Topic of Eugenics, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 07:05 PM by Clearskies
Originally posted by Rufuz
..............but is there any place to find some info on current activity or do anyone have more info ?
[edit on 7-10-2008 by Rufuz]

Here's something on the Galton Institute.

Begun in the 1800's by(Charles Darwin's cousin) Sir Frances Galton.
who introduced the term eugenics, is usually regarded as the founder of the modern science of eugenics; his emphasis was on the role of factors under social control that could either improve or impair the qualities of future generations. Modern eugenics is directed chiefly toward the discouragement of propagation among the unfit (negative eugenics) and encouragement of propagation among those who are healthy, intelligent, and of high moral character (positive eugenics). Such a program involves many difficulties, especially that of defining which traits are most desirable.

It was later taken over by Leonard, Charles' son.
It seems to be quite busy doing the same stuff today.


reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 08:44 PM by Dock6
What is disturbing or disgusting about it ?

Farmers breed from their healthy stock. If they didn't, valuable resources would be expended on stock that could be dangerous to human consumption. And the offspring of non-healthy stock would continue to breed, thus creating ever greater numbers of themselves and contaminating the rest of the stock.

In the natural world, those beasts which are unable to feed themselves and/or keep up with the rest of the pack, are left for nature (predators, starvation, etc.) to eliminate. In this way, the pack breeds only from those animals which are strong, capable and able to defend their young.

It was the same, generally, with humans, in times past.

Same when Katrina struck. Same when Ike struck Galveston. People saved themselves first. Some chose to ignore evacuation warnings. When further rescue attempts threatened the lives of the rescuers, the rescue attempts were halted. Those who'd chosen to remain on the island perished. Does anyone believe rescuers should have perished in suicidal attempts to save them ? Nature took its course. The smart got off the island. The not-smart remained. And died.

All around the country, elderly people are languishing in hospital beds and require around the clock care. They tie up valuable resources which would be more sensibly allocated elsewhere. And to what end ? Altzheimers sufferers can spend up to ten years in care homes. They do not recognise their own family. They don't know or care if it's day or night. They can't go to the bathroom on their own, can't feed or dress themselves. If a fire broke out, they wouldn't know how to get out of bed, let alone make their way to the fire exits. They are vegetables. Left to nature, they would die very swiftly. Instead, their pointless lives are prolonged via thousands of hugely expensive man-hours and other resources. Then they die. And most often, the families are enormously relieved. What was the point of the ten years of round the clock care ?

On Australian tv years ago was aired a documentary about two mentally deficient individuals who produced a baby. Neither parent could care for themselves and both had carers. Prior to the birth of the baby, the State had to provide full-time carers for the pregnant female who could not carry the child to full-term unaided. After the birth of the child, the State provided (at tax payers' expense) a raft of live-in carers, without whose ministrations the child would not have survived because the mother was incapable of caring for herself, let alone a baby.

And the point of this massively expensive exercise? It was in order even mentally deficient individuals could 'experience parenthood'.

In what way were they capable of 'experiencing parenthood' when they were not parents at all, but mere observers ? They didn't feed or bathe or provide for their child. They were two mentally deficient individuals who had no understanding of parenthood or of the needs of their child. They laughed and watched others in the role of parents to that child. Yet there were some, obviously, who believed that two people who would have perished in an instant in the outside world nevertheless had the 'right' to become parents. An expensive absurdity, supported by taxpayers whether or not those taxpayers were in agreement and by some taxpayers who, despite their best efforts, could not provide as they would like for their own, healthy offspring.

What of the child of mentally deficient parents ? How will she feel as she grows older and realizes her parents are the pair drooling in wheel-chairs, unable basically to state their own name ? Will that child, when she's mature, be prepared to risk passing along her parents' defective genes ? Will the child risk having children of her own? Will she advise potential mates that both her parents were mentally defective ? Or will she choose to remain childless ? Will she be happy about her own existence ? Or will she regard herself as simply a social experiment, the result of bleeding-heart authorities playing God at public expense? Would you like to open your family album before others and reveal your parents to be institutionalised idiots (in the literal sense) staring idiotically into space?

Isn't there something gross about such people being permitted by mindless authorities to breed ?

Is there a shortage of humans on this planet ? Are population numbers sustainable ? At what cost to the natural world and environment ? Are you prepared to live with limited resources .. food, power, fuel, schools, medical care, etc.? Are you prepared to consign your children (born yet or not) to even less resources .. in order vital resources be spent on people who aren't even aware, in the real sense, that they're alive and who would NOT be alive if nature were permitted to take its course ?


reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 09:19 PM by king9072
reply to post by Dock6



Great post, its tough when you look at the state of the world because from a civilian point of view, we want exactly opposite of what the elite want because it in turn supports our own survival. The problem is that the people who have created our world, are about to achieve global conquest like no other rulers have in the history of the planet.

With that said, they are no doubt the most brilliant people in the world but their view of reality is so far fetched from our own that they appear only evil and sadistic. But, if you look at the reality in many ways they are correct that the world just isn't sustainable the way it is now and population reduction is not only needed, but necessary.

If you look at the immense amount of information pertaining to government sponsored massacres and ethnic cleansing that have occurred its not only obvious that eugenics has never really left, but also the fact that even as literally tens of millions of people have been massacred in the name of countless causes over the last 100 years, and really even long before then, the population crisis is very real. Imagine if all those people had never been murdered, and how the population would easily be over 7 billion or higher right now.

So as sick as it is, eugenics is almost a needed science. In fact, after Germany was conquered, it was felt to be SO needed, that western countries literally fought over German Scientists.

One thing that I believe though some will most likely vehemently oppose is the fact that babies with greatly reduced brain function or "retardation" should cease to exist. Not only are they a burden on the parents, teachers, society, and practically everyone they come in contact with, but it would also be terrible for them. They cannot function on their own, which must be crushing for them even if they cant fully understand it. Additionally if they could understand, then a day would come when they would understand the burden that they put on those around them and also see how limited they are on what they can achieve in their own life while the rest of the world appears "limitless".

I guess the reason why I began to formulate those assumptions was during High School. When I was in highschool almost 10 years ago, it seemed that there was never enough teachers. Remembering the days of elementary school of 20-23 student classes, to every year of highschool slowly progressing from 30, 32, 36, by the time I left school classes were practically 40. But at the same time, you would have a class with a mentally challenged student and he has one, or sometimes TWO personal assistants. Or the special needs class that has a teacher to student ratio of 1.5:2 like give me a break. These kids will never amount to ANYTHING but a burden, yet students who could potentially change the world are left to fall through the cracks because of the lack of teachers.

[edit on 7-10-2008 by king9072]


reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 09:28 PM by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by king9072




I guess the reason why I began to formulate those assumptions was during High School. When I was in highschool almost 10 years ago, it seemed that there was never enough teachers. Remembering the days of elementary school of 20-23 student classes, to every year of highschool slowly progressing from 30, 32, 36, by the time I left school classes were practically 40. But at the same time, you would have a class with a mentally challenged student has he has one, or sometimes TWO personal assistants. Or the special needs class that has a teacher to student ratio of 1.5:2 like give me a break. These kids will never amount to ANYTHING but a burden, yet students who could technically change the world are left to fall through the cracks because of the lack of teachers.


There but for the grace of God, walks you.

These last two posts are, without a doubt, the most disgusting posts I have ever read on ATS. You two would make Hitler proud.
With your line of thought, by the way, Einstein would have been a failure and euthanized, since he was a very poor student who failed 7th grade math.

Those kids that you say will never amount to ANYTHING but a burden are loved by their parents, and bring joy to them. Are you now claiming to be God-like, in that you can see the FUTURE and know what will happen to them?

I will stop now, because quite honestly, the two of you make me nauseous.



reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 09:36 PM by king9072
reply to post by ProfEmeritus


What are you even talking about? How in the world is relating Einstein as a poor elementary school student to a mentally challenged student even possible?

The students I speak of, are the type that randomly start shouting and swinging there arms everywhere, who can't form a sentence, must be helped while eating and cant complete education tailored for pupils many, many years their junior.

These students will never amount to anything, and WILL be a burden of the state. Bringing up the touching parent stories almost helps your arguement, but the fact remains that if anyone has a healthy, intelligent kid they will be just as proud if not more proud of that kid (and at the same time happier) than the same parent who has a mentally challenged kid, who even through the parents eyes, will never amount to nothing and needs constant 24 hour care and supervision.

