Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

CoFR and other eugenisists - Is Alex Jones etc Wrong to fear them?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Alex and others are quiet, quiet sure that the Council on Foreign Relations are TOTAL NWO - i'm not so sure myself, i think this is another great example of something which might hold differing views (to the highly rightwing conservative alex jones) being wildly demonized.

They're a [mostly] left wing think tank, a body of people who believe that only by understanding something can you act sensibly to find a solution. I have watched many hours of lectures from the CoFR and mostly they talk about how to make the world better for all it's inhabitants, the importance of diversity and freedom that sort of stuff.

I've head the conspiracy theories written and pushed by people with a book to sell, none of them offer conclusive or convincing proof and most of them offer nothing in this way at all apart from guess work, paranoia and various forms of misuse of occam's razor. However when i follow up any of the leads they offer, some document to read or something invariably they turn out to be a fairly standard absolutely non conspiratorial diatribe on 'the global situation' or 'the human experience' in which the author or authors brings up a question like 'so does the population need to be lower?' or something the tin-merchants can take out of context to sell their book, then the authors discus the subject and put forward the evidence so they can debate the contributing factors. This is just science, when you're planning your picnic would u rather i didn't look out the window than tell you the weather is bad?

However, most (not all) of the documents i've read come to the over whelming conclusion that in fact the earth still has a little spare capacity if we were to live in a more pragmatic way, certainly though we should curb our breeding (ever hear the word exponential?) certainly in light of the advances in medicine allowing us to live longer. It is without a doubt that we need to consider these factors, we need to do something now so that we don't have worse problems in the future - the people at CoFR are mostly suggesting solutions such as planned parent hood (giving people more choice not less), better management of resources and education about the issues...

That's not to say many people don't just think of the easy answer -too many of something? get rid of some. Instead of worrying that these few nutters will manage to convince the 'elite' to dispose of most of us why not come up with a more pragmatic solution? or a valid counter argument? Personally i go for the 'science will save us' argument every time, if we had a higher % of educated people they would work sensibly to produce ways and means of living using less resources and to use those we have better... plus new tech would advance giving new access to other resources (hello space)

While alex is doing his job as a journalist in bringing our attention to interesting things, i think maybe we are doing a disservice to alex by not using the information he has worked so hard to uncover. Each time alex presents us with a piece of shocking news, we shouldn't nod and smile say 'see... proves I WAS RIGHT' then forget about it and in the same way just telling other people isn't enough if all they're going to then do is tell #other# people - soon the whole world will know but nothing will have changed.

The eugenic guy who got a round of applause for demanding 80% of the world needs to die? Did anyone stop shaking their head and mumbling about the NWO long enough to find out about him? to look into his reasoning? to refute and debunk his logic? -if he truly believes that and is willing to stand by it then he should be a forgotten joke right now, his faulty logic and failed reasoning should have been totally debunked and disproven point by point so entirely that he can't even use his accreditation to get a job pushing prostate pills on AM radio! haha unless he was right of course........

So can anyone show me something that proves CoFR want to kill 80% of the population? or that anyone in a respectable position does? (apart from inbred members of european royal families of course we know they do, they're all mental -which is why we need to depose them and get ourselves some elected officials but that's another thread...)

If anyone can then we need to come up with sensible retorts, not just label them NWO and fear them. lol




posted on May, 5 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Here is the story of University of Texas biologist Eric Pianka

en.wikipedia.org...



He suggested that the planet would be "better off" if the human population were to crash, and that a mutant strain of Ebola (which has up to a 90% mortality rate) would be the most efficient means. After he finished his address Pianka was given a standing ovation.


That guy goes even beyond the usual 80%, he thinks 90% is better.

So that gives you the one person in a respectable position you wanted, while true that it's ambiguous that he'd like to actually do it, he certainly wouldn't be shedding any tears if it did.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Yes. These people are absolutely nutty. How do you know they wouldn't do massive forced steralization on anyone they didn't like? These eugenicists only want to create a perfect world in their vision. They want a world without ailments. And that would mean to get rid of anyone else that isn't perfect. It would pervert humanity. It would also require killing off (either violently or not) these other people less desirable than others. These people are mad.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


How do i know? Well quiet frankly i don't, nor do you #know# they would. My point is that genetic illness is still very common among kids born in the west, 'undesirables' having children is also very common - this proves that eugenics is NOT currently being carried out on a mass scale.

Many very sensible scientists looked at the emerging genetic research during the early part of last century and decided that humanity was possibly in trouble if the genetic problems related to many common conditions were able to 'fix' within the human population. Millions of years of evolution could be ruined and the whole race destroyed if those previously weeded out by natural selection were aloud to pass on their faulty code, of course it turned out that they were getting a little carried away with themselves and the human genome was more stable than they suspected - however it is an undeniable truth that should the genetic pool stagnate humanity would suffer in the long run, the question of how to stop the gradual decay of humanity is a very tricky one.

A common idea is eugenics but this has never really been taken seriously because of the implications you mention, civil liberty. The ideal solution comes from the dangerous and scary technology of genetic enginering - the possibility that genetic errors can be fixed, alas many religion weilding philistines seek to ban this vital scientific breakthrough and with out it society will eventually collapse. I don't see why any blind, geneticly autistic or any kids with other genetic problems need to be born once this technology is perfected.

Those few people who still support eugenics do need to be blocked thats for sure, however the main body of scientific opinion and political action is indeed going towards the second more acceptable option. The shady NWO types like the rothschilds no doubt support the second option also, they are all terribly inbred and suffer from a mixture of genetic conditions. I don't think that eugenics is anything to fear anymore, it's an obsolete science -gone the way of the sextant, replaced by better and more reliable methods.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by NatureBoy
 


posted on 6-6-2009 at 06:00 AM

reply to post by Frankidealist35



How do i know? Well quiet frankly i don't, nor do you #know# they would. My point is that genetic illness is still very common among kids born in the west, 'undesirables' having children is also very common - this proves that eugenics is NOT currently being carried out on a mass scale.

Everyone has genetic illnesses. No one is perfect. Labeling someone who has a genetic illness does nothing good for the rest of the world.


Many very sensible scientists looked at the emerging genetic research during the early part of last century and decided that humanity was possibly in trouble if the genetic problems related to many common conditions were able to 'fix' within the human population. Millions of years of evolution could be ruined and the whole race destroyed if those previously weeded out by natural selection were aloud to pass on their faulty code, of course it turned out that they were getting a little carried away with themselves and the human genome was more stable than they suspected - however it is an undeniable truth that should the genetic pool stagnate humanity would suffer in the long run, the question of how to stop the gradual decay of humanity is a very tricky one.

They weren't sensible. They wanted to rid the world of people who weren't whites, and, to make the world be absolutely perfect. They wanted a utopia that is completely impossible, and, they were not afraid to get rid of anyone else who they deemed fit. The world should not be ran by such people.



A common idea is eugenics but this has never really been taken seriously because of the implications you mention, civil liberty. The ideal solution comes from the dangerous and scary technology of genetic enginering - the possibility that genetic errors can be fixed, alas many religion weilding philistines seek to ban this vital scientific breakthrough and with out it society will eventually collapse. I don't see why any blind, geneticly autistic or any kids with other genetic problems need to be born once this technology is perfected.

We shouldn't be focusing our efforts to something like eugenics which brings the end of families. Rather we should be focusing our efforts on curing these people. You seem to have a pro-eugenics look. One look at history will show that eugenics isn't that great.



Those few people who still support eugenics do need to be blocked thats for sure, however the main body of scientific opinion and political action is indeed going towards the second more acceptable option. The shady NWO types like the rothschilds no doubt support the second option also, they are all terribly inbred and suffer from a mixture of genetic conditions. I don't think that eugenics is anything to fear anymore, it's an obsolete science -gone the way of the sextant, replaced by better and more reliable methods.

I believe eugenics is still around... just in other forms.

[edit on 6-6-2009 by Frankidealist35]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 




Everyone has genetic illnesses. No one is perfect. Labeling someone who has a genetic illness does nothing good for the rest of the world.


Ok and everyone has the terminal illness called life, asinine platitudes aside - some people have serious problems within their genetics, these can cause horrific defects which cause nothing but suffering to the poor person - needless suffering.



They weren't sensible. They wanted to rid the world of people who weren't whites, and, to make the world be absolutely perfect. They wanted a utopia that is completely impossible, and, they were not afraid to get rid of anyone else who they deemed fit. The world should not be ran by such people.


No, no, no that's not fair - SOME people were racist eugenic crazys that's for sure, most of them were Nazis - this does in no way mean that everyone who looked into or researched eugenics was a terrible person. As for a utopia, ever read Tomas More's Utopia? Most of the problems he finds solutions for are no longer problems to us, technology has sent them the way of Small Pox. It's not a wild fantasy to say that we can and should work to increase and improve the health of the world, indeed the general health of the world has been increasing dramatically in the last few hundred years, why should we suspect it will stop?



The ideal solution comes from the dangerous and scary technology of genetic enginering - the possibility that genetic errors can be fixed, alas many religion weilding philistines seek to ban this vital scientific breakthrough and with out it society will eventually collapse. I don't see why any blind, geneticly autistic or any kids with other genetic problems need to be born once this technology is perfected.



We shouldn't be focusing our efforts to something like eugenics which brings the end of families. Rather we should be focusing our efforts on curing these people. You seem to have a pro-eugenics look. One look at history will show that eugenics isn't that great.


Wait, didn't i just say almost exactly that? Eugenics is an outdated science, we now have better more moral and more viable solutions, such as like i said "The ideal solution comes from the dangerous and scary technology of genetic enginering - the possibility that genetic errors can be fixed"



I believe eugenics is still around... just in other forms.


Ok, well if you could maybe provide some form of evidence for this claim then i'll agree with you, as it stands the general medical and scientific opinion is that genetic understanding will (and has) render eugenics totally unnessasary this is quiet clear when you look at how money is being spent within the community. What are these other forms? as i mentioned before welfare alcodrug addicts manage to find time between prison to drop an entire litter, disabled and geneticly unviable kids are born everyday - where is this eugenics happening then?



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Yes, Alex is wrong to fear them.
He fears everything.

This world needs to do selective breeding to rid itself of at least some of the 4000+ heritable defects.

If you object to this, I'd say that you have never known anyone with bad inherited defects. Do you have a defect that you want your children to have?

For what reason would we want to continue on the present path when we can apply some simple knowlege and improve the species.

Stronger, healthier more beautiful people are what the world needs.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
If alex jones really feared them would he bring kids into the world. No one has evr asked him that.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


Alex Jones has kids.

What are you talking about? What does that have to do anything? It doesn't mean that eugenicists WON'T push for their sick agenda to be made a reality despite the fact that they were stopped the last time they tried.

[edit on 7-6-2009 by Frankidealist35]



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Most CFR members join for prestige, and belief that what they are doing can be of some good. Also, maybe they think it looks good on a resume/job application I dunno.

The evil is at the head of the table, and those with their hands in creating policy.

I remember Aaron Russo covering this back in 2006 when Alex Jones interviewed him, at least this is what Aaron said Nick Rockefeller had told him.

www.youtube.com...






top topics



 
0

log in

join