Archive for Darwin

Hitler vs. Darwin

Posted in Darwin, Hitler, Quotes with tags , , , , , on December 10, 2012 by saynsumthn

Mike Keas has an interesting comparison between Hitler and Darwin ( Full Blog Post here)

Hitler in his own words: Note the Darwinian ideology on display.

“A stronger race will supplant the weaker, since the drive for life in its final form will decimate every ridiculous fetter of the so-called ‘humaneness’ of individuals, in order to make place for the true ‘humaneness of nature,’ which destroys the weak to make place for the strong.”
—Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter IV.

“If reproduction as such is limited and the number of births decreased, then the natural struggle for existence, which only allows the strongest and healthiest to survive, will be replaced by the obvious desire to save at any cost even the weakest and sickest; thereby a progeny is produced, which must become ever more miserable.”
—Adolf Hiter, Mein Kampf, Chapter IV.

“In this world, the laws of natural selection apply. Nature has given the stronger and healthier the right to live. Woe betides anyone who is weak and cannot stand his ground! He cannot expect pity from anyone.” —Hitler Speech, clip from German documentary “Hitler’s Children,” part 4 (War), starting at 12:32, available at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=- 5298238941550391341#.

“We are all beings of nature, which—inasmuch as we can see it—only know one harsh law, the law that gives the right of life to the stronger and takes the life of the weaker. We humans cannot exempt ourselves from this law. … On this earth we observe the unswerving struggle of living organisms with each other. One animal lives, in that it kills the other.” —Adolf Hitler, speech to army officers, 1942, quoted in Richard Weikart, Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), p. 4.

“The preservation and propagation, the evolution and elevating of life occurs through the struggle for existence, which every plant, every animal, every species and every genus is subjected. Even humans and the human races are subject to this struggle; it decides their value and their right to exist.”—Rassenpolitik (Berlin, no date), SS pamphlet approved by both Hitler and Himmler.

Now, let us recall some more of Darwin in his own words so you can connect the dots.

“Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely the production of the higher animals, directly follows.”
—Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (London, 1859), p. 490.

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.”
—Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (London, 1871), Part I, Chapter VI, p. 201.

Religion of Eugenics: The State is god and will take the place of organized religion , per Eugenics founders

Posted in Alex Jones, Eugenics, Galton, George Bernard Shaw, Julian Huxley with tags , , , , , , , , , on July 27, 2011 by saynsumthn

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Religion of Eugenics: The State is God, posted with vodpod

In the book Evolutionary Studies published by the Eugenics Society, author Julian Huxley writes, “Eugenics capable of becoming one of the most sacred ideal of the Human race, as a race: One of the supreme religious duties. “

Huxley said in his 1936, Galton Lecture, “ Once the full implications of evolutionary biology are grasped, eugenics will inevitably become part of the religion of the future or of whatever complex of sentiments may in the future take the place of organized religion.”

Is eugenics alive and well today? YES – Watch Maafa21

The tolerance of Christians and Conservatives for haters like Peter Singer and Ayn Rand

Posted in Abortion, Ayn Rand, Conservative, Peter Singer with tags , , , , , , , , , , on June 22, 2011 by saynsumthn

Below is a great piece and worth reading: Come on people WAKE UP !

The Dangerous Mind of Peter Singer
Jun 22, 2011 / H/T First Things Written By Joe Carter

Bespectacled, balding, and thin, the Australian scholar Peter Singer has the looks of a stereotypical college professor. You would never be able to tell simply by his unassuming persona that his mind holds some of the most controversial ideas in American academia.

Singer has spent a lifetime justifying the unjustifiable. He is the founding father of the animal liberation movement and advocates ending “the present speciesist bias against taking seriously the interests of nonhuman animals.” He is also a defender of killing the aged (if they have dementia), newborns (for almost any reason until they are two years old), necrophilia (assuming it’s consensual), and bestiality (also assuming it’s consensual).

If he were a high school teacher, one might expect his views would raise parental concerns about his fitness to instruct on matters ethical. But Singer is a college professor, and so must wait the three months between high school graduation and college to begin proffering his worldview to students beginning to form theirs.

Academic ivory towers are increasingly tolerant of psychopathy masquerading as philosophy, which accounts for the Australian philosopher’s appointments at elite universities on three continents. He currently is the DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University’s Center for Human Values.

Despite the fact that Singer champions an incoherent and inconsistent philosophy—he’s the Ivy League equivalent of Ayn Rand—he’s been eerily influential. He has served as editor for prestigious philosophy journals, appeared on numerous television programs, and even penned the entry on ethics for Encyclopedia Britannica. The New England Journal of Medicine said he has had “more success in effecting changes in acceptable behavior than any philosopher since Bertrand Russell,” and The New Yorker called him the most influential philosopher alive. His most dubious distinction, though, may be his inspiration of animal rights activist Ingrid Newkirk to start People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). (The next time you see a celebrity posing nude to raise awareness about the dignity of chinchillas, you’ll know who to blame.)

