Eugenics and abortion: indivisible planks in the Progressivist platform.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas took a stick to the moral sanctum of women’s abortion rights when he wrote a legal opinion in May that tied abortion to eugenics, the ideology and activity aimed at eliminating supposedly unwanted inherited characteristics in human beings. In return, progressive historians and pundits are calling Thomas’ integrity into question by claiming that eugenics, unlike abortion rights, is all about the evils of state control over private individual decisions. Eugenics, however, is really about hatred of the human condition and the utopian perfection of the species according to elite preferences. Distorting our society’s picture of eugenics in the 21st century is a dangerous tactic that progressives will soon regret.
In the Washington Post, progressive author Paul Lombardo declared that “I’ve been studying this stuff for 40 years, and I’ve never been able to find a leader of the eugenics movement that came out and said they supported abortion.” This is fake history compounded by false testimony. It only takes a few minutes on Google to find examples of historical documents (hereand here) that contradict any dissociation of abortion from eugenics. If Lombardo and his fellow progressive historians do not know that Alan Guttmacher, heir to Margaret Sanger’s leadership of Planned Parenthood, was previously a vice president of the American Eugenics Society (as Thomas explained once again in a First Thingsrebuttal), or that Population Council and Pioneer Fund founder Frederick Osbornwrote that “birth control and abortion are turning out to be great eugenic advances of our time,” then perhaps the professional label of historian should be reserved for more knowledgeable scholars.
The greater scandal is the attempt by Stern and others to paint eugenics as a merely state-led effort securely left in the past. This minimizes the core point of eugenics, which is not to empower the state, but to use any means necessary for eliminating inherited characteristics that are unwanted. It ignores the vast cultural impact of “fitter families” contests at early 20th century popular events, the intellectual impact of college eugenics courses for 20,000 students in 1928 alone, and the enthusiastic involvement of physicians in Nazi euthanasia programs as well as American infanticide, dramatized in the wildly popular film The Black Stork.
At its core, eugenics is really all about hatred: hatred of limitations imposed by the natural body and mind, hatred of a God who allows the human condition of suffering and shame, and hatred of any person who has the audacity to live with the unwanted afflictions. The stomach-burning resentment of frustrated persons can undermine an entire civilization and drive a utopian, secular goal of species perfection.
The whole point of Progressivism from its very beginning was to create Utopia by recreating humanity according to its own ideals: not merely to govern, nor even to rule, but to play God. Their misguided faith in their own innate superiority and fitness to assume their self-appointed roles as earthly Deities required absolute power and unquestioning obedience from their inferiors. Human “perfectability” through eugenics was the strategy, abortion the tactic. For them now to claim, as a matter of political expedience, that the one never had anything much to do with the other is risible. Even the most cursory review of PP founder Margaret Sanger’s ugly ravings will put paid to that lie.
But Progressivists have never cared one whit about whether a thing is true or not; then as now, they care only that it works. For them, the end justifies any and all means; lying about abortion’s prominent role in their plans for the rest of us is in no way objectionable, nor does it present them with any moral quandaries. Progressivism, like eugenics, is indeed about hatred. But even more than that, it is about arrogance, about tyranny—and, ultimately, about evil. And if you think this next is unrelated, you better think again, bub.
Longevity in power has produced in the Deep State the attitude characteristic of masters: the conviction that they alone are entitled to rule, and that no one may legitimately stand against them. That’s how the Deep State came to be the implacable enemy we face today.
It might seem that the Deep State, by its nature, would be apolitical, concerned solely with its own power and perquisites. However, the progressive ideology, inculcated in the bureaucracies from their inception by the presidents who oversaw their creation, causes the Deep State to be aligned with the Democrat Party. As we know, that ideology promotes unopposable power in the State. This is a condition the Democrats approve. They hope to use it to maintain their party’s grip on high office.
The conviction underlying the Democrats’ promotion of Trump Derangement is what interests me most. They believe that they and only they are entitled to rule, and so are unwilling to tolerate any opposing force. That Trump, a political outsider, should have unseated them was bad enough. That he’s overturning all political precedent by keeping his campaign promises is salt in the wound. That by doing so he’s given the lie to all their propaganda about “globalism,” “transnationalism,” “the era of limits,” and “the new normal” might prove fatal to them.
The masters of the Deep State see the current situation as a win-or-die dilemma. They believe their survival requires that Trump be brought down, in as garish and dramatic a fashion as possible – and they could well be right.
The Democrats’ luminaries are wholly in accord with this aim. They see Trump as their mortal enemy. Simply by doing what he’s proposed to do, he could doom them to an obscurity like unto that of the Whigs. So they’ll keep the TDS carnival rotating until they’ve all been unseated. Unfortunately, given the power of incumbency, especially in states such as California, Illinois, and New York, that could take three decades or more.
Get what I mean about related? Once you see how seamlessly the various pieces of the Progressivist puzzle connect, there’s just no unseeing it.