WE ARE REPEATING The 1913 to 2019 PROCESS

Verbatim we have millions of people who forgotten the past and many of those people will be Condemned to repeat.

It has never been more clear and obvious and there is no EXCUSE FOR ANYONE NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE, YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE FOR NOT KNOWING BY NOW.

Land Ownership, Taxes, and Sovereignty

The bottom line is it's not really about technological advances—it's about money, fake paper debt-slave notes. The person who believes they own their property gets a check every month for "renting" the land from them.
But if you don't pay taxes on the land you supposedly own, someone with a gun, another with a title, and a person in a penguin suit will use force to ensure you pay the vig for the land you've maintained for generations—or they'll cage you until you pay, plus extra tickets, fees, court costs, lawyers, etc. If you can't pay for the land divided by imaginary lines drawn long before anyone alive today, they take it back. Then what? Do you still get the cell tower check? Did you sign the agreement with the tower owner, or was it the town/state/legal sovereign (via English legalese definition of "sovereign") while you call yourself a "citizen" by definition?
This needs to be understood and realized. There's no excuse for ignorance when millions today know this and have proven it—scroll back on this platform (Faces book) to see what people said then vs. now. You'll spot who truly knows versus who ignores and calls us crazy.
Meanwhile, we're still alive—we didn't kill grandma or allow forced injection/penetration by foreign substances against our will, unlike those who called us crazy. Now they're cutting off their own children's reproductive parts and claim population control is fake.
Peabody Museum, New Haven, CT (the "Constitution State") has an exhibit exposing the American Eugenics Society in broad daylight—read about 1920s Yale, Skull and Bones, a decade before Nazi/WWII atrocities. They drew ideas from the American Eugenics Society and the Third International Eugenics Congress. Yet people still don't see it.
The fasces symbols on either side of the U.S. flag (hanging downward) in the Capitol, or under Lincoln's hands in his statue—people remain clueless.
Sorry, this shit pisses me right off.

Details on fasces symbolism

Fasces: ancient Roman symbol—a bundle of rods bound together, often with an axe—representing authority, power, and strength through unity (rods unbreakable when bound, weak separately).
In U.S. government:
Lincoln Memorial: Armrests of Lincoln's chair carved as fasces (no axe, emphasizing unity); also on entrance pylons and base stairs. Symbolizes Union preserved by Lincoln, "E Pluribus Unum," with 13 rods for original states.
U.S. Capitol: Large bronze fasces flank U.S. flag behind House Speaker's podium/rostrum (added/replaced 1950). Represent civic authority and democratic unity of states.
Pre-fascism (pre-1920s Mussolini), adopted by Founders/Americans as positive nod to Roman Republic—unity, republican governance. Mussolini co-opted it for Italian Fascism, but U.S. versions predate and differ in intent (often axe-less, focused on union not coercion).
Common in D.C. architecture, seals (e.g., National Guard), coins (Mercury dime 1916–1945). Not fascist in American context—classical republican symbol.

Fasces in Roman Republic

Fasces in the Roman Republic:
Bundle of wooden rods (birch/elm, ~1.5m long) bound with red straps, often with a single axe (labrys/bipennis) protruding.
Originated from Etruscans (7th c. BCE evidence from Vetulonia tomb); adopted by Romans in monarchy, retained in Republic (from 509 BCE).
Carried by lictors (attendants/bodyguards) ahead of magistrates with imperium (command power).
Symbolized authority, coercion, penal power (rods for flogging, axe for execution), and unity/strength (bundle unbreakable together).
Number indicated rank: consuls/proconsuls 12 lictors/fasces; praetors 6; dictators 24.
Inside Rome (pomerium): axe removed to respect citizen's right of appeal (provocatio ad populum) against capital punishment.
Outside Rome/military: axe included, signifying full coercive/military authority.
Lictors cleared paths, enforced obedience, arrested/punished at magistrate's command.
Also represented Republic's prestige; broken on disgrace/resignation of magistrate.
Positive republican symbol of unified authority and justice (pre-fascism).

