Darwinism in Reverse

Dominic Lawson, writing a review of Connelly’s book for The Sunday Times, explained that: the population-control movement was bankrolled by America's biggest private fortunes - the Ford family foundation, John D Rockefeller III, and Clarence Gamble (of Procter & Gamble). These gentlemen shared not just extreme wealth but a common anxiety: the well-to-do and clever (people like them, obviously) were now having much smaller families than their ancestors, but the great unwashed - Chinamen! Indians! Negroes! - were reproducing themselves in an irresponsible manner. What they feared was a kind of Darwinism in reverse - the survival of the unfittest.

Source: Dominic Lawson, Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population by Matthew Connelly. The Sunday Times: May 18, 2008:
Taken From: New Eugenics and the Rise of the Global Scientific Dictatorship: The Technological Revolution and the Future of Freedom, Part3

Totalitarianism

You know, I know something about totalitarianism.  I have been a totalitarian ruler.  And I hate to admit, it was a great job while it lasted.

Source: Eduard Shevardnadze, Former Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union and former President of the Republic of Georgia
Taken from: Superclass, David Rothkpf, 2008

On Population Control

In 1969 Robert McNamara, then president of the World Bank, said he was reluctant to finance health care "unless it was very strictly related to population control, because usually health facilities contributed to the decline of the death rate, and thereby to the population explosion."

Source: Review, Horrid History. The Economist: May 24, 2008

Taken From: New Eugenics and the Rise of the Global Scientific Dictatorship: The Technological Revolution and the Future of Freedom, Part3

Sentimental Humanitarianism

Is not man the first thing to be considered? it will be asked.  Is he not to be given preference over abstract rights, privileges, and so forth?  What this question fails to see is that man's egotism renders impossible that kind of organization which would allow him to prosper to a degree.  When he puts himself first in this sense, the victory is Pyrrhic.  The only way to give him anything that will last is to place him in a structure where opportunity and ability may meet.  This cannot be done by considering egotistic demands first; such shortsightedness destroys the supporting structure.  Thus sentimental humanitarianism, ignorant of fundamental realities but ever attentive to desires, wrecks society.

Source: Richard Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences 1948

On the Fun Factor

... the prospects for liberty have nothing to do with my own commitment to the process of trying to obtaining it. That is, I am going to keep trying, at exactly the same pace, no matter what the prospects are.  My reasoning has little to do with the likelihood of success. I do it because I think it’s my moral obligation to do it, because I want to pass onto the next generation the flag, or the torch or the banner that’s been passed onto me, and because it is just so much fun.

Source: Walter Block, The Privatization of Roads & Highways, 2009, Pg 417

Equality

When the rule of equality [reigns] ... no one knows where he belongs.  Because he has been assured that he is "just as good as anybody else," he is likely to suspect that he is getting less than his deserts.

Source: Richard Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences 1948