Home » abortion, atheism, Blog, eugenics, evolution, General, Holocaust, Liberalism, Malthusians, morality, Obama, original sin, philosophy, pro-life, Secular Humanism » Rush Limbaugh, Jonathan Gruber, Eugenics, and Obamacare

Rush Limbaugh, Jonathan Gruber, Eugenics, and Obamacare

I happened to be listening to Rush Limbaugh today and heard him discoursing on the eugenics-laced elements behind putative ‘Obamacare architect’ Jonathan Gruber’s recent remarks, viewable here.

Limbaugh did a better than adequate job analyzing these remarks, but there were a few points that I thought could be better made.  My credentials–I am on the verge of completing my PhD, my dissertation being on the subject of evolution and eugenics.  I founded a policy organization dedicated to detailing how the ‘culture of death’ (ie, eugenics-style thinking) has entrenched itself in unexpected ways in our government.  My organization is the publisher of a new translation of the work that was a catalyst to the holocaust, Allowing the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life.  I have produced a work of my own summarizing and linking the eugenics movements of the early 20th century with contemporary government–and health care–policies.  So, busy as I am, I believe I can add to this.

Gruber’s offending comment was:

Exactly. It’s 12 million people, about a third of which will end up paying more under this law. And that as you said in the introductions sort of the idea. We currently have a highly discriminatory system where if you’re sick, if you’ve been sick or [if] you’re going to get sick, you cannot get health insurance.

The only way to end that discriminatory system is to bring everyone into the system and pay one fair price. That means that the genetic winners, the lottery winners who’ve been paying an artificially low price because of this discrimination now will have to pay more in return. And that, by my estimate, is about four million people. In return, we’ll have a fixed system where over 30 million people will now for the first time be able to access fairly price and guaranteed health insurance.

Limbaugh and others are correct in detecting the eugenics thinking behind this comment but do not go far enough in their explanation.  The problem is that a moment’s thought, especially amongst those with only a passing knowledge of the phrase ‘eugenics’, would recall that early 20th century eugenics had essentially embraced Darwin’s formula, “Survival of the fittest.”  (Darwin borrowed the phrase from Herbert Spencer.)  Given that evolution, as expressed in this maxim, was a raw scientific fact, early eugenicists saw the genetically inferior as a burden on society that needed to be eliminated.

But according to Gruber’s thinking, the genetically superior (“the genetic winners”) have to be made to pay for their “luck” by paying higher premiums so that the genetically inferior can have access to health care.  Such thinking would have garnered cat calls by Margaret Sanger and other early eugenicists.  The idea of facilitating the health and well-being of the ‘unfit’ at the expense of the fit would have made their blood curdle.  Certainly, the government shouldn’t be involved in such measures;  if anything, the government should be involved in doing the opposite.

So, on the face of it, Gruber can’t possibly be drawing from a eugenics ideology.  However, eugenics is a deep well to draw from.  One of the problems I’ve had in making these connections for people (besides the fact that they find it so outrageous as to be unbelievable–despite being absolutely true and relatively easy to document, thanks to the Internet) is that early eugenicists often proposed and entertained a wide variety of policies, often mutually contradictory ones.  Moreover, there was a distinction at the time between ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ eugenics, and some debate over which approach to take.  ‘Positive eugenics’ entailed encouraging the fit to produce more and ‘negative eugenics’ entailed trying to curtail the reproduction of the unfit.

Neither of these would apply to Gruber, so we must go further.

Yet all their proposals, even the contradictory ones, had several things in common.  First of all, they firmly believed in evolutionary theory.  Second of all, they embraced the notion that it was proper and appropriate for the ‘species’ to take evolution into its own hands… and government was an obvious and ideal mechanism for doing such a thing.  Always, always, it was a question of having enough data to determine just what the right policy really was.  There was no question in their minds that they had the right, and even the duty, to try to implement those policies.

And that is one of the missing elements required to understanding the eugenics-style nature of Gruber’s remarks.  Very evidently, Gruber believes two things:  1., it is appropriate to view social issues through the lens of biological realities and 2., it is appropriate to act on those realities… through the government.

For all their multitude of contradictions, and Gruber’s own contradiction of past eugenicists, they all had these two beliefs in common.  They are fundamental pre-requisites for all the terrors that eugenics would soon inflict upon human history.   You could not have had compulsory sterilizations without these beliefs.  You could not have had anti-miscegenation laws.  You could not have had the Nazi T-4 project without them.  You could not have had the Office of Population Affairs without them.  You could not have had the Holocaust itself without them.

