Hindu, and the cross between any of the three European races and a Jew is a Jew.”   This assertion that race mixing produced degenerate offspring had been “proved” by Henry Goddard’s Kallikak history; the offspring of Martin Kallikak and his “worthy” wife were all the best humans, while Martin and a “feeble-minded” woman produced nothing but the lowest types. 

Grant’s “solution” to the problem of fitness was straightforward – take the unfit and sterilize them.  “The elimination of those who are weak or unfit — in other words social failures — would solve the whole question in one hundred years, as well as enable us to get rid of the undesirables who crowd our jails, hospitals, and insane asylums. The individual himself can be nourished, educated and protected by the community during his lifetime, but the state through sterilization must see to it that his line stops with him, or else future generations will be cursed with an ever increasing load of misguided sentimentalism. This is a practical, merciful, and inevitable solution of the whole problem, and can be applied to an ever-widening circle of social discards, beginning always with the criminal, the diseased, and the insane, and extending gradually to types which may be called weaklings rather than defectives, and perhaps ultimately to worthless race types.”

Grant’s advocacy of compulsory sterilization of the “unfit” resonated in American society.  This was claimed to be a “humane” solution to rid society of its problems.  First, one would sterilize the criminals, diseased and insane; then one would “extend gradually” this program to “weaklings.”  Although Grant was talking about sterilization and not murder, his casual recommendation that involuntary sterilization might eventually be applied to “worthless race types” has horrible foreshadowing of the Holocaust.  Indeed, Adolf Hitler stated that Grant’s book was “his Bible,” and The Passing of the Great Race was the first book translated into German after the Nazis assumed power in Germany. 

Various American groups mobilized to sterilize “unfit” members of society.  The way was cleared for states to pass laws requiring compulsory sterilization with the 1927 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case Buck v. Bell.  In that case the court ruled that the state of Virginia could sterilize “feeble-minded” citizens (in most cases females) without their consent.  Figure II.5 shows the status of compulsory sterilization laws in the U.S. as of Jan. 1, 1935.  At that time, 29 states had sterilization laws on the books (our state Indiana was the first to pass such a law), while 7 states had sterilization laws pending and only 12 states had no compulsory sterilization laws.  After 1935, a number of states revoked these laws.  However, a number of these sterilization laws remained on the books for an uncomfortably long time.  The last state to revoke its compulsory sterilization law was Oregon in 1983. 

Figure II.5: The status of compulsory state sterilization laws for the “unfit,” as of 1935.  States with stripes had sterilization laws on the books, states in black had laws that were pending, and states in white did not have sterilization laws.

IQ Testing:

Attempts to measure intelligence began with French psychologist Alfred Binet.  He and a colleague produced a test that was designed to determine whether young children should be placed in regular classrooms, or whether they should receive special education.  Binet’s test was turned by American psychologists into an intelligence quotient or “IQ” exam.  But while Binet was careful to ensure that his exam was only used for positive outcomes, the American IQ exams were used by eugenicists for much more negative purposes.  An advertisement for a “National Intelligence Test” which later became the “Stanford-Binet” IQ exam is shown in Figure II.6.  First, despite the claim of the IQ testers that the exams measured innate intelligence, the early exams contained much material that had nothing to do with basic intelligence but instead asked questions that could be answered by middle-class Americans. Here is one such question.  Crisco is a: i) patent medicine; ii) disinfectant; iii) toothpaste; iv) food product.  People taking the test were assigned a “mental age;” for example, if a person achieved the same grade on the exam as the average 15-year-old, their mental age was 15.  A comprehensive critique of early IQ tests was made by Stephen Jay Gould in his 1981 book The Mismeasure of Man. 

Figure II.6: An advertisement for mass IQ testing using an examination based on an early version of what became the “Stanford-Binet” test.

The scientists behind the IQ tests administered them in circumstances “proving” that American mental fitness was shockingly low and was likely to decline much further.  As one indication of American intelligence, in 1917 the Stanford-Binet test was administered to all 1.75 million U.S. Army World War I recruits.  There were two versions of the test.  A written version was given to all recruits, while those who failed that test were supposed to be given a verbal version of the test (many Army recruits at that time were illiterate).   It was reported that the average “mental age” of Army recruits was 13; furthermore, 37% of white recruits and 87% of Negroes had a mental age less than 13.  This result was widely publicized and appeared to indicate that the “fitness” of Americans was rapidly declining. 

In a second instance, IQ tests were administered to immigrants arriving by ship at Ellis Island.  It was assumed that first-class passengers were of course fit, so the exam was given to arrivals in steerage class.  These people had just arrived after a long boat ride, many of them were illiterate and had little facility in English; some of them may never have held a pencil before.  Nevertheless, it was widely reported that the IQ tests “proved” that 83% of arriving Jews, 80% of Hungarians, 79% of Italians and 87% of Russians were “feeble-minded.”  This fit the narrative that the U.S. was being “invaded” by a horde of “unfit” immigrants.  In the latter half of the 19^th century, a large number of immigrants came from southern and eastern European countries, unlike the earlier arrivals from places like Britain, Scandinavia, France and Germany.  The eugenicists argued that people from these countries were much less intelligent than the earlier American immigrants. 

Any critical analysis of the IQ tests would have revealed that they were biased against people for whom English was a second language and in favor of current U.S. citizens.  For example, when immigrants were given IQ tests after arriving in this country, their “IQ score” steadily increased every year.  This showed conclusively that the IQ tests were not measuring any “innate” and “fixed” intelligence. But anti-immigrant sentiment was stoked by the “scientific proof” that southern and eastern European immigrants were corrupting the fitness of the American people.  This led to the passage of the 1924 Immigration Act.  It established quotas that limited annual immigration from affected countries to 2% of the US population in the 1990 census; the year was chosen to coincide with a year when immigration from these countries was beginning to rise rapidly.  This law favored immigrants from northern and western European countries while greatly restricting immigration from southern and eastern Europe.  For Asian countries all immigration was forbidden, although an informal agreement with Japan was reached allowing some Japanese immigration. 

Figure II.7 shows the results of the quotas imposed under the 1924 Immigration Act.  On the left is the annual immigration from European countries prior to the Act, while the right-hand map shows quotas imposed by the Act.  The darkest shades represent immigration of 50,000 people/year, while the white area represents less than 1,000 people/year.  Comparing the two maps one sees that whereas Italy had 30,000 – 50,000 immigrants per year before the Act, their quota under the 1924 Act was 1,000 – 5,000 per year.  Russian immigration went from 10,000 – 30,000 per year to a quota of 1,000 – 3,000/year.  Immigration from the Balkan countries, Greece and Turkey decreased to a maximum of less than 1,000 per year.  So, the racist policies bolstered by eugenic “scientific proofs” severely reduced immigration to the U.S. from southern and eastern European countries.

Figure II.7: Results of the 1924 Immigration Act.  Left: Annual immigration levels prior to the 1924 Act: darkest: above 50,000, to white: below 1,000.  Right: immigration quotas imposed by the Act.  Countries such as Russia, Italy, Greece, Turkey and Balkan states were now subject to very restrictive quotas.

Here is Madison Grant’s description of immigration from Europe to the U.S. following the Civil War.  “European governments took the opportunity to unload upon careless, wealthy and hospitable America the sweepings of their jails and asylums … immigration contained a large and increasing number of the weak, the broken, and the mentally crippled of all races drawn from the lowest stratum of the Mediterranean basin and the Balkans, together with hordes of the wretched, submerged populations of the Polish Ghettos … this is the “survival of the unfit.”  This eugenics-era statement has interesting echoes in modern-day arguments about immigration.   

III: The New Racism [Eugenics] in 21^st Century America:

In the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, eugenics was bolstered by claims that it was supported by cutting-edge science.  Pseudoscientific case histories supposedly ‘proved’ that the union of a “fit” person with an “unfit” person resulted in unfit offspring.  That claim was further buttressed by naïve and incorrect assumptions about genetics.  And early IQ tests were said to “demonstrate” that immigrants from southern and eastern Europe had much lower intellectual capacity than current U.S. citizens, who were largely from countries like Britain, Scandinavia, Germany and France.  All of these pseudoscientific arguments were combined under the term scientific racism.  Scientific racism was used to justify involuntary sterilization of the “feeble-minded,” and national quotas in the U.S. 1924 Immigration Act were directly motivated by results from IQ testing of immigrants.    

