PDA

View Full Version : Eugenics Quotes: and why we need to vote in Chuck Baldwin.




Volitzer
09-09-2008, 02:38 AM
Eugenics Quotes: From lofty ideals to highly-centralized population control run by psychopathic maniacs

http://jonesreport.com/article/09_08/05eugenics.html

Aaron Dykes / JonesReport.com | September 5, 2008

Here's a collection of eugenics quotes-- from as far back as 520 B.C. (the ideas are clearly age-old) up through the golden age of Eugencis-proper (from about 1883 through WWII), and up to the present date, where futurists, transhumanists and government policy makers look to an age where race-specific weapons are possible and mass death is conceivable and desirable for some of those in control.

With respect to those who may find the eugenics promise of better, faster, stronger, more human-than-human and the end of disease and handicaps to be appealing, I put forward (as a working thesis, if you will), that the drawbacks and excesses of eugenics as we've already seen it unfold should caution any promotion or endorsement.

Eugenics has been promoted not as a general philosophy of man, but inherently as a system of state control-- where reproduction must be guided by "wisemen" of one brand or another. This system leads, ultimately, again and again to control by elites who seek god-like powers (oftentimes in those very words)-- and total social control will almost always guide its directives and oversee its moral judgments-- making the betterment of the many over the elite few impossible.

This is true not only in the excesses of the Nazi Germany-- an obvious extreme, but in the would-be ideals of H.G. Wells (a la his 1905 Modern Utopia), the sometimes practical, sometimes overtly controlling eugenical policies in the USA, England and elsewhere in the first third of the 20th century-- and the same perils of total control threaten us in the might-be ideals of meg lo-maniacal elites of the transhumanist camp-- most who envision a man transformed, and some who envision the power of a god to kill the many.

Thus, what I oppose is not the hope for a better man, but the repetition of a vicious cycle of elite control and systematic death-- surely a far cry from the ideals we were asked to hope for in the promises of sciences & the state-- but connected, undoubtedly, to the controls over the direction of humanity as he moves ever forward towards the future.

---------------------

EUGENICS QUOTES (By no means exhaustive)

"Ram, ass, and horse, my Kyrnos, we look over
With care, and seek good stock for good to cover;
And yet the best men make no argument,
But wed, for money, runts of poor descent.
So too a woman will demean her state
And spurn the better for the richer mate.
Money's the cry. Good stock to bad is wed
And bad to good, till all the world's cross-bred.
No wonder if the country's breed declines-
Mixed metal, Kyrnos, that but dimly shines."
- Theognis of Megara on eugenics and dysgenics, circa 520 B.C.

"Men are generally more careful of the breed of their horses and dogs than of their children."
- William Penn. Some fruits of solitude, in reflections and maxims relating to the conduct of human life. 1693

"It does not, however, seem impossible that by an attention to breed, a certain degree of improvement, similar to that among animals, might take place among men. Whether intellect could be communicated may be a matter of doubt: but size, strength, beauty, complexion, and perhaps even longevity are in a degree transmissible... As the human race could not be improved in this way, without condemning all the bad specimens to celibacy, it is not probable, that an attention to breed should ever become general."
- Thomas R. Malthus. An Essay on Population. 1798

"Eugenics is the study of the agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations either physically or mentally."
- Francis Galton, first cousin and associate of Charles Darwin, circa 1883

"What nature does blindly, slowly and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly, and kindly. As it lies within his power, so it becomes his duty to work in that direction."
- Sir Francis Galton (1905)

"Galton’s eccentric, sceptical, observing, flashing, cavalry-leader type of mind led him eventually to become the founder of the most important, significant and, I would add, genuine branch of sociology which exists, namely eugenics."
- John Maynard Keynes. Eugenics Review. 1946

"Natural selection must be replaced by eugenical artificial selection. This idea constitutes the sound core of eugenics, the applied science of human betterment."
- Theodosius Dobzhansky. Heredity and the Nature of Man. 1964

"...impregnation will be regarded in an entirely different manner, more in the light of a surgical operation, so that it will be thought not ladylike to have it performed in the natural manner."
- Bertrand Russell. The Scientific Outlook. 1972

"There is no permanent status quo in nature; all is the process of adjustment and readjustment, or else eventual failure. But man is the first being yet evolved on earth which has the power to note this changefulness, and, if he will, to turn it to his own advantage, to work out genetic methods, eugenic ideas, yes, to invent new characteristics, organs, and biological systems that will work out to further the interests, the happiness, the glory of the God-like being whose meager foreshadowings we the present ailing creatures are."
- Herrman J. Muller, 1935 (an associate of Sir Julian Huxley)

"The first century or two of the new millennium will almost certainly be a golden age for Eugenics. Through application of new genetic knowledge and reproductive technologies…the major change will be to mankind itself…[T]echniques…such as…genetic manipulations are not yet efficient enough to be unquestionably suitable in therapeutic and eugenic application for humans. But with the pace of research it is surely only a matter of time, and a short time at that."
- Glayde Whitney, Reproduction Technology for a New Eugenics, paper for The Galton Institute conference Man and Society in the New Millennium, September 1999

"There is NO DENYING the natural world would be a better place without people - ALL people! Not a selective bunch. Get it straight."
- Rebecca Calisi, student of Eric Pianka

"In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it."
- Jacques Cousteau, 1991 UNESCO courier

"Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind.... Any group of farmers who permitted their best stock not to breed, and let all the increase come from the worst stock, would be treated as fit inmates for an asylum.... Some day we will realize that the prime duty, the inescapable duty of the good citizens of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type. The great problem of civilization is to secure a relative increase of the valuable as compared with the less valuable or noxious elements in the population... The problem cannot be met unless we give full consideration to the immense influence of heredity..."
- Theodore Roosevelt to Charles B. Davenport, January 3, 1913, Charles B. Davenport Papers, Department of Genetics, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.

"I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding; and when the evil nature of these people is sufficiently flagrant, this should be done. Criminals should be sterilized and feebleminded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them... The emphasis should be laid on getting desirable people to breed..."
Roosevelt, “Twisted Eugenics,” in The Works of Theodore Roosevelt, op. cit., National Edition, XII, p. 201.

"Political unification in some sort of world government will be required... Even though... any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable."
- Sir Julian Huxley, UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy.

“I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing... War... has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full... The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's... There are three ways of securing a society that shall be stable as regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and the third that of general misery except for a powerful minority...”
- Bertrand Russell, THE IMPACT OF SCIENCE ON SOCIETY 1953

"Problem-makers reproduce in greater percentage than problem-solvers, and in so doing cause the decline of civilization… In short, if capable, intelligent people had most babies, society would see its problems and solve them."
- Elmer Pendell, from Sex Versus Civilization, 1967

"Out of the full spectrum of human personality, one-fourth is electing to transcend…One-fourth is ready to so choose, given the example of one other…One-fourth is resistant to election. They are unattracted by life ever-evolving. One-fourth is destructive. They are born angry with God…They are defective seeds…There have always been defective seeds. In the past they were permitted to die a ‘natural death’…We, the elders, have been patiently waiting until the very last moment before the quantum transformation, to take action to cut out this corrupted and corrupting element in the body of humanity. It is like watching a cancer grow…Now, as we approach the quantum shift from creature-human to co-creative human—the human who is an inheritor of god-like powers—the destructive one-fourth must be eliminated from the social body. We have no choice, dearly beloveds. Fortunately you, dearly beloveds, are not responsible for this act. We are. We are in charge of God’s selection process for planet Earth. He selects, we destroy. We are the riders of the pale horse, Death. We come to bring death to those who are unable to know God…The riders of the pale horse are about to pass among you. Grim reapers, they will separate the wheat from the chaff. This is the most painful period in the history of humanity…"
Futurist Barbara Marx Hubbard (who wanted to create a Dept. of Peace)

"There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important."
- Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, April 28, 1997, Testimony before Congressional Committee

“And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”
- The Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, p. 60

"IN THE 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous - though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.

Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.

I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?"
- Richard Dawkins

MARGARET SANGER QUOTES, Founder of the Birth Control League (which later became Planned Parenthood)

"No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child… without a permit for parenthood."
- Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) in her proposed The American Baby Code, intended to become law.

"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
- Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."
- Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

"Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock."
- Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.

"Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems."
- Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

"Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives."
[no source available at this time...]

"As an advocate of birth control I wish ... to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the 'unfit' and the 'fit,' admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation.... On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective."
- Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

"The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics."
Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

"Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying ... demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism ... [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant ... We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all."
- Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Chapter on "The Cruelty of Charity," pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition.