Role of lictors in Republic

Lictors in the Roman Republic:
Primary role: Attendants and bodyguards to magistrates holding imperium (supreme command authority: consuls, praetors, dictators, proconsuls, etc.).
Duties:
Preceded magistrate in public, clearing path through crowds.
Carried and displayed fasces (bundle of rods + axe) as symbol of imperium, coercion, and penal power.
Protected magistrate; enforced obedience and authority.
Arrested citizens and executed punishments/floggings (rods) or executions (axe) on magistrate's orders.
Summoned assemblies (e.g., comitia curiata via lictores curiati).
Accompanied in processions, forums, temples, etc.
Number by rank (in city of Rome): Dictator 24; consuls 12 each; praetors 6; lower officials fewer or none.
Inside pomerium (sacred city boundary): Axes removed from fasces to respect citizen appeal rights.
Outside Rome/military: Full fasces with axe; full coercive power.
Background: Mostly freedmen or plebeians; organized in decuries (corporations); annual appointments, salaried, exempt from military service.
Special groups: 30 lictores curiati for religious/assembly duties; protected Vestal Virgins, pontifex maximus, etc.
Lictors embodied magisterial power and unity of the Republic's authority.

Symbolism of fasces

Symbolism of fasces:
Unity and strength: Bundle of rods unbreakable together (weak apart).
Authority and imperium: Supreme command power of magistrates.
Coercive/penal power: Rods = flogging; axe = execution/capital punishment.
Republic governance: Order, justice, collective will over individual.
E Pluribus Unum (in U.S. context): Many states as one nation.
Civic/military discipline: Enforced obedience and protection of the state.
Core idea: Strength through unity under centralized authority.

Fasces in Etruscan origins

Fasces in Etruscan origins:
Originated in Etruscan civilization (pre-Roman Italy, ~8th–6th c. BCE).
Symbol of royal/military authority and coercive power.
Earliest archaeological evidence: Miniature iron fasces (bundle of rods + double-headed axe) found 1897–1898 in "Tomb of the Lictor" necropolis at Vetulonia (Etruscan city, ~630–625 BCE).
Confirms ancient Roman sources (e.g., Silius Italicus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus) claiming Rome adopted fasces, lictors, curule chair from Etruscans/Vetulonia.
Etruscan version: Often metal (iron), double-bladed axe, smaller/miniature; differed from later Roman wooden single-axe fasces.
Represented kings' penal power (flogging/execution) and unity/strength.
Romans borrowed during monarchy (esp. under Etruscan kings like Tarquinius Priscus, ~616–579 BCE); retained/modified in Republic.
Core: Etruscan regal insignia of absolute power, passed to Rome as symbol of imperium.

Eugenics Society

American Eugenics Society (AES):
Founded 1921–1926 (incorporated 1926) by Madison Grant, Harry H. Laughlin, Irving Fisher (Yale), Henry Fairfield Osborn, Henry Crampton, Charles Davenport.
Promoted eugenics: "improving" human genetics via controlled breeding, sterilization of "unfit" (feebleminded, criminals, epileptics, insane, poor, non-whites), immigration restriction, racial "betterment."
Key activities: Public education, lectures, exhibits (e.g., Fitter Family contests at fairs), propaganda on hereditary defects.
Influenced U.S. policies: Supported 1924 Immigration Act, state sterilization laws (60,000+ forced sterilizations by 1970s, often poor/African-American).
Yale/New Haven ties: Irving Fisher (Yale economist) key founder; international office in New Haven 1926–1936; exhibits/displays at Yale Peabody Museum (e.g., broadsides, intelligence testing machines, eugenics history panels in renovated galleries).
Shifted focus post-WWII (after Nazi associations discredited eugenics): Renamed Society for the Study of Social Biology (1973), then Society for Biodemography and Social Biology (2008); disbanded 2019.
Core: Pseudoscientific movement for racial/class "purification" via state intervention; peaked 1920s–1930s.

Buck v. Bell case

Buck v. Bell (1927):
U.S. Supreme Court case (274 U.S. 200).
8–1 decision upholding Virginia law allowing forced sterilization of "feeble-minded" individuals.
Carrie Buck (18, deemed "imbecile") sterilized after state board ruling.
Justice Holmes: "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." State interest in preventing defective offspring outweighs individual rights.
Upheld under 14th Amendment police power; no violation of due process/equal protection.
Key influence: American Eugenics Society, Harry Laughlin testimony, eugenics movement peak.
Never explicitly overruled; remains precedent, though rarely cited post-WWII/Nazi horrors.
Enabled ~60,000+ U.S. forced sterilizations (1927–1970s).

