Link: https://jacobin.com/2026/10/political-deportation-trump-sarsour-mahdawi-khalil

Donald Trump Trump’s approval on immigration is so deathly low, and his ongoing deportation raids so unpopular even in red states, that you’d be forgiven for thinking his administration has pumped the brakes on the issue. Instead the White House is advancing a radical agenda that is increasingly targeted not at criminals or even law-abiding undocumented people but at legal immigrants.

That's because this is eugenics on every level. That's the anti-abortion part and the cruelty to certain countries part. We're living through concentration camps.

Sure makes you think, if religion is truly the problem why is eugenics such a natural out growth of beliefs born purely out of science?

Maybe the problem isn't believing or (not believing) in a diety in the sky or that facts don't automatically declaw beliefs but that we are failing to nurture the humanity of ourselves and others.

A significant number of Nazi persecutory policies stemmed from theories of racial hygiene, or eugenics. Such theories were prevalent among the international scientific community in the first decades of the twentieth century. The term “eugenics” (from the Greek for “good birth or stock”) was coined in 1883 by the English naturalist Sir Francis Galton. The term's German counterpart, “racial hygiene” (Rassenhygiene), was first employed by German economist Alfred Ploetz in 1895. At the core of the movement’s belief system was the principle that human heredity was fixed and immutable.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/eugenics

wat? Your conclusions are 100% suspect.

Sure makes you think, if religion is truly the problem why is eugenics such a natural out growth of beliefs born purely out of science?

How so?

Where has it been said or proven that eugenics are an outgrowth of science?

Did religion establish and promote the concept of genetics?

edit here is some homework for you

The majority of works on eugenics concentrate on so-called ‘negative’ eugenics. Indeed, in some investigations, eugenics is definitionally reduced to little more than advocacy of sterilization. When ‘positive’ eugenics is examined, moreover, it is mainly through ‘the social’ aspects of it, such as health and welfare reform.16 This article, by contrast, seeks to explore an important dimension of positive eugenics that pertains to the domain of ‘the biological’.

The intention is to investigate the advance under fascism of bio-medicine and bio-technologies aimed at increasing the reproductive fitness of human beings.

My argument is that, in the pursuit of its pronatalist ambitions, Italian fascism sought to increase and utilize the power of the new biology. Through reproductive medicine and technology, modern biology, unlike the old largely observational biology, claimed mastery over basic life processes and forces, such as fertility.

Because of its fanatical natalism and nativism, Italian fascism transformed the whole political landscape and language and multiplied the points of intersection between biology and politics. In opposition to religious traditionalism, it championed a form of bioprogressivism with a procreative purpose, pioneered a brave new state-directed biopolitics, and charted unknown territory in the scientific manipulation of sex and reproduction. My ultimate aim is to integrate the study of fascism and eugenics more fully by exploring direct linkages between science and the state in the articulation of this distinct Italian eugeni-fascism which was predicated on a notion of biological race and focused determinedly on a desire to preserve, protect, and enhance fertility.

...

For Sergi and for many others of his generation, population increase under the direction of science and the state would make this dream of racial utopia a reality. The prewar discourse in Italy which focused on the haunting ‘nightmare’ of depopulation and degeneration was all about sex and death. The decrease in the birthrate symbolized not just the loss for the nation of potential industry and empire, but also, on a very basic and psychic level, it seemed to call into question, for some of the nation’s most distinguished scientists, the masculinity and manhood of Italian men.

The reality of a downturn in the number of births from the 1880s emblematized a barren and infecund Italy, which represented the eternal female, now a land sadly left unfertilized by its native sons. Italy was a ‘dying’ and ‘diseased’ country in which its ‘cribs lay empty’ and its ‘cemeteries are full’, as Mussolini later forcefully argued.30 Fears about rising rates of male sexual inadequacy and dysfunction permeated prewar discussions about the underlying causes of demographic decline and intensified as a result of the war and the disturbing revelations concerning the ‘virility’ of the race which it provoked.

https://www.aup-online.com/content/journals/10.1163/22116257-00201003

edit adding this one just because it dunks on your ignorance so succinctly.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/eugenics

You might want to do some more studying, lol

Why? Did religion establish and promote genetics as the primary way to understand, categorize and define people?

Answer me

why is eugenics such a natural out growth of beliefs born purely out of science?

That's a weird way to say, "not science."

"beliefs born purely out of science" clearly refers to stuff that is empirically true. Excellent. Let's call these beliefs Group A.

"eugenics [is] a natural out growth of [Group A]." This implicitly acknowledges that eugenics are not in group A. I.e., "eugenics" is not included in the set of beliefs that are empirically true. Whether it is a "natural outgrowth" from those beliefs depends on whether you care about whether things are empirically true.

... So the kinds of people who don't care whether it's empirically true, as long as it feels like a "natural outgrowth", will be the kinds of people who like eugenics.

So the kinds of people who don’t care whether it’s empirically true

If this was true than the origins of fascism in Germany and Italy would not have been spearheaded by scientists, economicists and others who at the time confidently claimed their belief system was exceptionally empirical.

If this was true than the origins of fascism in Germany and Italy would not have

1. Why not? Is there any logical requirement that a scientist or economist only hold beliefs that are empirically true?

2. Do you have any reason to believe that fascism would not have arisen had it not been for scientists and economists? If an idea is pervasive in a society, surely there will be scientists and economists who hold that idea by chance. Are you able to verify that these ideas were pervasive because of scientists and economists? I could just as easily point out religious figures who contributed to the rise of German and Italian fascism. Would you accept that as an argument that fascist ideas were pervasive because of those religious figures, or would you try to explain why that's different?

Nowhere did I argue religion isn't capable of giving rise to fascism (though industry is always the true religion of fascism), my point is sometimes it is crucial sometimes not at all. You cannot say fascism is associated as closely with religion as it is science, but you can say fascism is a fascist religion that lightly disguises its violence under the mask of industry and an astrological-like meaningless obsession with numbers and imposed categorization.

The thing is if you say "well fascists scientists weren't REALLY acting in the genuine pursuit of science" you can also use that argument for religion. This is why your argument fails, faith is far more complex a force than "secular" and "non-secular".

Religion is a territory to be lost to fascism or taken back, it is not vital to fascism though fascism easily draws power from those religions it has at times closely associated itself with.

Legal immigrants? My brother in Christ, Stephen Miller is demanding 40k denaturalizations per month. They're going to strip citizenship from all of us.

The term "eugenics" was coined in 1883 by the English polymath Francis Galton, who derived it from the Greek root meaning "good in birth".

Galton defined eugenics as the study of agencies under social control that can improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations. He was heavily influenced by his cousin Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection and applied those evolutionary concepts to human societies.

Galton argued that human mental and physical traits were almost entirely hereditary and proposed that society should encourage the "better-endowed" people to reproduce more (positive eugenics), while discouraging or restricting reproduction among those deemed unfit (negative eugenics).

Galton introduced the concept before the field of genetics even officially existed; the word "genetics" was not coined until 1906.

Religions like the Catholics were very much opposed to eugenics whereas it received support from the Protestants. It is a mixed bag honestly with some people reasoning that eugenics could alleviate suffering

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4001825/

The thing is if you say "well fascists scientists weren't REALLY acting in the genuine pursuit of science" you can also use that argument for religion.

I was parsing out what you had written, which was

why is eugenics such a natural out growth of beliefs born purely out of science?

I'm not arguing for what does or does not count as Real Science™. I'm pointing out that what you wrote implicitly excludes eugenics from the realm of science.

This is why your argument fails, faith is

unrelated to my argument in any way.