Auschwitz Again? (Part III)

In this post here, and this one here, we directed a light at the revolting Eugenics movement in the United States of the early and mid-twentieth century.

In those posts, we pointed out that only the discoveries of the Nazi concentration camps stirred the Western World’s moral sensibilities enough to turn on the Eugenics movement, and to reject it for the depraved monstrosity it was.

Then, we pointed out that the Eugenics movement had not actually died, but lived on in the abortion mills, and in the racist and genocidal thinking of the Race Grievance Industry and elsewhere. It thrives also in Europe today, where “post-birth abortion” is an idea growing in popularity.

One other vital component, though, was present in the Eugenics movement: a belief that man is the highest moral authority there is. Eugenicists were overwhelmingly atheists. They needed to expunge any belief in a higher power, an ultimate authority, in order to harbor their obscene beliefs. A higher power whose authority ought to have stayed the hands of the Nazis, the Communists … and the American eugenicists, whose entire idea was to “improve humanity” by virtue of “weeding out” those from its midst who were “inferior” based entirely on a thoroughly subjective concept of what constitutes “superior” and “inferior.”(1)

Adolf Hitler was a huge fan of the American Eugenics movement.

Now, we come to the modern day eugenicists. They believe that you can “weed out” the defective, or the inferior from society at both ends of life: via abortion and euthanasia.

This guy, for example, in what he thinks are perfectly rational terms will tell you why it’s perfectly okay for a deeply depressed 20-year old to walk into a “Death With Dignity” clinic and request that the personnel there put him out of his misery. The blogger will say that if the poor depressed guy has tried everything and has convinced two doctors that he’s tried everything, and is convinced that there’s nothing that can relieve his pain, and there never can be, then it’s just okay to kill him. He says it in the following two astonishingly stupid sample paragraphs from his post. We’ve added our own comments in-line and in [square brackets and red font]:

Euthanasia is an issue of wellbeing. It is not an issue on the sanctity of life [Oh, why not? Because this guy says so? Who is he to decree that killing someone has nothing to do with the idea of “sanctity of life?”]; no compassionate authority would compel us to live through humiliation and pain that will never get better. [Wow! There are people who can see into the future?!? People who can tell that “humiliation and pain will never get better”?!? Incredible! Who even knew there were such super-human people?] A compassionate authority would comply to a ‘sanctity of wellbeing’ or of conscious experience. [Again, why? Because this guy says so? Remember: his basic premise is that it’s okay to kill someone else — only under “controlled circumstances,” of course, and putting in place adequate safeguards, of course, and being sure that no one would ever abuse this ultimate power, of course. Yeah. Right.] Enforcing life [<– Incorrect term. The correct term is “not killing someone.” Not doing something is notenforcing life.”], even through endless misery and suffering, is cruel. [Again, no one can know whether misery or suffering will be endless or not. The guy writing this essay is a convinced atheist, and has no problem taking for himself the authority of God here. In fact, it’s his lack of a belief in a moral authority higher than himself that allows him to believe that it’s okay “under controlled circumstances,” or course, to kill someone. To take on God-like powers over another.] Questions of whether one has the right to take their own life, then, becomes an easy one [sic]: an authority (i.e. a body that grants us rights) which is compassionate [Another basic misconception by the author: there is nothing that suggests that a government has any interest whatsoever in being “compassionate.” All governments have one, and only one, prime directive: self-preservation. That’s it. All governments take all actions, make all laws, based solely on that one imperative. A government wouldn’t know “compassion” from shinola, and wouldn’t care. This is why the American founding fathers were so adamant about limiting the powers of the central government.] must give us the right to end our suffering [As you read further in the incoherent mess that is Allallt’s essay, you realize that by, “the right to end our suffering“, the author means: “the right of someone else to kill us without facing punishment.“] no matter what the course of action.

