Personhood, Bodyhood, and the Right to Not Be Aborted
Towards Ending In-Utero Genocide
Part Two
It appears that many, on both sides of the abortion divide, fail to understand that the practice of abortion is intimately connected to and fueled by the “science” (some say, pseudo-science) of eugenics. What exactly is eugenics? Merriam-Webster offers us an insightful, but disturbing definition:
eu·gen·ics—noun
| \ yü-ˈje-niks
:the practice or advocacy of controlled selective breeding of human populations (as by sterilization) to improve the population's genetic composition. (Merriam-Webster)
“…controlled selective breeding of human populations”? Farmers have always selectively bred plants and domesticated animals, to increase yields and eliminate unwanted traits, but human beings? When did we become mere domesticated farm animals to be selectively bred? When did that selective breeding begin, and who were those people that thought they had a right to launch such a program? More importantly, do you recall giving your consent to be eugenically manipulated? I don’t. It is clear that those sitting at the helm of global power do not want us to know that they consider us no better than horses and cows, farm animals, modern-day slaves on a global plantation. Of course, they profit from our collective ignorance.
In Part One, we discussed Justice Blackmun’s legal interpretation that enshrined abortion as a woman’s right, and why Roe became law in 1973. Since then, a shocking number of American citizens—62 million—were blocked from reaching the Neo-natal ward of their local hospital. How many of them would have grown into outstanding men and women, with stellar accomplishments in all departments of human endeavor?
Few of us have ever taken the time to research the foundational ideas and conclusions we have made part of our belief system. Many have simply been indoctrinated, and induced to support, unquestioningly, the world as packaged and presented to them. In Part Two, we will take a brief look at the history of the rise of the eugenics movement, for that will help us put abortion in a more granular context. I believe that we owe it to ourselves to dive deeply into this topic, and others, just as controversial. Perhaps, in doing so, we may avoid participating, unknowingly, in our own demise.
Now that we know, from Merriam-Webster, what eugenics is, what is its history?
Towards the end of the 18th Century, an Anglican clergyman, Rev. Thomas Malthus, had an epiphany. Food production, he observed, only increased in a simple, arithmetic progression (1,2,3,4,5,6, etc), while population growth tended to increase geometrically (1,2,4,8,16,32, etc). He conjectured that, at some point, a given population would outstrip its ability to feed itself, with disastrous consequences. In his 1798 Essay on the Principle of Population as It Affects the Future Improvement of Society, he wrote:
It is an obvious truth, which has been taken notice of by many writers, that population must always be kept down to the level of the means of subsistence…
(Thomas Malthus—An Essay on the Principle of Population. Preface Pg. vii)
Malthus, being the kind-hearted Christian that he was, wanted to offer his solutions to this imagined “population problem”. The challenge of too many of us trampling the earth, consuming its resources, angering Greta “How-dare-you?” Thunberg, and producing too much carbon, needed to be tackled. His solutions included celibacy, marrying later in life, birth-control and homosexuality. Disease, war, and famine would also be useful in increasing the death rate, and the fear of starvation would dis-incentivize procreation among the “lower classes”. In retrospect, was Malthus merely channeling his inner Nostradamus, or have those in power purposely adopted and implemented his ideas?
Notice the phrase, “kept down”. Did Rev. Tommy consider himself to be part of the population that needed to be “kept down”? The consistent, eugenicist ethos is that society must always be “bettered”, or, as Malthus stated, “improved”. Beware, however, of thinking that those words mean the same to you as they mean to them. Improvement is what they determine it to be, and we may be surprised to find that the “bettered” and “improved” social order has no place in it for us.
Remember when “improving” American society meant solving the Negro problem?
(The black man)…has never been a competitor, but has always been subservient to the white race. And just so long as he remains subservient his position is secure, and just so soon as he becomes a competitor his fate is sealed.
(Benj. K. Hays, M. D., Oxford, N. C. 1905—Natural Selection and the Race Problem)
The negro as a laborer is valuable, and if it were possible to preserve the race in purity with him in our midst, he would be a great asset. Because this cannot be done, and because the mixed breeds are a great menace and not an asset, we have them as the greatest problem and most destructive force which confronts the white race and American civilization.
(W. A. Plecker MD, American Eugenics Society 1925—Shall America Remain White)
It should be pointed out that although some believe American society is racist, and that all White people are evil, that is clearly, not a fact. It is divisive propaganda promoted by a few motivated persons. What is incontestably true is the fact that a small cadre of American, elitist-minded men and women promoted the idea that the Black man is “the greatest problem and most destructive force which confronts the white race and American civilization.” This proposition led American leaders to neglect implementing proper measures for the resettlement of the ex-slave after Lincoln’s 1863 Emancipation Proclamation finally went into effect. In contrast, the current US Administration, with its no-borders, open-door policy, is falling all over itself to roll out the red carpet for anyone who makes it across the Rio Grande, regardless of whether his intent is evil, or benevolent.
Hundreds of migrants line up at NYC hospital for health care, food, free phones
In their hubris, thinking they have been endowed with the power to play God with the lives of all the rest of us, eugenicists are convinced that they know what is best for everyone else. Those on the lower rungs of the social order, whom some have called “useless eaters”, threatening to overwhelm the food chain and their “sustainable” planet, must be eliminated by any means necessary…for the improvement of society, of course.
It seems there is always a group of wealthy, powerful men and women, psychopathic and megalomaniac by demeanor, who believe themselves solely endowed with the ability to see and understand society’s problems. They also claim to know precisely how to fix them. Unfortunately, far from improving the condition of ordinary people, their solutions always seem to aggregate their own power and wealth, often at the expense of the common man.
Malthusian thought heavily impacted English society. Laws were passed limiting wages to keep the indigent at subsistence levels (think: today’s minimum wage), and normal charity was curtailed so as not to encourage the poor to live on handouts. English elites became increasingly convinced that their world was threatened by too many non-elite mouths. Malthus would pass the eugenics baton on to Charles Darwin, who gave us his “survival of the fittest/natural selection” thesis, and to Francis Galton, Darwin’s cousin, who first coined the phrase, “nature vs. nurture”, and gave eugenics its name. Under their astute, intellectual guidance, the philosophical foundation and justification for global depopulation was cemented.
By 1913, Great Britain, the birthplace of eugenics, had grown its Empire into a giant monolith. “Britannia ruled the waves”, and its flagship East India Steamship Company dominated world trade. By some accounts, the British Empire, in its heyday, comprised nearly a quarter of the planet’s total land mass, with its populations consisting mostly of black- and brown-skinned peoples. These were the people, in their subsisting millions, that the eugenicists, the self-appointed masters of the universe, feared were consuming “their” planet, and whom they desired to eliminate.
Eugenics-consciousness caught on quickly, among Malthus’ acolytes, and its appeal appears to have been universal. In 1941, prior to the US’ entry into the Second World War, Theodore Kaufman, a Jewish writer, had become thoroughly enamored with the promise of eugenics. Channeling his inner Marcus Cato, the Roman Senator who clamored for the destruction of Carthage, Rome’s mortal enemy (Carthago delenda est! Carthage must be destroyed!), he wrote:
Germany must perish forever!
There remains then but one mode of ridding the world forever of Germanism — and that is to stem the source from which issue those war-lusted souls, by preventing the people of Germany from ever again reproducing their kind. This modern method, known to science as Eugenic Sterilization, is at once practical, humane and thorough. Sterilization has become a byword of science, as the best means of ridding the human race of its misfits: the degenerate, the insane, the hereditary criminal.
(Theodore N. Kaufman Germany Must Perish Pg. 93)
Unfortunately, while Kaufman was demanding, “Germania delenda est!”, Herr Hitler, enthralled by the US’ eugenics program, and the “Eugenic Sterilization” ideas over which Kaufman gushed, had decided to incorporate them into the Third Reich’s racial purity program. Hitler also invoked Nietzsche’s ideal of the Übermensch. However, as Edwin Black points out in his brilliant 2003 essay, Eugenics and the Nazis—the California connection:
Hitler and his henchmen victimized an entire continent and exterminated millions in his quest for a so-called Master Race.
But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn’t originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little-known, role in the American eugenics movement’s campaign for ethnic cleansing….
More than just providing the scientific roadmap, America funded Germany’s eugenic institutions.
By 1926, Rockefeller had donated some $410,000 — almost $4 million in today’s (Ed.Note: 2003) money — to hundreds of German researchers. In May 1926, Rockefeller awarded $250,000 toward creation of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry. Among the leading psychiatrists at the German Psychiatric Institute was Ernst Rüdin, who became director and eventually an architect of Hitler’s systematic medical repression.
Hitler’s eugenics experiment contributed to the conflict of 1939-45, that pulled the entire planet down into a seething cauldron of death and destruction. It left a great stain on our world history, and a blight on our communal consciousness. It is a warning to all sane men and women: Not much has changed in human consciousness, and there will be those who will endeavor to follow in his footsteps, with the same disastrous consequences.
Nevertheless, in the US, the eugenics movement continued to gain momentum. The Sangerites, the followers of Margaret Sanger and her Planned Parenthood Association, briefly referenced in Part One, began to forge new and powerful ties with the Nation’s elites, especially under the capable direction of men such as Hugh Moore (of Dixie Cup fame and fortune), and other prominent eugenicists. Not surprisingly, among “Mr. Dixie Cup’s” many backers were some of the wealthiest philanthropic foundations in the world. These included the Ford, Rockefeller, and Andrew W. Mellon Foundations, the usual suspects in the eugenics movement, and other organs of social, financial and political control.
In time, the old eugenicists faded away, but their ideas and practices survived and thrived, inspiring a new generation of population cullers. Their flag-ship organizations moved with the times, becoming more politically correct, dropping organizational names that overtly proclaimed their depopulation agenda. Names such as Sterilization League of New Jersey, Race Betterment Foundation, and American Eugenics Society were replaced with pleasant, philanthropic-sounding titles like, Engender Health and Population Council. It is no wonder that, today, in utero genocide is called, reproductive healthcare…with a straight face.
Dr. Alan F. Guttmacher, the NY Times “Evangelist for Birth Control” (Feb.1969), was another prominent eugenicist and depopulationist. A Planned Parenthood president, and a Vice-president of the American Eugenics Society, he founded the Guttmacher Institute, dedicating his life and resources to world depopulation. Famous for his unabashed statements regarding the desirability of the genocide of the non-white races, he believed that unlimited abortion was the way to curb population growth, especially if done with the blessings of the United Nations. Not surprisingly, this would become one of the cornerstones of UN policy, conducted under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO).
If you’re going to curb population, it’s extremely important not to have it done by the dammed Yankees, but by the UN. Because the thing is, then it’s not considered genocide. If the United States goes to the black man or the yellow man and says slow down your reproduction rate, we’re immediately suspected of having ulterior motives to keep the white man dominant in the world. If you can send in a colorful UN force, you’ve got much better leverage.
(Guttmacher, quoted by Live Action)
Wait. What? “…then it’s not considered genocide.”(??) So, “Let’s commit genocide under the UN banner, so we can pretend that it isn’t genocide? In other words, let’s fig-leaf genocide with a UN flag (?). A “colorful UN force" is “much better leverage” for genocide, in order to “keep the white man dominant”? Guttmacher clearly has “ulterior motives”, but doesn’t want anyone to notice. There is so much to unpack in these few lines, but I’ll let the reader digest them, and see for herself the unbounded psychopathy of a eugenicist!
Although Guttmacher believed in the coercive power of government to help achieve his depopulation goal, he felt that doing so, at that time, was “strategically unwise”. However, he declared,
…If by 1990 the population is still growing at a rate of 2%, then we must go to some kind of compulsory birth control.”
(New Mexico Aggie, Jan 1, 1970)
A young, upcoming leader of the new cabal of depopulationists was Paul Ehrlich. Sometime in the 60s, he and his family traveled to India, and were overcome by the culture shock many first-time, Western visitors to that fabled land experience. Delhi presented a tableau of tropical swelter, boisterous crowds, suffocating dust, blaring horns, bicycles, rickshaws, the overpowering, mixed fragrances of exotic spices, and an open-air menagerie of stray cows, and donkeys and camels dwarfed by huge loads. Confronted by all this “misery”, he appears to have concluded that it would be better for Indians to stop procreating. It never dawned on him that he was perceiving a world, unfamiliar to him, through his own, myopic Western filters.
India had been a desirable destination for preeminent explorers such as Vasco da Gama, Magellan and Columbus, but this ancient land would also be forced to endure successive Greek, Mughal, and English invasions. The rapacious British would pick its carcass nearly clean, departing in 1947, after delivering a near-fatal body-blow. They would divide the country, a favorite colonial tactic, into Hindustan and Pakistan, sparking a bloody civil war that would claim countless lives. Nevertheless, India would come roaring back. Today, it is a 21st Century, economic powerhouse, bristling with nuclear weapons, and contending on the world stage, even as Britannia continues to sink beneath the waves of its colonial-era karma. Yet, despite the ancientness, depth, diversity, and strength of Indian culture, it was here, in Delhi, that a small and arrogant eugenicist mind from Philadelphia, would believe he had found confirmation of, and justification for, Malthus’ population control thesis.
The Population Explosion, was Ehrlich’s first sensationalist book, followed by The Population Bomb. Both were filled with dire predictions of doom and gloom, famine, disease, and planetary collapse, unless the world’s population (especially in the so-called Third World) was reduced, pronto. It was first class fear-mongering. According to him, overpopulation and resource depletion would cause mass starvation by the 1970s and 1980s. The oceans would be dead in less than a decade. Americans would face water rationing by 1974, and food rationing by 1980. In 1969, he made the outlandish statement to the British Institute for Biology that by 2000, the UK would be reduced to poverty, populated by some 70 million hungry people. He was also willing to bet that England would disappear as a Nation State by 2020. Despite his many, certifiably absurd claims, this false, doomsday prophet continued to be showered with accolades, instead of being tarred, feathered, and driven out of town.
Typical of those promoting population reduction, Ehrlich did not care to lead the way, voluntarily removing himself and his family from the gene pool of “useless eaters”. In fact, not a single member of that class has ever had the courage to “do the right thing” for the cause they so vociferously espouse. It’s always the “little guy” who must sacrifice himself for the greater good.
In Part Three, we will dive a little deeper into eugenics as the backdrop of abortion. Subscribe to read Part Three when posted.
Great job Halayudha! Keep 'em coming!
Part two is both mind blowing and eye opening. From the Indians to the slaves to the Jews, to today’s Planned Parenthood extermination of millions of black children, it seems the U.S population has been playing right along, knowingly or not with a larger agenda. Wow.