Scientists are now making human embryos just to do experiments on them, under the pretext of 'fighting disease.' As we read in one report on this horrific war on humanity:
Catholic observers and others are raising ethical questions about the work of an international team of scientists who report that they were able to edit the DNA in human embryos to correct a health disorder.
The questions focus on two concerns: the creation of human embryos for scientific experimentation and then destruction, and the still-unknown effect that changing DNA will have on future generations because the changes could become a permanent part of a family’s genetic line.
The success reported by the scientists in work funded by the Oregon Health and Science University worries observers, who said that it could lead to the development of “designer babies” with traits that make them seem superior.
“Now we’re specifically manufacturing human embryos solely for the purpose of doing lethal experiments on them. I think the public needs to be well aware of that and hopefully horrified by that reality,” said Gregory Schleppenbach, associate director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington.
“Certainly there should be concerns about genetically modifying human beings in a way that we don’t really know what effect that will have to subsequent generations,” he told Catholic News Service.
The focus of such concerns is a report that appeared online Aug. 2 in the journal Nature. Scientists said they were able to edit the DNA in human embryos without introducing other harmful mutations that have plagued other efforts.
The particular experiment involved gene editing to correct a genetic defect that causes a heart disorder known as cardiomyopathy, which affects the heart’s ability to pump blood.
Shoukhrat Mitalipov, director of the Center for Embryonic Cell and Gene Therapy at the Oregon Health and Science University, is a leader of the team. He said the effort may lead to the ability to edit genes to correct other debilitating diseases.
Supporters of the research hailed the breakthrough, saying it could lead to similar efforts to prevent cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease, an inherited form of Alzheimer’s disease, and perhaps breast and ovarian cancer caused by mutation in BRCA genes, which produce tumor-suppressor proteins. “BRCA” stands for “breast cancer gene.”
In their work, the scientists obtained sperm from a donor carrying the heart disorder mutation and used the sperm to fertilize dozens of eggs from healthy women. At fertilization, the researchers also injected a gene-editing tool known as CRISPR-Cas9. The scientists reported that of the 58 embryos used in the work, 42 showed the gene correction, a rate of more than 70 percent.
Mainstream scientists were buoyed by the high rate.
The fact that none of the embryos were used to create a baby is problematic, however, for Catholic ethicists, who say the destruction of human life violates the basic premise of church teaching that all life is sacred.
Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, director of education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia, told CNS that he is concerned that human embryos have been created in vitro and “treated not as ends but as mere means to achieve particular investigative goals.”
“The value as human beings is denigrated every time they are created, experimented upon, treated as research fodder and then killed,” he wrote in an email Aug. 3. “Moreover, if such embryos were to grow up, as will doubtless occur in the future, there are likely to be unintended effects from modifying their genes, even using very selective and precise tools like CRISPR-Cas9.”
He said that should the procedure eventually become practice it is possible that parents may opt for gene editing and then select the one embryo that had incorporated the desired genetic modifications, leaving the rest to be destroyed.
“The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services” of the USCCB prohibit nontherapeutic experiments on a living embryo or fetus even with the consent of the parents.
Father Pacholczyk said the team’s experiments “were clearly nontherapeutic, as the goal was ultimately to destroy the embryos.”
Schleppenbach said he was concerned by the “calloused dismissive language” of the scientific team and some ethicists who have justified the work because it could benefit future generations. He said great uncertainty exists on the effects of such editing on future generations.
“We can’t know,” he said.
Only if gene editing were carried out to reduce the likelihood of a specific disease in a specific individual, whether in the womb, after birth or as an adolescent or adult, the practice could become acceptable, Schleppenbach told CNS.
“You’re only changing that particular individual. You’re not transferring this on to future generations,” he said.
Marcy Darnovsky, executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society in Berkeley, California, described the procedure outlined in the report as “extremely disturbing.”
She called for a broad discussion of the implications of the work, encouraging “meaningful public participation … democratic participation” rather than letting the decision on how far such research can advance be left to a few scientists.
The center is uneasy with DNA changes that can be passed on to future generations as well as the possibility that gene editing can open the door to genetic enhancement of human beings.
She pointed to laws in more than 40 countries and the Council of Europe’s Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine that prohibit such experimentation. “Most countries that have gotten to the point of thinking this through have adopted laws to prohibit this kind of gene editing,” she said.
The United Kingdom, however, has permitted genetic experiments on human embryos. Mitalipov told NPR he would be open to working with regulatory bodies in any country to expand the work.
In the U.S., scientists who want to eventually see the work advance to clinical trials face strict regulatory requirements. The National Institutes of Health does not fund any research involving human embryos. Also, Congress has prohibited the Food and Drug Administration from considering experiments that involve genetically modified human embryos.
Mitalipov and his human embryo work has been the focus of broad ethical concerns in the past. A February 2014 hearing by the FDA’s Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee looked at fertilization techniques that he has pioneered that would create children from the DNA of three or four people to prevent the transmission of inheritable genetic diseases.
The concerns then also focused on the destruction of embryos and the effect of altered DNA on future generations.
For the first known time in US history, scientists have now experimented on human embryos to edit their DNA. Nothing came out of the experiment, and the babies were simply dumped in the bin. This is something that the eugenists in America have been trying to do as they have envied the license in which scientists in China have been allowed to carry out this transhumanist evil. The experiment was done in Portland, Oregon, and it was led by an Uyghur Turk scientist from Kazakhstan named Shoukhrat Mitalipov of Oregon Health and Science University.
