Eugenics > contraception
You might think that contraception and eugenics are connected, but the two notions are both opposed—and have been from the start. Darwin, for example, was invited to be a witness in the defence of two activists who published pro-contraception propaganda—he refused, quite brusquely (he was generally a conciliatory person). He did so because he thought it was better for there to be a population increase and an attendant augmented struggle for survival.
The people who pushed for contraception were always leftists—they were utilitarians and liberals. It was the Radical agitator, Francis Place, the man behind the early “reform bills” to enfranchise the labouring masses, who also published a pamphlet that explained contraception (using a sponge with a piece of string tied round it). He argued that the only way to make English labourers richer was to decrease the supply of labour. This position, euphemistically, became known as “neo-Malthusianism”—and it’s ironic because Malthus considered contraception, homosexuality, and so on (the trans today) to be “vicious” forms of population control that occur when a population reached the limits of the food supply (he in no way advocated these phenomena).
The terms “contraception” and “birth control” date from the 1910s—they’re modern, and they come in with the decadence of Lloyd George and Woodrow Wilson (with the victory of feminism, with female enfranchisement). Margaret Sanger and Marie Stopes were the two women who popularised modern “birth control”. It’s no surprise: it’s a leftist, feminised position—birth control makes sex into a hedonistic non-attached enterprise with zero consequences. So it’s a left-wing position—and yet eugenics is considered very rightist, so how come the two ended up connected?
Indeed, eugenicists were respectable people, not revolutionaries—and they looked down on birth control. If you think about it, the contraceptive argument is fallacious: its propaganda was replete with worn-out factory girls who begged middle-class women for “the secret of the rich”. The idea behind the birth control movement is that “the rich” are not overwhelmed with unwanted babies because they have a “secret technology” (the proverbial sponge with a bit of string tied round it) to prevent birth. If only the working class had “the secret” they wouldn’t be poor anymore…
The reality is that the poor are poor because they have lower intelligence than the rich. They have less impulse control, so end up with larger families—in fact, they’re more animalistic all round (sex just interests them more). It’s not to do with a “secret technology”—even if you give them contraceptives, they’ll be too impulsive and improvident to use them (hence, in America, the biggest users of abortion as birth control are blacks—because they have lower intelligence on average, hence less ability to plan to use contraception).
So contraception will never be a panacea, as Francis Place hoped. The masses are poor not because “the secret technology” has been denied to them, but because they’re less able to restrain themselves. You sometimes see people say (feminists) that “the pill changed everything”—it didn’t. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that you can pull your dick out and cum outside a woman—“contraception” has existed since forever. People talk about the pill in romantic terms because they are feminists—they get off on the idea “it put the power in a woman’s hands”.
Yet think about it for a moment—who actually wants to avoid pregnancy? Men. It’s men who want to avoid pregnancy, not women—it’s men who don’t want to be lumbered with a mewling brat and a wife who will demand support. Women don’t care if they get pregnant—they like babies, they like to entrap a high-status man. Sure, they’ll threaten or carry out an abortion as a shit-test, but, in principle, women benefit from pregnancy and not men.
You only think otherwise because you’ve been brainwashed by the Sanger and Stopes brigade and because you worship technology and think “the pill changed everything” (just something journalists like to write). You think men were forcing unwanted babies on helpless working-class lasses—hardly, that’s just the kind of quasi-rape fantasy desiccated middle-class cunts come up with (savage factory hands molesting the girlies at the local cotton mill and forcing them into poverty).
The whole birth control movement is based on the image of “sensible girls” acting prudently; of course, it’s sentimental fiction—the people who have too many children are just stupid, the women as stupid as the men (it’s only in the minds of twisted middle-class feminists that it’s otherwise—naturally, Sanger and Stopes had terrible relationships with their own families and were partly motivated by feminine spite, the desire to stop other women from having children).
Unfortunately, eugenicists made a brief alliance with the birth control crowd—and to some extent have never lived it down. To this day, we have to put up with morons like Alex Jones saying “birth control is all about eugenics” (i.e. bad, because eugenics = “Nazi”= evil). It’s ridiculous because birth control is really predicated on the left-wing idea that inequality exists because some people are uneducated—if they’re educated to use birth control, they’ll get rich—whereas eugenics says inequality exists because it reflects what people are.
It’s the same with Malthus—the whole point with Malthus was to counter the progressive fantasy put forward by Godwin. Malthus was hated by all people who loved the French Revolution, by all utilitarians, by all Marxists—and is hated to this day. Because he was right. He was not perhaps right that we’re in a struggle for food supplies—but he was right that we’re in a struggle to secure the resources, broader than just food, to survive and reproduce.
In a typical linguistic twist, much as happened with the word “racist”, “neo-Malthusian” became associated with birth control—a movement Malthus would have condemned because it promoted an activity that he, as a parson, found “vicious” (non-reproductive sex). Similarly, “Malthusian” has become associated with statements about “global famine”—yet Malthusian thought is “racial”, the “limits to growth” it refers to are statements about locality (not some notional global “food limit”). Godwin said in his riposte to Malthus that if he was right then Englishmen would have been bred to be “a race of angels”—of course, Malthus said just that, in effect, because his idea basically explains how races are formed, how they come to have certain characteristics through die-offs, and how some nations are, in consequence, more “angelic” than others.
Eugenics is good—it’s good to offer a bounty to the poor, say $12,000, to sterilise themselves. That small lump sum, jumped at because they can’t anticipate the long-term consequences, will repay itself many times over. However, just giving them condoms or the pill so they can have hedonistic sex will not work because the very people you want to prevent from reproducing will fail to use these properly—and will have to be “mopped up” with abortions (it’s not certain they’ll choose this option, being so radical, and so their reproduction will not be stymied—and it’s unhealthy to use it multiple times anyway).
All widespread contraception does is make it easier for the more intelligent people to have hedonistic non-reproductive sex—so that “contraception” (modern term, remember) is dysgenic. Civilisations and empires collapse because the elite fails to reproduce—partly because they’ve been hypnotised by sentimental feminine ideas put about by veritable witches like Sanger and Stopes.
Worse, since the Western right is really a conservative left, you will see men like Jones make pious “Christian” statements against eugenics and “Malthusianism”—with these tied up to the provision of abortions, really among the least eugenic measures imaginable. Darwin was right to oppose contraception—yet we should remember that contraception is not the same as sterilisation, not the same as the withdrawal of welfare support to single mothers. There are ways to control the population that are in accord with nature, and those that are against it.