Worldwide Eugenics Operation: Professor Openly Calls For the Sterilization of the “Unfit”

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   
theintelhub.com...

"In what can be described as an open endorsement of eugenics, British Professor David Marsland has called for the sterilization of the people the the state deems unfit. Eugenics, the driving force behind Hitlers Holocaust, has a firm footing in our society, whether it be through the use of vaccines, Planned Parenthood, or forced sterilization."

Well, perhaps we could start with his children.

Seriously, This kind of talk could get out of control and end up with laws to sterilize , beginning of course with the mentally handicapped. From there different social groups could easily be added such as ATS posters and then whoever the elite wanted.




posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   
The only problem with tis plan is that most of the lawyers, politicians and bankers have already had their familes thereby making the program pointless.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 

You forgot Estate agents J,
But back on topic who is going to make the call on who gets "the snip".
The social elite will have very narrow views on who is going to get the "shot" so to speak. It will be very worrying times for people here on ATS but the Sheeple will be blissfully unaware.. S&F ...



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
One of the worst crimes of world war 2 was the fact that whenever anyone starts talking about eugenics, people immediately bring up nazi's.

The concept is perfectly fine...it is natural, it is darwinian...remove over time defective aspects of humanity and breed in positive traits.

So my question is this...should we focus on the betterment of the human species over time, or should we focus on being politically correct so not to make a fuss?

I think some unfit people should be sterilized...there are plenty of babies to adopt, but if you have some major genetic issue that is being passed down, why not try to stop that?

One could say that vaccines and cures is a form of eugenics...but because it has a different label, it is seen as a positive...What if a cure to some genetic abnormality also caused sterilization...would it be unheard of to give that cure out...instead let the person die because its less nazilike?



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Heres the speech:
www.youtube.com...

I personally agree with the man.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
I dont see a problem with it.

If you have some problem that can be hereditary and the doctors tells you your child has a xx% chance to also have it, then if the chances are big enough wouldn't you want to avoid having children so to save another human being from having to go through the same suffering with this defect? Not to mention saving them from also having to make the choice of whether to have children or not etc.

I read somewhere that something like one third of the worlds babies that are born with deformations etc, are Indian, because alot of Indians marry their 1st cousins in arranged marriages, and everyone knows incest very often leads to these problems. I think it's selfish and cruel on the children to even consider doing that. So to a degree, I don't see a problem with also stopping other certain people from having kids when there's a high enough chance they could be passing on hereditary diseases.

The problem is, with things like this there'll always be people that truly are wrongly judged, whether they're stuck in a "grey area" that really has no classification, or the rules regarding the sterilization don't take certain parts of their health into consideration.

Longwinded post, my bad.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Frankly, the government has lost my trust a long time ago.

Giving them the control over who to sterilize is just tyranny waiting to happen at this point.

Seriously, those people that claim they agree with this will quickly change their mind when they or their children are forcibly sterilized because of some stupid reason.

For example, you and your children are fine. But because the government has detected your line is a carrier for some mental illness that can appear in any of the following generations, you will all be sterilized now.

Think about it, you're essentially giving the control over your right to have children to the ones in power. Considering the ones in power are no doubt the richest people in the world and attend secret meetings... Do you really want to engage in that risk?

Think carefully before you say yes to something so powerful that it can alter your life forever from one minute to the next.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Well, if the unfit don't want to be sterilized, they shouldn't have to.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was also a strong proponent for eugenics.

Margaret Sanger - Eugenics and euthanasia


Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, a social philosophy which claims that human hereditary traits can be improved through social intervention. Sanger's eugenic policies ran to an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family-planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded. She expressly denounced euthanasia as a eugenics tool.

Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent "dysgenic" children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and dismissed "positive eugenics" (which promoted greater fertility for the "fitter" upper classes) as impractical. Though many leaders in the negative eugenics movement were calling for active euthanasia of the "unfit," Sanger spoke out against such methods. She believed that women with the power and knowledge of birth control were in the best position to produce "fit" children. She rejected any type of eugenics that would take control out of the hands of those actually giving birth.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Eugenics is inhumane. You can always judge a society by howq it treats the vulnerable. We are not livestock to be bred and have our ruler worry over b loodlines like pedigree dogs!



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by gem_man
 



So Eugenics is making a comeback.

Professor Eugenics says, "Forget "rights," a free and just society has a duty to protect its children." He focuses on child abuse and neglect in the lower classes, and mentions overpopulated war-torn regions.

His solution to the world's ills: forced sterilization of "at-risk" parents, male and female.

...As I suggested in another thread:

Maybe Mother Nature has a better eye for "quality genes" than Eugenicists do.

Also, IMHO - It is far more abusive to delegate the care of one's children to nanny-strangers, ship them off to private school and never get to know them than it is to expose them to the other injustices and vagaries of real life.

More to the point: It is such 'upper class' abuse that creates sociopaths and psychopaths - far more often than the 'lower class' examples provided by Professor Eugenics. Moreover, upper class sociopaths have a far greater ability to impact far more people than the lower class variety.

...I don't deny that abuse and neglect are destructive. However, I DO believe that our attention in this regard must be directed to the ruling class rather than the lower classes, as the ruling class breeds the sociopaths who run our world - raising and educating them in such a manner so that they cannot help but become sociopathic. ...To the great detriment of the entire world, not just a micro-limited bit of it.


RE: Overpopulation

See The Overpopulation Myth, The Underpopulation Crisis

FYI - Populations in the third world are NOT exploding any longer. ...The so-called "diseases of civilization" are now named "age-related chronic disease" - and we've spread them to the developing world, along with infertility.

Ie., from Preconceptions.com: Global Infertility: Experiences in Other Countries...

In Africa, for example, some of the fastest population growth in the world co-exists with an infertility rate that in some areas is more than 30 percent.



...One of the saddest realities of infertility in much of the developing world is that it is largely preventable. "Most of the infertility is due to preventable infections," says Inhorn. These infections can be due to sexually transmitted diseases, poor hygiene and harmful health care practices. In addition, secondary infertility can be caused by untreated or poorly treated postpartum complications.

Both men and women in developing countries are exposed to higher levels of environmental and dietary toxins than people in North America. ...(causing infertility)



S&F btw



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Take a look at current birth rates and trends, do some subjective math and you will see how much of the human population is already or will soon be in decline.

In much of the civilized world where birth control and abortion are readily available birth rates are, or will soon be low enough that there is little or no replacement of the dead. If a couple has only one child they have only replaced one of that couple, ultimately reducing the future population by one. Have you replaced yourselves? Did your parents replace themselves?

Who will replace those who will never have children?

Ha! ... eugenics is no longer necessary.



[edit on 5-9-2010 by Fractured.Facade]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
The people that support this seem slightly pretentious.


Are not the rich responsible in part for the mental illnesses we see? Are they not responsible for the wars we see, or even the violence done to members of society?

Aspartame made people rich, but at the cost of people becoming addicted and contribute to or cause mental illness such as depression. A byproduct of excessive greed is increased violence, and victims and families, generally lower or middle class, get to absorb that cost while the rich continue to reap profits. People like to blame one person, but they never look at the environment surrounding people.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 





More to the point: It is such 'upper class' abuse that creates sociopaths and psychopaths - far more often than the 'lower class' examples provided by Professor Eugenics. Moreover, upper class sociopaths have a far greater ability to impact far more people than the lower class variety.

...I DO believe that our attention in this regard must be directed to the ruling class rather than the lower classes, as the ruling class breeds the sociopaths who run our world - raising and educating them in such a manner so that they cannot help but become sociopathic. ...To the great detriment of the entire world, not just a micro-limited bit of it.


Fantastic. And thanks for referring me to this thread, I'm looking forward to a good debate.

I completely agree with you regarding refocusing on the elite, rather than the "lower" classes. This should be blatantly obvious to anyone. Why bother with the "nobody", who can do so little, and at the same time ignore the elite, who have a million times the impact?

Modern eugenics is just another tool of the elite, who look out upon this world as their own, and at those who live upon it, as their slaves.

Would our masters dare treat us like dogs, or cattle, attempting to breed this trait, or that, whichever suited their purposes best?

You bet. And this is what they have already been doing for a long time now.

Margaret Sanger has already been mentioned, but she's a great example. For her, the dark masses needed eradication. If you look at the history of Planned Parenthood, there is a focus on the minority that is not easy to dismiss, in spite of later appointing African American leaders (to perhaps make it look otherwise).

Eugenics is just wonderful! Until someone decides that YOU are not desired. Your eyes aren't blue enough...Get 'em up against the Wall!

Sheesh. When will people learn. Our masters are not smarter than Mother Nature.

But are they smart enough to fool the masses? Seemingly. They are doing a good job of it so far. Most people seem to believe in "overpopulation", and yet, it is a myth they created, to get us to willingly, do their bidding.

If they have their way, humanity will NOT be "better", but perhaps humanity will possess far more slavish traits than we do at the moment.

They don't necessarily want "healthier" people. Far more likely, they would prefer more DOCILITY in their slaves.

Think about it folks. Don't unwittingly support our insane masters. It will not be good us, and probably not for them either! But this won't stop them from trying. At least, let's not help them too much!

JR



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
This has already been done in the US, Canada, and probably a great number of other countries. And now matter how you look at it, it is wrong, it is utterly inuhmane. I am surprised at posters who go on and on about freedom and wanting the government to stay out of their lives, now advocating sterilization of the "unfit." Who defines "unfit"?



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
One of the worst crimes of world war 2 was the fact that whenever anyone starts talking about eugenics, people immediately bring up nazi's.

The concept is perfectly fine...it is natural, it is darwinian...remove over time defective aspects of humanity and breed in positive traits.

So my question is this...should we focus on the betterment of the human species over time, or should we focus on being politically correct so not to make a fuss?

I think some unfit people should be sterilized...there are plenty of babies to adopt, but if you have some major genetic issue that is being passed down, why not try to stop that?

One could say that vaccines and cures is a form of eugenics...but because it has a different label, it is seen as a positive...What if a cure to some genetic abnormality also caused sterilization...would it be unheard of to give that cure out...instead let the person die because its less nazilike?

what do you do when you want to sterilize people that don't want to be sterilized?

Put a gun to thier head? Throw them into jail. Fascist.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Apparently one professor saying this equals a worldwide eugenics operation.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
This is an absolute horror and an atrocity against humanity!!

That professor and those who support eugenics should be rehabilitated, not sterilized as they are unfit totally to lead or direct society.

Just because a father is unfit to live within a society, does not mean his son or daughter will be unfit as well. Throughout centuries, eugenics had been proven a lie!

Look at Queen Elizbeth II and then look at Prince Charles. I would say the Queen was charismatic, but Charles? He's more a joke and would make a good commedienne on SNL.

Look at the Bush Family. The father had been a wise leader to the nation, but his son turned out to be a moron.

Look at Bill Gates and compare him to his father. Why is billy a billionaire and his dad unheard of?

Look at President Obama. His dad is only a goat farmer, a nonity and yet his son became the most powerful man on Earth *( on the surface of it at least)

I can give even more qoutes of unfit fathers and unfit sons. When eugenics become a national policy, then it must be fairly applied to all or it will only be pre concieved murder outright and a man made extinction level event, even if we are to discard the religious aspect of it.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   
This is just proof that there are crazies who hold degrees just like religious crazies who fly planes into buildings. Yes folks, even purportedly sensible people believe in nonsensical ideas.


[edit on 9/5/2010 by The Endtime Warrior]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
One of the worst crimes of world war 2 was the fact that whenever anyone starts talking about eugenics, people immediately bring up nazi's.

The concept is perfectly fine...it is natural, it is darwinian...remove over time defective aspects of humanity and breed in positive traits.

So my question is this...should we focus on the betterment of the human species over time, or should we focus on being politically correct so not to make a fuss?

I think some unfit people should be sterilized...there are plenty of babies to adopt, but if you have some major genetic issue that is being passed down, why not try to stop that?

One could say that vaccines and cures is a form of eugenics...but because it has a different label, it is seen as a positive...What if a cure to some genetic abnormality also caused sterilization...would it be unheard of to give that cure out...instead let the person die because its less nazilike?


Who's the WE? There is no one who has authority over any one else, the reality of this life lesson and tests in this holographic universe/school is that: Love & Equality and really really understanding is the only ticket out of here.

The wanna be elites need to be arrested, but I don't give my power away to any of them, and most of the laws they already enacted are illegal crimes against humanity.

Stop thinking you can control others, judging anyone, and start thinking of helping free them, their minds and empower them. All anyone can do is encourage.

Surivival of the fittest is a mafia lords wet dream propganda lie.

Its all about love, respect and cooperation.

The duality is programming in your dna and the world. Look beyond it and within.

I would perform a citizens arrest on any of these negatives if they were within site of me!





new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join