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.

 

The One Weird Trait That Predicts Whether You’re a Trump Supporter

page: 10
29
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: greencmp

The term social engineering was coined by a businessman and entrepreneur that believed "social engineers" needed to be hired to help employers deal with their employee's "problems".

It was not coined by eugenicists.


This isn't going to be another exercise in creative lexicography, is it?

Social Origins of Eugenics



Social Darwinism had attempted to explain away social and economic inequalities as the "survival of the fittest." However, by the turn of the century, this simplistic idea had been turned on its head. A declining birthrate among the wealthy and powerful indicated that the captains of industry were, in fact, losing the struggle for existence. The working class not only was organizing against them, but they were also outreproducing them. At the same time, traditional approaches to solving the problems of the urban poor – charity, social work, and religious institutions – were proving of little help.

Solving the new problems of industrialization demanded a change from laissez-faire to managed capitalism – toward the increased role of government and planning in the economic and social sphere. This new philosophy became known as progressivism. Embedded in progressivism was the idea of scientific management – long-range planning by university-trained experts. This new managerial class became increasingly vital to the economic process. In a country that had nurtured a reverence for invention, the use of scientific management had a special appeal. Progressive reformers had a strong faith in science as the cure-all that would herald in a new era of rational control of both nature and human society. Under these conditions, it is not surprising that the revelations of a new science of genetics gave birth to a new science of social engineering – eugenics.

edit on 17-2-2016 by greencmp because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

Good points.

I've been unable to find a link to the data itself, but I'm sure I overlooked it.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

My apologies.

I guess we are talking about two different things.

Though I do have to ask, what does eugenics and "social engineering" have to do with an authoritarian Right Wing?
edit on 17-2-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I forgot a fetus is just a clump of cells that doesn't grow in to a conscious being until 9 months. Later.

Tell ya what I am glad my mom wasn't so authoritarian to off me before I was born in to this world.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: greencmp

My apologies.

I guess we are talking about two different things.

Though I do have to ask, what does eugenics and "social engineering" have to do with an authoritarian Right Wing?


Eugenics is an obvious example of authoritarian/totalitarian cultural regulation.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp



Eugenics is an obvious example of authoritarian/totalitarian cultural regulation.


The Right Wing supports eugenics?



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: greencmp



Eugenics is an obvious example of authoritarian/totalitarian cultural regulation.


The Right Wing supports eugenics?


All statists have at one point in time or another considered managing their population through intervention. The Ds and Rs both flirted with eugenics before the whole concept was finally put to rest (we hope).

All liberal societies have abandoned the idea.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Thank you.

I just wanted a clarification because, as you stated, eugenics goes beyond politics.

On topic: are you willing to say that the Right Wing is at least as authoritarian as the Left. Including so-called Libertarians?



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: greencmp

Thank you.

I just wanted a clarification because, as you stated, eugenics goes beyond politics.

On topic: are you willing to say that the Right Wing is at least as authoritarian as the Left. Including so-called Libertarians?


It is forever bound to the political doctrine of progressivism but, many institutions of government are just as misused by their supposed political opponents.

Republicans certainly have contributed enormously to big government and share many customary authoritarian policy characteristics with the Democrats.

Libertarians are the only opposition to these experimental statist authoritarian planned economic regimes, laissez-faire is the only option.

Everybody is better off when you leave them alone.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

You are misunderstanding the 2 forms of Anarchy.

There's a big difference between Anarchy resulting from government breakdown/failure/overthrow and Anarchy that is present before any government authority exists.

And private property owned by an individual who goes to a job every day doesn't make that individual and authoritarian oppressor does it.




posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Sargeras





They do not force equality, they force their version of equality.