Today, there have also been claims to slow or halt nearly all immigration, and to round up, detain, and deport undocumented residents of the U.S.  However, these current actions are no longer justified by “scientific racism,” as was the case with the original eugenics actions.  The closest thing to a modern philosophical justification for stopping immigration, and rounding up and deporting undocumented (as well as some legal immigrant) residents, is the great replacement theory.   This theory, also called white genocide theory, was outlined by French author Renaud Camus in a 2011 book which claimed that there was an organized conspiracy to replace white Christians in France with non-whites and particularly with Muslims, thus destroying traditional French culture. Figure III.1 shows the cover of that book. This debunked theory has been taken up by right-wing groups in the U.S. and Europe.  When applied to the U.S., the claim is that there is a conspiracy, run by elites and Jews, in the U.S. to flood the country with non-white migrants and Muslims. Immigration of non-white and non-Christian peoples is claimed to constitute a deliberate, coordinated effort to bring about the extinction of white Christians.  

Figure III.1: The book “The Great Replacement,” by French author Renaud Camus.  It claimed that ‘elites’ in France had a deliberate policy by which non-white and/or Muslim immigrants would flood France and destroy its white Christian culture.

As we will see, the existence of such a conspiracy, assumed to be controlled by Democrats who would benefit from the votes of these foreigners, is highly dubious.  Nevertheless, this has been supported by right-wing groups.  White supremacist Nick Fuentes, whom we will cover shortly, is an adherent of this theory.  And both Donald Trump and his Vice President JD Vance have issued statements that appear to support white replacement theory.  

Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) slogan represents his America First nationalist policies.  A nationalist policy is based on the explicit assumption that the people and culture of one’s country are superior to other cultures.  One way to ‘prove’ such assertions is to contrast your own culture and people to those of an ‘inferior’ country, culture or race.  In the U.S., MAGA groups typically make such comparisons.  A frequent MAGA claim is that the U.S. is a white Christian country. (It should be noted that this claim comes some 400 years after early white Christian Americans imported many thousands of black Africans to serve as their slaves and 150 years after those slaves were emancipated by Abraham Lincoln. It should also be noted that the word Christian or Christ never appears in the U.S. Constitution or in any of its amendments.) Thus, some Republican members of Congress have stated that Muslim religion and culture are inferior to ‘American’ culture, or that Muslims should not be allowed to immigrate to the U.S.  Others claim that Jews are undermining ‘American’ values – George Soros is a particular focus of such views, which often combine anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.  Many of these claims originated from Russia or Hungary and have been picked up by right-wing groups. 

The focus of eugenics was “to improve the stock of the nation.”  As we summarized in Section II of this post, in the 20^th century, that took the form of “positive” steps to encourage the “fittest” citizens of a country to have more children.  There were also “negative eugenics” steps.  These took the form of efforts to restrict immigration from countries whose citizens were alleged to be “less fit.”  Then there were efforts to perform compulsory sterilization on members of “unfit” groups – predominantly blacks, the poor, and inhabitants of asylums.  We have not heard any serious recent statements advocating involuntary sterilization; however, the anti-immigrant rhetoric is eerily similar to that issued during the eugenics era. 

We begin this section with a review of the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally by white supremacists, anti-Semites and other right-wing groups in Charlottesville, Virginia.  We will then review statements made by white supremacist and right-wing blogger Nick Fuentes.  We will conclude this section by reviewing many racist statements made by Donald Trump. 

The Unite the Right Rally:

In 2015, a white supremacist named Dylann Roof murdered nine black congregants in a church in Charleston, South Carolina.  In the aftermath of this crime, many cities in the South decided to remove statues that glorified Confederate soldiers.  In August 2017, a rally was organized by white supremacists.  The premise of the ‘Unite the Right’ rally was to protest the proposed removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee in a Charlottesville, Virginia park. The rally attracted a wide array of right-wing groups, including white supremacists, antiSemites and neo-Nazi groups, anti-Islamists, right-wing militia members and Klansmen.  The rally attracted individuals from these groups, but it also provoked a large counter-demonstration.  Some right-wing attendees carried Nazi flags or Confederate flags and shouted slogans.  The evening of August 11 featured a chilling procession.  A group of right-wing supporters formed a procession where they held tiki torches and chanted “Jews will not replace us.”  Their behavior was a gruesome flashback to similar parades in Nazi Germany in the 1930s.  Figure III.2 below shows a video of those marchers.  

https://www.facebook.com/WorldJewishCong/videos/10155612383354805

Figure III.2: Video from the World Jewish Congress showing a procession of neo-Nazis at the August 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville.  The marchers carried torches and chanted “Jews will not replace us.” 

Several skirmishes took place between the white supremacists and the counter-demonstrators.  On August 12, Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe declared a state of emergency and called in the state police.  On the afternoon of that day a white supremacist named Alex Fields deliberately rammed his car into a crowd of counter-protesters.  He killed a woman named Heather Heyer and injured 35 people. In the wake of this rally, President Donald Trump issued a few statements. In the first, he decried the “display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides.”  When challenged over a statement that seemed to equate the response of the counter-protesters with the provocation from the ‘Unite the Right’ attendees (and the murder of a counter-protester), Trump then claimed that he saw “very fine people on both sides” of this protest. 

Although Trump later insisted that he was not condoning the white supremacists and neo-Nazis at the rally, it seemed hard to deny that he was equating the moral stance of both sides at this event.  The support of far-right fringe elements in the MAGA movement has deepened after Trump pardoned everyone who had been convicted of felonies at the January 6, 2021 storming of the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to block the confirmation of Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election. 

Here we will discuss the actions of two white racists.  The first is Nick Fuentes, who has become a leading voice of white supremacist, anti-feminist and anti-Semitic views.  The second is our current president, Donald Trump.  We will review some of his racist views and his demonization of immigrants.    

Nick Fuentes:

Nick Fuentes is an American blogger and public figure who has become a spokesperson for extreme far-right positions, particularly on white supremacy and anti-feminism.  He has become a symbol of far-right hatred in the U.S.  Figure III.3 shows a photo of Fuentes, who was born in 1998 in Illinois.  Apparently Fuentes espoused rather conventional conservative views during his time in high school, but he moved sharply to the right shortly after that. He attended Boston University for one semester but dropped out following his participation in the August, 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. That rally featured a procession of neo-Nazis, Klansmen and other right-wing groups.  Figure III.2 featured a brief video that showed marchers at that rally chanting their anti-Semitic slogans. 

Figure III.3: Right-wing commentator and white supremacist Nick Fuentes.  Fuentes became associated with extreme right-wing positions following his participation in the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in August 2017.

After the Unite the Right rally, Fuentes began live streaming episodes of America First with Nicholas J. Fuentes.  He gained more notoriety when he participated in the storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.  A couple of days before that event, Fuentes appeared at a demonstration where he discussed how to deal with state legislators who refused to participate in efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.  “What can you and I do to a state legislator – besides kill them? … I’m not advising that, but I mean, what else can you do, right?” 

His operating mode features outrageous, often hateful, comments.  A few examples of his rhetorical style are “Who runs the media?  Globalists. Time to kill the globalists.  I want people that run CNN to be arrested and deported or hanged.”  Or, regarding women, they are “baby machines, because that’s what their brains are about.”  He proposed that “every woman and girl must go to the breeding gulags … just like Hitler imprisoned Gypsies, Jews, communists, you know, all his political rivals, we have to do the same thing with women.”  He also claimed that rape was not a big deal, since “a lot of women want to be raped.”  Following Donald Trump’s electoral victory in 2024, Fuentes tweeted to pro-choice women, “Your body, my choice.  Forever.”  This statement has become a staple of anti-feminist rhetoric from Fuentes’ supporters, who appear to be overwhelmingly young white males  who derive great satisfaction by making outrageous ‘anti-woke’ statements. Fuentes supporter the Groypers are a new, virulent, and self-defeating breed. Even the 20^th-century Eugenicists did not express such hatred of women; if they had, calls for pure couples to have more children would have been completely undermined.

In a broadcast in March 2025, Fuentes stated that “Jews are running society, women need to shut the fuck up, Blacks need to be imprisoned for the most part, and we would live in paradise.”  Fuentes denounces democratic governments, since they tend to treat all citizens as equal. He has advocated for establishment of a “Catholic monarchy” in the U.S., that would enforce his doctrine of white male Christian superiority.  He has praised various dictators including Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.  On his show he remarked that “Hitler is awesome. Hitler was right. And the Holocaust didn’t happen.” 

When his outrageous statements are criticized, Fuentes falls back on the tradition of denying that he meant these comments literally or claiming that he was simply joking.  He became a regular commentator on Alex Jones’ conspiracy theory platform Infowars.  Fuentes has garnered millions of views on various social medial sites.  Fuentes was temporarily banned from many social media sites, including YouTube, Twitch, Reddit and Twitter, for hate speech on his posts.  He has also been banned from e-commerce services such as “PayPal, Venmo, Patreon, Shopify, Stripe, Streamlabs and Coinbase.”

Despite (or perhaps because of) his willingness to make extreme statements, Fuentes has amassed a large audience for his views.  His espousal of Christian nationalist, white supremacist, anti-Semitic and anti-feminist views have attracted the attention of many young American males, who call themselves Groypers, after a variant of the right-wing meme figure Pepe the Frog. 

The Groypers have gained fame by opposing other right-wing groups whom they criticize for being not sufficiently radical.  Fuentes and his followers particularly targeted the late Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA (TPUSA) organization.  They would turn up at TPUSA rallies, chant racist, fascistic or homophobic slogans, and harass speakers.  The net result was to increase Fuentes’ followers.  In the past several months, a couple of young conservative groups have been embarrassed when e-mails from their members revealed toxic comments extolling Hitler and Nazism and engaging in virulent racist and sexist rhetoric.  The first scandal surfaced in October 2025, when Politico revealed that groups of Young Republicans were sharing texts stating “I love Hitler,” praising the rape of young women, and calling African-Americans “monkeys” and “watermelon people.”   Then in March 2025, a group of conservatives at a Florida college were found to have exchanged chats that advocated the killing of blacks (including beheading and dissecting them), anti-Semitic comments that included praise for Adolf Hitler, and demeaning remarks about women. 

However, because Fuentes kept increasing his number of followers, he has slowly but surely received publicity from more mainstream right-wing sources.  In November 2022, Donald Trump hosted the mentally ill rapper Kanye West and Nick Fuentes for a dinner at Mar-a-Lago.  Trump was widely criticized for hosting young men who had expressed virulent anti-Semitic views.  Then in October 2025, Fuentes appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show.  Carlson was widely criticized for not calling out some of Fuentes’ more incendiary statements.  When Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts defended Carlson and Fuentes, it sparked a debate that caused at least a dozen Heritage Foundation staffers to leave that organization. Figure III.4 shows the banner of Donald Trump that hangs from the Heritage Foundation headquarters in Washington, D.C. 

Figure III.4: A banner of Donald Trump hanging from the headquarters of the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C.  It shows the extent to which the Heritage Foundation has aligned itself with Trump’s personality.  In Dec. 2025, at least a dozen staffers resigned from the Foundation because of support by their president Kevin Roberts over Tucker Carlson’s embrace of white supremacist and anti-Semite Nick Fuentes.

In late 2025, Nick Fuentes called Vice President JD Vance a “race traitor” because Vance’s wife Usha is of Indian descent.  The term ‘race traitor’ has been used to describe white people who support or marry non-whites.  This term appeared frequently in eugenics, as that pseudoscience was supposedly justified by ‘scientific racism.’  That doctrine falsely claimed the superiority of the white race.  Fuentes’ invocation of ‘race traitor’ for JD Vance was an indication of Fuentes’ white supremacy views. These racist arguments are somewhat ironic as Fuentes himself could be described as a ‘mongrel’ (using the terminology of racists), as his father was half Mexican. 

In the late 19^th and early 20^th century, eugenics arguments were supposedly justified by the results from scientific racism.  As discussed in Section II of this post, we now know that these ‘scientific racism’ arguments were in fact based on a misunderstanding of genetics, as well as a series of race prejudices that were based on false nationalistic arguments about the merits of different cultures.  The intent of Fuentes and other white supremacists is to out-flank the MAGA movement on the right, in an attempt to shift the positions of MAGA Republicans.  As philosophical cover for his reactionary views, Fuentes invokes the white replacement theory, which we discussed earlier in this section.  Fuentes claims that there is a conspiracy, run by Jews, in the U.S. to flood the country with non-white migrants and Muslims.

The great replacement theory has provided ideological cover for a number of far-right terrorist attacks against minorities in the U.S. and abroad.  In 2019, Brent Tarrant killed 51 people and injured 89 others in an attack on services at a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand.  In that same year, Patrick Crusius killed 23 people and injured 22 others in an attack at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas.  In 2022, Payton Gendron killed 10 people and wounded 3 others in an attack on a Tops Market store in Buffalo, New York.  And in 2023, Ryan Palmeter killed three people in an attack at a Dollar General Store in Jacksonville, Florida.  In every case, the shooter deliberately targeted non-whites, and left statements that referred to the “great replacement theory” to justify their murderous actions.  So beliefs such as those elaborated by Nick Fuentes will necessarily incite some young men to commit violent acts.     

In 2020, Nick Fuentes established an annual meeting, the America First Political Action Conference, as an extremist rival to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).  In 2021, he was barred from the Hyatt Regency Orlando hotel for initiating a commotion at a CPAC meeting; later that year he was removed from a CPAC conference for harassing journalists.  Because of his radical far-right views, Fuentes has vacillated regarding his support of Donald Trump.  From 2016 to 2022, Fuentes was generally a strong Trump supporter.  However, in fall 2022, Fuentes announced that he was supporting Kanye West’s candidacy for the presidency, and stated that Trumpism was “a giant cult-like scam,” and that the GOP “is run by Jews, atheists, and homosexuals.”  However, after the 2024 election, Fuentes has been a vocal supporter of Donald Trump. 

Donald Trump:

Donald Trump contributes directly to racist statements and policies.  Trump has a long history of racist views and actions.  When he went into the business of housing rentals with his father, they were accused of racial discrimination in the apartments they were renting.  In 1973 the U.S. Civil Rights Commission filed a lawsuit against Trump Management Company alleging that they systematically excluded African Americans and Puerto Ricans from their rental properties.  The Trumps entered into a consent decree in 1975, where they agreed to institute a set of safeguards to ensure that their apartments were rented to all parties regardless of their race, religion, sex or national origin. However, their rental policies changed little after this settlement.

Figure III.5: President Donald J. Trump.

In announcing his candidacy for president in June 2015, Trump said about Mexican immigrants “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best … They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”   This was the first of many, many Trump statements defaming immigrants from non-white countries.  As President, Trump is famous for calling immigrants from African or Caribbean locations members of “shithole countries.” He referred to Somali immigrants in Minnesota as “garbage,” in addition to “filthy, dirty and disgusting.”  And he called out US Representative Ilhan Omar, an immigrant from Somalia, “She should get out [of the U.S.].  Throw her the hell out”.  He has explicitly tried to prevent immigration from countries whose citizens are predominantly black or Muslim.  For example, in 2017 Trump instituted an immigration ban on people from several Muslim-majority nations.  On the other hand, he has ordered the U.S. to accept white immigrants from South Africa, on the false assertion that they have experienced government-sanctioned violence. 

For many years now, Trump has shown an obsession with “good genes” and “bad genes,” terms that hark back to the false genetic theories in the original eugenics era of the previous century.  He justifies his theories by referring to racehorses.  When comparing himself to his uncle John Trump, a faculty member at MIT, Trump says “Same genes.  We have the same genes.  We’re smart people.  We’re like racehorses, too.  You know, the fast ones produce the fast ones, and the slow ones don’t work out so well, right?  But we’re no, we’re no different in that sense.”   In 2020, he addressed a crowd of nearly all white people in Minnesota.  “You have good genes.  A lot of it is about the genes, isn’t it, don’t you believe.  The racehorse theory … you have good genes in Minnesota.”  

Conversely, when talking about non-white immigrants, Trump’s rhetoric can adopt Nazi rhetoric.  He has repeatedly claimed that undocumented immigrants were “poisoning the blood of our country,” a phrasetaken directly from Nazi Germany.  On the campaign trail, Trump even implied that immigrants who commit crimes were sub-human.  “I don’t know if you call them people.  In some cases, they’re not people, in my opinion.”   And in 2024 Trump told talk-show host Hugh Hewitt, “You know, now, a murderer, I believe this, it’s in their genes.  And we got a lot of bad genes in our country right now.”   

Both on the campaign trail and in the White House, Donald Trump continually plays the race card and makes explicit racist comments about immigrants, non-whites and Muslims.  And he occasionally justifies it with comments that refer directly to discredited arguments from the original era of eugenics.  However, in other cases, Trump does not bother to refer to any theories.  He simply recites phony statistics to “prove” his assertions that immigrants are the cause of terrible problems in this country.  For example, he has justified sending National Guard troops into large cities with Democratic mayors by claiming that immigrants are criminals.  Figure III.6 shows U.S. crime rates in four categories.  For each category, the blue bar is crimes by U.S.-born citizens; the red bar is crimes committed by legal immigrants; and the green bar is crimes committed by undocumented immigrants.  The top category is violent crimes; 2^nd from top is property crimes; 3^rd from top is drug violations; and the bottom category is traffic violations.  In every category, undocumented immigrants commit crimes at the lowest rate; and in the top 3 categories U.S.-born citizens commit crimes at the highest rate.  For violent crime, U.S.-born citizens commit crimes at a rate 2.2 times higher than undocumented immigrants; for property crimes the rate is a factor 4.2 higher; and for drug violations the rate is a factor of 2.5 higher for U.S.-born citizens. 

Figure III.6: U.S. Crime rates per 100,000 persons.  Blue: U.S.-born citizens; Red: Legal immigrants; Green: undocumented immigrant.  Top: violent crime; 2^nd from top: property crimes; 3^rd from top: drug violations; bottom: traffic violations. 

Donald Trump’s assertions about crimes committed by undocumented immigrants are completely false.  He simply makes up these figures, and his supporters (including nearly all Republicans in Congress) repeat them.  Another of Trump’s claims is that there is a great spike in violent crime, primarily in cities with Democratic mayors.  And this justifies his sending troops and ICE into major Democratic cities.  Figure III.7 shows the U.S. violent crime rate from 1960 to 2018.  The crime rate peaked in 1991, and the violent crime rate in 2018 was half that at its peak. 

Figure III.7: Violent crime rate in the U.S. over time from 1960 to 2018.  Although Donald Trump has claimed in both his terms that the U.S. is experiencing a “spike” in violent crime rates, due mainly to crimes committed by immigrants, that is absolutely refuted by this graph.

Trump has also claimed that violence and crime are particularly concentrated in cities with Democratic mayors.  He particularly singled out five cities: Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Baltimore, and Oakland, California.  However, over the past five years crimes involving guns decreased by 32% in Chicago, 13% in New York, 17% in Baltimore and 20% in Oakland.  So, recent claims by Trump of crime waves in major cities committed by murderous undocumented immigrants is completely false.  This frees him from having to invoke any scientific racist theories to justify his assertions. The current situation is reduced to whether or not you believe the claims made by Donald Trump. They don’t stand up to the data, but that doesn’t matter to MAGA supporters. Trump’s rhetoric suggests that he thinks eugenics are part of what “made America great.”

IV: The ‘Tech Bros’ and Modern Eugenics:

We wrote a blog post regarding the possibility of significant population decline in developed countries, a result of falling fertility rates in those countries.  Since that time, many people have remarked on the fact that fertility rates in the U.S. are now well below the rate necessary to sustain population levels.  This issue has become a political football, as many MAGA supporters have urged that the U.S. increase its fertility rates; and several politicians have put forth proposals that could increase American fertility rates.  In this section, we will review instances of prominent people in the tech world who have made proposals to increase the birth rate in this country.  Others have embarked on their own personal programs to increase the population. 

The ‘tech bros’ that we will discuss in this section are in line with the “positive eugenics” programs of the 20^th century, in that those efforts were directed towards encouraging the “most fit” individuals to have large families.  Clearly people like Jeffrey Epstein and Elon Musk consider themselves to be “masters of the universe,” and hence ideal role models to populate the Earth.  This impulse seems similar to eugenics priorities from the previous century.  We also include billionaire Pavel Durov, founder of the Telegram social media app.  In his case, his impulses appear to be genuinely aimed at helping women conceive through IVF methods. 

Jeffrey Epstein:

Jeffrey Epstein was a wealthy businessman who is now known to have sexually assaulted scores of young women whom he employed at various of his residences, including a private island Little St. James in the U.S. Virgin Islands, a palatial mansion in Manhattan, and a compound Zorro Ranch outside Santa Fe, New Mexico.  Figure IV.1 shows Epstein with Alan Dershowitz, a lawyer who represented Epstein at his trial in 2008 and was also a personal friend of Epstein. 

Figure IV.1: The financier and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein (L), with his personal lawyer and good buddy Alan Dershowitz.  Epstein discussed with friends his plans to personally impregnate a phalanx of young women with the purpose of fathering a clan of super-intelligent children.

Despite the fact that Epstein did not have an undergraduate degree, he managed to insinuate himself into employment at the investment bank and trading firm Bear Stearns.  From there he met various wealthy businessmen, including Les Wexner who was the head of Victoria’s Secret, and Leon Black the co-founder of Apollo Global Management.  In 1991 Wexner granted Epstein power of attorney over all his finances, and he installed Epstein as a trustee on the board of the Wexner Foundation.  Epstein made millions from managing Wexner’s money and crafting tax strategies for Wexner.  In 2019, after Epstein’s second incarceration for molesting scores of young women, Wexner accused Epstein of having “misappropriated vast sums of money” from him.  It would seem that Wexner’s complaint was a few decades late.  It was revealed that between 2012 and 2017 Leon Black, the head of the Apollo Global Management group, had paid Jeffrey Epstein $158 million in fees for tax work Epstein had carried out.  It is said that Epstein’s work had saved Black $1.3 billion in taxes.  At least three women have claimed that Black sexually harassed them.  A recent New York Times story details that Epstein also helped manage finances with several of Black’s mistresses. 

After Jeffrey Epstein had amassed a personal fortune, he established several residences where he employed young women, some of them minors.  Apparently he and his close associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the daughter of wealthy publisher Robert Maxwell, recruited these young women with the promise that they would be trained as masseuses and introduced to wealthy individuals who might hire them.  However, once they were installed at Epstein’s many residences, Ms. Maxwell trained the women to give erotic massages to Epstein.  Several of these women claimed that Epstein also had sexual relations with them.  A number of the Epstein women have claimed that Epstein also pressured them to have sex with prominent men who visited his residences.  One of these men was former Prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the brother of King Charles III who has recently been stripped of his royal title and privileges because of his association with Epstein.  Figure IV.2 shows Andrew with his arm around Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s “girls.”  Ghislaine Maxwell stands in the background.  Despite the photograph, Andrew swore he could not remember ever meeting Giuffre; however, after Giuffre filed a civil suit alleging sexual harassment, Andrew reached a settlement just before he was scheduled to give a deposition in the case.  The settlement was rumored to be as much as $16 million.  Andrew also donated an amount to charity but did not admit to the harassment charges. 

Figure IV.2: Former Prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor with his arm around Virginia Giuffre, one of Jeffrey Epstein’s “girls.”  Ghislaine Maxwell stands in the background.

Figure IV.3: Jeffrey Epstein’s colony Zorro Ranch outside Santa Fe, New Mexico.  Zorro Ranch was to be the site of a clan of children, all fathered by Epstein with the young women whom he employed, and sexually harassed, at this location. 

One of Jeffrey Epstein’s major residences was Zorro Ranch, a sprawling colony about 30 miles south of Santa Fe, New Mexico.  The property shown in Figure IV.3, which includes a private airstrip and helipad, and whose area is more than half the size of the city of Santa Fe, housed a bevy of young women.  Virginia Giuffre, one of the many women who accused Epstein of sexually abusing them, claimed that she had been sexually abused by Epstein and his associates at Zorro Ranch.  In a 2019 interview, Jeffrey Epstein told Steve Bannon that he became interested in Santa Fe when he heard that a group of scientists including Nobel Laureate Murray Gell-Mann had formed a prestigious research center, the Santa Fe Institute (SFI).  Epstein, a relentless cultivator of brilliant scientists, hoped that he could make contact with SFI scientists and in particular with Gell-Mann.  It appears that Epstein provided Gell-Mann with up to $680,000 in support of his research.  At one point, he corresponded with someone who was trying to meet Gell-Mann, “tell him we are close … tell him you know he likes beautiful women.”   

Jeffrey Epstein became deeply interested in transhumanism, which embodies the science of improving the human population by using techniques from genetic engineering and artificial intelligence.  The aim of ‘improving the human stock’ naturally connects with eugenics, which had the same goals before these modern technologies were available.  Epstein told a number of his associates that he planned to create a “super-race” of descendants by impregnating groups of young women at Zorro Ranch.  Epstein revealed to several people that his intent was to impregnate 20 women at a time.  It is not clear whether his intention was to implant his sperm through something like in vitro fertilization techniques, or simply to have sex with the women. Their children would be raised at that compound. The scheme is not significantly different than a number of other cults headed by a “father figure” who views the women of the cult as his personal harem. But Epstein’s women were to be more like captives rather than cult members.

One of the core concepts of eugenics was that the human race could be “improved” by selectively breeding the most “fit” members of society, much like animal breeders improve the properties of their livestock by selective breeding.  Epstein believed that since these children would receive half of his own DNA, they would necessarily carry an exceptional set of genes.  Although Epstein shared this vision with a number of people, other details of this experiment were never clear.  It is not known how he intended that these children should be raised and educated.  And there is no evidence that this project was ever begun.  Since Epstein apparently killed himself in jail in 2019, we will never know how his plan to produce a bevy of super-intelligent children would have worked out.  It is possible that it was simply hot air. 

Elon Musk:

Elon Musk is a South African businessman who obtained U.S. citizenship in 2002.  Figure IV.4 shows Musk at a Trump rally in January 2026, where he is giving what appears to be a Nazi salute, although Musk denied that this was his intent.  Certainly, neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups took this as a Nazi gesture. Musk is one of the richest men in the world, and several estimates rank him as the wealthiest in the world.  A recent estimate of his net worth listed it at about $852 billion.  Musk has been the founder and/or CEO of several companies, including Tesla, X, Starlink, SpaceX, Neuralink and xAI. 

Figure IV.4: Elon Musk is a wealthy businessman who was born in South Africa.  He is shown here at a rally for Donald Trump in Jan. 2025, giving a hand gesture that many people interpreted as a Nazi salute, although Musk denied that this was his intent.

Elon Musk has been an advocate for large families, particularly to counteract the low fertility rates in developed countries.  Musk has tweeted “population collapse due to low birth rates is a much bigger risk to civilization than global warming.”  A colleague of Elon Musk has stated that Musk has a strong belief that “your wealth is directly linked to your IQ.”  So let’s see, this would make Musk the smartest person on the planet?  This same colleague also said that Musk had urged “all the rich men he knew” to have as many children as possible.  Certainly Elon Musk himself has been a major contributor to population increase efforts.  He has at least 14 children with five different women, although the Wall Street Journal reported that “the true number of Musk’s children is much higher than publicly known.”  

A couple of decades ago, Elon Musk contributed to political campaigns for both Republicans and Democrats.  However, in recent years both his political contributions and his personal comments have taken a hard right turn.  Musk was the biggest contributor to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2024.  When Musk purchased Twitter in 2022 and changed its name to X, he promised that the social media app would become a bastion of free speech.  However, it turns out that Musk’s commitment to free speech is largely a one-way street.  Under Musk’s leadership, X has seen an explosion of conspiracy theories, hate speech, and racist and anti-Semitic posts.  And Musk himself has re-tweeted several X posts that contain either hard-right conspiracy theories or false claims about immigrants.  On the other hand, Musk has shut down the promulgation of other views on X.  He has been accused of trying to silence his critics on X, and he has banned the Elonjet account on Twitter (Elonjet tracked the usage of Musk’s private jet).  Musk also temporarily closed the accounts of journalists who covered the ‘Elonjet’ controversy. 

Elon Musk has also created his own version of AI, xAI.  We have covered the training of the xAI chatbot Grok in a post on our blog.  Musk deliberately trained Grok using posts on X, which is notorious for conspiracy theories and misinformation.  Musk also instructed Grok to be ‘edgy’ and ‘anti-woke.’  It would thus avoid safety filters that more conventional AI chatbots would employ.  The result is that early versions of Grok were prone to deliver racist, sexist or anti-Semitic responses to prompts.  In February 2025, it was discovered that Grok 3 had been instructed not to mention that Musk or Trump spread misinformation. 

But it was in the second Trump administration that Elon Musk seemed to shift from a right-wing commentator on social media to a visibly psychopathic individual.  Musk was named leader of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) by Donald Trump, and then began what appeared to be a reign of terror.  He implemented savage workforce reduction programs: it is estimated that 284,000 federal employees were fired, slated to be cut, or chose to retire.  One of the hardest-hit agencies was Veterans Affairs, with 80,900 personnel slated for future cuts. 

Under Musk, DOGE had the workforce of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) slashed by 99% and its budget slated to be eliminated; Musk said that agency “deserved to die.”  The DOGE cuts were brutal, haphazard, and pitiless.  When he stepped away from this role in May, 2025, Musk claimed that he had saved the federal government $175 billion in reducing “waste, fraud and abuse.”  In actuality, DOGE had saved far, far less than that; a study by Politico found that Musk had saved no more than 5% of what he claimed.  But the amount of angst and chaos caused by DOGE was genuinely frightening.  Musk, on the other hand, seemed to be proud of his actions.  At a Conservative Political Action Conference meeting, Argentine strongman Javier Milei presented Musk with a chainsaw, which Musk gleefully powered up, as shown in Figure IV. 5. 

Figure IV.5: Elon Musk wielding a chainsaw at a CPAC meeting in 2025.  The image highlighted Musk’s chaotic round of firings and closures during the period where he was leading DOGE.

Musk’s efforts to have as many children as possible, while urging his tech-bro billionaires to have large numbers of children, clearly represents an effort to improve the “fitness” of Americans.  The assumption is that the children of billionaires will carry genes that make them much more intelligent and successful than the average.  (In Musk’s case they may also be more autistic than the average, since Musk himself has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, which is genetically transmitted to offspring.) This is correlated with Elon Musk’s efforts to allow immigration for white South Africans, over immigration by any other nationalities.  Although the level of violence in South Africa is high, there is little to no evidence that there is active government-supported violence against whites.  Once again, these efforts align closely with the eugenics movement from the past century.  

The idea of billionaires having large families does not sink to the level of negative eugenics practices of the past century.  Although the American right wing wants to stop all immigration from Third World or non-white countries, the “tech bros” have not called for forced sterilization of “unfit” people.  The horrors of the Holocaust do not seem to be on the horizon for this group.  While the American eugenics movement of the 20^th century held that Asians represented a rather “low fitness” group (in the 1924 Immigration Act the immigration quota for Asians was set to zero), there is a strong representation of Asians in the tech billionaire group.  Nevertheless, the class of American tech billionaires clearly considers themselves uniquely superior to the normal citizen. 

Pavel Durov: 

Pavel Durov is a Russian-born tech entrepreneur, who formed with his older brother the social media service Telegram that shares encrypted messages.   Figure IV.6 is a photograph of Durov.  His app Telegram is now located in Dubai.  Durov’s estimated net worth makes him the richest expatriate in the United Arab Emirates. The Telegram app has attracted a wide array of users, including “pro-democracy advocates, Islamist extremists, drug traffickers and cybercriminals.”  Durov is a strong free speech advocate; he resists any attempts to restrict usership of Telegram.  This position apparently landed him in trouble with the Putin administration in Russia, so he left to set up business in Dubai. 

Figure IV.6: A photograph of Pavel Durov, a Russian-born tech entrepreneur who co-founded the encrypted message app Telegram.  Telegram is currently headquartered in Dubai where Durov now lives.

Durov has never married and lives alone.  It was revealed in 2024 that Durov had fathered over 100 children.  Six of these were children he had fathered with three different women.  The remaining children were apparently conceived through sperm donation by Durov.  Unlike the case with Jeffrey Epstein, who intended to create a “master race” of his own children, Durov’s sperm donations arose from his concern that fertility rates in developed countries were so low.  And unlike people such as Elon Musk, whose children are apparently raised in a compound, Durov does not seem intent on creating or raising ‘super babies.’ 

Perhaps most uniquely among tech billionaires, Durov appears to be genuinely generous towards his brood of children.  In late 2025 Durov announced that he would fund IVF costs for any women under the age of 38 who wished to use his sperm.  He has also stated that upon his death, he expects to share all his wealth equally with his children, at present numbering at least 106.  Since Durov’s net worth is estimated as being between $14 billion and $17 billion, this would amount to a major windfall for his children. 