Skinner v. Oklahoma case

Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942):
U.S. Supreme Court case (316 U.S. 535).
Unanimous 9–0 decision striking down Oklahoma Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act (1935).
Law allowed forced sterilization of persons convicted 3+ times of felonies involving "moral turpitude" (e.g., chicken theft), but exempted white-collar crimes like embezzlement.
Jack Skinner (convicted of chicken-stealing felonies) challenged sterilization order.
Court held: Violated Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment). Created unequal classes of criminals—arbitrary distinction between similar crimes.
Justice Douglas: "Strict scrutiny" for fundamental rights (procreation implied as "one of the basic civil rights of man").
First major limitation on eugenic sterilization post-Buck v. Bell (1927).
Did not overrule Buck; distinguished on unequal application, not sterilization itself.
Enabled challenges to sterilization laws; contributed to decline of forced eugenic sterilizations post-WWII.

Full text of Skinner decision

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) full text (majority opinion by Justice Douglas; unanimous 9-0; no dissents, concurrences by Stone and Jackson noted in some sources but text focuses on majority):
Syllabus
A statute of Oklahoma provides for the sterilization, by vasectomy or salpingectomy, of "habitual criminals" — an habitual criminal being defined therein as any person who, having been convicted two or more times, in Oklahoma or in any other State, of "felonies involving moral turpitude," is thereafter convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in Oklahoma for such a crime. Expressly excepted from the terms of the statute are certain offenses, including embezzlement. As applied to one who was convicted once of stealing chickens and twice of robbery, held that the statute violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 316 U. S. 537.
The State Supreme Court having sustained the Act, as applied to the petitioner here, without reference to a severability clause, the question whether that clause would be so applied as to remove the particular constitutional objection is one which may appropriately be left for adjudication by the state court. P. 316 U. S. 542.
189 Okla. 235, 115 P.2d 123, reversed.
Opinion of the Court
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case touches a sensitive and important area of human rights. Oklahoma deprives certain individuals of a right which is basic to the perpetuation of a race — the right to have offspring. Oklahoma has decreed the enforcement of its law against petitioner, overruling his claim that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Because that decision raised grave and substantial constitutional questions, we granted the petition for certiorari.
The statute involved is Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act. Okla.Stat.Ann. Tit. 57, §§ 171, et seq.; L.1935, pp. 94 et seq. That Act defines an "habitual criminal" as a person who, having been convicted two or more times for crimes "amounting to felonies involving moral turpitude," either in an Oklahoma court or in a court of any other State, is thereafter convicted of such a felony in Oklahoma and is sentenced to a term of imprisonment in an Oklahoma penal institution. § 173. Machinery is provided for the institution by the Attorney General of a proceeding against such a person in the Oklahoma courts for a judgment that such person shall be rendered sexually sterile. §§ 176, 177. Notice, an opportunity to be heard, and the right to a jury trial are provided. §§ 177-181. The issues triable in such a proceeding are narrow and confined. If the court or jury finds that the defendant is an "habitual criminal" and that he "may be rendered sexually sterile without detriment to his or her general health," then the court "shall render judgment to the effect that said defendant be rendered sexually sterile" (§ 182) by the operation of vasectomy in case of a male, and of salpingectomy in case of a female. § 174. Only one other provision of the Act is material here, and that is § 195, which provides that "offenses arising out of the violation of the prohibitory laws, revenue acts, embezzlement, or political offenses, shall not come or be considered within the terms of this Act."
Petitioner was convicted in 1926 of the crime of stealing chickens, and was sentenced to the Oklahoma State Reformatory. In 1929 he was convicted of the crime of robbery with firearms, and was sentenced to the reformatory. In 1934, he was convicted again of robbery with firearms, and was sentenced to the penitentiary. He was confined there in 1935 when the Act was passed. In 1936, the Attorney General instituted proceedings against him. Petitioner, in his answer, challenged the Act as unconstitutional by reason of the Fourteenth Amendment. A jury trial was had. The court instructed the jury that the crimes of which petitioner had been convicted were felonies involving moral turpitude, and that the only question for the jury was whether the operation of vasectomy could be performed on petitioner without detriment to his general health. The jury found that it could be. A judgment directing that the operation of vasectomy be performed on petitioner was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma by a five-to-four decision. 189 Okla. 235, 115 P.2d 123.
Several objections to the constitutionality of the Act have been pressed upon us. It is urged that the Act cannot be sustained as an exercise of the police power, in view of the state of scientific authorities respecting inheritability of criminal traits. It is argued that due process is lacking because, under this Act, unlike the Act upheld in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, the defendant is given no opportunity to be heard on the issue as to whether he is the probable potential parent of socially undesirable offspring. It is also suggested that the Act is penal in character, and that the sterilization provided for is cruel and unusual punishment and violative of the Fourteenth Amendment. We pass those points without intimating an opinion on them, for there is a feature of the Act which clearly condemns it. That is its failure to meet the requirements of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
