Bob Kemp
Obamacare is 21st century eugenics (Part 1)
By Bob Kemp
There are a lot of dots to connect in this column spanning only the last 150 years or so. So I ask you reader to be patient as I present the facts about eugenics as I have explored and understand them. Together we will see that the Obama administration and others, knowingly or not, have resumed the horrifying work of government-sponsored eugenics that ultimately brought forth the holocaust of Nazi Germany, but had much of its initial research rooted deep in the United States. The facts will speak for themselves and cannot be denied by any reasonable human being.
I do not know if Mr. Obama or anyone on his staff or cabinet or in the House of Representatives, the Senate or members of the U.S. Supreme Court is aware of these facts and what role their predecessors, contributed to the eugenics work of the 20th century. If any of these people are aware of our nations past eugenics research and work in addition to what it led to, then I have to ask those individuals what is their personal responsibility to the American people and their constituents in regard to the health care reform bill that is currently working its way through our government and will soon be voted on. I ask those elected and appointed individuals, do they recognize that the eugenics research and work of early 20th century America and Germany has found its legalized purpose and fruition in the health care reform bill of 2009 America. Have they considered the fact that so much of the reform bill has its genesis in eugenics; everything from abortion to end-of-life counseling to health care rationing. Indeed, those who postulated evolution, which led to eugenics, would be very happy to see what they have wrought forth on not only the United States, but the world.
This health care bill, in its present form, is an abomination before the Lord God Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth. It strips human beings who were created in His image of all vestiges of the worth He has placed on every person and reduces mankind to nothing more than a resource to be managed by government; file numbers to be processed through a manmade system of bureaucracy; dumb cattle to be slaughtered when the government has no more use for them — or they come to believe and accept that they have outlived their usefulness to society and have become a burden.
Those of us who cannot be counted among the sheeple find ourselves living through what feels like a bad Science Fiction movie. I mean...really bad. There are two that come to mind; Soylent Green and Logan's Run. In both films (one set in the not too distant future and the second a bit further out), the poor sheeple barely exist in a dystopian society and every aspect of their lives are controlled by the government. In Soylent Green, overpopulation leads to diminished natural resources, which leads to high unemployment, poverty, and disease. An ecological disaster also occurred sometime in the past, leading to a worldwide food shortage, making real food rare and expensive. Only the most privileged of society can afford real food staples, while the rest of the population exists on processed food distributed by the government. This food, in its different forms, is called Soylent, and the newest item on the menu is green in color because it is supposedly processed from sea algae. At the end of the film, we learn that Soylent Green is actually processed from human flesh, which is harvested from sheeple who go to government-run suicide clinics to end their miserable existence.
In Logan's Run, everyone is killed when they turn thirty years of age. The government of this film runs a tighter ship than that of Soylent Green, but you do not escape the fact that the government is in charge of every aspect of your life from womb to tomb. What you will do with your short life has already been determined for you, and you are actually conceived to fill a projected future billet in the government work force. When you are born, you receive what is called a "Palm Flower," which will turn a variety of colors as you age until it finally turns black, which is your signal to report for "renewal" as it is euphemistically referred to. Of course, the sheeple are extremely comfortable and want for nothing, unless their wanting extends to living past the government-mandated age of renewal. The government can be resisted and even beat, but this is only attempted by people, not sheeple. In the film, renewal is a community event that spectators observe in a carnival atmosphere. Because renewal is typically so neat, clean, and painless, the unsuspecting audience is unaware that renewal is actually a glorified form of public execution. I wonder if these two films are the top favorites when the authors of the health care reform bill have everyone over for a movie night. Instead of popcorn, maybe they pass around soylent green. Yes, it would be laughable if it were not the reality we find ourselves actually living in...but not accepting.
In 1859, Charles Darwin's book The Origin of Species was published. Darwin put forth the theory that there is a struggle for the survival of the fittest among the creatures of the earth. The outcome of this struggle would determine who would be extinct and who would dominate. It should be noted that later, Darwin himself admitted he didn't believe this to be absolutely true, but that he had a crisis of faith and was searching for answers. His work gave rise to his cousin, Sir Francis Galton, considering whether this new theory of evolution could and should apply to humans as well. Somehow he decided that humans are a species undergoing change and that humans would in the future be different in appearance, thought, and capabilities. Galton questioned if man could improve the human race by allowing only the very best to procreate.
In 1869, Galton published Hereditary Genius in which he stated that all human characteristics developed naturally, not from environment. He suggested encouraging the humans with the best characteristics to reproduce, thereby improving the human race.
My question is a simple one at this point, and I will ask it again and again in this column: by what standard does one go about determining what qualities and characteristics in humans are favored and which qualities and characteristics are not? What is the deciding authorities' foundation? Who appoints the board of elitists who determine such things?
Galton studied the families of the English blue-bloods. He investigated the preceding ancestors of 1000 English leaders and found that they came from an exclusive group, so to Galton this was all the proof he needed to demonstrate that certain traits were in the genes and not the product of environment.
The work of both Darwin and Galton accomplished a number of things that would ultimately spur on the eugenics movement of the early 20th century. It gave motivation to atheism and made it more acceptable in polite circles and conversation. Their theories reduced man to an animal, not to be valued any more than any other animal. Our ability to reason is the only thing that sets us apart from our "cousins" in the wild. If I may use the term, they de-humanized man. Later the eugenicists' would construct their models and framework on the words of Darwin and Galton to justify what they did to people in the name of science. The eugenicists would actually elevate certain races of man while at the same time devaluing others, setting in motion a war of the races and genocide on an unprecedented scale.
By removing the wisdom God from the equation and substituting the folly of man, science has managed to remove a man's soul and his worth. I will close part one of this column with this story:
Two men are standing on a busy street corner one day. These two men are friends and have been for some time. As they are standing there, one man raises his arm and points at a man across the street on the opposing corner. He says to his friend, "You see that man over there? I don't like him." His friend follows the pointing hand and finds it difficult to single out one man, a stranger to him, among so many. Unable to determine which man his friend is talking about, he finally gives up on trying to identify the offender to his friend and simply asks him why he doesn't like that man. His friend looks at him and smiles a curious smile, winks an eye and replies "Because I don't know him."
It is easy to de-humanize someone you do not know and take away their worth in God's eyes. But God does see all people, and has placed special value on each one. You wonder what value He has placed. It's simple; just look at the cross.
© Bob Kemp
August 15, 2009
There are a lot of dots to connect in this column spanning only the last 150 years or so. So I ask you reader to be patient as I present the facts about eugenics as I have explored and understand them. Together we will see that the Obama administration and others, knowingly or not, have resumed the horrifying work of government-sponsored eugenics that ultimately brought forth the holocaust of Nazi Germany, but had much of its initial research rooted deep in the United States. The facts will speak for themselves and cannot be denied by any reasonable human being.
I do not know if Mr. Obama or anyone on his staff or cabinet or in the House of Representatives, the Senate or members of the U.S. Supreme Court is aware of these facts and what role their predecessors, contributed to the eugenics work of the 20th century. If any of these people are aware of our nations past eugenics research and work in addition to what it led to, then I have to ask those individuals what is their personal responsibility to the American people and their constituents in regard to the health care reform bill that is currently working its way through our government and will soon be voted on. I ask those elected and appointed individuals, do they recognize that the eugenics research and work of early 20th century America and Germany has found its legalized purpose and fruition in the health care reform bill of 2009 America. Have they considered the fact that so much of the reform bill has its genesis in eugenics; everything from abortion to end-of-life counseling to health care rationing. Indeed, those who postulated evolution, which led to eugenics, would be very happy to see what they have wrought forth on not only the United States, but the world.
This health care bill, in its present form, is an abomination before the Lord God Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth. It strips human beings who were created in His image of all vestiges of the worth He has placed on every person and reduces mankind to nothing more than a resource to be managed by government; file numbers to be processed through a manmade system of bureaucracy; dumb cattle to be slaughtered when the government has no more use for them — or they come to believe and accept that they have outlived their usefulness to society and have become a burden.
Those of us who cannot be counted among the sheeple find ourselves living through what feels like a bad Science Fiction movie. I mean...really bad. There are two that come to mind; Soylent Green and Logan's Run. In both films (one set in the not too distant future and the second a bit further out), the poor sheeple barely exist in a dystopian society and every aspect of their lives are controlled by the government. In Soylent Green, overpopulation leads to diminished natural resources, which leads to high unemployment, poverty, and disease. An ecological disaster also occurred sometime in the past, leading to a worldwide food shortage, making real food rare and expensive. Only the most privileged of society can afford real food staples, while the rest of the population exists on processed food distributed by the government. This food, in its different forms, is called Soylent, and the newest item on the menu is green in color because it is supposedly processed from sea algae. At the end of the film, we learn that Soylent Green is actually processed from human flesh, which is harvested from sheeple who go to government-run suicide clinics to end their miserable existence.
In Logan's Run, everyone is killed when they turn thirty years of age. The government of this film runs a tighter ship than that of Soylent Green, but you do not escape the fact that the government is in charge of every aspect of your life from womb to tomb. What you will do with your short life has already been determined for you, and you are actually conceived to fill a projected future billet in the government work force. When you are born, you receive what is called a "Palm Flower," which will turn a variety of colors as you age until it finally turns black, which is your signal to report for "renewal" as it is euphemistically referred to. Of course, the sheeple are extremely comfortable and want for nothing, unless their wanting extends to living past the government-mandated age of renewal. The government can be resisted and even beat, but this is only attempted by people, not sheeple. In the film, renewal is a community event that spectators observe in a carnival atmosphere. Because renewal is typically so neat, clean, and painless, the unsuspecting audience is unaware that renewal is actually a glorified form of public execution. I wonder if these two films are the top favorites when the authors of the health care reform bill have everyone over for a movie night. Instead of popcorn, maybe they pass around soylent green. Yes, it would be laughable if it were not the reality we find ourselves actually living in...but not accepting.
In 1859, Charles Darwin's book The Origin of Species was published. Darwin put forth the theory that there is a struggle for the survival of the fittest among the creatures of the earth. The outcome of this struggle would determine who would be extinct and who would dominate. It should be noted that later, Darwin himself admitted he didn't believe this to be absolutely true, but that he had a crisis of faith and was searching for answers. His work gave rise to his cousin, Sir Francis Galton, considering whether this new theory of evolution could and should apply to humans as well. Somehow he decided that humans are a species undergoing change and that humans would in the future be different in appearance, thought, and capabilities. Galton questioned if man could improve the human race by allowing only the very best to procreate.
In 1869, Galton published Hereditary Genius in which he stated that all human characteristics developed naturally, not from environment. He suggested encouraging the humans with the best characteristics to reproduce, thereby improving the human race.
My question is a simple one at this point, and I will ask it again and again in this column: by what standard does one go about determining what qualities and characteristics in humans are favored and which qualities and characteristics are not? What is the deciding authorities' foundation? Who appoints the board of elitists who determine such things?
Galton studied the families of the English blue-bloods. He investigated the preceding ancestors of 1000 English leaders and found that they came from an exclusive group, so to Galton this was all the proof he needed to demonstrate that certain traits were in the genes and not the product of environment.
The work of both Darwin and Galton accomplished a number of things that would ultimately spur on the eugenics movement of the early 20th century. It gave motivation to atheism and made it more acceptable in polite circles and conversation. Their theories reduced man to an animal, not to be valued any more than any other animal. Our ability to reason is the only thing that sets us apart from our "cousins" in the wild. If I may use the term, they de-humanized man. Later the eugenicists' would construct their models and framework on the words of Darwin and Galton to justify what they did to people in the name of science. The eugenicists would actually elevate certain races of man while at the same time devaluing others, setting in motion a war of the races and genocide on an unprecedented scale.
By removing the wisdom God from the equation and substituting the folly of man, science has managed to remove a man's soul and his worth. I will close part one of this column with this story:
Two men are standing on a busy street corner one day. These two men are friends and have been for some time. As they are standing there, one man raises his arm and points at a man across the street on the opposing corner. He says to his friend, "You see that man over there? I don't like him." His friend follows the pointing hand and finds it difficult to single out one man, a stranger to him, among so many. Unable to determine which man his friend is talking about, he finally gives up on trying to identify the offender to his friend and simply asks him why he doesn't like that man. His friend looks at him and smiles a curious smile, winks an eye and replies "Because I don't know him."
It is easy to de-humanize someone you do not know and take away their worth in God's eyes. But God does see all people, and has placed special value on each one. You wonder what value He has placed. It's simple; just look at the cross.
© Bob Kemp
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