How can you relate that, to a Hitler? I've been to Germany and France and walked through several concentration camps. The people who were put in those camps by hitler, were for the most part NOT mentally handicapped in anyway. Most were skilled tradesmen, scientists, philosphers, artists, laborers, etc they were just unfortunately jewish. These people had no problems with their physical, or mental health for that matter yet they were destroyed. To me, that is not the answer nor would I ever condone what I witnessed in those camps.

But theres a point where the line could, and I feel should be drawn. And for the first part of your post where you mention god. Leave your imaginary friends out of this forum, I don't bring mine so neither should you.

[edit on 7-10-2008 by king9072]


reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 09:39 PM by Clearskies
Originally posted by Dock6
What is disturbing or disgusting about it ?


Ummm...... genocide, discrimination, atrocities.



In the natural world, those beasts which are unable to feed themselves and/or keep up with the rest of the pack, are left for nature (predators, starvation, etc.) to eliminate. In this way, the pack breeds only from those animals which are strong, capable and able to defend their young.


They ARE animals without much sympathy. Survival of the fittest with low brain functions.



Same when Katrina struck. Same when Ike struck Galveston. People saved themselves first. Some chose to ignore evacuation warnings. When further rescue attempts threatened the lives of the rescuers, the rescue attempts were halted. Those who'd chosen to remain on the island perished. Does anyone believe rescuers should have perished in suicidal attempts to save them ? Nature took its course. The smart got off the island. The not-smart remained. And died.

Stupidity happens.
NO one should KNOWINGLY put rescue workers at risk, but, if we take your theory to it's full intent, why need rescue people at ALL?

All around the country, elderly people are languishing in hospital beds and require around the clock care. They tie up valuable resources which would be more sensibly allocated elsewhere. And to what end ? Altzheimers sufferers can spend up to ten years in care homes. They do not recognise their own family. They don't know or care if it's day or night. They can't go to the bathroom on their own, can't feed or dress themselves. If a fire broke out, they wouldn't know how to get out of bed, let alone make their way to the fire exits. They are vegetables. Left to nature, they would die very swiftly. Instead, their pointless lives are prolonged via thousands of hugely expensive man-hours and other resources.


Their families STILL love them!
They don't just throw out the man or woman who RAISED them, because they become ill! Civilized humans have ALWAYS taken care of their infirm.

On Australian tv years ago was aired a documentary about two mentally deficient individuals who produced a baby. Neither parent could care for themselves and both had carers. Prior to the birth of the baby, the State had to provide full-time carers for the pregnant female who could not carry the child to full-term unaided. After the birth of the child, the State provided (at tax payers' expense) a raft of live-in carers, without whose ministrations the child would not have survived because the mother was incapable of caring for herself, let alone a baby.


That's why there is birth control. No one should KNOWINGLY pass down life-demeaning illnesses to their children.
If I were that way, I would use it, but, that's because I'm a Christian and I wouldn't want my children to suffer, needlessly.

And the point of this massively expensive exercise? It was in order even mentally deficient individuals could 'experience parenthood'.

In what way were they capable of 'experiencing parenthood' when they were not parents at all, but mere observers ? They didn't feed or bathe or provide for their child. They were two mentally deficient individuals who had no understanding of parenthood or of the needs of their child. They laughed and watched others in the role of parents to that child. Yet there were some, obviously, who believed that two people who would have perished in an instant in the outside world nevertheless had the 'right' to become parents. An expensive absurdity, supported by taxpayers whether or not those taxpayers were in agreement and by some taxpayers who, despite their best efforts, could not provide as they would like for their own, healthy offspring.


Didn't they have a legal guardian or someone to help them with that decision?
Parents?

What of the child of mentally deficient parents ? How will she feel as she grows older and realizes her parents are the pair drooling in wheel-chairs, unable basically to state their own name ? Will that child, when she's mature, be prepared to risk passing along her parents' defective genes ? Will the child risk having children of her own? Will she advise potential mates that both her parents were mentally defective ? Or will she choose to remain childless ? Will she be happy about her own existence ? Or will she regard herself as simply a social experiment, the result of bleeding-heart authorities playing God at public expense? Would you like to open your family album before others and reveal your parents to be institutionalised idiots (in the literal sense) staring idiotically into space?


I was 17 and thought that about my NORMAL parents! lol

Isn't there something gross about such people being permitted by mindless authorities to breed ?

