February
29th 2008
Posted under Culture & Political Correctness
Everyone’s aware that you’re guilty of the most insensitive form of nativist racism if you accurately quote Mexican radicals’ statements about reclaiming the American Southwest.
And we all know that only a bad, bad racist would publish, or analyze, or even think about the differences in IQ between blacks and whites.
So it only makes sense that you’re committing a hate crime by announcing Barack [DELETED] Obama’s middle name.
Wow. And everyone laughed when Marion Barry, the former (and most representative) mayor of the District of Corruption, proclaimed, “All laws are racist. The law of gravity is racist.â€
His Honor was right. It looks like all facts are racist, too.
roho on 29 Feb 2008 at 2:19 pm #
The letter exchange between scientists was fascinating. Good article HB!
“Political Correctness” is a feel good LIE………….But, the truth will set you free. Trying to control science with PC is crazy.(But it makes Morris Dees a lot of money.)
love the girls on 29 Feb 2008 at 3:51 pm #
Fired from Cold Springs Harbor? The same notorious Cold Springs Harbor created to promote positive eugenics?
For those who pay attention to whats coming around, especially with regard to the Culture War, and the Culture of Death, here some familiar names associated with Cold Springs Harbor:
http://www.eugenics-watch.com/roots/chap12.html
Funding the Eugenics Movement
For those unfamiliar with the Eugenics Movement this is a nice introduction:
http://www.eugenics-watch.com/intro.html#history
“One excellent way to understand the eugenics movement is to read through a list of the members of the Eugenics Society and its successor, the Society for the Study of Social Biology. Eugenics is not a conspiracy, it is a movement and an ideology. But its pieces are often considered in isolation (perhaps because of the success of the strategy of crypto-eugenics) and reading through the list of members is one efficient way to see the whole picture.
A list of members of the American Eugenics Society, with notes, is available from American Life League, and on this website.”
Andrew T. on 29 Feb 2008 at 4:38 pm #
Guys, let’s get Obama on where we can actually hurt him: the issues.
The American people don’t buy this “OMG Obama is secretly a Muslim!!!” business in the first place. Refute Barack Obama on his politics or you might as well call him “Mr. President”.
csason on 29 Feb 2008 at 5:05 pm #
Ok, let’s get Obama on the issues..now if he’s just comply and actually
make a forthright statement ABOUT an issue, we could begin.
But first, according to current definition, my grandchildren and their offspring are racist..and they haven’t even been born. I am a racist
by simply having multiple ancestors who fought for the Confederacy.
Now back to Obama
Sample Obama speech:
(loud applause)
There is SOMETHING happening…(pause for clapping and worship..)
I can see HOPE in the future… (more pause for clapping and worship)
I see change in the future… (more pause..more clapping..more swooning)
There is SOMETHING happening….(more..yada yada)
Let me introduce my wife, who finally is proud to be an American, but only as long as I am running for President..and leading the distracted wife of W.J. Clinton…(more pause..clapping, some regret on the part of the worshippers..)
But before I introduce my wife, let me say that I feel a great deal of change and hope coming in this land. (more applause, some worship, extra clapping..followed by more worship…and applause)
James Watson is my personal hero.
Andrew T. on 29 Feb 2008 at 5:12 pm #
csason,
Criticizing him on the issues would certainly include the fact that he is amorphous and refuses to discuss the issues. In fact, that might even be the linchpin of it.
roho on 29 Feb 2008 at 8:44 pm #
csason…….I get your point and fell over laughing!…..Watson is the man!…Obama will be the next President, and only then will the PC infected conservatives understand life!….(Perhaps, then we can send them down to Dixie for DE-PROGRAMMING?)
I spent a wasted amount of time this morning trying to explain what it means to be born on Feb 29, making my neice a “Leap Year Baby”, inspite of the fact that she is a junior in college with only 5 birthdays……The affirmative action employees never quite understood how someone could have 5 birthdays and be a junior in college?………………..After producing a callendar of 2006-2012 with no more progress, I gave up!
WATSON is a prophet!
Weaver on 29 Feb 2008 at 8:49 pm #
Lol.
Btw, guess which candidate Watson donated to? I’ll give you a hint: he’s a mulatto.
roho on 29 Feb 2008 at 8:52 pm #
A bit of an afterthought, but for my niece’s birthday, I gave her a copy of Patrick Buchanan’s “Day of Reckoning”. (Last year we taught her how to shoot an AK-47 and reload.)
Keeping Dixie in the hearts of our offspring……………….Ha-Ha.
roho on 29 Feb 2008 at 8:56 pm #
Watson is no different than the manchurian candidate. When Leviathan threatens to take everything from you, compliance becomes an option.
Weaver on 29 Feb 2008 at 11:16 pm #
Regarding eugenics… I think genetic engineering and similar direct genetic tampering is the chief threat really.
Taking genetics into account might be possible in a society, though I am of a fan of Chesterton’s warning of it. Since evolution of new complex genes isn’t possible, it seems important to preserve what is left of the genes given us by our Creator if indeed such can be done in a responsible manner and while acknowledging man’s eternal soul. If such can’t be done, then perhaps it’s best to acknowledge all things, even races, are made from dust and to dust they shall return.
Proportionally more deleterious genetic variation in European than in African populations
—
Does inbreeding simply bring to the front recessive genetic traits already in existence, or does it actually lead to the creation of new mutations (if so how? or do we not know?)
Anthony M. Ludovici wrote in his “Eugenics and consanguineous marriages†that:
Lol, I’ve… no cousins I wish to mate with, but this article is interesting nevertheless. Also, traditional communities would inbreed among not-too-distant cousins, as have royalty in the past. Provided one isn’t raised together with them, perhaps this isn’t necessarily such a terrible thing if it allows for a better society overall… That’s another if, meaning I’m far from certain on this issue and am only intrigued, nothing more.
roho on 01 Mar 2008 at 11:45 am #
That was an intresting link, and one that is easily understood by those with livestock. For 26 years my family had hunting dogs that had been control-bred inorder to maintain the positive traits and remove the negative traits. They were simply for our enjoyment, with no intrest to making it a business. Other friends encouraged us to get involved with AKC Field Trial competition, and within 2 years we had finished a “National Champion”, who’s picture wound up on bags of dry dog food.
Even in competitions others would be amazed at the relaxed demeaner, and personality of our stock.(No fighting, easy to manage, and responded quickly to commands). They were all tri-colored saddle-backs, a bit leggier than others, with a supperior nose. They had a distinct voice at a distance making them recognizable in a large pack. They were famous for their stamina, and had virtually no health problems living well into the expected lifespan of the breed…………We chose 2 bloodlines and mated first cousins consistantly.
Weaver on 01 Mar 2008 at 2:29 pm #
Roho,
that’s interesting – I’d hate to produce a child with a severe negative trait though… even if such is for the best in the long run (weeding out the negative genes.)
David Allyn,
I can’t say McCain would be much better. Indeed, it might be that Obama would get less passed and would be more readily opposed due to his skin color and lack of experience.
If Obama isn’t a Muslim, he’s an anti-white black nationalist or a Marxist. What a heritage…
love the girls on 01 Mar 2008 at 2:33 pm #
Roho writes : “That was an intresting link, and one that is easily understood by those with livestock.”
The article wasn’t about livestock, but about men. Although you are correct that the article was written as if men were nothing more than livestock, to wit: the “Twins Institute” proposal. Of course then, for Galton, like Drapper, or Sanger, and those who today follow in their footsteps, the concept that society exists for the good of men according to man’s nature is foreign to them and their materialism.
When ever I read articles like this ( or for instance Thomas Woods denigrating the Churches teaching on the living wage), I’m always tempted to want to put them to the test of their own principles, with the exception that I’d adjust the eugenics standard just bit, so that it wasn’t their city of earth materialist ideal as standard, but the ideal according to the city of God, i.e., man’s true nature, and thus the standard would be virtue.
