“Eugenics went into steep decline after 1945. Most recoiled from it once they saw where it led – to the gates of Auschwitz.”
Such a statement is grossly misleading by omission. What Freedland fails to point out is that, far from going into ‘steep decline’, eugenics continued to increase post-war in hidden and disguised forms: as can easily be proved even by relying upon the works of mainstream academics such as, for example, Professor Matthew Connelly of Columbia University. The bigger truth is that eugenics, in its more covert and sophisticated modern guises, is arguably harming and killing far more human beings than crude efforts of pre-1945 Fabians and Fascists ever did.
Freedland defends famous past “admirable” eugenicists and tries to distance their other ideas from the distasteful core:
“…there’s a separate, but related, question: how should we treat the otherwise admirable thought or writings of people when we discover that those same people also held views we find repugnant?”
Freedland also gives the misleading impression that, apart from the odd misguided use of legacy eugenics language by modern politicians, what he calls “loose talk”, that real leftist eugenics aims are something of the past in that he refers to it as “Socialism’s one-time interest in eugenics”. One time interest eh? Why does Freedland make no mention of the post-war and contemporary works of The Rockefeller Foundation, Bill Gates, Planned Parenthood, John Holdren, Paul Ehrlich and the like? It would surely be ridiculous to assume he is not aware of such matters?
It would also be ridiculous to believe that Freedland has not seen widespread press reporting of views that the modern day leftist red-wolf has re-clothed itself in ‘green’ eco-sheep’s clothing? Indeed, if eugenics is defined as limiting and reducing the number of poor people in the world – a definition that Freedland himself highlights – then the biggest global eugenics programme ever is very much work in progress. Such a programme is promoted by many so-called ‘greens’ and regularly favoured by The Guardian newspaper. Far from being concerned with reducing the number of poor people by making them materially better-off, it is concerned with reducing actual demographic totals and is misleadingly termed ‘sustainable development’. It is in fact a completely unnecessary programme and, at its core, it is arguably plain and simple anti-poor-people eugenics in action: i.e. designed to stop them/us having productive and growing industrial economies and to also dish out contraceptive and abortion programmes like there is no tomorrow. In reality, ‘sustainable development’ will mean inability to sustain entirely sustainable current global population levels. ‘Red’ George Bernard-Shaw would no doubt be proud of such ‘green’ efforts if he were alive today and would be actively augmenting the ‘bring on the recession’ anti-industrial calls of George Monbiot with his own regular Guardian column.
I cannot therefore help wondering if the real purpose of Freedman’s ‘eugenics… declined after 1945′ article is that it will help global-warmist-idiot Guardian-readers to now have a reassuring warm feeling that their green-leftist ‘newspaper’ has fairly dealt with and dismissed this distasteful ‘skeleton’? They can now continue to ignore those pesky ‘conspiracy theorists’ on the internet who keep digging up uncomfortable truths and ignore ‘rogue academics’ such as Professor Ian Plimer: who not only bursts the warmist ‘sustainability’ bubble but also draws attention to the very real roots of present ‘green’ tendencies in eugenicist’s Nazi Germany. Perhaps, like the green occult-ouroboros symbol of ‘Friends of the Earth’, things have come full circle? Instead of focusing on eugenics-past, The Guardian (formerly known as The Manchester Guardian) should do the public a proper service by exposing the eugenics-present. On the subject of supporting eugenics-past Freedland admits that: “I’m afraid even the Manchester Guardian was not immune.” I would argue that it is not immune from supporting eugenics-present either and that, whether the author intended it or not, Freedland’s backward-looking article aids that process and helps rehabilitate some very distasteful historic figures.
 Eugenics: the skeleton that rattles loudest in the left’s closet – Socialism’s one-time interest in eugenics is dismissed as an accident of history. But the truth is far more unpalatable.
Jonathan Freedland, guardian.co.uk, Friday 17 February 2012: