Eugenics: the skeleton that rattles loudest in the left’s closet

Having suffered through a weekend of unbearable news, and watching Santorum start his long ride into obscurity, what could I post about today. In desperation, I somehow stumbled upon History 2 channel mega long program covering the beginnings of our great nation on Sunday. Washington of course, was the central character. After about six hours of it, I did feel somewhat renewed in energy. With all that these early men and women sacrificed, can we not do all that we can? This brings me back to Santorum. While I share most of his personal beliefs, that is what they are. Personal. But unfortunately, he is unable to frame the issues in a positive way. The left will make him look like a Conservative nut case. I do know what he means. If the State had its way, his daughter Bella, would not have received the necessary care that would keep his daughter alive. That is a true fact. So I will give him a shot at support. Here is why.

Please check out the “Complete Lives System” espoused by Rahm Emanuel’s Physcian brother and Berwick to understand how the rationing will occur.  The Obama Rationing Plan- why seniors fears are real,  Read Here. And “ Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources” by Ezekiel Emanuel. Lancet Article. Rahm Emanuel’s brother. You will not sleep well tonight

To follow-up on my premise, I snagged this from “The Guardian”. Just a reminder of what this whole thing really is all about:

Socialism’s one-time interest in eugenics is dismissed as an accident of history. But the truth is far more unpalatable.

Eugenics went into steep decline after 1945. Most recoiled from it once they saw where it led – to the gates of Auschwitz. The infatuation with an idea horribly close to nazism was steadily forgotten. But we need a reckoning with this shaming past. Such a reckoning would focus less on today’s advances in selective embryology, and the ability to screen out genetic diseases, than on the kind of loose talk about the “underclass” that recently enabled the prime minister to speak of “neighbours from hell” and the poor as if the two groups were synonymous.

Progressives face a particular challenge, to cast off a mentality that can too easily regard people as means rather than ends. For in this respect a movement is just like a person: it never entirely escapes its roots.

It is eugenics, the belief that society’s fate rested on its ability to breed more of the strong and fewer of the weak. So-called positive eugenics meant encouraging those of greater intellectual ability and “moral worth” to have more children, while negative eugenics sought to urge, or even force, those deemed inferior to reproduce less often or not at all. The aim was to increase the overall quality of the national herd, multiplying the thoroughbreds and weeding out the runts.

Such talk repels us now, but in the prewar era it was the common sense of the age. Most alarming, many of its leading advocates were found among the luminaries of the Fabian and socialist left, men and women revered to this day. Thus George Bernard Shaw could insist that “the only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialisation of the selective breeding of man”, even suggesting, in a phrase that chills the blood, that defectives be dealt with by means of a “lethal chamber”. Full Story :Guardian UK

Just in case you missed this:


%d bloggers like this: