July 17, 2009
Rep. Joseph Pitts, a Republican from Pennsylvania, had a strong reaction to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s comments about doing away with useless eaters “we don’t want to have too many of.” Pitts declared Ginsburg’s “eugenics way of thinking debases all human life” and he expressed shock that a Supreme Court justice would suggest certain categories of people are not worthy of life and should have been aborted.
On July 9, Infowars posted an article about Ginsburg’s comments that were contained in a New York Times interview. At the time, there was a prevailing and yet predictable silence on the part of the corporate media in response to the SCOTUS eugenicist.
“The mainstream media has been missing in action once again, by completely ignoring an astonishing comment made by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg concerning the ostensible reasons — in her opinion, rooted in eugenics — for the ruling in Roe v. Wade,” John Kinsellagh wrote for the Examiner on July 13.
On July 14, a blog on the U.S. News & World Report website attempted to explain Ginsburg’s “curious comment.” Dan Gilgoff mentioned that “conservatives” have “pounced on the lines as evidence that Ginsburg supports eugenics, or selective human breeding.” Gilgoff added that there was “much less chatter about this on liberal blogs, but Media Matters argues that Ginsburg was speaking about public opinion about Roe and abortion, not about her own opinion.”
In other words, according to Media Matters, it is not Ginsberg who is the eugenicist, but the American people.
“Ginsburg isn’t 100 percent clear that she’s personally sympathetic to the view that abortion should be used to control the growth of certain populations,” Gilgoff concludes.
[efoods]The notorious neocon editorialist Jonah Goldberg, writing for the Los Angeles Times on July 14, frames Ginsburg’s comments all too predictably. “One senses that if Antonin Scalia had offered such a comment, a Times interviewer would have sought more clarity, particularly on the racial characteristics of these supposedly unwanted populations,” he writes. Goldberg should be lauded for mentioning eugenics and Margaret Sanger. However, the neocon is more interested in bashing so-called “liberals” (Goldberg considers himself a “conservative”) and less interested in exposing the fact that support for eugenics is not divided by political partisanship and is an exhaustively documented fetish of the ruling elite and their minions such as Ginsburg.
Goldberg cannot resist rolling Sonia Sotomayor into the mix. “I for one would like to know whether Ginsburg believes there were — or are — some populations in need of shrinking through abortion and whether she thinks such considerations have any place at the Supreme Court,” he writes. “And while we’re at it, it would be interesting to know what Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor thinks about such things.”
In fact, eugenics has nothing to do with Sonia Sotomayor, supposed liberals or self righteous neocon-conseravtives like Jonah Goldberg — in the modern context, it was created and supported by the aristocratic and wealthy elite of America and Europe, the same people who created the false right-left paradigm Goldberg so predictably falls for (one might conclude it is his life’s calling).
As Daniel Taylor notes, modern eugenics was fostered primarily by the Rockefellers and the Carnegies. In 1902, Andrew Carnegie founded the Carnegie Institute and funded the Eugenics Record Office in America. The office operated from Cold Spring Harbor in New York. Eugenics policies, which led to the sterilization of thousands of Americans, were developed there. In 1973, the Rockefeller Foundation again gave $500,000 to the Population Council and $25,000 to the Population Crisis Committee, while the Rockefeller Brothers Fund gave $250,000 to the Population Council, and $250,000 to the Population Institute.
Abortion is at the very center of the modern eugenics movement. “Birth control and abortion are turning out to be great eugenic advances of our time,” declared Frederick Osborn of the Society for the Study of Social Biology in 1973 (the organization had changed its name from the American Eugenics Society). “If they had been advanced for eugenic reasons it would have retarded or stopped their acceptance.”
Osborn was put in charge of the Population Council, a group organized and funded by John D. Rockefeller III. In 1956, Osborn addressed the British eugenics society and affirmed his belief in “Galton’s dream” and proposed what he called “voluntary unconscious selection” by changing laws, customs and social expectations, according to Rebecca R. Messall. Sir Francis Galton is considered the father of the eugenics movement.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s comments provide a small window into the diabolical thinking of her masters. It is wholly predictable the corporate media and “liberal” and “conservative” bloggers have attempted to render it a political football instead of revealing the true nature of eugenics — it is the ultimate dream of the ruling elite to cull the useless eaters and the unwanted herd and political ideology is entirely secondary to the realization of their horrific and genocidal dream.