Perhaps this unwarranted notoriety is why so many otherwise serious people—including far too many Christians—feel that Singer must be treated as a formidable thinker. The University of Oxford even held a conference last month called “Christian Ethics Engages Peter Singer.” Had the conference title ended with “In a Bout of Zulu Stick Fighting” it might have worth attending. Instead, it offered the usual tropes of academic politics—engaging in conversation “at once charitable and candid with other traditions of religious and philosophical thought.”

The Guardian reports that the dialogue “was striking for its agreements, particularly the common cause that can be made between Christians and utilitarians when tackling global poverty, animal exploitation and climate change.”

However, it was on the last issue that the conference demonstrated real philosophical interest too. Singer admitted that his brand of utilitarianism – preference utilitarianism – struggles to get to grips with the vastness of the problem of climate change. Further, there is an element that comes naturally to Christian ethics that his ethics might need in order to do so. It has to do with whether there are moral imperatives that can be held as objectively true.

Climate change is a challenge to utilitarianism on at least two accounts. First, the problem of reducing the carbon output of humanity is tied to the problem of rising human populations. The more people there are, the greater becomes the difficulty of tackling climate change. This fact sits uneasily for a preference utilitarian, who would be inclined to argue that the existence of more and more sentient beings enjoying their lives – realising their preferences – is a good thing. As Singer puts it in the new edition of his book, Practical Ethics: “I have found myself unable to maintain with any confidence that the position I took in the previous edition – based solely on preference utilitarianism – offers a satisfactory answer to these quandaries.”

One of the most “charitable and candid” things that can be said about Singer is that he may not truly believe some of his arguments’ conclusions. His decision to scrap his entire philosophical stance because it interferes with his views on climate change is just, one supposes, “Singer being Singer.” Tossing out a controversial premise but refusing to follow it to the rational conclusion is his modus operandi. It’s as if he enjoys the gasps of horror heard while he gives a sly wink that signals even he is not outlandish enough to believe such nonsense. For example, Singer has claimed that “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person.” He later adds that this doesn’t mean that it’s all right to kill such a child. Killing a child, in his view, is only wrong inasmuch as it offends and hinders the wishes of its parents.

He also advocates euthanizing victims of dementia, since their care requires resources better used for more worthy purposes—perhaps honoraria for speakers at a conference on euthanasia. But when Singer’s own mother was stricken with Alzheimer’s, he claimed her situation was “different”: “I think this has made me see how the issues of someone with these kinds of problems are really very difficult.”

What makes Singer not just controversial, but dangerous, is that he is allowed to clear a path for those who will not be so squeamish about following his arguments to their logical conclusions. Singer may now, at the mature age of 65, finally be adopting a view of morality that most of us learned in kindergarten. But other preference utilitarians may not be so flexible—or as hesitant to act on their beliefs. By treating Singer’s irrational, immoral, and psychopathic views as if they were positions held by reasonable people, we are helping to normalize anti-rational ethics.

A couple of weeks ago I argued that those who make excuses for Ayn Rand are creating a climate in which gullible people who don’t know better may fall under her spell. “Are we willing to be held responsible,” I asked, “for pushing them to adopt an anti-Christian worldview?”

Some of the same people who nodded in agreement at that sentiment will now sputter that Singer must be held to a different standard. But why is that the case? It can’t be because his philosophical views are worth taking seriously—even Singer seems to recognize that his premises often lead to untenable conclusions. Why then do his academic peers treat him as an intellectual and philosophical equal?

In the past, some people thought he was a person whose ideas needed to be challenged (for example, Fr. Neuhaus debated Singer in 2002). However, it has long since become evident that Singer is neither intellectually honest (see the post below by Princeton professor Robert P. George) nor worthy of engaging. I suspect that many Christians who still consider him to be a thinker rather than an entertainer do so simply out of fear of being unpopular.

Too many Christians in academia are worried that if they dismiss Singer as unworthy of serious consideration, they’ll find themselves on the margins of academic life. While they safely ignore the cranks on the fringe—racial supremacists, anti-Semites, Objectivists—they feel compelled to respect a man who holds views that, if realized, would make Saddam Hussein look benign. Would his peers treat him so if he held tenure at Podunk State rather than the alma mater of James Madison, John Rawls, and Brooke Shields?

While it is necessary to consider and debate unpopular views, there should be a minimum standard for ethical discourse whether on the elementary playground or in the lecture halls of Princeton. There are certain moral issues that are all but universally recognized as self-evidently wrong by those in possession of rational faculties. Rape is wrong, torturing babies for fun is objectively morally bad, and the Holocaust was not just a violation of utilitarian ethic, but an event of grave moral evil. If someone cannot meet this basic requirement, they can safely be ignored, regardless of where they received a paycheck.

For far too many years, Singer’s ill-conceived sophistry has been considered and debated by some of our country’s best minds. It’s time to end such silliness. Let’s assign a sophomore philosophy student to rebut his arguments and the rest of academia can move on to squashing the bad ideas being championed by morally and intellectually serious people.

Joe Carter is Web Editor of FIRST THINGS and the co-author of How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History’s Greatest Communicator. His previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

That was a Great Piece and I thank Joe Carter for exposing the Christian/ Conservative hypocrisy on tolerating haters like Peter Singer and Ayn Rand

Just listen to Peter Singer bash Christianity and push abortion, euthanasia, and animal rights the read how Ayn Rand pushed the same and attacked Christianity as well:

I wrote this piece recently exposing how Conservatives support the pro-abortion/ Christian hating Ayn Rand:

“Conservatives” promote Atlas Shrugged while ignoring author Ayn Rand’s pro-abortion and anti-religious views

Fifty-four years after it was published, with sales of the book at 6.5 million copies and counting, Ayn Rand’s 1,000-page magnum opus “Atlas Shrugged” is finally coming to the screen. The $10 million production, part one of a projected trilogy, featuring a no-name cast (Taylor Schilling? Grant Bowler?) and financed entirely by John Aglialoro, a Philadelphia businessman.

“Atlas Shrugged: Part 1,” the film adaptation of Ayn Rand’s prescient, unabashedly pro-free market capitalism novel, hits theaters April 15. Its timing could not be better.
The Daily Caller writes, Not only is the film a winner for holding firm to Randian philosophy, it also brazenly and refreshingly brings a political perspective that is almost universally absent from the big screen; so much so in fact it could become a cult classic, especially among Tea Partiers and their admirers, not to mention hordes of libertarians.

But, what is missing from most reviews is an in-depth look at the pro-abortion and hateful anti-religious philosophies of Atlas Shrugged’s author, Ayn Rand.

The National Review reports that , Conservatives with ties to the tea party are hoping a new movie version of a 1957 novel will help fuel their 21st century political movement.

And the Conservative watchdog group, the Heritage Foundation, promoted heavily by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, as scheduled a special screening of the film. Even FreedomWorks, the Washington-based tea party organization headed by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, has undertaken a massive campaign to push the movie into as many theaters as possible. So far, they’ve lined up 63 for opening day in major cities nationwide; FreedomWorks hopes to push that number to 300.

Ayn Rand was a Russian-American novelist, philosopher,playwright, and screenwriter. She is known for her two best-selling novels and for developing a philosophical system she called Objectivism. Born and educated in Russia, Rand immigrated to the United States in 1926. She worked as a screenwriter in Hollywood and had a play produced on Broadway in 1935–1936. She first achieved fame in 1943 with her novel The Fountainhead, which in 1957 was followed by her best-known work, the philosophical novel Atlas Shrugged.

Rand’s political views, reflected in both her fiction and her theoretical work, emphasize individual rights (including property rights) and laissez-faire capitalism, enforced by a constitutionally limited government.She was a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism, including fascism, communism, socialism…but as much as some “Conservatives” praise her views, Rand was an atheist opposed to faith as opposite of “reason” and profoundly pro-abortion under the idea of personal rights, for women while denying even that the fetus exists or is alive, something which has proved to be scientifically false. Ayn Rand died on March 6, 1982, of heart failure.

An Embryo is not alive.” – Ayn Rand

“An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).”
“Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?”

(SOURCE: “Of Living Death,” The Voice of Reason, Ayn Rand pp. 58–59)

“Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.”

(SOURCE: “A Last Survey,” The Ayn Rand Letter, IV, 2, 3)

“I cannot quite imagine the state of mind of a person who would wish to condemn a fellow human being to such a horror. I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object. Judging by the degree of those women’s intensity, I would say that it is an issue of self-esteem and that their fear is metaphysical. Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today’s intellectual field, they call themselves “pro-life.

“By what right does anyone claim the power to dispose of the lives of others and to dictate their personal choices?”

(SOURCE: “The Age of Mediocrity,” The Objectivist Forum, Ayn Rand, June 1981, 3.)

“A proper, philosophically valid definition of man as “a rational animal,” would not permit anyone to ascribe the status of “person” to a few human cells.”

(SOURCE: “The Age of Mediocrity,” The Objectivist Forum, June 1981, 2.)

Ayn Rand on Religion:

Ayn Rand, “It has to be either reason or faith , I am against God for the reasons that I don’t want to destroy reason. I am against those that conceived that idea.” Watch interviews below:

Here Glenn Beck praises Ayn Rand – WHY ???

