“Definition; Eugenics is a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed.2 The word is derived from the Greek word eu (good or well) and the suffix -genes (born). Eugenics is sometimes broadly applied to describe any human action whose goal is to improve the gene pool. Negative eugenics is aimed at discouraging reproduction among those with hereditary traits perceived as poor, the so-called “unfit” or genetically disadvantaged. This ranges from benign family planning to forced sterilization and genocide. Positive eugenics is aimed at encouraging reproduction among those who are healthy, intelligent, and of high moral character—the “genetically advantaged.” Of course, an obvious problem is who defines which traits are desirable.”
The ‘Science’ of Eugenics: America’s Moral Detour Marilyn M. Singleton, M.D., J.D
In the early part of the 20th century. A group of oligarchical robber barons Rockefeller, Ford, Mellon, Carnegie and others of their class used the same cover of “social justice” and creating a more “just and equal world” to advance the theory of Eugenics. The concept had been fluttering around the European salons of the elite for some time but this bunch picked it up and ran with it. They brought it to absolute scientific dominance and complete social and political acceptance. They enacted forced sterilization laws in 30 US states, . The mantra of Eugenics was taught as unquestionable fact in every university hall and primary schoolhouse. They could do this because they funded research institutes, international professional conferences, thousands of peer reviewed papers, and centers of excellence in universities. They funded international NGO’s with utopian sounding aims. They used the internationalist system of the day, the League of Nations, to advance their agenda. The media of the day was used to create acceptance in the general public. Popular magazines featured endless articles by experts informing the public and portraying questioning as regressive, unscientific and completely socially unacceptable
For the bulk of western populations the true scope and depravity of Eugenics has been lost down the public memory hole for generations. And since the same oligarchic foundations are deeply involved in public education to this day, it is perhaps not surprising. Fewer still know that this “progressive scientific revolution” is the birthplace of the environmental movement. It is perhaps not shocking then that some of its adherents like Quebec politician Luc Ferrandez opine “Could we, for environmental, social and economic reasons, decide that we want to receive help to die so as not to be a burden for our family and society in general?” Or Magnus Söderlund, a Swedish professor and behavioral scientist to propose eating human flesh to save the world. Or my National broadcaster the CBC to encourage Canada’s stable population to shrink even more. Because even though we should gleefully accept weaponized mass migration we should definitely stop having any children of our own. It is hard not to notice that some of the richest most entitled resource gobbling individuals on the planet are pushing this agenda the hardest. They have been trying to enslave or kill us for some time.
The Climate cult has become nothing but a means for the elite to impoverish and control the rest of us. Same foundations, same money, some goal. The thing that we need to reduce completely to ensure our future is their power and wealth. The population we need to reduce is theirs.
“Eugenics in the United States was closely linked with the fledgling conservation movement, particularly through the writings and activities of Henry Fairfield Osborn at the American Museum of Natural History and his close friend Madison Grant. In America, as in Germany, both movements were sponsored by the elite and served to justify aristocracy, and both derived much of their legitimacy from a social construction of Nature which increasingly replaced Divine Law.”.
“For these conservationists, who prized the expert governance of resources, it was an unsettlingly short step from managing forests to managing the human gene pool. In a 1909 report to Roosevelt’s National Conservation Commission, Yale professor Irving Fisher broke off from a discussion of public health to recommend preventing “paupers” and physically unhealthy people from reproducing, and warned against the “race suicide” that would follow if the country did not replenish itself with Northern European stock. Fisher took the term “race suicide” from Roosevelt, who, in a 1905 speech, had pinned it on women who dodged childbearing. Gifford Pinchot, the country’s foremost theorizer and popularizer of conservation, was a delegate to the first and second International Eugenics Congress, in 1912 and 1921, and a member of the advisory council of the American Eugenics Society, from 1925 to 1935.”
“The symbolism conveyed an idea of evolutionary ethics wherein white Americans could grow through racial purification from an animalistic, selfish nature to become higher, more cooperative beings. These ideas had been developed at Ivy League and other universities, at museums of natural history and anthropology in New York and Washington, in learned societies and in scientific literature. When subsequent world’s fairs focused on the West, the link between natural resources, morality, and racism was drawn ever more explicitly.”
Another great proponent of the “ecology” movement was Lord Bertrand Russell. Let’s take a look at what Russell thought about the human spe-cies. In 1951, he wrote a book called The Impact of Science on Society, in which he said:
“Bad times, you may say, are exceptional and can be dealt with by exceptional methods. This has been more or less true during the honeymoon period of industrialism, but it will not remain true unless the increase of population can be enor-mously diminished. At present the population of the world is increasing at about 58,000 per diem. War, so far, has had no very great effect on this increase, which continued through each of the world wars. . . . War . . . has hitherto been disap-pointing in this respect . . . but perhaps bacterio-logical war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. . . . The state of affairs might be some-what unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are in-different to happiness, especially other people’s”
In 1991 the Club of Rome issued a book, The First Global Revolution, written by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, which outrageously puts forth:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill. . . . But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human inter-vention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behav-ior that they can be over-come. . . . The real enemy, then, is humanity itself”
“While from a late twentieth- and early twenty-first century perspective, the ideologies of eugenics (controlled reproduction to eliminate the genetically unfit and promote the reproduction of the genetically fit) and environmental conservation and preservation, may seem incompatible, they were promoted simultaneously by a number of figures in the progressive era in the decades between 1900 and 1950. Common to the two movements were the desire to preserve the “best” in both the germ plasm of the human population and natural environments (including not only natural resources, but also undisturbed nature preserves such as state and national parks and forests). In both cases advocates sought to use the latest advances in science to bolster and promote their plans, which in good progressive style, involved governmental planning and social control. This article explores the interaction of eugenic and conservationist ideologies in the careers of Sacramento banker and developer Charles M. Goethe and his friend and mentor, wealthy New York lawyer Madison Grant. In particular, the article suggests how metaphors of nature supported active work in both arenas.”
For a look at the actual accuracy of the “settled science” lets have a nostalgic look at climategate” a series of leaked emails from top climate researchers. The MSM worked overtime to tell us this meant nothing. Judge for yourself
“Geoff Jenkins was head of climate change prediction at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, part of the United Kingdom’s Met(eorological) Office (national weather service). He writes to Phil Jones:
Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with the early release of information (via Australia), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature, etc., etc.?I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time”
Just months before the UNFCCC’s Third Conference of Parties (COP III), the critical Kyoto meeting of December 1997 which resulted in the Kyoto Protocol, we find the germ of this idea fertilizing in an email from Joe Alcamo, Director of the Center for Environmental Systems Research in Germany, to Mike Hulme and Rob Swart:Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.I would like to weigh in on two important questions—Distribution for Endorsements—I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500 signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.This statement alone shows how ridiculous the “endorsement” process was from the very beginning. Signing a petition in support of an opinion—regardless of whether the signatory has a PhD or not—is as scientifically meaningless as if these same people had voted Albert Einstein’s hairstyle as the most interesting in the history of science. It is simply nonsense.Alcamo continues:
“Timing—I feel strongly that the week of 24 November is too late.
1. We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was a sag in related news, but in the week before Kyoto we should expect that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.
2. If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any time to pay attention to it. We should give them a few weeks to hear about it.
3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have it a week before them so that they and other Non-Governmental Organizations can further spread the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn’t be so bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a different day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two very different directions.
8 Conclusion I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17 November at the latest.Alcamo demonstrates that this is a carefully crafted piece of political activism, not related to the scientific process at all
“Timing—I feel strongly that the week of 24 November is too late.1. We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was a sag in related news, but in the week before Kyoto we should expect that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.2. If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any time to pay attention to it. We should give them a few weeks to hear about it.3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have it a week before them so that they and other Non-Governmental Organizations can further spread the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn’t be so bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a different day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two very different directions.”
Even some of their own colleagues were starting to show their discomfort with the manipulation of Data
November 25, 1997: email 0880476729
Tom Wigley roundly criticizes the eleven scientists seeking endorsement of their Statement.
Dear Eleven,I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the IPCC “view” when you say that “the latest IPCC assessment makes a convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions.” …This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a disservice. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed, balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible. No scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully themselves. You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just this! I fear that some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief that you are making a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science—when, in fact, you are presenting a flawed view that neither accords with the IPCC nor with the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on the subject….When scientists color the science with their own personal views or make categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what they are doing. You have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is, in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics …. I find this extremely disturbing
For the rest use this link