As we have seen, progressivism is an ideology that emerged in the United States towards the end of the 19th century; that thrives in the two World Wars; which changes its name and is now called liberalism (as it intends to free man through the State); and that when Kennedy is assassinated by a communist, he calls himself “left”. Although, historically, progressivism has always been closer to Nazism, as it created eugenics and was obsessed with race (Kennedy was a notorious anti-communist, treated like a big bogeyman by the traditional Latin American left. I’m curious to see how long it takes for this new Brazilian left post-Lava Jato to praise Kennedy).
According to Jonah Goldberg, in Liberal Fascism
Family planning yesterday
Today, the bulwark in the defense of abortion as a birth control mechanism is the Planned Parenthood organization, created by Margaret Sanger (99 – 1966). She was a notorious eugenicist and put the expression “family planning” on the order of the day. Classical liberals are wary of planning when applied to economics, deride language planning when proponents of gender-neutral aberrations appear, but are fine with birth planning. And a curious thing, nowadays, is that, even if there are countries with an alarmingly low birth rate (see Europe and Japan), the expression “family planning” continues to be used only for the purpose of reducing the number of children. .
However, another curious thing – and which is certainly an indication of moral degeneration – is that Margaret Sanger was against abortion. She was born into a world where women dreamed of getting married and having children; after her work, women began to dream about sex and money. Her Planned Parenthood pioneered the dissemination and distribution of contraceptive methods, thus making pregnancy an optional consequence of sex. Since it is an optional consequence, it is possible to plan who has more or less children. “Sanger believed,” says Goldberg, “that if women understood sex as primarily a pleasurable experience rather than a procreative act, they would embrace birth control as a necessary tool for their own personal gratification. ”. She was correct.
We have also seen that, before abortion, a eugenic mechanism inaugurated by progressivism – later continued by the Nazis and later by Welfare Sweden – was sterilization. forced. Goldberg tells us that she, “under the banner of ‘freedom to reproduce’, sought to prohibit the reproduction of the unfit and to regulate the reproduction of the whole world. ‘More children of the fit, fewer children of the unfit – this is the central question of birth control’, he wrote frankly in his book The Pivot of Civilization , by 99 (the book had an introduction written by Wells, in which he declared: ‘We want fewer and better children… and, with the ill-born, poorly trained hordes of inferior citizens that you impose on us, we cannot create the social life and world peace that we are determined to create’.)”. HG Wells is the one who defended a liberal fascism, an enlightened Nazism. And according to Goldberg, he had an affair with Sanger, seeing that it was all the same clique. For the avoidance of doubt, I also include an excerpt from a code written by her in 37: “No woman will have the legal right to generate one child without permission… No permission will be valid for more than one child.”
And speaking of cliques, Sanger was in agreement with WEB Du Bois as to an alleged inferiority of the black. This hero of black racialism focused his attention on the “talented 10%” of the black race – which implied a contempt for the 12%. Thus, black activist WEB Du Bois partnered with feminist Sanger to put black communities in the crosshairs of family planning. On the white side, the population reduction of the “inferior” race would be considered; from the dark side, the prospect of creating, from the 10]%, of a black race “so good as for white” (from the height of the 21st century, I should note that all the decades of eugenics and sterilization of the “unfit” in Sweden resulted in the selection of Greta Thunberg. Therein lies the pinnacle of decades of eugenics). In 1939, then, Sanger creates the Negro Project.
The last thing left for us to get to the The present is to remember the moral justification of Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes for sterilizing Carrie Buck: we must prevent those degenerates from being born who will die on the gallows, executed for their crimes, or starvation, for their own ineptitude.
Family planning today
Well then: this eugenics and utilitarian mentality is in full swing, and even turned against the blacks. Abortion replaced sterilization, and the same utilitarian moral justification of sterilization is given for abortion.
According to Goldberg, “after the Holocaust discredited eugenics per se, neither the eugenicists nor their ideas disappeared. Indeed, they have lurked in areas such as family planning and demography and in political movements such as feminism.” Thus, the data from 2008 showed that Sanger’s efforts were rewarded, as blacks, although they were 12% of the population, were 90% of abortions. And black abortions were more numerous than the sum of black deaths from violence, AIDS, heart disease, cancer and accidents (and here you can clearly see that Du Bois’ eugenics didn’t work very well either).
Goldberg mentions that Sanger was aware of the extremism of his own ideas and feared that, if well publicized, they would infuriate blacks. In 2008, she wrote that the “racial eugenics bonus” arising from abortion liberalization was taboo until a few years ago. The point is simple: in the US, blacks have high crime rates. If fewer blacks are born, then there is a reduction in crime. In 1939, a pro-lifer named William Bennett observed that if the intention is to reduce crime at any cost, it is enough to abort each and every black baby. He was called a racist for that, when his point was precisely to argue against utilitarianism. In the same year, the famous economist Steven Levitt released the best-seller “Freakonomics”, which reads: “Legalized abortion has led to fewer children unwanted; unwanted children commit more crimes; legalized abortion therefore led to fewer crimes”. Goldberg notes that “Freakonomics removed all references to race [que ele tinha feito num artigo de 99] and never correlated the facts that because aborted fetuses were disproportionately black, and blacks disproportionately contribute to the crime rate, reducing the size of the black population reduces crime. Even so, the press recognized this reality and didn’t seem to care” (isn’t it curious that this public security policy does without the police?).
