- First Some Background
- One More Important Truth
- How the Government Kills Poor People
- Kevin Williamson Catches A Really Powerful Government Employee Admitting It
- Let’s Speak Honestly
Look, let’s speak honestly. The poor are poor for a lot of reasons. There is, however, a simple, ironclad truth: if you want not to be poor, the recipe is fairly simple:
- Get an education and obtain marketable skills(1)
- Learn to speak well.
- Don’t produce any children out-of-wedlock.(2)
All studies show that of the people who adhere to, really, just #’s 1 and 3, the percentage in poverty is in the single digits. I added #2. It’s a strong differentiator. There’s no difference in that statistic between races, sexes or any other human grouping either. All people who adhere to at least #’s 1 and 3, have a greater than 90% chance of success in America. Period.
So, poor people are generally poor for at least one simple reason: They didn’t do #1 and #3 in the above list.
And there’s another reason. Let’s call it weak will. Not doing #’s 1 and 3 in the above list is generally caused by choosing not to do #’s 1 and 3 in the above list. Simple as that.
Society explains very, very clearly that an education is a prerequisite for obtaining a good job in America. Furthermore, just about everybody’s very well aware that having children out-of-wedlock is not conducive to doing well in America.
More: if you’re a person of little means, society provides numerous ways for you to attend college and not pay for it.
You’re even luckier in this regard if you can demonstrate black or Hispanic heritage. If that’s the case, you won the education lottery! Colleges are begging for you to attend them, and are perfectly willing to fob off their cost of your free education onto others.
Inescapable Bottom Line: If you’re poor in America, and you have no education, it’s because you choose to have no education. If you choose to have no education, then you are likely (not certain) to be a person of weak will and/or character. It means that almost certainly you haven’t spent sufficient time understanding yourself, your future, and what and who you want to be in that future. Well, what did you do with all that time? Party?
Again, speaking honestly, all this means that the people answering to the description of “poor” are also much more prone to those other predictors of poverty: Substance abuse, smoking, and a raft of other unhealthy lifestyle components.
The government knows all this. Perfectly well. When Congressmen and women, state representatives, governors and other officials say, “We need to raise taxes on cigarettes to lessen the extent to which people smoke,” they’re really saying: “We know that a huge chunk of smokers are going to go right on smoking anyway, and we’re going to get a pot full of their money that way. Too bad if they’re poor.”
If they go ahead with the tax increases, they’re also saying, “We con’t care if poor people die as a result of this law.”
If some of them are honest, as the person in the “Kevin Williamson” section below was, then they’re saying, “It’s okay to enact this law because it will kill poor people.”
Everyone knows that these so-called “sin taxes” land most heavily on those least able to pay them.
I might add that all the people trying to raise taxes on the poor are Democrats and leftists. Raising taxes is just not a big policy goal of the right. Hasn’t been for more than a century.
As we know, the government does happily raise taxes on things like cigarettes and alcohol. Nowadays it costs the poor saps who keep on smoking just about ten bucks a pack for cigarettes, and a whole bunch for even cheap booze. I don’t know the details because I don’t smoke or drink.
But my ex-wife does. She’s an alcoholic and a smoker. And she’s killing herself slowly. When I was married to her, I was much younger and more naïve and allowed her to “manage” the money for a while. I was making a pretty good living, but I always wondered why we were always living paycheck to paycheck, and simply assumed that it was because she wasn’t working, and the cost of living, and all that. One day it hit me. I came home from a week-long business trip and went to the refrigerator to get a glass of orange juice. There was nothing in the fridge but a full, unopened magnum of wine.
That observation began a long period of frequently finding the refrigerator nearly or completely empty except for the ever-present magnum of wine which reappeared each day. We might not have food, or juice, or bread or anything else, but we always had that magnum of wine ready for my wife’s afternoon and evening’s drinking.
That began a period of many years filled with unsuccessful attempts to get my wife to quit. Finally, I simply cut off the booze money, and she had divorce papers in my hands within two weeks.
I knew what would happen after that. She would get a very favorable arrangement (she did), the kids would live with me (they did, and do), and she would spend all the money I was going to pay her on booze and she would head rapidly downward physically (she did).
Policy makers know that huge percentages of the poor are a lot like my ex-wife: people who for whatever reason simply choose not to quit smoking or drinking.
I used to think that addiction was a powerful thing, and I still do, but there are, also, weak people out there, and they’re generally poor. Policy makers know full well that they are going to take money for food, medicine, transportation, heating, lighting, and other necessities out of poor people’s hands when they raise the “sin taxes.”
In the case of my ex, who hasn’t had a steady job since we divorced more than 10 years ago, she is choosing to buy the wine, pay the taxes and skip the meals. And she’s dying. Between you and me, I’d be surprised if she were to last the year. But, that’s okay. You see she’s really of no more use to society, so where’s the value, for society, in keeping her around?
Don’t imagine for a moment that policy makers don’t know that this happens, and that they’re helping it to happen.
Don’t believe me? Read this by the indispensable Kevin Williamson of National Review. In that column, Williamson quotes Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as she candidly admits to believing that the government should limit the poor’s numbers. Not, of course, by making them less poor; no — by encouraging them to pursue abortions. Here’s part of Williamson’s piece:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, having decided for some inexplicable reason to do a long interview with a fashion magazine (maybe it is her celebrated collection of lace collars), reaffirmed the most important things we know about her: her partisanship, her elevation of politics over law, and her desire to see as many poor children killed as is feasibly possible.
Speaking about such modest restrictions on abortion as have been enacted over the past several years, Justice Ginsburg lamented that “the impact of all these restrictions is on poor women.” Then she added: “It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people.”
This is not her first time weighing in on the question of what by any intellectually honest standard must be described as eugenics. In an earlier interview, she described the Roe v. Wade decision as being intended to control population growth, “particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” She was correct in her assessment of Roe; the co-counsel in that case, Ron Weddington, would later advise President Bill Clinton: “You can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy, and poor segment of our country,” by making abortifacients cheap and universally available. “It’s what we all know is true, but we only whisper it.”
The government is killing poor people, and they know it perfectly well.
Whether it’s from killing them in the womb, or hastening their demise by grabbing their money, leaving them just enough to fuel their addictions, they’re being killed. That they participate in their own murders doesn’t change the immorality of what the government does. If a man is standing on a ledge threatening to jump, sure there is something wrong with him, but that doesn’t make it any less grotesque to yell, “Jump!”
We said this before in these very pages, but we said it in a more theoretical sense. That column is here. In that essay, in the form of a conversation between two leftists, we predicted that there would be discussions as to which segments of the population were more or less useful, so were more or less likely to be targets of “incentives” to abort their babies and/or euthanize their old and infirm. And all this in order to control the very mix of the population.
Here’s a key passage:
You tell people that their loved one is in pain, that they’re suffering…you tell them that they would want it this way…even if the old folks object. You advise the kids how to let their loved ones know how not to “be a burden to them and their family.” You show the old folks’ kids how to drop hints that caring for them is taking food or care or time away from their grandchildren, or their grandchildren’s future. You show them how to drop the right hints that their elderly one’s continued care is a real hardship for his or her grandchildren. Let me tell you, social pressures are every bit as powerful as monetary incentives. Look we convinced women to … kill… their… own… babies. They won’t think twice about sending their parents and grandparents off to die.
Lay it on thick enough and the old fogies will be lining up for the needle! There’s not a grandmother or grandfather in the world who could resist the “it’s for their grandchildren” thing!
Look: all we do is simply ummm exert certain “pressures” — which we call “incentives” — on certain populations and we get the desired results. If we can freely manipulate the number of abortions and the number of “compassionate deaths,” then we control,just about exactly, the population mix of our society. If we do that in every country, then we get exactly the world we want. You thought “population control” meant keeping population numbers down? Nope. That’s only a small part of it, but “population control” means exactly that: controlling the population. In every aspect of their lives that we need to control, such as: birth, life, freedom, economic activity, death…[smiles mischievously] Just kidding! Lighten up! We need to control only their birth and death…everything else takes care of itself from there.
And, “ballast” is the most important. With the proper amount of ballast in the population, we can control the rate of development of society. More ballast and we slow things down, ’cause the working segments have to work that much harder just to support the non-working ones. Less ballast and things move forward more quickly. We control the ballast with “Reproductive Choice” and “Compassionate Care.” We simply fine tune birth and death rates ’til we get the ones we want. And, don’t forget…the ballast votes something like 98% for us, so we need to be really in control of their numbers!
You see: If we control the population — down to when they have babies, what babies they have, and when they die — then we get the society we want, and isn’t that really what we all want?
At the very top of this section we said that the government is killing poor people, and that policy makers know it full well. There’s a reason this is even possible: the poor allow it. Every time some poor slob drops down 10 bucks for a pack of smokes she is saying that it’s just okay to kill her. She could stop it this very moment. And she should. And, importantly, some will. But most won’t. Their lack of will, focus, intelligence, character, or whatever, is what made them poor in the first place.
For those of you who thought that the repugnant pseudo-science of eugenics had been buried, forever to be reviled by civilized people, you were wrong. The Democrats have embraced it as an unofficial policy position.