A higher standard they would fail, and thus just as Sanger paid the “human weeds”, the poor Irish and Slavs to carry placards reading they shouldn’t be allowed to propagate *, so like would the eugenicist carry placards reading a variance of what Christ said of Judas: “woe to this(sic) man by whom the Son of man has been (sic) betrayed. It were better for him, if that man had not been born.”
*Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society by Elasha Drogin pp. 15-16
Weaver on 01 Mar 2008 at 2:51 pm #
love the girls,
I take it you think poorly of arranged marriages? I’ve heard, ah, intercourse can lead to close ties between the two, even if love was not present at the beginning.
I speak of marriages arranged by the parents or patriarch of a small clan.
—
A tradition might could test whether a child is worthy or not, such tests of manhood are given in tribal societies. The failures ought to be treated well though to be sure.
Anyway, this is an issue I’m interested in because I fear genetic engineering would muddy man’s Creator given heritage, so to speak. We might cease to acknowledge our souls.
The intent though really isn’t breeding racial purity as you seem to fear, rather the intent is to preserve the Creator given traits.
Though again not to say I favor such, but Chesterton seems too ready to dismiss all consideration due to its hazy nature while simultaneously offering fuzzy economic solutions. I’ve read the robot brain and society of geniuses articles with a cold shudder, but I’ve also seen the designer baby solutions seeking to remove negative traits with science. Ignorance is bliss, but I fear it’s also a sin. We’re headed for a techno-designer baby society, and only by facing this issue can we hope to avoid it.
As I learn more about the potential solutions though, I’ll seek out a position to take. Currently, no one seems to know much at all about genetics though; there’s a C.S. Lewis quote about magicians playing with powers they hardly understand (Magician’s Nephew)… However, if good traditions existed in the past, they might be the best clue as to what the best possible traditions are in this regard.
love the girls on 01 Mar 2008 at 3:27 pm #
Weaver writes : “I take it you think poorly of arranged marriages?”
No. I think they are very good. But not for materialist reasons, but because I want the best for my children of whom the oldest is 16.
________________
Weaver writes : “Ignorance is bliss, but I fear it’s also a sin.
Not a sin. But you are not alone if you know little about the movement because that is not by accident but what the crypto-eugenics movement intends.
I had the good fortune to work as a researcher for Fr. Paul Marx on the international population control movement, albeit only for six month and very long ago when fresh out of college, and know only enough that when supping with the devil to use a very long spoon. But if you want to know more.
And I suppose that’s the difference between me and men like Steve Sailor or Chilton Williamson, I came to know of the Pioneer Fund and the like because they’re the face of evil staking the earth because its goals are far reaching, while they see it as a source of funding against deluge immigration.
love the girls on 01 Mar 2008 at 3:35 pm #
Further, this is no more about genetics, then abortion is about tissue. It’s about Men. Men who are created in the image and likeness of God.
Weaver on 01 Mar 2008 at 3:55 pm #
I know enough about the part of the movement that has infected the “right” to be wary of it, I can readily link to a robot brain article and an article talking about creating a race of geniuses.
Their aim is “genetic improvement” by any means possible, suffering and removing man’s link to his Creator are no obstacle.
In truth they’re of the most extreme left though. A society of robot-men is not going to be Aryan or Han Chinese or any other identity that would be desired by stereotypical eugenicists. The desire doesn’t seem to be reducing the impurity of other races; the desire is absolute improvement, period.
They view man as nothing more than a soulless machine. The Nazis are benign compared to this new progressive eugenicist.
—
However, genetic defects are a problem in our society. If a traditional solution can be found, it ought to be pursued, else the progressive geneticists will offer their solution of replacing man with soulless machine or GMO.
Weaver on 01 Mar 2008 at 3:58 pm #
More than mass immigration, communism, war, and whatever other evil there is… genetic engineering is my greatest fear… It potentially allows for the creation of the ultimate void, where there truly is nothing of value, nothing to hope for, nothing outside this material world.