And, as ‘Obamacare Architect’ Gruber alludes to, you could not have had Obamacare without those beliefs, either.

Both, incidentally, are core features of contemporary liberalism and Progressives in particular.

A third commonality is almost certainly at work, but I haven’t verified this through research into Mr. Gruber.  Namely, the ‘universal acid’ (as Dan Dennett puts it) of Darwnism eats through everything, and this includes ethics and morality itself.  This idea that it is ethical to inflict suffering on one population (in this case, the genetic lottery winners) in order to help another population (in this case, the genetic lottery losers) must come from somewhere.  But based on any ideology that has evolution at its bottom, ethics consists of essentially whatever any particular evolutionist happens to think is ‘good’ for the species.  *Ahem* I mean, is in accord with the ‘common good.’

By virtue of being in charge (might makes right), people like Gruber believe that it is proper and appropriate for them to transmit and act on their particular ethical views through the government.

I’d have to do some research to know how close to the surface Gruber entertains such thinking.  Some are more self-aware than others.

My sense from this comment is that Gruber probably hasn’t really thought much about it.  Unfortunately, Dennett is quite right in referring to Darwinism as a ‘universal acid,’ and unfortunately, that includes rationality itself.  Reacting to the abuses of liberals and Progressives in the early 20th century, which horrified them, they drew all the wrong lessons.  They didn’t re-examine their core beliefs.  They still manly accepted the raw scientific truth that Darwinism was absolutely true and still believed it was appropriate to use the government to act on that truth.  They obfuscated the real foundation of the horrors of the 20th century, and came away thinking that ‘discrimination’ was the real enemy.

Thus, 60-70 years later, a person reflecting what is essentially a eugenics viewpoint is able to promote, implement, and defend policies that early eugenicists would have found revolting and totally inconsistent with the implications of Darwinism.

Nonetheless, Gruber’s comment reveals that some of the core axioms of the eugenicists still serve as guiding principles in Obamacare itself.  It’s just that at this particular moment (in Gruber’s mind) the pendulum has swung away from improving the race by cleansing it from the ‘unfit’ to improving the race by enforcing ‘fairness.’  In any case, viewing issues in biological, genetic, terms and embracing the notion that the government is an appropriate tool for addressing those issues, and the conclusion that humans ought to use that tool in that way, are all planks in the eugenics ideological platform.

And, as happened in the past, we will see in the future that, for all their good intentions, it will be the weak and defenseless that is harmed by eugenics programs such as Obamacare.

But that is another post.

 

 

Share

16 Responses to Rush Limbaugh, Jonathan Gruber, Eugenics, and Obamacare

  1. If providing health insurance to people with disabilities and genetic conditions in order to prolong their lives suddenly equates to eugenics then that term has clearly been degraded to the point where it has lost its original meaning. Perhaps eugenics now means “something which I, as a small-government conservative, do not approve of”, but you should probably find a new word if that’s the case, lest it appear that you’re merely slinging mud.

    Call it big-government nanny-state intrusion, or unacceptable human interference into the divinely-ordained and corporately-exploited lottery of life and health. Calling it eugenics (not to mention asserting that the famously obnoxious shock jock “did not go far enough”) rather undermines the academic credibility which you sought to establish at the start. One might begin to suspect that you had been studying the issue more in the manner of a man searching for ammunition than of one impartially seeking truth. 🙂

    And anti-miscegenation laws preceded evolutionary theory by quite a long time…

  2. “If providing health insurance to people with disabilities and genetic conditions in order to prolong their lives”

    Dude, what are you talking about? Not what I’m talking about. Very curious.

    “Calling it eugenics (not to mention asserting that the famously obnoxious shock jock “did not go far enough”) rather undermines the academic credibility which you sought to establish at the start.”

    Calling WHAT eugenics? “providing health insurance to people with disabilities”? I reacted to nothing of the sort, primarily because Gruber said nothing of the sort.

    A comment like this, my friend, and I’m pretty sure that it’s not my credibility you need to be worried about. 😉

    “And anti-miscegenation laws preceded evolutionary theory by quite a long time…”

    Oh? In the context of the United States, I don’t see how that can be true. But you are welcome to document it. You can start by defining what you mean by “quite a long time.” A day? A few months? A decade or so maybe?