Still don’t believe me? Here’s another one: Amanda Marcotte, Eugenicist. Here’s a passage from the column, again by Kevin Williamson:
The main reason that the abortion movement cannot quite disentangle itself from its roots in 19th-century eugenics is the niggling, persistent fact that it doesn’t really want to. Consider this from Amanda Marcotte, who is clutching her ironically worn thrift-store pearls over the fact that Indiana may pass a law that would make it a crime for parents to kill their children over a disability.
No one is well served when children with disabilities are forced on families that know they don’t have the emotional or financial resources to help them. And this entire bill, which is supported by anti-choice groups in Indiana, would only truly impact the most vulnerable families—those who don’t have the money or ability to travel out of state to get these abortions elsewhere.
This is familiar, ancient, nasty stuff: that sick people and disabled people are a burden, that this burden outweighs their humanity, that the poor cannot be trusted to care for the children they have, etc. That “no one is well served,” the inescapable implication of which is that the children in question are better off dead.
All of this is based upon the reduction of human life to an accounting entry. There is an occasion upon which the state and its representatives are in fact legitimately called upon to go about the grim business of accounting for human lives and human deaths on a ledger—war. War is a poor operating model for family life, but those who advocate abortion as a means to some desirable social outcome — all of whom are eugenicists, whether they understand themselves as such or do not — bring war into the obstetrician’s office, into the nursery, and into the family.
Who lives? Who dies? Who is fit to be born? Would any sane human being leave those questions to Amanda Marcotte et al.?
Williamson draws a compelling parallel between today’s new eugenicists in the Democrat Party, and war. I think there’s another, even better metaphor: Agriculture. Or, Dairy Farming, if you prefer. The left view you and me and your family as little more than farm animals whose numbers need to be controlled as precisely as possible. They have, obviously, seen that we easily control nearly the exact number of each type of cow, or horse, or pig or chickens that we have by breeding more or fewer, and “harvesting” more or fewer.
Think of cattle: We decide how many Holsteins, or Guernseys, Jerseys or Angus, or Herefords, or thisses or thats that we produce and/or keep around. If one gives more milk, we keep more of those around where there is a higher demand for milk. If another produces more meat (per pound of feed, of course) then we keep more of those where there’s greater demand for beef.
We do all that with farm animals and fowl, ocean fish, birds, deer… you name it. Why wouldn’t we do it with humans?
Well, simply put: we do. It’s called, in brief, abortion, tax policy and the growing movement in support of euthanasia. Oops: I mean, “Death with Dignity.”
In the eugenecists’ brave new world, if certain races of women produce more milk, we’ll keep more of ’em around to feed babies. If certain races of women produce larger babies or more babies per time period, we’ll keep them around ’til such time as we need fewer or smaller babies. Then we’ll just thin the herd a bit by aging their numbers and reducing the population. Are certain races more docile? Fine, we’ll keep them around for the grunt work. Need more or less human “ballast?” Nothing to it! Incentivize abortion and euthanasia in their midst to a greater of lesser extent. Are certain races more intellectual? Well, we’ll use them to run things, but better not have too many of them. And we’ll definitely control the percentages of women and men that we keep around.
While this is unwritten public policy fantasy in Democrat Party circles, it’s written theory in eugenics circles.
Still don’t believe me? Do you really think that the Chinese didn’t know they were going to overwhelm their country with swarms of young men by instituting their “one-child policy?” Of course they did. Furthermore, it’s been obvious that they’ve been producing men like crazy over there since the policy went into effect. Chinese leaders are well aware of this. Why on earth do you think they’d do that if not for one thing: they consider these men coming into adulthood now, to be a potentially important export.
We already control when and whether people come into this world. When we control their exit date as well, we’ll have instituted the Democrat Party’s dream. Perfect population control. How much the better if the population asks for it in the name of “caring” and “compassion” and “dignity” and choice!”
(1) – Obtaining a Masters Degree, or even a doctorate, in say, “Womens’ Studies” doesn’t constitute getting an education. That’s just learning about one of the current fads. That’s why I put in the second phrase: “obtain marketable skills.” These are skills that would allow you to work anywhere in the country, and many parts of the world. Nursing, for example. Teaching, Computer skills, Engineering… things like that. If you obtain a real degree in a real discipline focused on producing real goods and/or services, then you have obtained both an education, and marketable skills.
(2) – Absolutely produce children — they will be the most beautiful parts of your life — just wait ’til you’re married, and intend to stay married,(3) before you do.
(3) – How sad that I’d have to put in that qualifier!