It's not 'gross', it's irresponsible!

Still, to have 'authorities' tell people who should or shouldn't procreate is slavery!







[edit on 7-10-2008 by Clearskies]


reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 09:52 PM by ProfEmeritus
Who, other than YOU, mentioned concentration camps? Those poor unfortunate souls never made it that far. They were killed before that. Perhaps you have better do some research before you open your mouth.

EUTHANASIA" KILLINGS

Forced sterilization in Germany was the forerunner of the systematic killing of the mentally ill and the handicapped. In October 1939, Hitler himself initiated a decree which empowered physicians to grant a "mercy death" to "patients considered incurable according to the best available human judgment of their state of health." The intent of the socalled "euthanasia" program, however, was not to relieve the suffering of the chronically ill. The Nazi regime used the term as a euphemism: its aim was to exterminate the mentally ill and the handicapped, thus "cleansing" the Aryan race of persons considered genetically defective and a financial burden to society.

The idea of killing the incurably ill was posed well before 1939. In the 1920s, debate on this issue centered on a book coauthored by Alfred Hoche, a noted psychiatrist, and Karl Binding, a prominent scholar of criminal law. They argued that economic savings justified the killing of "useless lives" ("idiots" and "congenitally crippled"). Economic deprivation during World War I provided the context for this idea. During the war, patients in asylums had ranked low on the list for rationing of food and medical supplies, and as a result, many died from starvation or disease. More generally, the war undermined the value attached to individual life and, combined with Germany's humiliating defeat, led many nationalists to consider ways to regenerate the nation as a whole at the expense of individual rights.

In 1935 Hitler stated privately that "in the event of war, [he] would take up the question of euthanasia and enforce it" because "such a problem would be more easily solved" during wartime. War would provide both a cover for killing and a pretext--hospital beds and medical personnel would be freed up for the war effort. The upheaval of war and the diminished value of human life during wartime would also, Hitler believed, mute expected opposition. To make the connection to the war explicit, Hitler's decree was backdated to September 1,1939, the day Germany invaded Poland.


source:www.holocaust-trc.org...


reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 09:54 PM by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Clearskies

Good post. I'm glad that there is at least one other HUMAN BEING here on this thread.
Star for your response.


reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 09:59 PM by king9072
reply to post by ProfEmeritus


I brought it up when you called me a Nazi supporter... duh? Thanks for searching for an article that includes information I already knew. But the amount of useless people that were eradicated is dwarfed by the amount of people who were murdered simply because they were jews, but other than that, were healthy human beings capable of the potential of any other human.

If you'll please re-read my posts, I never disagreed with the use of euthanasia on mentally challenged, burdens. I disagreed with everything else that hitler did, and the reason for that is the fact that I have been to the camps and I have witnessed what was done to this perfectly NORMAL people, like you and I, not retards.

Not to mention that your whole debate would be pointless, if mentally challenged individuals did not truly enjoy their time spent on earth for then being euthanized would actually be a bonus for those individuals as well as every other member of society.


reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 10:15 PM by Dock6
reply to post by king9072



King .. they're playing a very tired, transparent old game on you, so don't bite.

This is the typical 'divert', 'distract' 'derail' tactic they ALWAYS employ when the Sheep start thinking for themselves and stating those thoughts out loud.

Don't let them derail this. 'Hitler' is always one of their tried and true 'standby' tactics. It's supposed to put you in a 'defensive' position, after which you're supposed to be so busy defending yourself that you forget to stick to the issue at hand


You're correct in what you say about retarded individuals who soak up vital resources which would be far better expended in other areas.

And you've raised a highly relevant point, that of wars.

The folk who mumble 'disgusting' about eugenics are USUALLY the very same who SUPPORT war .. and who drag 'God' into it to justify those wars.

But you'll notice the 'wars' they're so keen on are NEVER in their neighbourhood. Instead they're 'God's plan against 'foreigners'.

So as you have most probably discerned, eugenics cloaked as 'war against foreigners' is fine with these people. Because WARS mean PROFIT. And they LIKE profit.

They LIKE killing 'foreigners' too. The LIVE for it.

But they WORK to confuse the Sheepies (meaning those who aren't part of their race/cult/religion) in order to keep the Sheepies burdened down with GUILT. Guilty sheep are compliant sheep, you see and can be MANIPULATED into parting with their cash for 'starving Africans'.

