American Eugenics: Alive and Well in the 21st Century

If you know your history, that title should alarm you. American eugenics programs led directly to the NAZI’s “final solution.” That’s not my opinion: that’s what the NAZI’s said themselves. American eugenics is also connected to Planned Parenthood: a program that Margaret Sanger openly stated was designed to eliminate the black race in America. And now, now the eugenicists in this nation are trying to find a “crazy” gene:

DNA of Sandy Hook killer Adam Lanza to be examined for ‘evil’ gene in first study of its kind ever conducted on a mass murderer

The study will be the first one of its kind and will evaluate any genetic evidence for the mass killing of 20 first graders, six members of staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School and his own mother.

Do you understand the danger here?  First, we are plagued with a scientific community that routinely finds what it is looking for and then declares it as “proof” of their conclusions.  The problem is, this is not “proof,” it is confirmation bias, which is also bad science.  We see examples of this all the time.  How many cases can you think of where we were told this thing is bad for us and we shouldn’t eat it, or that thing is good and we should eat it — only to be told the exact opposite several months or a couple years later?  This happens all the time.  Google it, you’ll see.  So we shouldn’t be surprised when they tell us they have found this “crazy” gene.  After all, they claim they found the “gay” gene (which, strangely enough, only seems to be present in some 10-20% of homosexuals — again, bad science).

Next, ask yourself what the logical result of finding a “crazy” gene will be.  If you can prevent mass murder by screening people for the “crazy” gene, then wouldn’t you screen for them?  But then what?  How do you prevent these new-found “crazies” — who have done no wrong or harm to this point — from committing mass murder?  Well, as “crazies,” aren’t they “defective?”  So, you either institutionalize them or, if you think like the NAZI’s and most eugenicists throughout history, you “eliminate” them from the gene pool.  After all, that is the “scientific” thing to do, isn’t it?  And scientific means reasonable, don;t you know.  So who could argue with saving society from mass murder when you can prevent it through “scientific” methods?

And there you are: on the slippery slope to mass murder — state sponsored style.  but before you object on the grounds that Americans would never do anything like this, let me ask you this one question.  Do you think the Germans of 1930 thought Germany or themselves any less evil than you think of yourself and your country today?

 

[Note: if you think me too far out of line, you had best start looking into the people behind our modern healthcare system.  Try Googling Peter Sanger (notice the last name?)  Then look into the growing list of "experts" who are advocating that we allow parents to "abort" their children up to age 3!  And then there is the President, who fought to pass a State law that allows viable children to be set aside in closets and left to die.  Finally, the architect of Obamacare has said we will have to ration healthcare, with fewer resources being spent on people under 14 or over 55.  So, by all means, tell me how I am exaggerating or paranoid -- I dare you.]

About these ads

16 thoughts on “American Eugenics: Alive and Well in the 21st Century

  1. You are exaggerating, and you are lying. Why?, is my question. Do you need for Margaret Sanger to be a Negro-hater to justify your world-view? You had better find another talking point to lean on.

    Margaret Sanger’s work was praised by Martin Luther King, who accepted a Sanger award from PP. He stated then….

    There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger’s early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist — a nonviolent resister. She was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions. Margaret Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in order to enrich humanity, and today we honor her courage and vision; for without them there would have been no beginning. Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her. Negroes have no mere academic nor ordinary interest in family planning. They have a special and urgent concern.

    Later, in a letter, he said:
    Words are inadequate for me to say how honored I was to be the recipient of the Margaret Sanger Award. This award will remain among my most cherished possessions. While I cannot claim to be worthy of such a signal honor, I can assure you that I accept it with deep humility and sincere gratitude. Such a wonderful expression of support is of inestimable value for the continuance of my humble efforts.

    Right-wing liars like to take the following quote way ot of context: We do not want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.
    Here is the quote in context:

    It seems to me from my experience . . . in North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas, that while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table. . . . They do not do this with the white people, and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and with knowledge, which, I believe, will have far-reaching results. . . . His work, in my opinion, should be entirely with the Negro profession and the nurses, hospital, social workers, as well as the County’s white doctors. His success will depend upon his personality and his training by us. The minister’s work is also important, and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation, as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs”

    Joe, you just posted about how much you hate liars, and here you are lying your supposedly Christian kiester off. Shame, shame, shame.

    I hate to spoil the mellow vibe of yesterday, but you are lying, plain and simple. Stop it.

