Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

News & Supplemental  

Supplement to “The Eugenic Virus”

Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash dri­ve that can be obtained HERE. The new dri­ve is a 32-giga­byte dri­ve that is cur­rent as of the pro­grams and arti­cles post­ed by the fall of 2019. The new dri­ve (avail­able for a tax-deductible con­tri­bu­tion of $65.00 or more.)

WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE.

You can sub­scribe to e‑mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

You can sub­scribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

Please con­sid­er sup­port­ing THE WORK DAVE EMORY DOES.

Herr Schauble?

COMMENT: Crit­i­cal obser­va­tions by Wolf­gang Schauble–the German/EU “Aus­ter­i­ty Czar” who wrought so much suf­fer­ing fol­low­ing the 2008 eco­nom­ic collapse–has clear­ly enun­ci­at­ed the func­tion­al and philo­soph­i­cal essence of “cor­po­ratist” and eugenic doc­trine. 

Worth not­ing is the fact that the dis­par­i­ty between Ger­many and much of the North­ern EU and its beset South­ern com­pa­tri­ors, such as Italy, exac­er­bat­ed by the ’08 finan­cial crash, is dete­ri­o­rat­ing fur­ther, as a result of the Covid-19 out­break.

” . . . . Hard­ly a Ger­man gov­ern­ment rep­re­sen­ta­tive is more noto­ri­ous than Wolf­gang Schäu­ble — world­wide. Dur­ing the inter­na­tion­al finan­cial cri­sis, when Schäu­ble was Ger­many’s Min­is­ter of Finance, his EU coun­ter­parts trem­bled: Schäu­ble want­ed to force them to adapt harsh aus­ter­i­ty mea­sures. Because the fore­see­able social con­se­quences would cost lives, Schäuble’s tac­tics seemed to scare Europe with ‘trau­mat­ic effects’ and gave it a les­son in Ger­man eco­nom­ic ethics: Teu­ton­ic bru­tal­i­ty and at all costs. ‘Ter­ri­fy­ing,’ was the assess­ment the US Trea­sury Sec­re­tary made fol­low­ing his con­ver­sa­tion with Schäu­ble. Paris and Madrid were also appre­hen­sive; Athens called Schäu­ble an ‘arson­ist,’ on a ram­page through Europe. Schäu­ble has since climbed high­er on the gov­ern­ment lad­der. Schäu­ble now ranks sec­ond, after the Pres­i­dent, in the Fed­er­al Repub­lic of Ger­many’s pro­to­co­lary sys­tem. . . . .”

After the onset of the Covid-19 pan­dem­ic, he has redou­bled his “Teu­ton­ic bru­tal­i­ty:” ” . . . . In the midst of the Coro­na cri­sis, Schäu­ble ini­ti­at­ed an inter­view, con­sid­ered to be an unof­fi­cial guide­line for the Ger­man state’s life and death deci­sions. Its tenor deserves atten­tion, even beyond Ger­many’s bor­ders.

Should peo­ple have to die, because they are deprived of state resources, essen­tial for the eco­nom­ic cycle, such as cur­rent­ly dur­ing the Coro­na cri­sis? Does the pro­tec­tion of human life have absolute pri­or­i­ty in state pol­i­cy? In the inter­view, Schäu­ble has elab­o­rat­ed in 2020 on what he had already made clear in 2012, dur­ing the inter­na­tion­al finan­cial cri­sis: ‘If I hear that every­thing else must take a back seat to the preser­va­tion of life, I must say that this, in such unequiv­o­cal­ness, is not right.’ Pro­tec­tion of human life does not have an ‘absolute pri­or­i­ty in our Basic Law.’ Death is com­ing soon­er or lat­er any­way. ‘We are all going to die.’ (April 26, 2020)

Schäuble’s state­ments are exem­plary and are of ‘nation­al sig­nif­i­cance’ declared the Ger­man Ethics Coun­cil. The coun­cil is gov­ern­ment financed and pri­or­i­tizes ‘eco­nom­ic rights.’ They should ‘not be uncon­di­tion­al­ly sub­or­di­nat­ed’ to the pro­tec­tion of human life. There is a sort of rival­ry of val­ues. If the val­ue of life would have pri­or­i­ty, ‘free­dom’ would suf­fer, accord­ing to the unan­i­mous judg­ment of the ethics depart­ment of the Ger­man Eco­nom­ic Insti­tute (IW). From the stand­point of Ger­man con­sti­tu­tion­al law, accord­ing to a for­mer judge on the con­sti­tu­tion­al court, ‘the state’s effi­cien­cy’ would encounter its lim­its, if life were giv­en top pri­or­i­ty, where ‘every­thing else must lag arbi­trar­i­ly far behind.’

In fact, the gov­ern­men­t’s oblig­a­tion to the con­sti­tu­tion’s high­est val­ue — the pro­tec­tion of life — must be rel­a­tivized, just as Schäu­ble is doing, con­firm the major­i­ty of Ger­many’s gov­ern­ment lead­ers. Promi­nent voic­es from the par­lia­men­tary oppo­si­tion par­ties are also in agree­ment that the pro­tec­tion of human life, as the pri­ma­ry legit­imized duty of the state is a ‘ques­tion of assess­ment.’ From this the FDP draws the con­clu­sion: ‘there­fore, please reopen the busi­ness­es.’ ‘Enable pro­duc­tion.’ In har­mo­ny with Ger­many’s export econ­o­my lob­by­ists and the Pres­i­dent of the Bun­destag, the chair of the Greens is also one of the rel­a­tiviz­ers. He finds him­self in an alleged ‘dilem­ma,’ when he thinks of the pro­tec­tion of life dur­ing the Coro­na cri­sis, while a fel­low Green munic­i­pal politi­cian speaks in plain oper­a­tional terms; ‘Let me tell you quite blunt­ly: We may be sav­ing peo­ple in Ger­many, who, because of their age or seri­ous pre­vi­ous med­ical con­di­tions, may, be dead any­way in a half a year.’ . . . .”

“Ger­many Threat­ens” by Rudi­ger Minow; Ger­man For­eign Pol­i­cy; 5/01/2020.

Hard­ly a Ger­man gov­ern­ment rep­re­sen­ta­tive is more noto­ri­ous than Wolf­gang Schäu­ble — world­wide. Dur­ing the inter­na­tion­al finan­cial cri­sis, when Schäu­ble was Ger­many’s Min­is­ter of Finance, his EU coun­ter­parts trem­bled: Schäu­ble want­ed to force them to adapt harsh aus­ter­i­ty mea­sures. Because the fore­see­able social con­se­quences would cost lives, Schäuble’s tac­tics seemed to scare Europe with “trau­mat­ic effects” and gave it a les­son in Ger­man eco­nom­ic ethics: Teu­ton­ic bru­tal­i­ty and at all costs. “Ter­ri­fy­ing,” was the assess­ment the US Trea­sury Sec­re­tary made fol­low­ing his con­ver­sa­tion with Schäu­ble. Paris and Madrid were also appre­hen­sive; Athens called Schäu­ble an “arson­ist,” on a ram­page through Europe. Schäu­ble has since climbed high­er on the gov­ern­ment lad­der. Schäu­ble now ranks sec­ond, after the Pres­i­dent, in the Fed­er­al Repub­lic of Ger­many’s pro­to­co­lary sys­tem. What­ev­er he says car­ries weight. And he uses this posi­tion. In the midst of the Coro­na cri­sis, Schäu­ble ini­ti­at­ed an inter­view, con­sid­ered to be an unof­fi­cial guide­line for the Ger­man state’s life and death deci­sions. Its tenor deserves atten­tion, even beyond Ger­many’s bor­ders.

Death Is Com­ing Any­way

Should peo­ple have to die, because they are deprived of state resources, essen­tial for the eco­nom­ic cycle, such as cur­rent­ly dur­ing the Coro­na cri­sis? Does the pro­tec­tion of human life have absolute pri­or­i­ty in state pol­i­cy? In the inter­view, Schäu­ble has elab­o­rat­ed in 2020 on what he had already made clear in 2012, dur­ing the inter­na­tion­al finan­cial cri­sis: “If I hear that every­thing else must take a back seat to the preser­va­tion of life, I must say that this, in such unequiv­o­cal­ness, is not right.” Pro­tec­tion of human life does not have an “absolute pri­or­i­ty in our Basic Law.” Death is com­ing soon­er or lat­er any­way. “We are all going to die.” (April 26, 2020)

Rival­ry of Val­ues

Schäuble’s state­ments are exem­plary and are of “nation­al sig­nif­i­cance” declared the Ger­man Ethics Coun­cil. The coun­cil is gov­ern­ment financed and pri­or­i­tizes “eco­nom­ic rights.” They should “not be uncon­di­tion­al­ly sub­or­di­nat­ed” to the pro­tec­tion of human life. There is a sort of rival­ry of val­ues. If the val­ue of life would have pri­or­i­ty, “free­dom” would suf­fer, accord­ing to the unan­i­mous judg­ment of the ethics depart­ment of the Ger­man Eco­nom­ic Insti­tute (IW). From the stand­point of Ger­man con­sti­tu­tion­al law, accord­ing to a for­mer judge on the con­sti­tu­tion­al court, “the state’s effi­cien­cy” would encounter its lim­its, if life were giv­en top pri­or­i­ty, where “every­thing else must lag arbi­trar­i­ly far behind.”