In conclusion, although Pavel Durov is a legitimate “tech bro,” his interest in making his sperm available to women does not seem connected to desires to “improve the blood lines” of citizens.  As it turns out, his sperm has proved useful to people interested in conceiving through IVF.  Furthermore, his stated aim to give away his entire fortune to the children he has fathered seems exceptionally generous.  So Mr. Durov does not fit the profile of others we have covered in this section.  We were simply happy to find a billionaire whose motives seem to be positive and genuine. On the other hand, we should note that human (as well as animal) populations thrive on genetic diversity; attempting to solve worldwide fertility problems via extensive IVF using sperm donated by a few rich white men is not a recipe for increasing genetic diversity.   

V: The Pronatalists:

We mentioned that fertility rates in nearly all developed countries are below the rate 2.1 that would keep a population level stable in the absence of immigration. In a blog post on declining populations, we pointed out how difficult it has been for developed countries to increase their birth rates.  In the U.S., this has recently become a political issue.  A group of politicians, tech bros and social media influencers have presented proposals designed to increase the birth rate, and at the same time to gain a political advantage for their actions.  These people have been called pronatalists.  Their proposals have taken several forms.  One is to provide financial incentives for having larger families.  A second idea is to sell the notion that large families are patriotic. A third notion is to persuade young women to abandon contraception, using the dubious claim that birth control is dangerous and risky.  Overall, the idea is to establish the MAGA movement as being “pro-baby and pro-family,” while painting Democrats as being hostile to “family values,” or in the words of JD Vance, that the Democratic party is run by “childless cat ladies.” 

In this section we will review efforts to persuade American families to have more children.  This movement is only tangentially related to the 20^th century eugenics movement.  There, the argument was that immigrants, African-Americans, the poor, and other marginalized groups possessed “unfit genes.”  Those groups should be prevented from reproducing, while “fit” individuals should have large families. In recent times, the assumption is that by stopping immigration and embarking on deportation of undocumented residents, the “fitness” of Americans will necessarily improve.  Pronatalism involves persuading “fit” Americans to have larger families. 

JD Vance:

James David Vance (or JD Vance, as he prefers) is currently the vice president of the U.S.  Figure V.1 shows a photo of Mr. Vance.  After receiving his law degree at Yale, Vance worked for a venture capital firm headed by Peter Thiel.  Vance was the author of a best-selling 2016 book Hillbilly Elegy.  That book established Vance as a critic of Donald Trump and his first presidential administration.  However, Vance subsequently flipped and became an outspoken MAGA defender.  In 2022, Vance won election to the U.S. Senate as a Republican from Ohio.  During the 2024 election campaign, Vance harped on his claim that the Democratic party was “anti-family and anti-child.”  He further stated that the Republicans should make their number one priority being “pro-baby and pro-family.”  In perhaps Vance’s most famous comment regarding the Democrats “anti-family” attitudes, he claimed that the Democratic party was dominated by “childless cat ladies.”  

Figure V.1: JD Vance, currently the vice-president of the United States, and a strong proponent of pronatalism. .

Prior to the 2024 election campaign, Vance had expressed similar criticism of individuals who did not have children.  In a 2020 podcast Vance stated that being childless “makes people more sociopathic;” in a 2021 interview with Charlie Kirk, Vance proposed that childless people should be taxed at a higher rate than people with children.  As Vice President, Vance has continued to focus his attention on the fact that the fertility rate in the U.S., about 1.60 in 2025, is significantly less than the fertility rate of 2.1 necessary to maintain the population of a country.  Figure V.2 shows the U.S. fertility rate over time from 1917 to 2024.  The fertility rate reached a high of 3.68 in the “baby boom” year 1957, but it has declined ever since then.  

Figure V.2: The U.S. fertility rate, defined as the average number of births per woman of age 15 – 44, vs. time from 1917 to 2024.  The fertility rate reached a high of 3.68 in the “baby boom” year 1957 but has since declined.  In 2024 the fertility rate was 1.63.

However, Vance’s support for more babies in the U.S. is largely political posturing.  Although the Republicans position themselves as pro-family, they oppose virtually all government programs that would make it easier for families to have and raise children.  They oppose paid parental leave supported by the government; they oppose universal pre-school programs; they oppose increasing the national minimum wage; they oppose extending expanded child-tax credits; and they champion anti-abortion legislation and are currently introducing programs to reduce access to contraception. 

In a 2023 blog post on falling fertility rates, we noted that the most effective way to keep the U.S. population steady despite low fertility rates would be to encourage immigration of young people.  However, the current Trump administration has taken exactly the opposite stance – they are attempting to curb almost all immigration, particularly among non-white groups.  Our blog post discussed situations that would incentivize young couples to have more children.  Certainly, all of the federal programs cited in the preceding paragraph would help.  Some of the major issues that might increase the fertility rate would be a sense of optimism about the country’s future.  Stability in the government would make a major contribution to a sense of optimism.  Affordability would be another issue, as would the ability to own a home.  Support for medical expenses associated with birth and the costs of raising a child would also be important. 

However, the current Trump administration is providing almost none of these incentives.  As of now (March 2026), the government is involved in a war with Iran that seems to have no clear rationale and provided no prior warning to U.S. citizens, Congress or our allies.  Prices have been rising, particularly gas prices.  The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” passed by the Republicans in 2025 will cut SNAP and Medicaid payments (after the 2026 midterm elections).  At present, 41% of all births in the U.S. are covered by Medicaid.  So this bill will make childbirth less affordable to Americans.  In addition, cuts to Medicaid funding will likely force many regional hospitals, which rely on Medicaid funding to remain in operation, to close.  Already, many rural hospitals have closed their ob/gyn services.  And many Red states that have a large number of rural hospitals have also passed restrictive abortion policies.  As a result, fewer young medical professionals are setting up practice in these Red states and many maternal healthcare workers have moved out.  It is estimated that it costs about $300,000 to raise a child from birth to high school graduation.  Red state policies will make it that much more difficult for young couples to afford having larger families. 

Here, JD Vance finds himself in an unusual position.  His wife is from India and their three children (they are expecting a fourth child) are biracial.  Vance himself vehemently denies that the Trump hostility to non-white immigrants is racist; however, as we pointed out earlier, Trump’s own policies and those of many of his administration are deeply racist.  Vance himself has contributed to the racism of the current administration.  In Sept. 2024, he alleged that “people [in Springfield, Ohio] have had their pets abducted and eaten” by Haitian immigrants.  When it was pointed out that there was no validity to his claim, Vance said that he was “willing to create stories [i.e., lies] so that the American media actually pays attention.”

It will be interesting to see if the Trump administration’s pronatalist policies will find any success.  Vance and the administration have touted policies like cash payments for having a child and perhaps increasing tax credits for larger families.  The late Charlie Kirk strongly encouraged young women to have children before starting a career.  In fact, he urged them to “have more kids than you can afford.”  This is actually dangerous advice, since medical bills are responsible for 40% to 66% of personal bankruptcy filings in the U.S.  In addition, a number of Republicans (notably Missouri senator Josh Hawley) have also urged young women to forget about entering the workforce and instead be homemakers and raise large (white, Christian) families.  Again, these same lawmakers oppose many federal government programs listed above that would actually incentivize young married women to become homemakers rather than participate in the workforce. 

Many American pronatalists look to Hungary as an example of a successful anti-immigrant country.  Under current strongman Viktor Orban, 95% of Hungarians say that immigrants are bad for society.  In 2011 when their fertility rate was 1.20, Hungary adopted a number of measures designed to incentivize citizens to have more babies.  Some of these measures were:

• Family allowances and tax benefits were modified in order to provide extra benefits for families with several children.
• Families with four or more children were exempt from income tax for their lifetime
• Newlywed couples received a stipend for 24 months following their wedding.
• There were specific subsidies for maternity leave
• Large families received housing benefits and transportation subsidies.

All of these benefits were substantial; Hungary spent 4% of its GDP on large-family incentives.  Figure V.3 shows the effect of those subsidies on the Hungarian fertility rate.  From the time that it was put into effect in 2011, the fertility rate increased from 1.2 to a value of 1.6 and seemed to be rising.  This increased the attraction of that country to American pronatalists. However, once COVID hit, the fertility rate turned back down.  In 2025 it was down to 1.38. 