  3. I’m trying hard to figure out how your response matches what I wrote.

    Is this like, “If you object to socialized food distribution, you must want people to starve!”

    That’s the best I can do in trying to grasp your underlying sentiment. But even then, I didn’t equate socialized food distribution (continuing the analogy) to eugenics. That wasn’t at all what I described as eugenic in nature. I’m doubly confused, because the whole point of the post was to explain precisely WHAT the eugenic component was.

  4. I don’t know enough about Obamacare, or Gruber, or the context of Gruber’s “offending comment” to offer an informed opinion on that score.

    But, if I may, I would like to comment on this:

    The problem is that a moment’s thought, especially amongst those with only a passing knowledge of the phrase ‘eugenics’, would recall that early 20th century eugenics had essentially embraced Darwin’s formula, “Survival of the fittest.”

    This may be true, but it doesn’t mean that it’s right, or logical. That is, early eugenicists did indeed hijack Darwin’s theory to promote their own agenda for social engineering, but they, like you, should recognise that the description of a mechanism does not constitute its endorsement. We may note that, under certain circumstances, lions will eat their young, but it would be a stupid man that uses that as a justification for baby pot roasts.

    Besides which, the existence of “less fit” individuals doesn’t threaten the survival of humanity at all.

    Using Darwinism to justify eugenics is just a lazy way to promote an already-held prejudice against society’s most vulnerable.

  5. You are wrong on your facts. Early eugenicists did not “hijack” Darwin’s theory. That’s just what modern evolutionists say in a (quite understandable) attempt to distance themselves from the abuses (dare I say, atrocities?) that were perpetuated by those early adopters of evolutionary theory. The historical record is demonstrably the opposite. In point of fact, my doctoral thesis is centered on demonstrating the opposite. But it does not take a dissertation level inquiry to discover this. One only needs to spend time reading the primary sources to discover it.

    If you would like to test your assertion, all you need to do is produce a list of respectable Darwinists circa 1880-1930 who rejected eugenics. I think you will find the exercise difficult. There are but a small handful; many of these, incidentally, were Christians–usually Catholics.

    But before you carry out this exercise (and I would be shocked if you did) you would need to define eugenics. And I don’t mean as a modern person would, looking back, but how they themselves would have defined it.

    Gruber does not think he is uttering a eugenic statement, only because he is unaware that people were saying similar things in the early 1900s, for similar reasons. With my caveats above, of course.

  6. hi·jack /h??d?ak/ tr.v.
    To seize control by use of force, especially in order to reach an alternate destination

    eugenics /ju??d??n?ks/ n.
    the science of improving a population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics

    (I’m happy, however, for you to define eugenics any way you like.)

    Unless the word “hijack” is taken to mean something completely different to it’s actual meaning, it is the only way to describe using of the theory of evolution by natural selection as a justification for eugenics.

    All the theory does is explain the mechanism by which diversity of life arose. It says nothing about how humans should subjectively decide on what traits are “desirable”, nor does it tell us what we should do with such traits once we identify them.

    What say you to my lion example?

  7. Your lion example is irrelevant. I am not discussing with you whether or not eugenics logically flows from evolution. That is also not relevant at this point in the conversation. What is relevant is that you are simply and completely wrong on your facts.

    Your definition of eugenics fails to incorporate what I just said: contemporary definitions are irrelevant. What matters is how the eugenicists themselves defined it. Some eugenicists could have signed on to a form of the definition you just gave, but others would have defined it differently. As I said, contemporary understandings of eugenics are inadequate, colored by how history played out.

    “Unless the word “hijack” is taken to mean something completely different to it’s actual meaning, it is the only way to describe using of the theory of evolution by natural selection as a justification for eugenics.”

    Completely and utterly wrong. But there is no point in debating the point with you. I provided you with a way to test–or support–your contention. Merely repeating your argument does not constitute supporting it. No early evolutionist would have signed on to the idea that “All the theory does is explain the mechanism by which diversity of life arose.”

    Please support your contention by giving examples of prominent evolutionists pre-1930s that felt that eugenics constituted a hijacking of evolutionary theory. If you can think of another way to support this statement besides bald assertion, feel free to provide it.

  8. I am not discussing with you whether or not eugenics logically flows from evolution.

    Why not? That’s the point I raised. So the lion example is perfectly relevant to my point. Do you believe eugenics is a logical outcome of evolution?

    Your definition of eugenics fails to incorporate what I just said

    And as I just said, I really don’t care how you define it. Go ahead and define it in any way you like. The fact remains that description is not the same as prescription.

    I have to say that I am really quite puzzled by your recalcitrance.

    You say it’s completely and utterly wrong to describe it as hijacking. That’s just baffling. Without even researching it, I have absolutely no problem agreeing with you that early evolutionists would not have signed on to the idea that “all the theory does is blah blah blah”. But is that the point? Or is the point whether or not they were right?

    Description is not the same as prescription.

    Please support your contention by giving examples of prominent evolutionists pre-1930s that felt that eugenics constituted a hijacking of evolutionary theory.

    Why? What would that prove? If a generally racist, sexist, ablist, homophobic society interprets a new scientific theory to support their generally racist, sexist, ablist, homophobic beliefs, are we to just bow down and accede to their logic?

    No, we shouldn’t.

    Merely repeating your argument does not constitute supporting it.

    And merely saying I’m wrong doesn’t make me wrong. Explain why.

    Do you, or do you not, think that eugenics is a logical outcome of the theory of evolution by natural selection?

  9. If you would like to test your assertion, all you need to do is produce a list of respectable Darwinists circa 1880-1930 who rejected eugenics.

    I just can’t get my head around this. It makes so sense whatsoever. You could have every Darwinist in the world from then till now singing the praises of eugenics, and it still wouldn’t counter the fact that evolution says nothing about:
    1. How humans should subjectively decide on what traits are “desirable”; and
    2. What we should do with such traits once we identify them.

    How how how how how is my lion example different?

  10. “Why not? That’s the point I raised.”

    Because I’m operating on the silly idea that this is the proper place to talk about the points that I raised. If this were the forum, I’d tell you to start your own thread. 😉

    “I have absolutely no problem agreeing with you that early evolutionists would not have signed on to the idea that “all the theory does is blah blah blah”. But is that the point?”

    It is if you also contend that this constituted a “hijacking.” For you to contend that these people hijacked evolution shows that the most important part of your statement was, “Without even researching it…”

    Because even a little research will show that no one believed eugenics was a “hijacking” of Darwinism… if only because–literally–97% of the evolutionists were themselves eugenicists.

    “Description is not the same as prescription.”

    Well! I certainly agree with that! Maybe the next time we start talking about the atrocities depicted (not prescripted!) in the Bible you’ll allow me to make the same observation!

    This actually is the first thing you have said that is actually on topic. 🙂 Quoting from my OP:

    A third commonality is almost certainly at work, but I haven’t verified this through research into Mr. Gruber. Namely, the ‘universal acid’ (as Dan Dennett puts it) of Darwnism eats through everything, and this includes ethics and morality itself. This idea that it is ethical to inflict suffering on one population (in this case, the genetic lottery winners) in order to help another population (in this case, the genetic lottery losers) must come from somewhere. But based on any ideology that has evolution at its bottom, ethics consists of essentially whatever any particular evolutionist happens to think is ‘good’ for the species. *Ahem* I mean, is in accord with the ‘common good.’

    Eugenicists and early evolutionists (pardon my redundancy) would not have agreed that evolution doesn’t have logical implications, but I could see them accepting the premise for the sake of argument, and then pointing out that if evolution is true, the ethical systems, the ‘prescription,’ the ‘ought’, etc, is itself a product of evolutionary processes (pardon the tautology), so basically whether or not it is logically correct or ethically correct to apply evolution, or not apply it, depends on ‘selection’ principles. And if they had had their way (and they almost did) they would have ‘selected’ out people with your views, leaving only theirs.

    Over here they say that if such and such hadn’t happened (ie, our soldiers fighting against the Nazis) we’d be speaking German right now. If the eugenicists hadn’t been stopped (eg, by our soldiers fighting the Nazis) you would be saying the exact opposite of what you are saying right now.

    In either case, your view or their view, it is consistent with evolutionary morality, since the ‘ought’ is not based on anything abstract or transcendental, but the whims of each individual striving against and with those in its population, and the species they are competing for resources for.

    “are we to just bow down and accede to their logic? No, we shouldn’t.”

    As I said, I’m not arguing the ‘logical implication’ side. I’m only fighting you on your assertion that they hijacked evolution. This is patently false and historically absurd. That’s just a fairy tale you tell yourself at night so you can sleep soundly, safely assuring yourself that your views aren’t all that dangerous… even if they are identical to what the eugenicists believed.

    And there is the rub: you don’t actually know what the early eugenicists believed, and don’t care (hence your willingness to let me define it however I want), so you need not worry that perhaps you carry around in your mind all day long proto-eugenic views.

    Ignorance is bliss, as they say.

    “Do you, or do you not, think that eugenics is a logical outcome of the theory of evolution by natural selection?”

    The Buddhist says, “What is the sound of one hand clapping?”

    If evolution is true, your question is nonsense.

    “You could have every Darwinist in the world from then till now singing the praises of eugenics, and it still wouldn’t…”

    Do you know more about Darwinism then Darwin did? Because he wouldn’t have agreed with this.

    Sorry, I’m not getting into the argument you’re trying to pick with me right now. Even the whole “Eugenics is Evolution Hijacked” fairy tale is off topic. Of your points, that’s the only one I want to argue about with now. I don’t have time to address all of them, sorry.

    Thanks for baldly asserting it for a third time though. Do you find that bald assertions are generally persuasive? 😉

    You DID have every Darwinist in the world, prior to say, 1930ish, singing the praises of eugenics. You even seem to be conceding this. How that squares with the idea that eugenics hijacked Darwinism, then, is beyond me.

  11. Back to the point of the opening post, and speaking of Darwin, we actually have him on record addressing these points pretty explicitly–almost as if I asked him personally to address them.

    First, he reacts to the ability of changing society in order to genetically improve mankind. He warns: “I reached the conclusion that many desirable social reforms might at first produce some dysgenic effects, and consequently that the need for social progress intensifies rather than diminished the need for eugenic reforms.” (emphasis his)

    In other words, he is generally accepting the premise that in order to really improve mankind, the structure of society will have to be transformed; this however, might have initial dysgenic results. Nontheless, the price will be worth it, because once the society is transformed, that will give them the tools and infrastructure that makes truly eugenic reforms practically possible.

    He continues on, almost in direct response to Gruber from out of the grave:

    “To place the sick man in a better environment than that of his healthy neighbor is often imperatively demanded on the grounds of humanity, though it is unquestionably a dysgenic proceeding.”

    Here Darwin says exactly what I said a eugenicist would have said about Gruber’s statement–that Gruber is in effect proposing something that is dysgenic.

    He immediately continues to say,

    “This harmful effect is because the survival and multiplication of the less fit is thus promoted; whereas, to quote Galton’s own words, ‘to replace Natural Selection by other processes that are more mercifcul and not less effective … is precisely the aim of Eugenics.'”

    I pause to observe Darwin stating with approval a different definition of ‘eugenics’ then you stated. Unlike yours, which was intentionally sterilized to strip out the Darwinian mechanisms that all eugenicists were counting on, Darwin here himself binds Natural Selection up with Eugenics. In short, he sees eugenics as a way forward for more ‘merciful’ selection; but selection, nonetheless.

    He immediately continues, reacting to Gruber, and probably Dannyboy, too, from the grave:

    “Medical care may in fact to some extent equalize opportunities by creating differences in environment, whilst the harm thus done to the race merely strengthened the demand for immediate eugenic reforms.” (Emphasis his.)

    Gruber was complaining about how the strong and healthy, those winning the genetic lottery, had an unfair advantage over those who hadn’t. It was thus justified, through Obamacare, to penalize the fit, in order to ensure the unfit have ‘access’ to healthcare.

    In light of Darwin’s presentation, we may now ask Gruber if he agrees that this would have a dysgenic effect on the population. Depending on what he says to that, we may then ask him if he feels, like Darwin, that this is actually the price to be paid in order to ‘strengthen the demand for immediate eugenic reforms.’

    Does Gruber actually want the fit to be penalized to benefit the unfit in order to open up the eyes of the fit to the harmful effects to society of helping the unfit? That, I doubt we’ll never know. Unlike in the past, eugenicists today are liars. They never admit their true intentions, for obvious reasons. This doesn’t stop them from proposing and advocating for almost the exact same policies as the eugenicists that came before them.

    Happily for them, this approach is working for them, as is evidenced by yours and Danny’s comments here, and the acceptance of a variety of social programs in general, Obamacare and the Liverpool Care Pathway being two particular examples.

