“Some see a clear line between genetic enhancement and other ways that people seek improvement in their children and themselves. Genetic manipulation seems somehow worse – more intrusive, more sinister – than other ways of enhancing performance and seeking success. But, morally speaking, the difference is less significant than it seems. Bioengineering gives us reason to question the low-tech, high-pressure child-rearing practices we commonly accept. The hyper parenting familiar in our time represents an anxious excess of mastery and dominion that misses the sense of life as a gift. This draws it disturbingly close to eugenics… Was the old eugenics objectionable only insofar as it was coercive? Or is there something inherently wrong with the resolve to deliberately design our progeny’s traits… But removing coercion does not vindicate eugenics. The problem with eugenics and genetic engineering is that they represent a one-sided triumph of willfulness over giftedness, of dominion over reverence, of molding over beholding.” Michael J. Sandel
This is an article that I’ve been thinking about and working on for a while and admittedly, I’ve been wondering if I should post it at all. It’s probably going to be one of the more controversial posts I’ve ever written but given where we find ourselves today, I’ve finally gotten to where the discussion of some of the inconvenient truths that we find ourselves surrounded by today should be exposed and maybe, just maybe, we can start a dialog where we decide to continue down the trainwreck we see coming or can put our efforts towards making life a bit better for us imperfect morphisms of colonial bacteria and protoplasm that we call humans. Mainly, what I’m seeing is a return to the eugenic model among the elites and they are using bioethics to justify their actions.
We’re going to get some things out of the way first.
“The year 2100 will see eugenics universally established. In past ages, the law governing the survival of the fittest roughly weeded out the less desirable strains. Then man’s new sense of pity began to interfere with the ruthless workings of nature. As a result, we continue to keep alive and to breed the unfit. The only method compatible with our notions of civilization and race is to prevent the breeding of the unfit by sterilization and the deliberate guidance of the mating instinct. Several European countries and a number of states of the American Union sterilize the criminal and the insane. This is not sufficient. The trend of opinion among eugenicists is that we must make marriage more difficult. Certainly no one who is not a desirable parent should be permitted to produce progeny. A century from now it will no more occur to a normal person to mate with a person eugenically unfit than to marry a habitual criminal.” Nikola Tesla
Now for some definitions:
“bi·o·eth·ics (bī′ō-ĕth′ĭks) n. (used with a sing. verb) The study of the ethical and moral implications of new biological discoveries and biomedical advances, as in the fields of genetic engineering and drug research.” In a nutshell, eugenics.
“eu·gen·ics yo͞oˈjeniks/ noun The science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, it fell into disfavor only after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis.”
Those are the definitions that you are going to discover if you think of these things and both definitions are crafted to make you not think about them very much more. Bioethics seems to be something that erudite people in the fields named would consider so that harm isn’t done to the individuals that might be subject to “genetic engineering and drug research“. Sounds all warm and fluffy, doesn’t it? Whereas eugenics is evil because Naaaziis! Neither definition could be further from the truth and in the following paragraphs, I’m going to explain why.
Let’s delve into bioethics first. Where did this field come from and how was the term decided upon? This link is a good place to start but I’ve come to a conclusion of my own.
Bioethics evolved as a directed and funded discipline as a cover for the elites countering their expanding interest in eugenics and depopulation. Think about it, when you plan to at the least improve the genetic health of your own breeding stock and ensure that the lower genetically aware masses wouldn’t show up with pitchforks at your gates, you’ve got to placate them in some way. Your average person understands ethics and generally tries to live their life ethically. This type of person laps up a term like bioethics like candy. They don’t understand the scientific push towards making sure that the “useless eaters” don’t propagate too much is what’s has been planned for them all along. A term like “bioethics” is a bit of an opiate to someone who isn’t completely aware when faced with the increasingly genetic and chemical push towards controlling their nutrition, medicine and even if they are allowed to reproduce. New GMO food? We’ve got bioethicists worrying about the consequences of foods that have never been seen on this planet before and in the end singing their praises. Stem cell research? Bioethicists are all over that and from what I’ve been researching, they’re all for continued progress no matter how the research is accomplished. It doesn’t matter the subject, bioethicists are there to provide cover for every new line of research no matter how harmful it might turn out in the end. They are the “useful idiots”, the ones who can be depended on to publish multiple page papers in scientific journals full of obfuscation to justify their master’s goals. Now I realize that if nearly fifty percent of the population was forced to read this last paragraph, they wouldn’t get past the first sentence or if they did manage to read it over a couple of days, they wouldn’t have understood a word of it. And here’s where we are going to segue into eugenics.
Do any of you know the origin of the eugenics movement in the west? I didn’t think so. Because, “Naaaziiis“ and all of them being the most evil people eeveerrr on the face of the planet. You might be surprised that the real push for eugenics came from white women from America that didn’t want blacks reproducing.
“Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need … We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.” Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.
“Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying … demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism … [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant … We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.” Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Chapter on “The Cruelty of Charity,” pages 116, 122, and 189. And who do you guess this woman thought should have never bred at all?
On blacks, immigrants and indigents:“…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.” Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants, blacks and poor people“
It amazes me given the history of Planned Parenthood that the institution is still in business. But given the purpose of it from the beginning, not so much. But here’s the reasons for the purpose of bioethics and eugenics fields, they are self centering edifices that keep the information between in balance and don’t bring much attention to themselves. Which is just the way the elites like it. It takes a bit of time for people like us to figure out what they’re up to but then we have to make a decision. Everyone has an opinion on who they socialize with and maybe welcome into their families, but there is a far more difficult question we have to ask ourselves that the fields of bioethics and eugenics ensure has to be asked. Who lives? Who breeds? And who makes those decisions?
I’ll admit that given my life experiences, I’ve become more and more “Social Darwinist“. What that means is you quickly come to the conclusion after a huge amount of travel, exposure to different cultures all over the world, you ask yourself of the people you’ve been exposed to, “If you can’t feed yourself and your offspring, why do you or they deserve to live?” That might seem harsh, but given half of the world’s population is dependent on some type or other of society’s largesse, it’s making more and more sense. This brings up some hard questions that we are going to have ask of ourselves, “Who’s worth saving?” is one of the hardest ones, but it has to be asked.
Bioethics practitioners, on the surface of their published journals, postulate that everyone is worth saving. But do they believe what they espouse? Eugenics postulates that only the most fit are worth saving and we should encourage them to breed more than the “useless eaters“. But is that really the case? The unfortunate fact of the matter is, there are certain sections of any population that are more suited to civilization, technological advances, peaceful co-existence and generally more of what the human species strives for, “To be better“. The rest? Who knows? But, how do you identify the ones worth saving? It’s not a question that I ever want to be asked.
So what to do with the rest? You have to realize that there are examples of the unfit (I know it’s a harsh word but I can’t find a better description) among all races, classes and social strata. Given the undeniability of genetically provable intelligence differences among certain social classes and racial groups, the results are easy to predict. The upper strata social groups among the races are pretty good at expelling, hiding or warehousing their unfits but there is a huge amount of guilt being spread around at the conditions of the ones that have no hope of uplifting themselves because of inherent genetic unintelligence or sometimes just because they were born into disadvantageous conditions.
This has severe consequences if the support mechanisms for the unfit fail. Is everyone worth saving?
No. I realize that because of my age, I might fall into that category. But, if you leave me alone, I’ll be just fine and I definitely won’t starve. Given that if the support mechanisms for the unfit are more likely to fail than not, my skills just might come in handy.
So what are we to do? Given what we know about population groups, probably the best we can do is hope the EBT, welfare, foreign aid and any other type of government funded support just stops suddenly and chaotically. Bioethics says this is cruel but given the alternative, massive global wide collapse, what choice do we have? Eugenics postulates that the individuals that have the innate intelligence to rise above the inevitable chaos that will result from the social safety net being yanked out from under the unfit will either fill the status of warlords or will try to remake some type of civilized society. Personally, given the genetic disposition of the unfit, I see the former happening rather than the latter. What this is going to result in is divided territories among smart, well armed groups. Those that have been formed because of their inherent genetic advantage will closely observe the others that have descended into savagery and will pick them off one by one or en masse when their starvation forces them outside of their squalid conditions. Eventually, the unfit will become hordes that the fit will have no trouble dealing with. Now I know that I haven’t written about the elites role in all of this, but for the purpose of this article, it’s not going to matter much. They’ll be behind their gates and will watch what individuals like you and me are going to do; how we are going to react and the actions we take when confronted by the hordes. It won’t take long for the unfit to essentially disappear through starvation or attrition. Bioethics states that in this scenario, the elites will attempt to join with the fit. Eugenics postulates that they will try to enslave them and use them for their own purposes. It’s been tried before and if you know any history of the French or Bolshevik Revolutions, you see the likely results.
Interesting…Who do you think comes out on top? From what I’ve observed, I have no concrete answer.
But, it’s sure going to be fun to watch.