Rand’s Morality is not based on FAITH- but on her MIND and REASON alone, “his highest moral purpose is the achievement of his own actions…”
Here she speaks to Mile Wallace about her Book which attacks basic RELIGIOUS morality : Atlas Shrugged ! ” I Say that man is entitled to his own happiness…nor should he sacrifice himself for the happiness of others.”

the question remains, will “Conservatives” cover-up this outrageous side of Rand in their effort to “save Capitalism” or will they expose it? To be determined……

“Conservatives” promote Atlas Shrugged while ignoring author Ayn Rand’s pro-abortion and anti-religious views

Confronting Evolution’s Racists Roots and how eugenics and Planned Parenthood followed evolution

Posted in Black Conservative, Black Genocide, Black Pastor, Darwin, Eugenics, Evolution, Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood, Racism with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 9, 2011 by saynsumthn

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Confronting Evolution’s Racists Roots and how e…, posted with vodpod

Learn how Darwin’s evolution, Galton’s eugenics, Slavery and Abortion are tools of Black Genocide , watch Maafa21

What’s wrong with Eugenics? asks writer on the Dawkins’ website !

Posted in birth control in water, Eugenics, Evolution, George Bernard Shaw, Lothrop Stoddard, Maafa21, Madison Grant, Margaret Sanger, Nazi, Planned Parenthood with tags , , , , , , , , on December 3, 2010 by saynsumthn

It is no surprise that the proponent of evolution: Richard Dawkins, would have a blog posted on their website: The Richard Dawkins Foundation entitled: “What’s wrong with Eugenics?” .

The author of this ridiculous question asks:

But is Eugenics really that bad? Why are people so afraid of it? After all, we are – every one of us – the product of Eugenics and enjoy its benefits at some level. Did not our parents choose one and not another partner from a vast genetic pool in order to have offspring with? Do we not eat plants and animals that have been genetically selected for?
Who among us does not enjoy the benefits of good foods that have been farmed or genetically selected? We all take medicines intended to improve us in some way? Don’t we all marvel at the great athletes that grace our sports fields, all of whom have undergone performance enhancing training and or drugs of one kind or another? Why do we cheer athletes, even ballet dancers, if not for their genetic prowess?..Can’t we disentangle the Eugenics of scientific racism from that which is already a fact today and move on to create a more intelligent, healthy world of beings and or animals?

Eugenics has it’s foundation in the Theory of evolution. In fact, Charles Darwin whose famous book on evolution was originally entitled: The Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life

Just who are the “Favored Races” they want to “Preserve”? Could it be White/Anglo Saxons only?

The man who coined the term “EUGENICS” was Frances Galton- and he was the cousin of Charles Darwin. We see over and again, that when God is left out- it leaves a gap for man to try and control who lives and who dies, who is allowed to “Breed” and who is not.

What the writer above leaves out is that we are today in fact, promoting and using EUGENICS in the Population Control/Family Planning/ Abortion mentality. In fact, the founder of the nation’s largest abortion provider: Planned Parenthood (Margaret Sanger) was a member of the American Eugenics Society. Sanger wrote quite extensively about eugenics, it was built into the Planned Parenthood philosophy. Some on Sanger’s board and some she admired corresponded with Adolf Hitler. In fact, many of the eugenics proponents of the USA did this. Hitler called Madison Grant’s ( A eugenics founder) Book – The Passing of the Great Race– His Bible. Others like Sanger’s predecessor to Planned Parenthood: The American Birth Control League Board Member: Lothrop Stoddard met with Hitler to observe His eugenics Courts. He described this meeting in his book: Into the Darkness: A Sympathetic Report from Hitler’s Wartime Reich. In addition to Stoddard, Sanger allowed racists, pro-eugenics, pro-Nazis to write in her publication the Birth Control Review.

These Are exerts from the powerful documentary: Maafa21 Black Genocide in 21st Century America which prove my point:

Go to 8Minutes to begin Nazi / Hitler/ African section:

There is a problem in my view with MAN deciding as the writer asks, “to create a more intelligent, healthy world of beings and or animals?” Just who will make such decisions and where will they lead. With the American Eugenics Movement- they left many blacks and poor whites sterilized against their will. In Germany, the eugenics movement left millions of people in Concentration camps or murdered in gas chambers.

Here in America, we find that this type of killing was celebrated by the American Eugenics Movement. In this clip from the 2008 film “The Soviet Story“, we see that George Bernard Shaw, the celebrated progressive playwright defended Hitler, advocated killing those who can’t justify their existence and called for the development of lethal gas 10 years before the national socialists in Germany did exactly that.

George Bernard Shaw was one of the left’s most revered figures and the only person besides Al Gore to win both an Oscar and a Nobel prize.

George Bernard Shaw, I don’t want to punish anybody, but there are an extraordinary number of people who I might want to kill…I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board just as he might come before the income tax commissioner and say every 5 years or every 7 years…just put them there and say , ‘Sir or madam will you be kind enough to justify your existence…if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little bit more then clearly we cannot use the big organization of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive. Because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.’

Shaw wrote, “ I appeal to the chemists to discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly. In short- a gentlemanly gas deadly by all means, but humane, not cruel.”

Interviewed on Germany Shaw declared:
“Germany’s contention of ‘race pollution’ was ‘despicably unscientific.'” But he said he “appreciated” Hitler’s political sagacity and the courage with which he has rescued Germany from the gutter,, and placed her once more at the head of Central Europe.”
( SOURCE: GEORGE BERNARD SHAW Approaches His 82d Birthday Anemic But Still Vociferously Aware of His OwnJJnique. Significance, Galveston Daily News: 7/24/1938)

It is important to note that George Bernard Shaw was a Eugenicist who supported Planned Parenthood Founder, and eugenicist Margaret Sanger and others in the eugenics movement.

What many people do not know is that Shaw was a contributor to Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger’s “Birth Control Review”.

Shaw endorsed Sanger, Birth Control, and EUGENICS..

In the June 1929 Birth Control Review, George Bernard Shaw supports Sanger’s efforts to promote birth control when he, ” We are up against an overpopulation problem created by Capitalism…Socialists say quite truly that Socialism can get rid of it…But it cannot wait for Socialism…”

In Margaret Sanger’s Autobiography, Sanger writes, ” Jane had lnvited literary luminaries and their wives George Bernard Shaw, Arnold Bennett, Sir Arbuthnot Lane, Professor E W MacBride of the Eugenics Education Society, Walter Salter of the League of Nations, and Lord Buckmaster.

It had been my experience that personages gave little of themselves on formal occasions So many people expected these lions to roar bravely, forgetting that they preferred to save their sparkling sallies for the pages of their books.”

Sanger continues, “I was back In New York by the end of October, and soon came a letter from Shaw cheering me w~th his point of view.”

Sanger reads the letter from George Bernard Shaw and says Shaw compares the “more evolved people” or “White Elitists” to “lower classes who need to be taught to control their populations calling them “amoeba” ,

Birth control should be advocated for its own sake, on the general
ground that the difference between voluntary, irrational, uncontrolled activity IS the difference between an amoeba and a man, and if we really believe that the more highly evolved creature is the better we may as well act accordingly. As the amoeba does not understand birth control, it cannot abuse it, and therefore its state may be the more
gracious, but it is also true that as the amoeba cannot write, it cannot commit forgery yet we teach everybody to write unhesitatingly, knowing that if we refuse to teach anything that could be abused we should never teach anything at all
.’

Margaret Sanger Autobiography Pages 371-372

The quote above by Shaw regarding the requirement that people go before a “board” was promoted by Margaret Sanger and The American Eugenics Society. Many people were forcefully sterilized by these “Eugenic Boards” and also that some of them were referred to these boards by Planned Parenthood. (Maafa21)

Margaret Sanger, called for parents she deemed of lower than her to have a QUOTE: LICENSE TO BREED. She wanted all would be parents to go before her eugenic boards to request a “PERMIT TO BREED“.

Sanger also called for those who were poor and what she considered to be “morons‘ , etc to be shipped to colonies where they would live in “Farms and Open Spaces” dedicated to brainwashing these so-called “inferior types” into having what Sanger called, “Better moral conduct”.

Sanger Farms and Open Spaces

Eugenics in America was and remains evil and the proof is slowly getting out to reveal the victims of this bad ideology:

If they couldn’t sterilize the “unfit” voluntarily they would resort to force…as Maafa21 again points out:

I say that those promoting Eugenics have a Racist and evil agenda and we should never imply that such an evil act can be “GOOD” as the write on Dawkin’s Blog did. To answer the question “What wrong with Eugenics” EVERYTHING!

Richard Land, “Those pushing pro-abortion agenda responsible for eugenics against African Americans”

Posted in Abortion, Black Conservative, Black Genocide, Maafa21, Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood, pro-choice, Pro-Life, Racism, Ravenholt, Video with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 2, 2010 by saynsumthn

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Richard Land, “Those pushing pro-abortion agend…, posted with vodpod

Get Maafa21 here :

Overpopulation and Darwinian eugenics motivated Discovery gunman who called human babies “Parasites”

Posted in Darwin, Environment, Eugenics, Harrison Brown, Holdren, Margaret Sanger, Peter Singer, Planned Parenthood, Sterilization, terrorism with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 2, 2010 by saynsumthn

Discovery Channel hostage crisis ends with gunman’s death
September 2, 2010

James J. Lee, who was protesting what he said was the network’s promotion of overpopulation, was fatally shot by police after taking three people captive at the company headquarters in Maryland.

Silver Spring, Md.: Police shot and killed a gunman after he took three people hostage Wednesday afternoon at the Discovery Channel’s headquarters here, officials said.

A law enforcement official speaking on condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing said authorities had identified James J. Lee as the likely suspect.

Lee, 43, who was upset with the channel over its programming, entered the building about 1 p.m., wielding a gun and wearing “explosive devices,” and took a security guard and two other employees hostage, police said. The rest of the company’s nearly 1,900 employees were evacuated from the building.

After several hours of telephone negotiations, Lee pulled out his gun and pointed it at one of the hostages, police said. Tactical officers then took aim at Lee, killing him. It was unclear whether Lee had been able to fire his gun, but all three hostages were able to escape safely, according to officials.

“I know that he had some history with folks at Discovery Channel,” Montgomery County Police Chief J. Thomas Manger said at a news conference after the shooting.

According to electronic court records, Lee was charged with disorderly conduct in 2008 and served 46 days in jail for a protest he staged in front of the channel’s headquarters. He said he was protesting that Discovery’s programming had little to do with saving the planet.

“He didn’t think we were environmentally sound,” said David Leavy, a spokesman for Discovery Communications, adding, “there had not been any communication from him in the last couple of years.”

A lengthy posting that could be seen Wednesday on a website registered to Lee expressed anger against the Discovery Channel and said it promoted overpopulation, according to a report from the Associated Press.

He said the network and its affiliates should stop “encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants.” Instead, he said, it should air “programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility.”

“NO MORE BABIES! Population growth is a real crisis,” he wrote.

“I want Discovery Communications to broadcast on their channels to the world their new program lineup and I want proof they are doing so,” he wrote. “I want the new shows started by asking the public for inventive solution ideas to save the planet and the remaining wildlife on it.”

Discovery Health and TLC, both owned by Discovery Communications, spearheaded America’s fascination with prodigious families.

TLC is perhaps the most recognizable in the large-family genre of reality television with its one-time flagship series “Jon & Kate Plus 8,” which at its peak garnered 10 million viewers. Its spin-off, “Kate Plus 8,” premiered with 3.4 million viewers in June.

TLC’s other bountiful brood includes The Duggar family in “19 Kids and Counting.” The network has also aired “Table for 12,” and “Kids by the Dozen,” which featured a number of families with 13 to 16 children each.

Lee posted a manifesto at savetheplanetprotest.com, but his re-purposing of the web page he’d owned since 2008 was only the latest step in Lee’s on-and offline crusade to draw attention to his cause and gain notice from the Discovery Channel. Posts with his email address and name can be found online dating back to 2006.

Lee’s original website was worldguardianvoices.com. An archived version of the page shows he was in San Diego in early December, 2006. Using the contact email “misterfifteen@hotmail.com,” Lee posted a notice dated December 11 that year stating he would be “meeting at Border’s Bookstore Downtown San Diego Gaslamp area” with “prospective people who want to do something.” He described “World Guardian Voices” as “a movement designed to educate the masses on the impending cultural collapse from overpopulation, global warming, animal extinction, pollution, and exploitation.” As with his manifesto discovered today, Lee made it clear in 2006 that his efforts were inspired by the works of Daniel Quinn, an author popular among environmentalists and anarchists. There was no mention of Discovery or any of its historically affiliated networks on Lee’s old site. Lee made no mention of the science-themed cable network 11 days later, when he made a pair of mysterious posts in a group forum on Myspace.com. Lee wrote:

I believe that it is totally possible to save the world. Not because I am a delusional maniac high on something, but because I had a practical idea on how to do it. A vision you might say, a solid idea that was very possible. The idea is not so unusual that it could not fail. I believe that there is a possibility that it could fail, like anything else.

BUT, I believe it so strongly in this idea that I am willing to put all my retirement money on it and risk ending up living on the streets like a hobo begging for handouts.

I can’t tell anyone all the specifics about my idea, because we are in competition with other environmental groups that mean well, but serve the needs of the River. If I tell you exactly what it is, the idea could be lost forever and I’ll just go off into retirement while I watch the world consume itself, so don’t ask me to be too specific about my idea.

Lee later wrote what appears to have been a response to a question since deleted from the thread. His second post was guarded, ending with, “If the idea matures to a successful execution I will call you and tell you the complete idea, because at that point you will need to know. At that point you can refuse. You can refuse at any point and quit at any time. You are under no obligation to continue even once you have started. It will roll on it’s own after that.” He then added his his “misterfifteen” hotmail address.

