The Anglo-American Empire and the Rise of Fascism XII

Letter to Horst von Wächter XV

Letters from Vienna #218

Letter to Horst von Wächter XV

The Anglo-American Empire and the Rise of Fascism XII

Dear Horst

if one had to write a history of Fascism and Nazism one would need to define them as branches (functions or bastard children) of Eugenics, and Eugenics was and is an essentially Anglo-Saxon phenomenon. In fact, nearly every major event occurring today, from the Genocide by Jab to the War in the Ukraine, can be traced back to this odious, omnipotent and omnipresent ideology[1]. A good example of this thinking in the contemporary world can be found in “The Economist”, which seems to regard old people as “resistant to new ideas” (and superfluous) and the young as “fluid” (easy to manipulate) and “dynamic” (willing to act without conscience).

Who’s Worthy of Life?

“On November 10, 2020,” James Corbett tells us “Joe Biden announced the members of a coronavirus task force that would advise his transition team on setting COVID-19-related policies for the Biden administration. That task force included Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a bioethicist and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.”

“That announcement meant very little to the general public, who likely only know Emanuel as a talking head on TV panel discussions or as the brother of former Obama chief of staff and ex-mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel. But for those who have followed Ezekiel Emanuel’s career as a bioethicist and his history of advocating controversial reforms of the American health care system, his appointment was an ominous sign of things to come.”

“He has argued that the Hippocratic Oath is obsolete and that it leads to doctors believing that they should do everything they can for their patients rather than letting them die to focus on higher priorities. He has argued that people should choose to die at age 75 to spare society the burden of looking after them in old age. As a health policy advisor to the Obama administration he helped craft the Affordable Care Act, which fellow Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber admitted was only passed thanks to the stupidity of the American public.”

“During the course of the deliberations over Obamacare, the issue of “death panels” arose. Although the term “death panel” was immediately lampooned by government apologists in the media, the essence of the argument was one that Emanuel has long advocated: appointing a body or council to ration health care, effectively condemning those deemed unworthy of medical attention to death.”

“When the debate is framed as an impersonal imposition of economic restraint over the deployment of scarce resources, it is easy to forget the real nature of the idea that Emanuel is advocating. Excluded from these softball interviews is the implicit question of who gets to decide who is worthy of medical attention. Emanuel’s various proposals over the years, and those of his fellow bioethicists, have usually supposed that some government-appointed but somehow “independent” board of bioethicists, economists and other technocrats, should be entrusted with these life-and-death decisions.”

“If this idea seems familiar, it’s because it has a long and dark history that harkens back to the eugenicists who argued that only the “fittest” should be allowed to breed, and anyone deemed “unfit” by the government-appointed boards — presided over by the eugenicists —should be sterilized, or, in extreme cases, put to death.”

“This is the exact same talk of “Life Unworthy of Life” that was employed in Nazi Germany as justification for their Aktion T4 program, which resulted in over 70,000 children, senior citizens and psychiatric patients being murdered by the Nazi regime.”[2]

Cherwell’s Philosophy of Life

One of the key players and guilty parties in the tragedy of the Indian famine was Lord Cherwell (aka Professor Lindemann), the scientific adviser to Churchill. He, like Churchill himself, was a Eugenicist; neither liked Indians.

Madhusree Mukerjee tells us: “Eugenic ideas also feature in a lecture that Lord Cherwell (then known as Professor Lindemann) had delivered more than once, probably in the early 1930s. He had detailed a science-based solution to a challenge that occupied many an intellect of the time: preserving for eternity the hegemony of the superior classes. Any attempt “to force upon Nature an equality she has never admitted” was bound to lead to bloody strife, the scientist asserted in a draft of this talk. Instead of subscribing to what he called “the fetish of equality,” he recommended that human differences be accepted and indeed enhanced by means of science. It was no longer necessary, he wrote, to wait for “the haphazard process of natural selection to ensure that the slow and heavy mind gravitates to the lowest form of activity.” New technologies such as surgery, mind control, and drug and hormone manipulations would one day allow humans to be fine-tuned for specific tasks. Society could create “gladiators or philosophers, athletes or artists, satyrs or monks” at will—indeed, it could manufacture “men with a passion and perhaps even aptitude for any desired vocation.” At the lower end of the race and class spectrum, one could remove from “helots” (the Greek word for slaves) the ability to suffer or to feel ambition.”

“Somebody must perform dull, dreary tasks, tend machines, count units in repetition work; is it not incumbent on us, if we have the means, to produce individuals without a distaste for such work, types that are as happy in their monotonous occupation as a cow chewing the cud?” Lindemann asked. Science could yield a race of humans blessed with “the mental make-up of the worker bee.” This subclass would do all the unpleasant work and not once think of revolution or of voting rights: “Placid content rules in the bee-hive or ant-heap.” The outcome would be a perfectly peaceable and stable society, “led by supermen and served by helots.”

“Because many people would evince an “illogical disgust” of such alterations to the nature of the human species, one might have to make do with great apes for such tasks instead of humans, the Prof conceded. It would of course be “somewhat more difficult to make an efficient bricklayer out of a gorilla than out of a bushman,” but at least no one would demand votes on behalf of an ape. As for the “unlimited number of half-witted children born of mentally defective parents,” sterilization could and should ensure that society be freed of that burden. “Philosophers have failed to agree on any definition of what is good and what should be our aim is a matter of individual opinion,” the professor summarized. “But unless we desire to see our civilisation perish, to see it disappear as the great eastern cultures of the Nile and Mesopotamia did, unless we wish to prepare [for] new dark ages such as followed the crumbling of the Roman empire, the fundamental cause of present day unrest will have to be removed.” To consolidate the rule of supermen — to perpetuate the British Empire — one need only remove the ability of slaves to see themselves as slaves.”

“Lindemann’s utopia bears an uncanny resemblance to the science-determined dystopia that a contemporary writer, Aldous Huxley, brought to life in his novel Brave New World. And his talk of helots suggests inspiration from Sparta, a racially segregated city-state about which he would have learned in school. The Prof may also have derived from ancient Greece the insight that hierarchical regimes are most endangered by those who chafe under their bonds. The Spartans once offered freedom to 2,000 helots who had performed bravely in war and then killed all those who stepped forward to claim their liberty, on the assumption that, as recorded by the classical historian Thucydides, they “would be the most high-spirited and the most apt to rebel.””

“In Lindemann’s utopia, racial superiority alone would not win a high social ranking: he demanded intellectual superiority or aristocratic lineage as well. He envisioned a clique of exalted beings perched on top of a pyramid, with the rest of society ordered in caste-like layers beneath. The hierarchy resembles the terrifying society that George Orwell would sketch in his novel 1984, in which a class of elites uses mind control to rule over a society of commoners and, below them, so inferior and distant as to be almost invisible, slaves in the colonies. The objective of the three empires chronicled in 1984 “was to arrest progress and freeze history at a chosen moment,” wrote Orwell, so that “this time, by conscious strategy, the High would be able to maintain their position permanently.” This was the selfsame outcome that the Prof hoped to deliver. Cherwell’s utopia also recalls the predator-prey pyramid envisaged by Darwin, in which the King of the Jungle forever reigns over forests and fields of scurrying rabbits.”[3]

I’m sure you’ll think this is all nonsense but would suggest that you research the question yourself.

Best,

Michael

---

[1] https://lettersfromvienna.substack.com/p/eugenics-and-the-genocide-by-jab

[2] https://www.corbettreport.com/bioethics/

[3] pp.216-218 Churchill’s Secret War, Madhusree Mukerjee