Eugenics for My Hispanic People

[David Lopez]

Greetings to all, this is my first post to this forum and I'm glad I found this great resource.

 

 

I am a Mexican-American, born in the United States, but parents born in Mexico. I have a very strong interest in science, technology, philosophy, politics, classical music, and secular agnostic lifestyles. Well, I've been studying the science of eugenics for a while. I was taught by the mainstream American media that eugenics was something that only "evil White people do" as a means of "oppressing minorities" and this should be no surprise since "Whites are the lowest and most evil race on the planet."

 

 

Well, I instinctually saw a very irrational and un-objective and un-scientific media analysis of this. It just naturally occurred to me that if the media should discuss eugenics, they should be 100% scientific and rational about it. It seemed to me that the mainstream media elites shared an extremely strong personal political ideology that took great precedence over unbiased/objective coverage of world events. So, I turned to the internet for information and came across the website of http://www.neoeugenics.com/

 

 

From this site, I learned that eugenics was indeed not just “an evil Whitey thing” that was unscientific. First of all, “eugenics” means the bettering of genes and nothing more. It does not specify how genes are going to be improved or what genes are more important than others. Second, many different people have practiced some form of eugenics. In the early Twentieth Century, most of Europe had eugenics laws, at least 30 States in America did, Japan and Israel did, and nations in South America did as well. Going further back in history, ancient Spartans used to practice eugenics to breed stronger soldiers. Also, Jews have practiced eugenics for the thousands of years. And today, India, China, and Israel have national eugenics laws.

 

 

So, any race, ethnic group, or culture can apply eugenics to improve themselves. And each race, ethnic group, or culture can decide what genes they value and which methods they want to go about to improve these very genes. Eugenics is not genocide by definition, as the media lies about, just like Health Care does not imply all people with AIDS will be thrown in gas chambers. Health Care is simply the belief in improving health, and eugenics is simply the belief in improving genes, and there are many ways to go about this, from the very subtle to the very “Draconian.” Again, each race, ethnicity, culture, or nation decides for themselves what methods to use and what genes to promote.

 

 

The site of http://www.neoeugenics.com/ is actually an archive of research on evolutionary psychology, behavioral genetics, and psychometrics. The author uses the research to put forth an argument that promoting certain genes would create a better society. Here are some examples:

 

 

- The Robot's Rebellion: Finding Meaning in the Age of Darwinism: http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/robot.htm Here, research shows that most humans are genetically built to be irrational and don’t have the ability to engage in deep psychological introspection and to look at their emotions and behaviors objectively. The author wants to thus increase the frequency of genes that does allow for rational behavior.

 

 

- Linda S. Gottfredson on intelligence: http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/LSG.htm

The Scientific Study of General Intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen: http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/ARJtribute.htm

Mainstream Science on Intelligence: A '94 Wall Street Jou

[Uncle Martin]

Welcome to our discussion David, very interesting reading,... your post. I'm assuming all of the racist remarks are sarcastic humor? I'll read this more in depth and hopefully have a decent response soon.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: David Lopez

Greetings to all, this is my first post to this forum and I'm glad I found this great resource.

 

Welcome.

 

If you are studying eugenics and find that you have been tricked by the media, you sure found a good source to "un-trick" you.

 

You say...

Well, I instinctually saw a very irrational and un-objective and un-scientific media analysis of this.  It just naturally occurred to me that if the media should discuss eugenics, they should be 100% scientific and rational about it.

 

Okay, I think we should start off by saying there is no such thing as "100% scientific and rational", but that's just the beginning.

 

Then you say...

So, I turned to the internet for information and came across the website of (neoeugenics)

 

Here is a quote from the author of that site:

"My objection to Jewish influence in America therefore is strictly political and aimed at the Jewish Left, not the empirical Jewish right, and there are many of them who reject multiculturalism and genetic assimilation. These Jews I embrace, those that are on the side of eugenics and human advancement."

 

Do you consider this to be a "scientific" and "rational" statement?