His Manifesto is loaded with demands to the Discovery Channel, it is Lee writes:
The Discovery Channel MUST broadcast to the world their commitment to save the planet and to do the following IMMEDIATELY:
1. The Discovery Channel and it’s affiliate channels MUST have daily television programs at prime time slots based on Daniel Quinn’s
“My Ishmael” pages 207-212 where solutions to save the planet would be done in the same way as the Industrial Revolution was done,
by people building on each other’s inventive ideas. Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy
human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution.
A game show format contest would be in order.
Perhaps also forums of leading scientists who understand and agree with the Malthus-Darwin science and the problem of human
overpopulation.
Do both. Do all until something WORKS and the natural world starts improving and human civilization building STOPS
and is reversed! MAKE IT INTERESTING SO PEOPLE WATCH AND APPLY SOLUTIONS!!!!

2. All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions. In those programs’ places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. All former pro-birth programs must now push in the direction of stopping human birth, not encouraging it.

7. Develop shows that mention the Malthusian sciences about how food production leads to the overpopulation of the Human race. Talk about Evolution. Talk about Malthus and Darwin until it sinks into the stupid people’s brains until they get it!!

8. Saving the Planet means saving what’s left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies! You’re the media, you can reach enough people. It’s you resposibility because you reach so many minds!

0. Stop all shows glorifying human birthing on all your channels and on TLC. ..

For every human born, ACRES of wildlife forests must be turned into farmland in order to feed that new addition over the course of 60 to 100 YEARS of that new human’s lifespan! THIS IS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE FOREST CREATURES!!!! All human procreation and farming must cease! It is the responsiblity of everyone to preserve the planet they live on by not breeding any more children who will continue their filthy practices.

Children represent FUTURE catastrophic pollution whereas their parents are current pollution. NO MORE BABIES!

Population growth is a real crisis. Even one child born in the US will use 30 to a thousand times more resources than a Third World child. It’s like a couple are having 30 babies even though it’s just one! If the US goes in this direction maybe other countries will too.

The humans? The planet does not need humans.


Now where have we heard that before???? Babies as Parasites??? No more humans – how about the abortion/population control crowd, starting with Darwin and moving to Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, and Peter Singer to name just a few.

For some interesting history about Darwin, Eugenics and how that mentality is being used for population control today- watch Maafa21 (clip below)

Darwin:

Eugenics Professor Peter Singer : Allow Infant Euthanasia ? Just kill them humanely

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Eugenics Professor Peter Singer : Allow Infant …, posted with vodpod

In the 1970s, author of the Bible on population control the Population Bomb” and known as the leading theoretician of animal rights, Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Philosophy coined the term “speciesism” for anyone so narrow-minded as to, “allow the interest of his species to override the greater interest of members of other species“. Singer holds that the right to physical integrity is grounded in a being’s ability to suffer, and the right to life is grounded in the ability to plan and anticipate one’s future. Since the unborn, infants, and severely disabled people lack the ability to plan and anticipate their future, he states that abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia can be justified in certain special circumstances, for instance in the case of severely disabled infants whose life would cause suffering both to themselves and to their parents.

In a question posed to Singer, it was asked:
If you had to save either a human being or a mouse from a fire, with no time to save them both, wouldn’t you save the human being?”

Singer’s answer, ” Yes, in almost all cases I would save the human being. But not because the human being is human, that is, a member of the species Homo sapiens. Species membership alone isn’t morally significant, but equal consideration for similar interests allows different consideration for different interests. The qualities that are ethically significant are, firstly, a capacity to experience something — that is, a capacity to feel pain, or to have any kind of feelings. That’s really basic, and it’s something that a mouse shares with us. But when it comes to a question of taking life, or allowing life to end, it matters whether a being is the kind of being who can see that he or she actually has a life — that is, can see that he or she is the same being who exists now, who existed in the past, and who will exist in the future. Such a being has more to lose than a being incapable of understand this. Any normal human being past infancy will have such a sense of existing over time. I’m not sure that mice do, and if they do, their time frame is probably much more limited. So normally, the death of a human being is a greater loss to the human than the death of a mouse is to the mouse – for the human, it cuts off plans for the distant future, for example, but not in the case of the mouse. And we can add to that the greater extent of grief and distress that, in most cases, the family of the human being will experience, as compared with the family of the mouse (although we should not forget that animals, especially mammals and birds, can have close ties to their offspring and mates). That’s why, in general, it would be right to save the human, and not the mouse, from the burning building, if one could not save both. But this depends on the qualities and characteristics that the human being has. If, for example, the human being had suffered brain damage so severe as to be in an irreversible state of unconsciousness, then it might not be better to save the human

Singer states here that, ” The difference between killing disabled and normal infants lies not in any supposed right to life that the latter has and the former lacks, but in other considerations about killing. Most obviously there is the difference that often exists in the attitudes of the parents. The birth of a child is usually a happy event for the parents. They have, nowadays, often planned for the child. The mother has carried it for nine months. From birth, a natural affection begins to bind the parents to it. So one important reason why it is normally a terrible thing to kill an infant is the effect the killing will have on its parents.

