Fox News Promoting Eugenics/forced sterilization

Showing their true colors once again, Fox echoes sentiments of 1920's....

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/10/03/has_fox_news_channel_lost_its_mind_guest_proposes_sterilizing_bad_parents.php

 

http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

Margaret Sanger (planned parenthood and major feminist) pushed eugenics. Very interesting that a leftist was doing this...

 

the problem with all this stuff is that it eventually spills over and turns into the death camps of the nazis - then everyones fair game.

when you go to dachau (the death camp that all death camps of the nazis were modelled on) pictures of the first internees show a few people dressed up in lederhosen, germanys national dress (i suppose).

first they stated killing the weak then they moved onto the healthy but ideologically degenerate. once you've sterilised a few thousand, you start thinking - hell why not kill a few thousand? a few months later you think why not kill a few million ? once you've killed a few million where do you finish? starting wars starts this way too, once you been starting wars for a while , it all starts looking like business as usual.

i think the normal way of preventing pregnancys by the mentally handicapped is contraception , an activity in wide practice in society .

 

I agree with you. I think the problem in the world today is that the smartest people are having the fewest children. They subsidize the breeders who simply leech off society. Society should use a mechanism whereby contributers to society get a 20,000/year tax break/child for those parents who are intelligent so that they would have more children. Those who are non-contributors should pay more taxes to have children as they will be a burden on society. And make no mistake about it, but the parent of a kid with down syndrome will strain society since extra resources are thrown at them that should be better utilized helping the best and brightest. Sterilization is not necessary and does lead to the death camp scenario you discussed. As it stands to day, the system rewards those who are willing to leach off the system, those who actually drag society down. This has to change completely.

 

Not really, it was 1925.

As the article i've already posted states, eugenics had a wide array of support back then, from the left and right.

What is interesting is Fox News Channel giving the issue a second glance in 2006...

 

Shane99X,


I don't suppose you'd be surprised to find out that the Presidentz grandfather, was one of the leading proponents of the eugenics program during the first half of the last century.


If Bush is a product of that program, then we're all in trouble because the premise is severely flawed.


Hotwater

 

Prescott?

Yeah, i know.

Nazi sypathizer and financial supporter as well.

 

the situation as it stands is that some people are knowingly producing other people who are not able to look after themselves. these people gaily produce them knowingly, then expect everyone else to look after them. who looks after them when the parents die? the burden on the public purse is enormous and continues for quite some time.

on the other hand the public purse is huge and so much money is generally wasted on war machines and "foreign aid" that comparitively this burden is miniscule.

 

And it's been like that since we started walking on our hind legs.
Since when is that a reason to restrict the reproductive rights of an individual or specific group?

There has always been 'bad' parents.

Keep in mind, that a lot of good people came from 'bad' parenting, and keep in mind that the definition of what is and what isn't good parenting is highly subjective and therefore should not be an area that the State should be involved in. The State has no morality, power corrupts, and everbody carries bias and prejudices...

 

http://www.amazon.com/Dysgenics-Deterioration-Populations-Evolution-Intelligence/dp/0275949176

Good book to read: Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations (Human Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence) (Hardcover)

by Richard Lynn

This is a book that pulls no punches. It argues that both intelligence and conscientiousness are heritable traits (as shown by twin- and adoption-studies); and that people who are low in these traits have, over roughly the past century, had the most siblings and the most children of their own. Thus Richard Lynn maintains that 'the eugenicists were right' -- pace many modern experts in genetics whom Lynn chastises for falling by the wayside. Further, Lynn condemns the Roman Catholic Church for backing monogamy and priestly celibacy; and for opposing abortion and the more effective types of contraception. The book closes with Lynn promising a companion volume in which the modern policy implications of dysgenic trends will be considered. What is impressive in all this is the sheer quantity of modern evidence that is available to illustrate the author's empirical claims. Time and again, Lynn is able to report highly significant dysgenic correlations of around -.20 between the traits that concern him and indices of achieved fertility. The evidence is principally from the West; but, by using educational and socio-economic data in relation to fertility, the same underlying trends can arguably be detected in other countries too. (The exception is in Black Africa, where contraception is so little used that typical upper-class families have around the same six children as do those of agricultural workers).

Despite the total lack of interest of today's criminologists in genetic factors and fertility, Lynn finds evidence suggesting that "the fertility [of British] criminals is 77 percent higher than that of the British population as a whole." Thus Lynn can even begin to address the West's problem of ceaselessly rising criminality. In recent years, liberal-left, 'anti-elitist' and 'anti-racist' students at today's universities have made sensible and open discussion of heredity and its policy implications difficult and even dangerous. This is why, in my own book, The g Factor (1996, Wiley DePublisher), I avoided dysgenics -- and indeed any unequivocal eugenic conclusions -- and concentrated merely on educational recommendations that would, if accepted, have begun to move Western thinking towards a sensible recognition of the need to cultivate valuable human qualities. Will Richard Lynn be able to turn the egalitarian tide by a head-on approach?

From 1960, the standard objection to dysgenic ideas was that previous surveys (finding dysgenic trends) had ignored those people in modern populations who remain unmarried and childless -- not uncommonly because of low mental ability, psychosis or a criminal record. Such people are necessarily ignored in the easiest and most common type of social survey that studies schoolchildren and asks them for their parents' occupations and the number of children in the family. The errors of such neglect were pointed out in the influential reports by Higgins et al. (1962) and Bajema (1968). However, these authors' own studies themselves involved small and unrepresentative samples that positively over-represented individuals having IQ <70. Such people may indeed in the past have had few children (not least because of locked single-sex wards in mental subnormality hospitals) but they are only 2.5% of the population and their own procreative restraint -- if it still continues -- will be easily overshadowed by the state-assisted fertility of the 13.5% of people who fall between IQ 70 and IQ 85. In fact, both in Britain and the USA, much larger and more representative modern studies find that people of above average IQ have fewer children than people of below-average IQ (Kiernan & Diamond, 1982 [following up 13,687 British infants born in 1946]; Van Court & Bean, 1985 [studying around 12,000 US adults, born 1890-1964]).

Richard Lynn has performed a valuable service in bringing together the evidence about present dysgenic trends and presenting it to effect and with his usual clarity. There is plainly reason to believe that the West has brought natural selection for intelligence and conscientiousness to a halt, and that we have for some time been breeding in irresponsible ways for which our grandchildren may curse us as they struggle to cope with the phenomenon of unemployability for people of around IQ 90 in advanced, information-based societies. It is to be hoped that psychologists will read Dysgenics with open minds and ask the American Psychological Association, the British Psychological Society, the Galton Institute and similar bodies in continental Europe to ensure that the requisite new research in this field is undertaken with despatch...

 

topolm,

As a representative of the low intelligence, low socioeconomic underclass, We will continue to breed with impunity and damn the eugenicists

The more children we have (my girlfriend, and I) the larger the welfare check



Hotwater

 

"Breeders who leech off society" Who are these people. How many of them live in the US? How many live in France? How many in Zimbabwe?

Or are the "breeders who leech off society", like the "welfare queen living off the system", a figment of the right.

 

to topolm they are the "others".

The Nordic people are the true inheritors of the U.S.A.

Aside from Asians, White people are genetically smarter than everyone else, by allowing them to breed and intermingle with the "others" through the multicultural policies of the elite we are dumbing down america's god fearing white man.

Same goes for Britain and France and ect ect ect...

Neo-nazism.

 

Ummm... the nazis hated white people. They saw Russians as a lower form of life even though Russians are white. The nazis caused the deaths of approx 50 million white europeans. I think you are VERY VERY confused... Aryan ideal blah blah blah. America's inheritors are European descendants whether they are nordic, slavic, germanic, anglo saxon, or mediteranean.

 

topolm,

Shane is absolutely correct, as a matter of fact I just finished reading an interesting treatise on 'Nazis and the Gentrification of the Americas'



Hotwater

 

Absolute nonsense. in 1960 America was 90% white european. SInce the 1965 immigration control act the portion of white europeans in America has falled to 66% in 2006, and will be less than 50% in the next 20 years (racists like shanexx are very pleased with this). This IS the definitition of ethnic cleansing. The only thing keeping the unproductive minorities from rioting is the welfare state. Once the next depression sets in, all bets are off (Racial spoils system will be insolvent). This country will explode. Use your head. Every multicultural country implodes as soon as the economy implodes. Look at the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia as examples. US and A is 43 trillion in debt, corrupt leadership, and rapidly shrinking middle class.

Read this article.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/03/Dobbs.Oct4/index.html

Dobbs may call it "class warfare" but more accurately, it will be racial warfare since cultural marxism redefined the "class struggle" in terms of the white race class opressing the nonwhite class.

 

Read it again genius.

I didnt say nazism, I said neo-nazism.

To the nazis the aryan race was ideal.

Neo-nazis just have lower standards i guess...

 

That's another thing about topolm, in his world if you are not a racist nationalist then you are simply a racist.

Sort of like pre-emptive labeling, if he calls you a racist enough times, or if he mentions during his rants that some fools will call him a racist then he obviously isnt a racist himself and what he says could be valid, right?

So despite his racial seperatist views, despite his stated belief that white people are genetically more intelligent, despite his view that "unproductive minorities" will riot without welfare, he's not a racist or a racial supremists.

Just another oppressed honky....

 

You're pretty desperate at this point aren't ya Shane...

I seek global unity of all Europeans regardless of their ethnicity or location on the planet. Of course you're a vile racist bigot if you attack sentiments supportive of this ultimate goal. And yes... you are a racist because everything you write is motivated by a fanatical HATRED of all European derived peoples, HATRED of Europe, HATRED of European America, HATRED of European Australia, New Zealand and Canada. HATRED and more HATRED is pretty much what you write alot of the time. I hate no one unlike you.

 

Yeah, except i havent been saying anything against white people, just that they are not better than any other people and that racist seperatism promoted by any race is retarded.

I've said this repeatedly in numerous threads, but it still hasn't gotten through your paranoia...

white nationalists are idiots
black nationalists are idiots
asian nationalists are idiots

And you sir, are an idiot.

And i seek the global unity of all regardless of their ethnicity or location on the planet.

but i'm the racist bigot, right?