Godwin’s Law needs to be updated in this age of bans and eugenics

Leg-iron observes that Godwin’s Law needs to be updated. Whether discussing the smoking ban or the many other authoritarian measures which are now in place, it is difficult to avoid the obvious similarities with Nazism.

And as in 1930’s Germany, there are millions of people in the UK today who are happy the way freedoms are being removed. Selfish non-smokers (and ex-smokers, like Hitler!) love the smoking ban because everywhere is now smoke-free, even the places they never went into and never intend to visit in the future – ever. They believe the polluting propaganda exhaled by fakecharities like ASH and think that everyone needs to comply.

Similarly, envirofascists believe the selective data they are fed and want to impose controls on the rest of us.

Had I not experienced an all-time low in motivation last week, I would have blogged about the American “charity” that has landed in Britain to hand out money to drug addicts to be sterilised. A YouGov poll out yesterday shows less than half the respondents believe this eugenics method to be morally wrong.

Moral confusion

Moral confusion

There is an unusually high number of don’t knows for a survey, reflecting the moral confusion which now reigns.

To bang on about Marie Stopes again, and I think it is worth repeating as the fakecharity named after her is a major player in the abortion and sterilisation trade,

Marie Stopes [was] a feminist who opened the first birth control clinic in Britain in 1921 as well as being a Nazi sympathizer and a eugenicist who advocated that non-whites and the poor be sterilized.

Stopes, a racist and an anti-Semite, campaigned for selective breeding to achieve racial purity, a passion she shared with Adolf Hitler in adoring letters and poems that she sent the leader of the Third Reich.

The feminist also attended the Nazi congress on population science in Berlin in 1935, while calling for the “compulsory sterilisation of the diseased, drunkards, or simply those of bad character.” Stopes acted on her appalling theories by concentrating her abortion clinics in poor areas so as to reduce the birth rate of the lower classes.

Stopes left most of her estate to the Eugenics Society, an organization that shared her passion for racial purity and still exists today under the new name The Galton Institute. The society has included members such as Charles Galton Darwin (grandson of the evolutionist), Julian Huxley and Margaret Sanger.

Like Stopes, this latest atrocity of a “charity” believes that no life at all is better than a chance at life and that people who are disadvantaged will remain that way forever. As a former unemployable alcoholic myself, Marie Stopes and “Project Prevention” would have wanted me to have a vasectomy to avoid the danger of me polluting humanity with offspring who might have a less-than-perfect start in life.

With all this going on, can we now declare Godwin’s Law to be dead?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Godwin’s Law needs to be updated in this age of bans and eugenics

  1. There was a blitz on the BBC concerning the aforementioned charidee on both local and national news. Inevitably there were the vox-pops from Joe Public to lend some gravitas to the issue. It all underlines to me the absence of a coherent moral framework in the public consciousness – thanks to the unrelenting machinations of the secular humanists over the years. Consequently the public are fed these ideas and – not having the capacity to think around the issues – the attractiveness of the desired end outweighs the squalor of the means. This is the road to hell. I’m glad I’m a citizen of a better Kingdom..

  2. Stewart Cowan says:

    Very well put, CC. The humanist sincerely believes that he can devise his own morals out of nothing. This is disastrous for his chance of redemption and for society at large.

  3. Pingback: Is there an internet law about how some people are just too dumb to have a clue?

  4. Stewart Cowan says:

    That’s a remarkably inaccurate and spiteful blog post by Spinneyhead which is at least borderline slanderous.

  5. Zaphod says:

    Taking your morals from an old book, (religion) has the advantage of being definitive. This is also the problem with it. When it’s wrong, it stays wrong.

    Religion is for people who like to be told what’s right and wrong. To work, it needs others to subscribe, or submit, to the same rules. The rules can be anything, as long as they’re comprehensive and backed up by threats of consequences.

    I know of no religion which approaches my ethical standards. And I’m no saint.

  6. Maturecheese says:

    I think that a lot of people who find paying Junkies to be sterilised distasteful, clearly aren’t the unfortunate offspring of said junkies.

  7. Zaphod says:

    Could someone perhaps pay smug bigots to be sterilised? “For the sake of the children”?

  8. Stewart Cowan says:


    You have described secular humanism to a tee. God’s laws are never wrong, but men’s are, as the history of the world proves, and the more we are departing from our Judeo-Christian heritage in the UK, the worse things are getting for everyone. Except criminals and perverts. That’s because more people are subscribing to man’s ideas of right and wrong and not the Creator’s.

    Religion is for people who like to be told what’s right and wrong.

    No it’s not! That’s part of the learning process, but it’s not why most people go to church.

    I have noticed of late that humanists/”atheists” are obsessed with trying to look “good” in the eyes of the world as if to demonstrate that they can be ‘holier than thou’.

    I know of no religion which approaches my ethical standards. And I’m no saint.

    Your “ethical standards” are based on the values this country has/had and they are based on religious values, which is the reason you probably wouldn’t call for shoplifters to have their hand amputated, but if you lived in the Middle East, you might think it was justice.

    Atheists and Christians alike have a sense of right and wrong because of our God-given conscience!

  9. Stewart Cowan says:


    Is it better for a child to have some life or no life?

    Is it right to throw young people on the rubbish heap by depriving them of the one thing that might get them straight – the hope of family life?

    Eugenics measures don’t tend to come in isolation – one leads to another. We had ‘family planning’ with its contraception and abortion, now we’re getting into euthanasia and sterilising addicts. It all devalues humanity and it will keep on going until it’s stopped, like the Nazis had to be stopped. It’s just happening slower here.

  10. Magnetic says:

    Although the main emphasis of eugenics in the last century was genetic, many are not aware that eugenics also has a behavioral aspect. Within the eugenics framework, tobacco and alcohol are considered body/racial “poisons”. This “behavioral” aspect of eugenics is anti-tobacco, anti-alcohol, and with further emphasis on diet and physical exercise.

    There are a number of points that define the eugenics framework. Firstly, the framework is biological reductionism: Life, and health, is reduced to an entirely biological phenomenon. There is no mind, soul, spirit, God, or freedom (individual autonomy) in biological reductionism. The human condition is stripped of the art and detail of life, and the very dimensions that make humans human. In eugenics, humans are simply another animal – a human “herd”. Secondly, eugenics has an ideological aspect. It is believed that a self-installed eugenics elite should direct the “herd” in the quest for a “better herd”, i.e., applied biology. Eugenics defines certain genetic and behavioral characteristics as “desirable” and others as “undesirable” or “defective”, the former to be nurtured, the latter to be eradicted. Thirdly, given the goal of a “better herd”, coercion to conformity is a major weapon of the eugenics mentality. The State does not exist to honestly inform the autonomous individual who then makes his own decisions based on the information. Rather, the State decides how individuals – as members of the herd – should act. Since the goal is conformity, then all means, e.g., propaganda, are considered legitimate towards this end. Eugenics sees no problem in setting one sub-group of the population against another sub-group – under false pretenses – to achieve a “better herd”. Coercion can range from legislation to incarceration, to extermination. In that the emphasis is the population level rather than the individual level, in ideo-political terms, eugenics is Statist, e.g., socialist. In its intent to control the population within a superficial framework, eugenics is dictatorial/tyrannical.

    Being a superficial framework, eugenics is dangerous. It tends to bring out the worst of the human potential – e.g., bigotry, racism, cruelty, brutality – and in “mass” (mob) terms.

  11. Magnetic says:

    In addition to curtailing the procreative potential of “defectives” and “undesirables”, negative eugenics was also anti-tobacco and anti-alcohol, viewing these as “racial poisons”. In early-1900s USA, the tobacco ban in many states and alcohol Prohibition were eugenics-driven. Eugenics was supported/funded by many of the mega-wealthy, e.g., Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford: The mega-wealthy supported/funded eugenics and anti-tobacco/anti-alcohol. Nazi eugenics was a continuation/extremizing of USA eugenics. Hitler was a student of American eugenics. There was a strong (and since downplayed) connection between American and Nazi eugenics.

    (The antismoking crusade of the early-1900s USA proceeded on a plethora of inflammatory lies producing a “bigotry frenzy”. Note, too, that Dillow does not indicate that eugenics was mainstream at that time)

    It is not surprising that California lead the “antismoking way” post-WWII, and now attempting to lead the way with “thirdhand smoke danger”. It is a continuation of its strong eugenics heritage. Eugenics was mainstream in America for the first half of the last century. California performed, by far, more sterilizations than any other state over this period.

    Some insight into the connection between American eugenics – California in particular – and Nazi eugenics.

    Nazism (“applied biology”) and anti-smoking

  12. Magnetic says:

    A little known fact (well covered-up) is the “Business Plot” in the USA, in 1933/34. Very shortly after the fascists took power in Germany (supported and funded by IG Farben, the German petrochemical giant), there was an attempt in the USA to overthrow the Roosevelt government and install a fascist government. The backers of the “plot” was a “who’s who” of the mega-wealthy, many of these were supporters/funders of American eugenics (and antismoking, anti-alcohol) and of the Nazi regime.
    A congressional hearing concluded that there was an attempted, but failed, coup. No prosecutions followed.
    BBC documentary
    Another documentary

    Eugenics did not die out with the defeat of Nazism. Many Nazis were given sanctuary in a variety of countries (Operation Paperclip). Eugenicists in the West laid low immediately post-WWII, then started their derangement – again, in the 1950s. They were careful not to use the “E”[ugenics] word given its negative connotations. They dispensed with the thoroughly flawed “heredity trees”, replaced with genetics/genetic engineering. For example, the “Human Genome Project” is housed at Cold Spring Harbor, New York, in the original building/complex of the Eugenics Record Office. The obsession with the body, health reduced to an entirely physical (biological) phenomenon, i.e., healthism, controlled by the medical establishment, the use of population-level statistics developed by earlier eugenicists intended for eugenic population control (i.e., lifestyle epidemiology) IS EUGENICS by another name(s), i.e., crypto-eugenics. The World Conferences on Smoking & Health, beginning in the 1960s, were/are eugenics conferences (antismoking chapter) starting another “extermination of smoking” crusade. The mentality was exactly the same as its predecessor – haughtiness, delusions of infallibility and benevolence, bigoted, obsessed with control, pathological liars – posing as “heroes” battling the “evil” tobacco empire (see Godber Blueprint, http://www.rampant-antismoking.com )


    The connecting “thread” between antismoking in the early-1900s USA, the Nazi regime, and currently, is eugenics.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>