Europe now reverts to Eugenics

By August Pointneuf

It is reported that Nicholas Sarkozy has said “the only way to stop the violence and hatred of a multicultural society is through the interbreeding between the races”. If he said that, (and many others have said that) a case can be made that he is (and they are) eugenicists, perhaps (as might be later demonstrated) more despicable than that other sociology amateur and pseudo-scientist, Adolf Hitler.

Since the topic is so emotive and, since definitions vary, to develop the rationale in relation to Sarkozy’s alleged philosophy, it might be wise to start with a relatively neutral consideration of eugenics. Therefore a summary from Wikipedia, unabridged (in small case below), has been used as the foundation text upon which to base this argument:

As a social movement, eugenics reached its height of popularity in the early decades of the 20th century. By the end of World War II eugenics had been largely abandoned.[4] Although current trends in genetics have raised questions amongst critical academics concerning parallels between pre-war attitudes about eugenics and current "utilitarian" and social theories allegedly related to Darwinism,[5] they are, in fact, only superficially related and somewhat contradictory to one another.[6] At its pre-war height, the movement often pursued pseudoscientific notions of racial supremacy and purity.[7]

Sarkozy’s philosophy is that a new, multiply inbred race, the mulatto, will be an improvement upon the variety of races which have existed since pre-history. He claims that it will be a “better” because he speculates - with a naivety only paralleled by Hitler and his cronies - that such a uniform race will be less violent and less hating. Has he any basis whatever for this fantastic belief? Are there any precedents, or any genetic science to support this? There is not. It is entirely a concocted, thumb-suck pseudo-science. Sarkozy claims to have a formula by which he will trump the enormous complexities of human diversity, and believes that he is able to upstage a construct of biology ordained by thousands and thousands of years of successful evolution. Before the barracking starts, it has been successful because humankind has survived, the sine qua non of all debate.

Eugenics was practiced around the world and was promoted by governments, and influential individuals and institutions.

Was practiced? – Is practiced now by self opinionated politicians, with unjustified delusions of a grandiose capability, which they inflict upon hundreds of millions of people, afflicting numbers which historically has never been even remotely approached by the most extreme of megalomaniacal tyrants.

Its advocates regarded it as a social philosophy for the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of certain people and traits, and the reduction of reproduction of other people and traits.[8]

Does this make my point that Sarkozy is an eugenicist?

Today it is widely regarded as a brutal movement which inflicted massive human rights violations on millions of people.[9]

Agreed. The destruction of race, and the language and cultural uniqueness which these possess, will deprive millions of their, not inconsequential, senses of identity, of belonging, of community and uniqueness.

The "interventions" advocated and practiced by eugenicists involved prominently the identification and classification of individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, deaf, promiscuous women, homosexuals and entire racial groups -- such as the Roma and Jews -- as "degenerate" or "unfit"; the segregation or institutionalisation of such individuals and groups, their sterilization, euthanasia, and in the extreme case of Nazi Germany, their mass extermination.[10]

The “entire racial group” now in question is the white, western European, already an extreme minority (about 8% of the world’s population), and already threatened with extinction. Hitler aimed to exterminate individuals, Sarkozy aims to exterminate an entire race.

The practices engaged in by eugenicists involving violations of privacy, attacks on reputation, violations of the right to life, to found a family, to freedom from discrimination are all today classified as violations of human rights.

The right to found a family is also the right to construct a family with the genetic, social and cultural identity of the parents. To prevent this is to prevent the entrenched imperative of many humans – a crass violation of rights. This philosophy imposes a discrimination upon Europeans.

The practice of negative racial aspects of eugenics, after World War II, fell within the definition of the new international crime of genocide, set out in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.[11]

Are we expected to believe that the untrained amateur, Sarkozy, has this super-human insight, this capacity beyond the realm of God to predict an outcome and to manipulate an entire human race into oblivion on the basis that he believe he can engineer “improvements” to human behaviour? Who is he to ordain genocide?

The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,[12] drawing on the recent work of his half-cousin Charles Darwin.[13][14] At its peak of popularity eugenics was supported by prominent people, including Margaret Sanger,[15][16] Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Linus Pauling [17] and Sidney Webb.[18][19][20] Its most infamous proponent and practitioner was, however, Adolf Hitler who praised and incorporated eugenic ideas in Mein Kampf and emulated Eugenic legislation for the sterilization of "defectives" that had been pioneered in the United States.[21]

G. K. Chesterton was an early critic of the philosophy of eugenics, expressing this opinion in his book, Eugenics and Other Evils. Eugenics became an academic discipline at many colleges and universities, and received funding from many sources.[22] Three International Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for eugenicists with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York. Eugenic policies were first implemented in the early 1900s in the United States.[23] Later, in the 1920s and 30s, the eugenic policy of sterilizing certain mental patients was implemented in a variety of other countries, including Belgium,[24] Brazil,[25] Canada,[26] and Sweden,[27] among others. The scientific reputation of eugenics started to decline in the 1930s, a time when Ernst Rüdin used eugenics as a justification for the racial policies of Nazi Germany, and when proponents of eugenics among scientists and thinkers prompted a backlash in the public. Nevertheless, In Sweden the eugenics program continued until 1975.[27]

Since the postwar period, both the public and the scientific communities have associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, such as enforced racial hygiene, human experimentation, and the extermination of "undesired" population groups. However, developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies at the end of the 20th century have raised many new questions and concerns about what exactly constitutes the meaning of eugenics and what its ethical and moral status is in the modern era.

Many European governments, this last century, have jeopardized their populations’ social and cultural integrity, primarily to keep themselves, as individual politicians, in power. To do this they mis-used propaganda, abused legislation and suppressed free-speech on vast numbers of people, far exceeded those numbers controlled by the Nazi government.

Now realizing the magnitude and irreversibility of their catastrophic errors these politicians are trying to find a salvation in ways that have all the stains of blind ineptitude driven by panic, fear and, mainly, cowardice.

See also:
The Exquisite Cultivar
http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/04/exquisite-cultivar.html

Experimenting on Humans.
http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/02/experimentation-on-humans.html

The Spirit Level.
http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2011/01/book-review-spirit-level-richard.html

August Pointneuf

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.

__________________