About these ads

The Modern Socialist Eugenics Movement

Image14Ideological closets tend to shelter skeletons that current adherents would much rather remain hidden. The closet belonging to the socialist left, however, contains more than most and one of the more horrendous skeletons is their fascination with eugenics.

In a nutshell, eugenics is the belief that a society can be engineered (or re-engineered) through selective breeding, sterilization and “merciful” life terminations. The purpose of eugenics is to remove from said society those whom said society deem inferior. The inferiority of those deemed so is based on several criteria such as physical defects, insanity, criminality, alcoholism, pauperism, epilepsy, feeblemindedness, and in some cases homosexuality and the “inferior races.” Basically increasing the quality of the herd – the “Human Herd,” by weeding out the runts.

To most, the very idea of eugenics is extremely abhorrent, but at the turn of the 20th century the ideology of eugenics was very popular among the socialists, or social progressives of the day, many of whom are revered even to this day by the socialist left. George Bernard Shaw, playwright, devoted social progressive, and darling of today’s leftist elite once said, “The only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialization of the selective breeding of man.” His answer to the “problem” of “inferior” individuals who were already alive was to employ what Shaw called a “lethal chamber.” (Eerily reminiscent of the Nazi gas chambers).Image28

Proponents of eugenics firmly believed they were working toward the betterment of society as a whole, and that they were doing so by utilizing what they believed to be irrefutable scientific methods. They considered those who were inferior to be a burden on society that had to be carried along and supported by those who were superior; and the best way to benefit society would be to ensure there were less of the inferior or weak in society and more of the strong or superior to carry them along.

Eugenics was popular among socialist progressives through the 1960’s, but experienced a definite decline in popularity amongst the general public by the end of World War Two. The reason for this was the embracing of eugenics by Nazi Germany, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with anything even remotely connected to the Nazi’s. Interestingly, however, it was through the work of American eugenicists that the Nazi’s learned of eugenics. Pioneering eugenics researcher Harry Hamilton Laughlin was fond of noting that his Model Eugenic Sterilization Laws had been adopted in Nazi Germany. In fact, Laughlin was awarded an honorary doctorate for his work on eugenics as a means of “racial cleansing” from Heidelberg University. Laughlin was the founding president of The Pioneer Fund, Inc., a socialist organization that is still in existence today, which promotes the ideas of genetic superiority of certain groups, particularly those of Northern European descent.

Adolph Hitler and the Nazi’s were not satisfied with the somewhat slow progress the socialist American eugenics movement was making, so they took eugenics to its next logical level. Not only did they enforce mandatory sterilization of those whom they considered inferior (something America had been doing since the 1920’s, and continued well into the 1960’s), and not only were they enforcing mandatory abortions (something American eugenicists had talked about), but they began two programs that America had only toyed with, and had experienced only limited success with: selective breeding and euthanasia.

Image7American eugenicists had been promoting the idea of selective breeding by encouraging those who possessed what they considered superior traits to marry only their equals. Misogyny was openly discouraged, as were marital unions with any who possessed any of the “inferior” traits. Although marital relationships between the “inferiors” was frowned upon, it was not discouraged as long as those “inferiors” were first sterilized, by mandate if necessary. It is estimated that as many as 100,000 Americans were sterilized by force by 1968. One of the most famous was 17-year old Carrie Buck.

Carrie had been taken away from her mother shortly after her birth, and was placed with a foster family named Dobbs. At the age of 17, Carrie was raped by the Dobbs’s nephew. Almost immediately the Dobbs’s family had carried institutionalized in the Virginia Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded. They claimed that Carrie was feebleminded (she wasn’t, and had maintained an A/B average in school), incorrigible (again, her school records show she was well behaved), and promiscuity. The fact that she had been raped by a member of her foster family was a consideration only in that it embarrassed the family, and Carrie’s incarceration was a way to save the family future embarrassment.

As an inmate at the Virginia Colony, Carrie was considered an inferior woman, who, according to Virginia’s mandatory sterilization laws was eligible for said mandatory sterilization. She gave birth to a baby girl she named Vivian. Because she had been labeled as an inferior, Carrie was deemed incapable of caring for a child, and Vivian was taken away and placed for adoption. It was the Dobbs family, Carrie’s former foster family, who adopted poor Vivian.

Although she was to have been forcibly sterilized, Carrie decided to fight the Virginia law. After losing her case at the state level, she continued to fight until her case was finally heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1927. The infamous case is known as Buck v. Bell, and the court ruled 8-1 against Carrie Buck. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the decision which said, “We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

Carrie was forcibly sterilized only five months after the court made their decision.

As with America, Nazi Germany also enforced the mandatory sterilization of “inferiors,” and as also with America, they practiced selective breeding. While America only encouraged the practice, the Nazi’s embraced the practice with a scientific zeal. Beginning in 1935, the Nazi’s began selectively breeding members of the Schutzstaffel (the SS – all considered to be of pure Aryan blood) with approved German women who had met or exceeded the programs stringent qualifications. The program, known as the Lebensborn Program, was founded by Heinrich Himmler (head of the Gestapo and the Waffen-SS, and the Nazi Minister of the Interior) for the purpose of creating an Aryan Master Race. Although it is generally believed that the Lebensborn Program ended in 1945 with the defeat of the Nazi’s, there was speculation that Dr. Josef Mengele, the Nazi “Angel of Death,” continued his experiments after escaping to South America at the end of the war. Interestingly, beginning in 1963, a small remote, outback town in Brazil began experiencing a dearth of twins. In fact, one in every five births in the village of Candido Godoi (population approx. 6,000) are twins. Blonde haired, blue eyed twins. The natives have long attributed the phenomenon to the work of an itinerant physician named Rudolph Weiss. The name is a known alias of Mengele. Lebensborn South American Style.

A form of selective breeding is alive and well in America today. Gender/sex selection is a form of eugenics practiced in places like China and India, where couples have used pregnancy screening to abort female fetuses. But it is also used America, as way to achieve ones personal preference. There is no connection to population reduction as there is in China and India. Here it is simply a personal preference of the parents. In other words, population engineering.

If you want a boy but your baby is a girl, or vice-versa, simply abort and try again. If you want to garner even more control over the selection process, you can use a sperm donor. How would you like a son that resembles Mel Gibson or Stephen Baldwin? Maybe Heath Ledger or Vin Diesel? Would you like a chess player, an artist, a business owner, an athlete or a musician? Would you like your child to possess compassion, charm, empathy, a drive to succeed, and a sense of humor? Perhaps you would like your child to be bilingual (French? German? Spanish? Any combination thereof?), intelligent, capable of attaining a Master’s Degree? All of these are possible (imply the sperm donor corporations) with the use of a “premium” sperm donor. With enough money, patience and determination you too can contribute to the new society and the master race. The American Lebensborn Program.Lebensborn American Style

The Nazi’s did not limit their expansive zeal for eugenics to the Lebensborn, as we all are quite aware, and as Auschwitz- Birkenau, Belzec, Treblinka and other death camps grimly attest. Beginning in 1941, the Nazi’s began the systematic extermination of those whom they considered undesirable and inferior, in an attempt to facilitate their plan for a racially pure Aryan population in Germany. They targeted Jews, Slavs, Poles, Gypsies, and all non-Europeans. As with the American eugenicists, however, the Nazi’s also considered mental and physical deficiencies as well as undesirable personality traits and personal beliefs contrary to Nazism to be inferior genetics as well. Consequently, the Nazi’s also targeted people with physical and mental disabilities, Homosexuals, the elderly, Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Freemasons, and any who openly expressed criticism of Hitler or the Nazi party for extermination.

Although many (if not most) of today’s socialist left deny any connection to Adolph Hitler and the Nazi eugenics program, it doesn’t take much research to clearly see that they are very much connected. Hitler was an avowed socialist. He said of himself and the Nazi party in a speech given on May 1, 1927, “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”(sound familiar?)

Also, as with many socialists today, Hitler was vehemently anti-smoking. He was a vegetarian, an environmentalist (creating several national parks and “sacred” forests in Germany), and an avowed health fanatic. His Hitler Youth movement strongly promoted good health practices and exercise, along with healthy eating habits to defeat obesity, and strengthen the Aryan population.

By the end of World War Two, however, anything associated with Hitler and the Nazi’s was frowned upon, and that included the American eugenics movement which quietly died away. Or did it? Clearly the “pro-choice” abortion movement is frighteningly similar to the eugenics abortion program. In fact, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a long time member of both the American Eugenics Society and the English Eugenics Society. She was notoriously anti-Semitic as well as racist, and considered both Jews and Blacks as inferior races. One of her greatest fans was Adolph Hitler, who was open in his praise of Sanger’s work in eugenics. Her Planned Parenthood is nothing more than an extension of the earlier eugenics movement.

Clearly then, the eugenics movement did not simply die away after World War Two. It simply quieted itself, left the public eye, and split into several separate groups and movements, all promoting and advocating for different agendas found within the earlier eugenics movement. Planned Parenthood is one branch of the eugenics tree. Other “branches” include the Zero Population Growth movement, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, the Green Movement, and other such groups that promote the removal of inferior humans by various means.

Although the Nazi exterminations were anything but merciful, because of the reasoning behind those exterminations (an attempt to eradicate the inferior to make way for the superior), they can rightfully be called (at least a form of) euthanasia. Another branch of the eugenics tree, that was and is still practiced in America.

The euthanasia movement began in America in the early part of the 20th century with extensive political debate over legislation to legalize physician-assisted suicide in both Iowa and Ohio. The movement reached its peak in the 1930’s and soon went into decline, only to be revived again in the 1960’s and 1970’s ostensibly as “physician assisted suicide” (remember Dr. Jack Kervorkian and his death van?).

American Eugenics Society Poster from 1926

The movement foundered somewhat for a few decades, but is once again in the public eye, primarily due to: 1) a lack of funding for the socialist touted ObamaCare plan to insure those who are uninsurable due to a pre-existing condition; 2) a recently leaked government funded mortality survey; and 3) an incident in a California assisted living facility in which a nurse refused to allow CPR to be administered to save an elderly resident who had stopped breathing.

In February of this year, an 87-year old woman who was residing in the independent living section of an assisted living facility in Bakersfield, California began having difficulty breathing. A nurse at the facility called 9-1-1, and was asked by the 9-1-1 operator to begin CPR. The nurse not only refused (due to a company policy forbidding staff administered CPR), but also refused to allow a non-staff member to administer the life saving procedure. As a result, the elderly woman died. The incident created a national uproar with conservatives protesting the nurse’s actions and socialists defending it.

During a discussion on NBC’s Today show, advertising executive and television host Donny Deutsch put forth a decidedly socialist viewpoint when he said, “It’s obviously a very sad story, but it really brings up, I think, a larger issue that we’ve got to get our arms around, that 25% of the health care costs are against people in their last year of their life, the 4 or 5% of people, keeping people alive. Now of course, if it’s my mom and dad, I want to do the same, but we maybe need to give hard looks that some of the procedures being done to extend lives six weeks, eight weeks, ten weeks, that maybe that money could go to saving little babies.” It was almost as if Deutsch was channeling former Colorado Governor Dick Lamm (a self-described Progressive) who once told a meeting of the Colorado Health Lawyers Association at St. Joseph’s Hospital, “You’ve got a duty to die and get out of the way. Let the other society, our kids, build a reasonable life.”

Also recently reported in the news (although quietly and without fanfare, almost buried amidst the fluff non-news stories) was the fact that at least half of the $5 billion set aside by President Obama to ensure that those with pre-existing medical conditions (who had long been denied health insurance) could no longer be denied medical insurance, is now gone. On the surface this segment of ObamaCare seems to be a pretty good deal, and the socialist left had long been promoting it as one of the primary reasons for Congress to pass the ObamaCare legislation. But now, those who have not yet applied for the “high-risk-pools” will be denied, and left to manage their own medical issues. Issues that are always chronic, and often terminal. In other words, in keeping with a long held socialist eugenics agenda, these “inferior” members of our society will be left to die, sometimes painfully and horribly, all in the name of pursuing the socialist eugenics agenda of purging society of the unwanted burden of the inferior.

In 1999, a new government sponsored survey, known as the “UCSF 10-Year Mortality Index for Older Adults,” was made available to physicians across the country to use as a tool to help determine what level of care should be given to older (60+ years old) patients. The survey assesses these “older” patients by assigning points to certain factors. If the patient is male, that’s 2 points. Overweight (1 point), has smoked in the past week (2 points). If the patient has certain medical issues such as diabetes (1 point), chronic lung problems (2 points), cancer (2 points), heart problems (2 points), or is on oxygen (2 points). The survey also addresses a patient’s ability to perform simple tasks such as: does the patient have trouble bathing (2 points), walking (2 points), moving a chair (1 point) and managing their finances (2 points). Points are also assessed for the patients age (60-64 = 1pt, 65-69=2pts, 70-74=3pts, 75-79=4pts, 80-84=5pts, 85+ = 7pts). The more points the patient has, the less care is recommended for the patient.

According to the authors of the survey, the justification given for this “death test” is that the benefit of life saving preventative medical practices (i.e. cancer screenings, glycemic control for diabetics, etc.) for certain patients are outweighed by the patients estimated life expectancy. Their life expectancy is determined by the point system. The more points you have, the lower your life expectancy. (I would suggest cheating on this test if you’re over 60 and you want to receive medical care).

To illustrate the faulty logic of the mortality index, I offer the following scenario. Based on the point system used with this “death test,” a 75 year old man who has just smoked his first cigarette ever, has arthritis in his knees, and has never learned how to balance his checkbook, is given a total of 12 points and would likely be refused medical treatment, including preventative treatment. On the other hand, a 69 year old woman with breast cancer and congestive heart failure only has 6 points and is therefore considered more deserving of treatment. Clearly the “test” is nothing more than a justification to eliminate those who considered inferior and not worthy of life saving medical care.

These incidents are all reminiscent of the 1960’s socialist youth mantra of “Never trust anyone over 30,” or the 1976 film “Logan’s Run” (based on the 1967 book of the same name) which depicts a future society in which the societal population and the consumption of resources are managed and maintained in balance (such as is promoted by the Zero Population Growth Movement) by simply killing everyone who reaches the age of thirty, thus preventing overpopulation. It is the euthanasia branch of the eugenics tree.

The ideology of eugenics has been a foundational fixture of the socialist movement since its inception, including the philosophy of euthanasia. The packaging may have been updated, and made more palatable, more acceptable, but the product – the end result – is still the same. Removal of those considered inferior in order to promote the promulgation of those considered superior by the socialist left.

The earlier American Eugenics Movement has been acceptable and can now be considered as the Modern Socialist Eugenics Movement (which we will call MSEM). This movement still strives to “improve” society (although the term society now refers to the global population) through the exact same means and methods utilized by the early eugenics movement: Abortion, Sterilization, Selective Breeding, and Euthanasia. The removal of the burdensome inferior to make way for the socialist superior.

MSEM Logo

About these ads


Categories: Abortion, Barack Obama, Decline of America, Democratic Party, Ethics, Health, Health Care, Healthcare, Liberals, Marxism, Obama, Obamacare, Progressives, Socialism, Society

Tags: , , , , ,

2 replies

  1. Always denied bottom line:
    1. Religious/Natural Law believers: Human life, a sacred gift, must be protected at whatever cost.
    2. Unbelieving moral relativists: Human life is a commodity, subject to cost/benefit economics.
    Question: Will you prefer that your care be decided by 1 or by 2 above?

    Note: Those holding power are 2…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,794 other followers

%d bloggers like this: