Now before I set about arguing these things, there is a cloud of skirmishers, of harmless andconfused modern sceptics, who ought to be cleared off or calmed down before we come to debatewith the real doctors of the heresy. If I sum up my statement thus: "Eugenics, as discussed, evidentlymeans the control of some men over the marriage and unmarriage of others; and probably meansthe control of the few over the marriage and unmarriage of the many," I shall first of all receive thesort of answers that float like skim on the surface of teacups and talk. I may very roughly and rapidlydivide these preliminary objectors into five sects; whom I will call the Euphemists, the Casuists, theAutocrats, the Precedenters, and the Endeavourers. When we have answered the immediateprotestation of all these good, shouting, short-sighted people, we can begin to do justice to thoseintelligences that are really behind the idea.Most Eugenists are Euphemists. I mean merely that short words startle them, while long wordssoothe them. And they are utterly incapable of translating the one into the other, however obviouslythey mean the same thing. Say to them "The persuasive and even coercive powers of the citizenshould enable him to make sure that the burden of longevity in the previous generation does notbecome disproportionate and intolerable, especially to the females"; say this to them and they willsway slightly to and fro like babies sent to sleep in cradles. Say to them "Murder your mother," andthey sit up quite suddenly. Yet the two sentences, in cold logic, are exactly the same. Say to them "Itis not improbable that a period may arrive when the narrow if once useful distinction between theanthropoid homo and the other animals, which has been modified on so many moral points, may bemodified also even in regard to the important question of the extension of human diet"; say this tothem, and beauty born of murmuring sound will pass into their face. But say to them, in a simple, manly, hearty way "Let's eat a man " and their surprise is quite surprising. Yet the sentences say justthe same thing. Now, if anyone thinks these two instances extravagant, I will refer to two actualcases from the Eugenic discussions. When Sir Oliver Lodge spoke of the methods "of the studfarm" many Eugenists exclaimed against the crudity of the suggestion. Yet long before that one ofthe ablest champions in the other interest had written "What nonsense this education is Who couldeducate a racehorse or a greyhound?" Which most certainly either means nothing, or the humanstud-farm. Or again, when I spoke of people "being married forcibly by the police," anotherdistinguished Eugenist almost achieved high spirits in his hearty assurance that no such thing hadever come into their heads. Yet a few days after I saw a Eugenist pronouncement, to the effect thatthe State ought to extend its powers in this area