From a practical stand point there are many ways to end suffering: counselling, therapy, medicine, operations and other palliative care and fixing options. But certain illnesses—particularly the degenerative ones that often get us in later life—don’t permit themselves to treatment: degenerative illnesses of the nervous system, late-stage pancreatic cancer and I’m sure any doctor could name more. The current option of palliative care and waiting for death simply isn’t enough. [Why? Because this guy says so? Who died and made him God? How does he know? Easy: he doesn’t. What if the guy who’s convinced that there’s nothing that can help him is just simply … wrong? Even after consulting with “two doctors” and all the rest. Gee, I wonder if anyone has ever just been wrong before? Even on important matters? Naaaahhh… unthinkable!] If you have enough of your mind left to feel embarrassed that another person is caring for you, [A really deeply stupid thing to say. Why would anyone on earth feel embarrassed that someone else is taking care of him? A fundamental part of being human is the ability to feel empathy, to derive real benefit from helping another in need. It is a massive moral failing of our society that there could even exist any idea whatsoever that there should be embarrassment, or a diminishment of self-esteem or loss of dignity in allowing someone else to demonstrate his or her nobility by taking care of us.] to feel guilty that you have become a financial and emotional burden on your family, [This is the same grave moral failing as in the previous note. The basic error the author makes here is in not understranding that society needs to eradicate from its midst the horrific idea that to care for another human being is a “burden,” rather than the blessing that it actually is.]  to lose self-worth [Another stupid error: No one can deprive you of your sense of self-worth except you. No circumstances can diminish you except those you bring about yourself.] because of your condition then no amount of morphine and pretty nurses are going to help you. If this is the condition you are in—constantly feeling ashamed, guilty and weak and waiting for death [Again, this represents a grave moral failing on the part of society; that it would foster a state-of-mind in someone that he is somehow diminished as a person, somehow has less dignity, or worth, or value, simply because he is sick or suffering.] —who is anyone to tell you you must live? The right to suicide1 seems unquestionable.

I’m thinking of the “two doctors” thing above. Well! Doctors would never succumb to the temptation to abuse the ultimate power, now would they? Our 20-year old, of course, is absolutely sure to find only enlightened, wise, never-power-hungry-or-susceptible-to-any-other-human-failing doctors(2) when he presents himself for the killing.

He could visit, for example, Dr. Gosnell, or Dr. Kevorkian. How about Dr. Singer (because, why does it need to be a medical doctor. The “procedure,” after all, can hardly  be called a “medical procedure,” now can it?) How about “doctors” like Dr. Tiller? Or “Dr.” Mengele (though I’m beginning to repeat myself here)? Or any of the numerous “doctors” who will kill you for a fee in Europe (Wait…really? They’ll kill you for money in Europe? Surely, no one would ever abuse ethics for money, now would they!?!), where the practice of killing people legally is increasingly commonplace. Wonder how our depressed 20-year old would fare with those “doctors.”

And what, finally, allows the author of the above horrific paragraphs to pen them? Simple: atheism: the belief that there is no higher moral authority than man to decree what is right and wrong, good and bad.

Absent any such moral authority, one has absolutely free rein to decide whatever one wants in terms of what is right and wrong. No limits. No constraints. No guidelines except those one chooses for himself at his own whim. And those guidelines can change overnight, or in the next five minutes.

Where else can one see atheism’s bloody handiwork? Where else is it obvious that men have chosen to invent their own moral code, and have decreed that it’s just okay to kill other men wholesale in pursuit of their own goals? How about in the more than 120 million murdered in the century previous to this one? Atheism is an absolutely essential component of the most deadly disease to strike at humanity in its history: socialism. Without atheism — in particular without a belief in Jesus Christ, and His clear and unambiguous command to treat all other human beings with love — there is no possibility of socialism, or for that matter, for war, or any other manifestation of man’s inhumanity to man.

Including killing another — even when he asks you to.

— xPraetorius


(1) Today, as in the 20th Century, that seems to be based on the current understanding of “intelligence,” or of “intellectual capacity,” as I prefer to say. Tomorrow, however, who’s to say that the criteria for “superior” or “inferior” won’t be “attractiveness,” or “height,” or “skin color,” or “sexual preference,” or “eye color,” or some combination of the above and other characteristics?

(2) Never mind that the doctor who is willing to kill him is, by definition, already morally depraved.


21 thoughts on “Auschwitz Again? (Part III)

      1. It certainly does, Allallt… Euthanasia is a way to “fine tune” society’s demographic mix, as well as “weed out” the weak and the “unfit” in adulthood.

        We made the point that abortion was all about eugenics as well and showed how the left actually makes no bones about it.(1)

        If you are able to introduce the proper “incentives,” you could put in place the right circumstances to get nearly exactly the racial demographic mix you want.

        Furthermore, Eugenics — in playing with life and death as it does — overlaps heavily with the Right To Kill movement in that it presupposes that man is the highest authority, and need not consult any higher authority who might put a damper on his baser ambitions.


        — x


        (1) Ruth Bader Ginsburg told openly of her belief that abortion rights would help in holding down the population of those of whose numbers we would naturally want to keep down anyway. (rough quote). Euthanasia would accomplish the same purpose, only at the other end of the human life cycle.

        1. Euthanasia is not a concept that is supposed to fall along any demographic or social lines. It is entirely individualistic.
          Eugenics necessarily falls along demographic or social lines, based on the assumption that certain “races” (a non-scientific idea*) are better than others.
          How can an article about my perspective on euthanasia be about eugenics, given such a foundational difference?

          Even Darwin’s antiquated use of the term “favoured races” in one of the subtitles of ‘On Origin of Species’ was (a) only talking about variables and (b) pertained largely to broccoli. The way the Nazis went on to use it did not map onto Darwin’s use, and even Darwin’s use has been superseded on the grounds that it can’t be supported on genetic grounds (even if it made sense in pre-genetic understanding).

          1. You said: “Euthanasia is not a concept that is supposed to fall along any demographic or social lines.” Okay. Maybe it’s not supposed to. But it will. (Yes, I can see that future. Just as I was able decades ago to see that abortion would lead to “designer babies,” and a thousand other monstrosities, like Gosnell, Tiller, and more.)

            As soon as you have the right to kill, you will have abuse. And eventually, the “right to kill” will become the responsibility to kill, — for compassion’s sake, or course. And, for the greater good, of course.

            Don’t go all sophist and “slippery slope” on me. The “slippery slope” argument is only a fallacy when it’s not right.

            All thought tendencies in life are trajectories. If you constantly head toward ever greater ways and rights and excuses and “choices” to deal death, and if you don’t at some point arrest that trend, then the “slippery slope” is a reality.

            – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
            You said: “The way the Nazis went on to use it did not map onto Darwin’s use, and even Darwin’s use has been superseded on the grounds that it can’t be supported on genetic grounds (even if it made sense in pre-genetic understanding).”

            Whatever. Your opinion. And probably a good and informed one at that. All meaningless. You call the Nazis bad evolutionists, or bad eugenicists, or whatever. They called themselves good ones. All that had to happen is that the Nazis said it somehow made sense, or “mapped,” or jived, or added up, or was logical, and that a bunch of people believed them.

            This was your argument in our last exchange: that Christianity could be used as an excuse to commit violence. At some length, I agreed that people could twist Christ’s words — to love all people unconditionally — to mean that it was okay to kill them, but that they are wrong to do so. Christ’s words and his teachings were all about how to live life, and how to protect and preserve life (“the one here who is without sin, let him cast the first stone…” expressly condemns taking another life, at least in those circumstances.)

            The thinking of Eugenics is quite easy to fold, quite logically, into the Nazis’ use of it. Eugenics is about the ultimate in population control. There is no “ultimate in population control” without the ability to decide when “undesirables” die.


            — x

          2. There still aren’t designer babies. I’d recalibrate that crystal ball if I were you, and double check reality. Still no designer babies.

          3. Let’s see, let’s see… Something like 82% of all Down Syndrome babies are exterminated in the womb. What other genetic birth defects never appear because the mother kills her child? Let’s say that there are at least several dozen.

            How about: a woman cheats on her husband and becomes pregnant as a result. Secretly, she kills the baby before the husband even knows it has happened. Yep. Another “undesirable” eliminated.

            Now, the same woman believes (whether true or not) that there is a “gay gene” and she suspects her baby will demonstrate a tendency toward being gay. She kills the baby in utero.

            Now, that same woman finds out that, in her next pregnancy, the baby has a clubbed foot, so she kills that baby in utero.

            Now, that same woman becomes pregnant again, and suspects nothing is “wrong” with this baby, so she allows him or her to be born.

            How is that child not a designer baby? That the “design” is not yet all that “refined” — down to hair color, height, eye color, coordination, etc — means nothing.

            Furthermore, that the methods of “designing” that last baby — successive attempts to produce a “perfect” baby using abortion as a tool — means nothing. The resulting baby is a “designer baby,” in every sense of the word. Just as Alexander Graham Bell’s first device was a “telephone” in every sense of the word.


            — x

  1. “…no compassionate authority would compel us to live through humiliation and pain that will never get better. [Wow! There are people who can see into the future?!? People who can tell that “humiliation and pain will never get better”?!? Incredible! Who even knew there were such super-human people?]”

    I might offer that such prescience could be considered an evolutionary improvement… what a shameful way to address natures hard work. And besides, what would the world be like without Goth’s, Emo’s and Democrat Voters? Wait….

    1. One of the many reasons, I like you, Mike! You are always thought-provoking in the best possible ways. Even when obliquely disagreeing with me. Especially when obliquely disagreeing with me! 🙂


      — x

  2. Just for clarity on my side, are you advocating inaction unless certainty and perfection can be established first?
    Trawled back to 2013 to get that post, which is a shame because I’ve got one about our initial conversation coming up soon.

  3. Nope. I’m advocating not killing other people under any circumstances.

    As to the other conversation, I obtained what I needed from it, so have not been focusing on that topic for a bit. I’ll go back and see what you wrote again.

    I noticed that you did write some scurrilous things — something about my potentially not letting your comment through or some such tommyrot. I’m not sure why I’d have to say this again, but I have never censored a single comment of anyone’s except to edit out unacceptable language. Language that I have made very clear is not appropriate here.

    You appear to have assimilated Arkenaten’s (sp.?) delusion that he was being censored, as opposed to merely edited. If you are not going to interact in good faith, then I’m not sure I see the point in interacting with you. I’d appreciate a retraction on your pages.


    — x

    1. I’ll retract that if and when you can find the quote in question. I’ve said no such thing. Let’s not lose track of reality (again) xPrae.

      So, you’re anti-war, anti-death penalty and think anyone who shoots anyone (including home invaders) to death can be said to have used excessive force?

      1. Direct quote: “I’ll check over at his blog every now and then to see if the pingback has been allowed through moderation. But I doubt he’ll even allow that much.

        I’m anti-death penalty. I’m for defending oneself. Including against home invaders. Etc.

        I forgot for a moment that I was interacting with a sophist’s sophist. I’ll remember to tighten things up.

        Except, of course, if I’m just too goldurned inarticulate. 🙂


        — x

        1. Some continually seek validation through conflict under the pretense of intellectual discourse. I tend to just say a prayer for them and move on. In one sense you may be more patient than I in that you will invest the time granting them the validation they seek through said discourse.

          1. Very good point, Talon! I have another goal in pursuing this, which is to know better the argumentation of the wider Pro-Death Movement.

            Allallt is particularly skilled at taking advantage of the elasticity of words, twisting them out of their plain meaning, and into serving his “all-viewpoints-are-valid” purposes. It’s important, IMHO, to know how they do that.

            Don’t forget, this is a guy who says he understands — if not approves — of finding exhortations to kill, and encouragements to genocide, in the words of Jesus! Astonishing!

            That is a true contortionist!


            — x

          2. Definitely wasn’t critiquing your decision to engage. Keep up the good work. Regarding the opinion that “all viewpoint are valid,” any reasoned mind immediate recognizes the fallacy since most viewpoint ultimately are exclusive in their claim to validity thus making the argument that “all viewpoints are valid” invalid.

          3. Thanks, Talon! And very well said.

            I have noticed, by the way, that Allallt has a remarkable talent for eventually arguing against himself in just about any long exchange I’ve had with him.

            He’s a bright dude, so I sometimes suspect that it’s all on purpose, if a bit of a head-scratcher — in the sense of what’s the point?

            I think he actually might agree with the idea that all viewpoints are valid; even two mutually exclusive, or completely contradictory ones!


            — x

          1. The Philadelphia lawyer force is strong with you, Allallt. We’ve covered all this ground before.

            Let’s try it another way: I never approve of one free person’s initiating violence against another free person. I do approve of taking whatever measures necessary to defend oneself from physical harm. There is no inconsistency.

            And, in your way… someone always ends up dead. This trend toward “someone ending up dead” has been on an uninterrupted rise for more than a century, and it is because of people who can find a rationale for dealing death anywhere. The actual goal is the greater convenience, comfort and felicity of a tiny élite in charge of the “population control” efforts.


            — x

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s