The LEFT’s Ideology Kills

When it comes to killing off people, fascists have a track record upon which they may strive to improve. Think about the Planned Parenthood organization that was established to eradicate “lesser races” from American society. Think about our education system that has been overtaken by demented, sick perverts who want to confuse our children about such things as gender and sex. They also want to shame our children into thinking that America is evil, racist and greedy. Yeah, that is why millions of people want to come here, legally or otherwise.

Sam Clovis, “Impact,” 9/15/22

Surplus Population?

The answer to anyone who talks about the surplus population is to ask him whether he is the surplus population; or if he is not, how he knows that he is not.

G.K. Chesterton

How Genocide Begins with Groupthink

Perhaps most important to a genocidal plan is neutralizing any possible support for the victims. The Ottoman government maintained a well-coordinated propaganda campaign that vilified the Armenians in the eyes of their Turkish neighbors. In like manner, the Jews were demonized among their neighbors in Nazi Germany.

This sort of thing happens in all mass killings, including those done for reasons other than ethnicity. For example, in Stalinist Russia, several million peasant farmers in the Ukraine were deliberately starved to death in the winter of 1932-33 in what is known as the Holodomor. Soviet propaganda demonized these people, known as “kulaks,” as enemies of the people because they resisted the forced collectivization of agriculture, i.e., the confiscation of their farms. In Rwanda, Hutu propaganda vilified and scapegoated the Tutsis, often through radio, priming the popular mindset for the mass slaughter of 800,000 Tutsis during a 100-day period in 1994. The list of “final solutions” goes on and on.

Information warfare through a centrally controlled media is key to turning neighbor against neighbor. It plays a huge role in caricaturing perceived enemies and growing an us-versus-them mindset. In short, propaganda that psychologically manipulates a population is key to laying the groundwork for extreme social polarization, and ultimately for genocide.

This sort of propaganda thrives on ignorance and dissipates under conditions of social trust and general goodwill. This is why free speech and freedom of expression are not negotiable to any free society.

Stella Morabito, We Must Never Forget That Genocide Begins With Groupthink

"Brave New World" is Upon Us

Man in control and moving irreversibly closer to the Brave New World is detailed in Aldous Huxley's "fiction" where the words "mother and father" are obscenities; families non-existent; adults totally promiscuous never marrying; and private property non-existent.  Controlled offspring are produced in efficient state-run hatchery laboratories, "decanted" from test tubes, and raise in state institutions where they are encouraged to engage in "erotic play" on the playground.  When depression and the meaninglessness of this life overwhelmed them, the inhabitants self-medicate at will using "soma," a drug to enhance and relax or to reliever anxiety or any cowardly reaction to their existence in the "brave new world."   The Rockefeller agencies appear to be working toward a similar eugenic world for American law, medicine, social sciences, mass communications, and government, while neutralizing the Church and the ministry as effective representatives of the Creator's fixed order.

Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D, "Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences," pg.253

Oh, The Irony of the LEFT!

Liberals support the "right" of an abortionist to kill a woman's unborn baby; of the state to terminate life (euthanasia); and the intentional destruction of human embryos for scientific research (embryonic stem cell research), but don't support the death penalty for convicted murderers because they say that is cruel, unjust and inhumane.  The advocates of "choice" claim "innocent" people could unfairly die.

Gregg Jackson, Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies, p.142

IBM Helped With the Holocaust

IBM custom-designed the indispensable systems that located European Jews and other undesirables, and then provided a multiplicity of custom-tailored punch card programs to help the Nazis trace family trees, index bank accounts and other property, organize eugenic campaigns and even manage extermination in death camps. . . . 

Just after Hitler rose to power, IBM initiated an aggressive commercial compact with Nazi Germany, generating windfall profits as it organized and systemized the Reich's anti-Jewish and eugenic programs.  As the Hitler regime took each step in its war against the Jews and all of Europe, IBM custom-designed the punch cards and other data processing solutions to streamline those campaigns into what the company described as "blitzkrieg efficiency."

