On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Karl Roberts wrote:
> A reply.
> The concept of eugenics is not new, not pretty, and is an
> absolute abomination of everything we as scientists, teachers, and human
> beings hold as truthful and decent.
Syntactically speaking, that first sentence was totally unscientific, it was
full of emotion, full of adjectives, full of biblical sounding catch-phrases.
I deal in cold hard logic and reason . . do you?
The freedom of speech is one of
> our greatest rights, so it stands to reason that the narrow-minded ramblings
> presented here should not be censored, rather, they should be allowed and
> printed out as an example of how far we still have to come as a people,
> and just how desperately we need to teach our children and young people
> how truly related all humanity is.
Yes but you have still given **no** scientific, or what is more, rational
proof that eugenics would *not* be a constructive thing. When you are
finished ranting, and wipe the foam from your jowels, write me back - i'd
be interested in finding out just why eugenics is 'counter-productive'.
We are a common stock, sharing a
> genetic heritage unique among all other living things on this planet. We
> have not yet begun to evolve biologically and mentally.
here i agree with you to a large degree, this is precely why we need
eugenics. Even in the j*w york times, there was an article in the science
times about a year ago, stating that scientists feel taht human evolutoin
has ceased since there is no kind of natural selection process. Eugenics
could be a kinder and gentler natural selection process. No, the
existence of subhumans and their proliferation is what is an 'abomination'
their numbers only increase the ammount of suffering that the human race
experiences -- I can assure you that over all -- Blonde Nordic Aryans of
a high IQ and athletic physique are much more pre-disposed to lives of
peace, tranquility, happiness and productivitiy than are any of the
negroidian races and most of all j*ws. If you were a soul coming down to
earth to chose a body - would you choose a negroid shell or a blond, Nordic
advanced shell - I would choose the physical body that was best suited for
a higher form of existence - would you?
But we can only
> do so as a people, not as some unrelated conglomeration of separated
> and different "races", sharing nothing but our unmitigated and irrational
> contempt for one another.
please read this responce too. My ideas are written out of a desire to
make the world a better place - and yes, out of a contempt for what is
wrong with it - this is what is called 'fighting for truth and goodness
and combatting and hating evils and injustices'.
I may read this letter to my students, who come
> from many different countries but all have a common goal-to learn and be
> better people. I wish the writer of this sad commentary would approach
> life with a similar set of priorities.
> Karl J. Roberts
> Assistant Professor of Biology
> Prince George's Community College
> USA
>
If you do decide to read this responce to your students I'd appreciate
you letting me know what your students said. And I thank you for doing
so if you do -- the truth will convince them . . . and it will convince
you (unless you are a j*w).
PS - if your students are under 18 don't count on them being able to
understand this stuff rationally - but then again maybe that is precisely
what you want - personally i find it inappropriate to discuss these
things with children because they are not ready yet to truly reason
things out, maybe I should say no one under 13 then . . .some kids mature
faster.
and by the way, are you a j*w? if so you have no right to poison our
gentile children with your semitic thought. Stop imposing your j*wish
definitions of what is right and wrong, your intolerance and your 'one
god' on the rest of the world!