We do not stop to point out all of the inequalities in this Act. A few examples will suffice. In Oklahoma, grand larceny is a felony. Okla.Stats.Ann. Tit. 21, §§ 1705, 5. Larceny is grand larceny when the property taken exceeds $20 in value. Id., § 1704. Embezzlement is punishable "in the manner prescribed for feloniously stealing property of the value of that embezzled." Id., § 1462. Hence, he who embezzles property worth more than $20 is guilty of a felony. A clerk who appropriates over $20 from his employer's till (id. § 1456) and a stranger who steals the same amount are thus both guilty of felonies. If the latter repeats his act and is convicted three times, he may be sterilized. But the clerk is not subject to the pains and penalties of the Act no matter how large his embezzlements nor how frequent his convictions. A person who enters a chicken coop and steals chickens commits a felony (id., § 1719), and he may be sterilized if he is thrice convicted. If, however, he is a bailee of the property and fraudulently appropriates it, he is an embezzler. Id., § 1455. Hence, no matter how habitual his proclivities for embezzlement are, and no matter how often his conviction, he may not be sterilized. Thus, the nature of the two crimes is intrinsically the same, and they are punishable in the same manner. Furthermore, the line between them follows close distinctions — distinctions comparable to those highly technical ones which shaped the common law as to "trespass" or "taking."
There may be larceny by fraud, rather than embezzlement even where the owner of the personal property delivers it to the defendant, if the latter has, at that time, "a fraudulent intention to make use of the possession as a means of converting such property to his own use, and does so convert it." If the fraudulent intent occurs later, and the defendant converts the property, he is guilty of embezzlement. Whether a particular act is larceny by fraud or embezzlement thus turns not on the intrinsic quality of the act, but on when the felonious intent arose — a question for the jury under appropriate instructions.
It was stated in Buck v. Bell, supra, that the claim that state legislation violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is "the usual last resort of constitutional arguments." Under our constitutional system, the States, in determining the reach and scope of particular legislation, need not provide "abstract symmetry." They may mark and set apart the classes and types of problems according to the needs and as dictated or suggested by experience. It was in that connection that Mr. Justice Holmes, speaking for the Court in Bain Peanut Co. v. Pinson, stated, "We must remember that the machinery of government would not work if it were not allowed a little play in its joints." Only recently, we reaffirmed the view that the equal protection clause does not prevent the legislature from recognizing "degrees of evil" by our ruling in Tigner v. Texas, that "the Constitution does not require things which are different, in fact, or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same." Thus, if we had here only a question as to a State's classification of crimes, such as embezzlement or larceny, no substantial federal question would be raised.
For a State is not constrained in the exercise of its police power to ignore experience which marks a class of offenders or a family of offenses for special treatment. Nor is it prevented by the equal protection clause from confining "its restrictions to those classes of cases where the need is deemed to be clearest." As stated in Buck v. Bell, supra,
". . . the law does all that is needed when it does all that it can, indicates a policy, applies it to all within the lines, and seeks to bring within the lines all similarly situated so far and so fast as its means allow."
But the instant legislation runs afoul of the equal protection clause, though we give Oklahoma that large deference which the rule of the foregoing cases requires. We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands, it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear. There is no redemption for the individual whom the law touches. Any experiment which the State conducts is to his irreparable injury. He is forever deprived of a basic liberty. We mention these matters not to reexamine the scope of the police power of the States. We advert to them merely in emphasis of our view that strict scrutiny of the classification which a State makes in a sterilization law is essential, lest unwittingly, or otherwise, invidious discriminations are made against groups or types of individuals in violation of the constitutional guaranty of just and equal laws. The guaranty of "equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws." When the law lays an unequal hand on those who have committed intrinsically the same quality of offense and sterilizes one and not the other, it has made as invidious a discrimination as if it had selected a particular race or nationality for oppressive treatment. Sterilization of those who commit certain crimes while exempting others, though the crimes are of the same nature, is a clear, purposeful discrimination.
Oklahoma makes no attempt to say that he who commits larceny by trespass or trick or fraud has biologically inheritable traits which he who commits embezzlement lacks. Oklahoma's line between larceny by fraud and embezzlement is determined, as we have noted, 'with reference to the time when the fraudulent intent to convert the property to the taker's own use' arises. If the fraudulent intent occurs before the taking, it is larceny; if after, embezzlement. The determination turns on the jury's finding as to when the intent arose — a highly technical distinction which may turn on evidence so tenuous as to make the classification arbitrary and capricious.
It is true that the Act has a broad severability clause. But we will not endeavor to determine whether its application would solve the equal protection difficulty. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma sustained the Act without reference to the severability clause. We have therefore a situation where the Act as construed and applied to petitioner is allowed to perpetuate the discrimination which we have found to be fatal. Whether the severability clause would be so applied as to remove this particular constitutional objection is a question which may be more appropriately left for adjudication by the Oklahoma court. That is reemphasized here by our uncertainty as to what excision, if any, would be made as a matter of Oklahoma law.
Reversed.
(Note: Concurrences by Chief Justice Stone and Justice Jackson exist in some records, focusing on due process aspects, but the primary opinion above is the Court's holding. Full original PDF available via Library of Congress or Cornell LII for exact formatting.)

Modern Eugenics Laws

Modern eugenics laws (as of 2026):
No active state-sponsored compulsory eugenic sterilization programs exist in the US or most Western countries—discredited post-WWII/Nazi era.
Legacy remnants:
31 states retain laws allowing court-ordered sterilization of people with disabilities (often under guardianship), without explicit consent if deemed incapable. These enable nonconsensual procedures in some cases; criticized as eugenic echoes. (e.g., reports from 2022–2025).
No new explicit eugenics laws; forced sterilizations rare/illegal without due process, but isolated cases persist (e.g., prisons, disabled individuals).
Compensation programs ongoing: California (state-sponsored survivors, extended to 2026); others (NC, VA) paid victims.
"Habitual offender" sentencing laws in 49 states/federal trace to eugenics (long sentences to prevent "criminal" reproduction); still enforced.
Worldwide:
Coerced sterilizations continue in places like China and India (e.g., marginalized groups).
No revival of old-style eugenics laws; modern debates focus on "liberal eugenics" via genetic screening/CRISPR/IVF (parental choice, not state coercion).
UN/rights bodies warn against ableism in new tech reviving eugenic ideas.
Core: Explicit eugenics laws abolished; subtle legacies in disability/reproductive laws remain.

CRISPR and liberal eugenics

CRISPR and liberal eugenics:
Liberal eugenics (or "new eugenics"): Modern form of eugenics emphasizing individual/parental choice over state coercion. Parents use genetic tech (e.g., embryo selection, screening, enhancement) to improve offspring traits—rejecting old authoritarian forced sterilization/racism.
CRISPR connection: Enables precise germline editing (heritable changes in embryos). Allows therapy (fixing disease genes) or enhancement (e.g., intelligence, height, disease resistance). Critics call it "liberal eugenics" or "velvet eugenics"—market-driven, voluntary, but risks purging "undesirable" traits (e.g., disabilities), creating genetic inequality, ableism.
Proponents: Defend as moral if consensual, beneficial (e.g., preventing suffering); distinguish from coercive past.
Opponents: Warn of slippery slope to stratified society, discrimination, loss of human diversity; He Jiankui's 2018 CRISPR babies (CCR5 edit) seen as reckless eugenic step.
Current status: Germline editing banned/restricted in most countries (therapeutic somatic editing allowed, e.g., sickle cell). Debate ongoing on ethics, regulation.

MAIDd program in Canada

MAiD (Medical Assistance in Dying) in Canada: federal euthanasia/assisted suicide program (legal since 2016).
Eligibility (current, as of 2026): Adults 18+ eligible for Canadian health services; grievous/irremediable medical condition (serious illness/injury/disability); advanced decline; unbearable suffering (physical/psychological) intolerable to patient; voluntary request, no coercion.
Types: Mostly euthanasia (clinician-administered lethal injection; ~99.9%); assisted suicide (self-administered) rare.
Safeguards: Two independent assessors (physicians/nurse practitioners); waiting periods vary (none if death reasonably foreseeable); informed of alternatives.
Mental illness only: Excluded; eligibility delayed to March 17, 2027.
Stats: 16,499 provisions in 2024 (~5.1% of deaths); cumulative 76,475+ since 2016.
Criticism: Rapid expansion; concerns over vulnerable/disabled coercion, inadequate safeguards, poverty/housing factors in cases.
Official: canada.ca/health-canada/services/medical-assistance-dying.

Explain this

https://youtu.be/vmRb-0v5xfI?si=x8Oi89pDSNelKuzC

The Eugenics Crusade (full documentary, AMERICAN EXPERIENCE | PBS, uploaded March 2024).
Explains early 20th-century U.S. eugenics movement: pseudoscience to breed "better" race via sterilization, immigration restriction, birth control.
Key elements:
Roots in Galton/Davenport; Eugenics Record Office tracked "defective" traits (feeble-mindedness, crime, poverty).
Policies: Buck v. Bell (1927) upheld forced sterilization ("three generations of imbeciles enough"); 60,000+ sterilized, targeting poor/minorities/disabled.
1924 Immigration Act limited "inferior" groups to preserve Nordic stock.
Influenced Nazi laws; later discredited by genetics advances, Depression, WWII horrors.
Shifted from heredity to "social burden" control.
Historical PBS documentary, not conspiracy; factual on movement's rise/decline. Ties to themes we've discussed (AES, Buck, sterilization legacies).

Eugenics in Nazi Germany

Eugenics in Nazi Germany:
Built directly on U.S./British eugenics models (Galton, AES, Buck v. Bell, sterilization laws).
1933: Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring—compulsory sterilization for "hereditary" conditions (feeble-mindedness, schizophrenia, epilepsy, blindness, alcoholism, etc.).
~400,000 sterilized (1934–1945); mostly poor, disabled, minorities.
1935: Nuremberg Laws—racial hygiene; banned marriage/Jewish-German unions; defined Jews as inferior race.
T4 Program (1939–1941): "Euthanasia" of 70,000+ disabled adults/children (gas chambers, starvation, lethal injection); first mass gassing tests.
Expanded to extermination camps: Aktion 14f13 killed ~20,000 camp prisoners deemed "unfit."
Lebensborn: SS program to breed "Aryan" children; kidnapped "racially valuable" kids from occupied territories.
Core ideology: Racial purity, elimination of "life unworthy of life" (Lebensunwertes Leben); justified by pseudoscience, cost-saving, Nordic supremacy.
Direct influence: Nazi lawyers cited U.S. sterilization laws in defense; American Eugenics Society praised early Nazi efforts.
Ended with Allied victory; Nuremberg Trials condemned as crimes against humanity.

Eugenics in Sweden

Eugenics in Sweden:
State-sponsored compulsory sterilization program: 1934–1976 (some sources cite up to 1975/1976 abolition).
Legal grounds (1941 law expansion): Eugenic (prevent inheritance of "defects" like insanity, severe illness, disability); social (antisocial behavior, feeblemindedness, poverty, "unsuitable" parents); medical (risk to health from pregnancy).
Supported by State Institute for Racial Biology (founded 1922, Uppsala; directed by Herman Lundborg; merged 1958).
Targets: Mostly women, poor, disabled, "deviants," minorities; often teenagers/young adults; poverty or "rebelliousness" cited.
Scale: ~60,000–63,000 sterilized total; ~21,000–30,000+ forced/coerced (estimates vary; ~90% women).
Peak: 1940s; declined post-WWII but continued.
Context: Part of Nordic eugenics (Sweden longest-running); Social Democrats/liberals backed as welfare state "efficiency" (cost-saving, "better" society).
Exposed: 1990s media/inquiries; government apologized, offered compensation (SEK 175,000/€15,000 per victim from 1999 onward; limited claims processed).
Legacy: Mandatory sterilization for gender reassignment until 2013 (abolished after criticism).
One of longest-lasting eugenics programs in democratic Europe; tied to "Swedish model" ideals but revealed dark side.

