HISTORY.--From the eugenists' standpoint history is prolific only in negation. A correct interpretation of its pages teaches us that it has not taught the lesson of the "survival of the fittest," but rather the survival of the strongest. That the strongest is not always the "fittest" needs [6] no commentary. That the fit should survive is the genetic law of nature, and it has been strictly obeyed by biology and humanity when these sciences have adhered to, and have been under the jurisdiction of the natural law. When religious schisms swayed the world, the stronger party, in material strength or in actual numbers, massacred the weaker, which was frequently the fitter from the standpoint of desirability as progenitors of the race. Thus posterity was deprived of what probably was the representative, potential strength of generations. At a later date religious schism changed her _modus operandi_ but accomplished the same pernicious purpose, as the following shows: "Whenever a man or woman was possessed of a gentle nature that fitted him or her to deeds of charity, to meditation, to literature or to art, the social condition of the time was such that they had no refuge elsewhere than in the bosom of the Church. But the Church chose to preach and exact celibacy, and the consequence was that these gentle natures had no continuance, and thus, by a policy, was brutalized the breed of our forefathers." When religion was not the dominating power, mankind was ruled by militant tyrants. The non-elect were slaves,--uneducated, uncivilized, debased and diseased. The elect were licentious and indolent. Neither class practised any domestic virtues, or respected the institution of motherhood. The process of the selection of the fittest for survival for the purpose of parentage, and for the consummation of the evolutionary gradation, through which the human race is apparently destined to pass, was again in abeyance for a series of generations. In our own times, the fate of nations and the destiny of their people would seem to depend upon the size of the fighting force and the efficiency of the ships we build; our ability to dicker and barter, to gain a questionable commercial supremacy, and the loquaciousness of our politicians. This, at least, is the criterion upon which the modern statesman estimates the quality of present-day civilization. He is not [7] apparently interested in the story of the ages. The progress of God's supernal scheme through aeons of bigotry and darkness neither suggests nor inspires in him a loftier constructive analysis. He is content to leave the destiny of nations to tons of material, tons of men and tons of talk.