One Of The Left's Many Faces

Grab a coffee. This post turned out to be a little longer than expected...

Reading this article by Ted Byfield yesterday I saw reference to something that I didn't know near enough about. Eugenics in North America. Here's what Wiki sez about eugenics:

Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of humanhereditary traits through various forms of intervention. The purported goals have variously been to create healthier, more intelligent people, save society's resources, and lessen human suffering. Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering. Critics argue that eugenics is immoral, and is based in or is itself a pseudoscience. Historically, eugenics has been used as a justification for coercive state-sponsored discrimination and severe human rights violations, such as forced sterilization (e.g., of those perceived to have mental or social defects) and even genocide.

Selective breeding of human beings was suggested at least as far back as Plato, but the modern field was first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1865, drawing on the recent work of his cousin, Charles Darwin. From its inception, eugenics (derived from the Greek "well born" or "good breeding") was supported by prominent thinkers, including Alexander Graham Bell, George Bernard Shaw, and Winston Churchill, and was an academic discipline at many colleges and universities. Its scientific reputation tumbled in the 1930s, a time when Ernst Rüdin began incorporating eugenic rhetoric into the racial policies of Nazi Germany. During the postwar period both the public and the scientific community largely associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, which included enforced "racial hygiene" and extermination, although a variety of regional and national governments maintained eugenic programs until the 1970s.

Think that the concept of eugenics has been wiped out since Hitler's attempt to eliminate the Jews, cripples, retards, queers and people with dark skin? If you'd said "yes", you'd be wrong. The concept of eugenics is alive and well and practiced "liberally" by those on the left.

That's right, I said that it's being practiced by those on the left. And it always has been.

Only now they've changed the name to make it more "politically correct":

Liberal eugenics is the study and use of reproductive and genetic technologies to improve human beings, specifically in regard to biological characteristics and capacities.

The term liberal is used to differentiate it from the eugenics programs of the first half of the 20th century, which were associated with racism, classism, and coercive methods to decrease the frequency of certain human hereditary traitspositive (encouraging reproduction in the designated "fit") and negative (discouraging reproduction in the designated "unfit"). Many positive eugenics programs were advocated and pursued in early 20th-century eugenics programs, but the negative programs were responsible for the forced sterilization of hundreds of thousands of persons in many countries and states, and were contained in much of the rhetoric of Nazi Germany's programs of racial hygiene and ethnic cleansing. Advocates of liberal eugenics generally do not favor sterilization except as a part of population control.

Liberal eugenics is conceived as being entirely "positive", relying more on genetic manipulation than on breeding charts to achieve its aims. It seeks to both minimize congenital disorder and enhance ability, traditional eugenic goals. It is intended to be under the control of the parents, though the substantial governmental and corporate infrastructure required for genetic engineering may limit or steer their actual choices. Currently, tests such as preimplantation genetic diagnosis, have been developed to allow for embryos carrying congenital diseases to be discarded.

Right, they're all about trying to prevent birth defects. Not so much. Lets have a look at the real, not-so-politically-correct, liberal eugenics program. The stuff they like to keep hidden:

We'll start with abortion. A mainstay of liberalism. Did you know that the pro-abortion movement in general and Planned Parenthood organisations in particular are offshoots of the Eugenics movement?

In the years after World War I, a number of competing organizations formed to promote birth control. The most controversial of these was the American Birth Control League (ABCL). In 1933, Eleanor Dwight Jones, the President of ABCL, described the organization's founders as "a devoted group of liberals and feminists led by Margaret Sanger."[1]

These organizations arose out of the fears of America's affluent, educated elite. To have more money and time for themselves, they were having fewer children. As a result they were alarmed by the high birth rates of poor and working-class people.[2] They considered the prolific poor, as Sanger put it, "the most far reaching peril to the future of civilization."[3]

Two Movements

Two movements developed in response to these fears. Both considered the nation a "race" that could be strengthened by keeping the birth rate of the "fit" (the affluent) above that of the "unfit" (the poor). They differed only in whose birth rate they wanted to change.

The eugenicists warned of "race suicide" if the nation's dominant group, educated people of Northern European descent, did not increase its birthrate. President Theodore Roosevelt expressed their view in March 1905 when he attacked women who used birth control as "criminal against the race."[4] This group wanted more children from the "fit."

The other movement, birth controllers, was more attractive to feminists such as Margaret Sanger.[5] It did not demand that affluent women abandon careers for large families. It planned to achieve race building by forcing down the birth rate of the "unfit." In her autobiography, Margaret Sanger summarized the differences between the two movements:

Eugenics without birth control seemed to me a house built upon sands...The eugenicists wanted to shift the birth-control emphasis from less children for the poor to more children for the rich. We went back of that and sought to stop the multiplication of the unfit."[6]

To stop this "multiplication," Sanger could be harsh. Her book The Pivot of Civilization has a chapter called "The Cruelty of Charity." In it she blasts as "insidiously injurious" programs to provide "medical and nursing facilities to slum mothers." Such programs "facilitate the function of maternity" when "the absolute necessity is to discourage it." Sanger believed that a poor woman who died in childbirth gave other poor women more incentive to visit her conveniently located birth control clinics.[7]
[...]
By the late 1930s, growing public hostility meant eugenicists and birth control groups could no longer afford to compete for the dwindling funds from foundations and wealthy donors. As Gordon notes, "In 1938 rivalry in the birth control movement was ended with the reunification of Sanger's friends and enemies in the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA)."[15]

In January 1940 the BCFA held its annual meeting in New York City. The title of the symposium, "Race Building in a Democracy," showed little had changed. The same title was given to a luncheon speech by Henry Fairchild, president of the American Eugenics Society.

At that meeting, the eugenics movement, tainted by public hostility to their Nazi-like ideologies, united with the birth controllers. In his speech Dr. Fairchild noted, "One of the outstanding features of the present conference is...that these two great movements, eugenics and birth control, have now come together as almost indistinguishable."[16]

Planned Parenthood was the product of that union. The luncheon at which Dr. Fairchild spoke also began the 1940 fund drive for "The Citizens Committee for Planned Parenthood." Birth Control Review noted that the two events would give "an unusually comprehensive portrayal of the Federation of today and tomorrow."[l7]

That's right, if we can stop "dumb" and "poor" people from having babies, we'll have less of them around messing up the gene pool... They disguise it by calling it a "woman's right to choose".

What's next.... Oh, OK... Euthanasia. Sometimes undesirables are born or created through accidents and they need to be dealt with as well no?/sarc. The solution of those on the left is to kill them.

Who was screaming at the top of their lungs that that poor little brain-dead girl (Terry Schiavo) should be killed at the request of her husband? The ACLU. An extreme left-wing organisation born of the American communist movement.

Euthanasia is legal in Belgum and Holland - two very liberal countries:

In 2002, Belgium legalised euthanasia for adults who are suffering "constant and unbearable physical or psychological pain", and who are sufficiently conscious to make the request to die. Holland passed a similar law in 1995. In neither country is it legal to put infants to death.

But doctors in Holland have led a public campaign in recent years to have the law changed to reflect what they call the reality that paediatricians routinely assist children to die.

Read the whole article and you'll see that they're routinely killing kids who aren't expected to have a good quality of life.

Here's something interesting. Dr. David Suzuki is a genetisist. A practitioner of "Liberal Eugenics". He's Canada's most well known left-wing activist taking positions on the environment, war and anything else that has to do with anything else. - Just a little factoid...

Eugenics in politics - It's very real and very well hidden.

The UK Green Party believes in eugenics (liberal or otherwise) to ensure we don't over populate the planet:

P104 There are many causes of population growth and some of these must be addressed to avoid overpopulation. Causes may be as basic as a lack of family planning information and contraceptives. Inequality and lack of opportunities can result in people having more children than they would otherwise want. On a wider scale, it has been observed that populations often increase following wars, social strife and environmental disasters.

You can find statements like this on every Green Party website regardless of country of origin. They don't want to control the birthrates of just the "poor" and "dumb" however. They want to control the acceleration of the human race as a whole. In fact, there are some Green Party supporters who support "depopulation". Lets ignore the Green Party however because they were probably stoned when they dreamed up their platform.

How about another party, Canada's NDP.

Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin meanwhile said he personally opposes legalizing assisted suicide. “I’m not saying it’s an easy decision, but I couldn’t do it,” the Prime Minister said, as reported by CanWest News Service. “I’ve had discussions with my wife and others who don’t agree with me. But myself, assisted suicide, I would have a good deal of difficulty as prime minister approving it.” The Liberal Ministry of Justice expressed opposition to many aspects of Lalonde’s bill last year but gave strong indication that it would not oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide legislation that met its own conditions on how such legislation should be worded.

NDP Leader Jack Layton, whose party platform includes support for euthanasia, said “Maybe it’s time to have this discussion. We have the bill. Perhaps it’s time for Canadians to consider the different aspects of the question.”

Hard-core eugenics wrapped-up in the compassionate and pretty package called "right to die".

How about the left in general? The "Grass-Roots"?

Well they seem to be very supportive of the ME terrorists who wan't to eliminate the entire Jewish population:

GAZA

Juan Cole has a good round up of the building global backlash against Israel for their recent invasion of the Gaza Strip and persecution of innocent Palestinians.

Update: Dawg’s Blawg has been following the situation in Gaza too and Le Revue Gauche wonders where the outrage is.

It’s a shame our new Conservative government has taken a pro-apartheid stance when it comes to Israel. Otherwise they’d see that what is being done to the Palestinians is no different than the atrocity committed against North American Aboriginals over the past several centuries.

related articles 41 commentsJuly 9th, 2006 Robert McClelland

This is to be expected from McClelland though. His moral compass is so loose that he can justify anything. He's the individual who recently supported a psyched-out psych prof for threatening children.

What else have we got.... hmmm....

Here's some babble:

Ryaninfo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10510

posted 15 July 2006 03:02 PM

---

COA News just featured a great short video titled "Hezbollah: Lebanese Defenders"

It's great to see a news organization that is covering this from a different perspective! I'm sure we'll see conservatives slaming them for it though.

I found out about this from their News Alert Service

[ 15 July 2006: Message edited by: Ryaninfo ]

Kevin_Laddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8163

posted 16 July 2006 07:15 AM

---

GO HEZBOLLAH!!! Israel's tactics are getting so, so vicious. Did anyone see that leveled appartment building on the news this morning? This is sickening.

Hezbollah's stated goal is to wipe Israel off of the map and kill all of the Jews. Complete genocide. Pick a "progressive" blog or message board and you'll see that they've (Hezbollah) got an exceptional number of "progressive" supporters. More hard-core eugenics.

So what's the point? Well it's this:

Folks on the left generally believe in evolution which they see as liscence to control the direction of the human race. Folks on the right generally believe in creationism or intelligent design which tells them to keep "hands off" in this area.

Those on the left make a point of referring to conservatives as Nazis and even Hitler himself in the case of individuals. Now, knowing the lib-lefts penchant for eugenics, you can accurately remind them that is they, who most closely resemble the Nazis... They'll whine and cry about it and say that it "jes'taint so!" but you've got the proof in front of you.