  2. In a letter to a philanthropist, Albert Lasker, Sanger wrote
    In a letter to philanthropist Albert Lasker, from whom she hoped to raise funds for the project, Sanger wrote that she wanted to help
    A group notoriously underprivileged and handicapped to a large measure by a “caste” system that operates as an added weight upon their efforts to get a fair
    share of the better things in life. To give them the means of helping themselves is perhaps the richest gift of all. We believe birth control knowledge brought to this group, is the most direct, constructive aid that can be given them to improve their immediate situation (Sanger, 1939, July).
    In 1942, she wrote again to Lasker, saying:

    I think it is magnificent that we are in on the ground floor, helping Negroes to control their birth rate, to reduce their high infant and maternal death rate, to maintain better standards of health and living for those already born, and to create better opportunities for those who will be born (Sanger, 1942).

  3. Utah, it seems to me that you have a double standard, you allow liars if you agree with their lies, no matter how egregious, no matter often they are proven wrong. I know what you are going to say, but Dusty only pasted lies, he did not write them.

  4. Greg, while I do not necessarily believe that a genetic autopsy of Adam Lanza is going to cascade to new lows of pre-screening every single American for a ‘crazy gene’, I also do not feel as if Sanger is as benevolent as she is being painted here.

    Black, I do not see them gleaning much information of an identifiable genetic mutation of Adam Lanza. I do sense a need to understand the motives behind the killings. Even if they identify an ‘evil’ gene, I am not certain they could amongst the masses.

    I think they are looking under the wrong rocks here.

    • Augger,

      Historically, it is not about real science: it is about those who have deluded themselves into thinking they are using science to find an excuse for their ulterior motives. True, some are sincere in their quest (deceived but sincere), but there are those few — those few who lead the direction of society — who know full well what they are doing.

    • I agree, and in fact, I think Black would agree with you also. If they ever could identify a gene like this (which I am pretty sure would reside in most/if not all of us) then it could be used as a weapon against the rights of Americans. And I think that is the crux of what Black is trying to state here.

      I think we are but just semantics apart on our positions.

  5. So many genes interact in myriad ways with each other and the so-called ‘junk; DNA, that basing decision solely on that aspect of an individual would be a colossal error.
    I remember talk that an extra ‘y’ chromosome in a man’s genetic map could cause problems, but I don’t know whether that was ever proved or disproved.

  6. Greg,

    You should stop cherry picking what you read from Sanger. You are citing everything she did for public consumption while ignoring everything she said in the privacy of the Progressive circles. You can find it — IF you’ll try looking for it. Sanger was a racist and Planned Parenthood WAS intended to help “solve” the “negro problem.” It’s just simply a matter of the historic record.

      • “Well, I thought it odd that she only wanted black patients to have black doctors. What was that all about? Was it some sort of comfort-zone issue of the times?”

        Kells, that’s called Segregation, and Racism, and a shining example of why I once wrote this:

        “Before we allow James to take us further down the road of “why include “liberal” in your title–surely you don’t think that adds credibility.”,

        Let’s take a moment to discuss the history of communists, socialists, leftist, and liberals to show exactly how the various titles “stick”….

        The history of communists and socialists and leftists and liberals is never to take ownership of their past. If one remembers, the Democrat Party is the party of slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism. They are very diligently always trying to rework the unworkable and trying to recast their ideology into some new mold by calling it new names… modifying it, softening it, making it acceptable. Whether it was Progressives’ love for Woodrow Wilson (who segregated the military) or Progressive admiration for Mussolini’ fascism in the 1920’s, these are all indicators of the inherent rot of the movement.

        David Horowitz, one of the New-Left’s activist leaders in the 1960’s claims that pure communists in 1950’s America always called themselves “progressives”.

        So progressives then recast themselves in the forties and fifties as liberals because of the negative connotations. But they were forced to change names back again to “Progressives” after the 1980’s, because Reagan exposed them as socialists trying to make socialism acceptable by calling themselves liberal. Following that exposure by Reagan, Hilary Clinton then admitted to preferring the name Progressive.

        In any case the liberal trajectory is always downward and destructive. You see this in public policy, social norms, and political extremism of the left. The Democrat Party as you have always envisioned it no longer exists. Much like a hermit crab that assumes the shell of another, the Democratic party has been taken over by the hard left over the years.

        In all honesty, the movement really should be named “regressivism”.”

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

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