Shoukhrat Mitalipov
Mitalipov genetically edited the pre-born human babies by a system known as CRISPR (Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats). For years, experimentations on human embryos have been done in China, with eugenists in America looking with utter jealousy, exhorting for the legalization of gene editing on human babies. Now, Mitalipov is being hailed as one who has broken the ice in the United States and demonstrated that the manipulation of human genetics in embryos can be done to make "healthy children," or as one report puts it:
Now Mitalipov is believed to have broken new ground both in the number of embryos experimented upon and by demonstrating that it is possible to safely and efficiently correct defective genes that cause inherited diseases.
Although none of the embryos were allowed to develop for more than a few days—and there was never any intention of implanting them into a womb—the experiments are a milestone on what may prove to be an inevitable journey toward the birth of the first genetically modified humans.
So they say.
Mitalipov declined to reveal the results of the human experiment, but said that they will be in a pending research paper.
By editing the genetic makeup of a human embryo, these eugenists believe that they can create humans who will be born without disease. Its all part of the transhumanist utopian vision of a perfect world without aging or death. This transhumanist ideology is part of the Antichrist system; for in their hatred of Christ, Who defeated death on the Cross, they want to be the victors over death. By being antichrists, they are anti-human, saying with their father the devil, "I will exalt my throne above the stars of God" (Isaiah 14:13). And do not forget the words of the wise Solomon: "all they that hate me love death." (Proverbs 8:36)
The transhumanists believe that they can defeat aging by manipulating or eradicating certain genes that they believe are the causers of aging or disease. They want to be "natural selection," the god of Darwin, and 'select' the baby who should die and the baby who should be born. They want to 'select' the genes that are causing death in the perverted view that they can create a super human -- a Übermensch -- and this is purely a genocidal utopian vision. Because they will never create a human who will never die, their genetic experiments will never be successful, and the end result of their masterplan will be to exterminate all those who they deem genetically inferior, or those who they see as genetic obstacles to their darwinian envisage of perfectly evolved mortals.
Now they are just experimenting on pre-born humans, to "edit" their genetic makeup, and what will happen when they realize that they will never "edit" a human to be this perfectly healthy person? They will turn to other forms of anti-human despotism: from those who are small embryos, they will move their tyrannical hands to more developed humans, to children and to adults.
According to the same report, this recently done human experiment was called “'germline engineering'” because any genetically modified child would then pass the changes on to subsequent generations via their own germ cells—the egg and sperm." This right here gives us an idea on their sinister plans. They want to "edit" an embryo to have superior genes, so that it could "pass on" those genes in procreation. This is all about "selecting" those who lives and who dies; the ones with the good genes are to be allowed to live and perpetuate their genetic makeup, and the ones who are without these genes should not be allowed to be born, but are to only be exterminated. This is what they are really trying to say. As bioethicist Alta Charo said:
“Genome editing to enhance traits or abilities beyond ordinary health raises concerns about whether the benefits can outweigh the risks, and about fairness if available only to some people"
In their vile social-Darwinist thinking, if inferior genes are allowed to continue on, they hinder the process of evolving to perfection; thus, those who are born with genes that are 'holding back' humanity, need to be exterminated, while those with the genetic makeup that allows for a life without disease or aging, need to be the ones who procreate. This is all Nazism, repackaged.
The Nazis of the past were more honest, they said they wanted to create a master race, the overman or Übermensch of Nietzsche; they said they wanted to exterminate people. In 1880, Frederich Nietzsche wrote:
“The tendency must be towards the rendering extinct of the wretched, the deformed, the degenerate.”
Nietzsche was evil, but he was open about his evil. Now, today's readers of Nietzsche, while fantasizing about being a Übermensch, present themselves with clean cut millennial suits, smiles and modern faces; the Nazis of today come to us with talk of "human innovation," and of "bioengineering" -- when they really mean genocide.
The Uyghur Turk, Mitalipov is like the Young Turks of the 20th century Ottoman Empire who butchered millions of Christians not entirely in the name of Islam, but rather in the cause of eugenics, since the Young Turks wanted to create a 'homogenous' society purged of those they considered 'inferior' to the Turkish race. The Ottoman empire was a major force of the Antichrist, and in being within the Antichrist system, it accepted and implemented Darwinism when the evil ideology became very popular in Western nations.
Eugenics, as it was in the past, is being promoted by homosexuals, which is not surprising since St. John describes the Antichrist system as "Sodom and Egypt" (Revelation 11:8), a perfect description of the evils that we see violently intensifying, that is, the rise of homosexuality and paganism. One of the sodomites who is promoting eugenics is Milo Yiannopolous, a degenerate who has become an idol of the Rightwing as they bow down before the gods of Sodom and Gomorrah. In an article published by Breitbart, Milo wrote that “gay men are smarter: we test higher for IQ than our heterosexual counterparts. Intelligence allows us to 'transcend' our evolutionary programming, according to evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa, which may explain the correlation between homosexuality and high IQ.”
What is disturbing, is that even after Milo explicitly pushed for the normalization and acceptance of pedophilia, the Rightwing -- who incessantly go on and on like a broken record about how Muhammad had sex with a nine-year old girl -- still trip on each other's toes to revere this vile heretic. Just a few days ago, the Horowitz Freedom Center, one of the major operations of the American Rightwing, had Milo on to speak, and the crowd -- filled with people who no doubt see themselves as morally upright -- of course revered him as he boasted about being a "dangerous Faggot". David Horowitz introduced this sodomite nazi with the typical sycophancy so commonly expressed towards degenerates, saying:
Milo Yiannopoulos is a warrior the likes of whom no Republican Party or conservative movement has ever seen. As a gay man, and a flamboyant one, he is in his own person a weapon against the left’s preposterous claim to speak on behalf of the so-called marginalized and oppressed. Not that being gay has protected Milo from vicious personal attacks, intended to destroy him. Being gay threw his enemies off balance so he could deliver many coups de gras. But rank hypocrisy or belief in their own b.s. has never proved an obstacle to leftwing malevolence. Few individuals have ever been subjected to the kind of personal abuse that Milo has had to suffer in his service to the cause. But Milo - for all his fey limp-wristedness - is an incredibly strong and brave man. There are few political figures who have displayed the kind of courage that Milo has regularly shown on the field of battle.
Milo -- a sodomite who said that "I think in the gay World some of the most important enriching and incredibly the… mm … you know life affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences" -- is to a Rightwinger like David Horowitz, "a warrior the likes of whom no Republican Party or conservative movement has ever seen." This is how sickening the Rightwing is. They are like the Pharisees, for they while promoting nationalism conspire with the very forces they claim to be against, to make war upon Christ Himself.
Now, why would a person like David Horowitz, someone who has spent years fighting against what he calls "cultural marxism," work with a eugenist nazi sodomite? Its because he is a part of this evil system himself. David Horowitz, and those like him, are acolytes of the Antichrist, the religion of which consists of heresy, paganism, homosexuality, eugenics and transhumanism.
David Horowitz, the founder of FrontPage Magazine and the Horowitz Freedom Center, has a son named Ben Horowitz, a major American industrialist and blogger, who resides in Silicon Valley. Ben Horowitz founded the venture capital firm, Andreessen Horowitz, co-founded by fellow Silicon Valley investor, Marc Andreessen.
Ben Horowitz
Marc Andreessen
In an interview, Ben Horowitz was asked: “If you had to start your career all over again, where would you start today?” to which Ben responded by saying: “I think that I would be a bio hacker. Computational biology is the most exciting thing that I’ve ever seen. I’d love to work in that field.” Bio hacking is essentially the manipulation of genetics to make someone “better,” hence this is where the transhumanist ideology comes in: the altering of the human genome to “defeat aging.”
The official website for the Andreessen Horowitz investment firm promotes a very bizarre thing fancily called “parabiosis” or, simply put, the idea of injecting the blood of youths into old people to keep them alive. This is vampirism. It is an idea of the eugenist transhumanist agenda, which claims to be “fighting aging.” On the website it says: “Far from science fiction, recent discoveries have given us a whole crop of promising breakthroughs to treat aging, such as parabiosis (young blood infused into old blood)”. Ultimately, this is all about farming humans, to harvest their blood for the elite oligarchs, as the Aztecs farmed humans to spill their blood for their diabolical rituals.
On February of 2017, Ben Horowitz’s firm interviewed Yuval Harari who -- like Milo -- is an Israeli eugenist and homosexual who is a major advocate for transhumanism. Harari wants to create his own transhumanist utopia in which human beings are replaced by machines, and their brains are unified with computers; also, in this very sick utopia, Harari envisions a socialist society in which the new religion of the world will declare that “we” are gods. Harari makes this diabolical envisaging clear on Ben Horowitz’s website. During the interview, Sonal Chokshi, who works for Horowitz Andreessen, asks Harari: “What do humans have to believe to make this reality continue happening? Will they not have any agency in any of this? Because it sounds like we’re almost talking about these uploaded brains in a vat. And is there any sense of coordination, consciously? Is there a new religion? … What do people have to believe in this new world? What is there religion?” To this, Harari says:
“I think we are seeing and we will see more and more the rise of techno religions, religions based on technology that make all the old promises of traditional religions; they promise justice and happiness, and even immortality and paradise. But here on earth, with the help of technology, there already has been one very important techno-religion in history, which is socialism, which came in the 19th century with the industrial revolution. And what Marx and Lennon basically said: we will create paradise on earth with the help of technology, steam engines, electricity and so forth. When Lennon was once asked to define communism in a single sentence, the answer he gave was: Communism is power to the workers’ councils, plus electrification of the whole country. You cannot establish a communist regime without industrialization. Its based on the technology of the industrial revolution, electricity and steam engines and so forth. And the idea is that we will use this technology to create paradise on earth. It didn’t really work that well. So now I think we will see the second wave of techno-religions. Now we have genetics, and now we have big data, and above all we have algorithms. Our salvation — paradise will come from the algorithms.”
Yuval Harari
After this, Kyle Russell, another person who works for Horowitz Andreessen, said that we would have to "sacrifice our own humanity" to machines and by this, become gods:
“We’re hitting some kind of productivity cap as normal humans that autonomous machines and systems are going to beat us, so we have to sacrifice our own humanity to increase our own productivity, and augment ourselves. You can almost see the emergence of some kind of powerful ideology, like, the religion of the 21st century onward is, we are the gods?”
To this, Harari said:
“This is actually an old idea. Humanism, which goes back to the 18th century, even 17th century, is saying humans are the gods, humans are the source of all meaning and authority. Everything you expected previously from the gods, to give legitimacy to political systems, to make decisions in ethics, humanism comes in and says the highest source of authority in politics is the voter, the highest source of authority in economics is the customer, the highest source of authority in ethics is your own feelings, humans are the gods. Now we are entering a post-humanist era, authority is shifting away from humans. If, in the last 300 years we authority descending from the clouds to earth, to humans, now authority is shifting back to the clouds, but not to God, but to the Google cloud, to the Microsoft cloud. The basic idea of this, if you want, new religion or new ideology, is again, that given enough data, and enough computing power, and algorithms, can understand me better than I can understand myself, and make decisions for me, in the end religion is about authority.”
They want to manufacture a utopia — a dark society — in which there is a hierarchy, where elites rule over everyone else, using human beings as slaves to their techno-cult. This idea that "humans are the source of all meaning and authority" is an utterly genocidal idea; for if humans are the moral authority, then Stalin and Hitler are the moral authorities, since they were indeed humans.
Kyle Russel
Kyle Russel, who works for Ben Horowitz and who interviewed the Israeli eugenist, Yuval Harari, is also a eugenist himself. Silicon Valley is filled with these types of people — I call them, hipster nazis. These are basically far leftists who are the most radical about the Theory of Evolution. They are, essentially, people who have actually read Darwin. They want to see and implement the purest imposition of Darwin’s ideology of Natural Selection. The same can be said for the far-rightest who believes in “race realism” and use Darwinism to justify their genocidal ideology.
Kyle Russel is a supporter of the company, Counsyl, stationed in San Francisco. Counsyl is a company that pregnant women go to to have their wombs screened, to see if their child will have any diseases or deformities. Counsyl prides itself in the computer technology it utilizes to conduct this procedure, and if their computers say that a child tests positive for physical complications, the Silicon Valley funded company will notify the parents. But here is where eugenics comes in: Counsyl actually will do in vitro fertilization (IVF), in that they will fertilize several eggs, take the embryo that is the most preferred, and destroy the rest. This destruction is pure eugenics; it is the demonic pursuit of preventing certain ‘undesirable genes’ from being passed on through the extermination of certain people. In the words of the official website of Counsyl:
“Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), done with IVF, can greatly reduce the chances of passing on irregular genes to your baby. Fertility specialists look at the genes of several of your embryos and place the healthiest in your womb.”
What Counsyl is doing in this case has been guised under the sophistical title of “selective pregnancy reduction,” or the selection of one embryo over the others for its desirable genetic makeup. Counsyl is financed by Rosemont Seneca Technology Partners and Goldman Sachs Asset Management, which is telling because Goldman Sachs also finances Planned Parenthood, which is not so surprising since both are eugenist establishments. In fact, in May of this year, Marc Andreessen, Ben Horowitz's partner, shared a platform with the president of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards.
Snapshot of an advertisement for the event for Marc Andreessen (left) and Cecile Richards (right)
This is the same Cecile Richards who makes profits out of the harvesting and selling of the organs of human babies aborted by Planned Parenthood. If these genocidal people are harvesting children like animals, they will do the same evils to any other human being, regardless of size or age.
When the Second World War ended, eugenics became a taboo subject. But, people like those in Silicon Valley, now must do their evil schemes under a different cover: under the guise of ‘technological innovation,’ pseudo-medical jargon that speaks of plugging in human brains to computer systems; the eugenics of today is done under the guise of “fighting aging” or making a “cure for aging.” Its all a chimera, a delusion to perdition. We awe ourselves into the realm of bloodlust, with the destruction of the innocent being done under the gazes of evil men of prestige.
Jared Taylor, one of the pioneers of the so-called “Alt Right” also promotes this evil and calls it “embryo selection.” Jared Taylor said in one interview:
“I believe that an enlightened European people will begin to think in terms of improving itself genetically. I think there are positive eugenic steps that could be taken, embryo selection is one”
“Embryo selection” is the choosing of which unborn child is more deserving to live than the others, for no other reason than its genetic makeup. Moreover, the procedure of screening pregnant women to see if a child has Down’s Syndrome, is an action done to incentivize infanticide. On the official website for Counsyl, it reads: “As early as week 10, find out if your baby has an increased chance for chromosome conditions like Down syndrome.” On the same website, it talks about the passing down of genes that give a child's eye and hair color, and also the genes that give diseases:
The genes babies inherit from their parents pass along family characteristics like hair and eye color. Sometimes they also pass on genetic diseases, even if the parents don’t have any symptoms. If two people are carriers for the same condition, there’s a one in four chance their children could develop symptoms.
There is an underlying message in all this talk. Notice that it first makes mention of the genes that give "hair and eye color" before it speaks of diseases. The use of fear of disease is the initial strategy to accept eugenics as some sort of a life saver, or as a solution against disease. But, at the end of the day it is about creating their ideal human, their ideal society, in which only certain people will be allowed the right of birth and of life, based on their specific genetic makeup.
