Tommy Douglas — the father of socialized medicine in Canada and one of the country’s most beloved figures, and became premier of Saskatchewan province — once supported eugenic policies. In 1933, he received a Master of Arts in sociology from McMaster University for his thesis, “The Problems of the Subnormal Family.” In the thesis, Douglas recommended several eugenic policies, including the sterilization of “mental defectives and those incurably diseased.” True he later rejected this belief (but didn't give back his graduate degree), but who knows how much damage his thoughts and beliefs caused while he held them. Even today his political party, the NDP, are just fine with the downward slide of Canada's assisted suicide practices rather than actually helping people.
> The logo of the Second International Eugenics Congress in 1921, pictured above, declared that “Eugenics is the self direction of human evolution,” with the goal being “an harmonious entity.”
Treating H as a vowel. That right there should be enough to discredit them.
Serious question, though: Because of its connection with Nazism, eugenics is commonly treated today as a discredited theory that no one would take seriously. At the same time, Jewish populations (the most remarked-upon victims of Nazism) have all but eradicated Tay-Sachs disease by the use of genetic databases to restrict marriage and guide breeding along desired lines. Is there any valid reason (and "it's distasteful" is not a valid reason) to call this something other than eugenics?
It seems to me that the unmentioned (directly) common denominator underlying the overall approach to our society by the "progressives" of both the past and present is the desire for command and control by an authoritarian government. The desire to rule us remains the paramount driver of the left, whether it be climate hysteria, Covid policy, economic regulation, etc. It is revealed by the open admission of its most vocal advocates to not let a crisis (ie: any negative occurrence) to go to waste.
Always hearing that eugenics has been 'discredited,' but never given real examples. Yes, you hear about the difficulties in eliminating recessive alleles, or mention of pleiotropy, complex traits, etc. But never is it explained why these arguments apply to eugenics but not to natural selection. No concrete explanations are ever given. Instead, discussion always seems to devolve into "who can decide what is a positive/negative trait" rhetoric.
The claim that eugenicists are "intolerant of dissent" is a new one. Hard to reconcile with the fact that eugenic advocates are now an invisibly small minority. Any examples of this 'intolerance' and how it's applied? Or is 'eugenics' here being employed as a sort of pejorative against a broader and ill-defined group of people concerned with human welfare? People who would no doubt never refer to themselves as 'eugenicists'?
Most "science" is just racketeering. Budget-boosting, career mongering monopolies cloaked in white coats for the chumps. If you offer enough money Nobel Laureates will swear the moon is made of green cheese. Covid is/was a deliberate fraud driven by the cowardice of professionals to speak out against certain repression.
The organic contiuity between the constituencies behind the KKK and 'respectable' eugenics are clear for those who will see. Civil War era academic "Niggerology". The head of the Smithsonian banned Frederick Douglass from speaking there on the grounds of 'science'. Go read what is put about in the Ukraine as true science about the inferior Russians. Look at what transgender ideologues say about the mutant 'feminists'.
In the end, these sometimes tendencies or movements quickly demorph in money-making, career promoting publicity business schemes. There isn't any science. There never was.
Thank you. Much to ponder.
Tommy Douglas — the father of socialized medicine in Canada and one of the country’s most beloved figures, and became premier of Saskatchewan province — once supported eugenic policies. In 1933, he received a Master of Arts in sociology from McMaster University for his thesis, “The Problems of the Subnormal Family.” In the thesis, Douglas recommended several eugenic policies, including the sterilization of “mental defectives and those incurably diseased.” True he later rejected this belief (but didn't give back his graduate degree), but who knows how much damage his thoughts and beliefs caused while he held them. Even today his political party, the NDP, are just fine with the downward slide of Canada's assisted suicide practices rather than actually helping people.
Great, great post.
> The logo of the Second International Eugenics Congress in 1921, pictured above, declared that “Eugenics is the self direction of human evolution,” with the goal being “an harmonious entity.”
Treating H as a vowel. That right there should be enough to discredit them.
Serious question, though: Because of its connection with Nazism, eugenics is commonly treated today as a discredited theory that no one would take seriously. At the same time, Jewish populations (the most remarked-upon victims of Nazism) have all but eradicated Tay-Sachs disease by the use of genetic databases to restrict marriage and guide breeding along desired lines. Is there any valid reason (and "it's distasteful" is not a valid reason) to call this something other than eugenics?
Sure, but was it SAFE & EFFECTIVE? It would
seem that eugenics has “evolved”…
It seems to me that the unmentioned (directly) common denominator underlying the overall approach to our society by the "progressives" of both the past and present is the desire for command and control by an authoritarian government. The desire to rule us remains the paramount driver of the left, whether it be climate hysteria, Covid policy, economic regulation, etc. It is revealed by the open admission of its most vocal advocates to not let a crisis (ie: any negative occurrence) to go to waste.
Always hearing that eugenics has been 'discredited,' but never given real examples. Yes, you hear about the difficulties in eliminating recessive alleles, or mention of pleiotropy, complex traits, etc. But never is it explained why these arguments apply to eugenics but not to natural selection. No concrete explanations are ever given. Instead, discussion always seems to devolve into "who can decide what is a positive/negative trait" rhetoric.
The claim that eugenicists are "intolerant of dissent" is a new one. Hard to reconcile with the fact that eugenic advocates are now an invisibly small minority. Any examples of this 'intolerance' and how it's applied? Or is 'eugenics' here being employed as a sort of pejorative against a broader and ill-defined group of people concerned with human welfare? People who would no doubt never refer to themselves as 'eugenicists'?
Most "science" is just racketeering. Budget-boosting, career mongering monopolies cloaked in white coats for the chumps. If you offer enough money Nobel Laureates will swear the moon is made of green cheese. Covid is/was a deliberate fraud driven by the cowardice of professionals to speak out against certain repression.
The organic contiuity between the constituencies behind the KKK and 'respectable' eugenics are clear for those who will see. Civil War era academic "Niggerology". The head of the Smithsonian banned Frederick Douglass from speaking there on the grounds of 'science'. Go read what is put about in the Ukraine as true science about the inferior Russians. Look at what transgender ideologues say about the mutant 'feminists'.
In the end, these sometimes tendencies or movements quickly demorph in money-making, career promoting publicity business schemes. There isn't any science. There never was.