"The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."
- Margaret Sanger, quoted in Charles Valenza. "Was Margaret Sanger a Racist?" Family Planning Perspectives, January-February 1985, page 44.

"Give dysgenic groups [people with 'bad genes'] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization."
- Margaret Sanger, April 1932 Birth Control Review.

"As we celebrate the 100th birthday of Margaret Sanger, our outrageous and our courageous leader, we will probably find a number of areas in which we may find more about Margaret Sanger than we thought we wanted to know..."
- Faye Wattleton, Past-president of Planned Parenthood

Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, proposed the Population Congress with the aim, "...to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization."

Josh_LA
09-15-2008, 02:15 AM
There's nothing wrong with eugenics.

Only liberals who think all lives are equal, fundamentalist Christians who refuse to play God are against it.

Anybody who studies history knows that societies always benefit at another's expense. Doesn't make it right, but it's just how it's been.

Had Hitler not killed so many Jews, eugenics would've not had such a bad name.

If you still are not convinced, check out the movie "Idiocracy".

Truth Warrior
09-15-2008, 04:13 AM
So if the US Congress passes a Eugenics bill, POTUS Baldwin vetoes it, and the Congress over rides his veto, where are we then? :p :rolleyes:

nobody's_hero
09-15-2008, 06:15 AM
So if the US Congress passes a Eugenics bill, POTUS Baldwin vetoes it, and the Congress over rides his veto, where are we then? :p :rolleyes:

We will be celebrating the fact that our government did not circumvent the Constitutional law-making process?

They often have a hard time doing that, you know. :(

Truth Warrior
09-15-2008, 06:20 AM
We will be celebrating the fact that our government did not circumvent the Constitutional law-making process?

The often have a hard time doing that, you know. :(

The Federal Constitution Is Dead (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gutzman/gutzman17.html)
Kevin Gutzman on who killed it.

nobody's_hero
09-15-2008, 06:45 AM
The Federal Constitution Is Dead (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gutzman/gutzman17.html)
Kevin Gutzman on who killed it.

Thanks, I have read that. I have been around since January, you know. ;)

Truth Warrior
09-15-2008, 06:49 AM
Thanks, I have read that. I have been around since January, you know. ;) So actually then, you're bogus celebration must be merely a wake, you know.

Mayflower
09-15-2008, 09:53 AM
There's nothing wrong with eugenics.

Only liberals who think all lives are equal, fundamentalist Christians who refuse to play God are against it.

Anybody who studies history knows that societies always benefit at another's expense. Doesn't make it right, but it's just how it's been.

Had Hitler not killed so many Jews, eugenics would've not had such a bad name.

If you still are not convinced, check out the movie "Idiocracy".

You must love the U.N. agenda that clearly state in their agenda that the earths population must be reduced by 84%. They are working on it through foods and vaccines. Ultimately we are only to have GMO foods and no meat. We will be allowed 10 gallons of water a day. If you like it so much, you go first!

Josh_LA
09-15-2008, 11:03 PM
You must love the U.N. agenda that clearly state in their agenda that the earths population must be reduced by 84%. They are working on it through foods and vaccines. Ultimately we are only to have GMO foods and no meat. We will be allowed 10 gallons of water a day. If you like it so much, you go first!

No, I don't like the UN agenda, because it's forced.

But it's not wrong to recognize that not all lives are equal and when there's competition, some have to go first.

Josh_LA
09-15-2008, 11:04 PM
So if the US Congress passes a Eugenics bill, POTUS Baldwin vetoes it, and the Congress over rides his veto, where are we then? :p :rolleyes:

If the Congress doesn't represent the people, Presidents won't matter who it is.

This is why Presidential elections are though important, only a slice of the pie.

jmdrake
09-24-2008, 01:54 PM
No, I don't like the UN agenda, because it's forced.

But it's not wrong to recognize that not all lives are equal and when there's competition, some have to go first.

So are you willing to be the "first to go"? And if you think Hitler was "free market"......:rolleyes: Eugenics by its very nature is central planning. Yep I'm familiar with "idiocracy". The free market approach would be to incentivise the smart couple to have more kids rather than to try to restrict the rights of the trailer park couple.