Nazi propaganda, showing the "ideal" human
The CEO of Counsyl is Ramji Srinivasan. On his Twitter account he supports the “Biotech” work of major Silicon Valley eugenist, Peter Thiel. Srinivasan shared a post done by his own company, Counsyl, supporting Thiel:
The article posted was written by another tech-eugenist, Antonio Regalado, and advocates for the work of Austen Heinz, whose “Cambrian Genomics” is a company funded by Thiel and is all about genetic engineering in pursuit for the objective of creating babies designed by computers:
“These days, you can order DNA online, crowdfund a genetic engineering project, or outsource experiments. Austen Heinz, CEO of Cambrian Genomics, a company that sells built-to-order DNA strands, says you can imagine what will happen if biotech becomes as easy as software to try and to test. An ‘explosion of biotech companies is coming,’ he says.”
Heinz’s company, Cambrian Genomics, wants to create ‘designer babies,’ the procedure of which involves parents picking which genetic traits they desire in their child. “Every human being will be designed on a computer, and that’s something we’re starting right now with Happy Healthy Baby,” says Mr. Heinz, founder and CEO of Cambrian Genomics.
Eggs are fertilized in vitro, and the unborn children that are then conceived are under the mercy of the parents’ genetic preference. One child is chosen, and the rest destroyed. This is what the elite nazis at Silicon Valley want, a world where human life is exterminated simply over the whims of a hypergamous perception of what are desirable genetic traits. If the nazis of the past said, “Gott mit uns” (God with us), then the nazis of the future will declare “Gott ist uns” (God is us). The Nazis of old decried that humanity was not taking control of “natural selection,” and wanted to be the selectors of who lives and who dies. Now, parents can do the same exact thing, but this time in a nice clean building in their clean cut, White liberal environment in the Bay Area. This “selection” was referred to by Austen Heinz when he said in an interview:
“Already people are designing babies digitally via selection whether through pre-implant genetic diagnosis or through mitochondrial embryo transplant i.e. 3 parent babies.”
Austen Heinz
Heinz himself must not have been the superhuman he wanted to be, since he eventually committed suicide. Bioethicist professor at Standford, Hank Greely, predicts that soon wealthy people will not have sex to procreate, but for simply pleasure, and will have babies through “embryo selection,” in which the “doctor” will present one hundred embryos and people will choose which one they want, based on genetic traits, while the other ninety-nine will be exterminated:
“Yes, I think we will see an increased and broad use of embryo selection. I would be careful to set the time frame at 20-40 years. I think we'll actually see a world where most babies born to people with good health coverage will be conceived in the lab. People will make about a hundred embryos, each will have its whole genome tested, and the parents will be [asked ... "Tell] us what you want to know and then tell us what embryo you want."
Heinz says he thinks "in general most people want children that are healthier than they were — maybe better. I think as a race, or as a species we have a goal of improving who we are.” These people want to do “gene hacking,” manipulating human DNA to create a “better” human. The whole thing sounds like it would tickle the ears of Mengele himself. Certain DNA is “superior,” and this “superior” DNA should dominate over the rest. This is eugenics, pure and simple.
Hollywood enjoys portraying demonic possession with people flying in the air and different voices coming out of their mouths, and while these things do happen, they are a rarity. The reality is that people under the influence or possession of the diabolical, do actions that lead to the destruction of human life.
FRONTPAGE MAGAZINE AND SILICON VALLEY
Now, I know there will be people who will say that Ben Horowitz is not his father, David Horowitz, and that their views should not be associated together. But, this argument does not stand against the reality that on Front Page Magazine itself, there are articles written by the Norwegian eugenist, Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen, commonly known by his pseudonym, Fjordman.
Fjordman
Apparently, David Horowitz has no problem with allowing him to write eugenist arguments on his website. For example, in 2012, Horowitz’s magazine published an article by Fjordman entitled, “The Price of European Migration,” in which he said:
“A few skilled immigrants from India or elsewhere can compete, but mainly those from East Asia: Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, and to some extent Vietnamese. All other non-Western immigrants show lower levels of skill and competence than Europeans, many of them a lot lower. It should be mentioned here that these numbers correlate quite well with average IQ, where a few other Asians can compete with Europeans, but primarily East Asians. Other ethnic groups cannot do so. Although it has become taboo to say this in the modern Western world, it is well-documented fact that IQ correlates well with economic level, for individuals as well as for nations. The scholar Charles Murray has written much about this.”
Now, before you go off on the typical argument that “Maybe Horowitz doesn’t know!” or “Maybe the people who run FrontPage can’t keep track of everything posted on their site,” I will have you know that the people who run this website are very stringent and review each article before they are published. I know this from my own experience. I dealt with Jamie Glazov, the managing editor at Front Page numerous times, and he, while publishing a good amount of my previous articles, refused to publish a few of my writings because they had Christian messages. There was one article that Glazov refused to publish because it described Islam as being satanic. In one email to me he wrote:
“Hi Theodore, sorry we gotta pass on this one. But keep them coming. Also please keep in mind Theodore, that Frontpage doesn't get into Islam being "Satanic"....we are a political journal.”
In another email, Glazov said to me that “we do not enter the religious terrain....like obviously we support the Judeo-Christian tradition, but we do not talk about Satan and/or how the 2nd Amendment is a right given by God”.
In FrontPage Magazine, you can’t talk about God or the reality of the diabolical, but you can sure promote eugenist and social-Darwinist beliefs. In another article written by Fjordman, and published by Front Page, it says:
“Of course, if you look into the taboo subject of genetic intelligence measured in mean IQ, saying that Pakistanis or Turks have “smarter” brains than northern Europeans is utter nonsense.”
