Skip to content


Righty: Don’t get me wrong: I don’t think we should be playing God with our fellow humans. I’m against the whole notion of “designer babies” who are pre-programmed for perfect WASP looks, Jewish brains and black athletic ability. But we have to do something about the tendency of our least fit citizens to produce the most children. The situation is entirely out of control, and it doesn’t bode well for our future. If it were up to me, I’d sterilize welfare mothers after the first two kids. (Why should the rest of us have to foot the bill for her multitudinous offspring, and her offsprings’ offspring, and so on down the line?) I’d also sterilize violent criminals and impose immigration standards that make it impossible for chronic welfare types (e.g., illiterates, retards, drug-dealers and people who refuse to learn English) to enter our country and procreate like horny fruitflies. It’s about time we realized that a nation can be only as sound as its populace… and our populace isn’t looking too sound lately.

Lefty: Have you been sitting in on lectures by Dr. Mengele, Righty? Your blatant contempt for the rights of your countrymen never ceases to amaze and appall me. You’re supposed to be the patriot here. Haven’t you read your own Declaration of Independence? “All men are created equal,” remember? How can you even think about depriving some people of their natural right to bear children? Based on whose standards? Yours? Why not mine? (Hell, I might ban Republicans and Evangelical Christians from reproducing!) Your proposal is the worst sort of misanthropic and racist garbage, and it reeks dangerously of fascism.

The New Moderate:

Yes, it sounds inhumane and even fascistic to declare that some people’s genes are unworthy of replicating. At the same time, I can understand Righty’s alarm over the unfettered fertility of our lowest socioeconomic sector. What happens to our country, ultimately, if welfare mothers produce five or six children for every kid lovingly overindulged by yuppie parents? And if those welfare kids become grandparents by the age of thirty, how will a dwindling middle class subsidize all that unskilled progeny?

Sterilize them? Of course not. But let’s not make it so easy for the underclass to demonstrate its fecundity without restraint or consequences. Poor people need to be sold on the concept of contraception and reproductive responsibility. They need to be sold hard.

This isn’t eugenics or even racism; it’s simple common sense. The New Moderate isn’t advocating designer babies for the rich or forced sterilization for the poor. No sane person wants a society that puts its citizens through the genetic equivalent of SATs to determine who’s fit enough to reproduce. As Lefty argued, whose standards do we honor?

The forces of natural selection seem to value sturdy nerves over brilliant minds, anyway. Rambunctious illiterates have always reproduced more lustily than philosophy professors. So do we just let nature take its course while we force ourselves to nod approvingly at the results?

Probably. But we also need to make sure we don’t tip the scales in favor of the illiterates by subsidizing their reproductive hijinks. The fact that we oppose eugenics shouldn’t signal our tacit approval of dysgenics. We need to work seriously at breaking the chain that turns unschooled youngsters with no prospects into thirty-year-old grandparents with no prospects.

Summary: Just as no humane society would sterilize its least capable citizens, neither should it subsidize their reproductive efforts. We shouldn’t tip the genetic scales in favor of the rich or the poor.

19 Comments leave one →
  1. November 3, 2009 5:53 am

    You got this one wrong on the left right debate. It was the progressives that were the biggest supporters of eugenics although some conservatives did support it too, it was still primarily a progressive idea.

  2. November 3, 2009 9:35 am

    You mean modern progressives (i.e., liberals), or early 20th century progressives like Teddy Roosevelt? There’s a big difference. TR, for all his virtues, was something of a racialist; I could see him advocating controls over unfettered reproduction by non-WASPs.

  3. November 3, 2009 9:49 am

    20th Century Progressives were very big into it, although I still suspect there is still a bit of it left, abortion and Planned Parenthood and all that. I can’t say I know any conservatives today that agree with eugenics, even in the slightest. I just think you are a little off base with this one. There is a difference between saying people who cannot take care of their kids shouldn’t have them and a eugenics program. One is about trying to get people to be responsible and the other is a very, very bad thing.

  4. November 3, 2009 10:15 am

    Maybe I was using the right as a convenient mouthpiece for the Nazi-style obsession with eugenics (though on a more humane level). You’re probably right that most modern American conservatives wouldn’t go that far.

    Reproductive responsibility is the essence of my New Moderate viewpoint; I was looking for the happy medium between government-imposed controls and unlimited reproduction by the poor.

  5. November 4, 2009 4:52 am

    The thing is other than the nationalism involved in Fascism it really an offshoot of Socialism. Mussolini being one of Italy’s most prominent socialist until his break with them over WWI. Since socialism at the time was considered an international ideology nationalism was not seen as a good thing, Mussolini however was a nationalist and disagreed with them on this point and supported WWI were many of the socialists at the time did not as it was a purely nationalistic war and in their opinion counter productive and wrong (something I would have to agree with them on). Hilter as well was deeply into socialist and progressive ideology however he was also into racism (something not always considered a bad thing in some progressive theory) and nationalism, so he mixed all of them into his National Socialist party. Fascism was an idology built off many of the ideas of Socialism and Progressive ideals. It ended up being what Mussolini called a “Third Way” and was more of a mixture of Socialism and Corporatism leaning heavy on the Socialism side. Neither Mussolini or Hitler like Capitalism however in Hitler’s case he traded Class Warfare for racial warfare mixed with some class warfare. Mussolini stuck with the Class Warfare but confined it only to Italy and didn’t bother with the international theories.

    In Europe any “nationalist” party is considered right wing even if their social and economic policies are very close to what would be called left wing or progressive. Such as the BNP in the UK. Were in America right wing while also looked on as nationalistic, the economic and to a point social policies are more closely aligned with Traditional Liberalism something that could be either nationalistic or international in focus and often times both to a point.