    We may guess how Darwin would have responded to Gruber’s analysis, because he pretty much speaks directly to it, above, and in this:

    “To equalize the care given to the poorer strata with that obtainable by the well-to-do would be a most desirable reform; but if the poverty of the poor as a class is to any extent dependent on the presence in excess of inferior recessive genes, such a reform would produce dysgenic results by keeping more of them alive. However we look on these questions, the need for immediately beneficial social reforms appears to me to emphasized the need for immediate action in the field of eugenics.”

    Darwin’s complaint is not with the reform, but with the reluctance of those he is addressing to specifically integrate those reforms with a eugenics program. Keeping more of the dysgenic alive could actually further the eugenic cause: “No doubt, by depreciating all reforms of a different type to those which we wish to see introduced, we might succeed in concentrating more of the attention of the public on our aims…”

    Maybe that’s what Gruber wants, too. That’s the thing about eugenics. Even when they say that helping people is “demanded on the grounds of humanity” and unquestionably “beneficial” and even dysgenic… they are still animated by eugenic considerations.

  12. Tony,

    I’m choosing not to engage with your “rope-a-dope”-style response to most of what I originally said. The conversation between you and Timaahy is much more worthy of attention – on to that in just a minute. But to pick up one point where you inadvertently left yourself open to a severe fish-slapping – the easily-demonstrable fact that anti-miscegenation laws preceded evolutionary theory by quite a large margin:

    “Oh? In the context of the United States, I don’t see how that can be true. But you are welcome to document it. You can start by defining what you mean by “quite a long time.” A day? A few months? A decade or so maybe?”

    Try 200 years. The 1660s – really, look it up. Pretty impressive foresight on the part of the Virginia and Maryland colonists, to anticipate the scientific discovery without which the laws they enacted allegedly “could not exist”.

    Now, onto the good red meat. You assert that “Early eugenicists did not “hijack” Darwin’s theory….”, and insist that the only valid counter-argument you would accept to this assertion would be evidence that a majority of early evolutionists did NOT embrace eugenics. Is this not somewhat of a reverse Ad Populum? Counting on the majority of early adherents to accurately define an ideology proves just as clearly that Christianity is virulently anti-semitic, not to mention misogynistic. Congratulations on painting yourself into a corner! 🙂 Or maybe you would like to say that Tertulian, Origen, Chrysostom & St. Augustine (to name but a few) might have misinterpreted, misunderstood, or possibly even “hijacked” the ideas of Jesus? If you would like to test your assertion, all you need to do is produce a list of respectable Christians circa 60-500BCE who rejected anti-semitism or felt that Christianity was being “hijacked” by anti-semitic apologists.

    And remember, contemporary definitions are irrelevant – all that matters is what early Christians thought!

    Nonetheless, this is a very intruiging little conspiracy theory you have constructed about contemporary progressive social reform – but how deep does the rot go? Does everyone who advocates for society collectively providing assistance to those unable to support themselves secretly yearn for a tipping point where the oppressed masses without overt genetic defects will get so fed up with all this coddling of the evolutionarily-disadvantaged that they will look the other way while Timaahy and I fire up the big ovens? As a theory it has the advantage of being unfalsifiable. After all, we know that eugenicists are all liars, so if someone says that they are not a eugenicist then you really do have to suspect them. And yes they may be saying “let’s help people in need” but what they really really want to do is kill them [no proof needed, cf. eugenicists all liars]. The only ones you can definitely trust not to be influenced by Social Darwinism are the ones who are brazenly advocating for an individualist, every-man-for-himself, might-makes-right mentality. What’s that called? Oh yes, right-wing libertarianism.

    Let the defensive thrashing commence.

  13. Eh, “CE”, not “BCE”. You know what I meant…

  14. Tony,

    There seem to be a number of contentions (or bald assertions, if you prefer) floating around that you have variously dismissed as irrelevant or just plain wrong. If you’ll excuse the pedantry, I’d like to list them out, and hopefully prevent the conversation from devolving into a sea of tangential bickering.

    1
    The “hijacking” point is irrelevant
    You’ve stated that the hijacking point is irrelevant a number of times, but without ever explaining why. Unfortunately, however, your own words betray you:

    The problem is that a moment’s thought…would recall that early 20th century eugenics had essentially embraced Darwin’s formula, “Survival of the fittest.” Given that evolution…was a raw scientific fact, early eugenicists saw the genetically inferior as a burden on society that needed to be eliminated.

    Yet all their proposals, even the contradictory ones, had several things in common. First of all, they firmly believed in evolutionary theory. Second of all, they embraced the notion that it was proper and appropriate for the ‘species’ to take evolution into its own hands…[and] there was no question in their minds that they had the right, and even the duty, to try to [do that]. And that is one of the missing elements required to understanding [sic] the eugenics-style nature of Gruber’s remarks.

    The above can be summarised as:

    Early eugenicists believed evolution by natural selection was true;
    They also believed that they were compelled to take evolution into their own hands; and
    Both of these observations are essential to the awesome point I’m about to make about Gruber.

    It seems pretty clear to me that the issue of whether evolution actually supports point 2 is fairly critical to your main argument. If it does, perhaps you have a point. If it doesn’t, we’re just left with a bunch of wankers looking for a way to support some pre-conceived notions of genetic superiority, and we can all go home.

    So I’m really not sure why you think it’s irrelevant. Perhaps you’ll now explain.

    2
    Eugenicists hijacked evolutionary theory
    To prevent any EB-style confusion about the meaning of basic words, let me explicitly explain what I meant. The theory of evolution by natural selection is an explanatory theory .That is, it provides an explanation for how things are, not how they should be. Any attempt to use evolutionary theory for a purpose beyond its explanatory function constitutes a hijacking. Simple.

    And so I ask again. Do you think that eugenics is justified by the theory of evolution by natural selection? I’ll give you a hint. It doesn’t. Saying that evolution provides a justification for offing Downies* is like me saying “Because relativity, therefore Jesus picked his nose.”

    3
    If I would like to test my assertion, all I need to do is produce a list of respectable Darwinists circa 1880-1930 who rejected eugenics.
    You asked me: “Do you know more about Darwinism then Darwin did? Because he wouldn’t have agreed with this.”

    Quite frankly, I couldn’t give two shts what eugenic implications, if any, Darwin tacked on to evolutionary theory. He may have been the first the popularise the theory, but it doesn’t mean he gets cart blanche to use it however he sees fit. He’s still bound by the same laws of logic and rules of science as the rest of us. Which is probably why no one’s still trying to turn lead into gold, just because Newton invented calculus.

    As Dannyboy pointed out above, it’s not a question of popularity. It’s a question of logic. And the theory of evolution by natural selection says nothing about how we should act. It simply doesn’t matter how many people you produce who think otherwise. Dannyboy used the example of anti-Semitism, but I was going to make the same point, albeit with a different theory. It wasn’t until 451 that the Catholic Church formally rejected monophysitism as heretical. And the truth or otherwise of monophysitism is a question quite distinct to the number of early Church scholars who believed it.

    So your challenge is, in short, a little absurd.

    4
    Can you explain how this:

    Thus, 60-70 years later, a person reflecting what is essentially a eugenics viewpoint is able to promote, implement, and defend policies that early eugenicists would have found revolting and totally inconsistent with the implications of Darwinism.

    is consistent with this:

    Unlike in the past, eugenicists today are liars. They never admit their true intentions, for obvious reasons. This doesn’t stop them from proposing and advocating for almost the exact same policies as the eugenicists that came before them.

    ____

    Over to you.