In yet another article written by Fjordman and published by Front Page, the Norwegian eugenist references the American self-proclaimed “white separatist,” Michael H. Hart, in writing on his beliefs in inherited IQ in Europeans. In one part he says, “Michael H. Hart in his book Understanding Human History views the flow of human history primarily through the prism of IQ differences among various ethnic groups. This does indeed explain many things, although it has become politically sensitive to say as much in the Western world today, but it does not explain everything. No single factor ever does.”
He then goes on to say that the “European restless spirit, individual curiosity and innate desire to seek out new horizons … eventually led humanity from donkeys to space travel. If any civilization or groups of people on this planet were destined to leave Earth behind and begin exploring the vastness of space, it was the Europeans. Evidence indicates that no non-European nation or culture, not even the most sophisticated of these, ever came close to making a similar breakthrough on their own.”
David Horowitz, Jamie Glazgov and the rest of the Right-wing gang in Front Page Magazine have no issue with this type of writing, but they have so much animosity towards articles that express the Christian Faith and explain the realities of the demonic. Robert Spencer and the rest of these Right-wing loons, will wail and holler at someone who believes in laws punishing sodomites, but they have no issue publishing the works of this eugenist, Fjordman, who writes openly on his belief in the superiority of the German and Northern European races. He writes:
“Regarding the Germans, this is an intriguing question. I am quite convinced that IQ is an important variable and I have seen several rankings listing the Germans as having the highest average IQ in Europe. Nevertheless, IQ does not explain everything. No single factor ever does. For instance, it does not explain why Europeans and people of European origins outperformed East Asians by such a wide margin, despite the fact that the latter match us in average IQ. It is interesting that very roughly speaking, IQ increases the further north you get. This means that Europe as a whole has higher IQ than the Middle East, and much higher than tropical Africa. However, there are also minor differences within Europe, and not necessarily statistically insignificant ones. Europeans north of the Alps have slightly higher IQs than those in southern Europe. It is possible to argue that the Swedes and Dutch have outperformed some of the Balkan peoples because of this. The Italians are often listed as having the highest mean IQ in southern Europe, which is consistent with the fact that Italians make up the southern European nation that ranks the highest in modern human accomplishment. The greatest riddle are the Greeks, who in ancient times could produce great geniuses such as Aristotle, Archimedes and Hipparchus, but today have one of the lowest IQs on the European continent.”
In 1997, David Horowitz wrote an article for his publication, FrontPage Magazine, praising the Silicon Valley millionaire, Ron Unz, because he funded a ballot initiative for a program called “English for Children" that would teach the children of Mexican immigrants the English language. Horowitz wrote:
“Ron Unz, a right-wing Republican candidate in the last gubernatorial election and Silicon Valley millionaire, has put his money behind a ballot measure called the English Language Education for Immigrant Children Initiative (or the shortened English for Children). Imagine! In 1997, in America, it takes a ballot initiative to give Spanish-speaking immigrants the right to have their children educated in the language of the country in which they have chosen to live, and thus enhance their opportunity to succeed. … Now Tuchman has joined Unz in a coalition that includes Latinos, conservatives and even some leftists in support of the English for Children initiative.”
Once you make an evil as part of a discussion, you normalize it, you have set it off and don’t even need to openly defend it.
While the idea of a program to teach Hispanic children English seems harmless and beneficial, there is a sinister agenda behind the work of Ron Unz. This Silicon Valley elite is a major eugenist. In the work of Unz, it is so filled with sophistical code talk, one must read between the lines to see that he is promoting eugenics. What Unz, and the rest of these modern eugenists do, is present eugenist arguments, express some doubt about them, and then affirm that the Darwinist arguments present good evidence that we can learn from.
They will refer to the advocation of eugenics as merely being a part of a “discussion” as opposed to either explicitly calling it evil, or affirming that it is good. By making something as heinous as eugenics as being simply a part of a “debate” or “conversation,” these sophists directly normalize eugenics. For decades, homosexual activists made their depravities as simply part of debate; abortionists made infanticide simply part of a debate. Today you have people, like Milo Yiannopoulos, who want to make pedophilia into a part of a discussion.
Eugenists, wanting to remove the stigma against their movement that was made after the end of the Second World War, have been making open Social Darwinism as part of a simple discourse. Once evil is not explicitly condemned, and becomes a part of common discourse, it is normalized, and then soon, tolerated, and ultimately, imposed.“But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.” (Matthew 5:37) Speaking nonchalantly about evil, is a means to making it common and acceptable. It is as if someone asks you, “Would you murder someone for a million dollars,” and you respond with: “I’ll have to think about that.” Right when a question on whether or not to do evil isn’t replied to with an emphatic answer of repulsion, then we have entered the realm of evil being tolerated.