    Corporatism is not just a problem for the left but also increasingly on the right however the reasons behind it do differ, and Corporatism in any form is against the ideals of Traditional Liberalism. It is also something I feel strongly against.

    I would read this for a better understanding:

    I do completely agree with you on reproductive responsibility. However I cannot in good conscience allow the Government to take control over it. We need to get the country to basically “grow up” and learn how to be responsible for their own actions and get the government out of running peoples lives. I don’t think there can be a medium between control and total lack of control. Any time the government gets their hands even a little into anything they will continue to want more and more, and politicians cannot be trusted because all they want to do is bribe people for votes for more power. I think the real issue is not a government control verse total freedom thing, that is only a symptom of the real problem and that is how do you change the culture so that people are forced or even want to take responsibility for their own lives.

  6. Taliesin Knol permalink
    January 9, 2010 3:49 am

    Obsession with perfection is not to be confused with the noble pursuit of self-betterment. When youi tamper with that which is not fully understood, you can foul-up. (sci-fi channel monsters?) Diseases should be cured, but when everybody has the same, ideal genes, and some new plague wipes-out EVERYBODY, because nobody can resist it, we’d get what we deserve for tampering with the “warranty”. The most debilitating and destructive maladies should have treatments or cures found, but beware similarity, because shared weaknesses are the most dangerous.

  7. Andy permalink
    November 7, 2011 7:50 pm

    There should be no welfare money for more than two children in the household. If people can’t take responsibility for their own reproductive lives that’s not society’s problem. If they are poor and have more than two kids, too bad. Let them figure out how to support them. And cut the damned earned income credit. That’s nothing but a crutch.

    Eugenics? No…however much I would love to impose it on the terminally STUPID.

  8. August 28, 2012 4:49 pm

    Of course Lefty decries eugenics whilst conveniently forgetting legal-for-any-reason abortion could allow eugenics via the back door- we couldn’t possibly bring kids into the world who have the misfortune to be born with Down’s Syndrome, deaf or with low IQ, could we? And if the mother should choose to abort simply because the foetus is of the wrong sex (this actually happened once)? Sure, it’s morally repugnant, but its her body and her choice and therefore none of our damned business, innit?

  9. Sourkraut permalink
    January 17, 2017 2:54 am

    Eeeerrrrr. “Wellfare mothers” don’t produce kids. Fathers have to participate too.

  10. Anonymous permalink
    March 28, 2018 6:39 pm

    Testing. Quack quack.

    • Jay permalink
      March 28, 2018 9:21 pm

      Hi Ducky…
      Did you see this?

      “Trump Lawyer Broached Idea
      of Pardons for
      2 Top Ex-Aides
      President Trump’s lawyer discussed pardons for Michael T. Flynn and Paul Manafort last year as the special counsel was building cases against both men.
      The episode raises questions about whether the president’s lawyer was trying to influence the advisers and their cooperation with the special counsel.“ NYTimes


      And this?

      “Trump Aide Spoke in ’16 to Person Tied to Russia Intelligence

      The campaign official, Rick Gates, has pleaded guilty in the investigation by the special counsel into Russian election interference.”

      That’s evidence of TRUMP CAMPAIGN COLLUSION with Russia.

      But on the bright side for TRUMPANZEES, the pro Trump Roseanne show had a large opening night audience.

      • Anonymous permalink
        March 29, 2018 5:46 pm

        Hi jay
        No I haven’t seen that yet.

        I figured someone would find this space, glad it ain’t the pig, so far.

      • Anonymous permalink
        March 29, 2018 5:48 pm

        Sorry, it is still too weak to nail Trump.

  11. dduck12 permalink
    March 29, 2018 11:42 pm

    My hero and my nominee for “Person Of The Year”:

    Lt. Col. Arnaud Beltrame

    There are a lot of so called “heroes” that were just doing their jobs, this is a real hero who didn’t have to get himself killed, but put his life on the line.

  12. Jay permalink
    March 30, 2018 12:03 am

    If you have a Costco nearby, this is a good deal:

    Kirkland Irish Whiskey.

    As good as Jameson:
    Smells about the same.
    Tastes about the same.
    After two shots, no difference at all.
    Kirkland: $15 less a bottle!

  13. dduck12 permalink
    April 1, 2018 2:12 am

    They sucked us in again with their twisted logic.
    I can’t use Diversity on my phone, so I’m cooling it a bit.
    They don’t seem to care about those kids just their f—– guns.

  14. April 20, 2018 10:47 am

    Dave, you say government is the problem. That people have choices. People have recourse. Companies will act responsibly since they face liability suits.

    In 2016, the FAA found metal fatigue in a Southwest airlines engine. GE, the partner in the manufacturing of this engine recommended ultrasonic inspection of the engine blades.The FAA proposed in 2017 mandatory inspection of those engines within 18 months, the manufacturer requested 12 months.

    Southwest and other airlines objected due to the cost, downtime of planes and other issues. Airlines won, inspections not made.

    This week a plane owned by Southwest had an engine blade blow apart, penetrating the fuselage, killing a passenger and partially sucking her out of the plane. One can say the other passengers were lucky.

    So is your answer to this issue one of it being fine that airlines are not following recommendations, that government should not require inspection, that airlines paying millions to the two kids and husband of the dead passenger makes growing up without a mom fine and airlines should continue fighting FAA request in the future?

    Yes, we all have choices. I dont fly. But for those that do, do they just make sure they sit next to the fat man .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: