Eugenics In American Progressive Politics
"It has now become a serious necessity to better the breed of the human race. The average citizen is too base for the everyday work of modern civilization." --Sir Francis Galton, ideological founder of eugenics
Our generation is far too polite (with the exception of Congressman Murtha) to speak so candidly about the hoi polloi. The hoi polloi in this case being you, the taxpayer. Populism and liberalism forbids it, but that does not mean that the sentiments do not still remain beneath the surface and as the motive for action in both government and organizations devoted to genetic research, abortion and various other causes that use Americans' naive sense of justice and goodness for committing the greater evil.
Eugenics - now euphemistically branded as "genetics" - is the giant elephant in the room. It sits there and stinks to high heaven. No one in the mainstream media talks about it. Ever. And even when we do catch it in the corner of our eye, we only recall past images of Hitler and Dr. Josef Mengele who performed the research and experimentation "required" to achieve the "master race". We imagine that the Holocaust is only some sick oddity of the past confined to Germany. To make matters worse, we are now subjected to a crazed Iranian babble on and on about the Holocaust not even existing. The world either pretends that the Holocaust was only about the Jews or it pretends that it did not exist. Now yes, it was about the Jews, but it was also about a lot more,and it was about something that still dwells very deep within the soul of the progressive movement in the United States of America. Yes, liberals, that would be you.
The progressives of the 20th century took racism and reformulated it into a science, a science that devotes itself to discovering the "pure gene" or "pure blood". Once that can be isolated, they believe, the next step is the removal of the "bad blood" either through lethal means or through sterilization. Certainly through abortion.
How? By identifying so-called "defective" family trees and subjecting them to lifelong segregation and sterilization programs to kill their bloodlines. The grand plan was to literally wipe away the reproductive capability of those deemed weak and inferior--the so-called "unfit." The eugenicists hoped to neutralize the viability of 10 percent of the population at a sweep, until none were left except themselves.
Eighteen solutions were explored in a Carnegie-supported 1911 "Preliminary Report of the Committee of the Eugenic Section of the American Breeder's Association to Study and to Report on the Best Practical Means for Cutting Off the Defective Germ-Plasm in the Human Population." Point eight was euthanasia.
The most commonly suggested method of eugenicide in America was a "lethal chamber" or public locally operated gas chambers. In 1918, Popenoe, the Army venereal disease specialist during World War I, co-wrote the widely used textbook, Applied Eugenics, which argued, "From an historical point of view, the first method which presents itself is executionâ€¦ Its value in keeping up the standard of the race should not be underestimated." Applied Eugenics also devoted a chapter to "Lethal Selection," which operated "through the destruction of the individual by some adverse feature of the environment, such as excessive cold, or bacteria, or by bodily deficiency." -Edwin Black, The Horrifying Roots of Nazi Eugenics
Read the rest of the Black's excellent article by clicking on the link above. Also make sure you visit the Eugenics Archive.
Eugenics actually began in the mid 19th century with the theories of Charles Darwin's cousin, Sir Francis Galton. His ideas were eventually transported into the United States, where they were eventually taken up by the scientific progressive movement. It was only after eugenics became a serious science in our country and, in particular, in California that Hitler was able to study and use it to support his sick racist "theories". A clear case of the government using science for the sake of its own gruesome elitist intentions. And we all know the end of that story. The Germans were charged for the crimes they committed, for the atrocious experiments that were performed on innocent human beings. Were charges brought against the scientific establishment in the U.S? Not on your life. The U.S. practitioners withdrew and reinvented themselves. Now they continue their pursuits under a more politically correct disguise.
One of Obama's first accomplishments as President was to rescind the Mexico City Policy. This was a policy that banned the appropriation of taxpayer money for the sake of funding abortion groups outside the U.S. One of those groups is Planned Parenthood. The founder of Planned Parenthood had this to say regarding those who would visit her clinic:
'... human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning ... human beings who never should have been born.'
-- Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood founder, referring to immigrants and poor people
Gives you a little taste of what the true motives are behind the abortion movement. Simply Google "Margaret Sanger" and you will have no problem finding the sewage that lingers on forever in the bowels of the progressive movement.
There are plenty of people who believe that abortion should be a matter choice for women. The question of whether or not it should be a choice conceals the deeper and more pertinent question regarding who has the right to say who should live and who should die. The answer for any society has enormous consequences in the long term. In German society, the answer was decidedly the government. We know where that got is. In America, we say that answer is the woman, because we live in a democratic society where freedom of choice is supposedly prized. Consider however that such an answer could lead us to a similar place that the Nazi's lead the Germans. Just think about it.
The eugenicists of today are not using the same barbaric means as the Nazis once did, nor will they. They are however operating on the same principles. Some people are fit to live. Others are not. WorldNetDaily recently reported on another ignored facet of Obama's stimulus package. It includes a demand that all American citizens have their health records digitized. This is not presented as a choice for citizens. It is presented as mandatory by force. So much for freedom. Ultimately, the government would have complete access to all citizen's health records and genetic information.
The Citizens' Council on Health Care has worked to publicize the issue in Minnesota. The group raised opposition when the state Department of Health continued to warehouse DNA without parental consent in violation of the genetic privacy and DNA property rights of parents and children.
Twila Brase, president of CCHC, said at the time the problem is that "researchers already are looking for genes related to violence, crime and different behaviors."
In an extensive interview with WND at the time, she said, "In England they decided they should have doctors looking for problem children, and have those children reported, and their DNA taken in case they would become criminals."
In fact, published reports in Britain note that senior police forensics experts believe genetic samples should be studied, because it may be possible to identify potential criminals as young as age 5.
Brase said efforts to study traits and gene factors and classify people would be just the beginning. What could happen through subsequent programs to address such conditions, she wondered.
"Not all research is great," she said.
Classifying of people could lead to "discrimination and prejudice. â€¦ People can look at data about you and make assessments ultimately of who you are."
The Heartland Regional Genetics and Newborn Screening is one of the organizations that advocates more screening and research.
The group proclaims in its vision statement a desire to see newborns screened for 200 conditions. It also forecasts "every student â€¦ with an individual program for education based on confidential interpretation of their family medical history, their brain imaging, their genetic predictors of best learning methods. â€¦"
Further, every individual should share information about "personal and family health histories" as well as "gene tests for recessive conditions and drug metabolism" with the "other parent of their future children."
Still further, it seeks "ecogenetic research that could improve health, lessen disability, and lower costs for sickness."
"They want to test every child for 200 conditions, take the child's history and a brain image, and genetics, and come up with a plan for that child," Brase said at the time. "They want to learn their weaknesses and defects.
"Nobody including and especially the government should be allowed to create such extensive profiles," she said.
The next step, said Brase, is obvious: The government, with information about potential health weaknesses, could say to couples, "We don't want your expensive children."
So you can see why the progressive movement in the early 20th century became interested in eugenics. They perceived eugenics as a way to cure social problems. It was a tool they wanted to use in order to forge their utopian visions of society. It is no coincidence that many of the men who funded eugenics projects at that time, were also the ones who helped to establish the Federal Reserve System, another brilliant progressive way to control the social ( economic ) climate: Rockefeller, Harriman , J.P. Morgan, and Carnegie come to mind.
The Rockefellers funded the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Germany, when eugenicists were preparing the way ideologically for what eventually became the world's most infamous slaughter, the Nazi holocaust. The Rockefeller Institute supported Alexis Carrel, who advocated the use of gas to get rid of the unwanted. John D. Rockefeller III founded the Population Council. Rockefeller money made Alfred Kinsey's sex research possible.
In the fall of 1993, the Rockefeller Archive Center Newsletter published "The Rockefeller Foundation, the Population Council and the Groundwork for New Population Policies" by John B. Sharpless of the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Sharpless had been studying the files of the Rockefeller Foundation (RF), the records of the Population Council, and the personal papers of John D. Rockefeller III. He concluded that "Foundations and individual philanthropists are important in understanding the impressively quick and nearly unanimous change in attitudes and ideas about population that occurred during the 1960s." Such foundations funded the development of contraceptives, but also built the international network of experts who shaped the public debate, who shared "a core body of knowledge and a common mode of discourse" as well as a "shared set of assumptions about how population dynamics worked."
Sharpless wrote, "The power to accomplish this task was based on their relationship with the philanthropic community. In addition to the Rockefeller Foundation and the Population Council, other Foundations active in this area included the Ford Foundation, the Milbank Memorial Fund and, to a lesser extent, the Carnegie Corporation, and the Conservation Foundation." - Funding the Eugenics Movement
To the eugenicists, the more people they can control, the better. Microsoft and Google, both of whom are building systems to store digital health information of private individuals, will help the government sell it as something useful and beneficial to patients' health. And granted, some of their offerings will be beneficial. But when you deal with the devil, there is always a price to be paid. That price could be your freedom and the freedom of life in general. How easy would it be to convince women of the "right choice" by persuading them through genetic science that their babies will be future bad students or drug addicts. At that point, the choice will be chosen for them and they will feel good about that choice. They will believe that murder is an act of human kindness, or at least for the great good of mankind.