Category Archives: Eugenics

Mar 15, 2022 04:49 PM (GMT+8) EqualOcean

The National Health Commission held an enlarged Party group meeting yesterday. The meeting stressed the need to do a good job in epidemic prevention and control, focus on key links, coordinate epidemic prevention and control, disease control system reform, vaccination and other work, firmly hold the bottom line, and consolidate the hard won achievements in epidemic prevention and control. We will continue to deepen medical reform, explore the path of high-quality development of public hospitals at all levels and types, promote the construction of hierarchical diagnosis and treatment and optimize the medical order, and promote the reform of the disease control system. Continue to improve the medical and health service capacity, strengthen the capacity-building of county hospitals, continue to implement the construction of key specialties, and promote the inheritance, innovation and development of traditional Chinese medicine. Strengthen the service of "one old and one small", improve the health and elderly care service system, implement the three child policy, and improve the service level of eugenics and child rearing. Further promote the healthy China action, improve the level of joint construction and sharing by the whole people, and promote the construction of a human health community.

This text is a result of machine translation.

Go here to see the original:

Health Commission: we should promote the inheritance, innovation and development of traditional Chinese medicine and implement the three child policy...

In the conflict between Athens and Sparta, the Melians tried in vain to maintain their neutrality. As Thucydides apprises us, the Athenians were rather blunt about the issue: Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. As the Athenians succeeded in thesiegeof Melos, all Melian men were executed, the women and children sold to slavery.

That the the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must is one of the many nuggets of wisdom accessible in even a rudimentary reading of ThucydidesPeloponnesian War. For a deeper reading, we might turn to renowned classicist Jacqueline de Romilly, who shows how and why Thucydides chose to write. But we dont read Thucydides anymore, nor do we read someone like Romilly.

If an undergraduate encounters Thucydides today, it is through the prism of race and gender. Consider the case of a Princeton academicwhotheNew York Timessaid has been speaking openly about the harm caused by practitioners of classics in the two millenniums since antiquity: the classical justifications of slavery, race science, colonialism, Nazism and other 20th-century fascisms. The subtitle of thatTimespiece was Dan-el Padilla Peralta thinks classicists should knock ancient Greece and Rome off their pedestal even if that means destroying their discipline.

Destruction it is, all right. If a barbarian were to encounter the ruin of a Roman aqueduct, we may surmise that he felt some confusion, but also awe and wonder at the sight of it. Wokeism would demand taking that very same barbarian and teaching him to feel disgust for and moral superiority to the remains of that edifice. The last time Western academics developed a discipline that made people less and less knowledgeable about reality was eugenics, in the early 20th century.

The fashionable pose today is for one to declare himself a citizen of the world. And we do so even though we evidently understand less of whatever that world is. We are continuously surprised by the moves, attitudes, and opinions of someone like Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping. Recently, theNew York Timesran anarticletitled, How China Under Xi Jinping Is Turning Away From the World. Noting that even if the [Chinese] government values the economic benefits of globalization, the same does not seem true of less tangible ones: artistic, intellectual, interpersonal. And [d]espite his rhetorical commitments, Mr. Xi is narrowing the scope of economic engagement, calling forreduced reliance on exportsand keeping Chinese companies closer to home.

It never seems to have dawned on the writer that the Chinese may have different goals for globalization. Perhaps the Chinese never thought they were signing up for a process that would lead to a liberal global village where everybody sits by the fire singing kumbaya. Maybe they were really into America exporting jobs and know-how to China, and, as they gradually became stronger and richer, feel freer to move away from their rhetorical commitments to our illusions about globalization.

The president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, was a bit more decisive when discussing the recent war, as shedecidedto have the colors of the Ukrainian flag shine on the European Commissions headquarters. A symbol of our solidarity. Friendship. And steadfast support. President von der Leyen, before she was appointed head of the European Commission, was Germanys Defense minister. During her tenure there,as I wrote previously,a parliamentary reportexposed German planes that cant fly and guns that dont shoot. Fewer than a fifth of Germanys helicopters are combat ready. Luftwaffe revealed that most of its 128 Typhoon jets were not ready to leave ground. All of Germanys six submarineswere out of commission.

Von der Leyen got the defense post because she has been loyal to the causes of the political class. The defense post in a de facto disarmed Germany is a symbolic one, apt to be given to someone like von der Leyen, a party-machine lackey, to signify a female breakthrough in a traditionally male field. It has been said that the only thing between Germany and the forces of Putin is the Polish armya situation made possible by the fact that the American taxpayer and soldier are basically all the defense that Germany has.

In Britain, the countrys spy chieftweetedthat we should remember the values and hard won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights. So lets resume our series of tweets to mark#LGBTHM2022. Upon reading the tweet I remembered that when the British soldier, Lee Rigby, who was murdered in Southeast London by two Islamic extremists. The police, while unable to save Rigbys life, were ready to raid private residences for inappropriate comments on Twitter and Facebook. The newspaperIndependent quotedthe police, who said We began inquiries into the comments and at around 3.20am two men, aged 23 and 22, were detained at two addresses in Bristol. The men were arrested under the Public Order Act on suspicion of inciting racial or religious hatred. Our inquiries into these comments continue.

One may detect a certain convergence between Putins Russia and the spy-chiefs Britain, where private residences are raided in the wee hours of the morning for inappropriate comments. On a Sunday the Russian authoritiesdetainedanother 900 people participating in anti-war protests, raising the total of more than 4,000 since the war started. The same day, von der Leyenannounced that the Kremlin-backed RT, formerly known as Russia Today, and Sputnik, [will] be banned in the E.U. She said, We are developing tools to ban their toxic and harmful disinformation in Europe. There is not much danger in a Westerner being fooled by RT propaganda presently. But it would take an aggressive reeducation campaign to prevent him from noticing the obvious promotion of war coming from those who purport to protect him from disinformation.

Romilly, the classicist, reminds us that Aristotle thought that the birth of rhetoric was interwoven with the birth of democracy. These contests of words have been fundamental elements of our heritage. Do not expect von der Leyen or the British spy chief to have any sense of loss as they go about breaking with that fundamental Western tradition. Our education today consists in making us insensible to our depleted selves, hostile to the past and numb to the world itself. In replacing Thucydides and women such as Romilly with the semiliterate grifters like Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi, we are losing the means to understand the world. We are otherizing reality. We dont understand Putin and Xi. Pretty soon, even the idea of the Ukrainians fighting for their own country might appear to us a strange and foreign sentiment.

Napoleon Linarthatosis a writer based in New York.

Continue reading here:

Losing Touch With Thucydides - The American Conservative

Photo: Charlottesville demonstration, 2017, by Anthony Crider; cropped by Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC), CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons.

In his new bookDarwinian Racism: How Darwinism Influenced Hitler, Nazism, and White Nationalism, historian Richard Weikart devotes a chapter to explaining the continuing influence of Darwinian racism in American society today, including its connection to the Alt-Right. Its a topic that weve covered before atEvolution News, but it deserves more attention.

Unfortunately, in recent years the term Alt-Right has been misused as something of a catch-all for conservatism. Thats a slander. Most conservatives have nothing to do with the actual Alt-Right. In reality, the Alt-Right has an ideology of its own, a mix of both left-leaning and right-leaning elements. But their various positions are united by one belief: that the white race is genetically superior. And as Weikart points, they draw toxic inspiration from the claims of Darwinian biology.

In claiming that the white race is superior, Alt-Right articles and podcasts cite certain early 20th-century social Darwinists. Three of these thinkers areMadison Grant,Sir Francis Galton, andLothrop Stoddard.The last of these three, perhaps a less familiar name, served as adirector for Margaret Sangers Planned Parenthood.

The ideas of the social Darwinists permeate the Alt-Right ideology. Some years ago Richard Spencer, an Alt-Right writer most notably recognized for his role in the Charlottesville Unite the Right demonstration in 2017 interviewed thinker and painter Jonathan Bowden on Spencers podcastVanguard.The episode is titledThe E Word: Eugenics & Environmentalism, Madison Grant & Lothrop Stoddard.During their interview, Spencer and Bowden not only detail the history of the eugenics movement, they defend it, even attempting to connect eugenics with both abortion and environmentalism, using Grant as their justification. They argue that if the Left could only embrace the notion that some men and women are genetically inferior, then they could deal with the environment effectively.

During the podcast, Bowden states:

if one eschews the politics of human rights in a grandstanding and universalist way and sees human identity and glory in very much an individual or localized manner then deep green and ecological ideas have a lot to say to all forms of conservativism that wish to preserve and restore as against that which is transitory and that which is to our end and which is purely and only concerned with human life to the detriment of the ecology without which mankind couldnt subsist.

These men have a habit of using academic language to mask their harsh message. What hes basically saying is that if wed just get rid of this troublesome notion of human rights, we could deal with overpopulation and save the environment.

When it comes to abortion, both Bowden and Spencer consider it a backwards form of eugenics. As Spencer explains, they [the elites] are in some ways pursuing negative eugenics in the sense that they are certainly much more willing to abort a child with Down syndrome or so on, and that, of course, can be discovered in the womb. In some ways, one could also suggest that eugenics is still living on.

Bowden adds:

I also think its important to realize that essentially whats happened is that two concepts have been conflated into one another in order to summarily dispatch both. This is the idea of eugenics as against dysgenics. Dysgenics, which is, if you like, the negative side of eugenics whereby you act though as to prevent harm, but you also act as to, in some senses, prevent life through abortion or through selective contraceptive use or through sterilization. The proactive and yet sort of snip-oriented and negative side of eugenics is its really controversial feature. The wholesome side, the building people up, the tonics for the brave sort of side, is one which only the most nihilistic and sordid Left-winger would be opposed to, because they find nauseous the idea of happy, athletic, intellectually precocious families beaming for the camera in an Osmonds-like way, you know.

Both Bowden and Spencer blame the publics rejection of eugenics on the move away from Galtons understanding of Darwinism after the Second World War. Spencer says, you were talking about the academic side of this issue and the fact that so many of these researchers who were quite predisposed to Galton, Darwinism, eugenics that switched. Is that part of the so-called Boasian revolution in anthropology? What I mean by that is, of course, Franz Boas, who was a sworn enemy of Madison Grant.

Bowden affirms Spencers suspicion and then adds a revealing statement about the motives behind this switch. He comments, Yes, I do think it happened in a certain context though. I think that people who supported eugenics found that unless they found a different vocabulary for it their support couldnt be sustained in polite society.

Regarding this switch, the two conclude their conversation when Spencer says, When you had baby boomers and our generation, you were essentially having people who were influenced byBoasian anthropology. They did not think in terms of Galton and lets call it classical Darwinism. Really those people lost the battle, and this is the reason why eugenics kind of vanished after the Second World War.

These two think eugenics was a worthy practice and they lament that it is no longer openly used. Spencer summarizes his thoughts on the subject:

What do you think about our unique ability to reclaim conservationism or naturalism and how, much like Grant, that should be a major cause for us, which is to keep the world green and beautiful and to fight things like the terrible overpopulation that you see in some kind of horrifying city like Mexico City or So Paulo? We want quality over quantity, and we want to live on a beautiful Earth.

While venerating Galton and Stoddard, the conversation mostly centers on the legacy of Madison Grant, a New York lawyer who popularized the eugenics movement with his books, includingThe Passing of the Great RaceandThe Conquest of a Continent.Here are some samples of his thought:

Clearly, Grant has been an influence on Spencers thinking. In that connection, Spencer has a book to recommend, historian Jonathan SpirosDefending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant: He [Spiro] offers a very useful and richbiography of Grant, which has really influenced my interest in Grant, and one of his major themes is that if you tell someone that Grant is an early environmentalist thatll usually bring a smile to their face, but if you tell someone hes also an early eugenicist, that will usually inspire shock and horror. But as Spiro points out, there was no contradiction in Grants mind between saving the redwoods and saving the White race.

Its a strange thing to hear these individuals claim they are on the Right while simultaneously affirming abortion, an act considered a form of murder by many conservatives. The reason for this confusion of terms is that Spencer, Bowden, and others on the Alt-Right regard themselves as the Right in the same way Mussolini or Hitler might be considered on the Right today. That, however, ignores that Hitlers platform was, after all, nationalsocialism. Conservatism today is not only defined by social issues but by a belief in limited government, and there can be nothing more invasive than eugenics.

Its important to understand what the Alt-Right believes. They are not just an extreme offshoot of either the Right or the Left. Instead, they have their own ideology based on antiquated ideas from the early 20th century, an ideology heavily influenced by eugenics, which was inspired in turn by as Spencer puts it, not incorrectly classical Darwinism.

Read the original post:

Ties that Bind: Alt-Right and Social Darwinism - Discovery Institute

On February 26, 2022, Reiner Fuellmich's grand jury held the final day of hearings with expert testimony on eugenics and transhumanism.The first speaker, Patrick Wood, introduced the topic as Biodiversity: The Genetic Takeover of all Living Things - beginning with GMO crops and progressing to GMO animals. Lastly, Wood discussed GMO human beings and the concept of eugenics. He remarked that this topic has snuck up on us in the most unexpected way" [8:02].

Patrick Wood, economist, and author, testified about the World Economic Forum's (WEF) plan to implement transhumanism - a form of eugenics - as a method to gain control of the masses. He used the WEF's own words to explain it.

The central premise of transhumanism, then, is that biological evolution will eventually be overtaken by advances in genetic, wearable, and implantable [injectable] technologies that artificially expedite the evolutionary process.-World Economic Forum [14:15].

The European Academy on Religion and Society warned,While most of humanity is still in the middle of the coronavirus crisis, the highly influential members of the World Economic Forum have a plan for what should come next. It is called 'The Great Reset', and it envisions a truly 'Transhumanist' future for us all [10:03].

And not in a good way. This brought up the topic of the mRNA injections which have now been shown to change the human genome by altering DNA through reverse transcription [55:59].

https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73/htm

Wood testified that there logically must be another reason, an ULTERIOR MOTIVE to the compulsory mRNA shots since we now know they neither stop transmission nor infection from the virus [49:15, 49:40].

They are going after the genome of the human condition, and I don't think this has anything to do with the promise...we are going to make life better for you [47:57],Wood testified.

US attorney Ana Garner commented to Wood, It sounds to me they are trying to assume the role of playing God when they are talking about the takeover of our evolutionary process. I was struck by the analogy to software, and what you need to do to software, to continually update it...Human 2.0...it seems to me these injections will never stop until we get what they are doing - and the masses say NO MORE - and that this seems to have been a large experiment to see how many people would capitulate with the fear-mongering they did, the lies they have spread [49:59].

Up until now, many viewed Transhumanism as the province of conspiracy theorists. The problem with this is that Klaus Schwab himself openly endorses it. Klaus, the Chairman of the World Economic Forum believes Transhumanism is a fundamental part of the Great Reset within the 4thIndustrial Revolution.

The difference of this 4th Industrial Revolution is it doesn't change what you are doing.It changes you if you take genetic editing just as an example. It's you who are changing [0:09],Klaus said.

Transhumanism involves speeding up natural evolution using intelligent design, assuming those responsible for the mRNA vaccines acted intelligently. Ideally, it consists of improving human health, although as Patrick Wood testified, history thus far has shown it to produce only worsening of health.

In the Grand Jury proceeding, economist and author Patrick Wood was asked about developments since 1992 in genetic modification. Wood explained that the results have been largely negative, ranging from people falling ill after consuming genetically-modified crops like corn to the mRNA vaccines with their host of adverse effects.

The overwhelming majority of genetic modification has resulted in negative outcomes [1:00:47],Wood said.

Nonetheless, judging by the speakers at the WEF annual meetings held in Davos, Switzerland, Klaus Schwab has continued to pursue this agenda.For example, historian, professor, and author Noah Harati spoke at Davos in 2020 and delivered this message about Transhumanism emerging from the confluence of artificial intelligence and biotechnology through data collection.

Those who control the data will control the world.Now data is replacing machinery as the most important asset...If the data becomes concentrated into too few hands, humanity will split not into classes - it will split into different [man-made] species...We have reached the point when we can hack not just computers; we can hack human beings and other organisms. [2:16, 2:23, 2:57], Harati said.

He summarized, Once we have algorithms...they could predict my desires, manipulate my emotions, and even make decisions on my behalf. And if we are not careful, the outcome might be the rise of digital dictatorships...If democracy cannot adapt to these new conditions, then humans will come to live under the rule of digital dictatorships...By hacking organisms, elites may gain the power to re-engineer the future of life itself [6:32, 8:18, 8:27].

Professor Noah Harari is not your ordinary academic. He does not own a cell phone and seems to avoid typical digital devices much of the time. A devotee of Vipassana meditation, related to Buddism, Harari spends two hours per day in this practice. He also undertakes a 30-day meditation retreat annually. This is held in silence without books or social media.

While Klaus Schwab led the WEF in the direction of the Great Reset using the tool of Transhumanism, Patrick Wood explained the concept to the Reiner Fuellmich grand jury. The idea was announced in Rio in 1992 in a Technocracy Conference and involved the acronym NBIC, which stands for Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Cognitive Technology, and (Computer) Interface [13:40].

Wood testified that transhumanism is about the stakeholders at the WEF controlling the ownership and direction of this artificial genetic modification of human beings. In particular, the stakeholders want a future population of human beings that are easily monitored and controlled. To this end, controlling the populations thoughts and free will is necessary.

The ideal transhuman will be someone who says, Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better [38:08].

Wood pointed out that the WEF, the tranhumanists want more than just a persons physical body; they want ownership over their privacy, and this includes their thoughts and free will [38:40].

Wood continued that as time goes on and the genetic modification progresses, these corporations will claim patented property rights over each individual, just as Monsanto has won property rights over its genetically modified crops [39:40].

Attorney Reneveldt asked whether Wood's NBIC testimony affirmed that the Moderna mRNA vaccine was the culmination of the Technocracy mandate first planned in the UNCED Rio de Janeiro Conference in 1992 and is now being carried out in every country of the world [16:40, 1:05:43].

Wood answered without hesitation,Yeah. [1:06:36].

Wood went on, Evidence of harm is being hidden...What they are hiding is all of the injuries that are happening...in almost every agency, there's been scandals already where data discovered months later was intentionally not released because it would taint their narrative...they are hiding the bad data, but they just don't have any good data to put out there [1:07:40].

Attorney Fuellmich asked Wood this question, I suppose that you will not object to the conclusion that the only thing they are doing right now is lying to us in order to keep us from understanding that they can't do what they promised to do [1:08:46].

Wood agreed and added, And whatever they promised to do in the first instance, whatever they promised that they would do, most likely was a lie from the start. They never had any intention or ability to produce what they said they were going to produce...they intentionally deceived people into doing something they would not have otherwise done. That's the nature of propaganda...they said from the beginning we are going to prevent the disease from getting into your body...bald-faced lie - completely false [1:09:05, 1:09:30].

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich concluded,If they are lying about this, there has got to be some other objective out there [1:10:40].

Patrick Wood made another observation, If the propaganda chain is ever broken, the whole thing will fall apart in a matter of weeks and people will wake up one day and say what on earth just happened...The people who are controlling the top of the pyramid have created a culture of abuse that has trickled down into every hospital and doctor's office and every emergency clinic everywhere in the world...Who created the culture of abuse? [ 3:07:43, 3:08:05]

Every country has someone like Anthony Fauci - the director of all things medical - to dictate policy. Where did this stuff come from? Did it come from the World Health Organization and if so who? You are really surfacing critical questions here [3:09:10] .

Israeli writer and safety researcher Ilana Rachel Daniel testified that medical professionals were now coming forward and admitting there was no benefit in the vaccinations. They publicly admitted the masks and lockdowns had no effect. She explained how the Israeli media took money from the government to spread vaccine propaganda to entice the population to submit to the shots [3:10:00, 3:11:30].

Ilana Daniel explained Israel's economic hardship. Thousands of businesses went bankrupt. People lost the way to put food on the table. So they have no time to think about anything. They just did it because everybody did it. And they don't have the time to look for the information that will tell them it was a mistake,Daniel said.[3:12:25]

Vera Sharav, a Holocaust Survivor, testified next. When you have a corrupt government, you're going to have all the corrupt elements showing up. It doesn't matter that it's Israel. I keep talking about history because I was in that history, but it shouldn't be that only a witness takes history seriously. History is really how you can discern patterns - similarities [3:14:20].

I recognized what she meant. We, the people, cannot simply trust what the medical authorities or the news media report. We cannot always take our government's narrative at face value. One must exercise some common sense and some critical thinking.

For example, when my friend and colleague contracted brain cancer in January of 2020, I, as a physician, did not simply accept that his average survival would be 15.1 months with the standard of care including chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery. Instead, I second-guessed the establishment and did my research on PubMed, the National Library of Medicine.

As a result, I found to my great surprise that a repurposed drug cocktail of commonly used drugs - Atorvastatin, Metformin, Mebendazole, and Doxycycline - could at least double his survival. And here he is now, some 26 months later, alive, well, and skiing enjoying the title, Stanford's Glioblastoma Poster Boy.

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/covid-19-repurposed-drugs-regulatory-capture-dr-justus-r-hope-sounds-the-alarm/article_77c44310-8057-11ec-bebe-8f623d5982d8.htm

I dedicated my book on repurposed drugs to him.

However, before I finished the book, the COVID-19 pandemic struck, so I decided to do a quick literature review on the coronavirus. I started with a look at medical history. We had seen this movie before in the SARS outbreak of 2003. So I looked at all the repurposed drugs used against the first COVID epidemic, and guess what I found?

Four researchers from the CDC found that chloroquine was a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread.

The scientists wrote this in their conclusion. Chloroquine, a relatively safe, effective and cheap drug used for treating many human diseases including malaria, amoebiosis and human immunodeficiency virus is effective in inhibiting the infection and spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. The fact that the drug has significant inhibitory antiviral effect when the susceptible cells were treated either prior to or after infection suggests a possible prophylactic and therapeutic use.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/

I knew that HCQ or hydroxychloroquine had a better side effect profile. I also found it helpful in repurposed drug cocktails against glioblastoma, so I included analysis in my book. Dr. George Fareed and Dr. Brian Tyson used a repurposed drug cocktail containing HCQ and saved 7,000 COVID patients. Their book is a MUST READ.

And my research led me to Dr. Pierre Kory and his work on the repurposed drug Ivermectin. It caused me to revise my cancer book and add a section on Ivermectin's effectiveness against COVID-19. Then I published another book exclusively on Ivermectin and how it could save many hundreds of thousands of lives. But unfortunately, hundreds of thousands were deprived of Ivermectin through a criminal campaign of propaganda and censorship, and they died unnecessarily.

