Eugenics, Socialism & Migrations
This afternoon, I found the following reply to one of my posts:
"Abortion is good, we need much more of it. it's not "just a religion" it's an insane Judeo-Christian ideology and it should be illegal."
My reply turned into a huge essay, but this statement raised essential issues:
Abortion and its ideological roots and social consequences, addressed in this section
Judeo-Christian culture as foundation of western civilization, addressed in a follow-up essay
Bear with me - I tried to put my thoughts into words. If I had more time, I might be able to make it shorter.
Socialism needs Eugenics
There are 2 aspects to abortion - the individual level where women use it as last-ditch tool to escape from a bad situation that they think will be made worse by a baby and the ideological attitude towards abortion. These two completely different aspects get totally mixed up in the debate.
When a woman got raped, I think it should abortion should be automatic and immediate, if not outright mandatory - rapists should not be allowed to reproduce. Women many still make bad choices about whom they want as sexual partner, but it should be their choice, not be forced on them.
When a woman is desperate about her situation, she should consult with the father, get counselling and see if she can get help. She should weigh all the aspects of an abortion and if she's willing to kill what might be a wonderful, adorable child, but if she decides to have an abortion, it should be within the first few weeks.
There are strong biological as well as ethical reasons to oppose abortions after the 3rd month, as extreme limit. I still can't believe that in the US, the murder of a viable child is now being treated as "abortion". That's simply barbaric!
Once you have a child of your own, you associate those ultrasound images from when it was still in the mother's womb with the person they grow up to be and you realize that abortion kills an individual, not a "clump of cells".
I highly recommend the book "How new humans are made" - extremely insightful and eye-opening about the entire process, which is complex and fragile. Only about 1% of all fertilized eggs ever make it into the first stage of embryonic development, so 99% of all pregnancies are naturally "aborted" before they even begin, a fact that is not widely known.
Abortion as a tool of Eugenics
Those who support abortion - ideologically, not as last ditch solution to an individual situation - mostly think of abortion of other people's children. Of people they don't like. Or they hate humanity in general, including themselves, and think that we should all be terminated - that would be the "Earth First" fascist crowd. Unfortunately, they don't seem all too eager to commit suicide...
The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, hated Jews and black people. They were finally forced to publicly disavow her, as the NYT reported, after being endlessly praised by famous Democrats such as Hillary Clinton:
"Planned Parenthood in N.Y. Disavows Margaret Sanger Over Eugenics"
Bill Gates' parents were heavily involved with Planned Parenthood as strong supporters of Eugenics, just like Bill himself.
For some more background on Margaret Sanger and her ideology, you should read this article here:
13 Things You Probably Don’t Know About Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger
Eugenics is an ideology that assumes that one can selectively "breed" humans or that humanity should be restricted to a certain number of chosen ones. It was always promoted by the Left, despite all their claims about wanting to help the poor and professed anti-racism.
Franklin D. Roosevelt was a huge supporter of Eugenics. He also nominated supreme court judge who had been a KKK member, as documented by this Smithsonian article here:
This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member
His wife, Eleanor Roosevelt, was an avowed Marxist, a huge fan of Stalin, whom she called "Uncle Joe" - yes, the genocidal psychopath who was directly responsible for the death of 62 million citizens of the USSR:
Prof. R.J. Rummel, University of Hawaii, on Soviet Genocide
She was also a supporter of Margaret Sanger:
All the American medical associations supported Eugenics, too, which should make it abundantly clear that one cannot trust government agencies and institutions to adhere to high ethical standards or to be truthful.
Eugenics became a bit less popular after people discovered how the Nazis (National Socialists!) used it.
Why do leftists support Eugenics? Because their ideology calls for the financial support of the poor. Which also means that they create the opportunity and incentive for poor people to have lots of children. Before socialism spread, poor people did NOT have a lot of children, as they could not afford them! It was the rich, successful people who had the most children.
Socialist ideologues were quite explicit about their genocidal views. George Bernard Shaw actually said that government would have to regularly evaluate every citizen to see if they were useful to society and if not, to provide them with a "painless death", such as "gassing them". That's just a very late term abortion, right? Apparently also the inspiration for the Nazis...
George Bernard Shaw Was so Enamored with Socialism He Advocated Genocide to Advance It
The Chinese communists introduced the one-child policy, which turned into an absolute disaster for the country, while imposing immense hardship on their people with forced abortions etc. Now they desperately try to back-pedal as the country is rapidly turning into a gigantic geriatric institution.
Natural selection vs Eugenics
Humanity never managed to free itself from natural selection. It is obvious that without a very strong interference from institutions that can become pathological, such as governments, selection will definitely favor those best adapted for reproduction. Not "the strongest". Numerous factors can make someone more or less adapted to produce offspring that will be successful in a specific environment.
In a barbaric, violent world, physical strength might be best, but in a highly developed society, the ability to fit in with the majority and to avoid conflicts will be much better.
As example, think of Jews in Eastern Europe. They were oppressed and poor, relegated to ghettos, not for any fault of their own, but because they were legally not allowed to exercise most professions. Banking was an exception - it was open to them, as Christians were against charging interests. So Christians practically forced Jews into the banking profession and then complained about "evil Jewish bankers".
What was the main criterion for being a successful banker? The ability to do math - remember, they didn't have computers. In other words, successful bankers needed a very high IQ. In Eastern Europe, successful Jewish bankers had lots of children - typically 12 to 20 per family and they intermarried almost exclusively with other Jewish people from the same socio-economic background, so genes associated with a high IQ spread like wildfire through the European Jewish community - the Ashkenazim.
Within 500 years, the selection was so intense that they ended up producing an extraordinary number of geniuses - 0.1% of the world population, 20% of all scientific Nobel Prizes, 15% of all Fields medals for math, a gigantic list of composers, writers, artists, entrepreneurs etc. The greatest contributors to western culture. Clearly, natural selection does work.
Eugenics? Not so much. Eugenicists are not exactly the kind of people who should be trusted with the power to decide who should reproduce. As they don't understand what they are doing, they will always cause unintended consequences.
Who wants Bill Gates to tell them that they should not have kids? If you don't want to be told, why would anyone else want it?
It's morally evil and always creates harmful effects.
Just look at the statistics for black families in the US until the 1950 (Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams provide extensive data): they actually had a very high rate of intact families and crime rates in predominantly black areas were lower than for predominantly white areas. These vintage photos show that black women had high standards - no "wet a** p*ssy" clowns:
Stunning Vintage Photos Show The Beauty Of African-American Women From Between 1920s And 1940s
It was the socialism of the 1960s that caused the destruction of the black - then white - families and all the negative consequences of children growing up with single mothers:
When leftists first complained about the evil of teenage mothers and how government should urgently intervene to help them, there were about 10'000 teenage births per year. After the federal government created special programs to assist them with free housing, free healthcare and financial support, the number jumped to 1 million per year!
Given the disaster caused by leftist policies which financially encourage young women to have children and to intentionally refuse to name the father, it is easy to call for the abortion of those psychologically damaged individuals they raised. It might be better to start by removing the harmful incentives.
Abortion - individual harm
Abortions are extremely damaging to women who have them, physically and psychologically. The later into the pregnancy, the worse.
Feminists who think that abortion is a replacement for pregnancy prevention and somehow "liberating" can defend it all they want - an abortion should always remain a extreme measure, to be avoided where possible, definitely never to be celebrated.
In the USSR, where they often lacked alternatives, abortions were used as birth control method. Most women had 2 - 3 abortions by the age of 22 and those conditions persisted for quite a while after the fall of the USSR. When these women finally want to have children, they generally are unable to - their reproductive system has been damaged too severely.
One of my old friends from Ukraine underwent years of very expensive and difficult fertility treatments (her husband is rich) to have a child after 36, which was her greatest wish, but the treatments failed.
Abortion to "prevent over-population"
Western civilizations already have massively falling birthrates - most populations don't replace themselves. Take Italy - they currently barely have 1 child per woman, so they will be shrinking by 50% every generation. If Italians don't start having more children, they will practically cease to exist within 2 generations.
Seeing them being replaced with "migrants" - the official UN plan - is not exactly an appealing future:
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/ageing/replacement-migration.asp
I know Italy, it's one of my favorite countries. The people are friendly, spontaneous, fun and creative. My best friend at high school was the son of an Italian immigrant family. He was also one of the smartest people I ever got to know. Italy is a beautiful country with a colossal number of cultural treasures.
The migrants I see throughout Europe are not going to take over and maintain Italy as it is. They import their own failed cultures to Europe and seem bent on destroying European culture, quite intentionally.
Not all, obviously - there are always good people from any corner of the world and from every culture. Good people leave failed countries because they want to gain freedom and earn a higher income. Western countries offer this opportunity.
Ayan Hirsi Ali is a good illustration - she was totally in awe when she discovered how safe Europeans feel in public places and that buses run on time. Such immigrants love their adopted country and are horrified to see how mass immigration turns western countries into that which they tried to escape from.
It's the same with blacks in the US who leave the ghetto culture and then find that Democrats want to bring ghetto people to their middle- or upper-class areas that they fought so hard to reach.
One of my friends, Aquila, wrote a book about her life as Muslim woman in Algeria, from her birth until she managed to escape to France when she was 32: "Pour un monde sans Islam" (For a world without Islam). She fled Europe with her French husband before it was published, as she knew that they would come for her.
Europeans and Americans need to make more kids if they want to maintain and defend modern western civilization, which is unquestionably the best that ever existed.
Serious population growth is limited to some countries in Africa - they increase their populations by up to 80 million every year. That means that just their population growth over 10 years exceeds the total number of white people in the entire world. Roy Beck, a journalist, did a fantastic presentation to explain worldwide demographics and migrations, which he illustrated with gumballs:
https://rumble.com/vl81a4-world-poverty-immigration-and-gumballs-roy-beck.html
You will also find his work on this web site:
Allowing or even encouraging mass migrations from 3rd world countries actually encourage those 3rd world populations to maintain their high birth rates, as they do not pay the price - they would just off-load a part of their excess births to the west and then collect a share of their social security benefits as transfer payments. This is not sustainable.
Even a yearly immigration of "just" 15 million people per year into Europe, the US and Australia (not even 1/5th of their annual growth) would totally destroy our economies. The migrants would just find themselves in the same or worse poverty than in their original home countries.
Here is an illustration of what happened to Paris, France:
No, the migrants will never maintain western civilization - in Europe, 80-90% of the 3rd world migrants live entirely on social security, which is awarded very generously, although they also commit huge numbers of violent and property crimes. There are Muslim families in Europe that have 2 to 4 wives and 15 or more children, which is honored with incredibly generous financial support.
Instead of trying to find ways to integrate them, the left demands that western standards in education should be lowered to "not be racist", e.g. the German "Green" (Marxist) party - they used the picture of a black girl as a "victim of oppression" to demand that all those hard math courses should no longer be mandatory:
Oxford University declared that they will "decolonize" math and sciences - again, lowering the standards:
This mass immigration disaster is a consequence of the low birth rates and the high abortion rates in western countries.
Conclusion
Abortion does not work as tool to limit population growth - we don't even need to limit our populations, in western countries, we have to maintain them. Offering abortions as alternative for other birth control methods has had immensely negative consequences, as did socialist attempts to "help" the poor - they just encouraged poor people to have more children, who will in turn be unproductive adults, as they do not have to work for their income. The socialist incentives might encourage poor people to have 5x more children, while abortion will remove 20% of that artificially inflated birthrate.
One would have to descend to a Bill Gates level of evil and attempt to limit population growth in Africa against the people's will, while continuing to give them the impression that they can off-load their added population onto western countries by inviting their migrants.
It would be far better to let them deal with the consequences of their own choices by cancelling ALL development aid and ALL 3rd world immigration to western countries, except for select individuals. I'm sure that given the proper incentives, they will find solutions themselves.
Footnotes
Banking
Without bankers, western civilization could never have developed as it did, as industry requires lots of capital. Swiss banks started developing after 1860, when some core industries (food, textiles, tunneling machines, energy production etc.) had generated lots of capital and needed banks to efficiently invest their capital into other activities. In 1800, Switzerland was still quite poor, as mostly agrarian, but it had reached the highest per capita GDP in Europe by 1875. After their creation, banks heavily contributed to an accelerated growth and became internationally known during WWI.
Apart from the Swiss and Jews, Scottish private bankers were also very successful until their banking system based on trust and mutual support was destroyed by the creation of the British central bank.
Genetic IQ link
Ashkenazim Jews suffer from a specific genetic illnesses that is extremely rare and that directly affects the brain at about 1000x the general population rate, as a New York neurologist found. That's more strong evidence for a high IQ-genetic link.