Figure V.3: The fertility rate in Hungary (left axis) and the number of births (right axis) as a function of time.  In 2011, Hungary adopted several programs designed to increase the fertility rate.  It increased significantly until the pandemic, when it decreased again.  The current fertility rate, 1.38, is slightly below the European average.

The Hungarian large-family incentives were orders of magnitude larger than have been proposed by MAGA pronatalists.  So if the Hungarian measures representing 4% of their GDP have not succeeded in raising their fertility rate, why would Americans expect an incentive of a $1,000 bonus per child to move the needle on our fertility rate?  Furthermore, we have pointed out that a powerful incentive for larger families is optimism about the present and future state of the economy.  And with the current chaotic state of the Trump 2.0 administration, it is difficult to believe that Americans are sufficiently optimistic to dramatically increase the size of their families. 

The Collins Family:

Malcolm and Simone Collins are prominent pronatalists.  They are shown in Figure V.4 together with one of their five children, all under the age of 7.  They promote their ideas through the Website Pronatalist.org.  The aim of their Website is “promoting and supporting high birth rates,” since they claim that “economic and social collapse is on the way.”   

Like many wealthy pronatalists, they are intent on making their own personal contribution to large families.  Malcolm states that his aim is to have between seven and thirteen children, although he states that Simone would like to continue having children “until her uterus falls out.” 

Figure V.4: Malcolm and Simone Collins and one of their children.  The Collinses have a Web site Pronatalist.org that outlines their personal plan to increase the number of babies born in the U.S.

It is interesting that all of the Collins children have been conceived using in vitro fertilization (IVF).  This puts the Collins family at odds with many MAGA supporters who strongly oppose IVF.  However, they are in sync with Donald Trump, who has announced his intent to become the “IVF President,” and to make IVF treatment free for Americans.  However, the Collins use of IVF has strong ties to eugenics. They subject their embryos to preimplantation genetic screening. The purpose is to select for certain desirable genetic traits that will increase the chances that their children will be far above average.  They use a company called Genomic Prediction to obtain data on their embryos; they then use a second company SelfDecode to rate the embryos on “mental-performance-adjacent traits.”  In other words, the Collinses are attempting to utilize the best in genetic screening at present to produce high-functioning designer babies. 

If this sounds like something from Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World, that’s because it is.  Indeed, Malcolm and Simone Collins are aiming to produce a family dynasty of super babies that will eventually rule the world.  Malcolm Collins has stated that “As long as each of our descendants can commit to having at least eight children for just 11 generations, the Collins bloodline will eventually outnumber the current human population. If we succeed, we could set the future of our species.” Needless to say, if the future were indeed to be dominated by a single “bloodline,” it would eventually lead to increasing inbreeding and the onset of genetic deterioration. Perhaps they would plan to instill genetic diversity through gene editing as part of their preimplantation screening of embryos.

Of course, the Collinses don’t want us to worry; theirs will be a benevolent dictatorship.  They simply want to oversee a society in which “sapience” is the primary goal.  Once their heirs have taken over their society, they will rule as a group the Collinses call The Future Police.  They will welcome all who share their goal of being well-educated, free-thinking humans. 

But what about people who don’t share this vision of a society – who refuse to “explore, weigh, and accept” new ideas?  The Collinses refer to these people as “husks.”  They state that those folks have “ceased to become meaningfully human.”  Sadly, the Future Police will “have no motivation to protect an individual who lives only for themselves or their immediate community instead of the future of the species and their family.”   They don’t state whether ‘husks’ would be killed or simply expelled from the group – but we have seen several examples in the past century of the fate of groups of people who were deemed “sub-human” — the Holocaust, Rwandan genocide, Armenian genocide …

In the meantime, the Collinses are trying to enlist as many folks as possible to join their Utopian fantasy.  For $20,000 per year, they run the Collins Institute School for the Gifted, a course in home-schooling.  They are also running a match-making service for ‘alpha’ adults.  Initially, the Collinses were bankrolled by Peter Thiel, who was taken by their use of state-of-the-art genomic technology to produce what was to be the first generation of what they call House Collins.  But Thiel has been joined by a host of other ‘Tech Bros’ in supporting these efforts.  Sergey Brin, Christian Angermayer, Steve Jurvetson and Larry Ellison are among Silicon Valley moguls who have invested in start-ups that involve fertility and genetic editing.  Not surprisingly, all these people believe strongly that they personally represent the very fittest specimens of homo sapiens on which to build a model society. Their superiority complex harkens back to the cultural superiority claimed by the 20^th-century Eugenicists.

VI: Summary:

The late 19^th century and early 20^th century marked the high point of the eugenics movement.  Eventually, it was understood that the “scientific” justification for race science was false.  It was eventually realized that involuntary sterilization laws were inhumane, and that they relied on false claims that “feeble-mindedness” was a “unit characteristic” carried on a single gene. The poor, the weak, and immigrants suffered from programs put into place using flawed arguments.  The compulsory sterilization laws enacted in the U.S. even inspired German sterilization laws that eventually morphed into the horror of the Holocaust.  The restrictive immigration laws, based on false eugenics arguments that southern and eastern European immigrants had intelligence far lower than the average American, were relaxed.  Eventually, the eugenics movement was discredited and the punitive laws based on “negative eugenics” arguments were reversed.  It seemed that racist arguments about the capability of foreign immigrants had been relegated to the dustbin of history.  The U.S. once again welcomed immigrants from all European and Asian countries. 

However, in recent decades we have seen renewed racist arguments, as well as claims that our country is being overwhelmed by immigrants who do not share our culture and who are bringing with them an “invasion” of criminals and people who are taking jobs from Americans.   This has been a major theme of Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again campaign. Closing the borders with Mexico and Canada and arresting and deporting untold numbers of current undocumented residents, have been major priorities of the Trump 2.0 Administration.  We showed that one philosophical justification for stopping immigration and deporting undocumented persons is buttressed by arguments from the “great replacement theory.” 

Other than that, the current administration’s policies are motivated in large part by Donald Trump’s beliefs in old racist arguments.  We showed that Trump seems obsessed with the idea that he and his supporters possess “good genes,” and that immigrants (particularly non-whites and Muslims) have “bad genes.” 

At present, the fertility rate in the U.S. is 1.62, significantly lower than the 2.1 fertility rate necessary to prevent the population from decreasing.  In a previous blog post, we argued that the best way to maintain a stable population was to encourage immigration of young people.  However, this idea has been firmly rejected by the current administration.  It appears that they will completely shut down immigration (excepting for white Christians), and hope that they can convince young people to have many more children.  We showed that a number of wealthy individuals, particularly “tech bros,” seem determined to personally help the population problem by having extremely large numbers of children themselves.  And we profiled some of the “pronatalists” who are trying to incentivize white Christians to have larger families.  Programs to encourage larger families have failed repeatedly in developed countries, so we are skeptical that similar programs will succeed in the U.S. Fertility rates tend to rise in response to strong economies and optimistic outlooks, neither of which the Trump administration is providing. 

Source Material:

Wikipedia Eugenics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Wikipedia Scientific Racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

Second International Eugenics Congress Held at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, 1921 https://www.eugenicsarchive.ca/timeline?id=517228a6eed5c60000000017

The Immigration Act of 1924 https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act

American Immigration Council, The Trump Administration’s New Mass Deportation Playbook, Nov. 2025 https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/trump-administration-mass-deportation-playbook/

Wikipedia, Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement_conspiracy_theory

Wikipedia, Natalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalism

Debunking Denial, The History of Eugenics in America, Part II https://debunkingdenial.com/bad-blood-the-american-eugenics-movement/

Wikipedia, Francis Galton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Galton

Wikipedia, Battle Creek Sanitarium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Creek_Sanitarium

Wikipedia, Karl Pearson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Pearso

Henry Goddard, The Kallikak Family: A Study in the Heredity of Feeble-Mindedness (1912},  https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/53958

Wikipedia, Gregor Mendel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

Wikipedia, Madison Grant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison_Grant

Wikipedia, The Passing of the Great Race, 1916 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passing_of_the_Great_Race

Wikipedia, Buck v. Bell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

Wikipedia, Alfred Binet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Binet

Wikipedia, Stephen Jay Gould, The Mismeasure of Man, 1981  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man

Wikipedia, Make America Great Again (MAGA) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_America_Great_Again

