NationStates Jolt Archive

I've noticed a recent increase in eugenics proponents.

I'm proud to say I support Eugenics.

I think it's collectivist, élitist, and thus extremely authoritarian.

eugenics, "eu" meaning good.

Only, who decides whose genes are "good" or not? Is there a consumer price index for genetic goodness? It's impossible to quantify because goodness is entirely subjective. And, more often than not proponents of 'eugenics' are just bigots who like to give their bigotry a scientific-sounding name.

Eugenics is ineffective- it'd take hundreds of years to produce anthing other than superficial differences.

Unless all you're looking for is to get rid of all people of color X or hair color X or eye color X, CM. What exactly about Eugenics do you support? (Edit- Note that wasn't an accusation, just a statement of the only thing Eugenics is good for in a reasonable amount of time. Added hair and eye color to acoid being accused of accusing racism.)

Not only that, but Eugenics requires forced breeding and doesn't make room for any mutations. Genetics is too complicated to actually work with controlled breeding beyond very simple characteristics or very complicated things over very long times.

Even then, non Eugenicked people would still breed, so if you Eugenicised away a disease, once a person breeds with a Prole and unknowingly their child carries the disease, it gets re-introduced back into the gene pool.

Are you talking about genetic engineering or Eugenics?

Genetic engineering is creating better genes through science. Eugenics is taking the precautions to make sure that "undesirable" people don't reproduce.

So which is it? Are you influencing the gene pool by artificially making it better, or artificially making it not worse?

Are you talking about genetic engineering or Eugenics?

Eugenics

No! I pressed Nay not Yay. :(

Eugenics has been used for, I don't know how long, breeding race horses and stuff. So, I think it's cool.

I say yes conditionally. When physical (beauty) traits are chosen, then it's a terrible idea. Imagine 1 in 20 teenagers looking like Prince, who was the sexiest man alive in the 80's. However, I'm in support of the more drastic measures to reduce birth defects, metal retardation, and alcoholism.

I say yes conditionally. When physical (beauty) traits are chosen, then it's a terrible idea. Imagine 1 in 20 teenagers looking like Prince, who was the sexiest man alive in the 80's. However, I'm in support of the more drastic measures to reduce birth defects, metal retardation, and alcoholism.

I'd say beauty is the only justified trait to be chosen. Imagine 1 in 10 women having huge butts and small waists. The idea that alcoholism is genetic is too genetically determinist to me.

Imagine 1 in 10 women having huge butts.
Uuughhh...let's not. :gundge:

I'd say beauty is the only justified trait to be chosen. Imagine 1 in 10 women having huge butts and small waists. The idea that alcoholism is genetic is too genetically determinist to me.


How about we imagine 10 in 10 women being western goddesses, the personification of beauty of the nordic ideal. Not some large butt zulu tribal like you're speaking of.

How about we imagine 10 in 10 women being western goddesses, the personification of beauty of the nordic ideal. Not some large butt zulu tribal like you're speaking of.

Why? Not everyone shares your idea of beauty. That's why I don't want all women to look the same. I for one don't really like blonde hair a whole lot. I prefer red or black hair. As it is, you would have to work extremely hard to get all women to look like what you want. "White people" are only one race out of three or five or whatever depending on what classification system you use.

All women looking the same would be stupid. It would devalue their beauty by making it commonplace.

Plus, life, and genetics, is about variety, not uniformity. That's why there's more than one kind of tree in the forest.

Why? Not everyone shares your idea of beauty. That's why I don't want all women to look the same. I for one don't really like blonde hair a whole lot. I prefer red or black hair. As it is, you would have to work extremely hard to get all women to look like what you want. "White people" are only one race out of three or five or whatever depending on what classification system you use.


And you won't find diverse hair colors in any race other than white. Every non-white race, the women are about as diverse as copy paper.


I don't mean turn every woman into a blonde, many nordic women are red heads and brunettes. Nordic as I use it, is a broad term encompassing probably a large number of the nations of Europe.

And you won't find diverse hair colors in any race other than white. Every non-white race, the women are about as diverse as copy paper.


I don't mean turn every woman into a blonde, many nordic women are red heads and brunettes. Nordic as I use it, is a broad term encompassing probably a large number of the nations of Europe.

And what about body shape? You want to standardize that.

Everything exactly the same = a bad thing. This is what you equality-at-all-costs socialists and communists need to learn as well.

Everything exactly the same = a bad thing. This is what you equality-at-all-costs socialists and communists need to learn as well.

You simply can't comprehend the difference between equal opportunity and equal attributes, can you?

I'm in favour of Eugenics, mainly because if the average IQ went up, there would probably be less reality TV.

I can't say I particularly care if Eugenics is elitist. Everyone is not fundamentally equal; some are better than others, unfortunately, and to try and pretend otherwise for the sake of political correctness is both dishonest and idiotic. If Eugenics can reduce the number of people who are unable to achieve basic levels of education, reduce the number of people whose poor intellect turns them toward violent crime, and increase the chances of being able to strike up a decent conversation with a random stranger (which at present are practically nill), then hooray for Eugenics.

The other argument for Eugenics, is my neighbour, who is quite possibly the most stupid person I have ever met. He's perpetually unemployed, considerably less skilled than a clam, and seems to have difficulty pronouncing simple words like candle or bottle. Yet he has children, who, from what I've seen, really are drooling retards. It shouldn't be allowed, for the betterment of mankind! I have trouble sleeping at night knowing he lives next door to me, and is in charge of a gas cooker!

Everything exactly the same = a bad thing. This is what you equality-at-all-costs socialists and communists need to learn as well.
Whats make you think this has something to do with equality-at-all-costs or communism?

I have trouble sleeping at night knowing he lives next door to me, and is in charge of a gas cooker!
Then move.

Whats make you think this has something to do with equality-at-all-costs or communism?

It's a related concept. Looking out and going "hmm, the world is too diverse for my tastes, it would be superior if everybody was like X (same amount of wealth, or same genetic background, or whatever)."

You simply can't comprehend the difference between equal opportunity and equal attributes, can you?

Of course I can. I stand for equal opportunity, my hopelessly misguided friend: capitalism. Equal attributes on the other hand, i.e no one having more wealth than anyone else, is foolish.

Then move.

I am, in three weeks. He's far from unique, unfortunately.

Of course I can. I stand for equal opportunity, my hopelessly misguided friend: capitalism. Equal attributes on the other hand, i.e no one having more wealth than anyone else, is foolish.

Wealth is an artificial attribute, like political power. That is very different from a natural one like skin color.

Depends on how you define wealth, I suppose. I see wealth as the ability to obtain, within a certain context, goods and materials required for survival, plus. In that sense, a man with five packs of pepperoni beef jerky is wealthier than one who has a container of Tic Tacs, regardless of whether abstract dollar values are used.

Anyway, it's the same kind of thinking is all I'm saying.

Hmmmm..I sense this is getting off topic.

Tampering with the human race's genetic evolution would severely retard its social evolution. One of the greatest advances we have made is in the expansion of [relatively] free choice and freedom of expression to large sections of the world's population, with resultant benefits to the economy and the standard of living.

By removing this and instituting an authoritarian eugenecist code the human race would suffer in both the long and short term. Let people decide who they wish to breed with and ackowledge the consequences of intervention.

Diversity is flexibility and thus means survival.
The world changes; the more genetically diverse the population is the better it will adapt, atleast at part, to the change. A nation populated by millions of exact clones will be, for example at a very high risk of extinction from a viral infection - if one has a weakness, they all have it.

I'm OK with genetic engineering, as long as it adds traits or cures extreme genetic defects. But it should not be overused, especially not in a consumerist way. Capitalism, Fascism or Stalinism armed with the advanced knowledge of genetics and/or a full eugenics plan would be a nightmare.

I propose that we make two races! the lower one would be strong and docile - they'd be engineered so they couldn't even feel pain and we could even specialize some of them for specific tasks! the other race would be engineered for intellegence and leadership, to keep the lower race in it's place!

...there are some nasty places that eugenics could be taken. It's foolhardy to think that once we give that kind of power to someone that we could expect them not to manipulate it. Hitler had the same idea, an elite race - and since in the next century we'll have a population of 10 billion, we'll be needing to get rid of some people, so howabout racial cleansing?? The whole idea of making the human race better through controlled breeding is disgusting, terrifying, and easily abused. I'm hugely against the idea.

How about we imagine 10 in 10 women being western goddesses, the personification of beauty of the nordic ideal. Not some large butt zulu tribal like you're speaking of.

Piss off you racist Nazi Pig!!

Everything exactly the same = a bad thing. This is what you equality-at-all-costs socialists and communists need to learn as well.

He's not a socialist, he's a Christian nutjob and a borderline Nazi (though the two obviously go hand in hand).

I propose that we make two races! the lower one would be strong and docile - they'd be engineered so they couldn't even feel pain and we could even specialize some of them for specific tasks! the other race would be engineered for intellegence and leadership, to keep the lower race in it's place!

...there are some nasty places that eugenics could be taken. It's foolhardy to think that once we give that kind of power to someone that we could expect them not to manipulate it. Hitler had the same idea, an elite race - and since in the next century we'll have a population of 10 billion, we'll be needing to get rid of some people, so howabout racial cleansing?? The whole idea of making the human race better through controlled breeding is disgusting, terrifying, and easily abused. I'm hugely against the idea.

Well, there is one thing about that. Mandating a maximum of 2 children will make things much easier. Then you don't have stupid people going off and having 15 children who they can't support, and who are too far below intelligent standards to exponentially add to the gene pool.
---

But seriously, what do we mean when we say eugenics?

I mean, if it's something like simply aborting people with obvious mental and physical problems, ones which aren't debatable, deadly diseases et al, then sure, why not.

But soon we could be aborting people with IQs less than 130, or people with learning disabilities or who would grow up to have addiction problems, or people who wouldn't be able to run a mile faster than in 7 minutes, or people that wouldn't be hideously deformed or ugly... and soon things get out of hand and all of us would be killed if we were under scrutiny, and most of us would have no children if our children were being screened.

Now granted, people would be a lot happier, and everything would be moving quicker, but then comes the trouble of who does menial jobs and stuff.

And, frankly, it gets too complicated. But I like the limit on children. Overpopulation scares me.
----

As it is, I would consider myself pretty lucky genetically, and wouldn't see myself being wiped out any time soon. But could I be made better? Definitly. Would I be happier? Definitly. Would I be scared that if we attempted to go in this direction that another Hitler or perhaps Communist Mississippi would completely ruin everything? Absolutly.

I've never heard of this before. What are eugenics?

It's a catastrophically stupid idea. As I think Santa Barbara pointed out, who decides what is good and what is bad?

Just take a look at mental health. There's a handbook that comes out every few years called the ICD, or International Statistical Classification of Diseases. I think it's up to its 10th edition now, and is referred to as the ICD-10. Chapter 5 (http://www.who.int/msa/mnh/ems/icd10/icd10.htm) deals with mental health problems. So far so innocuous. But this list of recognised "disorders" is far from scientific: in large part they are just classifications of types of behaviour, and are subject to revision and change. In older editions, you could find a definition of "Hysteria", a disorder peculiar to women. In the latest edition this has been removed. It no longer exists as a disorder. You can no longer incarcerate women and medicate them to the eyeballs for the sorts of behaviour which would have let you do just that only a few years ago. Before the new edition, badly-behaved children were often just badly-behaved children: now there are a whole raft of "disorders" which have been defined and which can be treated and medicated. These are all simply matters of definition, made by a committee somewhere. They get to decide that this type of behaviour is now "nuts" and that type is now "not nuts". Based largely on their opinion.

Eugenics would suffer from the same problem. Does anybody really want a committee to decide whether or not people are genetically bad" or "good"? As for the idea of breeding people for their "intelligence", we have yet to find an objective measure or even an objective definition. You could argue that Einstein was intelligent because of his mathematical ability; you could also argue that he was stupid because of the way he treated his wife. IQ tests merely measure how good someone is at doing IQ tests. The criteria for breeding racehorses are easy to define: how fast can the horse run, over what distance. But what would be the criteria for breeding people, and who would set them?

In my opinion, advocating eugenics would be as good a reason to stop someone from reproducing as any other.

I've never heard of this before. What are eugenics?
Webster: 1913

The science of improving stock, whether human or animal.

WordNet Dictionary:
eugenics - the study of methods of improving genetic qualities by selective breeding (especially as applied to human mating)
Antonyms:
cacogenics, dysgenics - the study of the operation of factors causing degeneration in the type of offspring produced

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/eugenics

I've never heard of this before. What are eugenics?

Eugenics was Hitler's defense of the mass murder of thousands of jews, blacks, gays, elderly, gypsies, cripples, retarded people, etc.

And when I say cripples, I mean a majority of whom simply became injured, not people deformed from birth.

Well, there is one thing about that. Mandating a maximum of 2 children will make things much easier. Then you don't have stupid people going off and having 15 children who they can't support, and who are too far below intelligent standards to exponentially add to the gene pool.
---

But seriously, what do we mean when we say eugenics?

I mean, if it's something like simply aborting people with obvious mental and physical problems, ones which aren't debatable, deadly diseases et al, then sure, why not.

But soon we could be aborting people with IQs less than 130, or people with learning disabilities or who would grow up to have addiction problems, or people who wouldn't be able to run a mile faster than in 7 minutes, or people that wouldn't be hideously deformed or ugly... and soon things get out of hand and all of us would be killed if we were under scrutiny, and most of us would have no children if our children were being screened.

Now granted, people would be a lot happier, and everything would be moving quicker, but then comes the trouble of who does menial jobs and stuff.

And, frankly, it gets too complicated. But I like the limit on children. Overpopulation scares me.
----

As it is, I would consider myself pretty lucky genetically, and wouldn't see myself being wiped out any time soon. But could I be made better? Definitly. Would I be happier? Definitly. Would I be scared that if we attempted to go in this direction that another Hitler or perhaps Communist Mississippi would completely ruin everything? Absolutly.

I do like the no-more-than-2-kids Idea...manditory tube-tying and vasectomies after 1 child would not make me raise an eyebrow...but I'm gay so it's not like it'd affect me, it just disgusts me when people have children when there are still orphans around - and how incredibly irresponsible straight sex can be sometimes. and they call US sexually irresponsible...*sigh*

Eugenics was Hitler's defense of the mass murder of thousands of jews, blacks, gays, elderly, gypsies, cripples, retarded people, etc.

And when I say cripples, I mean a majority of whom simply became injured, not people deformed from birth.
Actually he got the idea from Long Island.

I do like the no-more-than-2-kids Idea...manditory tube-tying and vasectomies after 1 child would not make me raise an eyebrow...but I'm gay so it's not like it'd affect me, it just disgusts me when people have children when there are still orphans around - and how incredibly irresponsible straight sex can be sometimes. and they call US sexually irresponsible...*sigh*


Well I want to have 8-12 children, and the government will not stop me, period!

We have an population problem in the world, but the problem is too few of the right folks and too many of the wrong folks.

That is why I should have lots of children, so there are more of the right kind of folks.

Eugenics was Hitler's defense of the mass murder of thousands of jews, blacks, gays, elderly, gypsies, cripples, retarded people, etc.

And when I say cripples, I mean a majority of whom simply became injured, not people deformed from birth.

the scary thing is that it would've made sense had he gone through with it, he probably would've had a "master race"...which is why I'm so against the idea no matter how much it seems to make sense, because we've seen it in action before, and it was horrific. Eugenics is inviting a horrible new racism to run rampant in society.

Well I want to have 8-12 children, and the government will not stop me, period!

We have an population problem in the world, but the problem is too few of the right folks and too many of the wrong folks.

That is why I should have lots of children, so there are more of the right kind of folks.

from what I've seen of your other posts, I sincerely hope you are deprived of your testicles before you find a woman unscrupulous enough to reproduce with you.

Well I want to have 8-12 children, and the government will not stop me, period!

We have an population problem in the world, but the problem is too few of the right folks and too many of the wrong folks.

That is why I should have lots of children, so there are more of the right kind of folks.

Aw. More brainwashed Christian neo-nazis. That's so nice.

If I recall, social darwinists whined about this as well.

As it turns out, you are one of the "wrong folks". You are a hate monger, an idiot, and a complete hypocrit.

And I'm sure on any occasion you'll tell me that the government has everyright to ban all sorts of sexual, religious, and scientific practices that you find offensive to your grandiose delusions.

1 dumkopf point for me.


What is Eugenics?[/sheepish]

Aw. More brainwashed Christian neo-nazis. That's so nice.

If I recall, social darwinists whined about this as well.

As it turns out, you are one of the "wrong folks". You are a hate monger, an idiot, and a complete hypocrit.

And I'm sure on any occasion you'll tell me that the government has everyright to ban all sorts of sexual, religious, and scientific practices that you find offensive to your grandiose delusions.


At least I can spell hypocrite. :D

Now who is the idiot?

"Every right" is two words.

1 dummkopf point for me.
.

Well, there is one thing about that. Mandating a maximum of 2 children will make things much easier. Then you don't have stupid people going off and having 15 children who they can't support, and who are too far below intelligent standards to exponentially add to the gene pool.
---

But seriously, what do we mean when we say eugenics?

I mean, if it's something like simply aborting people with obvious mental and physical problems, ones which aren't debatable, deadly diseases et al, then sure, why not.

But soon we could be aborting people with IQs less than 130, or people with learning disabilities or who would grow up to have addiction problems, or people who wouldn't be able to run a mile faster than in 7 minutes, or people that wouldn't be hideously deformed or ugly... and soon things get out of hand and all of us would be killed if we were under scrutiny, and most of us would have no children if our children were being screened.

Now granted, people would be a lot happier, and everything would be moving quicker, but then comes the trouble of who does menial jobs and stuff.

And, frankly, it gets too complicated. But I like the limit on children. Overpopulation scares me.
----

As it is, I would consider myself pretty lucky genetically, and wouldn't see myself being wiped out any time soon. But could I be made better? Definitly. Would I be happier? Definitly. Would I be scared that if we attempted to go in this direction that another Hitler or perhaps Communist Mississippi would completely ruin everything? Absolutly.

i think that genetic engineering IS the modern eugenics. when the original eugenics movement was started the "best" that could be done was preventing the "lesser races" from breeding. *shudder*

now with genetic engineering, gene therapy and selective abortion we can REALLY institute eugenics.

we can abort all "defective" fetuses. those with diabetes, low intelligence, tay-sachs, sicle cell, homosexuality, left handedness, general ugliness.

we can, in our infinite political wisdom, decide who is fit to live. we can stamp out any undesirable traits.

do you really think that it a good idea? take a look around you. how do you like the way we are managing our water resources? how do you like the way the TRAFFIC works in your city? you want the people who cant quite figure out what to do with our garbage to have control of our genetics??

PEOPLE ARE SCUM. they make bad decisions. they make decisions they KNOW are bad because the results will profit them somehow. sometimes they are just misguided

we should leave our genetics to "god" even HE can do a better job than people can

.
o. I am bad on my deutch.

o. I am bad on my deutsch.
.

the scary thing is that it would've made sense had he gone through with it, he probably would've had a "master race"...which is why I'm so against the idea no matter how much it seems to make sense, because we've seen it in action before, and it was horrific. Eugenics is inviting a horrible new racism to run rampant in society.

None of it made sense. He wouldn't have created a master race.
By eliminating ethnic diversity, they ensured their own doom, and genetic inbreeding.

The groups he tried to eliminate had their own positive aspects that the Nazis wouldn't have been able to geneticly produce until their recessive genes caught up to them.

Also, they killed many intellectuals, and probably would have only left dogmatic idiots like Mississippi as "ideal" people.

That doesn't sound very supreme.

On a related issue:
Brits are allowed to clone embryos for research (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=347844&page=1&pp=15)

the scary thing is that it would've made sense had he gone through with it, he probably would've had a "master race"...which is why I'm so against the idea no matter how much it seems to make sense, because we've seen it in action before, and it was horrific. Eugenics is inviting a horrible new racism to run rampant in society.
no it wouldnt have worked
you cant breed a master race out of millions of people. it just doesnt work that way.

.
damn I suck.

None of it made sense. He wouldn't have created a master race.
By eliminating ethnic diversity, they ensured their own doom, and genetic inbreeding.
Iceland seems to be doing rather well.

At least I can spell hypocrite. :D

Now who is the idiot?

"Every right" is two words.

Well you're right. I am an idiot. I guess I should be killed with all the blacks, jews, gays, and atheists you so dearly wish to be destroyed, eh?

the scary thing is that it would've made sense had he gone through with it, he probably would've had a "master race"...which is why I'm so against the idea no matter how much it seems to make sense, because we've seen it in action before, and it was horrific. Eugenics is inviting a horrible new racism to run rampant in society.

It's a horrible idea, right enough, but it wouldn't have produced a "master race". Even if he had been able to get the hundreds of generations required to make any discernable impact, the best he could have managed would have been to make some largely cosmetic physical changes. He might have ended up with lots of tall, muscular people, for example. Big fat hairy deal. Intelligence has far more to do with maternal pre-natal, and neonatal/early childhood diet and opportunity than genes.

Iceland seems to be doing rather well.
Dude, Icelandics are hot! Blonde hair, blue eyes, it worked for hitler, it works fer me. ;)

we can abort all "defective" fetuses. those with diabetes, low intelligence, tay-sachs, sicle cell, homosexuality, left handedness, general ugliness.

we can, in our infinite political wisdom, decide who is fit to live. we can stamp out any undesirable traits.

we should leave our genetics to "god" even HE can do a better job than people can

Homosexuality? Left handedness? The sicklecell trait which help prevent people in Africa from getting malaria?

Well you're right. I am an idiot. I guess I should be killed with all the blacks, jews, gays, and atheists you so dearly wish to be destroyed, eh?


I never said anything about "destroying" anybody.

Dude, Icelandics are hot! Blonde hair, blue eyes, it worked for hitler, it works fer me. ;)
And all that while beeing cut off for many centuries from ethnical diversity. Guess they are all retardet by now.

I never said anything about "destroying" anybody.

You're entire "philosophy" --- if Christian evangelism beyond reason can be called that --- is based upon elitist, social darwinistic views.

Post after post, all you have shown is your ignorence and intolerence of diversity, and your menacing post that promises to scourge upon humanity 8 to 12 equally ridiculous creatures, obviously raised outside of the "evil atheist education system", is clear indication of your thoughts and intentions toward people beyond your comprehension.

I've seen the bullshit you've spewed from topics regarding "European superiority" to assertions that anything besides vanilla sex is an "abomination" in an invisble deity whom YOU spoonfeed your own prejudice crap that you want to hear commanded to you.

And all that while beeing cut off for many centuries from ethnical diversity. Guess they are all retardet by now.

Not if the population is big enough. Plus, Iceland was not cut off from ethnic diversity. Apart from anything else, the Scandinavian settlers were drawn from a wide area and imported a whole bunch of Irish women which would have boosted the diversity of the original gene pool.

I'm no geneticist, but aren't a lot of traits interconnected? By altering, or eliminating one trait, couldn't we mess up another...Just like the book Ender's Shadow?

And all that while beeing cut off for many centuries from ethnical diversity. Guess they are all retardet by now.

And they aren't hot to everyone.

And they aren't hot to everyone.
I never said they were.

Eugenics:


http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com/tyc/tyc_toc.html

TAKE YOUR CHOICE: Separation or Mongrelization
By State Senator, Lt. Governor, twice Governor,
three terms United States Senator, State of Mississippi,
Theodore G. Bilbo





http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com/pgr/pgr-toc.html

The Passing of the Great Race
By Madison Grant







http://churchoftrueisrael.com/stoddard/

The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy
by Lothrop Stoddard, A.M., Ph.D. (Harvard)

None of it made sense. He wouldn't have created a master race.
By eliminating ethnic diversity, they ensured their own doom, and genetic inbreeding.

The groups he tried to eliminate had their own positive aspects that the Nazis wouldn't have been able to geneticly produce until their recessive genes caught up to them.

Also, they killed many intellectuals, and probably would have only left dogmatic idiots like Mississippi as "ideal" people.

That doesn't sound very supreme.

point taken.

At least I can spell hypocrite. :D

Now who is the idiot?

"Every right" is two words.

einstein couldn't spell for beans, it has nothing to do with anything - just like your post!

Homosexuality? Left handedness? The sicklecell trait which help prevent people in Africa from getting malaria?

I think he was being facecious, not that I can spell that word, and homosexuality culls itself out of the gene pool, doesn't it?

Eugenics:


{Various URLs to various wacko sites}

No, bullshit. Or are you trying to make the point that the people who believe in eugenics are also the sort of people who believe in this kind of addled nonsense? If so, spot on.

Eugenics:


http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com/tyc/tyc_toc.html

TAKE YOUR CHOICE: Separation or Mongrelization
By State Senator, Lt. Governor, twice Governor,
three terms United States Senator, State of Mississippi,
Theodore G. Bilbo





http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com/pgr/pgr-toc.html

The Passing of the Great Race
By Madison Grant







http://churchoftrueisrael.com/stoddard/

The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy
by Lothrop Stoddard, A.M., Ph.D. (Harvard)

...*Gags* that was disgusting, if you agree with that than you are a poor twisted shell of a man. I'm sorry if you've been brainwashed into beleiving that pile of shit.

I think he was being facecious, not that I can spell that word, and homosexuality culls itself out of the gene pool, doesn't it?

No, or else it would have a long time ago.

It is genetic, it is random, it is 100% natural.

And it is fun as hell to see religious people freaking when they have homosexual children.

Then again, it's really sad when the kids are tortured through their childhood and life by relatives, friends, local governments and "gods".

...*Gags* that was disgusting, if you agree with that than you are a poor twisted shell of a man. I'm sorry if you've been brainwashed into beleiving that pile of shit.

einstein couldn't spell for beans, it has nothing to do with anything - just like your post!

Shh. Don't hurt his feelings. His life is horrible enough as it is.

He lives his life in fear of an invisible deity, and as a result of extreme dogma, poor upbringing, stupidity, ignorance, and possible braindamage, he deprives himself of earthly pleasures, despite the fact the he /does/ entertain a blissfully ignorant delusion of a happy gundrop land, whose description is very quite sketchy.
The fact that he is such an oppressive and blatantly hellish nazi, however, is completly inexcusable. I'm refreshed in the fact that no matter how many children he has, they will all eventually see reason and ignore his poor upbringings.

Eugenics:


http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com/tyc/tyc_toc.html

TAKE YOUR CHOICE: Separation or Mongrelization
By State Senator, Lt. Governor, twice Governor,
three terms United States Senator, State of Mississippi,
Theodore G. Bilbo





http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com/pgr/pgr-toc.html

The Passing of the Great Race
By Madison Grant







http://churchoftrueisrael.com/stoddard/

The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy
by Lothrop Stoddard, A.M., Ph.D. (Harvard)

Read "germs, guns, and steel", it's an excellent book - and I hold that it's your responsibility to either know your enemy or know the truth...which is what this theory is, one or the other. Please read it.

Shh. Don't hurt his feelings. His life is horrible enough as it is.

He lives his life in fear of an invisible deity, and as a result of extreme dogma, poor upbringing, stupidity, ignorance, and possible braindamage, he deprives himself of earthly pleasures, despite the fact the he /does/ entertain a blissfully ignorant delusion of a happy gundrop land, whose description is very quite sketchy.
The fact that he is such an oppressive and blatantly hellish nazi, however, is completly inexcusable. I'm refreshed in the fact that no matter how many children he has, they will all eventually see reason and ignore his poor upbringings.

he may have just not allowed himself to view the alternatives as yet, so don't write him off as stupid because he's faithful to what he beleives to be right. It's a tradgedy that he beleives that, but it's probably not his fault.

I must say he has nicely proven my point against eugenics.

Could we get back to eugenics and cloning?

he may have just not allowed himself to view the alternatives as yet, so don't write him off as stupid because he's faithful to what he beleives to be right. It's a tradgedy that he beleives that, but it's probably not his fault.

It is stupidity. No matter how bad people are brainwashed they have no excuse. None. (on that note, that Amy Smart bitch wasn't so smart. They still haven't said /how/ she got brainwashed, or /what/ she believed, but it's quite pathetic that she was kidnapped in such a way).

Anyone with intelligence questions what they are told. They also are obligated to use empiricism in order to learn things.

And then of course, you come to the fact that NOONE is as insane as he is, except for maybe 50 million people, max.

Shh. Don't hurt his feelings. His life is horrible enough as it is.

He lives his life in fear of an invisible deity, and as a result of extreme dogma, poor upbringing, stupidity, ignorance, and possible braindamage, he deprives himself of earthly pleasures, despite the fact the he /does/ entertain a blissfully ignorant delusion of a happy gundrop land, whose description is very quite sketchy.
The fact that he is such an oppressive and blatantly hellish nazi, however, is completly inexcusable. I'm refreshed in the fact that no matter how many children he has, they will all eventually see reason and ignore his poor upbringings.


I was raised to be an "open-minded, liberal, supporter of multiracialism", but as I became more educated and able to form my own opinions, I realized that Eugenics was the only real solution to the problems facing the race. I also came to learn from my studies of history that all empires fall, and their fall is usually precipitated by the introduction of foreign races en masse, into the empire.

It is stupidity. No matter how bad people are brainwashed they have no excuse. None. (on that note, that Amy Smart bitch wasn't so smart. They still haven't said /how/ she got brainwashed, or /what/ she believed, but it's quite pathetic that she was kidnapped in such a way).

Anyone with intelligence questions what they are told. They also are obligated to use empiricism in order to learn things.

And then of course, you come to the fact that NOONE is as insane as he is, except for maybe 50 million people, max.


Her name was Elizabeth Smart.

I also came to learn from my studies of history that all empires fall, and their fall is usually precipitated by the introduction of foreign races en masse, into the empire.

So? Empires are coersive and violent. They should fall.

I must say he has nicely proven my point against eugenics.

But aren't some forms of eugenics acceptable?

Like, say, not allowing people with AIDS, drug, alcohol, etc, problems have or raise kids?
Or aborting retarded, deformed, or dangerously ill children?

Ya, I know a couple retarded people. They're about as intellectually stimulating as most [extremely religious] people. And though it's a delight being blissfully ignorant, most would prefer being born with an adequate amount of intelligence (and, hell, they could still become religious and be blissfully ignorant), so they can actually do something besides take up space and drool.

Yah, it's harsh, but life is harsh. And someone really should lessen the blow.

I heard someone at my school talking about a cerebral palsy drive, and showing her sister and talking about the tiny little "miracles" which made her one iota closer to being normal/human/sentient...
And I think to myself, the bottom line is, she'd be better off normal, without all these problems.
.
.
.
All of this, of course, means that you have no problems with abortion. And technically, there's no real difference between being aborted and never born.

And being a live really isn't that far off from never existing.

So? Empires are coersive and violent. They should fall.


I'd also come to learn that nations which attempt to be multiracial democracies will either eventually:

1) Fall into chaos and racial conflict.

2) Become an empire that seeks to expand and include other people and hope to include them into the empire for various reasons. To attempt to unite the disunited races at home against a new enemy perhaps.

3) Become a police state when one race gains the strength and will to dominate the others.

4) Continue to exist but always in mediocrity and on the verge of one of the above three.

I also came to learn from my studies of history that all empires fall, and their fall is usually precipitated by the introduction of foreign races en masse, into the empire.

You mean like Christians as foreigners in the Roman Empire, which as a result crumbled and resulted in a millenia of ignorance, mass illiteracy, the disappearance of scientific, mathematical, historic thought??

Why yes, now I see who is the "inferior" race.

Or maybe it's just unfair to not only make wild and unrealistic generalizations, but base the fate and your opinions of others on incidents of the past.

I could say the Spanish Empire declined with the expulsion of the philosophical, artistic, and scientific culture of the Jews and Muslims, and that other such incidents of bigotry led to declines of other empires.

I'd also come to learn that nations which attempt to be multiracial democracies will either eventually:

1) Fall into chaos and racial conflict.

2) Become an empire that seeks to expand and include other people and hope to include them into the empire for various reasons. To attempt to unite the disunited races at home against a new enemy perhaps.

3) Become a police state when one race gains the strength and will to dominate the others.

4) Continue to exist but always in mediocrity and on the verge of one of the above three.

So you can comprehend that this is bad, but can't comprehend that going to the next level of racial intolerance isn't?

So you can comprehend that this is bad, but can't comprehend that going to the next level of racial intolerance isn't?


All the races need to separate, keep to their own lands, and respect the borders of the other races.

All the races need to separate, keep to their own lands, and respect the borders of the other races.

What is a race? What qualifies as a race. According to modern anthropology, I'm told race isn' really biological. It's more of a cultural thing. If so, then it is possible and indeed probable that the dividing line between races varies from person to person and from culture to culture. What race does someone with mixed ancestry fall into, for example?

What is a race? What qualifies as a race. According to modern anthropology, I'm told race isn' really biological. It's more of a cultural thing. If so, then it is possible and indeed probable that the dividing line between races varies from person to person and from culture to culture. What race does someone with mixed ancestry fall into, for example?



Modern biology is just the same as popular culture, victims of this "Multiracial madness" that is sweeping the world. Everything is looked over that doesn't back up the ideals of diversity and such. Science is suffering today like never before. Modern science means nothing, look to the past for the truth.

I could say the Spanish Empire declined with the expulsion of the philosophical, artistic, and scientific culture of the Jews and Muslims, and that other such incidents of bigotry led to declines of other empires.
You could. But that would be wrong. The Moors and Jews where expelled in the 15th century. Around the same time that Columbus went on his tour to "India". The Spanish empire collapsed cause it only relied on the gold coming from it's American posessions. It failed to create a middle class and an industry. And then the gold ran out.(the oil countries in the middle east will face the same problem if they don't act now) Catholicism also prevented the people from taken the initiative to start own businesses. Like they did in the Netherlands. Who where Spains richests province. Despite having no gold or other valuable resources.

What is a race? What qualifies as a race. According to modern anthropology, I'm told race isn' really biological. It's more of a cultural thing. If so, then it is possible and indeed probable that the dividing line between races varies from person to person and from culture to culture. What race does someone with mixed ancestry fall into, for example?

I consider anthropology a pseudoscience. Just like Darwinism, and just like eugenics. Eugenics is barbarous and is an abomination. Examining the Third Reich's practice of eugenics verifies that.

I consider anthropology a pseudoscience. Just like Darwinism, and just like eugenics. Eugenics is barbarous and is an abomination. Examining the Third Reich's practice of eugenics verifies that.
Hitler just followed the American example.

I consider anthropology a pseudoscience.

Why?

Modern biology is just the same as popular culture, victims of this "Multiracial madness" that is sweeping the world. Everything is looked over that doesn't back up the ideals of diversity and such. Science is suffering today like never before. Modern science means nothing, look to the past for the truth.

The past? You mean like when people believed that the earth was the center of the universe?

Modern biology is just the same as popular culture, victims of this "Multiracial madness" that is sweeping the world. Everything is looked over that doesn't back up the ideals of diversity and such. Science is suffering today like never before. Modern science means nothing, look to the past for the truth.

Why yes, the past in the Christian Dark Ages (you still haven't addressed that point).

So basically, all these cures science makes, and all the technological advancements, these are lies? Or only the ones that suit your twisted elitist views?
Of course there are people who are "mixed"! [and there is nothing wrong with that]

Then again, there is only one race, only one species, humans. Everything else is a cultural facade, strengthened by the intolerant yet cherished by the individual.


Besides, I like black people. I like asian people. I want to have friends of other "races", and I want the opportunity to intermarry.

<By intermarrying, you are NOT weakening your genetics, you are strengthening them, almost like creating a buffer. I'm sure it's very hard for you to understand, unless you claim to have expertise in other field as well.>

Hitler just followed the American example.

Please elaborate.

Please elaborate.
War against the weak (http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/)

Why?

Because it likens us to apes. Call yourself what you want, but I am NOT a friggin' ape! :mad:

Yeah, CM. I suggest you watch some high-quality anime and then tell me that interacting with other races is wrong.

I was raised to be an "open-minded, liberal, supporter of multiracialism", but as I became more educated and able to form my own opinions, I realized that Eugenics was the only real solution to the problems facing the race. I also came to learn from my studies of history that all empires fall, and their fall is usually precipitated by the introduction of foreign races en masse, into the empire.

heh...rome feel shortly after christianity was adopted as it's state religion - and you might want to look at the introduction of those foreign races, I'd imagine it was usually because of the size of the empire that the races were introduced, and the size of the empire that it feel - not the racial influx.

War against the weak (http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/)

Well, so far as I know, a dictator has never seized power in America and then resorted to forced sterilization, abortions, and euthanasia, followed by genocide, in the name of eugenics.

You could. But that would be wrong. The Moors and Jews where expelled in the 15th century. Around the same time that Columbus went on his tour to "India". The Spanish empire collapsed cause it only relied on the gold coming from it's American posessions. It failed to create a middle class and an industry. And then the gold ran out.(the oil countries in the middle east will face the same problem if they don't act now) Catholicism also prevented the people from taken the initiative to start own businesses. Like they did in the Netherlands. Who where Spains richests province. Despite having no gold or other valuable resources.

I said I could say that. I didn't say I believed it. I'm aware it's wrong (true in regards to the major cultural additions the Moors and Jews made to Spain, wrong in the fact that it was remotely linked to the crumbling of the empire), I'm just making an assertion based on his ridiculous claims which is unappealing as it shows a level of superiority in non-Caucasian groups, which probably would't make him too happy.

heh...rome feel shortly after christianity was adopted as it's state religion - and you might want to look at the introduction of those foreign races, I'd imagine it was usually because of the size of the empire that the races were introduced, and the size of the empire that it feel - not the racial influx.

Dude, that was my point.

Well, so far as I know, a dictator has never seized power in America and then resorted to forced sterilization, abortions, and euthanasia, followed by genocide, in the name of eugenics.
It doesn't always take a dictator you know.
Ultimately, 60,000 Americans were coercively sterilized — legally and extra-legally. Many never discovered the truth until decades later. Those who actively supported eugenics include America's most progressive figures: Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger and Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Yeah, CM. I suggest you watch some high-quality anime and then tell me that interacting with other races is wrong.

Lol. He has no intelligence or taste. He'd hate anime. And he'd also be too messed up to notice that however awesome asian people are, there are some that are pretty mysoginistic (in my opinion), which can be easily observed from watching some anime.

the bottom line is, she'd be better off normal, without all these problems.

but what you're saying is she'd be better off dead, because you can't make her normal through eugenics, you can just kill off anybody like her.

Dude, that was my point.

haha...it's a lovely point, is it not?

Well, so far as I know, a dictator has never seized power in America and then resorted to forced sterilization, abortions, and euthanasia, followed by genocide, in the name of eugenics.

you might look at the history of american interactions with native americans, if you beleive that.

you might look at the history of american interactions with native americans, if you beleive that.
A famouse Austrian from the 1930's did. He was a big fan of Western novels.

but what you're saying is she'd be better off dead, because you can't make her normal through eugenics, you can just kill off anybody like her.

Well, no, I'm talking about from that point on, via abortions.

And I'm not going to bring up any of my crap of the futility and meaninglessness of life, and how killing her and me (I have minor learning disabilities, but depending on what level people would take it to, I could be killed) is essentially us dying early/never being born/euthanised/aborted, in the grand scheme of things... in any event, I'm in no way advocating out right killing, because that just brings the realities nihilism too close for comfort, and also is obnoxiously similar (but on another level, completly different) than what Nazis did.

Besides, I reiterate, you can simply be considering the next generation of people.

haha...it's a lovely point, is it not?

It is. (I wasn't upset, I just didn't want you to get all the credit)

Well, no, I'm talking about from that point on, via abortions.

And I'm not going to bring up any of my crap of the futility and meaninglessness of life, and how killing her and me (I have minor learning disabilities, but depending on what level people would take it to, I could be killed) is essentially us dying early/never being born/euthanised/aborted, in the grand scheme of things... in any event, I'm in no way advocating out right killing, because that just brings the realities nihilism too close for comfort, and also is obnoxiously similar (but on another level, completly different) than what Nazis did.

Besides, I reiterate, you can simply be considering the next generation of people.

if you're so nihilistic I have no idea why you're interested in politics. political activity from persons who don't value individual human life has a rather unpleasent history, I'm afraid. not criticising, just pointing it out. I'm rather against abortion, sterilsation makes more sense to me and avoids the undying abortion debate from coming into eugenics.

It is. (I wasn't upset, I just didn't want you to get all the credit)

ah ok, nah that's self evident, I don't deserve a bit of credit for it

if you're so nihilistic I have no idea why you're interested in politics. political activity from persons who don't value individual human life has a rather unpleasent history, I'm afraid. not criticising, just pointing it out. I'm rather against abortion, sterilsation makes more sense to me and avoids the undying abortion debate from coming into eugenics.

The term "sterilization" scares me more than abortion. Sterilzation takes the right to have children away from people, a crucial right, no matter how stupid or undeserving they are. "Abortion" simply stops something from being born, hardly at a crucial enough stage to matter in to the thing.

And no, I think differently. I don't argue or base my political ideas off of my nihilism, I base them off of my existentialism.
And I DO value human and individual life... I just, know, deep in the crevices of my brain, that it really doesn't matter what happens in the grand scheme of things.

I know it's hard to comprehend, but that doesn't make me a monster or someone unfit for politics or to decide which direction makind goes in.
In fact, it makes a better candidate... at least existentialism-wise.

Lol. He has no intelligence or taste. He'd hate anime. And he'd also be too messed up to notice that however awesome asian people are, they still are pretty mysoginistic (my main beef), which can be easily observed from their anime.

So you think anime is misogynistic, but it takes good taste to like it?

So you think anime is misogynistic, but it takes good taste to like it?

No, I think there are times when anime shows hints of the ([hopefully] slowly disappearing) mysognisitic culture of Japan.
I'm also commenting that elsewhere in Asia that women still aren't treated as equally as in Western cultures, pointing out that no "race" is perfect, and that the intermingling of "races" is necessary to show the flaws of other groups.

*I will be very upset if this gets misconstrued and I end up being accused of bigotry or false accusations

It takes good taste and intelligence in order to appreciate things from other cultures/ "races", which I'm saying CM severely lacks.

I'm also saying that many a time have I seen Caucasians "not get" the "cartoons of people with weird faces and eyes", finding it beyond comprehension that "cartoons" are an adult form of media.

No, I think there are times when anime shows hints of the ([hopefully] slowly disappearing) mysognisitic culture of Japan.
I'm also commenting that elsewhere in Asia that women still aren't treated as equally as in Western cultures, pointing out that no "race" is perfect, and that the intermingling of "races" is necessary to show the flaws of other groups.

You mean like the fanservice resulting in characters just to raise rating by attractiveness or the hentai tentacle demons?

Because it likens us to apes. Call yourself what you want, but I am NOT a friggin' ape! :mad:

You may not accept it, but it does not make it any less true. I don't believe in nuclear energy, so let's go touch those two pieces of plutonium together, eh?

First off, it about likens you to an ape as it does me to my cousin- except that this cousin is about 200,000,000 times removed. Plus, by all classification man is an ape- Think about it- Animalia. Chordata. Mammalia. Primate.

Apes, if you mean Gorillas, then split off at either the Family or Genus level depending upon whether you classify by classicial or biochemical means.

Finally, if you want to take the gloves off, I'll be glad to accompany you to the Evolution vs Creationism Thread- we're almost out of Creationists after the first few hundred pages.

You mean like the fanservice resulting in characters just to raise rating by attractiveness or the hentai tentacle demons?

Well, I mean, besides that, in actual anime, I've seen some examples of it. I honestly can't remember them though... I just shook my head and went on enjoying the rest of whatever I was watching...
Or was it reading? I think it was manga I was reading which just made me upset... maybe it was Chobits or something.

We already practice eugenics on a personal level by choosing who we will mate with. Why we should attempt to dictate the course of the rest of humanity is beyond me, seems a lot like a waste of money and ridiculously overbearing when we can allow everyone to freely choose their mate based on perceived foibles and good points, which surely appears a far more precise form of eugenics than any ideology based on generalisations or notions based on misperceptions of evolution.

We already practice eugenics on a personal level by choosing who we will mate with. Why we should attempt to dictate the course of the rest of humanity is beyond me, seems a lot like a waste of money and ridiculously overbearing when we can allow everyone to freely choose their mate based on perceived foibles and good points, which surely appears a far more precise form of eugenics than any ideology based on generalisations or notions based on misperceptions of evolution.


Because idiots, imbeciles, and morons (both terms denoting varying IQ levels not just petty insults) can and do breed like vermin.

Note idiot is the worst, imbecile is moderately better, moron is the most advanced of the three.

Because idiots, imbeciles, and morons (both terms denoting varying IQ levels not just petty insults) can and do breed like vermin.

Yes, and the cream of society need the scum of the Earth to serve them fries, take out their rubbish, sew their clothes and so on. It's counterintuitive to remove a massive portion of society when they all contribute to the society's greater good and free up the smarter portions to pursue other portions of economical, medical and technological advancement. Plus it doesn't reduce the cream's chance of getting laid with someone worthy of them, meaning there is absolutely no reason to get rid of the vermin and many reasons against. And you also need to define "scum", do incredibly beautiful but idiotic bimbos count? Are *you* willing to make that sacrifice? :D

Finally intentionally limiting the breeding stock becomes tantamount to inbreeding over successive time periods, throughout the 19th and early 20th Centuries particularly several isolated populations in the States had nasty "we all have the same general look about us" problem.

Because idiots, imbeciles, and morons (both terms denoting varying IQ levels not just petty insults) can and do breed like vermin.

Note idiot is the worst, imbecile is moderately better, moron is the most advanced of the three.

Nice to see the 18th century is alive and well.

Why do you feel the need to restrict the breeding of unintelligent people? Compared to many, both you yourself and I are a simpletons.

I support Passive Eugenics.

For instance, I encourage teens and young adults to engage in Roshambo contests. This greatly reduces birth rates among the most enthusiastic players.

I'm also against the Heimlich Maneuver.

:D

Yes, and the cream of society need the scum of the Earth to serve them fries, take out their rubbish, sew their clothes and so on. It's counterintuitive to remove a massive portion of society when they all contribute to the society's greater good and free up the smarter portions to pursue other portions of economical, medical and technological advancement. Plus it doesn't reduce the cream's chance of getting laid with someone worthy of them, meaning there is absolutely no reason to get rid of the vermin and many reasons against. And you also need to define "scum", do incredibly beautiful but idiotic bimbos count? Are *you* willing to make that sacrifice? :D

Finally intentionally limiting the breeding stock becomes tantamount to inbreeding over successive time periods, throughout the 19th and early 20th Centuries particularly several isolated populations in the States had nasty "we all have the same general look about us" problem.


The point is the fit are being outbred by the unfit at an alarmingly high rate.



Example:


The unfit:

Ethiopia:
Birth rate:
39.23 births/1,000 population (2004 est.)

Total fertility rate:
5.44 children born/woman (2004 est.)


Somalia:
Birth rate:
46.04 births/1,000 population (2004 est.)

Total fertility rate:
6.91 children born/woman (2004 est.)



The fit:

Italy:
Birth rate:
9.05 births/1,000 population (2004 est.)

Total fertility rate:
1.27 children born/woman (2004 est.)


Germany:
Birth rate:
8.45 births/1,000 population (2004 est.)

Total fertility rate:
1.38 children born/woman (2004 est.)


France:
Birth rate:
12.34 births/1,000 population (2004 est.)

Total fertility rate:
1.85 children born/woman (2004 est.)

I support Passive Eugenics.

For instance, I encourage teens and young adults to engage in Roshambo contests. This greatly reduces birth rates among the most enthusiastic players.

I'm also against the Heimlich Maneuver.

:D

I get flashes of the Darwin Awards here...

The unfit:

Ethiopia:
Birth rate:
39.23 births/1,000 population (2004 est.)

Total fertility rate:
5.44 children born/woman (2004 est.)


Somalia:
Birth rate:
46.04 births/1,000 population (2004 est.)

Total fertility rate:
6.91 children born/woman (2004 est.)



The fit:

Italy:
Birth rate:
9.05 births/1,000 population (2004 est.)

Total fertility rate:
1.27 children born/woman (2004 est.)


Germany:
Birth rate:
8.45 births/1,000 population (2004 est.)

Total fertility rate:
1.38 children born/woman (2004 est.)


France:
Birth rate:
12.34 births/1,000 population (2004 est.)

Total fertility rate:
1.85 children born/woman (2004 est.)

BS. An entire ethnic group cannot be unworthy of existance, racist.

I get flashes of the Darwin Awards here...

One of my favorite sites. It's a shame they only limit themselves to the killed. Some people maim themselves in truly spectacular ways.

BS. An entire ethnic group cannot be unworthy of existance, racist.


Let us pause for a moment and examine what Germany, France, and Italy have contributed to the sciences and arts over the past 1,000 years. Then let us examine what Ethiopia and Somalia have contributed over the past 3,000 years. 1,000 years of Europe will beat 3,000 years of Africa.

Let us not forget that you claim to be a support of women's right. What right do women have in Africa where they are traded like currency, raped en masse during tribal wars, suffer genitalia mutilation, and basically have to do all the manual labor and run community life because often the men are too lazy to do things. (Read "The Great Betrayal" by Ian Douglas Smith, for more information about African tribal life and how the women must do the work the men don't want to do)

In Nigeria they stone women to death who have children out of wedlock. How is that for womens rights?


Chivalry is a distinctly Western ideal. Well Saladin and his Saracens were also quite chivalrous, so we would have to say that he was a good model of the Western man, although he was not a westerner.

The point is the fit are being outbred by the unfit at an alarmingly high rate.

The poor little brown people are also in a situation where they're dying at an alarmingly faster rate than we do; they're not exactly part of our society regardless. And you still haven't revealed what's so terrifyingly bad about this anyway. Worried about the possiblity of an invasion?

What right do women have in Africa where they are traded like currency, raped en masse during tribal wars, suffer genitalia mutilation, and basically have to do all the manual labor and run community life because often the men are too lazy to do things.

Oh I see and the best way to ensure women get rights is by forcefully sterilising them, right?

Worried about the possiblity of an invasion?

Bingo, it's called mass immigration. And one day it will consume us all.

We have to ensure that only people genetically predisposed to violence continue the population. That way we can one day unify the world in a bloody tidal wave of war and coups. :eek: :mp5:

Ha, by the end of the decade as industrialised nations tend towards getting older you will either be crying out for immigrants and children.

Come on then, what's wrong with immigration.

Bingo, it's called mass immigration. And one day it will consume us all.

Actually, History has shown that the French, Germans and Italians are far more likely to invade other nations than the Ethiopians and Somalians. ;)

The poor little brown people are also in a situation where they're dying at an alarmingly faster rate than we do; they're not exactly part of our society regardless. And you still haven't revealed what's so terrifyingly bad about this anyway. Worried about the possiblity of an invasion?



Oh I see and the best way to ensure women get rights is by forcefully sterilising them, right?


I would say that womens rights and human rights for that matter, are ideas lost on your average african who still today worships trees, eats his neighbors, and considers raping women from rival tribes a way to pass the time. Africa is a basket case and will always remain so. No amount of money, missionaries, or "humanitarian workers" will fix africa, ever! All we will find is the money goes to corrupt leaders, the missionaries wind up on the menu, and the humanitarians are caught in the middle of tribal clashes and either wind up raped, murdered, and in mass graves, or raped, murdered and then on the menu.

Actually, History has shown that the French, Germans and Italians are far more likely to invade other nations than the Ethiopians and Somalians. ;)


Yes but French, Germans, and Italians better the world. They don't drag it down.

Ha, by the end of the decade as industrialised nations tend towards getting older you will either be crying out for immigrants and children.

Come on then, what's wrong with immigration.


No, I'm sure I can just have the children I want to have and if every other European and American would follow suit and have 8-12 children, we'd be fine and we could say so long to the boat people.

I would say that womens rights and human rights for that matter, are ideas lost on your average african who still today worships trees, eats his neighbors, and considers raping women from rival tribes a way to pass the time. Africa is a basket case and will always remain so. No amount of money, missionaries, or "humanitarian workers" will fix africa, ever! All we will find is the money goes to corrupt leaders, the missionaries wind up on the menu, and the humanitarians are caught in the middle of tribal clashes and either wind up raped, murdered, and in mass graves, or raped, murdered and then on the menu.

The nice thing about Africans is that they are perfectly satisfied raping, murdering and eating eachother. They aren't constantly looking for NEW people to rape, murder and/or eat like the Europeans are.

Let us pause for a moment and examine what Germany, France, and Italy have contributed to the sciences and arts over the past 1,000 years. Then let us examine what Ethiopia and Somalia have contributed over the past 3,000 years. 1,000 years of Europe will beat 3,000 years of Africa.

Actually, people contributed to the arts and sciences, not countries. Countries are abstract, collectivist concepts.

Let us not forget that you claim to be a support of women's right. What right do women have in Africa where they are traded like currency, raped en masse during tribal wars, suffer genitalia mutilation, and basically have to do all the manual labor and run community life because often the men are too lazy to do things. (Read "The Great Betrayal" by Ian Douglas Smith, for more information about African tribal life and how the women must do the work the men don't want to do)

In Nigeria they stone women to death who have children out of wedlock. How is that for womens rights?

That was the case for Europe for many centuries as well. Also, I'm told that not all tribes live that way. I do know that in at least some, men hunt on a regular basis and manage to bring home enough meat to sustain the entire group frequently despite using very simple weapons. They have real skill and they use it. They don't sit around doing nothing while the women make all the food.


Chivalry is a distinctly Western ideal. Well Saladin and his Saracens were also quite chivalrous, so we would have to say that he was a good model of the Western man, although he was not a westerner

Maybe you have forgotten about the sexism that existed in the West until only recently. Up until the 1960s, sexism was pretty much universal and it wasn't until 1920 that women in the US could even vote. Read history.

The nice thing about Africans is that they are perfectly satisfied raping, murdering and eating eachother. They aren't constantly looking for NEW people to rape, murder and/or eat like the Europeans are.


Europeans are also quite happy to fight each other. As evidenced by ww1, ww2, the franco-prussian war, the napoleonic wars, etc.

Actually, people contributed to the arts and sciences, not countries. Countries are abstract, collectivist concepts.



That was the case for Europe for many centuries as well. Also, I'm told that not all tribes live that way. I do know that in at least some, men hunt on a regular basis and manage to bring home enough meat to sustain the entire group frequently despite using very simple weapons. They have real skill and they use it. They don't sit around doing nothing while the women make all the food.




Maybe you have forgotten about the sexism that existed in the West until only recently. Up until the 1960s, sexism was pretty much universal and it wasn't until 1920 that women in the US could even vote. Read history.


Countries and races are as real as the sun and the moon. They are not collectivist concepts. They are real facts of life.

I am well versed in history. I simply have the real version of history. How good women had it prior to the "Womens lib" (communist and marxist agitation) of the women in the USA.

Europeans are also quite happy to fight each other. As evidenced by ww1, ww2, the franco-prussian war, the napoleonic wars, etc.

They ran out of new people and are just keeping in practice for when more new people come along.

They ran out of new people and are just keeping in practice for when more new people come along.


I think you're a lunatic! That sounds ludicrous!

They ran out of new people and are just keeping in practice for when more new people come along.

Not to mention nukes, telemarketing, and reality TV. For every anime or good song written there is a weapon of mass destruction, advertising technique, or stupid show that makes you wonder if it's worth it.

Countries and races are as real as the sun and the moon. They are not collectivist concepts. They are real facts of life.

No, they are abstract concepts that lump us into collectives. Where does one country or race end and the other begin.

(Note that I personally believe the sun and moon to be abstract concepts as well as I don't believe in a material world, only perception.)

I am well versed in history. I simply have the real version of history. How good women had it prior to the "Womens lib" (communist and marxist agitation) of the women in the USA.

When I think of the socialists who defied the status quo and took great risks to oppose sexism, I must say I feel a great deal of pride. Socialists, from anarchists to Marxists, have been fighting for a better world, though sometimes with flawed and authoritarian methods, for over a century. You, on the other hand have been fighting for élitism and collectivism.

While socialists have made mistakes and these have brought some bad people into power, Stalin simply wasn't socialist. Hitler, was, however, racist.

Hitler, was, however, racist.
In his own rights Hitler was pretty socialist.

In his own rights Hitler was pretty socialist.

Hardly. He didn't give workers control of the means of production, the defining characteristic of socialism.

I simply have the real version of history. You were posting Bilbo's writings for god sake's. He's been discredited for almost 40 years! Your 'real' version is a twisted delusion.

When I think of the socialists who defied the status quo and took great risks to oppose sexism, I must say I feel a great deal of pride. Socialists, from anarchists to Marxists, have been fighting for a better world, though sometimes with flawed and authoritarian methods, for over a century. You, on the other hand have been fighting for élitism and collectivism.

While socialists have made mistakes and these have brought some bad people into power, Stalin simply wasn't socialist. Hitler, was, however, racist.

Socialists and leftist radicals have been attempting to destroy their mortal enemy, the caucasoid race, for well over two centuries now. Indeed the radicals have been agitating for "Change for the better" for as long as they've been around. We've seen what socialism and anarchism does to the world. We've seen it a hundred times over. Whenever marxism shows its head openly it is struck down. So now it moves sly, and primarily under the cover of the neo-conservative movement in the USA. The New World Order globalist elitists of the masonic lodges. Along with the Leftist coalition consisting mostly of the democractic party and their cronies. It really doesn't matter who wins in November. Bush or Kerry, both masons. The NEW WORLD ORDER, always wins.

Socialists and leftist radicals have been attempting to destroy their mortal enemy, the caucasoid race, for well over two centuries now. Indeed the radicals have been agitating for "Change for the better" for as long as they've been around. We've seen what socialism and anarchism does to the world. We've seen it a hundred times over. Whenever marxism shows its head openly it is struck down. So now it moves sly, and primarily under the cover of the neo-conservative movement in the USA. The New World Order globalist elitists of the masonic lodges. Along with the Leftist coalition consisting mostly of the democractic party and their cronies. It really doesn't matter who wins in November. Bush or Kerry, both masons. The NEW WORLD ORDER, always wins.I bet you have a years supply of food and ammunition along with a dozen assault weapons stashed in your basement don't you.

Hardly. He didn't give workers control of the means of production, the defining characteristic of socialism.
He build schools. Open for children of all classes. Where their were all equeals. He pretty much is the inventor of child support.

Socialists and leftist radicals have been attempting to destroy their mortal enemy, the caucasoid race, for well over two centuries now.

Actually, capitalists are the mortal enemy of socialists. Many socialists are white.

Indeed the radicals have been agitating for "Change for the better" for as long as they've been around. We've seen what socialism and anarchism does to the world.

Improve working conditions, decrease hierarchy, force capitalists to consider workers in their decisions, etc. The 8-hour workday is the result of anarchists fighting capitalist coersion. Before they started fighting for a shorter day, it was 10 hours long.

We've seen it a hundred times over. Whenever marxism shows its head openly it is struck down. So now it moves sly, and primarily under the cover of the neo-conservative movement in the USA. The New World Order globalist elitists of the masonic lodges. Along with the Leftist coalition consisting mostly of the democractic party and their cronies. It really doesn't matter who wins in November. Bush or Kerry, both masons. The NEW WORLD ORDER, always wins.

While some socialists have been Freemasons, Bush and Kerry are in significant way socialists. They don't care about the workers.

He build schools. Open for children of all classes. Where their were all equeals. He pretty much is the inventor of child support.


Bismarck did a lot of reforms in Germany, pensions, sick leave, etc.

I bet you have a years supply of food and ammunition along with a dozen assault weapons stashed in your basement don't you.


I could very well be working on it. I could certainly be working on it. :D

But if I told you about my secret stashes of food and caches of arms, they'd not be secret now, would they. :D

I think you're a lunatic! That sounds ludicrous!


http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/aetsch/cheeky-smiley-006.gif

Eugenics:

http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com/tyc/tyc_toc.html

TAKE YOUR CHOICE: Separation or Mongrelization
By State Senator, Lt. Governor, twice Governor,
three terms United States Senator, State of Mississippi,
Theodore G. Bilbo

http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com/pgr/pgr-toc.html

The Passing of the Great Race
By Madison Grant

http://churchoftrueisrael.com/stoddard/

The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy
by Lothrop Stoddard, A.M., Ph.D. (Harvard)
What a load of bullshit. Dude, that is disgusting.
And as a mongrel, I'm inclined to take it personnally.

Ya, I know a couple retarded people. They're about as intellectually stimulating as most [extremely religious] people. And though it's a delight being blissfully ignorant, most would prefer being born with an adequate amount of intelligence (and, hell, they could still become religious and be blissfully ignorant), so they can actually do something besides take up space and drool.


Yes, because the sole purpose of another person's life is to provide you with intellectual stimulation.

I volunteer with the mentally and physically disabled, and I count some of them as my close friends. Intellectual stimulation isn't really necessary for all social interactions. They can live full and happy lives, and aren't always as ignorant as they may seem to you.
Yes, most would prefer to be normal, but for them that's not an option. They live with what they have, and try to make the most of it.

What a load of bullshit. Dude, that is disgusting.
And as a mongrel, I'm inclined to take it personnally.I was suprised someone actually took the time to load that outdated, totally discredited crap on a computer. The newest is Bilbo's racist rant from 1947 and he's actually arguing for segregation. I'm of mixed decent also and living proof that Bilbo was full of crap.

Actually, the 8-hour workday is largely the result of efforts by the Populist party around the turn of the century. At the time, they were somewhat close to anarchism in that they favored a decentralized, farm-based government, but to actually call them anarchists is wrong. Anarchism was as much despised then as it is now, both in the US and in Europe, and any movement believed to be associated with anarchists would likely have failed.

Eugenics has it’s ups and downs and can easily be used to further somebody’s ideals. It can be used to reduce and eliminate genetic diseases. However I would rather prefer that those diseases stay around for a while. Too many people in this world anyways. But once we start colonizing other planets, then we can start a Eugenics program. On second though screw that idea. I would much rather that all genetic diseases stay around almost indefinitely.

OK
now that youve read through 159 posts
how many NOW understand why eugenics is a very bad idea? both the old version AND the new version known as birthcontrol/genetic engineering?

those ugly racists post.... THOSE are the kind of people who would be making decisions about who is fit to live and who must die.

No, or else it would have a long time ago.

It is genetic, it is random, it is 100% natural.

And it is fun as hell to see religious people freaking when they have homosexual children.

Then again, it's really sad when the kids are tortured through their childhood and life by relatives, friends, local governments and "gods".
"Genetic" and "random" are opposites. It can't be both. Really, the fact that homosexuals are still around is good evidence for the theory that, if it is even partly genetic (and it looks likely that it is), it must also be genetically linked to some trait that increases ones chances of reproducing.