Liberty and democracy are eternal enemies, and every one knows it who has ever given any sober reflection to the matter. A democratic state may profess to venerate the name, and even pass laws making it officially sacred, but it simply cannot tolerate the thing. In order to keep any coherence in the governmental process, to prevent the wildest anarchy in thought and act, the government must put limits upon the free play of opinion. In part, it can reach that end by mere propaganda, by the bald force of its authority — that is, by making certain doctrines officially infamous. But in part it must resort to force, i.e., to law. One of the main purposes of laws in a democratic society is to put burdens upon intelligence and reduce it to impotence. Ostensibly, their aim is to penalize anti-social acts; actually their aim is to penalize heretical opinions. At least ninety-five Americans out of every 100 believe that this process is honest and even laudable; it is practically impossible to convince them that there is anything evil in it. In other words, they cannot grasp the concept of liberty. Always they condition it with the doctrine that the state, i.e., the majority, has a sort of right of eminent domain in acts, and even in ideas — that it is perfectly free, whenever it is so disposed, to forbid a man to say what he honestly believes. Whenever his notions show signs of becoming "dangerous," ie, of being heard and attended to, it exercises that prerogative. And the overwhelming majority of citizens believe in supporting it in the outrage. Including especially the Liberals, who pretend — and often quite honestly believe — that they are hot for liberty. They never really are. Deep down in their hearts they know, as good democrats, that liberty would be fatal to democracy — that a government based upon shifting and irrational opinion must keep it within bounds or run a constant risk of disaster. They themselves, as a practical matter, advocate only certain narrow kinds of liberty — liberty, that is, for the persons they happen to favor. The rights of other persons do not seem to interest them. If a law were passed tomorrow taking away the property of a large group of presumably well-to-do persons — say, bondholders of the railroads — without compensation and without even colorable reason, they would not oppose it; they would be in favor of it. The liberty to have and hold property is not one they recognize. They believe only in the liberty to envy, hate and loot the man who has it.


Menchen call that over 90 years ago.

en.wikiquote.org...


Sad ain't it?

All so predictable, and even when they are told by those that see, they won't believe, not until it is themselves that are out of favor this time.

Then they will wail and scream, " it's not right, this isn't fair, they shouldn't be doing this!! "

All the while applauding it at the present, as it is done to those they disagree with.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Republicans are also responsible for the War on Drugs.


See, I'd argue that has been a completely bipartisan effort, at least where the politicians are concerned. Support may be a bit different between the voters, but you can't point to any national level Democrats who have rocked the boat much over the years.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Annee
I find it ironic that the Right keeps claiming the Left wants to control people.

Here's your mirror.


As someone who is firmly in the middle it became readily apparent to me that both sides wish to impose their will on others. They are two sides of the same coin.



I don't see that at all.

What the Left forces - - is Equality - - and that everyone gets a chance.

Totally not the same thing.


They do not force equality, they force their version of equality.

If there were equality, everyone would be equal.

Instead some are more equal.

Affirmative action etc...

That is not equality, that is stacking the deck.


You have to include the second half - - which is why I included it.

". . . that everyone gets a chance".

Affirmation action gives opportunity - - not Equality.


No it strips opportunity, by forcing racially motivated quotas. So a minority even though less qualified, maybe even unable to perform the job, gets it instead of a qualified person of the " wrong" race.

There are X amount of opportunities in the country, if you force some to be given based solely on race, they must be stripped from deserving majority citizens based on their race.

This is the exact opposite of equality.

You see, equality means we are all treated equally.

That means nobody gets pandered to, that means we all have the same rights and privileges.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I'd say that Nixon and Reagan both started and then amped up the war on drugs. All democrats did was just agree with them. Though democrats in this day and age are more open to changing these laws than Republicans are. I continue to solely blame Republicans for the war on drugs. It's their baby completely.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



All democrats did was just agree with them.

That would be part of the uninterrupted 40 years of Democrat control of Congress. Congress writes the laws. Executive branch is bound by the Constitution to enforce those laws.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Sargeras




You see, equality means we are all treated equally.


Here is another golden oldie.



The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.


Aristotle



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I'd say that Nixon and Reagan both started and then amped up the war on drugs. All democrats did was just agree with them.


That really excuses one party from culpability on what both parties felt was an acceptable roadmap to take in regards drugs.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Is that the same Democrats running around today saying legalize weed, and ban guns?

Second verse. Same as the first verse.




I continue to solely blame Republicans for the war on drugs.




Perhaps the biggest secret of the Vietnam War is that our Central Intelligence Agency seized control of the infamous Golden Triangle during that time period, then, along with assistance from various elements of Organized Crime, shipped huge amounts of heroin out of that area into our country


johnfitzgeraldkennedy.net...

Yes sirrie!

'ALL' Republicans fault.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I'd say that Nixon and Reagan both started and then amped up the war on drugs. All democrats did was just agree with them.


That really excuses one party from culpability on what both parties felt was an acceptable roadmap to take in regards drugs.


The war on drugs is maintained by the executive branch. Namely the DEA.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Both parties were/are responsible for the laws that created the War on Drugs.

And being that Dear Leader runs the Executive he could just tell the DEA to stand down. Has he?






edit on 17-2-2016 by AugustusMasonicus because: never go in against a Sicilian with death is on the line




top topics



 
29
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join