In one of Unz’s articles, he introduces the work of eugenists Richard Lyne and Tatu Vanhanen (both of whose work is promoted by Robert Spencer’s partner, Sigurfrey Jonasson on whom we have written extensively), that some races are inherently superior in intelligence than others:
“Although ‘intelligence’ may be difficult to define precisely, most people have accepted that IQ scores seem to constitute a rough and measurable proxy for this trait, so Lynn and Vanhanen have collected a vast number of national IQ scores from the last 50 or 60 years and compared these to income levels and economic growth rates. Since experts have discovered that nominal IQ scores over the last century or so have tended to rise at a seemingly constant rate—the so-called “Flynn Effect”—the authors adjusted their raw scores accordingly. Having done so, they found a strong correlation of around 0.50–0.75 between the Flynn-adjusted IQ of a nation’s population and its real per capita GDP over the last few decades, seemingly indicating that smarter peoples tend to be wealthier and more successful. From this statistical fact, Lynn and Vanhanen draw the conclusion that intelligence leads to economic success and—since they argue that intelligence itself is largely innate and genetic—that the relative development ranking of the long list of nations they analyze is unlikely to change much over time, nor will the economic standing of the various groups within ethnically mixed countries, including the United States.”
Now, while he references two eugenists — one of which, Richard Lynn, supports and advocates for a Social Darwinist autocratic despotism — he will then express that there may be some reason to doubt what they say.
By expressing doubt, Unz makes it difficult to pin point his beliefs. It is a strategy that is done to prevent people from outright exposing him. When someone does expose him, he can simply say, ‘I pointed out in the article that there are doubts in these theories, so I am not what you think I am.’ It is a strategy of deception, of sophism covering up academic ways for promoting genocide. In another part of the article, Unz writes:
“Not unreasonably, many psychometric experts have argued that these results prove that IQ is largely determined by genetic factors and cannot be changed via environmental influences within any normal range. Lynn and Vanhanen cite several of these studies to argue that IQ is at least 80 percent hereditary.”
Regardless of all of his expressions of doubt, when this deviant describes eugenist beliefs as being “not unreasonably” believed, it indicates that he himself is a Social Darwinist. The evil scheme behind conveying these most destructive beliefs, is to communicate them within the vehicle of “objectivism” and a sprinkling of doubt here and there in order to appear “reasonable.” And at the same time, he describes these evil beliefs as not "unreasonable."
In the same article, Unz attacks Charles Kenny for his writing against eugenists Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, and also for his referencing of the work of scientist Stephan Jay Gould, that the skulls of blacks and whites are the same:
“Although Kenny suggested that many of his targets had been circumspect in how they raised these highly controversial ideas, he singled out IQ and the Wealth of Nations, published in 2001 by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, as a particularly extreme and hateful example of this trend. These authors explicitly argue that IQ scores for different populations are largely fixed and hereditary, and that these—rather than economic or governmental structures—tend to determine the long-term wealth of a given country.
Kenny claimed that such IQ theories were not merely racist and deeply offensive but had also long been debunked by scientific experts—notably the prominent biologist Stephen Jay Gould in his 1980 book The Mismeasure of Man.
As Kenny soon discovered from the responses to his online article, he had seriously erred in quoting the authority of Gould, whose fraud on race and brain-size issues, presumably in service to his self-proclaimed Marxist beliefs, last year received further coverage in the New York Times. Science largely runs on the honor system, and once simple statements of fact—in Gould’s case, the physical volume of human skulls—are found to be false, we cannot trust more complex claims made by the particular scholar.”
At the end of the article he praises Lynn and Vanhanen — both eugenists and racists — and scolded Gould for his simple belief that races are equal:
“I would be the first to acknowledge my gratitude to the scholars whose efforts made my own analysis possible. Meanwhile, individuals such as Stephen Jay Gould, who commit outright academic fraud in support of their ideological positions, do enormous damage to the credibility of their own camp.”
His “gratitude” for two eugenists and his accusation of fraud towards Gould, show the true intentions of Ron Unz and those like him: he does not want to appear as an open eugenist, but his sly and elusive way of writing signifies his Social Darwinist sentiments. We need to awaken our own awareness of how this style of deception functions. Instead of focusing so much on the overly honest devils, we must work on combating the more deceptive works of the more dangerous cunning devils.
Ron Unz
In another article, Ron Unz argues that the reason why China has become economically so successful is because millions of Chinese died due to poverty and genocide done by the Japanese and Communists. The title of the article is, “How Social Darwinism Made Modern China” and it argues that through “Malthusian” starvation, China became a better country. In other words, through genocide, the “unfit” die off and the ones who survive are left to pass on their superior genes. Unz does not explicitly say this, but when you start using terms such as “Social Darwinism” — which is the belief that the process of evolution will continue by killing off the “unfit” so that the “good” genes will perpetuate without taint — and “Malthusian” — which is the ideology of Thomas Malthus who believed that in order to prevent the poor for consuming resources, they need to be killed off — it is obvious that a eugenic message is being implied. He writes in his article:
“The widespread devastation produced by the Japanese invasion, World War II, and the Chinese Civil War, followed by the economic calamity of Maoism, did delay the predicted rise of China by a generation or two, but except for such unforeseen events, their analysis of Chinese potential seems remarkably prescient.”
Chinese victims of Japanese genocide. To Unz, these are the 'unfit' people who needed to die so that the survival of the fittest could be carried out
In other words, genocide was beneficial to the Chinese because, through the Darwinian chaos of “survival of the fittest,” the fittest survived, the “unfit” were butchered, and better genes were perpetuated without any competition from people of “lower” genetic makeup. He continues on to write:
“On the less fortunate side, the enormous population growth of recent centuries had gradually caught up with and overtaken China’s exceptionally efficient agricultural system, reducing the lives of most Chinese to the brink of Malthusian starvation; and these pressures and constraints were believed to be reflected in the Chinese people.”
Observe the words that he uses. “Malthusian starvation”, the use of such a term indicates what he is saying: genocide is good because it kills off the weak, while enabling the fittest to procreate their genes and make future generations superior to those who were wiped out. In another part of the article, Unz again advocates for Malthusian ideology. Referencing the economist Gregory Clark, Unz argues that what brought about the industrial revolution in England was that wealthier people were able to have more children, whereas the poor, being not as economically successful, had a higher infant mortality rate, or poorer health, and so died off more, leaving those of better “traits” to become the majority. The domination of better genetic traits, and the destruction of inferior traits, led to a better England, according to Unz and his reference, Gregory Clark. He writes:
“Clark discovered evidence that for centuries the wealthier British had left significantly more surviving children than their poorer compatriots, thus leading their descendents to constitute an ever larger share of each generation. Presumably, this was because they could afford to marry at a younger age, and their superior nutritional and living arrangements reduced mortality rates for themselves and their families. Indeed, the near-Malthusian poverty of much ordinary English life during this era meant that the impoverished lower classes often failed even to reproduce themselves over time, gradually being replaced by the downwardly mobile children of their financial betters. Since personal economic achievement was probably in part due to traits such as diligence, prudence, and productivity, Clark argued that these characteristics steadily became more widespread in the British population, laying the human basis for later national economic success.”
Unz then goes on to describe Clark’s theory as “a perfectly plausible one.” You can look at all of the way that Unz tries to present himself as balanced, the theme of his article leads to one conclusion: genocide is good. He does not openly say, “we need genocide,” but by attributing China’s success, either to a great or small extent — to the genocides that it has experienced, can only indicate a favor towards genocide and the extermination of peoples as a means to bettering a nation. In 2012, Ron Unz published an article on his website that advocated for using infanticide, through Planned Parenthood, to exterminate the children of “low IQ” people in the US:
“Curbing reproduction of the low IQ individuals—of all races—would be the next important measure after immigration reform. Any sort of forced or coercive forms should be completely off the table. However, as mentioned before, an outright eugenics program, even if based on voluntary sterilization with incentives, is highly unlikely to fly. There are some workarounds, however: Planned Parenthood (which was founded by a eugenicist): It exists as a type of under-the-radar eugenics program. Planned Parenthood centers could be built and heavily marketed in low-income areas, with heavy availability and marketing of long-term contraceptive measures, such as Norplant. Long-term, fool-proof measures are preferred, because low-IQ women can’t necessarily be depended upon to take birth control pills or use condoms regularly.”
Following the ideology of Silicon Valley elites like Peter Thiel and Ben Horowitz, the article then goes on to promote “Genetic engineering” and says that “Much talk is made about the possibility of parents tailoring their children to suit their own desires, most easily through embryo selection.” He then describes embryo selection and genetic engineering as “valid, concrete solutions to the demographic problems we face.”
Another article was published on Ron Unz’s website, written by Charles Wood and entitled: “New Prospects for Eugenics.” It is filled with the sick fantasies of Social Darwinists, of banks that that the elites can go to where they can get frozen embryos to have implanted in a womb:
“The next logical step would be to establish a bank of demi-embryos, that is, frozen embryos that were identical twins of highly capable people who had already been born–some may be adults or even deceased. A childless couple could conceivably meet and directly evaluate the person whose identical twin they were considering for implantation. Most people have a strong desire to be the parents of their own genetic offspring. Choosing to implant a demi-embryo might be more attractive if it were the twin of a particularly capable relative. Implanting identical twins may seem futuristic and disconcerting, but if such options were available, some people would certainly use them. … At present, low birth rates among the most capable mean there is a tremendous waste of good germinal material. What we take for granted and discard today could become an extremely valuable commodity in the next century. Future generations could benefit greatly from sperm and egg donations from the brightest and fittest, and augment these advantages with artificial twinning and trans-generational cryoconservation. It remains to be seen whether our species has the wisdom and foresight even to think in these terms.”
The only thing that will bring the world to the awareness of the reality of evil in its purest form, how it functions, how it deceives and propagates, is Catholic consciousness. Not Right-wing thinking, or Left-wing thinking, but pure Catholicism. And by Catholicism I am not speaking of the vague emotionalism or callous indifferentism found so much in the nominal Catholic world; nor the anti-intellectualism found amongst the more hard Right traditionalist circles, where you will find many sympathizers towards German and Japanese nationalism, or Germanophiles, and sentiments in favor for Fascism. I am speaking of those beautiful teachings one will find in the medieval writings, or the Catholic works of the Renaissance or the Baroque era, or even the impactful words of great modern popes like Pope Pius XII. It is in these works that one will find the most valiant, the most pure and valorous expressions of the Christian Faith. It is in these works that one will find the drive to an incarnational zeal, bringing the energies towards good into a reality, in action against the forces of evil.
It is in the Catholic theology that one finds the balance between justice and mercy. When one sees these Rightest types saying “KILL ALL MUSLIMS” or “DO NOT ALLOW A SINGLE MEXICAN INTO THE COUNTRY,” through the lens of an unbalanced theology, in conjunction with an overly enthusiastic pull towards national pride, he will think there is nothing wrong with this. But through the prism of an equilibrium between justice and mercy, one will suspect that there is evil in such words. And after looking into it, one will find that such suspicions were correct.
Post a Comment