The hard lefts main agenda has ALWAYS been to ‘thin the herd’.
History has plenty of examples to back this statement.
“Beneath their seemingly compassionate rhetoric, the founders of the Fabian Society were snobbish, elitist and harboured a savage contempt for the poorest of the poor.”
This sounds like the Demoncrats.
They have nothing but CONTEMPT, ELITEST and SNOBISH.
Yes, Dawin plays a MAJOR role:
Eugenics had been the brainchild of Charles Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton, and was developed in response to Darwin’s theory of natural selection. It was taken up as a programme of political action by Darwin’s son Leonard. The eugenicists aimed to replace natural selection with a planned and deliberate selection. They were alarmed by the fact that the poorest in society bred faster than the middle class, forecasting that this trend would lead to a spiral of degeneration in the gene pool. Their aim was to encourage the rich to have more children and the poor to have fewer. They quickly got the science establishment on their side, creating a national panic about genetic deterioration that became as widespread and salient as fears of global warming are today. In this scenario, the poorest with their ‘defective’ genes were the bogeymen, a class that threatened to contaminate future generations.
For the Fabians, eugenics was not merely some eccentric hobby or sideline, but central to their social thinking.
Sounds like the mindset of a lot of Democratic congresscritters. Regrettably the very few welfare recipients will see this and question it.
- Traveler
Yes, who could forget the contempt Johnson and FDR had for the poor? When Roe vs Wade came along, the picture was complete. ABORTION was now legal for those poor, ignorant people that bred like rabits.
“In the years leading up to the first world war Leonard Darwin set about lobbying the government to act. He wanted to set up flying squads of scientists, armed with powers of arrest over the poor, to tour the country weeding out the ‘unfit’.”
What made this particulary evil was the “poor” and others willingly murdered their unborn. Who would have thought this was COMPASSION? And this still push Darwin at our kids in school like it’s gospel. How sickening this is and we “wonder” why life is cheap and kids make the headlines more and more for “adult crimes”. We wring our hands and wonder, “what happened”? It’s obvious but we won’t stop pushing Darwin and the “survival of the fittest”.
...
William Beveridge, later to emerge as the midwife of the post-1945 welfare settlement, was also very active in the eugenics movement at this time. Today, Beveridge is generally portrayed as a kindly, avuncular figure, one almost dripping with compassion and benevolence.
Yes, evil with a smiley face!
Given the association of so many of its founding fathers with the dismal pseudo- science of eugenics, perhaps we should not be surprised that our welfare system has ended up preferring safety nets to trampolines, or that it prefers simply to warehouse the poor rather than give people who have fallen on hard times a chance to take responsibility for their own lives. Eugenics infected its adherents with a deeply pessimistic view of the poor, branding them as irredeemably genetically second-rate, and this view has cast a long shadow over social policy assumptions. Labour figures who mock the idea of ‘compassionate Conservatism’ or make light of David Cameron’s focus on our ‘broken society’ need to take a hard look at some of their own history and intellectual heritage. When it comes to who really can claim to care about the problems of the poor, the dividing lines are not so straight as Gordon Brown thinks they are.
It’s all too familiar. Liberals never get it. They have their heads hidden you know where. Liberals have nothing but didain for you. It’s their way of keeping you down and ideally getting rid of you if you are not like them.
I knew bits and pieces from this article but it was nice putting it all together.
Worthwhile noting that Margaret Sanger was a fan of eugenics.
Shouldn’t the headline be the other way around. Sustaining numerous people who refuse to work helps make the case for sterilizing said people so they quit being a burden to everyone else.
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
“...vile pseudo-science of eugenics...”
Anyone who denies that genetics don’t have a bearing on an individual’s future is suffering from a genetic defect, e.g. lack of common sense.
What happened? If you take away the need to survive, the will to work to ‘survive’ becomes meaningless. That ‘work’ is what drives a human. If you take away the need for that drive all resulting behavior is predictable.
Great article. Thanks for posting. I was largely ignorant of much of this.