Emil Kirkegaard on Eugenics: History and Contemporary Realities


11 replies
  1. todd hupp
    todd hupp says:

    The WOK/Trans /gay crowd will love men having eggs and sperm.The feminists will love women creating an all woman race.
    Very well done presentation.Wave of the future.”Designer” children!

  2. Oscar Wilson
    Oscar Wilson says:

    Eugenics is misrepresented as eliminating people instead of eliminating disabilies from people. Julian Huxley is more relevant than Heinrich Himmler. Left-inclined scientists, including Muller, Haldane, Hogben, Needham and Waddington, signed a “Eugenics Manifesto” in 1939.

  3. Pierre de Craon
    Pierre de Craon says:

    No one else seems to regard the bulk of what Kirkegaard is saying, indeed looking forward to with delighted approval, as monstrous. This is not to overlook, of course, what other similarly inclined people are already doing—people, that is to say, who possess even more unqualified confidence in their ability and right to play God than Kirkegaard himself does.

    Anyone who would instruct me that I must “follow the science” in this matter is, to put it as politely as I can, utterly without authority or credibility. Those who are, in their ingenuous, inordinate smugness, confident that “improvement” of this sort can and will be confined to the sole aim and end of “eliminating disabilities” are at least as dangerous to a sane, morally sound, and functionally free society as the Jews themselves. May God deliver us from Men with a Plan!

    • Ned J. Casper
      Ned J. Casper says:

      I know what, milord. Let’s breed as many people as possible with painful hereditary diseases, criminals and cretins. Then we can all have light training for the Hell you wish on Jews.
      Or we could take advice from Christian eugenicists like Dean Inge, Teilhard de Chardin and even RC theologians during the 1920s.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Do you think that no one will notice that you have nothing to offer in reply or rebuttal except a sneer?

        As for Teilhard, if you think he was a Christian in any recognizable sense of that term, you have a lot to learn—and not just about Christianity.

  4. Ned J. Casper
    Ned J. Casper says:

    @ P. de C. Looking at your de haut en bas comments over a long period Matthew 7.2-5 comes to mind; e.g. your offensive falsehood that I have never read Newman or Knox, capped now by suggesting that I am an ignoramus and not just over Christianity.

    Teilhard: see e.g. John L. Allen, “Pope cites Teilhardian Vision…”, National Catholic Reporter, July 28, 2009; Louis Savary, “Teilhard de Chardin on the Eucharist” (2021); Cardinals Schoenborn, de Lubac, &c.

    Eugenics: “While theology is quite at one with Eugenics as the end to be aimed at, it very cautiosuly scrutinizes the means proposed” (Fr Thomas Slater, “Questions of Moral Theology” [1915] p.259); “Due consideration for posterity demands that those who can bring into the world only diseased and defective progeny, should forego their right to marry” (Dr C P Bruehl, “Homiletic Review”, February 1, 1927; “Birth Control & Eugenics” [1928]); “It would certainly not be unjust to prevent mental defectives of the lowest grade from marrying, as they…would only prove a burden to themselves and the State” (Fr Bertrand L. Conway, “Question Box” [1929] p.423; “The Church & Eugenics”, nd); “Pope Pius XI Never Condemned Eugenics”, Learning Tools, March 17, 2020, online; “The differences between the various branches of the human family are so great that the fusion of races is not in any way desirable; and one cannot condemn absolutely measures to prevent it” (Fr Leslie Rumble MSC STD, “Questions People Ask” [1972] pp.269-70 [Nihil Obstat/Imprimatur, Sydney, Australia].

    • Oscar Wilson
      Oscar Wilson says:

      I am the nom-de-plume of Ned Casper. I confess my petit jeu before Pope Pierre de nos jours rumbles it, and “we both” say Adieu to TOO, leaving his holiness to scatter personal insults on others he considers his moral, racial or intellectual inferiors.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        You brazenly and unapologetically falsify your identity while insisting that I am the bad guy. Well, that’s clear.

  5. Jimmy Williams
    Jimmy Williams says:

    Herbert Henson’s “Christian Morality” supported marital contraception and racial segregation if “modern science and social experience” justified their effect on the “physical and mental soundness” of citizens; irresponsible parenthood would no longer be allowed to shelter under religious pleas. 85 years later we have the disgusting phenomenon of promiscuous young women campaigning on one hand for the painful extermination of viable white unborn babies and on the other for the tax-subsidised multiplication of black babies. As Henson was Anglican Bishop of Durham it would be odd to say that however controversial he was not a Christian, as indeed is the case with other more outspoken advocates of eugenics from the late Harry Fosdick to Davis Carlton today.

Comments are closed.