Recent studies have been released that decisively show that Ivermectin reduces death and works far better than Remdesivir, which has been shown to cause death or kidney failure in up to 1/3 of its recipients. Dr. John Campbell covered these studies and mentioned that he expects a scandal over the failure to adopt Ivermectin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfyOihhAD4A

I expect multiple trials and prosecutions once Reiner Fuellmich hands down his grand jurys indictments.

But why stop at COVID-19? I advise all readers to think critically and examine historical patterns in Russia invading Ukraine. Guess what? It has happened before, and if one takes some time to examine what happened in the past, one can gain an independent understanding of what is going on now.

Given the blatant lies I have witnessed over the past two years in the form of incessant propaganda and a constant bombardment of fear, I have concluded that all media must be fact-checked by another independent source, preferably one published before 2019. Here is what I found for the Russian invasion of Ukraine from Professor Mearsheimer's talk at the University of Chicago.

In the talk, the Distinguished Professor of Political Science reviews why Russia invaded multiple locations, Georgia, Crimea, and Ukraine. His speech convincingly shows that Russia is not trying to conquer for the sake of creating a greater Russia. Instead, Putin is exercising the same type of protection we in the USA exercised when we were threatened with nuclear missile deployment in Cuba.

The Monroe Doctrine holds that the United States will not tolerate a Communist expansion into the Western Hemisphere. Likewise, Russia will not accept NATO's expansion near its Western borders. Thus Mearsheimer concludes that Putin is neither crazy nor expansionist. He cannot allow Ukraine to join NATO, and rather than allow Ukraine to join; he must wreck the country, which happened in 2014. No more and no less. In my opinion, we are seeing the same thing repeating [28:40].

And now, we are witnessing a massive and coordinated resurgence in propaganda, censorship coupled with genocide through top-down directives stemming from the World Health Organization and the US CDC and NIH. The World Economic Forum is the common denominator. And yes, there are distinct parallels between what happened in Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia. So Vera Sharav is spot on. One does not need to be a witness to take history seriously.

For those who may still doubt, please watch this familiar speaker at the 2020 Davos Meeting and carefully listen to his words. Noah Harari is speaking to the members of the World Economic Forum in 2020. He explains the dilemma of past tyrants, and he offers the WEF members asolution. Their dilemma was their inability to control the thoughts and free will of the masses. Today we have the technology to exert full and complete tyrannical control through transhumanism.

Now in the past, many tyrants and governments wanted to do it, but nobody understood biology well enough,Harari said.Nobody had enough computing power and data to hack millions of people - not the Gestapo nor could the KGB do it. But soon, some governments and corporations will be able to systematically hack all the people [4:10].

And if indeed we succeed at hacking and engineering life, this will not just be the greatest revolution in the history of humanity, this will be the greatest revolution in biology since the very beginning of life four billion years ago [4:37],Harari said.

Harari proudly announced that in one hundred years, people would look back at the COVID-19 Pandemic as the moment of regime change to one of Totalitarian Digital Surveillance.

People could look back in a hundred years and identify the coronavirus epidemic as the moment when a new regime of surveillance took over, especially surveillance under the skin [6:12],Harari told his audience.

I don't believe it will come to that despite the attempts to distract the world with Russia and Ukraine. While I am sympathetic to the plight of millions of Ukrainians - and we should all pray for a swift end to that conflict - we must pay even greater attention to the plight of billions of the world's people who are facing a totalitarian takeover. We must avoid the resulting enslavement of our children, grandchildren, and descendants through their dark and Godless agenda.

We have Mass Formation by many who refuse to acknowledge this, as Professor Mattias Desmet has explained. Those who have bought into the propaganda and vaccine program felt comfortable and safe in believing the authorities, and now accepting they were lied to would plunge them into panic.

https://youtu.be/CRo-ieBEw-8h

So, we cannot awaken everyone to the truth. However, we can all speak the truth. Awakening those who still don't understand is the goal. And Dr. Reiner Fuellmich has already moved mountains. We need to help him the rest of the way. And the way to do this is to spread this article and share JP Sears' clever video. The way to overcome lies is to share the truth.

Watch all the grand jury proceedings, days one through six, and stay tuned for my next installment in this series.

And realize this, if a totalitarian regime should succeed, they plan on many more mandatory genetic vaccines, not to protect you from a virus, but to perhaps engineer your DNA, and not to change your physical characteristics, but instead to change your mind. This is because a totalitarian leader like Xi Jinping or Joseph Stalin wants total control of his peoples loyalty and behavior, and mind control is most efficient. No worries about elections. No need to control messy protests. No further nasty executions or expensive prisons. Mind control. Simple, elegant, and effective.

Transhumans of the future can be engineered for compliance. Just as busy nursing homes sedate their unruly residents with tranquilizers, a totalitarian regime armed with bio and nanotechnology could just as easily control its dissonant subjects by changing their free will and getting them to accept their lot in life. Klaus Schwab may believe that by 2030 people will own nothing and be happy because he will have hacked their free will. Look no further than to the words of Noah Harati.

Humans are now hackable animals, Harati decleared. The whole idea that humans have this soul or spirit and nobody knows what's going on inside me - so whatever I choose whether in the election or whether in the supermarket - this is my free will - THAT IS OVER [12:11].

Read the original post:

Crimes against free will - COVID grand jury - Part II - The Desert Review

Pick of the day: Crufts 2022

3pm and 8pm, Channel 4

The worlds biggest dog show returns after a two-year break, but one thing that wont have gone away during its absence is the surrounding controversy. Critics claim that the search for pedigree perfection promotes exaggerated breeding, health issues and even, according to a banner unfurled during the prize-giving in 2018, canine eugenics.

The Kennel Club organisers deny such claims. Be that as it may, Clare Balding hosts from the NEC in Birmingham, the first day including the dog sport of flyball. Theres also freestyle heelwork to music, in which canines and their owners perform creative choreographed tricks set to music.

8.30pm, ITV

For its many thousands of victims, most of them women, stalking can be a terrifying ordeal sometimes violent and deadly. TV presenter Louise Minchin, who was subjected to a campaign of harassment online which resulted in the perpetrator being jailed, asks if enough is being done to tackle the crime.

9pm, BBC One

Oh dear. The candidates are now asked to create and brand a new baby food, before pitching and selling to leading retailers. When one teams recipe is classed as hard to stomach, its members seem destined for the chopping block, while those overseeing the branding also place themselves in the firing line after devising a less than tasteful logo. Needless to say, the extent of the errors leads to very problematic pitches.

9pm, BBC Two

The BBCs media editor is a deceptively incisive interviewer and Nile Rodgers is an accomplished songwriter and music producer, but you slightly wonder at the relevance of bringing them together right now. Unavailable for preview, so we will have to wait and see as Rodgers, who has worked on worldwide hits including David Bowies Lets Dance and Madonnas Like A Virgin discusses his childhood in 60s New York, setting up Chic with Bernard Edwards, and the racism that still troubles America.

9pm, Sky Atlantic

Based on Those Who Leave and Those Who Stay the third novel in Elena Ferrantes Neapolitan series the Italian drama series continues the story of feisty, rebellious Lina (Gaia Girace) and her lifelong friend, the bookish Elena (Margherita Mazzucco) into the 1970s. Lina is now separated from her husband and living with her young son in a new neighbourhood in Naples, while Elena has left the city, earned a degree from an elite university, and had her first book published. Can their friendship survive the new turbulent decade?

10pm, Dave

Comic relief is a much-needed commodity right now, and is currently most reliably provided by Jon Richardson and Lucy Beaumonts meta-comedy. In this weeks visit to a (very) heightened version of the couples new life in Leeds they are invited to a birthday party for their neighbours five-year-old. The expression on Richardsons face alone is worth watching for as Beaumont tells him to at least try to look as if youre enjoying yourself.

Read more:

Whats on TV tonight: Clare Balding presents Crufts 2022 - iNews

The University of Connecticut Undergraduate Student Government Senate passed bills to help transfer students adjust to Storrs, rename buildings on campus and improving sexual assault education for students on Wednesday night.

First, the USG Senate passed legislation that aims to help campus change and transfer students adjust to life at Storrs. Samantha Lamb, an eighth-semester political science and environmental studies major and Transfer Student Association vice president, talked about her own struggle transferring from the Stamford campus in spring 2020.

Personally, I did not have a great experience. I found out a lot of people feel the same way I am presenting legislation to represent campus change and transfer students in one position. There is currently no transfer or campus change office on campus. No specific advisors for transfer or campus change students. There are a lot of ways UConn can help people feel welcome when they get to Storrs, Lamb said.

The bill passed with unanimous approval. It will appoint one new ex-officio position in the USG Senate to represent transfer and campus change students.

Sexual assault is a pretty big issue at UConn. Our education training is very, very low, just barely meeting federal standards. We felt really strongly about revamping this education What we really only have is just the Protect Our Pack module you get when you are a rising junior.

The new senators in this position will be expected to uphold their duties by maintaining pressure to open an office to support transfer and campus change students, diversify existing offices that do not account for transfer and campus change specific needs, and spread awareness of how the Administration can meet their needs, according to the bill.

Next, the USG Senate passed legislation that aims to start a discussion about renaming the Wilbur Cross building. Eli Collins, an eighth- semester linguistics and psychology major and commuter senator, talked about why they want the former Connecticut governors name removed from the building.

Wilbur Cross commissioned Charles Davenport and Harry H. Laughlin to conduct a survey based on eugenics which ranked Connecticut residents on 21 factors such as race and disability. 400 Connecticut residents, 92% of which were female, 74% of which were considered mentally ill, and 26% of which were deemed mentally deficient were forcibly sterilized by the time Governor Wilbur Cross left office. It is our belief that this person should not be the namesake of one of the biggest buildings on campus, according to the bill Eli helped write, which was read aloud during the meeting.

There was some minor discussion about the validity of these claims, but many voiced support for the bill, which passed unanimously.

Collins said they hope the bill will force UConn to hold a virtual town hall about the renaming of the building and change it to either that of an alum or of Indigenous origin.

UConn does have a past, and we need to recognize it because its an important point in history.

UConn does have a past, and we need to recognize it because its an important point in history, Collins said.

Finally, the USG Senate passed legislation they hope will improve sexual assault education for students.

Abbey Engler, a sixth-semester business management and philosophy major, ex-officio senator and deputy director of Academic Affairs, talked about how UConn is currently lacking in its sexual assault education.

Sexual assault is a pretty big issue at UConn. Our education training is very, very low, just barely meeting federal standards. We felt really strongly about revamping this education What we really only have is just the Protect Our Pack module you get when you are a rising junior, Engler said.

Engler said she also hopes it helps address the problem with current first and second-year students, who may have missed out on adequate training due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The bill passed unanimously and calls on UConn to provide increased funding and support for the Dean of Students Office, the Office of Institutional Equity, and the Womens Center to expand their outreach and education efforts to ensure a safe and healthy learning environment free of gender-based discrimination and sexual violence.

Here is the original post:

USG Senate passes bills to increase transfer student support, rename buildings and improve sexual assault education - UConn Daily Campus

Alexandra G. EllerCara C. HeuserSalt Lake City

To the Editor:

I want to thank you for publishing this article. As a parent of a 15-year-old daughter with Down syndrome, I couldnt agree more with Amy Julia Beckers view on prenatal testing. I had an amniocentesis test to confirm the diagnosis at 20 weeks and was very scared. I was determined to carry out the pregnancy despite my doctors options being heavily weighed toward termination, and I couldnt be more thankful for that choice!

The more we can educate parents on all the positive experiences that come from having a child with a disability, the better off our world will be.

Gretchen WhiteBuffalo

To the Editor:

Its not the prenatal testing system that is broken, but our culture and society. As the mother of a child with multiple disabilities, Down syndrome being one of them, I can attest to my sons good character and loving nature. My family is one of the lucky ones, yet other families fracture under the added challenges of a child with a complicated diagnosis.

At my sons school, special education teachers are not paid the same as their general education counterparts, and there are many open paraprofessional positions, because of low pay and no benefits. In addition, not every family has extended family members nearby who are willing and able to pitch in.

When families can better afford to care for children with disabilities and have enough support, and teachers and caregivers are paid well, then it will be easier for me to tell a family facing a prenatal anomaly, Youve got this.

Leslie NussValparaiso, Ind.

To the Editor:

Amy Julia Becker has raised a very important point. In selecting to abort abnormal fetuses (which in some cases are wrongly identified, which parents find out after their perfectly healthy child is born), we are creating a platform for eugenics. Most people would recoil at such a thought, but that is exactly what is going on here.

If the abnormalities would cause suffering for the newborn baby with no chance for survival or would endanger the life of the mother, then yes, sadly, the pregnancy should be terminated.

More:

Opinion | Prenatal Tests, Disabilities and the Decision Whether to Abort - The New York Times

The disinformation about the invasion of Ukraine that is being broadcast by Putin to his people is frightening, to say the least, for the message Putin is spewing forth is that his is not an invasion, but simply a special military operation in an effort by Russia to de-Nazify the Ukrainians. Putins message is all a lie, but many Russians are buying into it.

The U.S. has also been invaded for years by political lies and untruths, many of our own making pushed primarily by political special interest groups. And, like many Russians, we dont realize we are forming our views based on fake facts

Four days after Russia began dropping artillery shells on Kyiv, a scared Ukrainian restaurateur, Misha Katsiurin, who was racing to evacuate his wife and children from Ukraine, wondered why his father living in a small Russian city had not called him. Didnt his father care about him, the son wondered? So he called his father.

Arent you worried about this war, Misha asked him? What war? was his reply. His father did not believe there was a war, nor did he think the Russian soldiers could bomb innocent people. He started to yell at his son for being wrong and said the Nazis are doing all this!

Many Ukrainians are experiencing the same disbelief from their Russian relatives. Why? Because that is the Nazi-caused-this message that Putin has been deliberately promoting over the air waves and social media, insisting there was no invasion by his troops.

Many Russians have accepted Putins version of what is happening, perhaps because they are used to believing their leader, or perhaps because they fear disapproval if they challenge that message, or maybe they know no other truth.

I feel sorry for these blindsided Russians. If people dont -- or cant --find out the facts, then they are living in a world of false beliefs, and, unfortunately, may not even realize it.

Some of us in the U.S. are also living in a world of delusions. The reasons are many total trust in a leader, reluctance to hear the other side, unwillingness to analyze, or even think about an issue, or simply saying, I know what I believe, dont bother me with the facts.

Several examples:

The antivaxxers, who read the erroneous social media messages about COVID-19 and were easily convinced that these vaccines will harm or eventually kill them, or say they are a government plot. Vaccine mandates are a threat too, they say because they damage a persons freedom. The same freedom issues do not seem to be a concern to them when studies show the country may be losing democracy, a precious component of democracy.

The Trump supporters who declared the 2020 election was stolen from their leader 53 percent of Republicans, according to polls, declare that Trump, not Biden, is the rightful leader, and only 19 percent of the GOPers say Biden definitely won, according to a December Newsweek poll. The 2020 vote returns show Biden was the clear winner.

The anti abortionists, who, in their eagerness to condemn all abortions, dismiss facts as to when a fetus becomes viable and if expanding anti-abortion laws violate a womans right to decide about her own body. The anti-abortion bills before state legislatures are wildly increasing. Approximately 531 abortion restrictions have been introduced in state legislatures THIS YEAR alone.

The eugenicists movement, which has now thankfully disappeared, did govern intellectual views in the 1930s. Eugenics is the study of how to improve the human race. It was increasingly discredited as unscientific and racially biased during the 20th century, especially after the adoption of its doctrines by the Nazis in order to justify their treatment of Jews, disabled people, and other minority groups.

The cry from many that global warming in simply a hoax and does not need our attention is disturbing. They either say climate change is not happening, and/or it is, but humans have nothing to do with it. According to a NASA February 2022 report, Earths surface continues to significantly warm, with recent global temperatures being the hottest in the past 2,000-plus years.

QAnon It is a loosely-organized anonymous group who believe some in the government are part of a cabal of Satanic, cannibalistic sexual abusers of children who operate a global child sex trafficking ring QAnon claims it conspired against former U.S. President Donald Trump during his term in office It also says the Democratic Party has sinister intentions.

While propaganda, fake news and more recently, alternative facts have been with us for years, the messages seem to be increasing here and abroad.

And why is that bad? I believe people deserve the truth you and I are smart enough to make up our own minds, as long as we have the real facts in front of us. If we spout out fake news, we lose our credibility,.

Fake news can hurt other people, especially those easily latch on to false facts without thinking, and those who swallow false information about medical issues.And once they accept false information, it makes it harder for them to accept true information. And that's frightening.

Think of the Russian father who could not believe his son was in danger in Ukraine.

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available tothose who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below,you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do sohere.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster.Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE,and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.

See more here:

Propaganda, disinformation invade our lives -- here, and in Ukraine - Palo Alto Online

Why do some people equate the phrase human biodiversity with racism? And what does it really mean?

HBD, as its often referred to, is the pseudoscience of the alt-right, opines Vox. Some progressive academics say its a clarion phrase for white supremacists, a code phrase cnnjuring up a pre-genetic era when so-called races were hierarchically ranked by skin color, with Caucasians (white Europeans) at the top followed by Mongoloids (Asians) and Negroids (black Africans). Those who use the HBD term, or dont aggressively reject it, are often labeled as closet racists.

This is part one of a four part series on thecontroversy over human biodiversity. Read part two on Tuesday, March 15.

Writing in 2016, as the far right coalesced in support of Donald Trumps candidacy in the United States, Ari Feldman wrote in Forward a scathing analysis on the ideology he believed undergirded the alt-right movement.

An ideological successor to eugenics, human biodiversity (HBD) is, like eugenics (from the Greek words for good and breeding) primarily a euphemism. Ostensibly, HBD refers to the scientifically proven (and therefore apolitical) genetic differences between groups of humans.

But it is just pseudoscientific racism, updated for the Internet age.

Human biodiversity appropriates scientific authority by posing as an empirical, rational discourse on the genetically proven physical and mental variation between humans.

The refrain of HBD bloggers and forum commenters is that the (gene-driven, according to them) dissimilarities they outline are non-negligible or non-trivial and have, accordingly, social policy implications. Though it has a rational, policy-wonk zing to it, thats just Internet forum-ese for youre genetically distinct from us and should be treated differently.

The Forward piece became a template for many journalists and some academics who saw a reactionary movement embedded in the HBD term. Of course, any phrase can take on connotations beyond what those who use it mean. You dont have to be a scientist or a racist to acknowledge that some human differences pattern by populations.

We are not talking about cultural diversitywere encouraged to celebrate thatbut evolved patterns of genetic or biological diversity linked to ancestry and geography, from body type (small Inuits; tall Danes) to disease proclivity (diseases among the Basques or Costa Ricans or so-called Jewish disorders, all the result of centuries of intermarriage within cultural or geographically circumscribed populations).

Is it racist to research or write about similarities and differences rooted in our ancestry across a range of characteristics? The larger question is whether in this polarized world, its even possible to have a good faith, science-grounded discussion on the genetics of human group differences. Were going to try.

If you review Google Trends, the term human biodiversity sprang into use as the human genome map began unfolding more than two decades ago. The phrase and its HBD abbreviation trace to Jonathan Marks, an anthropologist at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte, who authored the 1995 book Human Biodiversity: Race, Genes and History. Marks primary thesis: humans are defined more by their similarities than group differences shaped by geographical isolation. Thats hardly controversial on its face, but at the time it needed to be said, and loudly. After all, for centuries, humans had been ranked by a racist hierarchy with European-descended whites at the pinnacle.

At its best, Human Biodiversity served as an enlightened attack on simplistic notions that races are rankable based on often superficial characteristics like skin color, which racists correlated with highly complex characteristics like intelligence.

But Marks wrote a polemic not a science book. HBD (as the book came to be known) created its own monster. Marks claimed there were no meaningful group differences. All significant population-based characteristics were the result of culture and environment, a resurrection of John Lockes tabula rasa/blank slate theory of human nature. The book was a hit among post-modern social scientists and in the media eager to replace equality with equity; not so much among scientists. Marks feckless views have been scathingly dismantled over the years for their exaggerative simplism and their ideological rejection of any meaningful, population-based differences.

No reasonable person disputes there are geographically rooted differences in physiology and physique that impact athletic performance, though Marks has argued that. These are not racial differences as that highly-charged ideological term has come to be used. Rather, they are differences rooted in ancestrypopulations circumscribed by geography, like Icelanders, or scattered geographically but historically evolving as a group because of adherence to religious and cultural principles groups like the Amish or gypsies.

Inuits, sometimes known as Eskimos, are an indigenous group originally of Siberian Asian descent who inhabited, and adapted to, the North American Arctic and sub-Arctic. They have been a relatively coherent population group tracing back 4,000 years. Evolving in the frigid far north has shaped the Inuit body type heavily built with a high natural amount of body fat. And they are short relative to other human populations, with the men averaging 54 (the average Canadian male, by contrast, is 510).

Why? Because evolving shorter, stouter bodies with extra layers of fat helped to preserve body heat, an essential evolutionary adaptation to survive in the coldest habituated region on Earth.

We know in reconstructing history that pockets of humans evolved in far different and often geographically isolated regions for tens of thousands of years. Thats shaped different body types: longer arms and legs relative to the torso, for instance, is found in some African peoples as an evolutionary adaptation to dissipate body heat in equatorial climes, while shorter and stouter endomorphic bodies are a distinct feature of many human groups in Euro-Asia, again as an adaptation to climatic conditions.

Geography has long shaped body patterns. Sports, running in particular, provides an unusually informative template to understand patterned human differences. As Jon Entine documented in Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why Were Afraid to Talk About It, coincidence and culture cannot explain why every world record in running, from the 100-meters to the marathon, is held by a person of African ancestry.

Unlike Inuits, equatorial Africans have longer limbs relative to their torsos, which helps in dissipating heat. Thats also a key advantage in running. But Africa is a large continent with many geographical differences. It is made up of multiple sub-populations, some of which have very distinctive physical characteristics that scientists believe give them advantage over other population groups when it comes to running.

East Africans, such as Kenyans who totally dominate distance running, evolved in the mountains of the Nandi region as ectomorphs, with slender limbs, large lungs and a preponderance of slow twitch muscles suited for endurance races.

