Gun control, Emancipation, and Eugenics

[Oldgringo]

Is population control a bad thing?

How far off topic are we allowed to get?

Controlling the personal lives of individuals for goals set by the ruling class is always and everywhere a bad thing.

Providing information for making informed decisions is not.

BTW, it has been proved time and again that the best way to limit family size is to educate girls. After that, cheap, effective means of reducing infant mortality, such as vaccination and mosquito nets.

- Jim

Isn't "Gun control, Emancipation, and Eugenics" the topic?

[Paladin]

seamusTX wrote:

Is population control a bad thing?

Good question...

Lets look at China's One Child Policy:

Fines, pressures to abort a pregnancy, and even forced sterilization accompanied second or subsequent pregnancies.

Cases of Forced Abortions Surface in China NPR

...forced to have abortions even as late as nine months into the pregnancy

I call that murder.

I've studied the issue of population growth at the university and the truth is that population tends to sort itself out.

[Hoi Polloi]

The movie is available online at the link I made in the first post. I would be interested to hear the comments of anyone who would be interested in watching the movie after viewing it, especially regarding any parallels between the information provided in the movie and the information that is known regarding the gun control movement.

[The Annoyed Man]

Hoi Polloi was kind enough to give me a link to the eugenics movie in 13 parts on YouTube, and I watched it in its entirety. It is very convincing.

[Oldgringo]

The movie is available online at the link I made in the first post. I would be interested to hear the comments of anyone who would be interested in watching the movie after viewing it, especially regarding any parallels between the information provided in the movie and the information that is known regarding the gun control movement.

You are good! .

[Hoi Polloi]

Hoi Polloi was kind enough to give me a link to the eugenics movie in 13 parts on YouTube, and I watched it in its entirety. It is very convincing.

The link I gave you has one part that's only 2 or so minutes long with the other 8 minutes just missing. I think this link has all of it.

BTW, the link you gave me in return is having some technical difficulties so I'm going to keep checking back.

[Hoi Polloi]

The movie is available online at the link I made in the first post. I would be interested to hear the comments of anyone who would be interested in watching the movie after viewing it, especially regarding any parallels between the information provided in the movie and the information that is known regarding the gun control movement.

You are good! .

I don't want to give the impression that I only want to hear from those who have the time and interest in watching the movie. I think it would be fascinating to be able to discuss it in light of the information provided there, but any relevant information would be interesting. I'm still reading the sources mentioned.

[Paladin]

gun control and population control are both about control. Elites trying to control our lives.

It is pretty ironic that some of the elites that support population control talk about being "pro-choice" ... when the population control agenda is not about choice at all... it is not pro-choice, but pro-abortion

I am pro-freedom... and firearms are the ultimate guarantee to protect our lives and our freedom.

[Hoi Polloi]

I asked a guy named Dan Haynes about this topic to see if he could provide any additional resources and I requested his permission to post his response here. Dan's profile says, "I have studied the 2nd amendment from a historical view. I have certified as an NRA Range Safety Officer. I am a Federal Firearms License holder, and have a CCW permit. Since 2004, I operated my own gunsmithing shop and offer custom pistolsmithing services. I have served a 4 year term as an elected offical on the Montrose Colorado City Council, becoming Mayor in my 4th year. I am well versed on the US Constitution and firearm laws." And any guy who has a propensity to use passive tense in his writing is a-OK in my book!

Here's what he said:

Hoi,

Thanks for inquiring about this matter. It appears that you have already done a lot of research. Slavery and gun control go hand in hand. Here are some articles on why that happens.

http://northernlibertyalliance.wordpres ... n-control/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://americainchains2009.wordpress.co ... n-control/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin15.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;“maafa-21”-the-undeniable-truth-about-eugenics-and-genocide-that-is-awakening-america

The right to keep and bear arms is not just for women. On the contrary, there were no women in the well regulated militia the second amendment refers to. Until recently women were not allowed in military combat situations. Today the second amendment applies to all lawful citizens in the United States

Today, wealthy elite people like George Soros fund anti gun groups like IANSA

http://www.iansa.org/un/index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some wealthy members of Congress push anti gun legislation to become law. Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton and many others try to ban our guns.

Anti gun laws do nothing to curb crime. Criminals do not obey the law and will get their guns by illegal means. The Second Amendment keeps us free from oppressive governments. It provides law abiding citizens with the means of self defense and can save lives. An excellent book on the Second Amendment is called the Second Amendment Primer. In it you will find the congressional writing at the time the amendment was being formed. I highly recommend reading this.

Best regards,

Dan

[baldeagle]

Read Justice Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion in McDonald. He goes to great lengths detailing the history of gun control and how it was used to disarm blacks after they were freed. The Supreme Court even supported the laws that denied blacks their 2A rights.

Justice Thomas stated

23There can be do doubt that the principal proponents of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 meant to end the disarmament of African Americans in the South. In introducing the bill, Senator Trumbull described its purpose as securing to blacks the “privileges which are essential to freemen.”

Regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Thomas writes

Both proponents and opponents of this Act described it as providing the “privileges” of citizenship to freedmen, and defined those privileges to include constitutional rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms. See 39th Cong. Globe 474 (remarks of Sen. Trumbull) (stating that the “the late slaveholding States” had enacted laws “depriving persons of African descent of privileges which are essential to freemen,” including “prohibit[ing] any negro or mulatto from having firearms” and stating that “[t]he purpose of the bill under consideration is to destroy all these discriminations”); id., at 1266–1267 (remarks of Rep.Raymond) (opposing the Act, but recognizing that to“[m]ake a colored man a citizen of the United States”would guarantee to him, inter alia, “a defined status . . . a right to defend himself and his wife and children; a right to bear arms”).

That these despicable comments were made in the floor of Congress is an embarrassment to modern Americans. But not as much an embarrassment as a Supreme Court that upheld the very laws that were used to deny the RKBA to free blacks so they could defend themselves from slaughter in the south.

In discussing Cruikshank, a critical 2A case that held that the 2A did not apply to the states, Thomas writes

Cruikshank’s holding that blacks could look only to state governments for protection of their right to keep and bear arms enabled private forces, often with the assistance of local governments, to subjugate the newly freed slaves and their descendants through a wave of private violence designed to drive blacks from the voting booth and force them into peonage, an effective return to slavery. Without federal enforcement of the inalienable right to keep and bear arms, these militias and mobs were tragically successful in waging a campaign of terror against the very people the Fourteenth Amendment had just made citizens.

In that case, the Supreme Court of the United States absolved a gang of whites of the massacre as many as 150 free black men by ruling that the 2A was not incorporated to the states as the 14A stated. That case established the precedent that excused all gun control laws until the Supreme Court finally held, in McDonald, that the 14A applies the 2A to the states as a fundamental right of citizenship.

[Hoi Polloi]

I'm going to have to do a lot of digging to see if this was a general fear of insurrection from the populace at large that was the primary motivation behind the policies or if there was intentional social engineering by the wealthy elite which played on the fears of the populace, motivated by protection of their wealth and using eugenics as their justification of superiority, that led to its implementation.

I think the place I'll have to start is with the writings of eugenicists. Did they call for gun control? And if so, by whom and against whom and for what purpose? We know that Hitler used gun control as a necessary part of his eugenics program, much of which he learned from and modeled after the American eugenics boards. (I loathe using Hitler as an example because of the Internet's hyperbolic overuse of any wrong being compared to him, but it is an appropriate time to reference him in context of the discussion.) The movie alludes to a time frame in which many of the eugenics writings dealt with the use of force by the government and gun control would be a shoe in for that mentality. Lots of questions...

It's kinda like finding the proverbial needle in the haystack, only without confirmation that there's actually a needle there. I'll see if I can contact people who might be familiar with the writings of the eugenicists to see if they can point me towards anything.

[92f-fan]

...the Rockefeller family dynasty, who funded eugenic scientists decades before Hitler put eugenic theories into practice and who supported many of the leaders of the American Eugenics Society.

The Rockefellers' support for eugenics began early in the twentieth century, and included support for the Eugenics Record Office. In 1913 John D. Rockefeller, Jr. ("Junior") incorporated a group, which became a major force in supporting birth control clinics and played a pioneering role in the modern field of population studies.

http://www.catholicleague.org/printer.php?p=rer&id=118


Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation

SOME of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population...

UN honours Bill and Melinda Gates with population award

Since Bill Gates and Warren Buffet through Gates are giving away most of their fortunes how does what they do play into
"intentional social engineering by the wealthy elite which played on the fears of the populace, motivated by protection of their wealth and using eugenics as their justification of superiority, that led to its implementation. "

Im confused

The largest contributors to population control in the past have been wars and disease. Once the population reaches critical mass again, even on a local scale pressures will build and result in the same again.

I dont think that the earth can sustain an unlimited population. My opinion has nothing to do with maintaining my non existent wealth. Since I have no kids there is not reason to. Ironically the activities of the organizations that are mentioned here are contributing to the over population. The discovery and distribution of food and medicine is allowing people who wouldn't have, to live to reproduce. Those numbers cannot be over shadowed by the attempts to promote birth control.