I didn’t mean “The Nazis are benign compared to this new progressive eugenicist” as some bit of rhetoric. I fully meant it – Nazis are not the ultimate evil, nor are the communists, progressive eugenicists are the true manifestation of the abyss.
—
Ignorance must surely be a sin… Those who do evil with good intent or who fail to do good out of willful ignorance are surely guilty of something.
David Allyn on 01 Mar 2008 at 8:06 pm #
So much for free speech on this so-called “conservative” web site.
Weaver on 01 Mar 2008 at 8:39 pm #
When AmRen starts allowing offensive posts, then I’ll admit you have ground to stand upon. Not that I removed it though.
love the girls on 01 Mar 2008 at 9:00 pm #
Weaver writes :”Ignorance must surely be a sin… Those who do evil with good intent or who fail to do good out of willful ignorance are surely guilty of something.”
Insofar as “those who do evil with good intent” intend the good, there is no sin because sin is in the Will, not in the effect of the Willed act.
Willful ignorance is an entirely different matter depending on circumstance, if the intent is to remain not culpable of a sinful act, then the ignorance is a sin because the sinful act is finally willed by willing to pretend blindness to the evil. But if the ignorance that is willed is ignorance per se, and not willed blindness, then it is not a culpable sin.
David Allyn on 01 Mar 2008 at 9:22 pm #
just proof that so many “conservatives” have been deluded by the myriad of lies on the issues of race – so much so that they hurl invectives like “racist” and “bigot” as much as any leftist.
Weaver on 01 Mar 2008 at 10:36 pm #
love the girls,
What seems to be the case is weaklings and fools reassure themselves that as long as they tell themselves they’re intending good, they’re doing good, with or without proper responsibility. And so, even if they wreak havoc on the world, they convince themselves they’re going to heaven, even though deep down they know better or at least know another knows better than they (and thus the leadership position ought to be given up – for leaders are meant to be the best (most virtuous, most knowledgeable, and most able)), and we all suffer as a result.
If you suspect feeding a young baby gatorade instead of milk is best, while in the back of your mind knowing such is harmful, you might convince yourself you’re acting with the best intent, but such wouldn’t be the case.
I can’t think of a better example right off, so that’ll have to suit, but willful ignorance caused by sloth, cowardice, and temptation seem to be a part of the great evil within Christian groups nowadays. They do great harm intending, or at least believing they intend, to do good.
Just the same, an ignorant savage might once have been able to be saved, but nowadays such is supposedly much less likely since Christianity has now been revealed to the world (ignorance is now far less excusable.)
—
I just suspect the common wisdom of good intent being all that is required has been taken too far – it has been misunderstood and misapplied leading to the justification of evil. I suspect… those who convince themselves that they are doing good truly know they don’t and must then be damned. Whatever the case, the well intending demons of today certainly aren’t doing most anyone any good.
roho on 02 Mar 2008 at 1:12 pm #
LOG’s………..I refered to livestock because many of the exchages in letters between the scientists, cited experiments with animal life from flies to the Red Stag of Australia. After a 26 year experience with Rabbit Dogs, I could easily relate…….On a human level, I have concerns regarding negotiations between future corporations and insurance companies doing screening inorder to offer their clients better rates? Could an 18 year old be turned down for a job because his “Drug Screen” also revealed that he is a high risk for heart problems in his thirties? Wall Street has never allowed “Moralitry” to interfere with their passion for profits.
Weaver on 02 Mar 2008 at 8:42 pm #
Lol, you’re a comedian (ref. LOG.)
But yea more seriously the issue you bring up is important. If business is to provide health benefits etc., hiring someone with potential problems can become a huge liability.
And genes are poorly understood. It’d especially be a shame for a healthy young man to be shunned for a misunderstanding of genetics by some scientist with a big ego.
—
So, we can all admit there are dangers here, but going back: our society is currently dysgenic and such a problem is likely to be handled by designer babies (GMOs) in the not too distant future if another solution is not found.