It began in 1933, when the company designed and executed Hitler's first census.  From there, IBM's involvement with the Reich mushroomed.  On January 8, 1934, IBM opened a million-dollar factory in Berlin to manufacture Hollerith machines and coordinate data processing functions.  At the factory opening, the manager of IBM's German subsidiary, Willi Heidinger, spoke vividly about what IBM technology would do for Germany's biological destiny.  Standing next to the personal representative of IBM president Thomas J. Watson, and with numerous Nazi Party officials in attendance at a ceremony bedecked by swastika flags and Storm Trooper honor guards, Heidinger emotionally declared that population statistics were key to eradicating the unhealthy, inferior segments of German society. . .  

Most of Heidinger's speech, along with a list of the invited Nazi Party officials, was rushed to Manhattan and immediately translated for Watson.  The IBM leader cabled Heidinger a prompt not of congratulations for a job well done and sentiments well expressed.


Edwin Black, "War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race," p.290, 308-309

Hitler's Connection to American Eugenics

The intellectual outlines of the eugenics Hitler adopted in 1924 were strictly American.  He merely compounded all the virulence of long-established American race science with his fanatic anti-Jewish rage.  Hitler's extremist eugenic science, which in many ways seemed like the logical extension of America's own entrenched programs and advocacy, eventually helped shape the institutions and even the machinery of the Third Reich's genocide.  By the time Hitler's concept of Aryan superiority emerged, his politics had completely fused into a biological and eugenic mindset.

Edwin Black, "War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race," p.270

The Humanist Crusade Against Children

Seventy years ago, eugenics promised to cure America's social problems through better breeding.  Today, mental-health crusaders promise to eliminate behavioral problems among America's children by screening every schoolchild for mental illness and then putting millions of them on psychoactive drugs.  Like the eugenics crusade, the current push to dramatically increase the number of children on psychoactive drugs reduces all behavioral problems to a material basis.  And like the eugenics crusade, it is accompanied by grandiose claims that go far beyond the actual science.  Like the eugenics crusade, it is justified in humanitarian terms even while it raises serious issues about civil liberties and human dignity.  How many children will be hurt before this latest crusade runs out of steam?

John G. West, "Darwin Day in America: How our politics and culture have been dehumanized in the name of science," p.364-365

Murderer Margaret Sanger

As the champion of the proletariat, Stalin saw to the slaughter of at least fifteen million Ukrainian kulaks.  As the popularly acclaimed Il Duce, Mussolini massacred as many as four million Ethiopians, two million Eritreans, and a million Serbs, Croats, and Albanians.  As the wildly lionized Fuhrer, Hitler exterminated more than six million Jews, two million Slavs, and a million Poles.  As the founder of Planned Parenthood and the impassioned heroine of feminist causes celebres, [Margaret] Sanger was responsible for the brutal elimination of more than twenty million children in the United States and as many as one and a half billion worldwide.

George Grant, "Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood," p.46 (1992)

Ramifications of Roe V. Wade

Today’s quote is quite lengthy, but entirely necessary if the reader is to get the full depth of understanding of the subject.

[The Supreme Court ruling on abortion] is not only arbitrary medically but legally.  The ruling set up an arbitrary absolute by disregarding the intent of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.  Quoting Professor [Joseph P.] Witherspoon:

Thus, the failure of the Court in Roe v. Wade to have examined into the actual purpose and intent of the legislature in framing the fourteenth amendment and the thirteenth amendment to which it was so closely related and supplementary thereof when it was considering the meaning to be assigned to the concept of “person” was a failure to be faithful to the law or to respect the legislature which framed it.  Careful research of the history of these two amendments will demonstrate to any impartial investigator that there is overwhelming evidence supporting the proposition that the principal, actual purpose of their framers was to prevent any court, and especially the Supreme Court of the United States, because of its earlier performance in the Dred Scott case, or any other institution of government, whether legislative or executive, from ever again defining the concept of person so as to exclude any class of human beings from the protection of the Constitution and the safeguards it established for the fundamental rights of human beings, including slaves, peons, Indians, aliens, women, the poor, the aged, criminals, the mentally ill or retarded, and children, including the unborn, from the time of their conception.

Supreme Court Justice White in his dissent to the Court’s action stated, “As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but in my view its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.”  Upon this arbitrary ruling medically and legally, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on this subject of abortion of almost every one of the states in the union.