My $0.02

[Paladin]

Since Bill Gates and Warren Buffet through Gates are giving away most of their fortunes how does what they do play into
"intentional social engineering by the wealthy elite which played on the fears of the populace, motivated by protection of their wealth and using eugenics as their justification of superiority, that led to its implementation. "

Im confused

These folks are very subtle... they don't want "commoner's" to understand what they are doing

Be extremely subtle, even to the point ... nt's fate. -Sun Tzu

Do you think that the Gates and Buffet's and their families won't have control over the foundation they are creating? It's one giant tax shelter.

As Leona Helmsley said: "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes"

Norman Dodd, who in 1954 was the staff director of the Congressional Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations (ie Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford foundations), did an interview on his findings. You can find it if you’re interested in it. It's shocking

[The Annoyed Man]

I'm listening to that Norman Dodd interview right now (LINKEY), and I have to say that he is very vague in describing the conspiracy he espouses. I am at minute 24 of 49, and so far, everything he's said could have been condensed into 5 minutes. (Edited to add: I quit listening at about minute 32, at which point he was still rambling and still hadn't gotten to the crux of it.)

This is the trouble I have generally with conspiracy theories. And, as I've posted before in other threads, the principle of Occam's Razor states:

"entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity."

One of the general principles of Occam's Razor is that a proposition may not be supported by unproven suppositions. Each unproven supposition you add in to try and support the original proposition has the actual effect of tending to disprove it.

This is why I refuse to get my unmentionables in a twist about the Bilderbergers and Carlisle Group conspiracy theories. They are too complex, and rely on too many unprovable suppositions. I do believe that dark forces are arrayed against us, but they are in the spiritual realm, not the temporal one.

I also do believe that there is a class of people who consider themselves to be the elites, and that they believe their elitist status entitles them to certain privileges denied to others, and to certain powers over others. Here's where the theories of a billionaire conspiracy to control the world breaks down: a large part of that class of people who think of themselves as elites are people who have no real power, and no real wealth. They are teachers, college professors, student activists, aspirants to political office, community activists, socialists/communists, etc. They may hold a set of common values about how to rule the world, and about their entitlement to do so, but they lack all power to enforce it.

If you look at Margaret Sanger's biography and you can get past all the hype about her being a crusader for women's rights without throwing up, you'll find that she was not some kind of powerful billionairess. She came from lower middle class roots, and willingly allied herself with billionaires who shared her disgusting and twisted worldview if they would support her goals... ...and some of them did.

When I look at the Maafa 21 movie, I see a story of a group of people who had (and continue to have) racist beliefs in common and who saw enforced eugenics as the means of bringing their vile goals into fruition. That shared belief led to their tending to congregate, hire one another, and try to protect each other from public scrutiny that would reflect poorly on their beliefs and goals — in the same way that pederasts trade child pornography pictures amongst themselves and won't rat each other out to law enforcement. Some of them are billionaires with bizarre ideas about the entitlements of wealth; but Margaret Sanger was all about the entitlements of race, not wealth. So the billionaires and Margaret Sanger each used to other to get what they wanted. What they are doing is evil, no doubt, but for me it doesn't rise to the level of conspiracy.

And I'm not trying to make excuses for them. What they did, and are continuing to do, is terminally vile. I know that I do not necessarily speak for everybody else when I say this, but I personally am a Bible believing Christian, and I see my world through that filter. I'm not capable of seeing it any other way. What some see as conspiracy, I see as a group of individuals with very dark hearts who are in thrall to the devil and doing his bidding. And like most people who sin, they know they are sinning, and like the above mentioned pederasts, they do not want to get caught sinning, so they take steps to commit their sins in darkness, away from public view. Evil hates the light and flees from it, because evil cannot exist where there is light.

Anyway, all of that is to say that, while the eugenics and gun-control movements may be part of some elaborate racist conspiracy, I am cautious to not call it a conspiracy and think of it instead as a movement.

[seamusTX]

Elite is just a term for people with some kind of power that you dislike.

Most of the so-called elites in the U.S. came out of nowhere. Their children might inherit wealth, their grandchildren not so much, and eventually they will be remembered only by historians. I don't expect either a Kennedy or a Bush to have a prominent place in American life in the future.

The idea of "birth control" or "population control" may have had its roots in wanting to limit the numbers of poor and the darker-skinned "masses," but it has not worked out that way. The educated and affluent have small families. The poor and ignorant do not.

- Jim