    * use of this term reflects my contempt for eugenics

  15. You done with this conversation SJ? Or just busy getting electricity and running water? 🙂

  16. Salvationists state that people are not animals, and physically base that statement on the fact that there are no living links between animals and people. The reason there are no living links between animals and people is that all those links were exterminated by people.
    These programs of extermination have become deliberate and organized. Adolph Hitler had the volumes of Helena Blavatsky’s “Secret Doctrine”, and “Isis Unveiled”, in the book case that was right next to his bed. This system of evolution was explained in more simple terms in Max Heindel’s “Rosicrucian Cosmoconception”, in which species, races, and nationalities are listed in order of their designated superiority.
    Jews were considered to be the remains of the “third evolution of the fourth race”, thus, inferior to the “fourth evolution of the fourth race”. This scheme was derived from the “Secret Doctrine”, which supposedly derived it from ancient writings from Tibet. The scheme repeated itself holographically, repeated systems within systems, with the greater scheme representing the descent of life from the spiritual (1), to the astral (2), to the ethereal (3), to the physical (4).
    But, on the way down, life in the spiritual had the consciousness of minerals, life in the astral had the consciousness of plants, life in the ethreal had the consciousness of animals, and then, life in the physical had human consciousness. The evolution of life back up, in the ethereal (5) will have the consciousness of angels, in the astral (6) archangels, and back up in the spiritual (7) principalities.
    In this system there are higher evolutionary life waves so that angels are the group spirits of groups (like families, teams, etc.), archangels are the group spirits of organizations, and, principalities are the group spirits of societies. The Greek word for group spirit, also derived from the root “dem”, from which we get our word “democracy”, is “demon”.
    Coincidently, this system was actually based on the Hebrew Kaballah: the spiritual, which the Jews called Atziluth; the astral, called Briah; the ethreal, called Yetzirah; and, the physical called Assiah. All freemasonic symbolism is based on the Jewish tradition, yet, before the mid Twentieth Century Jews were not allowed to join the lodge. Later Jews were allowed to have their own freemasonic lodges, but were deprived of the supreme grand secret which, thanks to modern medicine, can be printed on a bumper sticker: “Vagal stimulation is as effective as LSD”.
    Adolph Hitler closed all freemasonic lodges? He only allowed his own lodge to exist secretly. Adolph Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Tito, were Thelemite freemasons; and today, Mugabe is a Thelemite freemason. The falcon, Ra Hoor Khuit (Horus) is on the Zimbabwean flag. This idol was found in ancient ruins in Zimbabwe, and it was back in those ancient times brought down from ancient Egypt; but, Mugabwe adopted the current, ubiquitous Thelemism for his Machiavellian goals. And, Thelemism is based on that ancient Egyptian scheme that was brought down to Zimbabwe in ancient times.
    It is conspicuous that all the major “satanic” cults promise immediate nonexistence after death, to avoid the return of all the evil karma caused by such cruelty. It has always been quite obvious that “In the one substance, energy, motion can only be in closed circuitry, that there be something to move out of the way and fill in behind”, so that even these satanists knew that their evil karma was on the way back to them; but, if they became nonexistent, they wouldn’t exist to feel it.
    Even the Ninjas believe that Benzeiten (Ben Satan?), the Japanese Kali (Satan in drag), will absorb them into nonexistence. Kali is the personification of Nothingness. And, Kali promised her Thugee nonexistence after death. Adolph Hitler also belonged to the Order of Satrurn (Satan), and Aleister Crowley’s Thelemite O.T.O, the Agentum Astris (The Great White Brotherhood, also known as the Illuminati today),as well the the Thule Society.
    In the Thelemite bible, Liber Al Vel Legis (Liber Evil Legis) in the first chapter, Nuit (the personification of the infinite nothingness of outer space) promises to absorb her worshipers back into nothingness after death. But, a selfish disregard of others begins in chapter one. In chapter two it starts to get elitist and nasty. Chapter two is Hadit’s chapter, and he represents the infinitesimal point nothingness. Chapter three is Ra Hoor Khuit’s chapter, and it is atrocious, commanding murder and torture of all those considered inferior.
    The Illuminati’s Guide Stones in Georgia order that the population of the human race be reduced to only fifty million people. The other six billion five hundred million of us are to be exterminated. The concentration camps are built; and, efforts are being made to eliminate our Constitution. With a Muslim in power there is an attempt to put America under an Islamic government, which will enable the Illuminati to exterminate everyone who knows their supreme grand secret, “Vagal stimulation is as effective as LSD”.
    In the past this knowledge of our own bodies was kept secret particularly to identify descendants of Cro Magnon Man. All Cro Magnon males have Double Y Chromosomes, and easily stumble upon this secret. Many malicious lies have scandalized Double Y’s. Any male caught knowing anything about this secret was genetically tested for Double Y “syndrome”, and if the test was positive, was, at the very least, sterilized. In the socialized medicine summit of 1995, it was promised that all Double Y’s would be “locked up” (imprisoned for life). Now, that the whole human DNA has been read, female Cro Magnons can now be identified.
    Before modern genetics, Cro Magnons, called the Anakim in the Bible, were suspected of being Cro Magnons by their instinctual knowledge of the supreme grand secret. Surely some Homo Sapiens were mistakenly captured during this perpetual inquisition since the beginning of “civilization”; but now, six billion five hundred million people are to be exterminated. And, the “inquisition” will continue to keep the population from exceeding five hundred million. It is no wonder that there are no species, or subspecies, between the human race and the animals.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*