Further, this arbitrary decision is at complete variance with the past Christian consensus.  In the pagan Roman Empire, abortion was freely practiced, but Christians took a stand against it.  In 314 the Council of Ancyra barred from taking of the Lord’s Supper for ten years all who procured abortions or made drugs to further abortions.  Previously the Synod of Elvira (305-306) had specified excommunication till the deathbed for these offenses.  The arbitrary absolutes of the Supreme Court are accepted against the previous consensus of centuries, as well as against past law.  And (taking abortion as an example) if this arbitrary absolute by law is accepted by most modern people, bred with the concept of no absolutes but rather relativity, why wouldn’t arbitrary absolutes in regard to such matters as authoritarian limitations on freedom be equally accepted as long as they were thought to be sociologically helpful?  We are left with sociological law without any certainty of limitation.  

By the ruling of the Supreme Court, the unborn baby is not counted as a person.  In our day, quite rightly, there has been a hue and cry against some of our ancestors’ cruel viewing of the black slave as a non-person.  This was horrible indeed—an act of hypocrisy as well as cruelty.  But now, by an arbitrary absolute brought in on the humanist flow, millions of unborn babies of every color of skin are equally by law declared non-persons.  Surely this, too, must be seen as an act of hypocrisy.

The door is open.  In regard to the fetus, the courts have arbitrarily separated “aliveness” from “personhood,” and if this is so, why not arbitrarily do the same with the aged?  So the steps move along, and euthanasia may well become increasingly acceptable.  And if so, why not keep alive the bodies of the so-called neo-morts (persons in whom the brain wave is flat) to harvest from them body parts and blood, when the polls show that this has become acceptable to the majority?  Dr. Willard Gaylin (1925- ) discussed this possibility in Harper’s (September 1974) under the title, “Harvesting the Dead.”  Law has become a matter of averages, just as the culture’s sexual mores have become only a matter of averages.  

As the Christian consensus dies, there are not many sociological alternatives.  One possibility is hedonism, in which every man does his own thing.  Trying to build a society on hedonism leads to chaos.  One man can live on a desert island and do as he wishes within the limits of the form of the universe, but as soon as two men live on the island, if they are to live in peace, they cannot both do simply as they please.  …

A second possibility is the absoluteness of the 51-percent vote.  In the days of a more Christian culture, a lone individual with the Bible could judge and warn society, regardless of the majority vote, because there was an absolute by which to judge.  There was an absolute for both morals and law.  Bu to the extent that the Christian consensus is gone, this absolute is gone as a social force.  Let us remember that on the basis of the absoluteness of the 51-percent vote, Hitler was perfectly entitled to do as he wished if he had the popular support.  On this basis, law and morals become a matter of averages.  And on this basis, if the majority vote supported it, it would become “right” to kill the old, the incurably ill, the insane—and other groups could be declared non-persons.  No voice could be raised against it. . . .

Here is a simple but profound rule:  If there are no absolutes by which to judge society, then society is absolute.

Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?, p.221-224 (1976) (emphasis in the original)

Eugenics Replaced By Newgenics

Today we are faced with a potential return to eugenic discrimination, not under national flags or political credos, but as a function of human genomic science and corporate globalization.  Shrill declarations of racial dominance are being replaced by polished PR campaigns and patent protections.  What eugenics was unable to accomplish in a century, newgenics may engineer in a generation. The almighty dollar may soon decide who stands on which side of a new genetic divide already being demarcated by the wealthy and powerful.  As we speed toward a new biological horizon, confronting our eugenic past will help us confront the bewildering newgenic future that awaits.

Edwin Black, "War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race," p.xviii

Criminals Not Necessarily Responsible?

By rejecting human free will, many psychiatrists argued that responsibility as it had be traditionally conceived was misguided.  However, they generally argued that society had a right to protect itself against morally "aberrant" individuals, so they were not necessarily advocating reduced penalties for criminals.  However, they thought penalties should be determined on the basis of the threat of the individual to society, not based on the particular crime.  The medicalization of criminal justice could sometimes result in longer sentencing, but for "medical" reasons, not retributive justice.

Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler, p.41

It Won't Stop With Abortion

At Nuremberg, Hitler and his henchmen were condemned by the American judges because they encouraged the killing of the unborn. . . .  Hitler was wrong, even though most of the men on our Supreme Court today defend what the Nazis did.  If we do not stop killing infants on the premise that they are nothing unless they weigh five or six pounds, we will do what Hitler did: we will kill the handicapped, particularly when those handicapped are aged.  Then we will kill the truly handicapped who are retarded: the only "angels" among us, for they have never sinned. . . .  Unless we stop abortion we will go further than Hitler, being "better" educated that the Austrian paperhanger.  We will kill infants after they are born.  We will do it scientifically, of course.


Dan Lyons, Christian Crusade Weekly (1979), cited by John Powell, S.J. in Abortion: the Silent Holocaust, p.37

The Truth About IQ Tests

Specious intelligence tests, colloquially known as IQ tests, were invented to justify incarceration of group labeled "feebleminded."  Often the so-called feebleminded were just shy, too good-natured to be taken seriously, or simply spoke the wrong language or were the wrong color.

Edwin Black, "War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race," p.xv

Pro-Choice?

The truth is that from its very inception, Planned Parenthood has sought mandatory population control measures -- measures carefully designed to deny the freedom to choose.  Over the years it has proposed that our government implement such things as "compulsory abortion for out-of-wedlock pregnancies," federal entitlement "payments to encourage abortion," "compulsory sterilization for those who have already had two children," and "tax penalties" for existing large families.


George Grant, "Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood," p.25

The Road to Eugenics

What was it about Darwinian theory that produced a change in thinking about the value of human life?  First, Darwinism implied that humans arose from animals, and many interpreted this to mean that humans did not have the special position accord them in Judeo-Christian thought.  Instead of being made in the image of God and falling from a pristine state of perfection, humans ascended from some kind of simian.  In explaining the evolution of human mental and moral traits from animals, Darwin and most Darwinists denied the existence of an immaterial and immortal soul, a central tenet of the Judeo-Christian worldview that undergirded the sanctity of human life.  Second, Darwinism emphasized variation within species, which implied biological inequality.  Applying this to humans, many biologists, anthropologists, and social thinkers used Darwinism to justify social and racial inequality.  Third, natural selection and the struggle for existence in Darwin’s theory — based on Malthus’s population principle — also implied that death without reproductive success is the norm in the organic world, and that the death of multitudes of “less fit” organisms is beneficial and fosters progress.  Death had previously been viewed by most Europeans as an evil to overcome, not a beneficial force.  But Darwin perceived some good in this evil.  In concluding The Origin of Species he wrote, “Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.”  Darwin’s theory was thus not just about biological change; it was a matter of life and death.

Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler, p.16-17

Evil of Eugenics

In a letter to the Human Betterment Federation of Des Moines in 1951, Margaret Sanger of Planned Parenthood urged that the unfit be sterilized, because their “children form our army of delinquents and become social burdens, ending their lives in institutions, such as reform schools and penitenturies [sic].”

By 1931, more than twelve thousand Americans had been sterilized under various state laws, a figure that rose to more than sixty thousand by 1958.


John G. West, "Darwin Day in America: How our politics and culture have been dehumanized in the name of science," p.88

Results of Evolutionism

Although eugenics is sometimes regarded as a perversion of Darwinian biology, Charles Darwin himself praised the idea of voluntary eugenic restrictions on marriage in The Descent of Man . . ., and his sons George and Leonard actively promoted the eugenics agenda, with Leonard becoming the president of the Eugenics Education Society, the main eugenics group in Great Britain.

But it was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton who is justly considered the founder of the modern eugenics crusade.  Inspired by The Origin of the Species, Galton set about to apply his cousin Charles' theory to the rise of human genius.  After researching the family connections of members of the British elite, Galton announced in articles and then in books that intellectual and artistic talent was largely hereditary.  Thus, if society wanted to guarantee its future improvement, it needed more children from the "fit" and fewer from the "unfit."  By the 1880s, Galton had coined the term eugenics (adapted from a Greek root meaning "good in birth") and was urging efforts to improve the race through better breeding.

While Galton stressed the need for positive eugenics (in order to cultivate the geniuses needed for society to thrive and progress), he also favored negative eugenic measures and thought that those deemed unfit could be segregated in institutions where they would not be allowed to reproduce.


John G. West, "Darwin Day in America: How our politics and culture have been dehumanized in the name of science," p.86-87