Kill the Handicapped (!?!)
![This poster reads: "60,000 Reichsmarks is what this person suffering from hereditary defects costs the People's community during his lifetime. Fellow German, that is your money too. Read '[A] New People', the monthly magazine of the Bureau for Race Politics of the NSDAP." (about 1938)](http://rev22.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/250px-enthanasiepropaganda.jpg "This poster reads: \"60,000 Reichsmarks is what this person suffering from hereditary defects costs the People's community during his lifetime. Fellow German, that is your money too. Read 'New People', the monthly magazine of the Bureau for Race Politics of the NSDAP.\" (about 1938)")
This poster reads: "60,000 Reichsmarks is what this person suffering from hereditary defects costs the People's community during his lifetime. Fellow German, that is your money too. Read 'New People', the monthly magazine of the Bureau for Race Politics of the NSDAP." (circa 1938)
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.
~ “The Descent of Man” – Charles Darwin, 1871
Simply horrifying… Even though Darwin reluctantly acknowledges that humans have some instinctual sympathy he feels there is a work around in that the ‘weak’ are too dumb or incapable of marrying. He goes on elsewhere to predict that the inferior ’savage and ape-like’ races (eg. Africans, Aborigines, etc) will ultimately succumb and make way for the vastly superior Caucasian race.
Adolph Hitler took Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection in Humans as a mandate to perform ‘cleansing’ for the benefit of mankind. Institutions such as Hadamar executed Hitlers “Aktion T4” Euthanasia Program as a means to rid mankind of the burden of the handicapped and invalid.
Margaret Sanger and her two sons.
Today (I mean like right now) our US tax dollars are being given to to an organization founded by a staunch proponent of Negative Eugenics Margaret Sanger. Eugenics is just another word for what Darwin and Hitler promoted… Genocide of the weak to promote a superior race. Ms Sanger was an outspoken proponent of birth control and abortion as a means to rid humanity of inferior specimines. She wrote several books on the subject and spoke frequently to the women’s auxiliary of the KKK. In 1916 she founded what is now known as Planned Parenthood.
Modern genetics proposes an ‘easier to swallow’ implementation of Eugenics in the form of Prenatal Diagnostic Testing and Genetic Manipulation which allow you to know if your child will have any genetic defects so you can nip it in the bud, or through Genetic Manipulation you can just engineer yourself the perfect baby.
Even Darwin acknowledged that Humans were set apart. We have this innate, instinctual tendency toward grace and sympathy. While Darwin viewed this as a fatal weakness, I know it to be a divine gift. The weak, hungry handicapped and poor are those we are called to care for. Further, it is often true that those that are so burden have enormous blessings to offer those that are ‘healthy’. It’s truly a symbiotic relationship. While we can help the less fortunate meet basic material needs, they often can help us satisfy deep spiritual needs. Believe me, I am continually blessed by someone with the burden of a ‘genetic defect’ as Darwin might call it.
I know (virtually any way) many atheists who willfully acknowledge this human tendency toward love. As a matter of fact, many athiests see this tendency as an argument against God. They question how a loving God would allow evil and suffering. The bottom line is that humans are unique creations, different than bugs, and lizards and apes. That is a variable that Darwin left out.
Subscribe to Posts
Chris
says:
Added on December 30th, 2008 at 4:27 pmRight on, brother.
Here are a few of Ms. Sanger’s vile thoughts:
“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
“The third group [of society] are those irresponsible and reckless ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.”
“Eugenics is the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.”
Of course she would never have gotten away with such swill if Charles Darwin’s aristocratic cousin and founder of modern eugenics hadn’t thought long and hard on the subject of what to do with the annoyingly imperfect among us:
“What nature does blindly, slowly and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly, and kindly. As it lies within his power, so it becomes his duty to work in that direction.”
“Man has already furthered evolution very considerably, half unconsciously and for his own personal advantages, but he has not yet risen to the conviction that it is his religious duty to do so deliberately and systematically.”
“It has now become a serious necessity to better the breed of the human race. The average citizen is too base for the everyday work of modern civilization.”
Dalton was a bigot and a racist but he was the worst kind: a scientifically educated bigot and racist. Who’s ideas likely influenced his cousin Charles and vice versa. Both of whom greatly impressed Freddy Nietzsche, who of course, helped to provided the perfect nihilistic grain for the poisonous Nazi pearl.
Layers upon layers of misguided people who most likely do not realize that they are courting evil.
Chris
says:
Added on December 30th, 2008 at 4:31 pmThe over educated yet eminently stupid racist cousin of Charles Darwin was Sir Francis Dalton. Sorry, I left that out.
BuddyO
(blog author) says:
Added on December 31st, 2008 at 8:58 amSo why is this ignored?
Why is there no outcry against planned parenthood?
Let’s summarize and see if we can narrow this down:
- Promotes Darwin as an untouchable preacher of truth
- Ardently defends an supports the institution started by the Eugenicist Margaret Sanger
- Founded the KKK as a means to purify race
- Diminishes humanity through an unchallenged indoctrination of Evolutionary theory in schools
Now, can we think of a political ideology that fits that bill?
BuddyO
(blog author) says:
Added on December 31st, 2008 at 9:13 amSorry, that last comment was off the track I was trying to head.
Kathy just got me “Expelled” for Christmas, a fascinating watch. It wasn’t about trying to disprove Evolutionary theory, Stein is merely asking the question “why is free discussion on the subject being squashed”?
One thing that really struck me was the inevitable road down which Darwin leads. When natural selection is applied to human beings, it flies against everything that is good an just… everything that Jesus taught. We have a recent example of this in Hitler. Unfortunately that comparison means less anymore, because everything (one) gets compared to Hitler today. But a look at history shows that Hitler was an ardent enforcer of Darwinian theory.
The ultimate point I was trying to make is that Humans don’t just break the rules of natural selection, they are antithetical to them. (Seems like everything with God and humans seems to be opposite of common sense… first will be last, meek inherit the Earth, etal…) The very people Darwin, Hitler and Sanger felt were an anchor around humanities neck are often times the very people who can contribute the most. Maybe not in terms of work, labor, and ecomony, but definitely in hope, comfort and inspiration.
Chris
says:
Added on December 31st, 2008 at 12:19 pmGood questions, although Sanger had nothing to do with the KKK’s founding – born to late as she was anyway. She apparently spoke to them more than once and they are quite fond of her, even to this day.
I think you make a good point. Human beings are not supposed to act like animals. Even secular humanists seem to understand this (for some reason).
Robert
says:
Added on December 31st, 2008 at 2:40 pmI don’t even KNOW why I am bothering to even engage in this conversation.
Whether or not you LIKE Darwin as a person is irrelevant as to whether or not the mechanisms that underlie the evolutionary theory are accurate or not.
What makes MODERN evolutionary theory so compelling is its explanatory power!
For some reason you have this image of all naturalists bending their knees to Darwin as replacement God for the one we ‘killed’. While there are those that love to celebrate February 12th as some kind of twisted quasi-materialistic holiday, I can assure you that I and many others do not.
Darwin had a world-changing insight into the mechanisms that underlie biological complexity. The scientific/naturalistic world is STILL trying to that particulars.
Now, to dredge up some obscure little paragraph or two written by Darwin in attempt to cast some sort of nefarious and dark doubt onto the Evolutionary theory is laughable.
Why is it that Darwin seems to be the only target of this type of attack?
Isaac Newton widely believed to be the one of the greatest minds ever to have occupied a human skull. His insights into optics, classical physics and mathematics are LEGENDARY. However, he himself considered those pursuits to be mere side roads in his true love: alchemy! Alchemy, which modern science dismisses as ridiculous pseudo scientific babble. But still Mr. Newtons other work is held up for the genius it is.
Whether or not Mr. Darwin advocated the elimination of any ‘defective human beings’ (incidentally I am NOT convinced of this anyway!) in an effort to purify our species is irrelevant to me and to most modern biologists, in much the same way Newton’s views on alchemy are irrelevant to most chemists and physicists.
We all have this neat thing in our heads called a brain and oddly enough, I can use it to THINK FOR MYSELF! Additionally, I am afforded a sense of compassion for my fellow man, courtesy of my cerebral cortex, that allows me to leap beyond the aggression and territoriality of my lower brain (the same brain that most less evolved vertebrates still have).