Now we are witnessing the sterilization of minors through the trans ideology and the defense of the termination of pregnancy in increasingly extended periods. The sky is the limit? Well, Goldberg brings to mind an article by the kind, selfless, cuddly animal lover, pope of veganism, Prof. Peter Singer of Princeton. The title is “It’s not always wrong to kill babies” and defends the legitimacy of infanticide, since conscience takes time to form and the world, according to him, is overpopulated. You can see it with your own eyes, and, yes, he is the academic hottie of the Ethics discipline. And I should add that he is a Jew of Austrian descent who fled from Hitler – that is, this talk that being Jewish prevents someone from being like a Nazi is soft talk.
As the reader can see in
Washington Post, the Swedes considered eugenics a condition for establishing the Welfare State, and discontent with that State caused younger Swedes to publicize, in 97, eugenics. The correlation is quite intuitive: just as it is difficult for a householder to feed several mouths, it is difficult for a paternal State to feed several citizens. Therefore, it is necessary to reduce the number of citizens dependent on aid.
But the USA was in a very different situation from Sweden and Germany: they were a country full of different races, with blacks, mestizos and degenerate whites from the South. Thus, the issue of Welfare was much more racialized than in any other country.
Goldberg points out two academic names of scientific racism engaged in the discussion of the minimum wage and the Wellness: EA Ross and Sydney Webb. Both assumed that the Aryans were the superior race, and if hordes of immigrants and blacks came to the North to take jobs away from whites, that was a problem to be solved. Ross said: “The coolie [peão oriental] cannot outperform the American, but it can reduce his salary”. Moral of the story: you have to create a minimum wage and set it so high that only skilled, white workers can find someone who pays. And what to do with coolies, black people etc.? “Royal Meeker, a Princeton economist and adviser to Woodrow Wilson, explained: ‘It is better for the state to fully support the inefficient and prevent the multiplication of their lineage, rather than to subsidize incompetence and immoderation and allow them to continue breeding others of the same kind. to them’”.
That is: the history of Welfare (which Goldberg places as arising in Bismarck’s Prussia under the name of Wohfahrstaat) is confused with eugenics and population control. It was about taking away the freedom of work from the poor and putting them under the control of the State.
The consequences are not always as planned; just because someone received help doesn’t make them dependent for life. In any case, it is necessary to study the effects of well-being. In the US, Sowell’s obsession is with the degradation of black families since the beginning of the Welfare State – that and the importance of culture, as Orientals have escaped the same fate. Among us, it is important to assess whether the “lack of exit” from programs such as Bolsa Família is an intentional consequence or not, since the project is from a political group master of importing progressivism. It is worrying that all academics deify the program. For my part, I have already pointed out that the program must have enabled the arrival of crack to rural corners of the country.
As the book is by 2008 , does not speak of the LGBTQuiabo. Talk about race. And it corroborates what the average Brazilian thought when he saw our traditional anti-racism being put down since the imbroglio of racial quotas in universities: that identity is a legitimation of racism; an exchange of anti-black racism for anti-white racism.
Goldberg brings as an icon of black racism Leonard Jeffries, father of Afrocentrism and defender of the melanin theory. He also notes that the critique of “white logic” by black supremacists is identical to the critique of “Jewish science” by the Nazis. Both do not believe in the universality of human knowledge and want to racialize everything in academia.
The Enlightenment legacy was thrown away; Martin Luther King, ditto. Diversity would no longer have anything to do with the absence of prejudice. On the contrary, it would be just another pretext for social engineering.
In 2008, Goldberg wrote using the future tense: “the pursuit of diversity will become a permanent authorization for ultra-scrutiny managers of social engineering to discriminate against any group they want in order to achieve the desired ‘balance’. For example, the use of quotas keeps Jews (and Asians) unfairly out of universities to help blacks and Hispanics. What is different is that liberals are now sure that such Policies are a sign of racial progress.”
And that is what is happening. It is the perpetuation of racism by new means. To make matters worse, those in favor of neutrality are also called racists – thus, people are coerced into being racists to escape the accusation of racism.
Common sense and chicken soup
Against all this, cultivating common sense is essential. The verses “an alms to a man who is healthy / either kill him with shame, or vitiate the citizen” are worthy of note. And if the people are not ashamed of receiving aid or alimony when they can work, or of having an abortion for leading an unruly life, or of asking for privileges because of the color of their skin, all that’s left is to stay on all fours and wait for the Planner to mount us. But if we have common sense and courage, there is no planner to hold us back.
All this lobby Progressives have been targeting Brazilians for years, and there is no way to complain only about the government, if this ideology lives on the corruption of citizens’ customs. There is propaganda, it is true; but there is also the very individual freedom not to succumb to it.