The march to Nazism takes another step
Seems weird that they’d want to go after their voter base so publicly.
One fucking month ago we, for the first time in human history, cured a genetic disease in a human at the DNA level, using gene editing techniques that fixed a 10-month-old’s liver specifically without altering the rest of his body’s DNA (thus preserving genetic diversity). Are we really going to start fucking genociding people while we stand at the very goddamn cusp of cleanly subduing genetic disorders?? And we’re going to fucking revive measles and polio while we’re at it?
Start with Trump.
…soooo Trump voters?
It’s so funny that these maga hogs think they’re the peak of humanity
Bold emphasis is mine
But idea of offering** feral populations **financial incentives for voluntary sterilization is completely taboo.
Wow, just wow.
When a population gets feral, a little snip snip keeps things in control. Could offer incentives (Air Jordans, etc.).
Sure… some new sneaks for never being able to procreate? Sounds legit (heavy /s obviously)
I have a suspicion where this is being aimed at:
It’s not politically correct to say, but low-IQ, low-impulse control populations lack higher reasoning and moral faculties - they require strict corporal punishment and threat of violence to function properly within a society.
It’s the people RFK is targeting - people with Autism, ADHD, other neurodivergent conditions, the physically and mentally disabled. Cull the ones who are already “diseased” and leave the healthier ones to live one and procreate. At least that’s my suspicion here - basically they’re pushing the discourse towards an acceptance of some form of eugenics. It’s terrifying.
The point in the last quote - ‘to function properly within a society’ is really a veiled form of saying - ‘you will work until you die in whatever way we see fit’.
There’s a similar push in the UK to get disabled people into any job, seemingly regardless of suitability, workplace accommodations (despite there being legal requirements to make such things) - and the way this is being done is to effectively penalise them financially by sanctioning the disability allowances, refusing PIP (Personal Independence Payment) and forcing those with lifelong conditions to undergo a full review every year. This pretty much can starve out someone into finding a way to live that means the Government pays less and the quality of life the person has is drastically reduced owing to the various stressors inflicted on them. The whole thing is a shitshow and is being argued about a lot at the moment in our Government parties.
Can disabled people work? For sure, and many do. Can all disabled people work? No, but the Government is going to make damn sure that you at least try, and if you fail, then find another job cause we ain’t supporting you now we know you can work regardless of how effective you are… From a Govt statement:
We’re determined to fix the broken benefits system as part of our Plan for Change by reforming the welfare system and delivering proper support to help people get into work and get on at work, so we can get Britain working and deliver our ambition of an 80% employment rate.
In other words, to “function properly within a society”.
Wait, wait, wait. I thought they were just bitching that we don’t have enough people, now they want mass sterilization? Can they make up their minds?
So Republicans?
Yep, where do I sign? Is there a petition or vote?
Same here, you need signatures?, start with me.
American eugenicists tended to believe in the genetic superiority of Nordic, Germanic, and Anglo-Saxon peoples, supported strict immigration and anti-miscegenation laws, and supported the forcible sterilization of the poor, disabled and “immoral.”[13]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States
So just standard Republican Nazi shit.
The problem is they can’t find enough racists who happen to have that background… So south Africa white people who used to have servants is where they’re at. I got German, English, Italian, Netherlands and Spanish friends and they are very nice people.
Back in the day, eugenics in the US was most enthusiastically promoted by the progressives such as the family planning movement, early feminists and the temperance movement (and those movements overlapped and allied with each other at times).
Genuinely curious, in what way was the greater availability of contraceptives used to further Eugenicist belief or policy?
Wasn’t Harvard and such mixed up in it as well? Phrenology and race. If people knew history, we wouldn’t be staring down the barrel of the current nightmare.
So they’re clearing out the current administration?
They can start in the Oval Office.
Eugenics…
Don’t be suprised if they add gas chambers to RFK’s wellness farms.
The original nazis got eugenics from the US. That’s why there were so many sympathizers prior to Pearl Harbor. They faded into the background after WWII got going, but they never went away.
Eugenics was fairly popular worldwide until Hitler, US included.
And they’re trying to make it popular again. I have an uncle who is in a word, deranged. and frequentley touts that “1 in 8 kids in America have Autism”.
weird uncle story incoming…
so I argued with him and said "Whats the condition? whats the criteria? give me the test that these so called kids are being evaluated on, and I bet you I, a guy in his mid 30s who still collects lego, loves my pets more than people, and is very interested in fiction and art, will come up as being on “the spectrum” because the evaluation is so broad that even being a little odd , eccentric or even just unique… always gets associated with aspergers. autism, etc
he then realized what I was saying and switched it around to say "Oh I dont mean anything like that. I mean kids that are so developmentally disabled they wont be able to take care of themselves their entire lives. literally handicapped
So 1 in 8 kids are special edcuation requirement and will need permanent care because they are developmentally challenged? give me a fucking break.
of course. he also talked about Marin County California, a county full of anti vaxers,
If Politics are peoples personalities, being Anti-Vax is my uncle’s personality. The dude 100% believes that there will be a mass murdering purge of all doctors and healthcare workers this year when the “RFK Autism report” comes out.
We’re Canadian by the way. I thought this was a funny addition to the context of this story. Though he did live in America for 30 years, refused to start the citizenship process though
The dude 100% believes that there will be a mass murdering purge of all doctors and healthcare workers this year when the “RFK Autism report” comes out.
…does he not realize that he is also capable of contracting illness? Who does he think is going to take care of him when he breaks his hip or has a stroke?
his own mortality seems to be something that he hasn’t thought about much.
I almost agree with his conclusion but for the opposite reason: I worry for the safety of professionals who say Autism is real and can be managed in less severe cases, because there are crazies like your uncle out there and some of them are violent.
The Sympathisers didnt change their tune over Pearl Harbor. PH was a Japanese attack. not a German one
Japan and Germany were aligned with each other, but People who agreed with Hitler didnt just suddenley change their mind because their Asian allies attacked them in the Pacific.
They didn’t change their tune, but they went quiet so they wouldn’t end up camping with the Japanese Americans.
Eugenics also includes in-vitro sterilization and selecting against horrible illnesses like sickle-cell anemia. Nazism, and what Beattie is proposing, is the dark side of eugenics, but eugenics is not inherently bad. Please try to look past the propaganda.
It’s important to separate the personal from the political here. You’re right that not every instance of genetic selection is equivalent to Nazi-style eugenics. But you say that eugenics is “not inherently bad” without really looking at proper definitions or recognising the deep social and historical baggage it carries, especially in how it’s been used to justify racism, ableism, and state violence, and that risks repeating the same logic that allowed those atrocities in the first place.
Choosing not to pass on genetic diseases through voluntary IVF and screening isn’t the same as state-led population engineering which is what eugenics often refers to politically. The key difference is consent and context.
When you talk about selecting against diseases like sickle-cell anaemia, you also have to ask: who defines what counts as a “horrible illness”? Who decides which lives are worth living? (For example, your example of sickle cell anemia comes with the caveat that this illness makes one immune to malaria, which is why it evolved in a significant chunk of the subsaharan african population. Yet Sickle cell anemia was also a favourite scapegoat by 20th century eugenicists to argue that african genes were “inferior”).
Historically, eugenics has disproportionately targeted disabled people, people of colour, poor people, communities with less power. Even modern-day genetic screening isn’t free from those power dynamics. So, no, it’s not “propaganda” to be against eugenics, it’s a necessary ethical stance informed by history and lived experience.
And the IVF example isn’t really eugenics as it is understood. For example, here is the wikipedia definition of eugenics:
Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/ yoo-JEN-iks; from Ancient Greek **εύ̃ (eû) ‘good, well’ and **-γενής (genḗs) ‘born, come into being, growing/grown’)[1] is a set of largely discredited beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population.[2][3][4] Historically, eugenicists have attempted to alter the frequency of various human phenotypes by inhibiting the fertility of those considered inferior, or promoting that of those considered superior.
So a better example of eugenics is for example the nazi slaughter of 80% of people with schizophrenia. Thinking that by “removing the bad genes” schizophrenia will go away. Yet modern day germany has an average rate of schizophrenia, so that didn’t work. (Ignoring that fact it was literally genocide and is morally apprehensible in nearly every way).
We actually completely agree about everything, including the typical definition of eugenics. Here’s the problem though: when an actually good thing comes along which is technically eugenics (such as the aforementioned IVF programs), it can be called “eugenics” by opponents without much recourse. What’s the solution? Is there a defence along the lines of, “it’s not eugenics, it’s actually <some other word>,” or is the better move to say “not all eugenics is bad” (but more tactfully than that).
The trouble with the former move is that whatever word is chosen will be co-opted by lunatics like Beattie, and then using the word is just going to look like a dog-whistle or something. So unfortunately I’m stuck waving my hands trying to find the least-appalling way to say “#notalleugenics.”
Please, your input is greatly desired as to what to say here. Because I do actually believe in the (
DO NOT TAKE THIS OUT OF CONTEXT) power of good eugenics. You say that I should be discussing the ableist, racist, and other problematic aspects associated with eugenics – I feel like me and my target audience are all aware of these aspects, so you’re essentially saying I should include some form of wrapping to make a pill that can be swallowed more easily to get across my actual point. I don’t necessarily agree with this as it seems manipulative, like a Trojan horse, but I’m open to hearing what you have to say.(Regarding sickle-cell – people who have it generally say it’s a horrible illness. It causes immense pain and suffering, and could be resolved with easier access to IVF. I could have chosen another genetic illness, it’s just the first one that came to mind because I watched The Pitt recently. I’ll admit that choosing an African-associated genetic illness is not a good look for me lol.)
it can be called “eugenics” by opponents without much recourse
Fascists will call anything by any name if they think it gives them an advantage. So do you want to limit your ability to do the right thing, just to avoid that unavoidable risk?
When you say ‘right’ it sounds like it’s a forgone conclusion that eugenics is not a good term for the things I’m talking about, or that it’s somehow morally reprehensible to refer to stuff like selecting out genetic illnesses as eugenics. It seems to me to be eugenics though.
I think the word is tainted beyond usability. I have a visceral negative reaction to someone promoting eugenics.
I say just drop the word and say what you really mean. Something like- I support increased prenatal screenings and new technologies like CRISPR to reduce the suffering of humanity.
Fair enough, but what do I say when someone says “isn’t that eugenics?” Society has a deep-set opposition to the idea genes affect ones life in any way, but they do, and we should recognize that so that we can make progress toward reducing human suffering. Sincerely, the reason people dislike this idea is because it sounds like eugenics.
He can start with himself
Yeah, they don’t want this to happen. It would kill off their base. I guess it wouldn’t matter once they’re in a permanent officialdom, but if you’re trying to run a democracy, that ain’t working.
IQ is determined by test. Guess who will make the test!
They will start with saying that not being white is a clear sign of having a low IQ and start with those people.
The US is a fascist state. They are enacting Nazi policies such as:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_unworthy_of_life
RFKs autism list will lead to life unworthy of life.
You will literally purge Trump voters first. Statistically republicans have lower IQs. Fuckin Mein Kamf reading idiots.
So maga folks. Lol