You can take pot-shots at Darwin from now to judgment day if you want, it will do little to tear down the mountain of evidence in support of his insight.
Evolutionary theory is as secure as any other scientific theory, Ben Stein saying ‘uh-uh’ in a third rate documentary that tries to link evolution to holocausts through bastardized correlations will not do anything but show how ridiculous those thoughts are.
R.
BuddyO
(blog author) says:
Added on December 31st, 2008 at 5:51 pmHey Robert!
Did you see the movie? I didn’t get that Stein was trying to prove or disprove anything except that discussion of Intelligent Design is forbidden with an unprecedented passion…. Even though Dawkins himself admitted on camera at the end of the movie that ID is a viable option… He was making the point that the freedom of ideas and the desire to think outside the box is completely absent in the current scientific environment… and honestly I agree.
Now about Darwin. Really no pot-shots at Darwin personally, it’s just that the application of Natural Selection to human beings inevitably lead down the path of Eugenics. In the same way the “Climate Change” advocates make the charge that humans have altered the natural order of the climate to disastrous effect, the same philosophy must be applied to Darwinian theory. In other words, humans have fouled around with the natural selection process with medical care, care for the elderly, welfare, etc… this could only end up with similarly disastrous consequences…. right?
Obviously Darwin made some very astute observations about the natural world, I won’t question that. I have a problem with some of the interpretation of his observations. Way too much extrapolation and dithering for my taste to consider the totality of his theory as undeniable fact. As Ben Stein points out, specific paths of analysis have never been properly explored because the necessary axioms are taboo.
I don’t believe you… from what I’ve been able to tell you have a great deal of compassion for people. I don’t believe you would be that cold.
Oh yeah… comparing an interest with Alchemy with the promotion of Racism and Eugenics is … uh… a bit weak…
Robert
says:
Added on December 31st, 2008 at 6:27 pmYou missed my point…..
What I am trying to convey is that even IF Mr Darwin was trying to say he advocated the euthanasia of the handicapped… it wouldn’t have detracted from the insight afforded by his evolutionary theory.
What you and Mr. Stein are implying is that racism and eugenics NECESSARILY follow from an acceptance of evolutionary theory. That is indeed WEAK!
While some have erroneously made come to such conclusions it does not make those conclusions true….
…anymore than my saying the Aryan Brotherhood is a logical conclusion of Christianity.
R.
BuddyO
(blog author) says:
Added on January 1st, 2009 at 8:53 amThe Aryan Brotherhood has absolutely no connection back to Christianity. It is basically in effect a prison gang with sympathies to Nazism… so, they actually would tie closer to Hitler and Darwin…
Westboro Baptist would have been a better example to make your point…
While racism and eugenics aren’t necessary progressions of Darwinian theory (after all we are all endowed with free will
) the progression does follow both deductive and inductive logical reasoning.
How do you explain Mans rebellion against Natural Selection through compassionate works? Will this have dire consequence? Should we limit the procreation rights of the mentally and physically handicapped?
See, I guess you have “The Problem of Evil” with regards to theism and I have “The Problem of the Handicapped” in regards to Natural Selection as applied to Humanity.
BuddyO
(blog author) says:
Added on January 1st, 2009 at 8:54 amBTW: You got put in moderation last night, sorry. I can only guess it was because you mentioned the Aryan Brotherhood???
Robert
says:
Added on January 1st, 2009 at 2:08 pmBut why?!
It’s such a lovely warmhearted group of misanthropes!
incidentally…
You seem to be confused by the differences between NATURAL selection and ARTIFICIAL selection (I prefer UNNATURAL selection, it is more to the point.
Natural selection is what nature does. For example when a bird has a mutation that causes it to grow a longer beak which allows it to reach the nectar of a deep blossom flowers, that bird is preferentially selected for by nature in that it has a mutation that gives it an advantage.
ARTIFICIAL selection is the result of a WILL. Examples of artificial selection are all around us. Almost every animal humans have domesticated are the result of humans preferentially either encouraging or suppressing traits we deem desirable or NOT desirable by breeding accordingly.
