PDA

View Full Version : Eugenics and Progressives



Chris
07-17-2013, 11:38 AM
You won't hear this in Progressive's public education.

The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics (http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html)


Hitler and his henchmen victimized an entire continent and exterminated millions in his quest for a co-called "Master Race."

But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn't originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little known, role in the American eugenics movement's campaign for ethnic cleansing.

Eugenics was the racist pseudoscience determined to wipe away all human beings deemed "unfit," preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype. Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in twenty-seven states. In 1909, California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in "colonies," and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning. Before World War II, nearly half of coercive sterilizations were done in California, and even after the war, the state accounted for a third of all such surgeries.

Progressive genocide (http://www.salon.com/2006/03/04/bruinius/)


Among the many concerns that captivated the American educated class early in the last century, few were thought to be as urgent as the threat posed to the nation by sexually insatiable female morons. This may sound silly; today, our fear of morons is rather abstract, and on a national scale confined mostly to whomever is the current resident of the White House. But a hundred years ago, morons were public enemy No. 1, seen as a drain on the nation’s resources and a grave danger to its stability. The situation was most keenly appreciated by progressives — scientists, businessmen, feminists and liberal politicians — who, as even the best of us sometimes do, feared that within a short time, the nation would be overrun by simpletons.

...As the journalist Harry Bruinius explains in “Better for All the World: The Secret History of Forced Sterilization and America’s Quest for Racial Purity,” his comprehensive new history of the American eugenics movement, the problem wasn’t just that morons were given to crime and poverty; because feeblemindedness was a genetic condition passed on from one generation to the next, their children, and their children’s children, and on and on, were similarly suspect as well. Of particular concern were the afflicted women, in whom scientists had found the symptoms of feeblemindedness more pronounced. Female morons gave in to their sexual urges more quickly than feebleminded men, and they sometimes deceived normal men into consorting with them; in addition, they were “hyper-fecund,” as doctors termed their apparent tendency to become pregnant easily. Put this all together, as many smart Americans did, and you had a big problem on your hands: an extremely fertile, extremely needy, apparently permanent underclass.

...Progressives saw sterilization as having natural advantages over traditional methods of helping the poor, such as charity. Sterilization was “scientific” — its rationale could be found in the writings of Charles Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton, the father of eugenics, who mused that superior people, like superior crops and farm animals, were the product of good breeding. The term “gene” had not yet been coined — among the surprises in Bruinius’ book is that the science and the word “genetics” were born of the pseudoscience eugenics, and not vice versa — but any well-read person could understand that if you wanted to rid the world of inferior people, you ought to stop them from passing on their characteristics to future generations. Whereas charity only prolonged and deepened the problem of poverty by allowing the “unfit” among us to survive and procreate, sterilization presented what you might call a permanent, final solution. Give a man a fish and he eats for one day; cut his mother’s fallopian tubes and you can be pretty certain not to need any fish, or fishing lessons, in the first place.

...And yet in Bruinius’ telling American eugenicists don’t look nearly so inconsequential. Importantly, Bruinius points out, we were the first to pick up the eugenics bug. Galton, a Brit, provided the intellectual basis for eugenics, but Americans, who fancied themselves a chosen people and whose blood has always run hot on matters of utopia, actually implemented the plans. In 1907, Indiana passed “the first sterilization law in human history,” Bruinius writes, and “in the next two decades, the United States became the pioneer in state-sanctioned programs to rid society of the ‘unfit.’” At least 30 states enacted similar laws, and sterilization became routine. California, which ran the most aggressive program, sterilized more than 2,500 people in a 10-year period; in all, more than 65,000 Americans were rendered infertile.

It’s not exactly clear what Roosevelt meant by “citizens of the wrong type,” but it should be noted that as eugenics thinking matured, many supporters began to see the delineations between people of the right and wrong type as extending beyond just mental categories. Leading eugenicists argued that science proved that non-whites were genetically inferior to whites, that certain kinds of Europeans were better than other kinds, and that you should never trust a Jew. The eugenicists’ claims were touted by opportunistic politicians, who used the scientific findings to pass restrictive immigration laws in the U.S.

The American enthusiasm for purifying the populace did not go unnoticed beyond our borders. After the Supreme Court approved the process, “the American technique of social engineering became the model for laws in Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, and Sweden,” Bruinius writes. And one more: Hitler’s Germany, where the sterilization laws were consciously modeled on and supported by the American efforts.

...

Germanicus
07-22-2013, 12:14 AM
Eugenics seems like a decent idea because we no longer have survival of the fittest and this causes devolution.

People think the Germans were horrible for putting invalid types down but in my opinion it is for the best. Animals eat the runt for a reason. Romans would throw away babies that were no good. Spartans would throw inferior babies from a cliff. There was no disability insurance back then. The sentimental modern person cant understand the sense in preventing a hellish existence. I can. I hate to see people that have things like down syndrome. I think its disgusting that westerners want all these disabled people and their families to endure needless hardship.

Humans have become far too sentimental. If a dog needs to be put down we put the poor thing down and out of its misery. If it is a human we force them to suffer even if they themselves want to end their agony.

Religion is to blame.

I think certain eugenicistic ideas are worth consideration.

edit- I was talking to my Dad about eugenics a while ago. He is against. He told me that sometimes two very ugly people can produce a baby that grows up to be a really hot chick. I had to agree. This does happen. A genius does not have to have a genius parent.

There is clearly some random factor that would be lost if National Socialist style eugenics took hold.

edit- Charlottes Web is propaganda. Its best to eat the runt. Best for them and best for the community/society.

edit- And have you seen Gattaca? I like that movie but here is the thing. The guy was putting the other members of the crew in danger by lying about his ability. After the credits he may have gotten all his crew members killed because his physical ability was not what it should have been. Wearing a prosthetic penis doesnt make your cock any bigger and you should not consider it. People do have limits and that should be fine. The guy was obviously capable of contributing more to society than being a cleaner but what he did was wrong. In that movie the society is wrong and so is the hero. It is all wrong.

edit- Do you think he took the prosthetic penis off when he had sex with Uma? (: I wonder.

edit- cocks are getting smaller that say. Newt Gingrich blames feminists... I disagree. Feminists are the most hedonistic pleasure seeking females out there. I blame the masses of ugly chicks that settle for small cocks( many are ugly feminists. There are different types of feminists. I also blame capitalism because money makes the size of your cock far less important. Capitalists just buy a sports car that has a big hood ornament. (:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm24raCnD1s

The movie Straw Dogs must really hurt the heads of many feminists.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xcJCnY1I_o

Yeah!

Germanicus
07-22-2013, 01:17 AM
Deep down all chicks want a hard barbarian. Not some pathetic Patrician. The Patrician chicks want it the worst.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x604-CKno8

zelmo1234
07-22-2013, 01:28 AM
You know Germ, after reading your post you may be right? We should bring back the ovens! and I nominate you to be first in like to test them out!

Chris
07-22-2013, 08:09 AM
Eugenics seems like a decent idea because we no longer have survival of the fittest and this causes devolution.

Well, you as a socialist are a progressive liberal after all. No wonder you defend eugenics.

Uh, I see you still buy survival of the fittest. Naturally, socialist ideas are unfounded and unrelated to the nature of man. And you don't even get SoF right.

nic34
07-22-2013, 01:45 PM
You won't hear this in Progressive's public education.

The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics (http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html)



Progressive genocide (http://www.salon.com/2006/03/04/bruinius/)


Wow, really grasping at straws here....

This has to do with modern progressives how?

Chris
07-22-2013, 01:50 PM
Wow, really grasping at straws here....

This has to do with modern progressives how?

Explain the difference between old and new progressives. Show us when this changed.

I can document when old classical liberalism changed to new modern liberalism. I've seen nothing to indicate a change in new liberalism.

I do understand your need to distance yourself.

nic34
07-22-2013, 02:14 PM
Many things were taken for granted in our nation's past. Especially belief that natives were savage sub-humans and treatment of other minorities. By conservatives as well as progressives.

