By Alan Mercer

When most “truthers” talk about “eugenics”, we are thinking of forced, mandated and coercive sterilization policies. Websites like mine have presented case after case of large numbers of women being tricked into sterilization procedures under international programs–decades after World War II.

When G. K. Chesterton wrote Eugenics and Other Evils (over a decade before World War II), he was referring to a law that was going to extend mandatory sterilization beyond “lunatics” to the so-called feeble-minded. (I could criticize the concession that Chesterton seems to make, because of the danger of allowing “experts” to determine who is crazy, because this is going to be more and more the problem nowadays with new disorders having been created by DSM-V.)

Personally I hold to views which I have in common with G. K. Chesterton and other Christians that human life is sacred, and that we do not elevate human authorities above the place of God to set themselves up as ones who decide who is going to be born—with a bunch of arbitrary standards and arbitrary control-freak judgments and fake predictions about who deserves to exist or not.

And they can call it “science” and pretend it’s science or “genetics.” This is the new religion. And we know it’s all about control. And many of us who want to talk about freedom are not in the business of elevating and legitimizing social engineers.

I believe that many people reacted in horror against World War I as indicated in the last chapter of G. K. Chesterton’s book, and they turned to their Christian and freedom-loving individualist English traditions, and they turned against horrific control-freak policies such as eugenics.

And at the end of World War II, I believe the same thing happened, and that this is the likely explanation why eugenics became socially unacceptable after World War II among the general public. It was popularly rejected because of people’s revulsion against what had happened in totalitarian Europe. People wanted to be normal again.

But eugenics was never rejected by the elites. Even worse government atrocities continued after World War II ended (injecting people with radiation and STDs, MK-ULTRA mind control programs, etc). The elites kept practicing eugenics continually when they could get away with it, because their attitudes never changed. But popularly it was unacceptable and probably never entered anyone’s mind. In retrospect, when we started to hear about stories in Canada and the United States about mandatory sterilization, these were very shocking–as the Christian culture (like it or not) had not yet been dismantled completely–the Lord’s Prayer was still being prayed in school in places like Ontario. There was a certain point, however, in the 1970s and 1980s when the abortion propaganda and the elite policy of abortion started turning things around. Abortion became the new eugenics tool against the “poor.”

To respond to a few points in the Red Ice interview, the poor really refers to those who are not allowed to be themselves and thrive on their own terms, who are cut off from resources by monopolists, so-called “IQ” levels be damned. Comparing different cultures is like comparing apples and oranges. It’s a mug’s game. We need to unify against the elites across boundaries. We need to overcome divide and conquer strategies. The idea that “higher IQ” people have less children is not obvious at all. If middle class whites are so intelligent, why are they having less children and more debt? That doesn’t seem very intelligent at all. Just bias, bias, bias and arbitrary measurements of supposed value. There should be a measurement for how readily we succumb to propaganda and throw away street-smarts and survival instincts. And another thing, white or not, this is NOT “our” civilization–all these wars and this whole system. We are just cogs in this system. We are just propagandized slaves. Don’t hand any more of your own power to anyone!

Combined with propaganda about pharmaceuticals and abortion and the medical system in general, and new definitions of mental disorders, the dangers of coercive sterilization affecting the general public becomes a very real danger at this time.

Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines “eugenics” as

. . . .(ca. 1883): a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed.

Notice the use of the word “control.” It’s fine to talk about a person deciding their own mate, but the implication with eugenics is that there is some genius-level set of scientists who are capable of deciding who should breed and who shouldn’t.

The current Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines “eugenics” as

the science of improving the (esp. human) population by controlled breeding for desirable inherited characteristics.”

Notice the use of the world “controlled.” That corresponds with how Julian Huxley saw the social sciences in one of his old essays on eugenics. Science is for knowledge and for CONTROL.

“Desirable” means what? To who? Let some obsessive perv with authority in a white coat decide what “desirable” means?

In the current system, we have various methods of control. We have governments who are forcing taxpayers to fund abortion and sterilization domestically and internationally. Even that is one level of coercion and control.

We have constant “EDUCATIONAL” efforts to propagandize the people with the “carbon is bad” climate change doctrine and bizarre new anti-family doctrines on behalf of this international Huxleyan system of population control. This propaganda is forced on the public via the controlled media and via the mandatory public school systems. So-called government-funded and tax-exempt foundation promoted “education” is another level of control and coercion.

Many of us in the “truth” and “freedom” “movement” reject the scientific and eugenics dictatorships of Brave New World and Plato’s Republic, and we reject doctrines that set fallible human beings up as secular humanist priests (or priests of Gaia if it turns to that) ruling over the minds of the world’s peoples.

I don’t know what your principles are, but eugenics policies violates our principles of human liberty, and our refusal to see human beings treated as farm animals to be herded about. And so many of us, I believe, should always try to make common ground with Christianity in treating human life as sacred and even giving special attention to those who have unfortunately become victims of serious debilitating conditions. We don’t need socialism for this. We just need to have our natural rights and our freedoms. In the meantime, we need to be clear about our values or else we are going to lose the thread. To lose respect for the lives of other human beings is to lose respect for ourselves. If we have complete collapse of values, there is a collapse in any potential movement of resistance, and then the elites will have no opposition at all.

Many of the conditions that people are suffering from are due to our toxic environment – both before birth and after birth. Most of these conditions, I believe, can be explained by a combination of false information about nutrition and by being separated from natural foods and by being surrounded by toxic water (via fluoridation–untreated flouride waste with associated contaminants), food (gmo and pesticide-laden food), hormone-disrupting plastics, pharmaceuticals and vaccines—created by those who are running the current and active eugenics program internationally.

Another factor in alleged lower intelligence discussed in the interview (besides prescription drugs, toxic water, toxic food, toxic vaccines), is the deliberately degraded education system, the deliberately degraded entertainment industry, and the deliberately stupefying news media. All of these are perfectly clear and valid explanations for why people are going to start hating their neigbhours and turning them in to the “medical authorities” of the coming scientific dictatorship for sterilization or other forms of forced drugging and the latest so-called behavioral disorders.

Isn’t this where everything is headed—long, long after World War II? Why would anyone who cares about freedom and rights want to start giving intellectual ammunition to the social managers who are already standing by to take care of the problems?

In a freer society, I believe there would be plenty of wealth and energy to go around. Health problems would be much less and more manageable.

But as long as we are being victimized by toxins in the food, water and pharmaceuticals, and by propaganda, and if more and more of us turn our backs on principles and freedom, then human life and the struggle for our future is going to be an uphill battle.