“I’d say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps.”
– Planned Parenthood Federation Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola
During the 1930s as Rockefeller funding was supporting research into molecular biology for new ways to implement social control, another pseudo-scientific outfit sprang up from the mind of one Margaret Sanger. Ms. Sanger favoured “The elimination of ‘human weeds,’ for the ‘cessation of charity’ because it prolonged the lives of the unfit, for the segregation of ‘morons, misfits, and the maladjusted,’ and for the sterilization of genetically inferior races.’” And this gentle parent’s views were to be the inspiration for “Planned Parenthood.” [1]
Sanger founded the American Birth Control League in 1921, which in 1942, became part of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America formerly created ten years later in 1952 at a conference in Bombay, India. She is widely regarded as the founder of the modern birth control movement and a tireless activist for women’s rights, helping to put a stop to the practice of back-alley abortions that claimed so many lives.
Her drive to promote birth control was perhaps due in part, to her mother who suffered greatly in her 18 pregnancies and later died of tuberculosis. However, despite Sanger’s obvious positive intentions she was for all intents and purposes a full-blown authoritarian who was a big fan of the Nazis. She also had a strange blend of occult/theosophical and collectivist beliefs which led her to harbour increasingly extremist views, where the extermination of those she deemed less pure than her Caucasian, white, spiritually advanced self was eminently acceptable. Her engineering of the human race to a spiritual and genetic perfection was merely another form of Social Darwinism with a feminist bent. She felt the reason for the spiritual and biological demise of her brethren was due to contamination by “unfit” genes and as such, her mission was to rid the world of such undesirables.
In the 1930’s, while Sanger praised Adolf Hitler’s Racial purity program and the Aryan dream of a snow-white New World Order, she commissioned the aforementioned Nazi eugenicist Ernst Rudin to be an advisory member of her organization. Nine years later Sanger began work on saving the world from the copulating practices of the black man whom she believed to be an “inferior race.” The “Negro project,” was a program designed to vastly reduce or indoctrinate under the pretext of religious instruction.
She declared:
“The masses of Negroes … particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit …” […]
“The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the Minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” ” [2]
And from her biography:
“The eugenists wanted to shift the birth control emphasis from less children for the poor to more children for the rich. We went back of that and sought first to stop the multiplication of the unfit. This appeared the most important and greatest step towards race betterment.” Quite simply, in Sanger’s view quoted in Birth Control Review, December 1920: “Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.” And in summarising an address to New History Society, in April 1932, the object for the Population Congress would be: “… to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.” ” [3]
Some choice.
In a 1985, Planned Parenthood annual report board members claimed that they were: “Proud of our past, and planning for our future.” [4]
Margaret Sanger
The eugenic imperative lent further energy to the World State in waiting and the intelligentsia ran around doing what they could to create networks of grand visionaries that would carry the flame into the future. Collectivism and the New Social Order lay on the foundations of gradualism, after all. They knew that persons would have to be carefully selected through the generations so that organisations would adhere to the original plan. Margaret Sanger had joined the Socialist Party and was eventually well connected with the Fabian Elite including: H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Arnold Bennett, Arbuthnot Lane, and Norman Haire. It was through these “relationships” that she was able to finally meet Havelock Ellis, author of the Psychology of Sex and with whom she had an affair.
In 1922 she wrote the book The Pivot of Civilization in which she laid bare her love of Malthusian and eugenic principles. In 1925, she was in full spate and penned a rant that would have given Pol Pot a run for his money, stating: “We can all vote, even the mentally arrested. And so it is no surprise to find that the moron’s vote is as good as the vote of the genius. The outlook is not a cheerful one.” She continued her rant claiming: “The dullard, the gawk, the numbskull, the simpleton, the weakling, and the scatterbrain are amongst us in overshadowing numbers–intermarrying, breeding, inordinately prolific, literally threatening to overwhelm the world with their useless and terrifying get.” [5] Let’s keep in mind that Frederick Jaffe the head of Planned Parenthood research in 1969 floated several proposals in a memo which seemed to continue the above sentiments which included “compulsory sterilization for those who have already had two children” as well as “compulsory abortion for out-of-wedlock pregnancies,” federal entitlement “payments to encourage abortion,” and “tax penalties” for existing large families. [6]
With friends like Fred who needs families?
According to the Planned Parenthood Federation website at http://www.plannedparenthood.org today, Margaret Sanger’s reasons for building her birth control empire have been airbrushed away. She was: “… one of the movement’s great heroes,” where her: “… early efforts remain the hallmark of Planned Parenthood’s mission: providing contraception and other health services to women and men; funding research on birth control and educating specialists and the public about the results; advancing access to family planning in the United States and around the world.”
But is this advice based on good science or ideology?
Planned Parenthood (PP) as the largest provider and promoter of abortion and “… the largest provider of sex education in America,” has expanded from its humble beginnings into a multi-billion-dollar international conglomerate with centres in 50 states; national headquarters in New York, a legislative centre in Washington and programs and activities in 134 nations on every continent. [7]They have over 922 clinics in almost every major metropolitan area in the United States while their international centres can be found in London, Nairobi, Bangkok, and New Dehli. [8]
PP lobbies for abortions within the second trimester and associate resistance to this policy from pro-life extremists who wish to be rid of all abortions: “… abortion after the first trimester remains a necessary option for some women. Unfortunately, anti-choice zealots seek to limit access to abortion through, among other means, laws imposing a fixed date for fetal viability and bans that would outlaw safe, medically appropriate abortions in the second trimester. The hidden agenda of these zealots is to make all abortions illegal.” [9]
Just as the answer does not lie with anti-abortionists, it does beg the question whether PP are also there for humanitarian reasons given its history. In her book Woman and the New Race, Sanger observed: “The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it,” and we can see by the slick marketing and multi-million dollar yearly profits nothing much has changed except the lure of the dollar sign. [10]From 2000 – 2010 there was a steady rise in the number of abortions PP undertook increasing from 197,070 to 329,445 by the end of the decade with the dispensing of 131,638 to 1,461,816 Morning After pills. [11]Planned Parenthood Federation of America classified as a non-profit organisation revealed in its 2008 report that income generated from their yearly abortion drives netted a total income of $1.02 billion—with reported profits of nearly $115 million. Taxpayers pay for around $336 million worth of government grants and contracts at both the state and federal levels. That is a sizable chunk of Planned Parenthood’s projected profits. [12]
Upon visiting their websites today, it’s almost as if the subject of abortion is celebrated. Email alerts! Get Involved! Job opportunities! Providing access to reproductive health care so that women they can “control their bodies and their futures.”
Or rather than appealing to a feminist perception of emancipation, is it that those behind Planned Parenthood can control their bodies and their futures?
Rather than eugenics, depopulation and enforced abortion being a thing of the past perhaps it has been pushed under the carpet of highly paid advertising campaigns, pretty colours and a whole lot of profit. Women must have the freedom to do as they will with their own bodies, yet when this support becomes a corporation with cash as the bottom line and eugenics at its historical roots, more questions need to be asked.
As to whether Planned Parenthood are fulfilling a useful role in today’s world based on a natural evolution of society then we would have to say “no” because society has been wholly manipulated by the very same people who have set up these institutions. Is it habituation to abortion and so-called sexual liberation or merely the right to choose? The question is not that it does not offer women more “reproductive choice” but for what is the core reason such education is being promoted? What does such an international ideal serve? If you want to make a population less loving, more sexualised and narcissistic and thus more malleable, the gross result may be more babies in the short term but with large-scale abortion clinics on standby as branches of a larger corporatist ethos who will they look to for further inspiration?
All roads lead to the Rockefeller ideal of China as the Pathocratic template of the future.