But please do go on with your pretentious history lessons...

Chris
07-22-2013, 02:16 PM
Many things were taken for granted in our nation's past. Especially belief that natives were savagetreatment of minorities. By conservatives as well as progressives.

But please do go on with your pretentious history lessons...

The difference between you and me nic is I accept that Indians were treated savagely, and vice versa, while you live in denial of history.

nic34
07-22-2013, 02:21 PM
I don't deny history, progressives learn from it.... you know.... progress....

Chris
07-22-2013, 04:06 PM
I don't deny history, progressives learn from it.... you know.... progress....

So what have progressives learned from their past history with racism and eugenics, nic?

Guerilla
07-22-2013, 05:38 PM
Eugenics seems like a decent idea because we no longer have survival of the fittest and this causes devolution.

People think the Germans were horrible for putting invalid types down but in my opinion it is for the best. Animals eat the runt for a reason. Romans would throw away babies that were no good. Spartans would throw inferior babies from a cliff. There was no disability insurance back then. The sentimental modern person cant understand the sense in preventing a hellish existence. I can. I hate to see people that have things like down syndrome. I think its disgusting that westerners want all these disabled people and their families to endure needless hardship.

Humans have become far too sentimental. If a dog needs to be put down we put the poor thing down and out of its misery. If it is a human we force them to suffer even if they themselves want to end their agony.

Religion is to blame.

I think certain eugenicistic ideas are worth consideration.

edit- I was talking to my Dad about eugenics a while ago. He is against. He told me that sometimes two very ugly people can produce a baby that grows up to be a really hot chick. I had to agree. This does happen. A genius does not have to have a genius parent.

There is clearly some random factor that would be lost if National Socialist style eugenics took hold.

edit- Charlottes Web is propaganda. Its best to eat the runt. Best for them and best for the community/society.

edit- And have you seen Gattaca? I like that movie but here is the thing. The guy was putting the other members of the crew in danger by lying about his ability. After the credits he may have gotten all his crew members killed because his physical ability was not what it should have been. Wearing a prosthetic penis doesnt make your cock any bigger and you should not consider it. People do have limits and that should be fine. The guy was obviously capable of contributing more to society than being a cleaner but what he did was wrong. In that movie the society is wrong and so is the hero. It is all wrong.

edit- Do you think he took the prosthetic penis off when he had sex with Uma? (: I wonder.

edit- cocks are getting smaller that say. Newt Gingrich blames feminists... I disagree. Feminists are the most hedonistic pleasure seeking females out there. I blame the masses of ugly chicks that settle for small cocks( many are ugly feminists. There are different types of feminists. I also blame capitalism because money makes the size of your cock far less important. Capitalists just buy a sports car that has a big hood ornament. (:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm24raCnD1s

The movie Straw Dogs must really hurt the heads of many feminists.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xcJCnY1I_o

Yeah!

I also wondered why we would let people with severe conditions continue to exist and possibly pass the problems to their kids. My conclusion: you can learn something from anyone. I think instead of looking at these people as a drain on society, you can look at them as a teacher. They teach you most of all patience and understanding, something severely lacking in society today (as exemplified by your comment). I have an 11 year old brother that is severely mentally retarded from receiving his shots. Believe it or not he is happy the majority of the time and doesn't live a "hellish existence" that we need to save him from. Furthermore my family and I don't consider it a "needless hardship" that we must "endure". He's apart of the family like the rest, and taking him away would be just as detrimental and heartbreaking to the family as taking away any one of the normal children.

Chris
07-22-2013, 05:52 PM
It's also a simple matter of evolution. What's fittest today, given an abrupt change of environment, could be weakest tomorrow. Even the Bible tells us this:

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.

OK, Dylan, but he got it from the Bible.

Ravi
07-25-2013, 12:17 PM
Interesting to note that in 1909 California had a Republican governor and it had had Republican governors for years before and years after.

Chris
07-25-2013, 02:13 PM
Interesting to note that in 1909 California had a Republican governor and it had had Republican governors for years before and years after.

And this has what to do with the recent rise in the price of turnips?