In my extensive studies of eugenics, it has been interesting to observe how so many of the old, supposedly repudiated aspects of eugenics, arose again in the 1960s with a new rationale–fighting ‘over-population’–and then emerged yet again in the present day, but now wrapped in the guise of ‘climate change.’ Why, one would almost think that the goals were the same all along!
I have made this point many times over the years, but another point that I’ve made is that things we don’t generally perceive as ‘eugenics’ were, as understood by the eugenicists themselves, part and parcel with ‘eugenics.’ To put it differently: many people today espouse viewpoints that are nearly identical to views espoused by people they view as wicked and evil. That’s not the main point of today’s essay, though. My purpose in this essay is to drive home the fact that people have been trying to achieve certain aims under numerous plans, often deceitfully. The reason they are pushed deceitfully is the same reason the rationale has to be switched up repeatedly: if the real goals were put brazenly and openly, there would be widespread revulsion.
Thus, it is necessary for them to LIE.
This present post is directed mainly to Christians, for whom I assume truth matters. Moreover, Christians are bid to take their priorities from God, not Man. Likewise, our attitudes, philosophies, and modes of thought are to be ‘captive to Christ’ so that being transformed by the ‘renewing of our mind’ we can know the will of God. For such people, it matters a great deal that we engage with the real agendas at work in our lives, carefully analyzing them to ensure they are appropriate. “Test everything,” says the Apostle Paul.
My sense is that there is a great sifting occurring. The ‘real goals’ have become more apparent because the promoters of those goals think it is safe to state them openly (eg, “Hell yea, we’re going to take your guns.”). Those who view those goals as abhorrent are moving to one side while those who think those goals are swell are moving to the other side. The muddled-middle, who still haven’t recognized what the real goals are, is a shrinking population.
If you are reading this, my guess is you are in the “Holy crap, these people are NUTS. How did this happen? How did I not see this before? This is all abhorrent!” camp. This post is for you. I understand it all. I’ve been documenting much of it on this blog, so start there. (If you are in one of the other two camps, this post is not for you. I have no interest arguing with deluded people or evil people.)
Alright, so let’s cut to the chase just a bit.
In this post, I’m not going to go into the whole history of the eugenics-over-population-climate-change incestuous agenda nor am I going to critique the demerits of those positions, including ‘climate change,’ even though it is the pretext for this post. Suffice it to say that the same people who don’t understand that if you have a penis, you are a boy, and if you have a vagina, you are a girl, are the same ones who, with maximum snark, sat that the ‘science’ is settled when it comes to ‘climate change.’ That alone tells you all you need to know about their credibility and their ability to assess data and facts, but we could easily produce more examples.
Instead, I’m going to call attention to just a couple of aspects of this agenda. Remember, my purpose in raising these points is not necessarily to criticize the agenda. My purpose is to make the reader aware of just how expansive and intrusive these people are, such that you can accept literally NOTHING that they say on its face. ZERO.
So, one of the things that pops up repeatedly over the last century of this worldview is their conclusion that, for best effect, you’ve got to get as many people crammed into the cities as possible. On the one hand, it is a question of efficiency: its much easier to condition people when they are all lumped together. On the other hand, the city itself creates a particular kind of person. Tolerant? lol. No, dependent. Like children, almost. On their view, The ‘city’ is effectively a tool and/or machine for creating the best possible ‘cogs.’ Worst of all, people who live in the country, being outside their reach (at least, not as reliably within their reach), and often better equipped to live independently (ie, like adults), are harder to turn into the kinds of people they want. (ie, compliant.)
This view of the city (vs rural) is laced within much of the thought of these folks, even if moderns don’t realize it or admit it. You might recognize it painted in story-form in Huxley’s “A Brave New World.”
For the purpose of this thread, I want to highlight its appearance in the “Jaffe Memo,” which is still the best one page depiction of the entire mindset that I’m aware of. I’ve thrown a bunch of my research on this site: http://www.jaffememo.com
Frederick Jaffe and Bernard Berelson were ‘spit-balling’ ideas on how to reduce the global population. Among the other devilish ideas on the list was this one: “Discouragement of private home ownership.”
