old man and child, baby, boy, grandfather

It is unjust to cut short the days of a well‑shaped person.  It is not unjust, I say, to prevent the arrival in the world of a being who will certainly be useless to it.

~ The Marquis de Sade.1

The Problem of the Philosophy of Eugenics

Despite all of the posturing and lofty theorizing of modern-day eugenicists, there stands one immutable, diamond‑hard rule:  We must not dispose of innocent human life.  It is sacred, it has great dignity, and it is beyond price.  If we begin to kill those we perceive as useless, there will be no end to the slaughter.

The eugenicists know this.  Once the connection between God and man is severed, man is no more than a product of the evolutionary chain, and is just another animal to be bred, aborted, neutered, or “put to sleep” for the general good of society.  As G.K. Chesterton wrote, “If man is not a divinity, then he is a disease.  Either he is the image of God, or else he is the one animal which has gone mad.”2

If eugenicists can successfully convince enough people that man is just another animal, they have virtually accomplished their ultimate goals.  After all, society in general has no moral or ethical problems with breeding, aborting, and slaughtering animals.  If the nature of man as God’s greatest creation is denied, then we truly are just another species of soulless animal.

Eugenics is nothing more than the anti‑life mentality translated from theory into action.  Eugenics ties all anti‑life practices together.  We can identify an idea or a practice that is rooted in the philosophy of eugenics if we see that it does not respect the dignity and the sacredness of human life.

This means that the philosophy of eugenics is diametrically opposed to the precepts of Christianity.  On one side of this struggle, we have Christian morality handed down by God and set down in Holy Scripture, based on the belief that all people have a fundamental dignity and are precious; on the other side we have eugenicist thinking handed down by the eugenicist “fathers and mothers,” Darwin, Galton, Sanger and Stopes.

Step #1: Dehumanization

nazis hitler

The first step in any eugenics-based program is to dehumanize a targeted population.  After all, it is much easier to kill or exploit a victim who has been dehumanized and demonized. We have seen many instances of this:

  • Pro‑abortion activists have for decades dehumanized the obviously human fetus by referring to it as “protoplasmic rubbish,” “a gobbet of meat,” “equivalent to fingernail clipping or warts,” “like a salamander,” and “products of conception.”
  • During the days of slavery, blacks were called “dregs of humanity” and were considered “exactly intermediate between the superior order of beasts such as elephant, dog, and orangutan, and European or white men.”3  Other slave owners referred to the slaves’ “ignorance, brutality, obscenity, animal appetite, viciousness, and illegitimacy” and called them “ignorant, perverse, wicked, the pest of white men, and agents of Satan.”4
  • Nazis held that Jews and others not of Aryan quality “had to be treated like tuberculosis bacilli, with which a healthy body may become infested.  This was not cruel, if one remembers that even innocent creatures of nature, such as hares and deer, have to be killed, so that no harm is caused by them.”5

In his book Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler referred to the Jews in almost comically vitriolic terms, alternatively comparing them to “maggots in a rotting corpse,” “a plague worse than the Black Death,” “mankind’s eternal germ of disunion,” “the drones in the human hive,” “spiders sucking blood out of the people’s pores,” “a pack of rats eating one another,” “the eternal bloodsucker,” “the vampire of peoples,” and “a harmful bacillus that spreads.”6

Before he targeted the Jews, of course, Hitler killed more than a quarter of a million “sub‑humans.”  These were adults and children who suffered from some physical or mental defect.  Only after he saw that the German elite did not object to this extermination program did he move decisively against the Jews.

Under the Nazi eugenics program, thousands of children were killed by the Reich Committee for Children.  Those sickly persons who would be eliminated were identified by the Committee for Research on Hereditary Diseases and Constitutional Susceptibility to Severe Diseases.  These unfortunate people were carried to concentration camps by the Non‑Profit Patient Transport Corporation, and their passage was funded by the Charitable Foundation for Institutional Care.7

The job of the eugenicists is a little tougher today, because they know that they cannot target certain groups of people for extermination unless they frame the killing in terms of “human rights.”  In order to have free rein, they must convince all of us that we are intrinsically worthless and that our only value is conferred upon us by society, as a useful member of the hive.  In this manner, this vaguely-defined “society” (as directed and overseen by the elite, of course) will be able to revoke our right to live at any time.

Step #2: Barnyard Medicine

cows herd cattle

Eugenicists look upon human beings as a veterinarian looks upon farm animals.  After the process of dehumanization has successfully taken place, the Culture of Death logically treats human beings just as a vet would treat an ailing animal.

Charles Darwin recommended handling human beings and animals identically in his work The Descent of Man:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health.  We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbeciles, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment.…No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man.  It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.8

And Marie Stopes, founder of the Society for Constructive Birth Control and Racial Progress and good friend of Margaret Sanger, complained in her book Radiant Motherhood:

Society allows the diseased, the racially negligent, the thriftless, the careless, the feeble minded, the very lowest and worst members of the community, to produce innumerable tens of thousands of stunted, warped, inferior infants….A large proportion of these are doomed from their very physical inheritance to be at best but partly self-supporting, and thus to drain the resources of those classes above them who have a sense of responsibility.  The better classes, freed from the cost of institutions, hospitals, prisons and so on, principally filled by the inferior racial stock, would be able to afford to enlarge their own families.9

This repulsive and merciless strain of thinking has not died out; in fact, it is being broadcast by the elite more enthusiastically than ever.  The fact that the rich and powerful have a massive media apparatus at their beck and call makes them even more dangerous.  As one example, Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, asked:

If you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability?  I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler’s death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them.10

Simply stated, the dehumanization of different groups of people inevitably leads to the mindset that some people are pests to be exterminated.

pregnant woman's belly, baby bump

Philosophy of Eugenics in Action

For the elite, everything is about control.

Eugenicists tend to believe that sexuality is a primitive and uncontrollable urge, and mankind, as a species of animal, simply cannot rise above his nature.  This means that, if these animals have outlets for their sexual urges, they will remain placid and docile.  So “sexual frustration” must be relieved if the animals are not to become uncontrollable.

Therefore, we must provide pornography to anyone who wants it.  We should establish school‑based clinics and distribute free condoms to teens so that they can fornicate whenever the urge strikes them.  Planned Parenthood, SIECUS and a hundred other sex education and pro-abortion groups drum into everyone’s heads that sex, with whoever (or whatever) they want and as many times as they desire, is a basic human right.

Of course, we must also breed out undesirable traits so that the animals will produce what we want them to produce.  So Planned Parenthood and its apologists aggressively target blacks, the poor, and the “near‑poor” with dozens of assembly‑line abortion mills and hundreds of birth control clinics, all supported by public tax money.  As a result, there are nearly twice as many abortion mills per capita in minority neighborhoods as in white neighborhoods.  Meanwhile, the United States and the other “developed” nations flood the poorer nations with tons of abortifacients that are deemed too dangerous for American animals to use.

Sick animals, of course, must be put to sleep, because they become useless and a burden on their owners.  So we must have quiet and unpublicized programs of infanticide in our hospitals in order to take care of those animals who are born sickly or deformed.  We also have a dozen major organizations pushing for “death with dignity” and assisted suicide to eliminate those animals that have become weak and unproductive in their old age.

sad old woman black and white

Naturally, we must practice positive eugenics to breed these animals so that better traits are emphasized.  This means in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, and sperm banks of the best animal’s genes, none of which the critters from the lower social strata can afford.  We must also ensure that these animal’s undesirable traits are not passed on to their offspring, so we have sterilization and abortion for the poorer animals.

The infertile rich can afford the technology that allows them to have children, while the only thing that is offered to the poor for free is the opportunity to limit their fertility through abortions, sterilization and contraception — especially in the developing nations.

Conclusion

The philosophy of eugenics is based upon the the notion that humans are just a species of animal, that they do not possess any higher dignity. Once eugenicists can persuade us of this, it only logically follows that we will begin to kill off our “fellow animals” who do not meet a certain standard of physical or mental ability.

 

Endnotes

[1] The Marquis de Sade.  “Yet another Effort, Frenchmen.”  Juliette.  New York City: Grove Paperbacks, Inc., 1968 reprint, pages 336, 782 and 783.

[2] George J. Marlin and Richard P. Rabatin.  “G.K. Chesterton and Eugenics.”  Fidelity Magazine, June 1990, pages 33 to 43.

[3] Simon Clough.  A Candid Appeal to the Citizens of the United States, Proving that the Doctrines Advanced and the Measures Pursued by the Abolitionists Relative to the Subject of Emancipation, are Inconsistent with the Teachings and Directions of the Bible and that those Clergymen Engaged in the Dissemination of these Principles Should be Immediately Dismissed by their Respective Congregations as False Teachers.  New York City, 1834.

Richard H. Colfax.  Evidence against the Views of the Abolitionists, Consisting of Physical and Moral Proofs, of the Natural Inferiority of the Negroes.  New York City, 1833.

W.P.N. Fitzgerald.  A Scriptural View of Slavery and Abolition.  New Haven, 1839.

Richard Yeadon.  The Amenability of Northern Incendiaries as Well to Southern as to Northern Laws: Without Prejudice to the Right of Free Discussion; To Which is Added an Inquiry into the Lawfulness of Slavery, under the Jewish and Christian Dispensations; Together with other Views of the Same Subject, being a Series of Essays Recently Published in the Charleston Courier.  Charleston, 1835, page 5.

[4] W.P.N. Fitzgerald.  A Scriptural View of Slavery and Abolition.  New Haven, Connecticut, 1839.

Also see R. Yeadon.  The Amenability of Northern Incendiaries as Well to Southern as to Northern Laws: Without Prejudice to the Right of Free Discussion; To Which is Added an Inquiry into the Lawfulness of Slavery, under the Jewish and Christian Dispensations; Together with other Views of the Same Subject, being a Series of Essays Recently Published in the Charleston Courier.  Charleston, 1835, page 5.

[5] James Tunstead Burtchaell.  “The Holocaust and Abortion.”  Supplement to the newsletter of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, Volume 9, Number 11.

[6] Adolf Hitler.  Mein Kampf. New York City: Houghton, Mifflin, 1971, pages 214 and 215.

[7] James Tunstead Burtchaell.  “The Holocaust and Abortion.”  Supplement to the newsletter of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, Volume 9, Number 11.

[8] Charles Darwin.  The Descent of Man.  Chicago:  Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.  Section I, Chapter 5.  Also quoted in ALL About Issues, June‑July 1986, page 42.

[9] Marie Carmichael Stopes.  Radiant Motherhood.  London, 1920, page 10.  Quoted in Valerie Riches.  Sex & Social Engineering.  Family and Youth Concern, Wicken, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK19 6BU, U.K. (United Kingdom).

[10] Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion.  “From the Afterword.”  The Sunday Herald (Scotland), November 20, 2006.

Hilary White.  “Anti-Religion Extremist Dawkins Advocates Eugenics.”  LifeSite Daily News, November 21, 2006.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email