As you have correctly pointed out it is HUMAN will that’s the problem here.
Evolutionary theory provides the means by which great good or evil can be done.
Because SOME have advocated using evolutionary principles as a way to ‘purify’ our race doesn’t make the theory wrong or evil. The theory is amoral. It takes a will to do good or evil. Much the same as a hammer is amoral… I could use it to build a home for my family OR I could use to cave in a competitors skull. If I chose the latter does that mean we should forbid the use of hammers?
R.
Chris
says:
Added on January 1st, 2009 at 3:02 pmHey, Robert. I don’t think (maybe I’m wrong) that Buddy’s point was to trash Darwinism (although I know he is no fan of it) but to point out the ethical inconsistencies of (at least the history) of Planned Parenthood. Like it or not Sanger, Dalton, Nietzsche, Marx, Hitler, Stalin – people of both the left and the right, both socialists and capitalists, have used Darwin’s findings to support and promote their flawed and dangerous ideologies.
But you are right; those facts don’t in the least discredit Darwin or Evolution no more than we can blame Hiroshima on Einstein or the threat of Mutual Assured Destruction on Robert Goddard. Science is science and how it is used remains to be the ultimate responsibility of the politicians, who at least in our case, we elect.
Jason
says:
Added on January 1st, 2009 at 8:50 pmRobert,
Were you using the Artificial/Natural selection argument as a distinction between what you would call ‘evolution’ and the things mentioned
That seems to be an artificial distinction. If “will” is an evolutionary accretion, which I completely do not accept, then how do you justify restricting the use of that evolutionary accretion to non-evolutionary results?
If we receive a will from ‘evolution’, which is your only option, then how do you delimit the use of that evolutionary accretion to only non-evolutionary processes?
In fact, how do you justify excluding anything humans do from what you propose as the evolutionary process?
And how could the use of an amoral accretion be determined to be moral?
Robert
says:
Added on January 1st, 2009 at 11:24 pmCan we agree that all mammals have some form of a will albeit to a lesser extent?
What we call the human will is not necessarily unique to humans.
A lioness stalking a gazelle on the Serengeti can be said to be exercising a form of will…admittedly primitive as it is. What makes us different is our capacity for conscious thought. I accept that our consciousness is a function of our cerebral cortex.
My understanding is our will is an improved…(well maybe improved is not a good word… maybe be more nuanced is better) version over more primitive forms of a will.
Because we humans have so much power over our environments we are not as subject to natural selection as those without this will we possess. There may not seem to be an evolutionary advantage in protecting members of our species that are handicapped in some way or another. It is a function of our compassion and love for our fellows. Compassion for others is a function of that cerebral cortex I mentioned before. Compassion can and does convey benefits.
I don’t know if this makes any sense….
I’m really beginning to believe these conversations would best be had face to face!
R.
Chris
says:
Added on January 4th, 2009 at 10:45 amKnock, knock. Anyone home?
BuddyO
(blog author) says:
Added on January 5th, 2009 at 12:59 pmSorry… had a 4 day weekend, and just decided to unplug.
Robert got stuck in moderation land again…. I don’t know why.
Perhaps the label of “Natural” Selection was misplaced, my apologies. I was referring to Darwin’s point that, as opposed to animals, man tends to allow the propagation of ‘lesser’ individuals. In the animal kingdom, the runts and weaker individuals are left to die, females select only the strongest to mate with, etc..
Robert, your use of the word ‘will’ and mine are not the same. The instinct that drives an animal to pursue it’s food is not the same as the purposeful (and seemingly illogical) decision to surrender one’s life to a God which you can neither see nor feel… or any other decision that directly contradicts one’s natural instincts (such as compassion, love and grace).
Chris
says:
Added on January 5th, 2009 at 2:42 pmYeah, if you think about it, many of the things that we willfully do go completely against what would seem to be natural. How many people have remained loyal or faithful to others out of a sense of responsibility or honor, even when the circumstances are painful or hazardous.
Jason
says:
Added on January 5th, 2009 at 3:33 pmI understand what you are saying Robert, it just reads like special pleading.
Chris
says:
Added on January 5th, 2009 at 5:44 pmFace to face and overlooking some foamy libations, to be precise.