The People Neutering Your Kids ... Have Eugenic "Priors"
And an awkward depopulation itch to scratch
With few exceptions, those who recommend, support, or defend giving children puberty blockers and then genital surgery are people of the Political Left. If we stroll down memory hole lane, we might discover connections that hint at intentions other than those advertised.
Or could they all be a coincidence?
Partners and Crime
Before someone can pay someone else to neuter a child by removing or permanently altering their sex parts (children cannot pay for this themselves), they need to go on puberty blockers. These hormone treatments are dangerous and poorly regulated, and no one is likely to tell the underage “patient” they will have to take them for the rest of their life if they are to remain on the course charted for them by adults.
It makes pharmaceutical companies very happy.
Children who undergo surgical gender “solutions” as an added step to their lifelong drug therapy end up neutered. These children will never be able to reproduce, a decision stolen from them before they could decide for themselves the consequences. They will never experience the pleasure of consensual sexual intimacy or its often beneficial physical and emotional side effects.
Substitute “sex organs” are fleshy affectations, a Potemkin village, best viewed at a distance. Incapable of use in any traditional biological sense unless the goal is a life filled with chronic pain (physical and emotional) as well as the risk of infection (heightened in instances of vaginoplasty).
However, hospitals and surgeons make a lot of money on these procedures and follow-up care, as do therapists and drug companies.
Should it surprise us that despite the arguments in favor of such permanent drastic action and all the care and attention, these kids (as kids or adults) will continue to commit suicide?
An Idea That’s Not So New
Removing people from the gene pool is not a new social or political agenda. It is ideologically descended from progressive eugenicists, people who, before Hitler, advocated social engineering to reduce populations of ‘unwanted’ people. The goal was to make society better, to improve a culture or a nation by weeding out those the “experts” considered a drag on progress.
Their progress.
The late 19th and early 20th-century eugenicists and the depopulation advocates who followed might have considered it Social Justice. For the good of mankind (you could still call it that back then). Today, it manifests as convincing people to stop having children. To dissuade families from forming where children might thrive or undermine cultural and religious practices that value family, life, and children. To kill the unborn. To convince them to end their own lives.
The progressive movement, local or global, has long sought to reduce populations. Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist. In a letter dated December 10, 1939, to Dr. Clarence Gamble, “Sanger writes about the “Negro Project” and the need to elicit the support of black doctors and clergy. She wrote: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
“Her supporters, who are legion in the United States, tell us that this has been taken out of context. But in her book The Pivot of Civilization, Sanger advocated for “the elimination of human weeds” and for “the sterilization of genetically inferior races.” The fact that she had white supremacist and KKK member Lothrop Stoddard and Dr. Ernst Rudin, the Nazi in charge of Germany’s forced sterilization, collaborating with her, belies the claims of her apologists.”
Is it a coincidence that Planned Parenthood carries on Sanger’s work even to this day?
The majority of abortions in the United States are the babies of minorities, mostly black women - to whom they insist it is simply “health care.”
Is that why Progressives insist that anything short of abortion up to birth is the extreme position? Does it explain the Democrat-run cities in which many minorities find themselves living in broken homes and in poverty? Places where defunding the police results in more black children dying from violence.
I’m sure it is all a coincidence.
Is It a Coincidence?
Liberal US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg famously said,
Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.
The World Wildlife Federation, in conjunction with USAID and Johnson & Johnson, set up ‘Health clinics’ in India and Africa at which black men are sterilized as “family planning.” The WWF backed the plan … to save the planet.
For whom?
Holocaust Survivor & Public Advocate for Human Rights Vera Sharav, on the 75th Anniversary of the Nuremberg Code of Human Rights, warned that “At the end of the war (WWII), US government agents helped 1,600 high-ranking Nazi scientists, doctors, & engineers to evade justice at Nuremberg. … What’s more, these Nazi technocrats trained a generation of American scientists, doctors, & engineers.”
President Eisenhower tried to warn us: "We must be alert to the danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services required insurers to cover the cost of sterilization.
John Maynard Keynes observed, “In the light of present knowledge, I am unable to see any possible method of materially improving the average human lot which does not include a plan for restricting the increase in numbers [of population].”
The modern progressive urge to engineer society is all around us, from abortion to vaccine passports and mandates to handing individual and national sovereignty over to groups funded and managed by global elites with designs on accomplishing the goals of the original eugenicists - engineering a more perfect society run by them and free from us.
How’s that Working Out?
Medically assisted suicide has gained political acceptance in Western ‘Democracies.’ Wherever its advocates - also primary people of the Left - succeed, they always ask for more reasons to allow it while pushing to shorten the waiting time to die.
In the US, open borders, first under Barack Obama and then Joe Biden, have resulted in the exponential increase in lives ruined and ended by drug overdose (drug addiction, by the way, is on the short list of up-and-coming reasons to allow you to commit suicide, as is poverty, homelessness, mental health issues, and so on).
Gender drugs and surgery (neutering people) are promoted by the Left as if they were some sort of human right, even though they can lead to cancer and death. A program promoted for children despite (96%) growing out of any sexual dysphoria into a happy and biologically complete adult body. And that is not new. We’ve known that for a long while.
So, why are they turning kids into gender-drug dependents and neutering them as quickly as they can?
Could it be that they are the ideological descendants of social engineers and eugenicists and, like them, still committed to the idea of depopulation?
I’m sure it is all just a coincidence.
This is an amazing article. It all makes sense. Great work. Thank you!