It is different when the infant is born with a serious disability. Birth abnormalities vary, of course. Some are trivial and have little effect on the child or its parents; but others turn the normally joyful event of birth into a threat to the happiness of the parents, and any other children they may have.

Parents may, with good reason, regret that a disabled child was ever born. In that event the effect that the death of the child will have on its parents can be a reason for, rather than against killing it.

When asked the question: Would you kill a disabled baby?

Singer Replied, “Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole. Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman’s right to have an abortion. One point on which I agree with opponents of abortion is that, from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the fetus and the newborn baby.

In a blog post for the New York Times entitled “Should this be the last generation?” Singer discusses South African philosopher David Benatar who said we should have humans sterilized . Singer calls Benator the “author of a fine book with an arresting title: ‘Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.’”

“To bring into existence someone who will suffer is, Benatar argues, to harm that person, but to bring into existence someone who will have a good life is not to benefit him or her,” explains Singer.

EUGENICS IN THE USA?

In the 1970’s President Obama’s Science Czar, Paul Holdren, published many books, several which were co-authored with radical population control guru, Paul Ehrlich.

Paul Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar praised his mentor, Harrison Brown, who wrote the book: The Challenge of Man’s Future.

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

In a speech he delivered as President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Holdren admitted that he admired Brown and read his book in high school. Holdren also admitted in his speech that he later worked with Harrison Brown at Caltech.

Holdren quoted Brown as saying this during that same speech, “It is clear that the future course of history will be determined by the rates at which people breed and die, by the rapidity with which nonrenewable resources are consumed, by the extent and speed with which agricultural production can be improved, by the rate at which the under-developed areas can industrialize, by the rapidity with which we are able to develop new resources, as well as by the extent to which we succeed in avoiding future wars. All of these factors are interlocked.

In this Clip from the TV program 21st Century (Walter Cronkite) Harrison Brown, who raises questions about whether eugenics is as “common sense” . Interestingly enough, Harrison Brown and James Bonner co-wrote a book together in 1957 titled, The Next Hundred Years.

What are the outstanding virtues we should attempt to breed in to our population? You might say intelligence, but what kind of intelligence? You might say attractiveness, but what kind of attractiveness?

The episode, “The Mystery of Life,” can be found in its entirety on the A/V Geeks DVD, Twenty-First Century.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "21st Century Mystery of Life ", posted with vodpod

Holdren asked this question in an article authored by him, which was published in a book entitled, No Growth Society,

Why, then, should we compound our plight by permitting population growth to continue?” He stated clearly that in the 1970’s the US had already exceeded its “optimum population size of 210 million” (pg. 41) and concluded that , ” it should be obvious that the optimum rate of population growth is zero or negative…“

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

What is also interesting is that I obtained a copy of Harrison Brown’s book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, the one our Science Czar holds up as so important, and discovered this Nazi style statement by Brown on page 87 . ” In the absence of restraint abortion, sterilization, coitus interruptus, or artificial fertility control, the resultant high birth rate would have to be matched at equilibrium by an equally high death rate. A major contribution to the high death rate could be infanticide, as has been the situation in cultures of the past. ”

Here are some of the “ideas” John Holdren published in his book Ecoscience:

Where do people like Lee get their “Humans as Parasites” ideas???? Perhaps it is from Planned Parenthood’s founder- Margaret Sanger:

Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, was a member in good standing with the racist American Eugenics Society. Sanger had boards members who were known for their racist writing and Sanger published many of those in her publications. Sanger called for parents to have a QUOTE: LICENSE TO BREED controlled by people who believed in her eugenic philosophy. She wanted all would be parents to go before her eugenic boards to request a “PERMIT TO BREED“. So much for Choice , huh?

Sanger also called for those who were poor and what she considered to be “morons and immoral‘ , to be shipped to colonies where they would live in “Farms and Open Spaces” dedicated to brainwashing these so-called “inferior types” into having what Sanger called, “Better moral conduct”.

I consider that the world and almost our civilization for the next twenty-five years, is going to depend upon a simple, cheap, safe contraceptive to be used in poverty stricken slums, jungles, and among the most ignorant people. Even this will not be sufficient, because I believe that now, immediately, there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them.
Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger, 1950

Maybe from videos like this on YouTube:

University of Texas Biologist Eric Pianka -Population Control: Professor “HIV would be too slow!”