Friend with interesting theory -- Weakening the Race

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 12:11 AM
link   
I have a friend who is a huge conspiracy theorist. He's very circumspect about using the Internet because he believes the Internet is in fact the "great beast" described in the Bible.

But aside from 'interesting' theories, he's very, very intelligent. He's a successful business owner.

He believes in an elite Group/Society/Force guiding the path of history.

But here's the part I found most interesting:

He's convinced that the tendency for the least successful among us to breed the most prolifically is playing into the hands of the 'secret world government.'

This is interesting to me, because it's one of my favorite theories (and always popular with teens) that there is a sort of devolution underway.

Elites generally breed with elites. Moreso in some societies than others. The great bulk of the population in most countries are poor and less-successful. They are the ones that have 3, 5; 7 kids.

This is useful for anyone ruling society or plotting to rule society.

All you have to do is engage in debate on the Internet these days to realize that the subject of Critical Thinking is not taught in school. And common sense is not common at all.

More and more people seem to be comfortable with authoritarian leadership and hero-worship.

Our ancestors are the ones who survived: the smartest, quickest and strongest. Current civilization, for all of its benefits, supports the survival and procreation of the brain-damaged, disabled and crippled babies that would have died in the past.

By design or default, isn't this the way to create an easily-subjuated majority?



Cug

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Read up on Social Darwinism.

Social Darwinism was popular from the late 1800's to around WWII with the upper classes and seems to me to be a excuse for imperialism and racialism and eventually morphed into eugenics.

One the face of it Social Darwinism seems to make a lot of since. after all most people born rich tend to stay rich and people born poor tend to stay poor. But really there are better explanations for this than the theories in Social Darwinism.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Social Darwinism is racially based in most applicaitons.

This is a fair simpler observation: that the least successful, socially, ar those who are breeding at the highest rate. That the offspring of less-successful people are inclined to similar low social performance.

This is irrespective of race. And 'nurture' trumps 'nature' in many cases -- just not the majority of cases.

Social mechanisms that celebrate behavior that corrodes society and fails to honor true achievement make it less likely that people from the underacheiving group will transcend their heritage.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   
You know, I have actually pondered this theory myself alot. I came to the same conclusion as your friend.

I do believe there is a seeming trend towards inferior breeding. The weak, stupid, easily led, and guillable are praised as "normal" and breed like rats in our society. The intelligent, aware, and strong willed are rejected and weeded out socially, unless they are in the elite.

Your friend I think is on to something, as I have noticed a seeming degeneration of the human race. The more dumb, stupid sheep you have, the easier the world is to control and the more willing slaves you find.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_Peel
He's convinced that the tendency for the least successful among us to breed the most prolifically is playing into the hands of the 'secret world government.'

No offense to you, but it sounds like your freind is what is normally called, 'a jerk'. He's 'smart and succesful', and therefore people who aren't are beneath him and inferior, and can only be the result of some silly paranoid fantasy of his?




popular with teens) that there is a sort of devolution underway.

Yes, this populist idea is called eugenics.


Elites generally breed with elites.

Well, they tend to have legally legitimate children with other members of the elite, sure.

This is useful for anyone ruling society or plotting to rule society.

?
how? And to what purpose? "They" are making the poor have more sex? "They" are making them more fertile? To rule over a world of unsuccessful/incompetent people?
That doesn't make sense.


All you have to do is engage in debate on the Internet these days to realize that the subject of Critical Thinking is not taught in school.

Thats not what school is for. I notice that you've slid from 'successful in business' to 'critical thinking'. I see nothing that indicates either is genetically inherited.


Our ancestors are the ones who survived: the smartest, quickest and strongest.

That is false. Humanities story of survival is marked by one fact, cooperation. When man was more of an animal, living in very small groups in the wild, yes, the average man was physically more fit than the average denizen of the first cities, but it is the city dwellers, in spite of their physical weakness, who have survived, not the 'wild men'. When the agricultural revolution started, and the technologoy of planting and growing crops and using them as their bulk of your diet spread, man's phsyical health deteriorated, as evidenced by the fossil specimens. But they became more prolific, and ultimately more 'civilized', as it were.
It has nothing to do with strong, fleet footed, or even all that intellligent, individuals. You could put einstein's brain into Mr. Universes body, make hundreds of them, and throw them into the wild. They won't do as well as the "weaker" people who are working together to survive.


Current civilization, for all of its benefits, supports the survival and procreation of

the brain-damaged, disabled and crippled babies that would have died in the past.

Who cares? The physically crimppled and mentally damaged have slower reproductive rates than those who aren't. They can not compete in the 'game' of reproduction.


By design or default, isn't this the way to create an easily-subjuated majority?

?
I don't see how. Who's more willing to fight against the forces of control, the average schmuck on the street, or the elite, who avoid exposing themselves to danger at all costs?


Social mechanisms that celebrate behavior that corrodes society

What behaviour corrodes society are you talking about though?

and fails to honor true achievement make it less likely that people from the underacheiving group will transcend their heritage.

Sounds like your so-called sucessful friend is bitter at not being appreciated.





 
0

log in

join