It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Surprise! Some of the Worlds Most Admired People were Pro Eugenics

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: FlyersFan


Helen Keller - She called for “physicians’ juries for defective babies



Could she even communicate?



Winston Churchill. - Churchill advocated the sterilization of the "feeble minded and insane." and called for forced labor camps for tramps and mental defectives"


Oh this warmonger was as close to a mental defective as politicians have come.




Many deaf and blind people are very intelligent.

Here's a list of Wiki of famous deafblind people:

Francisco Goya (1746 – 1828): Spanish painter, deaf and blind by the time of his death.[4]
James Mitchell (1795 – 1869): congenitally deafblind son of Scottish minister.[5]
Hieronymus Lorm (1821 – 1902): inventor and novelist.
Laura Bridgman (1829 – 1889): first deafblind child to be successfully educated in the US.
Helen Keller (1880 – 1968): author, activist, and lecturer, first deafblind person to receive a Bachelor of Arts degree and perhaps the person most popularly associated with the condition.
Marie Heurtin (1885-1921): first deafblind born child to be successfully educated in Larnay (France).[6]
Alice Betteridge (1901 – 1966): first deafblind Australian to be educated. Teacher, traveller, writer.
Jack Clemo (1916 – 1994): British poet who became deafblind as an adult.
Richard Kenney (1924 – 1979): educator, lecturer, and poet; third deafblind person to graduate from an American university; president of the Hadley School for the Blind from 1975 to 1979.[7]
Robert Smithdas (1925 – 2014): first deafblind person in the US to receive a master's degree.
Mae Brown (1935 – 1973): Canada’s first deafblind university graduate; developed services for the deafblind at the Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB).[8]
Theresa Poh Lin Chan (1945? – ): Singaporean teacher and writer.




posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

I meant no disrespect Nyiah, I just find it highly implausible that someone who is deaf & blind could somehow understand symbols without hearing or seeing what they represent.



However as to your second point, having spent many months on a mental ward there is definitely a vast number of people within those walls who could not live a meaningful life...
Dribbling, mumbling incoherently, non-responsive to any stimulus of communication...

It's sad to me personally...

I've seen "normal" people turn into zombies...


I wouldn't claim eugenics is the answer...
I think they deserve to live...


Doesn't mean I pity the life they do live in a mental capacity.


Honestly, some schizophrenia sufferers struggle with basic comprehension...
To live a "meaningful" life is pretty much a dream for those around them...
If I gave examples of some of these people I'd be here all day & I feel I've written a diatribe as it is.



I'm echoing the poster who said it was in an era where this kind of thinking was acceptable debating. It's kind of odd that it's no longer something we can debate today, even if we're simply talking about gene therapies (because it inevitably boils over to selective breeding at some point) I'm not a supporter of eugenics, but we shouldn't have to fear repercussions for simple debate on it.

Very well said pal!!!


edit on 24-11-2014 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigent

we all know what would have happened...

like i said...thats genocide, not eugenics



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: StoutBroux

Thanks Stout...

It's always good to be educated on any topic.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Grovit

So it seems now are different but back in the day when that was said it was the same thing no?



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

These were very common beliefs in that time. This is why in the beginning,Europe lauded Hitler and thought he could do no wrong. The king of England agreed with him,as did Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh. George Bush Sr.s father was indicted on laundering Nazi money to keep their war machine going.This was a prevalent feeling at the time. Scientists were coming to the forefront with new discoveries about genes and human evolution. They wanted to apply this new found knowledge for the betterment of mankind. Things got out of hand and the Nazi's went too far with it.There is knowledge that their doctors learned that has been supposedly locked up all these years from the horrible experiments that were done to Jews and other 'undesirables' with no pain killers,no anesthesia,on perfectly healthy people.The things they went through were beyond describing.

We can look back now and see that everything spiraled out of control,but at that time they felt that anything was good if done in the name of science. They had dehumanized their victims much like serial killers do. This opened the debate of, is everyone capable of doing horrendous things when given the right set of circumstances? Or were serial killer type personalities in the right place at the right time to carry out these unspeakable things? This is a whole new discussion really,I know the mental health field has weighed in on it from time to time. Either way,the Nazi party was not a villain originally,many people in the world agreed with them.

Further more,most countries did hate Jews at that time and wanted them out of their own countries. That may be unbelievable to us now,but the Jews were chased from country to country for centuries. A country would let them in,all would good,then in time they would blame their ills on the Jews. Over time people would finally decide to run them out,then they would settle in a new country and it would start all over again.This is why it was decided after WW2 that something needed to be done with the 'Jew problem' once and for all. So the country of Israel was founded and they started shipping them off there.When looking at WW2 it was a very complex set of circumstances that unfolded that helped to create that fiasco.Much to much to go into on here really. Star and flag for you.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Looks like a list of progressives. Go figure.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   
www.pbs.org...

Considering Alexander Graham Bell was married to a deaf woman and his father's vocation of teaching the deaf visual lip reading (while fighting to stop the teaching sign language), it is more of a travesty. I read that he particularly wanted to stop congenitally deaf people from reproducing in an effort to eradicate deafness. Many people, even today, are willing to sacrifice other's freedoms to achieve grandiose visions of the world that could be instead of living in the world that is.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   
After all....we are dominant because we ethnically cleansed Cromagnons........GET A GRIP....its a fine old human tradition......