Now, these people who LIKE killing foreigners and who LIKE profiting from wars ALSO profit to the tune of 90 cents in the every dollar that's donated to 'starving Africans'. That's right .. 90% of every donation goes towards
'administrative costs' ... and towards CEO salaries in the 'starving African rort '. And it's HUGE. Huge profits.

How do they keep the Sheepies softened so they'll continue donating to the starving ? They keep the Sheep guilty. All those 'starving African' tv begging commericals. To keep all those 9O cents in every donated dollar heading straight to THEIR pockets.

So, if they supported eugenics (which they actually DO, via their Wars for Profit) the Sheepies might start thinking rationally, instead of emotionally ... and might decide to feed their OWN families, instead of sending guilt-money to Africa via CEO's greedy hands. And the entire 'African scam' and all the similar scams would dry up.

And all those highly lucrative private nursing homes might become FAR less profitable if the Sheepies got honest and decided paying X-thousand dollars per day to keep brain-dead grandpa alive was a waste NOT only of money, but also of vital resources. Etc.

So you see now why they are trying to derail your honest and considered comments. It's because you THREATEN THEIR SCAMS.

And they're terrified of the Sheepies reading your comments ... because then the Sheepies might start using their actual brains too, instead of living in an emotional swamp. Again, this would threaten PROFITS.

So don't take it personally. You're being flamed because you're on the right track.



reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 10:17 PM by king9072
Originally posted by ProfEmeritus

Not to mention that your whole debate would be pointless, if mentally challenged individuals did not truly enjoy their time spent on earth for then being euthanized would actually be a bonus for those individuals as well as every other member of society.

I have worked with "mentally challenged" individuals, as you call them. I call them special people. I have seen their HAPPINESS over the simplest of things. Maybe in their simplicity, they are trying to tell the rest of us something.

Society started down the slippery slope a long time ago. Your recommendation is just part of that slope. Soon it will be those over 65, then those who are disabled, then...on and on
As Pastor Niemöller said:


First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up,

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant. (See above)

Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left
to speak up for me.


At some point, your day will come.



Great quote, still don't understand how your missing my whole point of not allowing mentally challenged individuals to burden every person they ever come in contact with. My line starts and ends at that, not with elderly, not with those who have become physically disabled, not with any form of religion, and not with any colored skin.

The smartest people on the entire planet in their own words give two possibilities for the future.

Possibility 1: For a population of 1 billion people to live with the standard of living that Americans currently enjoy, the other 6 billion people must be peasants.

Possibility 2: Population must be reduced to half a billion, so those people wont exhaust the resources of the world.

NOW, before I get pounced on, I will thoroughly state, that I do not believe either scenario need be! But, living in the world that we live in and NOT the ideal world of the Venus Project (which I would love to ultimately be a part of, rather than be a part of this # whole of a world we've been given) these options are literally our only choices.

If you'll also re-read my first post again that would be greatly appreciated because I highlight how as a normal person, I too disagree with the fact that there should be a mass cleansing as the scenarios above outline. The reason for that, is because both you, I and everyone else on this forum, dont wish to be exterminated. So perhaps it is us who is greedy, for we put our own survival above that of the human race.


End with a quote: "If it could have been any other way, it would have" - Unknown.

I wish we were instead living in the venus project, but we aren't cause we couldn't have. Because if we could have, we would have.

[edit on 7-10-2008 by king9072]


reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 10:23 PM by Clearskies
reply to post by Dock6


How can we derail a thread about the disgustingness of eugenics, by posting the disgusting facts?
Wow, I really don't know if we can help that kind of rationalization.

Where do you get your info? Stormfront?

[edit on 7-10-2008 by Clearskies]


reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 10:31 PM by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Dock6




The folk who mumble 'disgusting' about eugenics are USUALLY the very same who SUPPORT war .. and who drag 'God' into it to justify those wars.

But you'll notice the 'wars' they're so keen on are NEVER in their neighbourhood. Instead they're 'God's plan against 'foreigners'.


that is complete hogwash, and you know it. It is you that are diverting the discussion. War is NEVER an answer, although if attacked, nations should defend themselves. But back to the discussion....

I don't expect people to believe in God if they are not so inclined, but since this still is a FREE country, I have every right to bring God into my reasoning. You see, I believe in the 10 Commandments and God's wishes, whether others do or not. Apparently, most countries believe in at least one of the Commandments "Tho shalt not KILL". You are advocating something that is against the law of the US, as well as God.

Special people are PEOPLE, and nothing you say to minimize them, will change that. The financing of their care is open to debate, but killing them is not.


reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 10:31 PM by Dock6
reply to post by king9072


Meanwhile .. you'll notice they have NO objection to the mass murders and attempted mass murders being perpetrated all over the land via 'vaccinations', via Chemtrails, via toxic pharmaceuticals, via fluoridated water and GM crops and toxic-waste being dumped in the oceans only to appear on your family's plate as 'yummy, delicious, nutritious crumbed fish portions.

They IGNORE the genocides being perpetrated via imported, poisonous, life-shortening consumer goods from Asia .. outsourced manufacturing which again PUTS PROFITS BEFORE PEOPLE.

They HOPE YOU DON"T KNOW about the satanic laboratories which receive massive funding for research intended to decimate the world's populations via frankenstein plague concoctions which are being sprayed over people's heads and slipped into their foods, potions, 'cure alls', etc.

They HOPE you don't make the CONNECTION between chemical discoveries mid last century and the astronomical rise in cancers, world wide.

They PRAY you never access sites which explain how cures for cancers have been discovered time and time again in the past hundred years alone .. but which have been buried, their discoverers murdered and imprisioned .. because NATURAL cures for cancers do not yield PROFITS for the luciferian Big Pharma gangs.

75% of doctors polled stated unambiguously that they WOULD NOT permit doctors to treat them via Chemotherapy, were they to contract cancer.

75% !! Doctors KNOW Chemotherapy is a killer, not a cure.

So these people who pretend to beat their breast and play the 'holy' card when eugenics is proposed are LAUGHING as they lie. They know eugenics is being perpetrated ALL the time, EVERYwhere .. whilst hiding its face.

They pretend to 'care' about the brain-dead and disfunctional at the SAME TIME they advocate killer 'cures', killer foods, killer air, killer water, killer wars, killer habits, killer pastimes, killer philosophies that drive kids to suicide, killer commercials, killer politicians, killer hormone replacement therapies and birth control methods, killer religious preachings.


reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 10:41 PM by Clearskies
Originally posted by Dock6
reply to post by king9072


Meanwhile .. you'll notice they have NO objection to the mass murders and attempted mass murders being perpetrated all over the land via 'vaccinations', via Chemtrails, via toxic pharmaceuticals, via fluoridated water and GM crops and toxic-waste being dumped in the oceans only to appear on your family's plate as 'yummy, delicious, nutritious crumbed fish portions.


Really?
You don't even realize that I have participated in NUMEROUS threads, wrestling with Ozweatherman and defcon about chemtrails!

I am also a vaccination opponent. I HATE monsanto's gm crops and terminator seed patents!



They PRAY you never access sites which explain how cures for cancers have been discovered time and time again in the past hundred years alone .. but which have been buried, their discoverers murdered and imprisioned .. because NATURAL cures for cancers do not yield PROFITS for the luciferian Big Pharma gangs.


You mean like Essiac tea and magnetic therapy? Because I have purchased and given away products like these for cancer sufferers!

So these people who pretend to beat their breast and play the 'holy' card when eugenics is proposed are LAUGHING as they lie. They know eugenics is being perpetrated ALL the time, EVERYwhere .. whilst hiding its face.


I am NOT laughing.



[edit on 7-10-2008 by Clearskies]
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



Did Carl Sagan know something?
  Posted 18 days ago with 276 member flags
Earthly coincidences...or not.
  Posted 14 days ago with 122 member flags
Was this the real reason why Megaupload was closed down?
  Posted 18 days ago with 96 member flags
The Mysterious Death of Marilyn Monroe
  Posted 16 days ago with 85 member flags
Denver Airport Allows Camera Crew in Underground Facility
  Posted 16 days ago with 83 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Hollow Earth Theory New Evidence.
  General Conspiracies, Posted 17 hours ago, 117 replies
Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 13 hours ago, 65 replies
I saw a cat turn into a bag..
  The Gray Area, Posted 17 hours ago, 42 replies