Alan Guttmacher, who took on a ten year presidency of PP provides an example of this ubiquitous China-think. He stated: “Each country will have to decide its own form of coercion, determining when and how it should be employed,” reminding us that: “… the means presently available are compulsory sterilization and abortion.” He then enlightened an already open-mouthed journalist that this Planned Parenthood’s values of compassion, love, health and women’s rights may have to be jettisoned for coercion and force that might be especially needed “… in areas where the pressure is the greatest, possibly in India and China.” [13]
In 1984, PP had written in support of China’s brutal one-child per couple policy, where sterilisation and forced abortions are mandatory [14] and were quite excited about such a possibility arriving in the United States (keer-ching! $$$$) which is why they battled to restore U.S. funding to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) which had already committed $100 million to this Chinese program. [15] Twenty-six years later we hear from another ex-Planned Parenthood director Norman Fleishman writing to President Obama about the recent decision to force insurance companies to cover birth control and drugs that can cause abortion: “Unless we act (this legislation, along with China’s “one child” policy, is a start), the world is doomed to strangle among coils of pitiless exponential growth.” [16]
Now it seems, Planned Parenthood has come out fighting and is actively against this line – at least on their website. We can now read: “Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) opposes coercive and inhumane reproductive policies and practices, including China’s one-child policy and the illegal practices of forced abortion and coerce birth control reported in some localities. We believe in reproductive self-determination and we advocate for public policies that guarantee these rights and ensure access to safe and legal services.” [17]
Whether this is just good PR and represents more than just indignant-soon-to-be-leaving directors of PP remains to be seen. But large-scale profits from equally large-scale abortion will doubtless continue. However, if you want to see the truly abhorrent face of Planned Parenthood then we need look no further than the recent secret recording of Planned Parenthood Federation Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, discussing the side business in fetal parts. Let’s include a few choice quotes from the video:
“I’d say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps.
“The kind of rate-limiting step of the procedure is calvarium. Calvarium—the head—is basically the biggest part. …
“We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact. And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it’s not vertex. …
“So if you do it starting from the breech presentation, there’s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last step, you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end.” [18]
Mirroring illegal partial-birth abortions and taking full advantage of their equally partial government funding there speaks the voice of greed and science conjoined. You don’t need any more obvious evidence to abort babies for profit. As the Free thought project reports:
According to 42 U.S. Code § 289g–2:
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.
The legal issues were seemingly addressed during the conversation when Nucatola says, “At the national office, we have a Litigation and Law Department which just really doesn’t want us to be the middle people for this issue right now.”
Lila Rose, Live Action President responded to the disturbing video:
This investigation by the Center for Medical Progress reveals the unimaginable horror that is Planned Parenthood. The exploitation of human life, the cover-up, and the black market profiteering by America’s largest abortion chain is not only egregious and heartbreaking, but exposes how the abortion giant is corrupt to the core
— from the CEO, Cecile Richards, down to the local clinic. [19]
Watch the video HERE.
***
What is certain, China’s one-child policy has been a disaster for women with the equivalent of the entire female population of the United States missing. According to Mara Hvistendahl’s book Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men she places the source of the problem squarely on the one-child policy which has its roots in the population control advocacy in the West. It has exponentially increased the number of men and turned the remaining women into commodities, adding to the already significant increase in global sex-trafficking. Not only that but: “Between 1992 and 2004 China’s crime rate nearly doubled. In India from 2003 to 2007 rape cases surged over 30 percent and abductions by over 50 percent prompting the government to unveil female-only trains.” [20]The conclusion is that while China’s population police themselves in this regard, as Hvistendahl reminds us: “In a world in which women are unnaturally scarce, the right to abort will be the least of our worries.” [21] Thankfully, this led China to rethink its policy in 2009 with Shanghai as the template for a two child policy. The Telegraph reported: “Experts predicted earlier this week that there will be zero growth in China’s population of 1.3 billion people by 2030.” [22]
The one child policy was so appealing to Western elites due to the similar short-sighted and misplaced view of how nature operates which is non-linear, self-organising and adaptive. Which is why a recent study commissioned by the BBC in September 2012 discovered that: “… China’s fertility would have declined at a similar rate without the one-child policy and would continue to decline even if the policy was discarded.” [23]
How did the one-child policy affect population levels? | “Ageing China: Changes and challenges”
One of the key proposals in this post for the reader to consider is that the institutions and well-known organisations of today – though inhabited by honest, sincere and selfless individuals – are nonetheless steered by ideologies and strategies (and market-led greed) from the top which have not changed for many decades. While social engineering carries on at one level, another tier maybe involved in the imposition of a world philosophy and culture that ostensibly seems a wonderful thing. An example of this can be found from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).
Evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley, elder brother of author Aldous Huxley was a giant in the humanist and eugenics movements. He held several important posts including the Secretary of the Zoological Society of London (1935-42), first president of the British Humanist Association (1963), Vice-President (1937-44) and President of the British Eugenics Society (1959-62). He was also co-founder of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Huxley was also the recipient of several awards aligned to his areas of interest including UNESCO’s Kalinga Prize (1953) (as did Bertrand Russell); the Darwin Medal of the Royal Society (1956), and the Special Award of the Lasker Foundation in the category Planned Parenthood – World Population (1959).
As the first director of the organisation Sir Julian Sorell Huxley wrote a paper entitled “UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy” published in 1946. In the paper he shared his vision for the future of the international organisation and what he hoped it would achieve. Huxley believed its philosophy should be “… based on a scientific world humanism, global in extent and evolutionary in background” or a grand design of World Evolutionary Humanism.
From ‘UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy’ he states:
It is essential for Unesco to adopt an evolutionary approach. If it does not do so, its philosophy will be a false one, its humanism at best partial, at worst misleading…. in the last few decades it has been possible to develop an extended or general theory of evolution which can provide the necessary intellectual scaffolding for modern humanism. It not only shows us man’s place in nature and his relations to the rest of the phenomenal universe, not only gives us a description of the various types of evolution and the various trends and directions within them, but allows us to distinguish desirable and undesirable trends […]
Objectively speaking, the new method consists of cumulative tradition, which forms the basis of that social heredity by means of which human societies change and develop. But the new method also has a subjective aspect of great importance. Cumulative tradition, like all other distinctively human activities, is largely based on conscious processes – on knowledge, on purpose, on conscious feeling, and on conscious choice. Thus the struggle for existence that underlies natural selection is increasingly replaced by conscious selection, a struggle between ideas and values in consciousness.
Evolution in the human sector consists mainly of changes in the form of society; in tools and machines, in new ways of utilising the old innate potentialities, instead of in the nature of these potentialities, as in the biological sector. […] Nor does it mean that man’s innate mental powers could not be improved. They certainly were improved (presumably be [sic] natural selection) in the earliest stages of his career, […] and they could certainly be improved further by deliberate eugenic measures, if we consciously set ourselves to improve them. Meanwhile, however, it is in social organisation, in machines, and in ideas that human evolution is mostly made manifest.” [24] [Emphasis mine]
So, an almost word for word reiteration of Bertrand Russell’s “scientific dictatorship” was also being developed by Huxley where it is assumed that natural selection, a social struggle and the eugenic improvement of humans are part of UNESCO’s mission. They also happen to be key words in both collectivist, humanist and atheist thinking where human beings are not only devoid of the consciousness as he mentions but must be developed along the lines of a faulty machine.
Sir Julian Sorrell Huxley
It is the arrogant imposition of dogma within a soon to be highly influential institution that belies a certain confidence that he is surrounded by those who think the same. And for an educational, scientific and cultural organisation to be founded on eugenics to then speak of equality and emancipation … This goes only so far before doubts set in as to the authenticity of its participants but not the artfulness of its propaganda. Yet he qualifies his exuberant idealism: “… with equality of opportunity [which] must be amended to read ‘equality of opportunity within the limits of aptitude.’ Which means opportunity – but only for those who come up to scratch.
He further informs us:
“… it seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability, and disease-proneness, which already exist in the human species, will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved. Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for Unesco to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” [25]
As with most of these people, they know that most normal individuals see the manipulation of the human psychology and physiology based on class and race superiority as naturally abhorrent, so Huxley is really saying that acceptance of radical eugenics policies is not yet possible so let’s introduce it along the lines of gradualism so that “greatest care” may furnish the “unthinkable.”
What is radical eugenics if it is not coercive altering of the human mind and body under certain Elitist beliefs?
To promote what Huxley calls an “adjustment” to these eugenic ideals, he calls for “a great deal of education of the general public” resting upon the fallacy that evolutionary biology is the only means by which we can measure the progress of humanity, or as he states: “…judging the rightness or wrongness of our aims and activities.” For this peculiar brand of reductive determinism to play out, according to Huxley there should be an extension of: “… personal ethical judgements and responsibilities to many collective and apparently impersonal actions” and further “… to undertake a considerable socialisation of ethics.”
What the director is advocating is an ethics of the “scientific technique” whereby rights of the individual are submerged into a World Evolutionary State of Government. Progress for Huxley is a narrow pathway indeed:
… the more united man’s tradition becomes, the more rapid will be the possibility of progress: several separate or competing or even mutually hostile pools of tradition cannot possibly be so efficient as a single pool common to all mankind. And secondly, that the best and only certain way of securing this will be through political unification. As history shows, unifying ideas can exert an effect across national boundaries. But, as history makes equally evident, that effect is a partial one and never wholly offsets the opportunities for conflict provided by the existence of separate sovereign political units.
The moral for UNESCO is clear. The task laid upon it of promoting peace and security can never be wholly realised through the means assigned to it – education, science and culture. It must envisage some form of world political unity, whether through a single world government or otherwise, as the only certain means for avoiding war. However, world political unity is, unfortunately, a remote ideal, and in any case does not fall within the field of UNESCO’s competence. This does not mean that UNESCO cannot do a great deal towards promoting peace and security. Specifically, in its educational programme it can stress the ultimate need for world political unity and familiarise all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organization. But, more generally, it can do a great deal to lay the foundations on which world political unity can later be built. [26]
By using the biological metaphor of a the struggling human gene “pool,” Huxley introduces the real “moral” task of UNESCO which is not the promotion of education, culture and science but the engineering of collectivist dogma which requires the dissolution of sovereign states for a (humanist) world government. The avoidance of war is the caveat that is wheeled in for justification for such a program, but it remains disingenuous as it is ignorant.
Obviously wishing to get all the juicy morsels of propaganda into the paper for posterity, Huxley believes that such “unification in the things of the mind is not only also necessary but can pave the way for other types of unification.” A global religion, global army, global economy and global government will finally lead to “full world unity” but not until that pesky global mind has been unified no doubt under the arch-deacons of the “scientific technique” and their instruments of coercion. For Huxley, the administering of education is merely another tool to facilitate that end by “improving the technique of education…” and to “…help in the speedy and satisfactory realisation of this process,” with “… special attention to international education – to education as a function of a world society.” [27] In order to make sure that the uneducated and developing nations are fully indoctrinated into an homogenised slush upon wish the World State will float; a fundamental education must evolve that has been paired down enough for the inclusion of a “common scale of values.” And on what basis might those be formed? Huxley has the answer: “One other item which Unesco should put on its programme as soon as possible is the study of the application of psycho-analysis and other schools of “deep” psychology to education. […] This would mean an extension of education backwards from the nursery school to the nursery itself.”
It was only a matter of time before the fusion of the scientific technique, Freud and the discredited psychoanalysis popped up as it usually usually does at some point in Elite initiatives, so why not as the education fundamentals of UNESCO?
Julian Huxley’s position as chairman of the Eugenics society (1959-62) comes through vividly in his recommendations for the use of media and public relations as tools of propaganda and a “mass creed” for the greater good. He even manages a little doffing of the hat to Lenin:
“Taking the techniques of persuasion and information and true propaganda that we have learnt to apply nationally in war, and deliberately bending them to the international tasks of peace, if necessary utilising them, as Lenin envisaged, to ‘overcome the resistance of millions’ to desirable change. Using drama to reveal reality and art as the method by which, in Sir Stephen Tallent’s words, ‘truth becomes impressive and living principle of action,’ and aiming to produce that concerted effort which … needs a background of faith and a sense of destiny. This must be a mass philosophy, a mass creed, and it can never be achieved without the use of the media of mass communication. Unesco, in the press of its detailed work, must never forget this enormous fact.” [Emphasis mine]
And what is this “mass creed”? World evolutionary Darwinism twined with a World State. The actual inspiration for Huxley’s turn of phrase was probably inspired by the work of Charles Galton Darwin ex-eugenics society president who wrote about the importance of “creeds” in shaping human perceptions in his book The Next Million Years (1952):
The detailed march of history will depend a great deal on the creeds held by the various branches of the human race. It cannot be presumed with any confidence that purely superstitious creeds will always be rejected by civilized communities, in view of the extraordinary credulity shown even now by many reputedly educated people. It is true that there may not be many at the present time, whose actions are guided by an inspection of the entrails of a sacrificial bull, but the progress has not been very great, for there are still many believers in palmistry and astrology. It is to be expected then that in the future, as in the past, there will be superstitions which will notably affect the course of history, and some of them, such as ancestor-worship, will have direct effects on the development of the human species. But superstitious creeds will hardly be held by the highly intelligent, and it is precisely the creed of these that matters. Is it possible that there should arise a eugenic creed, which – perhaps working through what I have called the method of unconscious selection – should concern itself with the improvement of the inherent nature of man, instead of resting content with merely giving him good but impermanent acquired characters? [28] [Emphasis mine]
The UNESCO humanism and eugenics perception of the mind and body has now morphed into futurism, care of the transhumanists a large proportion of whom carry the same ideological torch.