Josh_LA
09-24-2008, 02:58 PM
So are you willing to be the "first to go"? And if you think Hitler was "free market"......:rolleyes: Eugenics by its very nature is central planning. Yep I'm familiar with "idiocracy". The free market approach would be to incentivise the smart couple to have more kids rather than to try to restrict the rights of the trailer park couple.

I'm willing to be whatever I can be, so if I lose in a fight, what difference would it make whether I'm willing?

Hitler wasn't free market, but he came to power in a free market, did he not? Eugenics is not always central planning, no more than murder and genocide is, it can be done on a personal and individual basis, or corporatized.

Sure, encouraging good offspring is better than discouraging bad offspring, but there's a few problems.
1. Who is to say what's good and bad?
2. If we already know what we want, why not do BOTH encouraging AND discouraging?

Conservationist
09-27-2008, 07:15 AM
Two ways to control a population:

(a) Eugenics
(b) Social Darwinism

Ron Paul is from the latter camp: make a system that rewards the best, and refuses to use welfare to support the stupid and disorganized, and you'll get the same effect without placing gov't (shudder) in charge of breeding.

It's nature's method.

Of course, it is unpopular, because white avg IQ is 100ish, black average is 89, Hispanic average is 94, and north Asians/northern Europeans is around 105.

This means a demographic shift indeed.

Micah Dardar
09-27-2008, 09:10 AM
I'm a scientist, and this lack of support for science based on someone's religious beliefs is one of the reasons that I have been turned off so much by the right in the past.

Conservationist
09-27-2008, 09:19 AM
I'm a scientist, and this lack of support for science based on someone's religious beliefs is one of the reasons that I have been turned off so much by the right in the past.

Agreed. It's also what turned me off to the left.

constituent
09-27-2008, 06:19 PM
does anyone know where to find that quote (i think from the founder of planned parenthood) where she talks about abortion as (covertly) being a way to control the minority/poor populations?

i'm not much concerned about abortion, but it's a great one to mention in arguments with "progressives" when they bring it up.

Josh_LA
09-27-2008, 06:29 PM
does anyone know where to find that quote (i think from the founder of planned parenthood) where she talks about abortion as (covertly) being a way to control the minority/poor populations?

i'm not much concerned about abortion, but it's a great one to mention in arguments with "progressives" when they bring it up.

Margaret Sanger, I believe it's in YouTube, and End Game, and any anti-eugenics, anti-abortion site.

Don't forget KlannedParenthood.com

Josh_LA
09-27-2008, 06:31 PM
Two ways to control a population:

(a) Eugenics
(b) Social Darwinism

Ron Paul is from the latter camp: make a system that rewards the best, and refuses to use welfare to support the stupid and disorganized, and you'll get the same effect without placing gov't (shudder) in charge of breeding.

It's nature's method.

Of course, it is unpopular, because white avg IQ is 100ish, black average is 89, Hispanic average is 94, and north Asians/northern Europeans is around 105.

This means a demographic shift indeed.
While I am a social Darwinist and I have no problem with either eugenics or social Darwinism, I don't think it's appropriate to say Dr. Paul, a pro-life Christian is social Darwinist, yes, he believes in personal responsibility, but I don't think it's accurate or fair to use SD to label him.

Josh_LA
09-27-2008, 06:33 PM
Two ways to control a population:

(a) Eugenics
(b) Social Darwinism
.

I would agree, that there are several ways to control population, but it's basically direct or indirect murder no matter how to disguise it, so the question is , is murder, socialism and death ALWAYS BAD? (my answer is no, and population control isnt either)

those who think PC is just plain bad will never accept any style of arguments under any consideration.

Josh_LA
09-27-2008, 08:24 PM
does anyone know where to find that quote (i think from the founder of planned parenthood) where she talks about abortion as (covertly) being a way to control the minority/poor populations?

i'm not much concerned about abortion, but it's a great one to mention in arguments with "progressives" when they bring it up.

they have one line here
www.armyofGod.com
Dig deeper if you want the exact source.

lucius
09-27-2008, 08:27 PM
does anyone know where to find that quote (i think from the founder of planned parenthood) where she talks about abortion as (covertly) being a way to control the minority/poor populations?

i'm not much concerned about abortion, but it's a great one to mention in arguments with "progressives" when they bring it up.

In the OP's post:

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

jmdrake
09-27-2008, 10:47 PM
I'm willing to be whatever I can be, so if I lose in a fight, what difference would it make whether I'm willing?

Hitler wasn't free market, but he came to power in a free market, did he not? Eugenics is not always central planning, no more than murder and genocide is, it can be done on a personal and individual basis, or corporatized.

Sure, encouraging good offspring is better than discouraging bad offspring, but there's a few problems.
1. Who is to say what's good and bad?
2. If we already know what we want, why not do BOTH encouraging AND discouraging?

On point 1....that's exactly why eugenics is bad. You never really know where the next Albert Einstein (thought as a child to be an idiot) or Dr. Ben Carson (grew up in the projects) is coming from.

On point 2....why not simply let people make up their own minds and be done with it? That system has worked fine for however long you believe man has been in existence.

Regards,

John M. Drake

lucius
09-27-2008, 11:17 PM
I would agree, that there are several ways to control population, but it's basically direct or indirect murder no matter how to disguise it, so the question is , is murder, socialism and death ALWAYS BAD? (my answer is no, and population control isnt either)

those who think PC is just plain bad will never accept any style of arguments under any consideration.

Outlandishly, but unless you delve into the occult, this picture may remain unfocused—an observation:

Irregardless of the ends-justify-the-means, eugenics/darwinism are really but facets of an autocratic scientific dictatorship that is already being put in place (for more that a 100 years). It is a coherent, logical, rational means of control. A paradigm embedded in an ancient, predatorial understanding of human nature/weaknesses--definitely an Asiatic mindset, totalitarian panopticon, entrenched in fear: for all levels of the hierarchy sans the tiny minority at the pinnacle.

My disagreement is in the realm of self-determination, the retarding of an individual's development, through broad techniques such as epistemological manipulations etc., which are only just facets as well. More pertinent, individual rights, as we are observing, are now deemed out-dated, archaic, unnecessary, and inefficient--to our new for us, but actually very ancient Asiatic control paradigm.

Not unlike lab rats musing about the nature of the maze, this argument is rapidly becoming moot; we are well into the twilight I fear:


Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital difference between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would be as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton. ‘The Impact of Science on Society’, p. 51, by Fabian scientist/socialist Lord Bertrand Russell

Not very amicable to our autocratic scientific dictatorship:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Many holding such views will be persecuted. Perhaps, the Cryptocracy has a sense of humor/irony—PATRIOT Act?

Conservationist
09-28-2008, 03:38 AM
And if you think Hitler was "free market"......

What Hitler believed:



10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.

We demand therefore:

11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work.

The breaking of the slavery of interest

13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.

15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municiple orders.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. *

18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.

http://www.hitler.org/writings/programme/


Anytime someone mentions what Hitler thought, there's usually big room for misinterpretation, so it makes sense to post the definitive source.

Interesting stuff. He, too, would oppose the current backing to US currency.

Conservationist
09-28-2008, 03:42 AM
Irregardless of the ends-justify-the-means, eugenics/darwinism are really but facets of an autocratic scientific dictatorship that is already being put in place (for more that a 100 years). It is a coherent, logical, rational means of control.

You can also have decentralized means of control, like free markets, which by their dependence on popularity exclude certain rational thoughts.

"Irregardless" doesn't mean what you think it means. The word you're looking for is "regardless."

I think the focus of eugenics is on making people who are better able to participate in a modern society. Some people are too dumb, and others too criminal (there's a lot of overlap). Wouldn't we all benefit from having more smart, decent people around?

Eugenics also occurs in many forms. The simplest is a local priest introducing smart, decent people to one another when they hit breeding age. A mediate form is a government or culture setting up a system that rewards the good, and doesn't subsidize the bad (no welfare or nanny state). An extreme form is a Soviet-style solution where a gov't lab tries to find and breed the best.

The evidence is incontrovertible: nations with higher IQs not only succeed more, but are nicer places to live.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations

The study of intelligence is not very PC, but it's a good way to predict who and what is going to come out on top.

Josh_LA
09-28-2008, 08:52 AM
On point 1....that's exactly why eugenics is bad. You never really know where the next Albert Einstein (thought as a child to be an idiot) or Dr. Ben Carson (grew up in the projects) is coming from.

On point 2....why not simply let people make up their own minds and be done with it? That system has worked fine for however long you believe man has been in existence.

