M A I N P A G E


Tuesday, July 14, 2009

And to Think that it Only Took 7 Months 

posted by Joe @ 11:24

With the US “Health care debate” this stuff is popping up all over the place. Who should get care, really? Is the question that they want no-one to ask, bit it bears little difference to past arguments on the control that they would have imposed on man under any number of pretexts.

Hand the left enough power and you end up with them bringing up the Eugenics argument.

Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens.

The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?

These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology -- informally known as the United States' Science Czar.
It’s isn’t that different than Margaret Sanger in the 20’s, the Nazis in the 40’s, or Paul Ehrlich speciously warning and cheering on catastrophic disaster in the 60’s, but it’s all the same. The crux of the matter is that they think lives are the property of the state. Take on that “human responsibility” for society to the invasive a degree as to be the only source of medical care and you not only end up with rationing, but disposal to resolve the infighting that it creates – the competition for resources is made larger by putting every person in a fight for their life at some point. Only it isn’t the illness alone that they’re fighting, it’s access to the cure.

The question now isn’t who and why are they looking to eliminate? Sanger seemed to hate black black people. Nazis hated some more than others, but pretty much had it in for you if you weren’t their notion of the classical European. Ehrlich was hoping we’d all just hop joyously into the great blender of imaginary resource virtues, which is the train Holdren seemed to have also jumped.
• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
There must be a way to make it cute if you can't argue some social necessity. They could call the well timed movie "Putting Down Baby" or something.

The idea was, after all, quite popular. You could rant and get paid for it. You got to feel smart. You got to feel like you were the inheritor of all that mattered in this world, and take it out of society’s hands or anything larger than that, and preach a kind of power over others for yourself, but without the sctual responsibility of seeking anyone else’s consent. Then again since ‘universal agreement’ has been declared on the eco-apocalypse death cult – that one where we must be forced to ‘do everything we can’ one day, and need to engage in mass suicide to accomplish anything at all on the other, we already have the new meme.

Which is rather obvious from this one of his mere “good-managerial-practice” memo bullets:
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.
I’ll bet he has a well worn ‘hate is not a family value’ sticker on his Prius too.


|

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been pre-authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of political, economic, scientific, social, art, media, and cultural issues. The 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material that may exist on this site is provided for under U.S. Copyright Law. In accordance with U.S. Code Title 17, Section 107, material on this site is distributed without profit to persons interested in such information for research and educational purposes. If you want to use any copyrighted material that may exist on this site for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. // AVIS : En vertu de l'article L. 122-5 du Code de Propriété Intellectuelle, ce site Internet peut contenir des citations dont l'usage n'aura pas reçu l'autorisation du détenteur ou de la détentrice du droit d'auteur. La présentation de ces citations se fait dans le but de faciliter la découverte de divers sujets politiques, économiques, scientifiques, sociaux, artistiques, médiatiques ou encore culturels. L'article L. 122-5 du Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle dispose et autorise « les analyses et courtes citations justifiées par le caractère critique, polémique, pédagogique, scientifique ou d'information de l'oeuvre à laquelle elles sont incorporées ». A contrario, les emprunts qui excéderont les dispositions du « droit de citation », devront obtenir l'autorisation du détenteur ou de la détentrice du droit d'auteur.