I would wager that many of my readers have not considered what “private home ownership” has to do with managing the population (like a farmer manages his cows). This is my point. These people view the entirety of human experience within their jurisdiction. There isn’t anything about our lives that they think is out of bounds for them to ‘manage.’ Whether it is how many children you should have, where you should live, what you should eat or drink, or even step by step instructions on how to have anal and gay sex (for 5th graders and middle schoolers), from their perspective, YOU are not YOUR OWN. You are the State’s to manage, coddle, and protect–or cull if necessary (eg, positioning abortion clinics primarily in black neighborhoods). In general, they exempt themselves from being managed, positioning themselves as the Managers–smarter than you, better than you, more compassionate than you. It’s all there in C.S. Lewis’s The Abolition of Man.
So, just what does “private home ownership” have to do with limiting the population? Better question: why is it that THEY know the answer to that question, and YOU don’t? I’ll give you the brief answer, anyway. Basically, if you don’t own your own home, you will, obviously, by definition, have to rent and/or share housing with others. When one rents, prices are often based on the number of bedrooms. When one decides on a place to rent, they consider what they need and how much they can afford. If you rent, you’re pretty much stuck with what you have. You don’t have the right to put on an addition to your apartment building if your needs change, right?
Here is the way these people think: if people are discouraged from owning their own homes, they will unconsciously calculate that having fewer children will help them afford housing, as a two bedroom apartment is much more affordable than a three or four bedroom apartment, and so on. In other words, this is a way to compel people to make certain decisions while pretending the whole thing is voluntary.
Instead of telling people, “Have only one child!” they say, “[Insert whatever they think would discourage home ownership, here]” with the result that the people themselves conclude its in their own best interest to have only one or (at most) two children.
These people pretend to advocate for ‘choice,’ but in reality, they only mean ‘choice’ within a framework that THEY build and establish. Examples of this are everywhere. I bet you’ll start seeing them yourself now that I’ve called attention to it.
As Christians, it is not only the available choices we have to weigh carefully, but also the framework in which those choices are made. You cannot trust non-believers, and certainly not secular humanists, to create a framework which is compatible with God’s design. It could be… indeed, I submit that it often very much is… the case that the framework these people are building are grossly incompatible with God’s will for us. Which means, more than likely, lots of people are going to get hurt. Ordering off of their ‘menu’ has so-far been a recipe for horrors for the world and there is no particular reason it will be different this time around.
With this thought in mind, I turn to the hapless Kian Goh. In a recent article dripping with proto-fascist social engineering, this “urban planning” professor claims “If we want to keep cities safe in the face of climate change, we need to seriously question the ideal of private homeownership.” The concluding paragraph:
Even with the threats of climate change and rampant fire looming, the ideals of the American dream that have been instilled for more than 150 years will be difficult to dispel. Those ideals have blinded us to other possibilities. Given the scope and scale of the climate crisis, it is shocking that we are being presented with so few serious, comprehensive alternatives for how to live. We need another kind of escape route—away from our ideologies of ownership and property, and toward more collective, healthy, and just cities.
There are a thousand things wrong with this article, and indeed her entire worldview, but it would be besides the point to get into all of it in this post. Instead, what I’d like to highlight is the fact that here we have a person with a clear agenda, being paid for by OUR taxes, posturing as though she is ‘merely’ taking an ‘evidence-based’ approach. While it seems unlikely that she will ever have an actual job in ‘urban planning’, one can reasonably suspect that her students might. They will be hired by cities and counties to assist with ‘urban planning’ and they will make various proposals which are infused and colored by the education they received. In other words, when they are advising elected officials, they might not SAY that the reason why they are proposing certain measures (eg, public housing) is because of their politically charged progressive outlook, but that would in fact be the truth. Moreover, the menu of options for their consideration will be the one devised by the ones creating the framework. That is to say, there may very well be many other options for the decision makers to ponder, but these won’t be presented to anyone, since they are outside the framework. They probably don’t even have the imagination to think of them, themselves.
There are obvious drawbacks to the idea of self-governance and democracy itself to such a charade, but for most of us, we don’t usually get to see the ‘sausage being made.’ Instead, such as in this case, we might be presented only with the end product. If Goh wrote the menu, and the ‘urban planner’ played the waiter, while the elected officials ordered the meal, it is the citizens that eats the ‘food.’ It is generally the case that citizens have zero concept of how decisions were made for them, let alone the worldview that drove them, and tend only to be in a position where they have to select from only what is on the ‘table.’
This is bad enough, but now add in the fact that the very real possibility that the people writing the menu, serving the food, and ordering the food, are looking to overhaul the entire globe, abolishing private home ownership and perhaps ownership of any kind. (Perhaps this is what Goh means when she says, “we should be wary about perpetuating the power of landlords in this country without delinking ownership from wealth creation. “) It should surprise no one that Goh is a huge supporter of Bernie Sanders
(“On the issues, positions, and politics, it’s Bernie Sanders. On embodying the vision of the future of the country, it’s Julián Castro. On good learning and powerful yet non-revolutionary change, it’s Elizabeth Warren. Everyone else is treading water or reactionary.” Yes, don’t laugh. Warren is advocating for non-revolutionary change! lol Its also interesting that she seems to be homophobic, referring to Buttigieg as a ‘bad gay.’)
and of course, AOC, and the rest of the NutSquad. Did she agree with Sanders when Sanders proposed using abortion to fight climate change? (eg, by reducing the number of humans, especially in the third world.) I didn’t see a mention on her Twitter feed, one way or the other, but she did say that she is with Sanders “on the issues, positions, and politics” which suggests she is.
Does Goh also see her position on “discouraging private home ownership” as not merely linked to fighting climate change, but linked to fighting climate change by reducing the number of humans, which many climate change activists believe? I could not find an answer to that, but it doesn’t matter. [I wonder if it came up in her session at this climate change conference.] It is entirely possible that Goh is just the conditioned now engaging in conditioning. She could be a victim of the fact that just like her poor students only chose between options SHE presented to them, SHE only chose options presented to her by HER 1970’s era over-populationist professors.
At any rate, if you, dear Christian, have never considered whether or not owning or not owning your own home was consistent and/or compatible with the Christian worldview, you’d better get cracking! If you don’t contemplate it yourself, you will probably merely absorb and regurgitate what has been dished to you. This is not an acceptable thing for a Christian to do. One should not even do it if it was fellow Christians presenting a ‘menu of options’ for you to consider. You certainly shouldn’t do it when there is a good chance the people presenting options to you are lunatics!
You can’t lay back and just figure all is well that ends well, either. These people gravitate towards jobs where they use public money (that is, YOUR money) to promote their views, and often do so within our educational institutions. Thus, even if you’ve escaped their clutches, there is still the matter of your children and grandchildren coming up through a system which seems to be drenched in Marxist insanity, especially when we bear in mind that wherever we see societies drenched in Marxism, we usually also see societies drenched in blood. Literally.
As I said, Goh seems off her rocker on a number of levels. There was one point I think is worth mentioning, and that is the fact that most of her article seems orientated towards the problems in California and New York. Few would dispute that these states have serious problems. It is worth noting, however, that they have this in common: they’ve been run by people JUST LIKE HER for decades. However, despite the parochial prism of her perspective, her proposals clearly entail a society-wide shifting of attitudes, perspectives, and policies.
So, you might live out in the country in Kansas or West Virginia, but you should not think you are safe. A person like Goh is not content to be a minor character on the world’s stage. She’s the farmer, not the cow, don’t you see? Don’t be surprised if she rises through the California bureaucracy and eventually lands in a Federal agency, like HUD. She will there become one of the thousands of nameless bureaucrats who are unelected, unaccountable to the people they supposedly serve, but brimming with her own self-righteousness and utopian vision for the Perfect Managed Society.
And now remember that there are already thousands of such people already in place.
Do you really think you can afford to choose between the options they’ve set before you? You don’t even know who they are, let alone what they believe. You’d be foolish to think they have the same values that you have. On what basis would you believe such a thing?
Home ownership is just one tiny slice of human experience, yet even here, the radical lunatics think they are totally justified in pulling rank on average citizens and bringing to bear the entire weight of the coercive powers of the state–funded by YOU–to implement their views. What other aspects of human experience are they busy molding and shaping, even as we speak?
You need to seek the answer to that question, without delay.