As a generalization, Africans who trace their origins to the coastal west central flatlandsthe heart of the slave trade to the Americasare more mesomorphic, athletic and strong with more compact lungs and a preponderance of fast twitch muscle fibers better suited for sprints races.

No surprise that the top 300 100-meter times are held by runners of West African ancestry. There are no West African long distance runners of note. East Africans, who are absent in shorter races, dominate distance running.

Although humans have fooled around and moved around for many centuries, Eurasians as a generalization are more likely to have endomorphic body types, with more muscle and body fat. Based on patterned body type differences, its hardly a surprise that Eurasian totally dominate strength events, from the shot putt to the hammer throw to weight-lifting. They are the prototypical beefy football lineman. Opportunity and environmental factors play a role on the margins, but at the elite level of sports where access is wide open (such as running and field events), the genetic cream rises to the top.

Over the past twenty years, the controversy over whether ancestral body types produce elite runners has disappeared. No one believes that a white from the Europe or the Americas can regularly compete at the elite level in races from 10 thousand meters to the marathon with Kenyans. Thats an acknowledgment of human biodiversity. But beyond the indisputable, when discussing other aspects of human differences, just expressing an interest in the subject is often treated with deep suspicion or challenged with vitriol by many otherwise open-minded people, or worse: one is accused of being a scientific racist.As some liberal commentators have put it, the study of HBD (human biodiversity) is a form of hierarchical thinking, blatant eugenicist pseudoscience, popular among white nationalists and Neo-Nazis, the pseudoscientific racism of the alt-right that provides scientific-sounding cover for [racists] odious ideas.

Given such vituperation, it is hardly surprising that prominent anti-racists react so strongly at the very mention of human differencesexpressing concern, for instance, about Stormfront White supremacists having a good time discussing HLA [human leukocyte antigens] diversity among different races; or fretting over American neo-Nazis gulping down cows milk with their shirts off to demonstrate Europeans genetically encoded capacity to process lactose, a sugar in milk that cannot be digested by the majority of humans after weaning.

And yes, there are white racists who use the fact of human differences to make sweeping judgements on character and capacity, with Blacks and Jews ranked as inferior races. Such racists twist the fact of human group differences to suit their equally twisted beliefs. As a result, discussing any and all evidence of human genetic diversity is viewed with suspicioneven when those findings are important to understanding history or unlocking medical mysteries. But as we will address going forward, in Part II and beyond, as the field of medicine has shifted towards trying to understand the patterned genetic basis of disease, its become increasingly clear that proclivities and behavior are shaped in part by geographic and ancestral group differences. Scientists know this, and its become the central focus of much of the research into biomedicine. But it considering the racist past of US history, it is a direction that touches social and political nerves, and therefore remains an often unspoken taboo.

Jon Entineis the foundingexecutivedirectorof theGenetic Literacy Project, and winner of 19 major journalism awards. He has written extensively in the popular and academic press on agricultural and population genetics. You can follow him on Twitter@JonEntine

Patrick Whittle has a PhD in philosophy and is a freelance writer with a particular interest in the social and political implications of modern biological science. Follow him on his websitepatrickmichaelwhittle.comor on Twitter@WhittlePM

Read more here:

Part I: ViewpointMany people believe 'human biodiversity' is alt-right code for embracing racism. Here's why they are dangerously wrong - Genetic...

American partisan politics has just been inflamed by implementation of a Texas ban on abortions once an embryos heartbeat is detected, usually after the sixth week of pregnancy. The new law gets around Roe v Wadeby making it possible for anyone to charge a person who helps a woman terminate her pregnancy, from Uber drivers to doctors. But its unclear if the Texasabortion ban will stick, and bans on the basis of anti-eugenic rhetoric may be more likely to pose a risk to abortion rights. Prenatal Nondiscrimination Acts (PRENDA) and other bans which prevent women from getting abortions on the basis of a prenatal diagnosis of disability have been gaining traction throughout the United States. AsSupreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has said, the States might not be allowed to lawfully protect eugenic abortions, which Harvard scholar Michael Stokes Paulsenhas described asthe deliberate killing of children with a disability because of their disability.

Fundamentally,eugenics is any intervention, whether chosen by the individual or by the state, which aims to decrease the number of people with disabilities and increase the number of people with qualities that are generally considered valuable, like health, intelligence, and attractiveness. Scholars have distinguished between old eugenicsinterventions like state-sponsored sterilization andbanning relatives from marryingand contemporary eugenics or velvet eugenics. These new forms of eugenics represent the commercialization of eugenic ideas, which are then implemented by individuals rather than enacted by the state or another authoritative body.

One of the reasons abortion bans on the basis of prenatal diagnoses may have received relatively little attention is because they leave the pro-choice Left in an uncomfortable ethical position. The view that a woman has a right to an abortion for any reason is fundamentally at odds with an anti-eugenic stance. For 40 years, the Left has waged a war against eugenics which has now given ammunition to those who want to restrict or criminalize abortion. The conversation about eugenics itself has been hopelessly muddled by the constant accusation of eugenics against people, technologies, and policies, making clear thinking on this important ethical issue in the public sphere nearly impossible.

How widespread are bans against women aborting on the basis of genetic or congenital disability?Six statesMississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Tennesseehave prohibited abortion on the grounds of a genetic diagnosis of disability, although others likeFloridahave attempted to implement such bans. Bans are only one way of preventing these kinds of abortions. In states like Arizona, Minnesota, and Oklahoma, women who seek an abortion because their baby will die within hours or days of birthare required to be notified of the availability of perinatal hospice, which may nudge women to deliver a baby with a lethal abnormality.Other statesrequire women to be counseled on the medical condition or disability of their fetus. And in a few states, doctors areprevented from mentioning abortionas an option when women are informed their fetus is likely to have a severe disability. These laws will be difficult to enforce because, for instance, they require abortion providers to ask women why they wish to terminate their pregnancies or impose on otherwise private conversations. But asone conservative activist said, Even if its hard to enforce, its worth being passed. Its important for a state to show they are not supporting eugenics.

Many progressiveshave objectedthat the choices individual women make about whether or not to have an abortion do not constitute eugenics. But these bans and the moral confusion surrounding abortion are among the many troubling outcomes of the Lefts moral panic about eugenics. In the 1970s, the sociobiologistE.O. Wilson suggestedthat, in the future, greater knowledge of human heredity could provide us with democratically contrived eugenics. Wilson was probably right. However, this sentence, along with his biological view of human nature, have made him an extraordinarily controversial figure to this day.

Forty years later, we are still having the same conversations about what is and what is not eugenics. Forty years later,scientistscontinually feel the need todefend themselves against charges of eugenicsfrom the Left while they themselves use eugenicstodiscreditideasandscientiststhey find problematic. Fields and concepts as disparate as IQ, BMI, behavioral genetics, and even statistical analysis itself have been labeled as eugenics. Anecdotally, when Ico-authored a paperthat attempted to clarify the conversation around eugenics, it was attacked asimmoralandbeneathconsideration. In an environment where many of the intelligentsia are attempting to avoid charges of eugenics and lob charges of eugenics at others, its no wonder these conversations have become so incendiary and pointlessly confusing.

The Lefts tendency to call so many things they dont like eugenics, combined with the taboo against discussing eugenics in any meaningful way, has made the public conversation about the topic incoherent. Even as progressives maintain that abortion on the basis of disability is not eugenics, they have criticized many other individual choices as eugenics. For example, in 2019George Churchdiscussed his plans to make a genetic matchmaking app, digid8, which would prevent people with rare genetic diseases from meeting each other. This would diminish the risk of passing a disability onto their offspring (a similar approach to that used byDor Yeshorim). This private companys servicewhich people would have to opt into and pay forcaused huge controversyover itseugenic implications. Another individual choice, using genetic screening to choose an embryo to implant during invitro fertilization (IVF), is alsowidelyassociatedwitheugenics, especially ifparents select for cosmetic featureslike eye color. If the individual choice of using a dating app or engaging in embryo selection is eugenics, certainly the individual choice to terminate a pregnancy on the basis of disability also fits this definition.

Although the majority of abortions are chosen due to the financial, social, and other burdens of an unplanned pregnancy, eugenic abortions are not uncommon. Around two to three percent of pregnancies in industrialized countries like the US are affected by a birth defect or congenital abnormality. Of these, a significant number result in abortion. For example, when parents are carriers forcystic fibrosis, they terminate pregnancies screened positive for this disease95 percent of the time. In the developed world, fetuses diagnosed withspina bifidaare terminated63 percentof the time, and 83 percent of fetuses diagnosed withanencephalyare aborted. In the case ofDown syndrome, the US has one of the lowest rates of terminationat 67 percent. But in other developed countries, therate is 90 percent or higher. Even in the case of unplanned pregnancies, usually terminated without prenatal screening,five percent of women chose abortionciting concerns about the health of the fetus.According to one womanwho sought an abortion, The medication Im on for bipolar disorder is known to cause birth defects and we decided its akin to child abuse if you know youre bringing your child into the world with a higher risk for things.

To add to the confusion about the term, many on the Left have embraced the idea that some forms of discrimination against black people and women is eugenic because some of the eugenics interventions of the 20th centurytargeted black women for sterilization. This is another domain in which the label of eugenics is being incoherently applied. For example,Project Preventionis an organization that pays women who are addicted to drugs and alcohol $300, plus medical fees and follow up visits, to go on long-term birth control. These women can choose whether to get an IUD, a hormonal implant, or surgical sterilization.One of the main reasonscritics have called Project Prevention eugenic is that20 percentof Project Prevention clients are black. But black women choose abortion even more disproportionately. More than a third of all abortionsare among black women. Does the chance to get $300 and free medical care really make only one of these choices eugenics? According toMichael Stokes Paulsen:

Does unrestricted legal abortion-choice produce adisparate impactresulting in disproportionate numbers of abortions ending the lives of minority, female, and disabled fetuses?Undeniably. The aborted are disproportionately Black, female, and disabled. Is the right to abortion sometimesused, by those exercising the abortion-choice, for eugenics purposesspecifically for the purpose of aborting on the basis of race, sex, or disability? Unquestionably. [Emphasis in original.]

By the same anti-eugenics logic of disparate impact on minorities and women, abortion is eugenic. Furthermore, an intervention that could reduce the number of black women seeking abortions, providing them incentives or free contraception, would be a nonstarter on the Right because it would offer free birth control, and a nonstarter on the Left because it would be considered racist and eugenics.

Although old eugenics is thought to be wildly unpopular (but may not be), the evidence of the popularity of contemporary eugenics is evident from how readily the public have taken it up. Many of eugenicss staunchest opponents on the Left not only dont appreciate the extent to which abortion is eugenic, they also dont realize the extent to which the standard of prenatal care in the developed world is transparently eugenic in its aims. Routine prenatal care in the United Statesultrasounds checking for normal anatomy, recommended genetic screening for women with a family history of specific heritable disorders and women over 35 and so onare, to a great extent, intended to demonstrate that the unborn child is free from abnormality, malformation, or disability.

For example, thenuchal translucency scan, provided to nearly every pregnant woman in the developed world regardless of risk, measures fluid buildup in the fetus which can indicate whether the child will have congenital heart defects, Down syndrome, or other impairments. Some parents who receive these tests simply want to be prepared for any possible health conditions or disabilities in the child. But most parents receive these screenings with the intention of terminating the pregnancy of a child that is likely to have cognitive, physical, or other disabilities. Because of the bioethical implications, disability activist Rosemarie Garland-Thomsonhas endorsed the ideathat we should stop engaging in routine prenatal testing for any conditions, except very, very carefully identified and adjudicated conditions that really are terrible, that really are incompatible with life. Finally, a 2019 study found that 22.6 percent of women who were against abortionchanged their mindswhen faced with medical complications. So, the judgement against abortion on the basis of fetal disability comes down, to some extent, to good luck.

The view that a woman has ana prioriright to an abortion results in some strange bioethical consequences. Even though it doesnt really fit the actual definition of eugenics, choosing the sex of a childeither by picking a male or female embryo or bysperm sortinghas been associated with eugenicsand banned in countries like the UK, Australia, and Canada. Ironically, in some countries, sex selection is only allowed if a disability, like muscular dystrophy, is sex-linked, which means youre only allowed to practice sex selection in the name of eugenics. A woman in Canada, meanwhile, would not be allowed to choose an embryo of a particular sex to implant using IVF, but would be allowed tohave an abortionbecause she didnt want to have a girl.

Something similar could happen with a new technique calledpolygenic screening(PGS), a way of screening embryos for characteristics determined by multiple genes. Polygenic screening, you guessed it, has been widely attacked as eugenic. At the moment, a woman using in vitro fertilization can screen her embryos with PGS and pick the embryo with the lowest risk ofschizophrenia or diabetes. But its possible that in the future, women in many countries might not be allowed to use PGS to select an embryo with specific characteristics they desire, but they might be able to undergo prenatal tests that would provide them with the same information (see here for an exampleof using prenatal testing to sequence an embryos whole genome). That means a woman might not be permitted to select an embryo without diabetes using PGS, but would be allowed to have an abortion if prenatal testing reveals that her child is likely to have diabetes.

Many of the arguments against eugenics rest on the claim that exceptions are a slippery slopethatclassifying some personal attributes and disordersas desirable or undesirable, respectively, will inevitably lead to the mistreatment of disabled people or genocide. But this hasnt been the case in countries like Denmark and Israel, where the state pays for prenatal testing, abortions in the case of fetal abnormality, and generous benefits for their disabled citizens. And if eugenics truly is a slippery slope, then the Left should join the Right in enforcing bans on abortion in the case of fetal disability and abnormality.

In particular, a coherent anti-eugenic stance would require the Left to align themselves with the Rights intention to limit the number of weeks a woman is allowed to terminate a pregnancy. Bans on abortion after 10 or 20 weeks disproportionately impact women who seek to terminate a pregnancy because of fetal abnormalities, as testing usually occurs between weeks10 and 15 of pregnancy.As Garland-Thomson argues, abortion without any information about the fetus is less ethically problematic. Those who are consistently anti-eugenics should endorse bans after week 10 of pregnancy, because it ensures that women are terminating their pregnancy for reasons that are unlikely to be related to fetal disorder.

It is ethically incoherent to be against all forms of eugenics and also allow a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy for any reason, including the discovery of genetic abnormality. But the Left has become entangled in a contradiction of its own making. It created a moral panic and used denunciation to shut down discussion of what forms of eugenics may or may not be permissible. This tars many different forms of voluntary reproductive intervention with the same brush as state-mandated sterilization and genocide. Ultimately, the dismal state of progressive discourse about eugenics may produce regressive outcomesit is already being used to prevent the implementation of new reproductive technologies, and it may end up further costing women their reproductive freedom.

Diana Fleischman is an evolutionary psychologist. Find Diana on Twitter @sentientist

A version of this article was originally posted at Quillette and is reposted here with permission. Quillette can be found on Twitter @Quillette

Continue reading here:

Viewpoint: Eugenics has become unacceptable in modern society except when it's used to support termination of genetically abnormal fetuses - Genetic...