PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues Royal Mail Honors Eugenicist & Nazi Sympathizer


KILLER_CLOWN
09-12-2008, 10:00 PM
Family planning pioneer Marie Stopes advocated sterilization of non-whites & poor, sent love letters to Hitler; But respondents agree that most humans should be sterilized or killed

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, September 12, 2008

Royal Mail is set to honor Marie Stopes, a feminist who opened the first birth control clinic in Britain in 1921 as well as being Nazi sympathizer and a eugenicist who advocated that non-whites and the poor be sterilized, by adopting her image for a new set of stamps.

Stopes, a racist and an anti-Semite, campaigned for selective breeding to achieve racial purity, a passion she shared with Adolf Hitler in adoring letters and poems that she sent the leader of the Third Reich.

The feminist also attended the Nazi congress on population science in Berlin in 1935, while calling for the “compulsory sterilisation of the diseased, drunkards, or simply those of bad character.” Stopes acted on her appalling theories by concentrating her abortion clinics in poor areas so as to reduce the birth rate of the lower classes.

Stopes left most of her estate to the Eugenics Society, an organization that shared her passion for racial purity and still exists today under the new name The Galton Institute. The society has included members such as Charles Galton Darwin (grandson of the evolutionist) , Julian Huxley and Margaret Sanger.

Ominously, The Galton Institute website promotes its support and funding initiative for “the practical delivery of family planning facilities, especially in developing countries.” In other words, the same organization that once advocated sterilizing black people to achieve racial purity in the same vein as the Nazis is now bankrolling abortions of black babies in the third world.

Several prominent individuals have expressed their outrage that Stopes is to be included on the 50p stamp in Britain.

Chaplain to the Stock Exchange Peter Mullen, who is Rector of St Michael’s in the City of London, branded Stopes a ‘Nazi sympathiser’.

He said: ‘She campaigned to have the poor, the sick and people of mixed race sterilised.

‘Stopes extended her vile doctrines even to her own family. She cut her son Harry out of her will after he married a near- sighted woman - actually the daughter of Barnes Wallis, inventor of the bouncing bomb deployed by the Dambusters.

‘She planned to adopt a child herself-but stipulated that “the boy must be completely healthy, intelligent and uncircumcised”.

‘The managers of the Royal Mail deserve to be condemned for their honouring Marie Stopes.’

Anthony Ozimic of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children said: “Praising Marie Stopes as a woman of distinction should be as unacceptable as praising Adolf Hitler as a great leader.”

“Both promoted compulsory sterilisation and thereby the eventual elimination of society’s most vulnerable members to achieve what they called racial progress.”

Others are now campaigning to return any items of mail with the new stamp on them.

The fact that the image of Stopes was chosen by a group of female academics and historians underscores the very real foothold that eugenics-style thinking still maintains amongst 21st century elitists.

Alex Jones’ 2007 documentary End Game exposes how the origins of eugenics began not with Hitler and the Nazis, but in fact with the Anglo-American elite towards the end of the 19th century.

The same sentiments continue to be advanced, albeit under different guises such as the Optimum Population Trust movement and some aspects of environmentalism, such as the promotion of one child policies to reduce global warming.

Infamously, an Australian ABC News website aimed at children caused outrage back in May when it advised kids of “when you should die” by calculating their “carbon footprint.”

Perhaps most disturbing is the fact that many would still find common ground with Stopes’ disgusting Nazi ideology even today. Indeed, one of the first reader comments on a Daily Mail article on the subject in response to Stopes’ advocacy of sterilizing parents who the state decrees to be of “bad character” states, “I do not agree with many of her ideas but this one is probably not a bad idea for todays society.”

In fact - the majority of the respondents to the article agree that most humans should be sterilized and/or killed.

“A lot of people should be sterilized, IMO. It’s still true today,” writes another.

“Just imagine what a stable, well-ordered society we’d have if compulsory sterilisation had been adopted years ago for the socially undesirable,” states another respondent, calling for a “satellite-carried sterilisation ray” to be installed in space to zap the undesirables.

Shockingly, another compares sterilization and genocide of those deemed inferior to the breeding and culling of farmyard animals, and says that such a move is necessary to fight overpopulation and global warming. Here is the comment in full from “Karen” in Wales;

We breed farm animals to produce the best possible stock and kill them when they have fulfilled their purpose. We inter-breed pedigree animals to produce extremes that leave them open to ill-health and early death. It is only religion that says humans are not animals. The reality is that we are simply intelligent, mammalian primates.

The world population of humans has increased from 2 billion to 6.5 billion in the last 50 years. This planet can support 2 billion humans comfortably. 6.5 billion humans use too many resources and leads to global warming, climate change and a very uncertain future for all of us - humans and all other life sharing this planet with us.

Marie Stopes believed in population control and in breeding the best possible humans. So did Hitler. Neither of the aims are bad in themselves. It is how they are achieved that is the problem. The fact that we still remember Marie Stopes is an achievement in itself.

The nature of these comments is so fundamentally sick and twisted that one is tempted to dismiss them as a joke - but these people are deadly serious.

The kind of people who express such sentiments to ‘improve society by sterilizing the scum’ or to “save the planet’ are blissfully ignorant of the fact that to elitists we are all scum too. Anyone who is not a member of the elite, whether they are middle class or working class, are considered inferior and this is why the prevalence of such ideas is so dangerous to everyone.

In addition, those advocating the wholesale genocide of over 4 billion people and dismissing it as nothing more immoral than the culling of livestock seem to be somewhat reticent to offer themselves or their family members up as the first to be sacrificed ‘for the good of the earth’.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/royal-mail-honors-eugenicist-nazi-sympathizer.html

tiptap
09-12-2008, 10:08 PM
Racial purity and the notion of breeds or race is a purely human undertaking. It is not biologically based. Diversity within the gene pool is the most important asset in meeting unexpected change in a species environment. Therefore to the level that people do seek restriction on selection of mate, they are wrong. But the best opportunity for passing on one's genes is not a large family that must compete in some brutish survival of the species knock down. It is in a civilized delivery to smaller family units. So please don't castigate present thinking on reproduction with 19th century mischaracterization of biological evolution as it applies to humans.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-12-2008, 10:11 PM
Racial purity and the notion of breeds or race is a purely human undertaking. It is not biologically based. Diversity within the gene pool is the most important asset in meeting unexpected change in a species environment. Therefore to the level that people do seek restriction on selection of mate, they are wrong. But the best opportunity for passing on one's genes is not a large family that must compete in some brutish survival of the species knock down. It is in a civilized delivery to smaller family units. So please don't castigate present thinking on reproduction with 19th century mischaracterization of biological evolution as it applies to humans.

So you're defending this?

tiptap
09-12-2008, 10:27 PM
What I wrote certainly.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-12-2008, 10:32 PM
What I wrote certainly.

So what are your views on Eugenics? Do you feel that we need a mass culling of the population? Are you for a one child policy worldwide? Global Governance?

tiptap
09-12-2008, 10:40 PM
You have chosen to castigate the whole of reproductive choice on the the false alter of mis-characterized Biological Descent with Modification. The Nazi and early Eugenics thrust based upon race is derived from human foibles and a poor understanding of Evolution in some attempt to seemingly put their prejudice on scientific principles. It rests solely upon Natural Selection which is only part, and leads to ruin alone, in understanding Evolution. So my position seeks to place such thought as vulgar but defend support for limiting human reproduction by assuring a good standard of living and good assurance that the limited offspring will be healthy and long lived.

tiptap
09-12-2008, 10:43 PM
I should add that I do support the right to choose death at the end of life. That is what I preach to my kids FOR ME.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-12-2008, 11:08 PM
You have chosen to castigate the whole of reproductive choice on the the false alter of mis-characterized Biological Descent with Modification. The Nazi and early Eugenics thrust based upon race is derived from human foibles and a poor understanding of Evolution in some attempt to seemingly put their prejudice on scientific principles. It rests solely upon Natural Selection which is only part, and leads to ruin alone, in understanding Evolution. So my position seeks to place such thought as vulgar but defend support for limiting human reproduction by assuring a good standard of living and good assurance that the limited offspring will be healthy and long lived.

So your beliefs are rooted in Eugenics, correct? Do you support an Elite making decisions as to who lives and who dies? if not then who should decide? should families be punished for having "Too many Children"?

Are your beliefs in line with say Dr. Eric Pianka Professor U of Texas as shown here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZJSJ9ilELM

Howlin Wolf
09-13-2008, 12:12 AM
chiefs fans are the master race

tiptap
09-13-2008, 08:37 AM
So your beliefs are rooted in Eugenics, correct? Do you support an Elite making decisions as to who lives and who dies? if not then who should decide? should families be punished for having "Too many Children"?

Are your beliefs in line with say Dr. Eric Pianka Professor U of Texas as shown here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZJSJ9ilELM

No my roots are not in Eugenics. I said so explicitly. I stated that Eugenics' beginnings were based upon false and self serving ideas couched in Evolutionary terms. I (and Dr. Pianka) talk about health in a population and health in ecosystems depending upon DIVERSITY. It is not attributable to say we are seeking and applauding mass deaths, we are saying that that is the natural, unrelenting consequence of removing diversity on earth.

As to finding a system to encourage a drop in population I support Birth Control Pills distribution to women. I support Universal Health Care so that all wanted pregnancies and families have good access to health care to assure good outcomes for the children they do have. I support universal education so each child's potential can be maximized. I would look at tax policy that does not reward having more than three children. Educational outreach to encourage holding reproductive rates low. Most highly industralized nations are well along on this already. It is moving this to third world nations that is the stumbling block to reversing trends.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-13-2008, 04:22 PM
No my roots are not in Eugenics. I said so explicitly. I stated that Eugenics' beginnings were based upon false and self serving ideas couched in Evolutionary terms. I (and Dr. Pianka) talk about health in a population and health in ecosystems depending upon DIVERSITY. It is not attributable to say we are seeking and applauding mass deaths, we are saying that that is the natural, unrelenting consequence of removing diversity on earth.

As to finding a system to encourage a drop in population I support Birth Control Pills distribution to women. I support Universal Health Care so that all wanted pregnancies and families have good access to health care to assure good outcomes for the children they do have. I support universal education so each child's potential can be maximized. I would look at tax policy that does not reward having more than three children. Educational outreach to encourage holding reproductive rates low. Most highly industralized nations are well along on this already. It is moving this to third world nations that is the stumbling block to reversing trends.

So you side with Eric Pianka? I mean saying we need 80% pop reduction and claiming that AIDS is "Too Slow" of a killer isn't that barbaric?

tiptap
09-13-2008, 05:26 PM
I will say it slow again so you can follow this. Neither Pianka nor I, is looking to reduce the population radically. What he says and I agree, that the population size and and the overall ability of travel means that a pandemic is highly likely and that will precipitiously collapse the population if we continue as we have in population growth. What I would offer is a controlled decrease in the population over time. In your video Pianka says the population in the 1970s was the peak population. That wouldn't be a 80% reduction. That would be a 50% reduction. I would be happy with that goal over 50 to 100 years. You have conflated the solution in avoiding an pandemic, a reduction in population and more local use of materials, with the precipitious drop that that will take place if we chose to continue to increase the population.

You may like the boy scout interviewer believe that the present or larger population is desirable and sustainable because it presently exists. That is a different argument.

penchief
09-13-2008, 10:36 PM
So your beliefs are rooted in Eugenics, correct? Do you support an Elite making decisions as to who lives and who dies? if not then who should decide? should families be punished for having "Too many Children"?

Are your beliefs in line with say Dr. Eric Pianka Professor U of Texas as shown here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZJSJ9ilELM

Hmmm. Didn't the Bush patriarch support the Nazis? Now I understand why Bush is a fascist.

SNR
09-13-2008, 10:58 PM
Hmmm. Didn't the Bush patriarch support the Nazis? Now I understand why Bush is a fascist.Do we have to have this "fascism" conversation again?

KILLER_CLOWN
09-14-2008, 01:21 AM
Hmmm. Didn't the Bush patriarch support the Nazis? Now I understand why Bush is a fascist.

Yup Prescott Bush was Hitlers American business partner.

penchief
09-14-2008, 09:54 AM
Yup Prescott Bush was Hitlers American business partner.

Well, there you go. A = Z

penchief
09-14-2008, 09:57 AM
Do we have to have this "fascism" conversation again?

No, just pointing out how silly some correlations can be.