 

Eugenics is not genocide by definition, as the media lies about

 

I am sure you have some examples of such media lies. Please provide them.

 

Again, each race, ethnicity, culture, or nation decides for themselves what methods to use and what genes to promote.

 

1) Recent scientific studies show that there is no such thing as "human race".

Here is a popular science article on the subject:

Does Race Exist? (Scientific American)

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00055DC8-3BAA-1FA8-BBAA83414B7F0000

 

2) You forget the "individual". Is it right that any group, of any size, should allow to decide which offspring are better than others? Are you suggesting that breeding "better" humans will create a better humanity?

 

3) There are no known classification for what is a "good" gene and what is a "bad" gene. Genes are extremely complex, and they are dependent on sequences of other genes.

 

4) Who decides what are "better" traits?

 

The site of neoeugenucs is actually an archive of research on evolutionary psychology, behavioral genetics, and psychometrics.  The author uses the research to put forth an argument that promoting certain genes would create a better society.  Here are some examples:

 

No, the site is a collection of non-scientific links, reviews, and opinions. The articles are full of assumptions about what sort of traits are desirable in people, with little scientific evidence to back up these ideas. Granted, the author quotes a lot of articles and writings, but fail to provide his own credentials. He even forgets to present himself. On the Prometheus website he is "Dr." Matt Nuenke. How is that "scientific"?

 

Matthew Nuenke, the webmaster, is a known supporter of white supremacism and racism. A tip: search for "Matt Nuenke" on Google to see how he fares in the intellectual community.

 

His site also comes forth as belonging to the Prometheus movement. Have you read their mission statement:

 

We Prometheans are voluntarily coming together to purposefully direct the creation of a new post-human species. A species with higher intellect, consciousness and love of ones people. A communion of intellect and beauty, for the simple reason that it can be done. This creation is what gives us purpose and meaning. No other justification is required for this program to ad

[David Lopez]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

I'm assuming all of the racist remarks are sarcastic humor? I'll read this more in depth and hopefully have a decent response soon.

 

Hello,

 

Which part of my message did you think was ethnocentric? If you mean what was written regarding people of European descent, I was simply referring to how the American mass media portrays European-Americans, not what I personally think about them. In the media here in the United States, European-Americans are portrayed as inferior to all other ethnic groups and are blamed for all of the world's problems.The mediaassumed that "people of color" such as myself would automatically agree with them, but being a very rational person, I don't. Rather, I blame human nature itself for all of the world's problems, not any one specific ethnic group.

 

Regards,

 

David Lopez

[IrishEyes]

I was simply referring to how the American mass media portrays European-Americans

 

David,

 

Welcome! It's always nice to see new people join the Forum. That said, I'd like to echo Tormod's request that you provide some facts for your claims. Which part of the Amrican mass media has portrayed European-Americans as inferior to all other ethnic groups? How have they been blamed for all of the world's problems? Which problems specifically?

 

Your answers to these questions are greatly appreciated, and will help to determine whether or not this thread is closed and deleted, or allowed to continue.

 

Thanks so much!!

[David Lopez]

Here is a popular science article on the subject: Does Race Exist? (Scientific American) http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00055DC8-3BAA-1FA8-BBAA83414B7F0000 2)

 

we do NOT accept posts with racist

 

Do you notice a contradiction in your statements? First you say race does not exist, but then you say you are against racism. Well, if race does not exist, there can be no such thing as racism since racism depends on the existance of races. And I suppose you are also against the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) since race does not exist in the first place. And I guess we should get rid of all anti-racism laws and all anti-discrimination laws since they are all based on the false idea of the existance of race.In fact, it seems that all those dog breeds (races) are not really breeds at all, since there is no such thing as breeds.Bulldogs, chihuahuas, collies,doberman pinschers, and the rest of the dogracesdon't really exist then, since there is no such thing as race. In fact, why not take this a step further and say that gender does not exist as well and that "male" and "female" are non existent categories.

 

Of course, the claim that races don't exist have no scientific backing, it's more of a Marxist political statement, not one based on science. Here is a good excerpt from the book"Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/158648026X/qid=1095193524/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-8856182-6824634?v=glance&s=books," by Jon Entine:

 

 

Diamond offered a more colorful version of an argument advanced in 1972 by Richard Lewontin, a Harvard University geneticist. Lewontin had become convinced that virtually all meaningful differences between races are either random or culturally determined. Based on his review of the available data, he concluded that only a tiny fraction of the differences between individuals could be considered "racial." In other words, Lewontin maintained that the differences that separate "races" are little more than what distinguishes two random fans at a World Cup match--statistically nothing, genetically speaking. The article, published in the prestigious journal Evolutionary Biology, amounted to a frontal attack on the concept of race.

 

 

For sure genetic differences between any two individuals are extremely small in percentage terms. Coming from a geneticist, rather than a sociologist or anthropologist, Lewontin's article had enormous influence, although not everyone was convinced. Lewontin's finding that on average humans share 99.8 percent of genetic material and that any two individuals are apt to share considerably more than 90 percent of this shared genetic library is on target. Interpreting that data is another issue, however. Lewontin's analysis suffers both scientifically and politically.

 

 

Although the politics of a scientist is not necessarily an issue in evaluating their work, in Lewontin's case it is crucial. According to his own account, his sensibilities were catalyzed by the civil rights movement of the 1960s. He made it very clear that his science was in part a mission to reaffirm our common humanity. To geneticists and biologists with less of an avowed agenda, Lewontin appeared to leaven his conclusion with his personal ideology.

 

 

<P

[David Lopez]

Which part of the Amrican mass media has portrayed European-Americans as inferior to all other ethnic groups? How have they been blamed for all of the world's problems? Which problems specifically?

 

Hello,

 

Thank you for the welcome. Regarding the media,only the sins of European-Americans are portrayed, but the sins of all other people are ignored. Thus,the impression the media is trying to give is that only people of European descent are evil, while the restare innocent. For example, there are examples ofmany non-European ethnicities engaging in racism, consider theNation of Islam, the Japanese and Israeli practice of only allowing immigration of people of their own ethnic group, the many acts of hate crimes committed by African-Americans against European-Americans which isstatistically higher than vice versa, the Israeli genocide ofArabs, the Mongolian empire's genocide of the non-Mongolians, the many other empires that existed besides that of Hitler,Napoleon, and Alexander the great. Consider theHispanic organizations of La Voz De Aztlanwhich fights for getting rid of European-Americans from California. If you look at the major media like Viacom, TimeWarner, CNN, Fox News,andDisney, you will see that that only focus on crimes of Europeans, while virtually ignoring similar crimes by all other people, thus giving that false impression that allproblems are only caused bypeople ofEuropean descent.Agreatexample is the CURRENT genocide of Europeans living in Zimbabwe right now, the majorAmerican mediahas completely blacked out the story. But, if it wre the other way around,Europeans killing non-europeans, every major media would cover the story endlessly.

 

Your answers to these questions are greatly appreciated, and will help to determine whether or not this thread is closed and deleted, or allowed to continue. Thanks so much!!

 

I would greatly appreciate it if this thread is allowed to continue, after all, what is politically incorrect today, becomes politically correct tomorrow. Imagine if the internet existed in the sixities and Martin Luthur King Junior decided to post his ideas that was actually politically INcorrect at that time. Every moderator would have deleted his message. In fact, he himself was "deleted" from the Earth in the end. My point being that I believe that any topic should be allowed to be discussed, this is the nature of true democracy and the process at arriving at the truth, regardless of whose world views get crushed. Or in other words, if what I am saying is false, then why fear the content? The fallacies should be self-evident all on its own and people would then reject them. That is, adults I would think should have the right to decide for themselves what topics they need "protection" from. Okey, sorry about my funny speech here, but I think I'm just to idealistic for my own good!

 

Best wishes,

 

David Lopez

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: David Lopez

First you say race does not exist, but then you say you are against racism.