Eugenics in Norway

Eugenics in Norway:
Compulsory sterilization law: 1934–1977 (abolished 1977, last operations ~early 1970s).
Grounds: Eugenic (hereditary defects: feeble-mindedness, insanity, epilepsy); social (antisocial, criminal, "moral degeneracy," poverty).
Targets: Mostly women, poor, disabled, "deviants," Roma/Tattare (Traveller) minorities.
Scale: ~41,000–48,000 sterilizations total; ~2,500–4,000 forced/coerced (estimates vary; ~75–90% women).
Administered by: Directorate of Public Health, local boards; often teenagers/young adults.
Context: Part of Nordic eugenics network (Sweden longest); supported by Labour Party/social democrats as welfare-state "rationality."
Peak: 1940s–1950s; declined post-WWII but persisted.
Exposed: 1990s–2000s investigations; 1994 government report; official apology 1990s; compensation program (NOK 150,000–200,000 per victim, ~2000s onward, limited uptake).
One of longest-running eugenics programs in democratic Scandinavia; tied to social engineering ideals.

Eugenics in Denmark

Eugenics in Denmark:

Compulsory sterilization law: 1929–1967 (abolished 1967; last operations ~early 1970s).
Grounds: Eugenic (hereditary defects: feeble-mindedness, insanity, epilepsy, severe disability); social (antisocial behavior, criminality, "moral degeneracy," poverty).
Targets: Mostly women, poor, disabled, "deviants," Roma minorities.
Scale: ~11,000–12,000 sterilizations total; ~4,000–6,000 forced/coerced (estimates vary; high female percentage).
Administered by: Ministry of Social Affairs, local eugenics boards; often teenagers/young adults.
Context: Part of Nordic eugenics (Sweden/Norway longer-running); backed by Social Democrats as progressive welfare policy.
Peak: 1930s–1950s; declined post-WWII.
Exposed: 1999 government investigation; official apology 1999; compensation offered (DKK 40,000–120,000 per victim, 2000s onward, limited claims).
One of earliest Nordic eugenics programs; tied to social-democratic "improvement" ideology.

Eugenics in Finland

Eugenics in Finland:
Compulsory sterilization law: 1935–1970 (abolished 1970).
Grounds: Eugenic (hereditary defects: feeble-mindedness, insanity, epilepsy, severe disability); social (antisocial behavior, criminality, "moral degeneracy," poverty).
Targets: Mostly women, poor, disabled, "deviants," Roma minorities.
Scale: ~7,500–8,000 sterilizations total; ~2,000–3,000 forced/coerced (estimates vary; high female percentage).
Administered by: National Board of Health, local eugenics committees; often teenagers/young adults.
Context: Part of Nordic eugenics network; supported by Social Democrats as progressive population policy.
Peak: 1940s–1950s; declined post-WWII.
Exposed: 1990s–2000s inquiries; official apology 1999; compensation program (limited, ~€10,000–€20,000 per victim in 2000s, few claims).
Shortest-running among Nordic countries but aligned with regional social engineering.

Compare Nordic eugenics programs

Nordic eugenics programs comparison (1930s–1970s):
Sweden: 1934–1976; ~63,000 total sterilizations; ~21,000–30,000 forced/coerced; longest-running; highest volume; strong social/antisocial grounds.
Norway: 1934–1977; ~41,000–48,000 total; ~2,500–4,000 forced/coerced; second longest; significant Traveller/Roma targeting.
Denmark: 1929–1967; ~11,000–12,000 total; ~4,000–6,000 forced/coerced; earliest start; moderate scale.
Finland: 1935–1970; ~7,500–8,000 total; ~2,000–3,000 forced/coerced; shortest duration; lowest volume.
All: Backed by Social Democrats; eugenic + social grounds; targeted poor, disabled, women, minorities; peaked 1940s–1950s; declined post-WWII; exposed/apologized/compensated 1990s–2000s.
Sweden clearly most extensive and persistent.

https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_71146aa1-80ef-4b08-89aa-78edc0663711