Ethical constraints are vital as advances in human genetics advance towards an obvious array of medical benefits and when the direction and ideology is still firmly in the grip of Wall St. and the same “philanthropic” families. Edwin Black makes the important point that a “‘newgenics’ has risen again to persecute and discriminate on the basis of blood ancestry. Insurance companies, employers and others want to exclude those deemed to be insurance risks and even socially unacceptable and legislators complain that this will create a new ‘genetic ghetto.’” [29]
There are plenty of individuals that believe they are Gods in the making and have the right to tinker with the human genome in order to enhance humanity’s genetic profile and eradicate “imperfections.” The film Welcome to Gatacca was a thought-provoking study of the long-term future of eugenics that slipped towards a definitely dystopic scenario. There is no doubt that we are already easing down a slippery slope of eugenics care of technocratic science. Designer babies are not a pipe-dream. Some clinics are already offering the chance to alter the genes of your future child.
Professor Julian Savulescu of Oxford University and editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, sees the genetic engineering of “ethical” babies as a moral obligation and genetically screening our offspring to make them better people is just “responsible parenting.” Screening in and screening out certain genes begins the process of designing our babies and our future societies. If we are considering the psychopath as the primary cause of the ills of our societies is it not logical that we should eradicate the possibility of psychopaths even entering the world? Savulescu, like so many other academics considers such a move in strictly altruistic terms in that “rational design” will deliver more intelligent and less violent people for the future. He believes it is just a natural extension of the process which presently screens for conditions such as cystic fibrosis, Down’s syndrome and various forms of cancer.
He explains his view with persuasive logic:
“Surely trying to ensure that your children have the best, or a good enough, opportunity for a great life is responsible parenting? … So where genetic selection aims to bring out a trait that clearly benefits an individual and society, we should allow parents the choice. To do otherwise is to consign those who come after us to the ball and chain of our squeamishness and irrationality.
Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children.” [30]
Unlike the forced system of eugenics, the professor believes the system he envisages would be voluntary and allow parents to choose the characteristics of their children. “Whether we like it or not, the future of humanity is in our hands now. Rather than fearing genetics, we should embrace it. We can do better than chance.”
Is it not correct that the influences of the psychopath and the almost unimaginable havoc they create on this earth, means that we should make sure that if there is a screening process then it must be implemented for the psychopath genes alone? After all, these people are like cancer cells within the host of an organism and death is the only result. Is it not our duty to turn the corner and release us all from the burden of history?
There are many problems with this line of reasoning. Firstly, even though idea of exclusively criminal genes has rightly been consigned to the bin, the notion that there may be heritable genes determining psychopathy has proved more convincing, not least least through the advances in epigenetics. [31] We are still at an early stage in finding cast iron proof however, due to a number of complex factors. The implications of the genetic component to psychopathy are vital to work through but there is still considerable disagreement between psychologists as to how to approach this problem. It is also true that genes alone do not determine behaviour in normal individuals, yet in the psychopath the genetic component may be the defining factor. However, surrounding the notion of genetic tinkering of the human genome, where do we draw the line? Discrimination on the basis of physical traits will also follow the already well-defined divide between wealthy families and their offspring who receive genetic enhancement, inevitably leading to a new breed of genetically enhanced humans or “Post Humans” as the transhumanists prefer; a form of genetic aristocracy that will have implications in terms of unfair advantage and gender bias that would descend upon almost every field of human endeavour. This unfair advantage already exists but it would be taken to a whole new level that would likely form a breakaway civilisation – if it hasn’t happened already.
The point to remember here is that while we are still inside the world of the psychopath, the chances of achieving an equitable and ethical balance of voluntary and informed choices remains slim. Knowledge of the science of psychopathy needs to become water-tight so that there can be no question of just how powerfully invasive their presence is in the world today. Once we have this widespread understanding decisions as to how we screen and insulate society against the psychopath will take on new and more creative solutions. Meantime, eugenics in the hands of conscience-less individuals represents a very real threat for any hope of equality in the life of the human race. Indeed, it is probable that we have been living under such a nightmare scenario for sometime, where the screening out of normal people in favour of psychopathic dominance has advanced to a considerable degree.
Notes
[1] Killer Angel: A Short Biography of Planned Parenthood’s Founder, Margaret Sanger By George Grant, Cumberland House Publishing; Revised edition, 2001 | ISBN-10: 1581821506
[2] Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon.
[3] pp. 374-375; Chapter 30, Now Is the Time for Converse
[4] Planned Parenthood of Houston, Annual Report, 1985.
[5] Margaret Sanger, International Aspects of Birth Control: The International Neo-Malthusian and Birth Control Conference (New York: American Birth Control League, 1925).
[6] Examples of proposed Measures to Reduce U.S. Fertility, a Planned Parenthood memo written by Frederick Jaffe (Planned Parenthood head of research), 1969.
[7] http://www.plannedparenthood.org
[8] http://www.plannedparenthood.org annual report 2010.
[9] Planned Parenthood Federation of American, Abortions Facts, Abortion After the First Trimester in the United States | http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/fact_abortion_1st_tri_2010-09.pdf.
[10] Women and the New Race by Margaret Sanger
[11] Planned Parenthood annual report 2008 http://www.lifeissues.org
[12] Ibid.
[13] 6. Richard D. Glasow, Ph.D., Ideology Compels Fervid PPFA Abortion Advocacy, National Right to Life News (March 28, 1985), p. 5.
[14] The Wall Street Journal, December 19, 1984 cited in Chapter 64: of Planned Parenthood: The World ‘s Premier Anti-Life Organization, Pro-Life Activist’s Encyclopedia published by American Life League | http://www.ewtn.com/
[15] ‘New Battle Looms Over U.S. Aid for U.N. Agency Supporting Coerced Abortion’, By Douglas Johnson, National Right to Life News (May 1, 1986), p. 1.
[16] ‘The Laborer in the Vineyard’By George Neumayr, The American Spectator, August 25 2011.
[17] ‘Planned Parenthood Statement in Support of Chen Guangcheng Denounces Coercive Reproductive Health Policies in China’May5 2012.
[18]BREAKING: ‘Planned Parenthood Busted on Hidden Camera Trying to Sell Aborted Baby Parts’ By Matt Agorist on July 14, 2015.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men by Mara Hvistendahl’s PublicAffairs; 1 edition (7 Jun 2011).
[21] Ibid.
[22] ‘China begins lifting strict one-child policy’ By Malcolm Moore 24 Jul 2009,The Telegraph.
[23] ‘UNESCO: Its Purpose and its Philosophy By Julian Huxley Preparatory Commission of The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation’ 1946. / (p.21)
[24] ‘Ageing China: Changes and challenges’ BBC News, 20 September 2012.
[25] Ibid.
[26] op. cit. UNESCO (p.13)
[27] Ibid. (p.60)
[28] The Next Million Years By Charles Galton Darwin. Interestingly, the googledocs.online PDF version has decided to expunge this passage from the book. How many times has this kind of censorship of history happened I wonder?
[29] op. cit. Black
[30] ‘The Maverick: ‘It’s Our Duty to Have Designer Babies’’ September Issue, Reader’s Digest, August 21 2012.31
[31]‘The Psycho Gene’ By Philip Hunter, Nature, EMBO reports, January 22, 2010. | http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v11/n9/full/embor2010122.html
INFRAKSHUN 