Regards,

John M. Drake

1. So for the risk of accidentally losing an Einstein we must invest in protecting all lives? If that's true, we'd be criminal for not socializing the wealth building of 3rd world countries, who knows who we're starving to death every minute.

Has Einstein found a way to solve world hunger? NO, so what good has he given us that we're not better off having him dead back then?

2. Because society later does NOT consider it responsible or compassionate to "leave it to them". If we did, I would have no problem, the day you can tell every welfare mother and Catholic anti-abortionist to take care of their child or starve them themselves, I will shut up. Until then, don't tell me you can tell people to take responsibility if you're not will to see their children starve (and I am willing to).

Josh_LA
09-28-2008, 08:55 AM
Not very amicable to our autocratic scientific dictatorship:



Many holding such views will be persecuted. Perhaps, the Cryptocracy has a sense of humor/irony—PATRIOT Act?

Not scientific dictatorship, science has its ways of proving itself to be right.

Dictatorship is a whole different (moral) issue.

Josh_LA
09-28-2008, 08:57 AM
What Hitler believed:



Anytime someone mentions what Hitler thought, there's usually big room for misinterpretation, so it makes sense to post the definitive source.

Interesting stuff. He, too, would oppose the current backing to US currency.

http://www.billytheheretic.com/images/Billy%20The%20Heretic%20Race%20Jew%20Hadassah%20Th e%20Nazi.jpg

lucius
09-28-2008, 09:29 AM
You can also have decentralized means of control, like free markets, which by their dependence on popularity exclude certain rational thoughts.


You speak in what-ifs, not what-is. Free markets do not exist, too bad we cannot say the same about an autocratic scientific dictatorship--see any indications of police state lately?


"Irregardless" doesn't mean what you think it means. The word you're looking for is "regardless."


Fair enough, attempted pontification on my part, deflection on yours--both poor attempts. :p


...I think the focus of eugenics is on making people who are better able to participate in a modern society. Some people are too dumb, and others too criminal (there's a lot of overlap). Wouldn't we all benefit from having more smart, decent people around?

More of that dreaming...smart-criminal people are actually running things, high functioning psychopaths, our twisted society rewards that behavior; excellent place to jump in, Political Ponerology: http://www.ponerology.com/


These individuals are known as psychopaths. Not only can they not feel the pain of others, they often seem to deliberately cause others pain. Lobaczewski refers to this disorder as an “essential psychopathy” to distinguish them from others with deficits in their genetic/instinctual endowment, essential psychopathy being the most severe and disturbing.

Many so-called “antisocial individuals” acquire similar characteristics in their life-time, whether caused by brain damage to certain areas of the brain, or functionally, because of close contact with and influence by such individuals. Lobaczewski terms such individuals characteropaths. The vast majority of both these groups cannot change. The acts that we call evil (especially on a macrosocial level) can be traced back to this deviant minority of human beings and the effects of their actions on their family, friends, and society.



Wouldn't we all benefit from having more smart, decent people around?

More of that dreaming, but not for control purposes: fearful, hurried, superficial, non-critical thinking/questioning/literate, easily distracted/entertained, herd-minded, fixated on mindless consumption & sex--this makes for obedient workers/serfs/drones in an autocratic scientific dictatorship. Broken/retarded individuals make the best citizens/employees, just look around you...

Here's how they are made, ‘The Underground History of American Education’: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/

the deliberate dumbing down of america: http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/MomsPDFs/DDDoA.sml.pdf

ps: welcome...recovering 'utopian dreamer'? :)

lucius
09-28-2008, 10:58 AM
Not scientific dictatorship, science has its ways of proving itself to be right.

Dictatorship is a whole different (moral) issue.


The Walling of Awareness

During a six-month period in 1973, The New York Times reported the following scientific findings:

A major research institute spent more than $50,000 to discover that the best bait for mice is cheese.

Another study found that mother’s milk was better balanced nutritionally for infants than commercial formulas. That study also proved that mother’s milk was better for human infants than cow’s milk or goat’s milk.

A third study established that a walk is considerably healthier for the human respiratory and circulatory systems, in fact for overall health and vitality, than a ride in a car. Bicycling was also found to be beneficial.

A fourth study proved conclusively that infants who are touched a lot frequently grow into adults with greater self-confidence and have a more integrated relationship with the world than those who are not touched. This study found that touching, not merely sexual touching, but any touching of one person by another, seemed to aid general health and even mental development among adults as well as children.

The remarkable thing about these five studies, of course, is that anyone should have found it necessary to undertake them. That some people did find them necessary can only mean that they felt there was some uncertainty about how the answers would turn out.

And yet, anyone who has seen a mouse eating cheese or who has been touched by the hand of another person already knows a great deal about these things, assuming he or she gives credence to personal observation.

Similarly, anyone who has ever considered the question of artificial milk versus human milk is unlikely to assume that Nestle’s or Similac will improve on a feeding arrangement that accounted for the growth of every human infant before modern times.

That any people retain doubts on these questions is symptomatic of two unfortunate conditions of modern existence: Human beings no longer trust personal observations, even of the self-evident, until it is confirmed by scientific or technological institutions; human beings have lost insight into natural processes—how the world works, the human role as one of many interlocking parts of the worldwide ecosystem—because natural processes are now exceedingly difficult to observe.

These two conditions combine to limit our knowledge and understanding to what we are told. They also leave us unable to judge the reliability or unreliability of the information we go by.

From the ‘Four Arguments For the Elimination of Television’ by Jerry Mander, p. 53-54 (ISBN: 0688032745). Excellent read and start.

Josh, our history has been rewritten, whole academic fields of study modified, our science has been hi-jacked largely by corporations and nonprofit foundations. I don’t expect you to believe this. I hope that you may download this 50M, 2086 page report, (click the name) Full Report: US Congressional 1953-54 Reece Committee Hearings (http://americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=/PDFsml_AD/Tax_Exempt_Foundations_Hearings-Reece_Committee-1953_4-2086pgs-GOV.sml.pdf&id=34&PHPSESSID=03d3557b41f249f71349e6d730cc8498) -- Congressional Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations. Read it and be dismayed.

Or watch an interview with Norman Dodd, Director of Research, The Reece Committee, few months before his death conducted by G. Edward Griffin: The Hidden Agenda of Tax Exempt Foundations for World Government: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8605813744843314322&q=norman+dodd&ei=mi5USJvwK5GErgLHmLTkDg&hl=en


"Our Western history is every bit as distorted, censored and largely useless as that of Hitler's Germany or the Soviet Union or Communist China..." Dr. Anthony Sutton was a Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institute

strapko
09-28-2008, 11:29 AM
In a free market studies of eugenics would sky-rocket with break throughs, and do not see why government has to interfere with this.

2) Eugenics would be needed for mankind to break through and become a type 1 civilization, then type 2 and 3 and we become immortal.

Josh_LA
09-28-2008, 02:24 PM
In a free market studies of eugenics would sky-rocket with break throughs, and do not see why government has to interfere with this.

2) Eugenics would be needed for mankind to break through and become a type 1 civilization, then type 2 and 3 and we become immortal.

The government is interfering with whatever it believes is wrong, just like abortion and murder.

2) Eugenics is never necessary, just like food is never necessary, but it's not outright harmful either. There are goods and bads to just about everything.

Josh_LA
09-28-2008, 02:26 PM
Josh, our history has been rewritten, whole academic fields of study modified, our science has been hi-jacked largely by corporations and nonprofit foundations. I don’t expect you to believe this. I hope that you may download this 50M, 2086 page report, (click the name) Full Report: US Congressional 1953-54 Reece Committee Hearings (http://americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=/PDFsml_AD/Tax_Exempt_Foundations_Hearings-Reece_Committee-1953_4-2086pgs-GOV.sml.pdf&id=34&PHPSESSID=03d3557b41f249f71349e6d730cc8498) -- Congressional Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations. Read it and be dismayed.

Or watch an interview with Norman Dodd, Director of Research, The Reece Committee, few months before his death conducted by G. Edward Griffin: The Hidden Agenda of Tax Exempt Foundations for World Government: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8605813744843314322&q=norman+dodd&ei=mi5USJvwK5GErgLHmLTkDg&hl=en

I'm sorry, what's your point? That wasting money is wrong?

That science as a verb equals the corrupted scientific community related to politics?

We shouldn't use science because it's been hijacked?

Science has an equal playing field of both for-profit and non-profit parties?

SeanEdwards
09-28-2008, 02:49 PM
The avalanche has already started. It's too late for the pebbles to hold a vote.