 

No, I did not say race does not exist.

 

I wrote:

Recent scientific studies show that there is no such thing as "human race".

 

...which was badly phrased, because I meant to write "human races" (there is obviously a human race, we are all part of it). Still, the article was NOT my opinion but a documentation of scientific studies of "what makes us human".

 

Well, if race does not exist, there can be no such thing as racism since racism depends on the existance of races.

 

That's like saying there can be no religion since religion depends on gods. All you need is someone who believes that a) there are races and B) my race is better than the others. That is racism, plain and simple. It is okay to have a). It is not okay to have B).

 

And I suppose you are also against the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) since race does not exist in the first place.

 

No, but I'm pretty sure that the author of the site you so bombastically presented here (ie, Matthew Nuenke) is not too happy with them. Why don't you ask him?

 

In fact, it seems that all those dog breeds (races) are not really breeds at all, since there is no such thing as breeds.  Bulldogs, chihuahuas, collies, doberman pinschers, and the rest of the dog races don't really exist then, since there is no such thing as race.

 

Keep it up. You are making a complete fool of yourself. If you want to argue that people of different ethnic backgrounds are as genetically different as dog breeds, fine. But please do it somewhere else.

 

In fact, why not take this a step further and say that gender does not exist as well and that "male" and "female" are non existent categories.

 

Species are separated into sexes, not the other way around. This is zoology 101.

 

Of course, the claim that races don't exist have no scientific backing, it's more of a Marxist political statement, not one based on science.

 

Finally, a clear and true opinion from your own mind, yes? So you are saying I am a Marxist?

 

Let me ask - do you even know who you're talking to? Do you know if the picture on the left is me? Do you think I am American?

 

If you want to post again, please post your own ideas and not something you "borrow" from other sites. And stop slamming labels on people who care to respond to your posts.

[Tormod]

As for Sarich and Miele, make sure you also read some opposing views before praising the book. Did you read it yourself, by the way, or did you just post clips from the neoeugenics site?

 

Review of "Race: The reality of human differences"

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=420514

American Society for Clinical Investigation

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: David Lopez

Full text at (link to vdare.com removed)

 

Mr Lopez, are you aware that vdare.com is a site working - specifically - AGAINST immigration to the US? If they had their will, you would never have been born in the US. There would not be such things as "Mexican-Americans".

 

I am just curious as to the choice of sources you use to fight for something which seems to fight against YOU with every weapon and channel available.

[David Lopez]

Hello,

 

I apologize for offending you. I'll go ahead and do some more research as you have suggested.

 

Regards,

 

David Lopez

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: David Lopez

My point being that I believe that any topic should be allowed to be discussed, this is the nature of true democracy and the process at arriving at the truth, regardless of whose world views get crushed. 

 

Then why do you put labels on people who oppose the theories you support? Is that "democratic"?

 

Or in other words, if what I am saying is false, then why fear the content?  The fallacies should be self-evident all on its own and people would then reject them.

 

Perhaps. But this is a "science" forum. It is not a forum for quasi-scientific, supremacist propaganda.

 

This is a democracy, yes. In a democracy you are free to build your own portals and websites and say what you like there, as long as it is within the law. Feel free to do so.

 

At the same time, I am free to decide who gets to post here, and who does not. We sometimes take that liberty.

 

Why? Because your posts are not only non-scientific in nature, they are also stupendously offensive to a lot of our members. I see no reason to waste more time on that.

[IrishEyes]

from david Lopez:

I apologize for offending you. I'll go ahead and do some more research as you have suggested.

 

David,

I hope that you will continue to research this and other topics. If you have questions, or you would like to share your conclusions, please continue to do so. This site is full of people with knowledge on a variety of topics, and most are more than willing to share their interests and knowledge with you, whether you want it or not.

 

I think that it shows great promise for you that you are willing to keep researching. Please feel free to bring back what you find and share it with the rest of us. Also, please check out some of our other topics, as there is bound to be another that will interest you.

 

Thanks again!