Intention to Annihilate...

Alexis Carrel.

I started to read the first chapter in the book ”Intention to Annihilate” (“Avsikt att förinta”) by the Swedish author Sven Lindqvist. He writes about the physician (and eugenicist) Alexis Carrel born in France but immigrated to USA. 1935 his book “Man, the Unknown” came. It was translated into Swedish and a reviewer in our biggest newspaper (Dagens Nyheter) wasn’t especially upset over its content then (says a lot about how it was then?). This Carrel had ideas about the society, and how to improve it, briefly said...

Lindqvist writes that nature-science and social science (samhällsvetenskaperna) always have cross-fertilized each other during history.

He thinks that we as members of a/the society have both rights and reasons to speak up in questions concerning the society. And he means that physicians aren’t the only ones writing prescriptions outside their competence-territory. It’s the same with a professor in national-economy who pronounce himself about desired frequency in the staff at for instance preschools, a subject in which he is lacking the most elementary knowledge (despite he is lacking this knowledge he isn't afraid of raising his voice!! Hmmm, that about weak voicies and raising ones voices, taking and/or giving voice...).

And he adds that when a professor in economy these days exhort that we should follow Russia and cut off half of our public sector (!!!) he doesn’t know, or seems to have forgotten, that this politics already has shortened the length of life in Russian men with five years (oh, does that matter - at all???).

When the science can lead to so crazy and cruel projects (as we have seen and as Lindqvist describes in this book, under all different regimes, no matter if it has been a right or left wing regime!! OR liberal/libertarian either!) – doesn’t that show that all such interferences in society and in particular those which lay claims to being scientifically founded are of evil?

Already Karl Popper said, according to Lindqvist (my translation and free interpretation):

"Away with all Social Engineering."

Lindqvist claims he didn’t really say so, but carefully separates two sorts of Social Engineering – a pragmatic and (another) utopian you can see if you read his book “The Open Society and its Enemies” from 1945 (Naomi Klein for instance writes about such a model, an utopian: the "Friedmanian"?? And by the way, isn't this a sort of Procrustes-bed?? People "adapted" to ideas and norms sometimes in the most cruel ways? People being violated through political decisions).

Popper was suspicious towards all great, grandiose projects, total-models as answers to all questions. But he was positive when it came to pragmatic attempts in gradually removing disproportions, one after the other.

Lindqvist thinks it is strange that such a great researcher as Carrel was so helplessly devolved upon his times prejudices and favorite theories. He exchanges private prejudices against women and homosexuals unsuspectingly with scientifically founded standpoints.

He shows empathy deficits?

And I think there’s a real backlash in society. Almost fascistic ideas and “standpoints” here and there… A search for scapegoats. Contempt for weakness. Sitting on high horses.

And from where does this and "Intentions to Annihilate" come? Wishing other persons were dead, killing other human beings? If not literally, so in other ways? What do these persons want to annihilate actually? And why do so many people follow those?

In wikipedia it stands about a person that is pragmatic:

"Pragmatisk, en person som agerar med resultatet som huvudfokus och [som] är benägen att stå tillbaka med sin personliga uppfattning om helheten dvs. resultatet gagnas av detta."

In my amateur-translation:

"Pragmatic - a person acting with the result as primary focus, who is inclined to standing back with her/his personal apprehension if this is of use to the entirety, i.e., if the result benefits on this [not so prestigious!? Having that sort of self-confidence?]."