Williamson Scene, Jewish Federation of Greater Nashville Condemns Rep. Ogles’ Anti-Muslim Statements, Mar. 14, 2026  https://www.williamsonscene.com/news/jewish-federation-of-greater-nashville-condemns-rep-ogles-anti-muslim-statements-ogles-calls-condemnation-stupid/article_880360e4-b379-4386-a3b3-0910cd955d52.html

National News Desk, Republican Introduces Bill to Require Immigrants to Show ‘Good Moral Character,’ Mar, 13, 2026 https://thenationaldesk.com/news/americas-news-now/republican-congressman-andy-ogles-introduces-bill-to-require-immigrants-to-show-good-moral-character-muslim-islam

Wikipedia, George Soros Conspiracy Theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros_conspiracy_theories

Wikipedia, Dylann Roof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylann_Roof

Wikipedia, Robert E. Lee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee

Wikipedia, Pardon of January 6 United States Capitol Attack Defendants, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack_defendants

Wikipedia, Nick Fuentes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Fuentes

America First With Nicholas J. Fuentes, Apple News https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/america-first-with-nicholas-j-fuentes-repost/id1854256395

Wikipedia, Groypers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groypers

Wikipedia, Turning Point USA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_Point_USA

Politico, ‘I Love Hitler’: Leaked Messages Expose Young Republicans’ Racist Chat, https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/14/private-chat-among-young-gop-club-members-00592146

Patricia Mazzei, Slurs Filled a Chat Created by a Republican Party Official in Florida, New York Times March 5, 2026 https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/05/us/florida-gop-slurs-group-chat.html

Wikipedia, Race Traitor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_traitor

Wikipedia, Christchurch Mosque Shootings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christchurch_mosque_shootings

Wikipedia, 2019 El Paso Walmart Shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_El_Paso_Walmart_shooting

Wikipedia, 2022 Buffalo Shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Buffalo_shooting

Wikipedia, 2022 Jacksonville Shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Jacksonville_shooting

Politico, FBI Releases Files on Trump Apartments’ Race Discrimination Probe in ‘70s, https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/02/trump-fbi-files-discrimination-case-235067

Washington Post, Donald Trump’s False Comments Connecting Mexican Immigrants and Crime, July 8, 2015 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/08/donald-trumps-false-comments-connecting-mexican-immigrants-and-crime/

FactCheck.Org, Trump Confirms His Disparaging Remark About ‘Shithole Countries’ at Immigration Meeting, Dec. 11, 2025 https://www.factcheck.org/2025/12/trump-confirms-his-disparaging-remark-about-shithole-countries-at-immigration-meeting/

Wikipedia, White South African Refugee Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_South_African_refugee_program

New York Times, Trump’s Remarks on Migrants Illustrate His Obsession With Genes, Oct. 9, 2024 https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/09/us/politics/trump-migrants-genes.html

The Trace, Trump’s Big Crime Lies, Sept. 25, 2025 https://www.thetrace.org/2025/09/trump-crime-lies-immigrants-democrats/

Wikipedia, Jeffrey Epstein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein

Wikipedia, Les Wexner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Wexner

Wikipedia, Leon Black https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Black

New York Times, How Epstein Helped Solve a Billionaire’s Problems With Women, March 23, 2026 https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/23/business/jeffrey-epstein-leon-black.html

Wikipedia, Ghislaine Maxwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghislaine_Maxwell

Wikipedia, Robert Maxwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Maxwell

NPR, Prince Andrew Reaches a Settlement With Virginia Giuffre in Sexual Abuse Lawsuit, Feb. 15, 2022 https://www.npr.org/2022/02/15/1080828750/prince-andrew-settlement-virginia-giuffre

Sante Fe New Mexican, Jeffrey Epstein Files Shed Light on Ties to Santa Fe Institute Scientists, Feb. 11, 2026 https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/jeffrey-epstein-files-shed-light-on-ties-to-santa-fe-institute-scientists/article_03cb3e26-5c53-4ea3-a683-bc98e7013058.html

Wikipedia, Elon Musk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk

BBC, Musk Responds to Backlash Over Gesture at Trump Rally, Jan. 21, 2025 https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy48v1x4dv4o

Wikipedia, Wealth of Elon Musk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_of_Elon_Musk

USA Today, Elon Musk Says ‘Population Collapse’ is a Bigger Threat Than Climate Change.  Is He Right? Oct. 3, 2022 https://rael.berkeley.edu/2022/10/elon-musk-says-population-collapse-is-a-bigger-threat-than-climate-change-is-he-right/

Wall Street Journal, The Tactics Elon Musk Uses to Manage His ‘Legion’ of Babies – and Their Mothers, April 14, 2025 https://www.wsj.com/politics/elon-musk-children-mothers-ashley-st-clair-grimes-dc7ba05c

DebunkingDenial.com Can You Create An Evil AI?  Let’s Ask Grok, Aug. 3, 2025 https://debunkingdenial.com/can-you-create-an-evil-ai-lets-ask-grok/

New York Times, Musk’s Chatbot Started Spouting Nazi Propaganda. That’s Not the Scariest Part, July 11, 2025  https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/11/opinion/ai-grok-x-llm.html

Roosevelt Institute, What Musk’s DOGE Really Cut: Trust, Safety, and Democracy, May 29, 2025 https://rooseveltinstitute.org/blog/what-musks-doge-really-cut-trust-safety-and-democracy/

Politico, Just How Much Has DOGE Exaggerated Its Numbers? Now We Have Receipts, Aug. 12, 2026 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/12/trump-doge-contract-claims-savings-inflation-00498178

DebunkingDenial, Understanding Autism, Oct. 12, 2025 https://debunkingdenial.com/portfolio/understanding-autism/

PBS, Persecution of South Africa’s Whites a ‘False Narrative, President Says as Musk Repeats Genocide Claim, Mar. 24, 2025 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/persecution-of-south-africas-whites-a-false-narrative-president-says-as-musk-repeats-genocide-claim

Wikipedia, Pavel Durov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Durov

Wikipedia, Telegram (software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegram_(software)

DebunkingDenial, Ramifications of the Accelerating Worldwide Baby Bust, Oct. 27, 2023 https://debunkingdenial.com/portfolio/ramifications-of-the-accelerating-worldwide-baby-bust/

Wikipedia, JD Vance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JD_Vance

Democracy Now! July 30, 2024  It’s Not Just “Childless Cat Ladies:” JD Vance Once Described Childless People as “sociopathic,” https://www.democracynow.org/2024/7/30/andy_kroll_jd_vance_past_comments

Wikipedia, One Big Beautiful Bill Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Big_Beautiful_Bill_Act

Debunking Denial, MAGA Pronatalists Want More White, Christian Babies, May 8 2025 https://debunkingdenial.com/maga-pronatalists-want-more-white-christian-babies/

BBC, Vance Doubles Down on False ‘Pet-Eating’ Claims, Sept. 15, 2024 https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgj447j5711o

USA Today, Charlie Kirk Wanted Young Women to Have Children Before Chasing a Career, Sept. 9, 2025 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/09/09/charlie-kirk-young-women-have-kids-not-careers/86054570007/

Cornell University, ILR Scheinman Institute, Healthcare Insights: How Medical Debt is Crushing 100 Million Americans, Oct. 21, 2024 https://www.ilr.cornell.edu/scheinman-institute/blog/john-august-healthcare/healthcare-insights-how-medical-debt-crushing-100-million-americans

New York Times, Not Just More Babies: These Republicans Want More Parents at Home, May 12 2025 https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/12/us/politics/republicans-parents-babies-home.html

Prelude Fertility Trump’s Executive Order: What You Need to Know [Updated Feb 2026] https://www.preludefertility.com/blog/trumps-ivf-executive-order-what-you-need-to-know

Life View: The Future Begins Here https://www.lifeview.com/

SelfDecode, Understand Your Genes.  Transform Your Health.  https://selfdecode.com/?nab=1&a_aid=8667bgcy128p9&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwiLLABhCEARIsAJYS6umWBur54QIqGmbGoY7rcyPOgkSoKJj3lcr6pgrMmHszHqdyh50HsrIaAjAHEALw_wcB

Wikipedia, Brave New World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World

Jules Evans, The Religion of the Future Police, Medium Dec. 16 2022 https://julesevans.medium.com/the-religion-of-the-future-police-7882048fd9a3