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grovit
a reply to: Indigent

we all know what would have happened...

like i said...thats genocide, not eugenics


Genocide is the preparatory phase of eugenics. In Hitler's case, he was laying the groundwork for the Aryan state.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: FlyersFan


Helen Keller - She called for “physicians’ juries for defective babies



Could she even communicate?



Winston Churchill. - Churchill advocated the sterilization of the "feeble minded and insane." and called for forced labor camps for tramps and mental defectives"



Oh this warmonger was as close to a mental defective as politicians have come.




Hah! You are more correct than you may guess. Winston was bi polar (manic depressive).

Nobody's perfect. I'm a good for nothing bi polar hippy. Exterminate me. I don't deserve to live.

Realistically I don't think that we can make the gene pool better. The continued exposure to modern toxins and social abuse make physical disabilities, mental health and all a constant issue.

We have the horrors of Nazism to make this point very clear. The depravity was a result of streamlined and efficient eugenics in practice and now we knows how ignorant these notions are and were and where they lead. I actually really feel for Germany that they had to host this insane ideology.

Happy hunting to all imperfect fellow beings.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: sayaangel

Consider what eugenicists want. Imagine how productive the world would be without having to deal with the physically and mentally defective. This was the form of Utopia eugenicists envisioned. It is a tempting scenario. We, as a species, want our lives to run like clockwork. If all facets of society were humming on all cylinders with "the perfect worker" we'd get the most bang for our buck.

As stated, this is a form of impossible Utopia. People have to decide what they're willing to tolerate.
edit on 11/24/2014 by Spruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grovit
a reply to: Indigent

we all know what would have happened...

like i said...thats genocide, not eugenics


Like another poster said genocide is very much part of eugenics. It is weeding something out so it no longer exists in our gene pool. Hitler wanted Jews and certain others eradicated from the gene pool. Every resource for achieving this was put into efficient practise. Somehow the Jewish people came out of this stronger than ever. Now homosexuality is protected by rights. Shows us how quickly our notions of what is normal and desirable change.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spruce
a reply to: sayaangel

Imagine how productive the world would be without having to deal with the physically and mentally defective. This was the form of Utopia eugenicists envisioned. It is a tempting scenario. We, as a species, want our lives to run like clockwork. If all facets of society were humming on all cylinders with "the perfect worker" we'd get the most bang for our buck.

As stated, this is a form of impossible Utopia. People have to decide what they're willing to tolerate.


What, like robots you mean?

I am what you call mentally defective. So that kind of thinking goes you would like me not to exist because I am as crazy as Winston Churchill, Jim Morrison, Amy Winehouse and hundreds of very amazing artists, poets, painters, actors, scientists and musicians.

I think life would be a lot more dull without these kind of people who are ticking slightly differently. Have you ever considered that nature might have such genes present for a very good reason?



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: lonesomerimbaud

Do not attack me. I do not advocate eugenics.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   
In a way I am both against and for Eugenics.

I would like to know how far selective DNA/RNA sequencing can (if it can) increase understanding and consciousness? I would not mind a "Bene Gesserit" breeding program on the side of the normal society to see if it could benefit humankind and at the same time allow for normal free will of the people who are created.

I would like to put that in contrast with a few "normal" souls getting environment life/training with meditation from Gurus (also allowing free will) to see the difference in awareness/"logical/critical thinking"/understanding.

I do not mind genetic manipulation to remove things that are unhealthy but at the same time I also think people that have what we call disabled are in their own way contributing to our society. There are people with autism who give so much back in emotion to the people around them that they are very precious.

I do not mind a limit on number of kids at 2 kids by 2 parents to keep some people from creating a drain on resources without thought of consequences.

I am pro choice when it comes to abortion. I do not mind genetic changing of a body to get higher Metabolism since it can be physically heavy to carry around a big stomach.

edit on 24-11-2014 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   
I believe that eugenic plans are always on the table, and to some degree, put into practice behind social or defence strategies. Intellectuals will always look at the utilitarianism of necessity for the species and write about it. When you factor in the 'more special than you thinking' of those in control, and the wealthy, the hypocrisy tends to stink to high heaven. Such people will always be up for the eugenicizing of others as long as it doesn't affect them, or that they themselves are not accountable to it.

The two world wars were most certainly planned culls and opportunistic implementations. Obviously, they can't come straight out and tell millions of people that they are going to be culled for the sake of the species, they do it through wars, and they'll do it in the future through wars, and deliberately released diseases. They already fear the current level of populations around the world, and with our planet having finite resources, our species (in intellectual and objective terms) can't afford the development of third world countries into first world countries.

Part of the agenda for globalisation is a cull of the human race, but first, all the political scaffolding has to be put into place, agendas have to be met, alliances made with old enemies (even though they will act like they are still enemies), and when the time is right, and everything is in place, a series of events will occur that will set it all off. Surgical nuclear strikes, biological warfare, famine, and a host of other goodies will be used to implement the cull.

You and I will be told that we are fighting axes of evil, but really we will be just as much a target as our enemy.
edit on 24/11/14 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan


I agree with the theory of eugenics, that is, to increase the breeding quality of our species through selective mating and as science advances, through genetic improvements. (less disease, more beautiful, greater than the previous generation)

If I were famous I don't think I would make a public stance on eugenics. Eugenics would be interpreted by each race in their own idea of racial beauty and I wouldn't want to be publicly associated with that.

I don't see any modern celebrities in your list.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join