Obamauton media defend crypto-fascist eugenics, make backdoor argument for female infanticide

Now that we have a crypto-fascist president, at least two newspapers that shall remain nameless have taken up the fight to defend eugenics. It seems that the Obamautons thus obliquely acknowledge that to defend Obama they have to defend the eugenics MIM attacked among the Satanists in the 1990s.

Readers will recall that MIM favored biological engineering and genetic engineering, while the Satanists tried to sell the idea of “selective mating” repeated over and over again in the Church of Satan publications. The original ideas of eugenics pointed toward family and race purity through selective mating. Hitler only took these ideas already in the air to their logical conclusion by seeking to eliminate chances of Aryan mating with other ethnic groups that he sought to exterminate. Very relevant is a particular slur on me that said I had insufficient minority blood to have a minority scholarship in graduate school. The thinking is very similar, an obsession with race purity.

There are no serious or important writers of politics, sociology and history that do not regard eugenics as discredited racism. The arguments used in favor of eugenics by the “RCP,” “Church of Satan,” Che-Libs, Kasama and other crypto-fascist organizations rely on a trick of including all biology within eugenics.

Although no serious study of eugenics fails to find its racist roots and separate it from biological and genetic engineering, at the research grant level we find many ill-informed opportunists taking research money for eugenics studies. The confusion arises, because historically many biologists and founders of statistical methods generally favored eugenics.

Thus, poorly informed story-tellers in the media and medical grant-grubbers tarnish science through guilt by association, a common logical error of fascists. The great biologists of the early 20th century favored eugenics. However, they grew up in a period when between 1860 and 1890, whites hanged nearly 5000 Blacks according to Wikipedia. The picture on the Wikipedia page shows a Black being hung from a tree in 1925. Guys like Henry Park and Barack Obama were not available as serious political leaders to the United $tates as a whole, at all. Nor was racism just Jim Crow segregation in the South as murderous race riots also occurred in the North.

In other words, the fact that the great Amerikan and European scientists of the early 20th century supported eugenics does not mean that biology is eugenics or vice-versa. Rather the people at the time had certain cultural habits and customs. An exception would have been W.E.B. DuBois who was “impure” in blood himself and writing at a time when sociology was starting as a professional field.

One media outlet used an argument to defend Obamauton eugenics that if extended would also even more appropriately justify female infanticide. In the world’s most populous countries in Asia, there is a preference for boys and there is also among many East Asians an idea of family continuity. It is not possible to defend Obama’s eugenics and also oppose female infanticide. If eugenics includes the use of biology in birth questions, then there is nothing to oppose female infanticide. And that is all the more appropriate to lay at the door of eugenics, because many theories of race are rooted in myths of ancestry and bloodline purity. Even if the eugenicists say they oppose female infanticide, they don’t, because they are spreading the same fallacy by association.

While we hear today talk of a “Jewish media” just as we heard in Weimar days in Germany, what is more surprising is that all the same errors of Weimar days are being repeated. The media needs to disassociate selective mating questions of race, ethnicity and family from biological science.

Advertisements

Tags:

One Response to “Obamauton media defend crypto-fascist eugenics, make backdoor argument for female infanticide”

  1. Obama on fascism « Mimdefense’s Weblog Says:

    […] note another article in the same vein as our criticism of Obama’s circles’ defense of eugenics. The article at the British “Guardian” opposing MIM attacks the whole idea of inherited […]

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: