The Radical, Intellectual Roots of the Eugenics Movement
Devastating, brilliant, and brief review of a museum exhibit in Ottawa, in Canada’s National Post. I am cheating the Fair Use reaper by quoting this bit, but there’s more and it’s all must read, and probably worth e-mailing around:
The most vociferous and outspoken of the socialist eugenicists was the novelist H. G. Wells, author of The Time Machine, The War of the Worlds and The Invisible Man. …
A strict social order would be formed. At the bottom of it were the base. These were “people who had given evidence of a strong anti-social disposition”, including “the black, the brown, the swarthy, the yellow.” Christians would also “have to go” as well as the handicapped. Wells devoted entire pamphlets to the need of “preventing the birth, preventing the procreation or preventing the existence” of the mentally and physically handicapped. “This thing, this euthanasia of the weak and the sensual is possible. I have little or no doubt that in the future it will be planned and achieved.”
The people of Africa and Asia, he said, simply could never find a place in a modern world controlled by science. Better to do away with the lot….
Population would be rigidly controlled, with forced abortion for those who were not of the right class and race.
And by then the reviewer, Michael Coren, is just getting warmed up…he hasn’t even gotten to Margaret Sanger yet.
We live now in the world these radicals made. And their are still plenty of people ready to do their work. Some of them are ideologues, but many of them are simple opportunists:
Bertha Pinedo Bugarin, who faces similar charges in Los Angeles, is accused of telling women that she was a doctor, performing abortions on them and prescribing drugs. One woman had to be rushed to a hospital with life-threatening complications, prosecutors said.
“This defendant preyed on women in the Hispanic community,” said San Diego County Dist. Atty. Bonnie Dumanis. “By passing herself off as a doctor, she put these women’s lives in serious danger.”…
At one point, Bugarin ran six abortion clinics in Southern California, advertising them on Spanish-language television. If convicted on all counts, she faces more than nine years in prison, prosecutors said.
But if we have not yet evolved enough as the old radicals would have us do, remember that the Lightworker is there to “help us to evolve” even more.
_______________
{Post by See-Dubya. H/T to American Digest.}
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- The DaleyGator » Blog Archive » Eugenics- a historical look into the face of evil
- The Greatest Canadian Indeed « Unclemeat
- Socialists made eugenics fashionable [Karl]
- Michelle Malkin » Margaret Sanger: old-skool eugenicist, Obama’s hero
- June, 2008 Archive « Right Minded Online
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Abortion
Power Line
» The Alarmists Do "Science": A Case Study
Mudville Gazette
» When the wind won't blowMudville Gazette
» Bad Weather (Part I)Legal Insurrection
» Hacked E-mails or Else!Pundit & Pundette
» About last night's voteJustOneMinute
» "Unequivocal"?NewsBusters.org
» WaPo's Dana Milbank: 'The Senate Really Has 100 Blanche DuBoises'
“We live now in the world these radicals made.”
Frightening part is, they aren’t done making it yet. It’s a work in progress for them.
So if you are ‘for’ aborting the ‘bad’ children before they are born, than you are actually right in this boat. Of course, as modern genetics progresses we are closer to being able to determine that a ‘future’ invalid, like Stephen Hawkings, should be aborted. Right?
The people that I get a big kick out of listening to on this subject are the gay activists. On one hand they want to claim being gay has nothing to do with genetics. On the other hand they need to point to genetics as the root cause and why it is not ‘their’ fault they are gay. Always leaves em holding one bag or the other that they just dont want to open.
These psychos are all about a T4 program; then they have the audacity to call conservatives Nazis. Pffffffft.
The worse thing is that people in general feel less and less shock at these “ideals”, and are even willing to vote such policies in place if they can get something else they want….
Anytime you hear some eco-nazi or ‘global warming’ type use the term ’sustainable’,you can be damn sure they are Malthusians who are cryptically saying they want to reduce the human population by 75% or so….the left is just one giant death cult…the only debate among them is about the best way to commit mass murder without any stigma attaching itself to them…”by any means necessary” is their philosophy
The Wikipedia entry on Eugenics makes an interesting connection:
There, fixed it.
H. G. Wells, the radical scifi revolutionary? Can’t you come up with anyone better? Don’t you have any education? Here’s better material: the founders of the modern subject of statistics — English mathematicians named Fisher, Student (not his real name), etc., were interested in eugenics. They wanted to know how to predict how smart a kid would be on the basis of his parents’ intelligence. The term “regression” came from the idea that children “regress” toward the mean. If the parents are very very smart, the kids will be only very smart.
It’s a sad fact of history that eugenics and “scientific racism” were very fashionable as recently as 80 years ago.
Elitism. These same people that always say “passing judgement is wrong”, are now the very ones to judge whether you are fit to live beside them ? Holy crap ! The arrogance of the upper crust Progressive mind just floors me. Imagine, if you will, what kind of sh#! storm there would be if a Conservative speaker or author had made an insane statements like that !
Ever hear of the quote, “Lies, damn lies, and statistics?” And yes I have some knowledge of econometric technique; bullsh*t if you ask me lgm.
Here’s some info on Action T4 if interested.
“It’s a sad fact of history that eugenics and “scientific racism” were very fashionable as recently as 80 years ago.”
80 years ago? Eugenics may not be talked about in the open today. But it’s brother, euthanasia, certainly is. Different aspects of the same abomination.
Action T4 = Margeret Sanger. Not all that different it seems. Thanks for the link Goldwater.
Ben Stein has been assaulted from both the left and the right for presenting the case that Darwinism helped precipitate the Holocaust. His attackers usually seem to believe that Hitler was just some nut that squirmed his way out of the woodwork and made up his ideologies from whole cloth, but history say otherwise.
In the decades that followed the publication of Darwin’s theories many respected intellectuals realized the logical implications of this new view of mankind. Darwinism combined with Hegelianism (where the good of society determines ethics) created a moral imperative to improve mankind through selective breeding, or at least preventive breeding. Organizations like Planned Parenthood and others were set up for precisely this purpose.
Throw in a good dose of Nietzsche’s “Beyond Good and Evil” and a smattering of German Romanticism and you, quite naturally, wind up with the Holocaust. It was Germany’s duty (according to these beliefs) to improve upon and defend their race and society against those who would in any way injure it. And Darwinism clearly states that it is the design of nature that the strong dominate and destroy the week, that the fit is meant to survive, that if you are not the one doing the evolving, then those who do evolve will dominate and destroy you.
And if ethics is determined by what is best for society, then anyone who would damage society by their existence & breeding must be removed. They have no right to live because their very existence is detrimental to society. Darwin pretty much admitted this in his writings, but said that our natural compassion and humanity would prevent us from following his theories to their logical end…he was wrong.
What is ironic is that it was the Holocaust that quieted the eugenicists. When one of them finally had enough power to put their theories into practice it so offended the conscious of the Western World, that the eugenics movement (for the most part), quietly shut the hell up. But we can assume, that if it weren’t for the Holocaust, modern intellectuals would be spouting the same eugenic nonsense that their forebears did.
But not all eugenicists gave up the ghost after WWII. The Socialist paradise of Sweden (which had refused to take a side in the war) quietly kept up the practice of forced sterilization of the mentally retarded and other “undesirables” until the 1970s (and you always wondered why their Socialist health care system worked so well).
Bottom line: Ideas have consequences. This is the reason openness is folly. If we are no longer able to use reason and make moral judgments of an idea, then we have already lost the very thing that makes us human. Try reading “The Long War Against God” by Henry Morris or “The Closing of the American Mind” by Allan Bloom sometime.
“The greatest evil is not done now in those sordid ‘dens of rime’ that Dickens loved to paint. It is not even done in concentration camps and labor camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do no need to raise their voice.” ~C.S. Lewis, “The Screwtape Letters”
This is like bioethics, yes?
lgm, the lefty troll? Can’t you read any better? It was Michael Coren, National Post in the link provided by see-dubya who used Wells as an example.
Thanks for the stats lesson professor, funny you didn’t mention Galton…
There is only one way to defeat this kind of evil, prayer.
Another part of any good eugenic scheme is selective breeding. Recent practitioners were that cute Marxist couple, Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu. Selective breeding was also practiced by the National Socialists in Germany as the Lebensborn program. The development of human cloning offers great possibilities in this area.
What color will the Ubermensch be?
Hey, lgm? From the turn of the Twentieth Century into the thirties H.G. Wells was a leading British intellectual, a member of the Fabian Society, and little known as a Science Fiction writer. Don’t you have any education?
err . . .
that shold be:
. . . a member of the Fabian Society, yes, but little known as a Science Fiction writer at the time.
I always thought H.G. Wells was a pacifist having only read his science fiction works of how evil war was and about mans tendency to oppress one another. That’s what I get for not having an English Literature or Philosophy degree damn my poor judgment for earning an Engineering degree.
Having gone over to read this entire article it makes Adolf Hitler look like Mr. Rogers when it comes to the call for of genocide of the unwashed masses. His vicious racism would even make the KKK blush. The more I learn of the enlightened great thinkers of the 19th Century such as Darwin, H.G. Wells, Marx, and the whack job Nietzsche the more they scare the living daylights out of me. It makes you wonder how the “Lightworker” and his minions will treat the unwashed masses should they get the reins of power.
With all this talk about Hitler and the many comparisons to the Nazi party, I thought these little tidbits were interesting.
The socio-economic climate in the US today really is not that different from the socio-economic situation in Germany in the late twenties and throughout the thirties.
German leaders used subversion, projection, propaganda and civic unrest to bring themselves to power.
When the time was right, they began nationalizing the economy (government bailouts and more federal reserve control anyone?) and private industry. (The oil companies?)
Eugenics was only one small part of the “ultimate solution” as proposed by them.
Of further interest to note:
Living in the expat communities as I do, there are many people both exint and exmil here. Among those are many from East and West Germany who now all get along for the most part. Some interesting notes from the people who were actually around during those times or around shortly afterwards:
The brown shirts and other “tools” of civil unrest were the first ones lined up and shot once power was obtained.
Hitler was actually aided in gaining strength and position by a group of Socialists/Nationalists who hoped he would be able to make enough progress to open political doors for them. He was actually considered “too radical” and “too stupid” to actually attain any power of his own. Even many of his supporters regretted it once he actually did attain that power instead of just opening the doors. It was never presumed that the majority of people would actually listen to him and give him ever-increasing power for “the good of the people”.
Historically, I fear I can see where this will go if any of the lefts useful idiots actually do attain real power and influence. As we have seen, FBI records and IRS audits can be very powerful tools to use against opposition already. Unfortunately, we do not seem to have any of the necessary (Conservative) tools in place to fight off this rise in popularity of the nationalist or socialist movements currently taking place in our nation.
Unfortunately I am just paranoid and delusional from clinging to my Bible and my guns, so nothing really of interest here I suppose.
AHHH–Margaret Sanger the dear MOTHER OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD and Hitler’s ideal (idol too!)
So I can’t buy a “Celebrate Diversity” shirt with Wells’ face on it? Damn.
lgm wins another non-sequitur award, making the flying leap from psychometrics to eugenics without a logic net. What a clown!
BTW, Merriam-Webster called. They’re still waiting for your headshot to post next to the entry below.
Main Entry:
non se·qui·tur Listen to the pronunciation of non sequitur
Pronunciation: \ˈnän-ˈse-kwə-tər also -ˌtu̇r\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, it does not follow
Date: 1540
1: an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said
We are all so morally superior and politically correct…
And so it begins with the Obamessiah.
I believe I can add to the thrust of Die, Hippie Die’s statement:
Gobbledygook:
* incomprehensible or pompous jargon of specialists. (and lgm is a specialist alright)
* Gobbledygook or gobbledegook (sometimes shortened to gobbledegoo) is an English term used to describe nonsensical language, sound that resembles language but has no meaning, or unintelligible encrypted text. It also means pretentious verbiage.
Hey, See-Dubya, what exactly is your point here? Your linking Barry the Lightworker to this ridiculous nonsense? In what speech did he talk about eugenics or genocide? Maybe I missed it, but I don’t think even the MSM would miss that.
its interesting that the article didn’t mention Galton, the founder of Eugenics, or the man who inspired him, and is ultimately responsible for the eugenics movemnet: Darwin. Its no surprise that Hitler latched onto darwinism with its implicit racism, to give his program of mass murder a scientific veneer. The whole idea of eugenics is still alive in planned parenthood, and will always be alive as long as the theory of evolution is around. Hitler and the Eugenicists just took evolution to its logical conclusion.
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. (The Descent of Man (1871) p.201)
abortion is part of eugenics. Sanger started planned parenthood to get rid of those ‘children of color’…to implement her eugenicist vision. Those that support abortion, euthenasia, etc, to get rid of the ‘useless eaters’ as hitler would say, are supporting eugenics, they just won’t use the word.
Even Gould acknowledged the implicit racism in evolution:
“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” Stephen Jay Gould,
‘Ontogeny and Phylogeny’, Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 27-128
Good! Keep going. We haven’t heard about the speech yet.
So, lgm, whaddaya think?
I’d ask YOU if you had any education, but we all know that you don’t.
The same way it always ends up with them: death or reeducation camps….
Yeah! Hyper inflation! A bushelbasket of $$ needed to buy a loaf of bread!
25% unemployment!
Marauding gangs of brown shirts beating up commies, Jews and political opponents!
Assassination of political rivals!
Armies on parade!
HUGE militaristic rallies!
Chronic government instability!
State takeover of industry!
State control over newspapers and radio!
Bookburnings!
Scientists and artists fleeing the country due to persecution!
Yeah, that sure looks like the America I’m living in today.
LOL!!!!
I’d say that WarTip is suffering from political enuresis aka bedwetting.
fulldroolcup
Heh. Yeah, the similarities are chilling.
Warning, long-winded post!
On and off true, but still the economy is a major issue despite actual economic growth.
Agreed
Code Pink, Environmental activists … no uniforms but certainly their actions are well on the way to the same areas. Beating up on our military, pouring concrete over railroad tracks so supplies cannot get to our troops, blocking ports in much the same manner, placing children in the street to block traffic from coming and going, but no resemblance here.
Hopefully, in our case the army will be on our side, but that was not around in the twenties in Germany either.
See above
Nope, there is absolutely no corruption in our government. They are working resolutely to take care of all of our problems. Ours is a truly representative government of the people, by the people and for the people.
You mean like the democrats are openly calling for with the nationalization of the oil companies and the new powers already given to the federal reserve? Nope, none of that in the USA. Never happen.
Not so much about the radio but look at the New York Times and the rest of the “main stream” media. They are certainly reporting only the facts and even going so far as to reserve editorial opinions to the editorial pages right? I sure am glad there are no blatant acts of newspapers, television or radio stations marching lock step with one side of our political parties. In fact, our government would go after reporters in a heartbeat for revealing classified information or state secrets I am quite certain.
Again, not present in the beginning. However, I would say the replacement of actual and factual textbooks in our schools with the new and improved books speaks on its own value. What they do with the old text books that teach facts, I do not know. I certainly have not seen them for sale anywhere else.
Scientists bending to the will of political pressure in order to retain their grants maybe, but certainly none of them would lose their funding due to speaking out in opposition of government science and political opinion like … Oh I do not know … maybe global warming?
Yup, we live in the same Grand ol’ Nation that we always have. Our forefathers would be proud to stand next to the average American today I am sure.
I already freely admitted that clinging to my Bible and my guns has made me delusional, perhaps I may suffer from some type of neurosis as well.
You forgot the inclusion of a separation of the classes based on economics which is also not happening in America today. Just ask Silky Pony and he has confirmed it.
We also do not divide the people with politics of identity like we did in those days. Just ask any ethnic group, none of them hyphenate their Americanism or claim anything other than true-blue Americanism first and foremost.
We also do not have extremely oppressive government laws like those that could slowly dissolve our rights and ultimately our Constitution. Our government would never make it illegal to smoke in our own homes or tell us how to regulate the heat or tell us what types of light bulbs we had to use in order to be within the law.
We also do not have a government that would regulate how we parent and make it illegal for parents to teach children at home like Germany did. (California? Allowing the teacher’s union to decide whether home schooling should be legal or not?)
We do not have a government that would require children by law to undergo therapy and drug treatments for being kids. (Maybe I would not be so neurotic had I been given these wonder drugs like riddlin when I was a kid huh?)
We do not have a government that would take a child who had bruised in a simple accident from his home, scrutinize the parents and conduct extensive criminal investigations with no just cause all the while charging the parent daily for the care and upkeep of the child while paying someone else substantially less to keep the child. (Child protective services)
We do not have any illegal laws that would make someone an instant felon with no jury, no judge and no presumption of innocence. (The Lautenberg Act)
We also do not have any government officials trying to grant special privileges and advantages to people who have willfully violated the law. Amnesty?
As for the bedwetting, the two years I wore a catheter and did suffer from bedwetting was the result of a bayonet I received from a drug thug in Central America when I served in the US Army under Reagan when we were not there.
Yeah, I thought I was just delusional but perhaps neurotic is a better term.
Now ask me about the other laws which have affected me personally.
I will leave Ruby Ridge and Waco and Elian Gonzales to the Conspiracy Theorists and Troofers … after all, our government never really did that either.
Fundamental differences on some level but the third reich was not built in a day either. Everything is incremental.
I feel so much better knowing it is only me being neurotic though. Thank you for pointing that out to me and I apologize again for my verbosity.
Hey, I deserve some sympathy too! You see, my rods and cones were shot off when I got caught in a crossfire during a college foodfight.
So tragic.
this is beyond sloppy thinking.
First, our terms “right” and “left” don’t have any historical connection to “right” and “left” a 100 years ago in Europe.
Second, not every sort of socialism from that point in time would be eugenicist. Eugenicism presumes the survival of the fittest; nothing is more at odds with “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” than Eugenicism. It’s even sillier to ascribe Nietzschean thought to the left. Marxism (as well as any form of democracy) is, from a Nietzschean viewpoint, a politics of ressentiment and would be the only system less Nietzschean than late 19th c. capitalism.
Third, it overlooks and ignores ‘right’-wing social darwinism and scienitific racialism as a justification for imperialism and capitalism before labor reforms.
I’m not saying that Eugenicist arguments haven’t influenced the so-called ‘Left,’ or that some socialists weren’t eugenicists. Even Pacifists were social darwinists at this time. But it’s very silly to talk about this as a left-right thing and to presume that ‘left-right’ in contemporary America bear any historical continuity to ‘left-right’ in 19th c. Europe. Eugenics/ political Darwinism / Nietzscheanism was not a ‘left’ thing, but a collapse of the Enlightenment thing. They stand equally in opposition to Marxism and to democracy or republicanism.
OK smart people, here’s your google exercise for the day. Now that you know what the “liberals” of yesteryear were saying. Figure out what the conservatives were saying. Should women have the right to vote? Is killing blacks of the US legit? What about massacres in the name of empire by your darling English and French upper classes — Churchill and the like?
lgm said:
Gobbledygook
lgm, we’re not going to let you go off-topic again.
We will let you sit on your Throne of Social and Intellectual Purity, which I’m sure you inherited from equally pure ancestors, none of whom engaged in anything but the most altruistic behavior.
Like one of your “progressive” heroines:
“Some of Susan B. Anthony’s writings were also quite racist by today’s standards, particularly those from the period when she was angry that the Fifteenth Amendment wrote the word “male” into the constitution for the first time in permitting suffrage for freedmen. She sometimes argued that educated white women would be better voters than “ignorant” black men or immigrant men.
In the late 1860s she even portrayed the vote of freedmen as threatening the safety of white women. George Francis Train, whose capital helped launch Anthony and Stanton’s Revolution newspaper, was a noted racist.”
But hey! WE ALL KNOW that the progressives and liberals you claim to be a successor to were all pure as the driven snow. So that stuff about Anthony CAN’T be true.
And oh yes: please explain why some Founders, all of whom would today be considered conservatives, in that they favored individual liberty and a limited and weak federal government, were abolitionists: Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, John Jay, for starters.
You either/or categorization is simply stupid beyond words. WE didn’t make it, you did. WE know that all human beings are an amalgam of differing and conflicting motivations, some good, some not.
But we flawed conservatives eagerly await more entertaining comments delivered ex-cathedra from your Throne on High!
Marx was a great admirer of Darwin..given that both of their theories were totally materialistic, atheistic, and marx wanted to write the forward for Darwin’s book…
Karl Marx wrote of Darwin’s Origin of Species, “Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is a book which contains the basis in natural history for our views.”
Marx’s appreciation of Darwin was ahead of its time.
link
a hallmark of the left is wanting to get rid of God….and make the government god.
I wonder if that clown even realizes that the french revolution was a socialist/atheist revolution…you know the terror
There is nothing and I mean nothing more darling to a bitter, Bible and gun clinging rural Pennsylvanian than the the French upper class.
I could see Barry O. claiming Papal infallibility. Lol.
True, but there’s a huge difference between Darwinism and political or social Darwinism. Darwin’s theory of natural selection gave biology a way to look at natural history without God; similarly, Marx wanted to look at social, political, and economic history without God. A dialectically materialist view of history falls apart if you need to think of the past as governed by God until the dawn of civilization, at which point God relinquishes control to economics. A natural mechanism for natural history removes God from the equation. Darwin is by no means the only one to do this — Isaac Newton mechanized the universe well before Darwin did — Darwin’s only contribution was mechanizing the origin of species.
Social or political Darwinism, however, was not Darwin’s doing. It was largely the work of folks of Galton and Spencer. For instance, the British mathematician Karl Pearson wrote:
Pearson is most definitely not a Marxist. In the same lecture he writes,
We see here a use of Darwin and Malthus to elevate competition and subjugation into virtues. The Marxist may use Darwin to justify a materialist view of history, but a capitalist, imperialist, and racist can use Darwin to justify capitalism, imperialism, and racism.
But Smithian economics is about as dependent on God as Marxist economics is. It’s the hallmark of the late Enlightenment to want to get rid of God and make the government God. This is not a distinction between the contemporary American left and the contemporary American right. This is basically all political movements that have their roots in the 18th and 19th centuries.
I don’t think so. social darwinism/eugenics is just applied evolution.
Darwin posited an athiest theory of origins, and once you take God out of the equation, anything goes, and he was well aware of what he was doing…
“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.” (Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; emphasis in original)
no god, no right, no wrong, no savior. only power….
I don’t see how you get Pearson isn’t a marist from those quotes. Marxist countries maintain colonies…tibet. Marxism is imperialistic
and racism is an inherent part of evolution, because if the races evolved seperately, and of course they did in evolution, then one is more ‘fit’ than another.
the ‘late enlightenment’ you mean the french revolution? in America the government didn’t try to play God until FDR and the new deal. FDR was a man of the left.
Obama and eugenics; the third paragraph
http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2907
says it all about him and his thought process…..
the word SELFISH comes to mind….
MEMO TO: lgm
My lawyers have advised me to inform you that a headshot is a photograph. So you may put down the Village Voice “Male Seeking Male” personals. Sorry for the confusion.
I wonder how much of Obama’s CHANGE is similar in thought…kind of an ‘affirmative action’ times 10.
Head of the DNC Howard Dean’s home state. Breeding Better Vermonters. This Eugenics program came from the Progressives. They say you can still find the old Eugenics codes in the Public School System in Vermont unless they have finally been removed.
http://www.amazon.com/Breeding-Better-Vermonters-Revisiting-Regionalism/dp/0874519527/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214175687&sr=8-1
Ex Senator George Allen was championing legislations to right the wrongs of Walter Ashby Plecker -who had his own eugenics movement in Virginia, this was pre WWII think about it Senator George Allen (R) was righting wrongs into the new century. IBM supplied the hole punch card machine, but it is believed that it was Walter Ashby Plecker whose own system of determining race from census birth certificates ect.. was what the Nazis adopted to determine people’s ethnic ancestry. At one time in Virginia White people could not marry out of their own precieved race it was the law.
http://www.manataka.org/page1683.html
Vermont the Standard?
http://imustimes.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/middle-class-life-crisis/
What RUBBISH. What makes “Darwinism” Darwinism is evolution via NATURAL selection, theon-going process of mutation and differential reproductive success.
Darwin’s “Origin” discusses at length how humans have engaged in ARTIFICIAL selection in breeding livestock, birds, dogs etc. for thousands of years. Insights gained from studying that process helped him arrive at his theory as to how NATURE operates.
NOTHING in the Darwin’s teaching mandates eugenics, which (I must repeat!) is the practice of ARTIFICIAL selection.
Oh and btw: the entire edifice of modern medicine and biology is founded on Darwin’s insights. Even deniers of Darwinism benefit from his ideas when they get themselves injected with a vaccine or pop a disease-preventing pill.
Blaming Darwin for eugenics and the Holocaust makes as much sense as blaming Henry Ford for global warming; after all, he’s the fiend in human form who made mass production of automobiles available! May he rot in a very special Hell!
It’s funny how the IDers and Creationists get their thongs in a twist about Darwinism, because even the Roman Catholic church has learned to live with it.
Am I the only one who is absolutely amazed that she faces ONLY 9 years in prison for what she did?
And look at China, where abortions, in light of the birth restrictions employed there and cultural considerations, are routinely practiced in order to get the more desirable male babies vs. girls.
Now they have a problem of more men than women.
This is also happening in India, although more due to cultural considerations.
This is a form of eugenics, and it is happening today.
it looks like the truth hurts. the link between evolution and eugenics/naziism is undeniable.
you don’t even know your own theory! laughable…artificial selection is an example of
not evolution. sorry.
Darwin was a eugenicist, and a racist, as that quote that I gave from him proves….deal with it.
pure darwiniac propoganda. Even coyne admits:
link
as far as medicine…laughable…
link
you really need history 101, this is not in dispute by any student of history, only foaming-at-the-mouth darwiniacs who can’t stand anything to be said that might reflect poorly on their hairygod darwin..
here educate yourself…
link
its funny how you darwiniacs have to lie for your racist hairygod.
Yeah, I suppose that’s why Bohr et al. PUT God into quantum mechanics, because unless they did, “anything goes”.
Oh. They DID ignore God. Sorry…
Predictably, Quantum Eugenics followed, with the wholesale destruction of perfectly good photons, smashing themselves to extinction or being smeared into gory “interference patterns” onto cruelly indifferent detectors.
Ugly, pitliess, GODLESS stuff.
Do you have any idea, right4life, how utterly ignorant you sound? Have you taken a single college-level science course in your life??
And no more of this “athiest” stuff: I bow to no man as being more athier!!!
Laura Ingraham, whom I greatly admire except for her tendency to wear her Catholicism on her sleeve, recently made some remarks in support of Al Sharpton’s anger about alleged black genocide.
Sharpton was considering abortion to be genocide and ranting against “family planning” organizations who spent a lot of time urging abortions on teenage, black, welfare recipients.
Much as I like Laura, I feel contempt for her embrace of this rabid Sharpton position. And as for myself, I am 1000% in favor of encouraging abortions among teenagers unprepared to care for their babies and who are living in a multi-generational welfare culture. I don’t give a hoot about their race, although I will not lie and claim not to have noticed that this is a disproportionately black problem.
Is this eugenics (or genocide)? I don’t think so. I think it is sane public policy, and I am proud to speak out for it.
do you have any idea of how ignorant you are?
I have backed up what I said with quotes, and references. you are unable to refute what I say, so all you can do is call me names…typical darwiniac.
Darwin was a racist, evolution is inherently racist, and just as Watson showed, that racism lives on in. Darwin was also a eugenicist, and, as I have documented, his theories have consequences which he was well aware of:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”
Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], “, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life”, Abstract of Will Provine’s 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.
the evolutionists admit this, why can’t you?
When you can tell us why you disagree ON THE MERITS with Laura supporting Sharpton, and not simply assert without evidence that they both are WRONG, please get back to us.
A string of empty assertions expressing your disagreement is NOT an argument. You’ve not even bothered to articulate a calculus of competing values here.
And it’s not unusual for people with utterly opposing views to arrive at the same conclusion via different routes.
Laura is against “abortion for convenience”; Sharpton appears to be against abortions performed on young black women, especially when such procedures are promoted to suit the goals of Planned Parenthood.
Laura’s and Rev. Al’s conclusions intersect even if their arguments don’t.
You forget that Planned Parenthood and its precursors were at one time at the forefront of eugenics directed against blacks.
No wonder Sharpton’s suspicious.
yeah I’d call 40 MILLION people killed genocide.
you call it ’sane’??? and what does that make you?
planned parenthood sure does…every wonder why??
“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.
“Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe.”
— Galileo Galilei
A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty – it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.
— Albert Einstein (pantheist)
Ibn al-Haytham attributed his experimental scientific method and scientific skepticism to his Islamic faith. The Qur’an, for example, placed a strong emphasis on empiricism. He also believed that human beings are inherently flawed and that only God is perfect. He reasoned that to discover the truth about nature, it is necessary to eliminate human opinion and error, and allow the universe to speak for itself.
True science was never intended to be divorced from God. Just my opinion however.
Ummmm, neither. I think it’s called blaming the child for the sins of the parents. As conservatives, we’re against that…m’kay.
Howzabout us dismembering transfer payments to layabouts instead of dismembering babies.
very true, add to that list, Keplar, Kelvin, Pasteur, Newton, von braun, etc.
its only since darwin came along with evolution to change the meaning of science to atheism.
Perhaps you have a point, right4life.
If Planned Parenthood really does have all this historical baggage, maybe we need to get somebody else to dispose of these crack babies….Uh…I mean fetuses, of course.
You make a good point, Die Hippie.
Of course, if we really did take the profit out of making babies, we would not, by that act, stop these children from fornicating and being careless about it. So if babies were not profit centers, they’d go and get abortions, which is back where we started.
But your point is a good one and without the mischievousness of my own remarks.
you’re sick and evil, and whats worse is you think you’re funny and cute.
pathetic.
I enjoy seeing the righteous get their panties in a bunch. Thanks for playing.
all you have done is make an a** out o yourself..but hey I know its all ya got…
right4life:
It’s hard to “refute” comments you never made!
Breeding and husbandry are indeed “intelligent design” — but then so must be eugenics!!!
NOT “applied evolution”, which is what YOU stupidly said!! GO READ WHAT YOU SAID!
Your source Provine is not an ID adherent — he’s a Darwinist!
Not only that: HE rejects the idea of free will — not the kind of guy you closet Christian creationists need in your camp!!
LOL!!
Next, just because Hitler and others glommed onto Darwin for their purposes, that does not mean that Darwin made them do it!!
EXCEPT of course, if you’re NOT a Christian, and don’t believe in Free Will. (Is that your view?)
As for Darwinism and medicine and biology: google Theodosius Dobzhansky to learn what a really prominent scientist, a Nobel Prize winner, had to say about the power of Darwin’s ideas and their utility (always a major test) in applied science.
You, sir, are a MORON. If unanimity were true, then Darwinism would have been deaed and buried about 100 years ago.
Oh yeah! That’s why Norman Berlaug is considered the man responsible for an extra BILLION humans being alive and well!!! No “Green Revolution”, nahhhh!! It was all obvious, hundreds of years ago!
Ditto livestock breeding! Ditto the entire study of plant genetics: if everything was know, then what the EFF is the use of studying anything~!!
Finally: let’s stop beating around the bush: wht’s YOUR theory as to how species arose after life began.
Put it RIGHT HERE>>>>>>>
I predict you will CUT AND RUN.
Well, good for him!!! A thousand years ago that was a big deal!
Except Islamic science’s contribution to the world in the last 500 years is ZIP.
Wanna know how many patents were issued in the last 30 years in Islamic countries? Fewer than 100.
In the rest of the world? in the millions.
oh and btw, right4life:
If Darwinism “caused” the Holocaust, which happened some 65 years ago, then….why aren’t Holocausts happening again and again and again in the western countries that embrace Darwinism to this day????
Or did the “inevitable” consequences of Darwinism happen only once?
How’s that work?
Marxism keeps popping up again and again, even though it fails every time it’s tried.
Why did Darwinism “work” only once, in Germany in the 1940’s, to produce the Holocaust?
After all, Darwinism’s still here, and Hitler and the Nazis are not.
Just askin’…………………
My mistake: it’s Norman Borlaug, one of the most important human beings ever to have lived, yet unknown by most.
He’s like Whatshisname Tipomytung, the Sri Lankan? Mongolian? guy who invented the World Wide Web.
first evolution by definition cannot have intelligence guiding it. but social darwinism took the principles of survival of the fittest, elminating the ‘useless eaters’, racism, and the denial of God and a the worth of a person, to create eugenics. and yes eugenics was inspired by Darwinism. Galton was Darwin’s cousin, and he came up with the term ‘eugenics’
link
why does the truth frighten you so? of course Hitler applied his intelligence in order to ‘help’ evoluiton. but without the Godlessness, the devalueing of man in the theory of evolution, it wouldn’t make sense.
its obvious you don’t have the intellect to apprehend what I am trying to say.
newsflash: Darwin was a eugencist and a racist. and he knew the implications of his ideas. why are you so desperate to defend your hairygod??
as your hairygod darwin said:
from an earlier link…
hey dummy, thats your evolutionist boy jerry coyne, admitting that!
we’ve been doing livestock breeding long before your hairygod darwin…DUHHHHHH
and genetics were discovered by MENDEL…not your hairgod darwin…duhhhhhhh
ok, then use evolution and tell me what the next antibiotic should be…you can’t. laughable!!
you sir, are an IDIOT, and you prove it with every post.
God created kinds, and what you see is the genetic diversity of these kinds…
here, answer me this mr. ’scientist’ since I answered your question:
1) why does the Tuatara, with the fastes DNA evolution ever found, not change physically, is in fact a living ‘dinosaur’???
I predict you’ll CUT AND RUN because you darwiniacs have yet to evolve any thinking skills….
uh moron, haven’t heard about the killing fields, the Gulags, the chinese massacres??? all by a bunch of evoluitonary atheists…who think because there is no God, and because we’re just an ‘accident’ of nature, then anything goes…..again duhhhhhhhhh try history 101.
I see the a certain rabid foam-at-the-mouth atheist is at center stage looking for some attention.
Pol Pot ring a bell?
No, how about Stalin?
I mean they didn’t murder millions of their own people just because they were Marxist-atheists.
Why hasn’t it happened again in a Western nation? Because the good guys (ie not you) keep you in check. Once the PC’ism and thought crimes culture is taken to its logical conclusion you will see the mass murder of those who stand in opposition to those in power again.
Perhaps you should go watch “Expelled” again if you ever saw it the first time and carefully watch for the one atheist professor who wanted to (paraphrasing) round up and eliminate all the people who refuse to believe in atheistic evolution. If you think he is a lone whacko, you are entitled to that opinion. I tend to think he is just the tip of a very large iceberg where the war of worldviews is coming to a head.
You want to believe the Universe and all its atoms and energy has always existed in one form or another constantly expanding and contracting that is your choice. You want to believe that life was spontaneously and miraculously appeared from non-living chemicals and somehow was complex enough on its own to figure out how to reproduce and not die off and yet “evolve” long enough to become more complex and eventually from goo to you by way of the zoo, that is also your choice.
Much like how all actions have an equal and opposite reaction in physics, all choices have consequences. And based on the choices of the most ruthless murderers in the 20th century, they chose to believe in Darwinism and that their race and their select group of followers were superior to all the others including their own people and exterminated them at will. As much of the world has embraced this ideology, it is only a matter of time till we hear of more mass murders and genocide in the name of socialism/Marxism who all just happen to be atheist by mere coincidence I am sure.
OK, a thoughtful, honest, and fair answer from your friendly, local atheist:
Agree.
Agree.
Why does one need an “ultimate” foundation? I am confident enough to say that my morals / ethics as an American are better than those of say, Islamists. God never told me this, I just know it. Just like I know the sky is blue. It is self-evident to me. Who needs anything more?
Why does it have to “mean” anything? Just enjoy it.
Meta-physics. It’s really not important because by virtue of the fact I can’t see into the future whether or not there is “free will” it is effectively “free will” from my POV.
Anyhow:
It is intellectually dishonest to try and tie Evolution, Eugenics, and the Holocaust all together. Eugenics is a broad term that doesn’t necessarily mean killing all Jews. We practice Eugenics today in the US, and it can be something as harmless (and sensible) as screening prospective partners for the Tay-Sachs gene.
From a certain point of view, natural selection and/or something that could be called “social Darwinism” on a world scale was responsible for destroying the Nazis. That is, the human race as a whole decided the Nazis had to go, and we fought a World War to do so.
Finally, I, for one, am personally sick and tired of the inherent bigotry against atheists. It seems to be deeply ingrained in our society and it is shameful (not to mention un-American). I have no doubt that if I was a Republican Muslim I would be more accepted in conservative circles than being the right-wing atheist that I am.
notice how they all are like that?
its not, its rather obvious, and the only reason you cannot see it is because of a desire to defend darwin. Those ideas you agree with are inherent in evolution, as Provine states. and since its obvious that in evolution, the races evolved separately, then some are more ‘fit’ than others…and Hitler was merely ‘helping’ evolution. Why do you think he was so concerned about the whole ‘aryan’ thing?
Eugenics embodies the lack of morals that is inherent in evolution..there is no right, or wrong, so anything goes. as we’ve seen…..
I agree most (I have met) are like that, but I have met many who are honest and straight-forward and don’t try and play games with words to push their agenda. Abstractmind is one such on this blog whom I respect talking to despite that I disagree with his worldview.
One of my favorite speakers to listen to is Ravi Zacharias, and being how he is a Christian apologist he is at the center of debates quite often at Oxford and other universities. Many of the atheists he has challenged over the decades to debates have been polite and most (although I would put it just barely at half) of the atheists Ravi has debated gave straight forward answers and reasons to why they believed what they believe and didn’t try and pull the crap you see from the lesser intellectual beings like fulldroolcup.
Right4Life:
Would I be a racist and/or incorrect if I said, “In general, Pygmies are physically weaker than Nordic peoples?”
From there, its not a huge leap of faith to surmise that there are other differences among races.
However, it DOES not require that I make the leap and say, “Pygmy’s lives are worth less than Nordic’s.”
By virtue of the fact that both peoples are sentient and conscious human beings that I can potentially communicate with, their lives are infinitely more valuable in my eyes then say, cattle.
he is a great man…the best apologist since CS Lewis….
Darwin made that leap, as do many of his followers, unfortunately. Look at Haeckel:
“Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in Germany. Nordenskiold (1929) argues that he was even more influential than Darwin in convincing the world of the truth of evolution. … But, as Gasman argues, Haeckel’s greatest influence was, ultimately, in another, tragic direction-national socialism. His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a “just” state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science-all contributed to the rise of Nazism. The Monist League that he had founded and led, though it included a wing of pacifists and leftists, made a comfortable transition to active support for Hitler.” (Gould, Stephen J. [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University], “Ontogeny and Phylogeny,” Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78).
Right4Life:
Many folks from many different religions used their religion to “make a leap” that they as a people were better than other people and have to kill them because God wills it.
Does that mean all religion leads to murder? Hardly. Same goes for evolution.
in islam for example, its not a leap.
doesn’t that make evolution a religion?
and yes it is…
but only evolution is totally amoral, where anything goes…
Right4Life:
No it does not make evolution a religion anymore than the theory of gravity is a religion.
The theory of evolution isn’t “amoral,” it is simply devoid of morality because its not a moralistic philosophy (just like the theory of gravity).
One can be an atheist, accept evolution and be a nihilist, for example. Or, one could be an atheist, accept evolution, and be a humanist.
I’m sorry, I believe it is, those views, that I quoted from provine, are part of a world-view, a religion. atheisim is a religion.
it goes farther than than, and says there is no right, nor wrong, because anything goes in evolution.
“I just know it”??? Solipsism at its worst, or better known as navel gazing.
You’re simply living off the moral interest of previous generations, an account which is practically bankrupt now.
If there is no “ultimate foundation”, then what is to stop me from taking my gun and shooting you in the head so I can steal your purse?
Hedonism. The intellectual lightweight’s tao. You’re not much better than an ant if you fail to examine human life and its meaning.
What a sad state of affairs. We have people whose philosophy reflects nothing more than navel gazing and hedonism.
Yet, I consistently vote republican; likely share much of the same morals as you all; and personally fought against Islamic fundamentalism in my time in the Army.
However, since I just can’t accept the idea of a supreme being: I am moral bankrupt, a hedonist, a sophist, etc.
Bigotry, plain and simple.
Little stuck on yourself there eh? The comment section is for you to ADD to it yet you think it prudent to insult like you are better than Michelle. Just a tad piggish…just a tad.
Ahh I see this is by see-dubya and not Michelle. Still I’m thinking lgm thinks he’s high and mighty to come out with such an insult against the post. What a miserable life you must have lgm.
zeroangel:
How about an answer to my question? I repeat:
If there is no moral foundation, what is to stop me from taking my gun and shooting you in the head for your purse?
Pray tell.
fulldroolcup has obviously never heard of The Descent of Man.
fulldroolcup has obviously never heard of the new directions that Holland wants to steer abortion policy toward or its wonderfully progressive euthanasia policies (or should I say regressive?)
Maybe fulldroolcup could just look a little closer to home at some things that Obamessiah voted for in Congress.
lgm obviously doesn’t have any education about H.G. Wells and his Open Conspiracy to destroy traditional religion and replace it with a utopia based on Scientism. Which of course the useful idiots are more than happy to usher in, since they all have been told that they’ll be the 10% that survives, so help us… Head Monkey? Master Organism? Al Gore? Who knows.
Atheling:
Well, because its wrong. You don’t need God to tell you this. You could attribute feelings of empathy and social order to “evolved” mental processes that benefit a species (in this case humans) as a whole (for example).