Humanism arose from satiety

Nobody invented humanism. He arose himself. From satiety. It has long been noticed: a well-fed beast is complacent, a hungry one is nervous and growls over nothing. Ever since the black specter of hunger stopped hovering over mankind and more or less developed agriculture and medicine appeared, a thin beak of humanism has hatched from the gloomy shell of medieval savagery. And by the XNUMXth century, the chick was already standing on thin legs, swaying uncertainly. And, being so weak, nevertheless, he cheerfully pecked at his direct competitor — the church. Today, this proud and long-fledged bird threatens the existence of all mankind with its hooked beak. And it’s not a joke. Humanism has become dangerous.

Civilization gave rise to humanism. Now this humanism, degenerated into idiocy, is in danger of destroying civilization. … And soon humanism began to take on the features of religion. There is no doubt now in his dogmas. Violation of these dogmas is punished, and the main ideologeme of the XNUMXst century itself begins to degenerate into its opposite — like any idea brought to the point of absurdity.

It would seem, why is the main principle of humanism “any life is precious” bad? It is not bad in any way, just like the religious principle “Thou shalt not kill”. However, in fact, Christian civilization has never observed its main principle, perfectly killing enemies for the glory of God. Moreover, Christian civilization calmly practiced mass infanticide, which in a peasant society replaced abortion. There were no contraceptives, medicine was not developed, so our great-grandmothers simply starved babies. Here is a quote from Tolstoy’s «Resurrection»: «This unmarried woman gave birth every year, and, as is usually done in the villages, the child was baptized, and then the mother did not feed the child who appeared undesirably, was not needed and interfered with the work of the child, and he soon died of hunger» . Doctrinal guidelines demanded “Thou shalt not kill”, but life demanded something else — they got rid of ugly, weak and simply unnecessary children: they sacrificed a little in order to save the whole — family and clan. It was this non-absolutization of principles that allowed society to survive. And what do we have today?

Not so long ago, the author of these lines visited a round table on the legalization of weapons. There were representatives of different countries — advanced and lagging behind, on the example of which one could observe the fundamentally different attitude of countries to the principle of the value of human life. In Estonia, weapons are legalized, every citizen can wear a pistol or a revolver on his belt. And apply it in the event of an attack without hesitation. There is no question of any excess of necessary defense measures. As, slightly exaggerating, the Estonian said, judicial practice is as follows:

“Even if there are twenty witnesses that you chased the gopnik who attacked you with a pistol for half an hour, exhausted two clips, and then beat him to death with a pistol handle, you will be given three years probation. Because you are a respectable person, the father of a family, to whom the state has entrusted weapons to maintain order. You have an apartment, a car, children, and this happened to you for the first time. And the one you killed was a real condom and a drunkard. He did not pay taxes for the maintenance of the state, and you, in fact, did a service to society by saving it from such rubbish.

A perfectly healthy attitude, as you can see. Because Estonia is not the richest and most advanced country. Now let’s move to advanced civilized England, where weapons are prohibited. Here is the story of a man who got acquainted with the legal practice of the British, having left for the country of fogs through the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs.

“I asked the local police how they are doing with self-defense. The police immediately brought the real case. The plot is such … A man — a respectable fat Englishman — withdraws money from an ATM on the street. And as soon as he got his pounds out, he got hit on the head with a bottle. He was attacked by two Arab youths. One of them gave a tear, and a fat Englishman fell on the second, crushing him to the ground. Soon the police arrived, because there was a surveillance camera nearby, and the cops removed the unlucky criminal from under the carcass of an Englishman. «And the Englishman was acquitted!» said the English policemen. “In what sense were they acquitted? — I didn’t understand. “And what was he accused of?” — “How in what? In illegal imprisonment! But at the trial it was possible to prove that he did not hold the criminal with his hands, but simply accidentally crushed him with a carcass. Then I talked a lot with English lawyers. It turns out that they have such a principle: a person is considered free. And the offender, even at the moment of committing the crime, is not deprived of his civil rights. Therefore, it is impossible to detain him by force at the crime scene. And no harm can be done. The cops talked about it with a wry, apologetic smile. But then I also talked to the English judge — she was a woman. And she already, without any smirk of regret, but in all seriousness drove such a blizzard that I even tried several times to ask again through an interpreter if I understand her correctly, because what she was talking about can only be called nonsense. And the judge, in turn, looked at me with bewilderment, not understanding what I did not understand. In short, the essence of English jurisprudence boils down to the fact that the most valuable thing in the world is human life. Therefore, you cannot kill a criminal under any circumstances — even if he encroaches on your health, threatening to make you disabled. We must endure, because life is more valuable than health. “What if a criminal attempts on my life? Can I kill him? I asked. “No, you can’t,” answered the judge with a blue eye and quite seriously. — You will be judged. Because he didn’t kill you, you killed him. So your attempt on his life was more serious than his, and you did more harm to him than he did to you.

This is what the absolutization of the principle of the value of life in jurisprudence leads to — to the actual triumph of the criminal over the victim. And now let’s see what this principle leads to in medicine, and how it affects the survival of the species.

With the development of science, doctors learned to deal with childhood diseases, and many unhealthy children who had previously simply died began to live to the age of puberty and pass on their defective genes to their offspring. Natural selection stopped working and “unnatural” selection turned on — selection for the worst. Nowadays, medicine is nursing more and more premature babies, freaks, genetically defective … Geneticists and pediatricians are sounding the alarm: now in developed countries, absolutely healthy children are practically not born — they all have one or another developmental pathology. A few more generations and humanity will degenerate in the most literal sense.

It would seem that there is a way out. Science suggests it: prenatal diagnosis and in vitro fertilization. However, in the humane West, it is not normal people who now rule the show, but minorities. And so, according to the newspapers, “in November 2000, the European division of the DPI, which is a human rights organization and includes associations of disabled people from 130 countries, addressed the public with a special appeal about the use of new genetic technologies for the detection and selective abortion of fetuses with congenital and hereditary diseases. What was in this call?

Protest! Disabled people who recognize themselves as an oppressed minority are protesting against prenatal diagnosis, which allows women to abort future disabled people. They believe that the detection of fetal abnormalities during pregnancy «offends the human dignity of the disabled, infringes on their life rights and considers them as an unnecessary burden.»

And further: “A self-respecting people cannot discriminate on the basis of the presence of a congenital disease both in children and adults, and in unborn babies. Therefore, abortion, which has the eugenic purpose of preventing the birth of sick children, should be classified as a form of deliberate murder.

They even got a name for it: «genetic discrimination.»

With the same degree of indignation, modern humanists oppose in vitro fertilization. The idea is this: from the mass of maternal eggs fertilized in a test tube by paternal spermatozoa, the most genetically successful one is selected and placed in the uterus. (The only trouble is that now mother’s wombs also do not shine with quality, being unable to bear a fetus. But science promises to build bioreactors for gestation in half a century or a century.) It would seem that the problem has been solved?

But no! Damn humanism immediately intervenes and, through the mouths of various societies for the protection of the rights of the disabled, begins to inflate hysteria in the media, demanding not even a ban on in vitro fertilization, but a ban on the selection of the most genetically healthy embryos. Because it allegedly violates the rights of people with disabilities! It’s genocide of the inferior, you know? So, for example, Ian Murray, head of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (!) declared: “We strongly oppose such practices!”

Why? And here’s why: “This procedure has no therapeutic value, but only resembles eugenics. This practice does not help people with disabilities, it kills them. Sixty years ago, people condemned Nazi doctors for eugenics. Pre-implantation genetic testing is no better.”

The left-pink journalists echo him: “Sick genes are not cured, and doctors simply kill the embryos in which they are found and implant healthy ones.” Can you imagine what kind of criminals these doctors are? They implant healthy embryos in a woman, instead of planting defective ones! Discrimination of the rights of future disabled people!..

“Can a person first create another person and then become his executioner?” — outraged English journalist Cathy Grant. For her, an egg fertilized in a test tube is already a person!

Madness. Pure madness…

Civilization gave rise to humanism. Now this humanism, degenerated into idiocy, is in danger of destroying civilization.