Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Hubris, Greed & Credulity--A Potent Brew

Hubris, Greed & Credulity--A Potent Brew



|Views: 30|Likes:
Published by Paul Richardson
eugenics, environment and vital lies
eugenics, environment and vital lies

More info:

Published by: Paul Richardson on Sep 21, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





 Hubris, Greed and Credulity²a Potent Brew
Paul Richardson 2010
It has been a continuing characteristic of humanity that at times humans feel theycan control everything, especially things that they cannot or should not. In theearly 20
Century, there was a consensus among the Progressive elites that weneeded to manage the breeding of humans to accentuate the ³good stock´ andminimize the breeding of the ³poor stock´ who were producing children at a muchhigher pace than that of the ³better classes´ of society. All sorts of progressiveliberals signed on to this eugenics travesty. George Bernard Shaw, a relative of mine, was among them to my disgust.This self-anointed group of elite experts believed that social control was bestserved in their hands. They sought to build up the state at the expense of theindividual. This has been an ongoing progressive belief and one they continuallywork to perfect in their politics. This is all in opposition to the principles of theEnlightenment that were embraced by our founders. This belief in a ³benevolentdictatorship´ by a group of ³better than everyone else oligarchs´ has been their aim. The problem is that power corrupts and a benevolent dictatorship cannotfunction for long without falling prey to the temptations to ³take a little extra´ for the elites.Shaw advocated polygamy where the ³best males´ would provide the function of a³human stud farm,´ saying that a woman would be more satisfied with a 10 percentshare of a quality man than a 100 percent share of a man of poor lineage. He alsosaid, ³[W]ith many apologies and expressions of sympathy, and some generosity incomplying with their last wishes,´ he wrote with ghoulish glee, we ³should placethem in the lethal chamber and get rid of them.´Harold Laski, perhaps the most respected British political scientist of the twentiethcentury (he was Joseph Kennedy Jr.¶s tutor and JFK¶s professor), echoed the panicover ³race suicide:´ ³The different rates of fertility in the sound and pathologicalstocks point to a future swamping of the better by the worse.´ Indeed, eugenicswas Laski¶s first great intellectual passion.[Chief Justice and liberal icon] Holmes in 1927 wrote a letter to Harold Laski inwhich he proudly told his friend, ³I . . . delivered an opinion upholding theconstitutionally of a state law for sterilizing imbeciles the other day²and felt that Iwas getting near the
 first principle of real reform.´
He went on to tell Laski how
amused he was when his colleagues took exception to his ³rather brutal words . . .that made them mad.´The list is long from H.G. Wells to Margaret Sanger to Theodore Roosevelt toOliver Wendell Holmes to John Maynard Keynes, and on and on. States passedlaws to sterilize supposed mental incompetents upheld by Holmes and the SupremeCourt. Sanger as part of her birth control movement (precursor to PlannedParenthood) started a Negro Project focusing on reducing the birth rate amongBlacks. She hired Adam Clayton Powell Sr to be her spokesman to smooth theway. She was spectacularly successful as to this day the Black birth rate is low andthe rate of abortions is high.I related the eugenics fiasco to provide context to the latest progressive effort tocreate a motivating crisis useful in increasing their control over our society. I amspeaking of the global warming hysteria. There has been a constant flood of  propaganda to convince us that disaster is imminent if we don¶t drastically reduceour carbon emissions. As an aside I am all for the cleanest possible humanactivities. However, declaring carbon dioxide as a pollutant is ridiculous. Withoutcarbon dioxide all life on our Earth would not exist. As a start in examining thissituation let¶s consider the following questions:1.
Is the earth warming?2.
If the earth is warming, is human activity responsible?3.
If the earth is warming, is that a bad thing?4.
If the earth is warming, and if mankind¶s use of fossil fuels is responsible,and if the situation is bad, is there anything we can do?We need a better context than that presented by the global warming alarmists.First, compared to what period of time? The graphs shown by Gore in his movie,
e Inconvenient 
are worse than no graphs at all. They are based onincorrect or out of context data and are slanted with all of the tricks discussed inDarrell Huff¶s book,
ow to Lie wit 
.I will give one example to show you the problem. Gore shows in his movie agraph with the earth beside it that shows carbon dioxide levels rising rapidly andthe year 2000 at the bottom right. First, there are no axes for the graph, that is, novertical or horizontal scales. But he tells you the numbers he used; about 320 parts

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->