Enable Pro­duc­tion

In fact, the gov­ern­men­t’s oblig­a­tion to the con­sti­tu­tion’s high­est val­ue — the pro­tec­tion of life — must be rel­a­tivized, just as Schäu­ble is doing, con­firm the major­i­ty of Ger­many’s gov­ern­ment lead­ers. Promi­nent voic­es from the par­lia­men­tary oppo­si­tion par­ties are also in agree­ment that the pro­tec­tion of human life, as the pri­ma­ry legit­imized duty of the state is a “ques­tion of assess­ment.” From this the FDP draws the con­clu­sion: “there­fore, please reopen the busi­ness­es.” “Enable pro­duc­tion.” In har­mo­ny with Ger­many’s export econ­o­my lob­by­ists and the Pres­i­dent of the Bun­destag, the chair of the Greens is also one of the rel­a­tiviz­ers. He finds him­self in an alleged “dilem­ma,” when he thinks of the pro­tec­tion of life dur­ing the Coro­na cri­sis, while a fel­low Green munic­i­pal politi­cian speaks in plain oper­a­tional terms; “Let me tell you quite blunt­ly: We may be sav­ing peo­ple in Ger­many, who, because of their age or seri­ous pre­vi­ous med­ical con­di­tions, may, be dead any­way in a half a year.”

Neglect

Delib­er­ate­ly blunt or ratio­nal­iz­ing inhib­it­ed, deci­sive group­ings with­in Ger­man polit­i­cal and eco­nom­ic pol­i­cy are dis­play­ing clear signs of an eth­i­cal dete­ri­o­ra­tion, where­in the preser­va­tion of eco­nom­ic activ­i­ty is being coun­ter­poised to the preser­va­tion of human life — offen­sive­ly, by seek­ing to depict life as a rival­ing com­mod­i­ty of exis­tence. How­ev­er, prac­ti­cal eco­nom­ic activ­i­ty is no rival to main­tain­ing human life, it trans­forms nature into the prac­ti­cal mate­r­i­al that sus­tains and sat­is­fies life — as long as eco­nom­ic activ­i­ty sup­ports life. How­ev­er, a “dilem­ma” aris­es, when con­crete indi­vid­ual lives must be sac­ri­ficed, because the prac­ti­cal resources of eco­nom­ic activ­i­ty are unavail­able, although the state’s pri­ma­cy for mak­ing, first and fore­most, pro­vi­sions for human life was rea­son­able but neglect­ed. The greater the neglect, the greater are the “ques­tions of assess­ment.”

Escapism

In the cur­rent cri­sis, it is obvi­ous that the prac­ti­cal resources that eco­nom­ic activ­i­ty could have pro­duced for the preser­va­tion of human life, were not or insuf­fi­cient­ly avail­able before death could no longer be avoid­ed. By not pro­vid­ing even the sim­plest means of pro­tec­tion, the offi­cials have shift­ed respon­si­bil­i­ty for life and death “ques­tions of assess­ment” to the hos­pi­tals. This escapism has cost addi­tion­al lives or over­whelmed the lives of many nurs­es and doc­tors.

Bar­bar­ians

Pro­tec­tive means that are now being sup­plied are sub­ject­ed to usu­ri­ous trade; sur­vival machines for inten­sive-care med­i­cine are incit­ing stock mar­ket spec­u­la­tors, bet­ting on com­pa­ny shares of the man­u­fac­tur­ers, increas­ing their wealth. The poor are dying in rest homes and the sub­urbs. As long as the state allows this sit­u­a­tion to con­tin­ue, the preser­va­tion of human life and preser­va­tion of the eco­nom­ic activ­i­ty are indeed in oppo­si­tion to one anoth­er — how­ev­er not as the advo­cates of val­ue rival­ry are intend­ing. A state that relin­quish­es the preser­va­tion of human life, to that of eco­nom­ic free­dom has either giv­en up its exis­tence or become bar­bar­ian.

Fail­ure

It is not sole­ly a Ger­man pecu­liar­i­ty to not draw bound­aries between civ­i­liza­tion and biol­o­gy in the event of state fail­ure. The ide­ol­o­gy of fail­ure adores the dull stench of preda­tor dens, where the stronger ani­mals feed on the weak­er. There, archa­ic instinct makes the preser­va­tion of life super­flu­ous. The preda­tor archa­ic and its eco­nom­ic ide­al — social Dar­win­ism — deter­mine phas­es of Ger­man his­to­ry, where­in the state can no longer con­trol its eco­nom­ic poten­cy; it must be cat­a­pult­ed beyond its bor­ders or col­lapse. Then it will be doubt­ful, whether every­thing else will recede, if the preser­va­tion of life pro­hibits every­thing else, name­ly death. Then a threat can be heard from Ger­many.

Upheaval

How­ev­er, if with death, the high­est oblig­a­tion for the state, the pro­tec­tion of human life, falls, then the state’s right to the monop­oly on the use of force to pro­tect human life against any oth­er claim, falls as well. If the monop­oly on the use of force falls, the state falls into its con­di­tion that rel­a­tivized human life and forces to ele­vate human life again to its per­ma­nent right.

Discussion

No comments for “Supplement to “The Eugenic Virus””

Post a comment