Eugenics 2010

As regular readers of my blog will be aware, I have a weakness for American cop shows, despite the, diversity quota approved, parallel universe of evil white criminals and honest, law abiding, black victims in which they are set. We all have our own foibles and vices and late evenings will often find me, my Albion knight and a bottle of Shiraz in front of of the TV watching the mindless pap that is CSI, Law and Order or the ludicrous twaddle the Mentalist.

As a result, last weekend I watched an episode of NBC's Law and Order entitled “Birthright”.

I don't know how far we are behind America, but this was part of series 16 with Police Officers Green and Fontana rather than Lupo and Bernard who I understand are this season's black and white detectives.

Whatever the series. anyone who is a regular viewer of Law and Order will be aware that each episode follows a set formula, a crime is committed and is investigated for the first part of the show by mixed race detectives from the New York Police department under the control of the sturdy and black authority figure Lt. Anita Van Buren. After Lt. Van Buren's boys have made their arrest the action moves on to the court case where the accused perpetrator is prosecuted by the indescribably irritating Jack McCoy (Sam Waterston) and the relevant season's interchangeable foxy chick.

Invariably as the show develops some social issue is addressed from a resolutely politically correct standpoint.

However. “Birthright” did not initially appear to be following the usual pattern. What first struck me was that it actually portrayed black people as criminals, committing crimes and actually killing people without some white person pulling the strings. Admittedly the victims were also black rather than white, but this was still revolutionary stuff for NBC.

Of course, the revolution only lasted for the first five minutes of the show, after which we were swiftly jerked back into more familiar territory when the real, and predictably white, villainess made her appearance.

A black female murder suspect died in police custody and the autopsy revealed that she has been sterilised, at which point the story jumped swiftly from, instantly forgotten, black crime to more standard white fascism.

It turned out that a white nurse had been secretly sterilising black women to prevent them from producing unwanted babies. In the eyes of irritating Jack, the latest foxy chick and the Manhattan DA (played bizarrely by US Senator Fred Thompson who appears on screen for about 48 seconds each week saying something profound and politically correct – and on the strength of which tried to stand for president) this was nothing short of eugenics, as practised by the Nazis and an unmitigated evil.

I forget whether the nurse was found guilty or acquitted, I had rather lost interest by that point, and, in any even, it hardly mattered she had already been cast as the irredeemably vile disciple of a morally indefensible doctrine.

It is interesting how often the subject of eugenics pops up in movies, from Gregory Peck's snarling Meggele creating various teenaged Hitler clones, all suitably obnoxious and played by the subsequently unemployable Jeremy Black, in the 1978 movie “The Boys from Brazil” to the futuristic designer babies of “Gattaca”.

In movies, literature and popular culture, eugenics is an easily identifiable symbol of an evil and discredited ideology, and in so far as history is concerned, any hint of a flirtation with that ideology, whether true or not, is guaranteed to destroy the reputation of any historical figure.

The media and Hollywood delight in portraying a belief in eugenics as malevolent and without merit. Which is odd, given that Hollywood and the media are amongst the most fanatical protagonists of modern eugenics.

Eugenics, after all is the study and practice of selective breeding when applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species or changing human genetic qualities. To actively seek to change the racial characteristics of a people for the sake of a political aim is eugenics, irrespective of whether it is achieved by petri-dish or by propaganda.

Where exactly is the difference between the goal of creating a mono-race and that of creating a master race? I submit to you that there is none. Yet it is those who are so ready to decry the master race creating eugenicists of the 1930's who are the primary mono-race engineering fanatics of our age

When, for instance, France's President Sarcozy demanded last year that the French people should intermarry with other races he became in effect Monsieur Eugenics.

Television presenter Andrew Marr may look like a harmless goofy Doofus with his Shrek like ears and amphibian features but he is no friend of his native people. When he stated that widespread and vigorous miscegenation was the best answer for the British people
he was advocating selective inter-breeding as such he was advocating eugenics.

Day after day we are beset with propaganda promoting the joys of interracial sex, especially the tedious stereotype of the black man and the white tart, which I have addressed here before.

Much of it is crude and obnoxious. I, for one, will never buy a bed from “Dreams”after watching all those adverts showing mixed race couple in bed together exchanging jewelry and lustful glances. (I hope others will join me in that boycott.)

However, Dreams adverts are only slightly more offensive than all the other inter-racial sex promotions which are deliberately pumped into our lives day after day, and a lot of it is more subtle.

Mixed race couples are presented as role models to our children. Does anyone really believe that a woman, such as Cheryl Cole, who's tiny chin and huge forehead make her resemble nothing so much as a praying mantis, would have reached such an elevated celebrity status had she not jumped into bed with a black football player and thus become the nation's sweetheart?

Klum and Seal's White trash wedding

Why is it always the likes of Heidi Klum who are wheeled out to climb all over her black husband, seemingly frantic to the point of psychosis to prove how sexy she finds him, if not as more of the same mixed race marketing? (Klum's motives and prejudices were rather exposed when she and Seal decided upon a “white trash” theme to their wedding, and I suspect that there is some white man in her past whom she is desperate to hurt)

It is not just the media, Hollywood movies and commercial advertising which constantly thrust a fake mixed race ideal down the throat of an impressionable public. Walk into any local government office, branch of the health service or educational facility, pick up a leaflet and in nine out of ten a mixed race couple will beam out at you, whilst the child model of choice will be the interbred product of such a union.

Within our schools the proselytising is unremitting, as a female teenager in the 1980's I can testify that, even back then, the pressure to sleep with a black or brown man just to prove you were not racist was intense, and I am sure that it is now ten times worse. I personally did not capitulate, but there were many who did, and I don't think it was always by choice.

The pressure did not only come from black and brown students, sleeping with a member of a different race was presented, by those tasked with guiding our minds, as an act of free thinking rebellion, whereas, in fact, it was the new conformity.

Anyone who fails to appreciate that interracial sex is being actively encouraged by the establishment, by politicians, by the media and by those educating our children is deluding themselves. That it is happening is undeniable and it is happening for a political purpose.

Were I to be charitable I would suggest that those advocating mass inter-breeding share the demented belief that by genetically engineering a huge homogeneous mono-race we will irradiate conflict, others might suggest that their motives are far less benevolent and that they are fully aware of the disaster they are inciting.

World history shows how flawed is the belief a racial melting pot will end conflict. Look to Northern Ireland, to Rwanda, to Kenya, to the seething hatred between Middle Eastern factions, indeed to World War II and you can see that removing race from the equation does not remove conflict.

However, it was ever the mark of the political zealot to ignore reality in favour of an ideological dream.

If you were to mention eugenics to the average man or woman in the street today, most will think of the Nazis or maybe white supremacists, the better informed might refer to the social theories propounded in the 1930, and maybe mention Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, H.G. Wells or George Bernhard Shaw and other long dead supporters of a long discredited science. Few, if any, will speak of it as something impacting on their own lives today.

However, the active promotion of selective breeding in order to achieve a political and racial outcome is alive and well today, and now, in 2010, it assails us on all sides. The proponents of 21st Century eugenics are the most powerful pressure groups of our age. They seek to change us biologically and ethnically. Their aims are no longer achieved in the laboratory but through the tools of the propagandist and the might of the state, and, so far, their success has been phenomenal.

We are living now through the second age of eugenics but this time the damage will be far less easy to repair.

__________________